andy-chiles
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
I'm curious - can you share a scenario where it is functionally inadequate?
The reason I ask - I'm pretty sure what the request is really asking for is essentially a dedicated effect that is not associated to any deck channel (just the result of the mix of the channels) and is applied somewhat intelligently if two or more decks are mixed to give the output, and in the best case, you want to apply it on the mixed result.
This is already achievable with master output based effects, especially if it is an internal mixer (master + headphones) setup, or if it is an external mixer setup (e.g. the DJM V10) if it has a FX send/return path for the mixed output result (which I think the DJM V10 has). In the latter case, if you don't have such an FX path you can't really do that much better than smart application per deck due to the software only being able send out specific deck output to specific channels for the mixer to mix itself, and then hope you didn't introduce clipping (which is why it's normally better to let the engineer make the adjustments for the room - they always have the view of final mixed result to adjust before it goes out to the room).
The only thing the request adds is not having to source and add a custom EQ effect yourself on the master output (I believe @Adion stated the master effect application is done with some intelligence in external mixer setups).
The reason I ask - I'm pretty sure what the request is really asking for is essentially a dedicated effect that is not associated to any deck channel (just the result of the mix of the channels) and is applied somewhat intelligently if two or more decks are mixed to give the output, and in the best case, you want to apply it on the mixed result.
This is already achievable with master output based effects, especially if it is an internal mixer (master + headphones) setup, or if it is an external mixer setup (e.g. the DJM V10) if it has a FX send/return path for the mixed output result (which I think the DJM V10 has). In the latter case, if you don't have such an FX path you can't really do that much better than smart application per deck due to the software only being able send out specific deck output to specific channels for the mixer to mix itself, and then hope you didn't introduce clipping (which is why it's normally better to let the engineer make the adjustments for the room - they always have the view of final mixed result to adjust before it goes out to the room).
The only thing the request adds is not having to source and add a custom EQ effect yourself on the master output (I believe @Adion stated the master effect application is done with some intelligence in external mixer setups).
Ok bro listen, pleeeeease...
I really don't know in what world you live in or on what kind of venues or stages you normally DJ.
So to get this straight without meaning to be rude, let me explain it to you properly:
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
In this normal everyday-come-as-you-are-clubs, we don't have ANY person that can neaaaarly call himself an engineer, nor is there ANY SINGLE PERSON that can adjust the sound during your set, come by if there is any trouble, or even cares or listens to you when you tell them the bass is waaaaay tooooooo loud and the mids go through the roof!
There is - simply said - barely any properly balanced and managed sound in this kind of venues.
Only the techinitions roughly tweaked the sound during istallation, 12 years ago, and during that the speakers changed 3 times a year while the amps also had to be replaced, usually by cheaper ones.
That is the sad reality we live and work in.
Next is that not every track is the same...
Thats why it would requier an engineer to get his hands on correcting your sound while you are happily DJing with neutral EQs. But as stated, THIS is and never will be the case in clubs that barely can pay you 300-400 € for a gig.
As well, you maybe see through your OWN EXPLAINATION how COMPLICATED AND UNPRACTICLE the FX solution is!!!
To make a living out of this low fees we have to DJ at least 3 times a week.
I don't want to send my sound through every continent on earth, probably deal with clipping, sacrifice resources and the ability to route other effects different than the MasterFX needs to be routed, and all this everytime I set up my gear, plus I eventuelly need dedicated hardware, just to regulate the sound, when it otherwise could be sooooo easy solved!
And you completely ditch the creative aspect!
Maybe someone wants to use 4 decks at the same time and doesn't just want to regulate the sound rather than to have creative control over the sound of all 4 channels at once.
So to consolidate this whole issue:
- It is for creative reasons
- It is for corrective reasons
- In the best case the MasterEQ has 3 knobs because it's a familiar setting
- This 3 knobs should be mapable (but I guess this is self-explaining)
- It should NOT use any effect
- And any way it is, it should be natively apply on every Deck inside the master output signal, whether it is in an internal or external mixer setting.
- Just 3 knobs to be able to work quickly, wether it is for creativity, or just for correction.
And without bragging: I'm sure you are also a good and experienced DJ, so am I considering myself...
I'm in this scene for 24 years know and teached a loooooot of newcomers in my area and even run a agency with over 70 working DJs, so please trust me when I'm telling you that THERE IS A WELL THOUGHT REASON asking for ESPECIALLY THIS solution.
Hopefully I answered all the question marks.
I don't want to annoy you with this topic but it REAAAAAALLY would be a profound feature!
Posté 7 days ago @ 5:28 pm
DJ VinylTouch
So unfortunately, you didn't answer the question
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
I'm actually not here to fight against your suggestion or trying to be condescending or belittle your knowledge. I'm just trying to help with clarification of facts, what is actually a deficiency vs a nice to have/convenience.
I don't think there is really a clear deficiency between using a VST effect on the master/per deck vs being built-in to the application because the built-in option would just be a specific application of the EQ effect on master behind the scenes with less input from users/more presets/a bit more accessible through the UI (yes EQing is an effect even if you may not consider it to be one - it's a function that changes (affects) the input to generate new output, it's just that we normally see it with a dedicated layout in the UI for most applications, instead of as a general purpose effect, applied through a standard API protocol (e.g. VST)).
Wrt what can be expected of a club:
A club/festival/other audio-based event always has an audio setup done, and that normally at least requires at least some power source, an organization of speakers (with amplification where necessary) and a central mixer which people plug into, and all of this is normally gain staged with hopefully some equilization. That setup is what I'm referring to - it may not be done by an official audio engineer/someone with that title and it may not have all the pieces mentioned or more, but it is always done in some form.
