Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are rotary mixers better?

djmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#11

Post by angled »

te_chris wrote: post #7
blablablerg wrote: post #4

You can't do (or it is much more involved) to do cuts with rotary knobs. So they serve only the DJ who does slow mixes, while with faders you can do both.

Can’t by design. It’s a different process. You can’t get the same smooth transitions as easily with the light faders on pioneer djms (the standard).

Is there anything that compares to their absolute dominance? Every one is using their CDJs these days. Occasionally people still break out the steel wheels but Pioneer seem to have completely captured the market.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#12

Post by TomWhitwell »

angled wrote: post #11
te_chris wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t by design. It’s a different process. You can’t get the same smooth transitions as easily with the light faders on pioneer djms (the standard).

Is there anything that compares to their absolute dominance? Every one is using their CDJs these days. Occasionally people still break out the steel wheels but Pioneer seem to have completely captured the market.

Technics SL-1200/1210 mk2 had a similar dominance for maybe a couple of decades, I think

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#14

Post by Moru »

jonesjohnson wrote: post #8

The title is a bit misleading IMHO. It's more like analog vs digital. After all, from an electrical point of view they're usually just potentiometers and you can build them either as rotary or as linear potentiometers, but it's just a wiper on a resistive conductive track... (of course there are exceptions that work differently and use hall effect or optical sensors). The article only talks about the actual circuit t…

Yes, this is the same for controls in a car. Whoever thought a touch display was the way to go? Our old car had twisty-nobs that you could feel direction already on the grip. No need to look on the symbols what they adjusted. Our "modern" car has still twisty-nobs (we made extra sure of that) but you can't feel the direction because they are perfectly round with a tiny tiny nob for direction. Why do I get the impression development goes backwards?

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#15

Post by comprev »

angled wrote: post #11
te_chris wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t by design. It’s a different process. You can’t get the same smooth transitions as easily with the light faders on pioneer djms (the standard).

Is there anything that compares to their absolute dominance? Every one is using their CDJs these days. Occasionally people still break out the steel wheels but Pioneer seem to have completely captured the market.

Allen & Heath Xone 96 (or previous 92 model) mixers are very popular in the techno world.

Pioneer DJMs have dozens of FX combinations to aid with fast/fancy transitions, whereas techno/trance (and similar) genres that rely on long smooth blends like the extra EQ channel and filters.

I don't know any hip-hop DJs that use Xones?

The Xones are also analogue vs digital Pioneer mixers which also plays a part in audio quality, especially if the source is analogue (vinyl, rack modules, etc).

I'm happy with my Pioneer DJM-750mk2... but also happy to exchange a kidney for Xone:96 :-)

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#16

Post by comprev »

letier wrote: post #5

I actually have a Taula 2 and a Xone 92 at home. I prefer the Taula 2, due to the simplicity and the fact that it has an isolator. The Xone 92 has a four band IQ and a filter, which I like a lot, but I have the impression that all the bells and whistles take a toll on the quality. At least in a home listening setup. Anyways, it’s not the knobs that make the sound…

Xones are more like specialist precision tools that can be tweaked to a fine degree.

Pioneers have many options to quickly bail out of a train wreck mix!

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#17

Post by magicalhippo »

jonesjohnson wrote: post #8

The title is a bit misleading IMHO. It's more like analog vs digital. After all, from an electrical point of view they're usually just potentiometers and you can build them either as rotary or as linear potentiometers, but it's just a wiper on a resistive conductive track... (of course there are exceptions that work differently and use hall effect or optical sensors). The article only talks about the actual circuit t…

Though it's easy to see why linear potentiometers make sense if you want to adjust multiple at the same time.

However in these modern days with motor driven potentiometers, I guess it is less of a big deal.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#18

Post by prmoustache »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #10

Not in a computer UI. It's depressing that audio software still widely subjects users to this skeuomorphic failure, trying to do everything with on-screen "knobs." Ugh.

Totally agree. But I guess most audio software expect you to map those rotary potentiometers to actual midi controller with infinite rotary encoder and the UI serves as a way to see the status.

Having said that you can totally map a physical rotary encoder to a linear one in the software so this is not a good excuse.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#20

Post by scott01 »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #10

Not in a computer UI. It's depressing that audio software still widely subjects users to this skeuomorphic failure, trying to do everything with on-screen "knobs." Ugh.

Why do you think on-screen knobs is a failure? I personally find them very convenient for the purpose.
Post reply on HN