Seems like ad copy for the recently-released Alpha Theta Euphonia.
Are rotary mixers better?
31–40 of 68 posts
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 impress…
> Whoever thought a touch display was the way to go? A lot of people talk about as it was primarily a design decision, but I suspect touch screen controls are the cheapest one out there right now.
The hardware is much cheaper, but it is also way cheaper to engineer, and because a touchscreen is a very one-dimensional interface, many questions don't even need to be asked. There's no texture, shape or feedback in a touchscreen, for example.
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#33Oh. I first thought it would be about blenders and thought "what other principles would be there?"
[deleted]
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#34The 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.
That’s not generally the use case for DJ mixers.
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#35Seems like ad copy for the recently-released Alpha Theta Euphonia.
Seems like ad copy for classic Veblen pricing, with rotaries being sold as a status symbol.
They cost more than most studio mixers with far more channels and features.
The margins on these things must be insane - probably 5-10X between production cost (including R&D) and end-user price.
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#36The 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…
This is also my experience. I'm not a DJ but I perform live electronic music using various MIDI controllers. If I quickly want to add or remove a sound, like a kick drum, to/from the mix, a slider is best. If I need fine control over a parameter, like a low-pass filter frequency, a rotary controller is usually better for the reasons you mentioned.
As alluded to in the article, rotary vs. linear seems to be a proxy for the circuit which actually influences the sound. I would think that anyone claiming "mixers with rotaries always sound better" does not fully understand how they work. There's a lot of those kind of claims in the music scene.
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#37Oh. I first thought it would be about blenders and thought "what other principles would be there?"
Turbulent flow mixers. Typically operated in industrial processess where two or more products are pumped through a specially shaped manifold which causes intentional turbulence in the material to mix the different streams. Contrary to blenders or planetary mixers these operate in a continous fashion not on a batch-by-batch basis.
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#38Not 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.
As someone which designed such audio UIs with knobs, it's not because skeuomorphic was the target, it's because there is no better way to fit 50 controls in a small space while being able to see them all at the same time.
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#39Earlier 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.
Inertia, plus in the grand scheme of things CDJs aren’t too expensive for clubs.
Two CDJs cost less than weekend’s worth of personnel for a small club even.
If you’re a DJ that’s just starting out, it suck’s a little though. Usually you’ll start out on Native Instruments’ Traktor S2/S4 or Pioneer’s cheaper DDJ, and for your first club set you arrive early so you can familiarize yourself with the quirks of the CDJs. Or find a buddy with a CDJ home setup that you can practice on.
Re: Are rotary mixers better?
#40You 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.
There's some that have a button for cut, same for EQ kills