It is normally the job of that person to adjust the setup to be best for that room/venue, so that you have as little adjustments to do as possible, and given they did, there is most likely no need for more. Having to do more is normally a last resort and normally indicates that person didn't do their job correctly/didn't communicate audio expectations for the best experience.
Wrt to track differences - that would be handled by deck specific equilization/effects (is adjacent to the request).
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
I'm curious - can you share a scenario where it is functionally inadequate?
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
I'm actually not here to fight against your suggestion or trying to be condescending or belittle your knowledge. I'm just trying to help with clarification of facts, what is actually a deficiency vs a nice to have/convenience.
I don't think there is really a clear deficiency between using a VST effect on the master/per deck vs being built-in to the application because the built-in option would just be a specific application of the EQ effect on master behind the scenes with less input from users/more presets/a bit more accessible through the UI (yes EQing is an effect even if you may not consider it to be one - it's a function that changes (affects) the input to generate new output, it's just that we normally see it with a dedicated layout in the UI for most applications, instead of as a general purpose effect, applied through a standard API protocol (e.g. VST)).
Wrt what can be expected of a club:
A club/festival/other audio-based event always has an audio setup done, and that normally at least requires at least some power source, an organization of speakers (with amplification where necessary) and a central mixer which people plug into, and all of this is normally gain staged with hopefully some equilization. That setup is what I'm referring to - it may not be done by an official audio engineer/someone with that title and it may not have all the pieces mentioned or more, but it is always done in some form.
It is normally the job of that person to adjust the setup to be best for that room/venue, so that you have as little adjustments to do as possible, and given they did, there is most likely no need for more. Having to do more is normally a last resort and normally indicates that person didn't do their job correctly/didn't communicate audio expectations for the best experience.
Wrt to track differences - that would be handled by deck specific equilization/effects (is adjacent to the request).
Posté 7 days ago @ 9:22 pm
Oli K
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
So unfortunately, you didn't answer the question
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
I'm curious - can you share a scenario where it is functionally inadequate?
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
I guess I don’t have much to add to the answer given to you from @andy-chiles, even though I don’t understand the heated conversation between both of you, I fully agree with every argument he stated:
As you yourself noticed the very uncomfortable way to get the setup running, this would be my first point why it is in a way „inadequate“, not because of the lack of possibilities, but because of the amount of unnecessary complexity added into the workflow… From a DJ software which is being used worldwide and who calling itself „No.1 DJ Software“ (btw, I fully agree that VDJ is the best DJ Software) I expect it to offer me features right at my fingertips no other provider has to offer - simple to set up.
Speaking of complexity: Good for you and anybody who is able to set these things up, but not everybody is capable of doing so and we should make features accessible for as many users as possible - especially knowing the lack of care most club sound systems are taken of
On the other hand it would unlock new creative performance options which simply don’t exist in other softwares, resulting in another profound selling point to keep our beloved VDJ the No. 1 DJ software on the market. And let's be honest: why not introduce a new idea that keeps VDJ the best software on the market?
Posté 4 days ago @ 12:37 am
DJ VinylTouch
The discussion wasn't heated at all - it was two people sharing thoughts with some minor disagreements on some points - that is quite normal in a conversation that involves thinking/different points of view.
The point I was making to you is that what you have pointed out is not a deficiency of the software because you can achieve the goal with VST effects. What you are getting at is that the current solution is not as streamlined as you think it could be terms of achieving the goal (you have to use VST effects with a bit more effort to do it).
What you expect, what you perceive the software to be in terms of claims, etc, doesn't change that fact.
This is pretty similar to the maximizer inclusion discussion - I'm neutral on both, but I do know that it's possible to achieve a solution for both right now with the tools that are available.
It's up to the devs to decide if they want to take that extra step to make those functionalities be provided in-house.
The point I was making to you is that what you have pointed out is not a deficiency of the software because you can achieve the goal with VST effects. What you are getting at is that the current solution is not as streamlined as you think it could be terms of achieving the goal (you have to use VST effects with a bit more effort to do it).
What you expect, what you perceive the software to be in terms of claims, etc, doesn't change that fact.
This is pretty similar to the maximizer inclusion discussion - I'm neutral on both, but I do know that it's possible to achieve a solution for both right now with the tools that are available.
It's up to the devs to decide if they want to take that extra step to make those functionalities be provided in-house.
Posté 4 days ago @ 1:09 am
groovindj
Adding a VST to the signal chain is not "very uncomfortable" or "adding complexity". It DOES offer features that no other provider has to offer. Performance options which don't exist in other softwares.
I get the impression that the existing solution is just being described as "uncomfortable", "unpractical" or "complex" because it's not EXACTLY what's being demanded.
In the DJ software market, VirtualDJ is the only one that allows use of VST plugins.
These plugins are standard across professional applications used for recording and production globally, and have been for decades. They're ubiquitous because they're NOT complex, impractical or uncomfortable.
I get the impression that the existing solution is just being described as "uncomfortable", "unpractical" or "complex" because it's not EXACTLY what's being demanded.
In the DJ software market, VirtualDJ is the only one that allows use of VST plugins.
These plugins are standard across professional applications used for recording and production globally, and have been for decades. They're ubiquitous because they're NOT complex, impractical or uncomfortable.
Posté 4 days ago @ 10:17 am
freppa
Why dont just add eq 10 or a thirdparty eq, for example fabfilter pro q3 and place it in "AUTO START " in Master effects.
And it will automaticly start when you start VDJ, done :)
And it will automaticly start when you start VDJ, done :)
Posté 3 days ago @ 6:19 pm