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

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#41

Post by dist-epoch »

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.

A big reason is the Rekordbox software used to manage song libraries. Another is standardization - DJs move from club to club and encounter the same hardware setup. They are very well built, work in rain, ...

Today you also have influencers which are DJ-ing, but they don't have the skills, so either they have a pre-recorded mix or just use the CDJ auto-mixing features. Having a standard device they know how to operate is again critical.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#42

Post by stavros »

formerly_proven wrote: post #32
exitb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are there physical controls that mount on a digitizer? E.g. instead of a rotary dial on a potentiometer, the bottom sits on a digitizer that can translate the "touch" event into circular motion. Same with buttons, like with a keyboard membrane, but capacitive. Wouldn't that be cheaper?

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#43

Post by echoangle »

WJW wrote: post #27
jeffreygoesto wrote: post #6

Oh. I first thought it would be about blenders and thought "what other principles would be there?"

You could have at least three types of linear mixers: - One where some type of spoon goes back and forth. This would probably just be worse than a rotary mixer though. - One where the entire "basin" oscillates back and forth like a seesaw, like the machines they have at the blood bank to make sure the blood mixes well with the anticoagulant in the bag(s). - One where the basin is airtight and vibrated up and down vig…

I think the third point (vibrating a container to mix different dry particles) is actually the worst way to do it. If the particles have different sizes (or densities technically, I think), they will separate when vibrated, not mix together. If you ever tried to mix Cereals by shaking, you know what I mean. The proper technique is turning over the container continuously to mix the different layers, like in a cement mixer.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#44

Post by exitb »

stavros wrote: post #42
formerly_proven wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are there physical controls that mount on a digitizer? E.g. instead of a rotary dial on a potentiometer, the bottom sits on a digitizer that can translate the "touch" event into circular motion. Same with buttons, like with a keyboard membrane, but capacitive. Wouldn't that be cheaper?

That’s not addressing the right issue. Encoders and switches are not the expensive parts. What’s expensive is designing the dashboard with precise holes, before you actually start the manufacturing process, lining up the component with the hole and cap, making sure they actually work etc. Compare that to a dashboard of the new Tesla robo taxi, which basically has a complexity of a TV mount.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#45

Post by stavros »

exitb wrote: post #44
stavros wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there physical controls that mount on a digitizer? E.g. instead of a rotary dial on a potentiometer, the bottom sits on a digitizer that can translate the "touch" event into circular motion. Same with buttons, like with a keyboard membrane, but capacitive. Wouldn't that be cheaper?

That’s not addressing the right issue. Encoders and switches are not the expensive parts. What’s expensive is designing the dashboard with precise holes, before you actually start the manufacturing process, lining up the component with the hole and cap, making sure they actually work etc. Compare that to a dashboard of the new Tesla robo taxi, which basically has a complexity of a TV mount.

But you don't need to line up the holes if you can just plonk the component down anywhere and then program the software with the locations of the components after the fact.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#46

Post by scott01 »

grujicd wrote: post #23
scott01 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it's operated by a mouse you're not sure where to click and hold, and how it will react when you move mouse in which direction. I assume you're using it a lot and then it's intuitive. For novice it's not. If I click on bottom part will it operate in another direction compared with clicking on top part? Or what about if I click on left or right edge? Can I also move mouse up-down and left-right or is only one direc…

Yeah, I see how it can be confusing for novices. But learning curve aside, there is something other than just looks that kept this UI pattern alive all these decades.

How I see it [1], absolute values don't matter audio software, except when working with loudness compliance or some very technical things. What's important is how things sound, and it's generally a bad practice relying on UI metering to dial in sound in most cases. The typical audio work involves fine tuning parameters until things feel right. In UX terms, relative parameter tuning is the most common kind of interaction, and sliders absolutely suck balls at it, in my humble opinion.

Linear sliders actually have more inconsistencies across implementation than knobs, that have converged to more or less the same pattern. E.g. some sliders reset value if you click in the middle of it, at which point all prior tuning is lost - this is super annoying and I hate it. Others operate in relative mode and they're similarly intuitive in regards to which direction they should operate depending on slider orientation (should horizontal slider change its value with up-down movement? should interaction range extend beyond slider length?). Also, such sliders are identical to knobs, essentially, but take more screen space.

So, in a a nutshell, knobs are superior for fine tuning, which is 90% of all audio software interactions.

1. I'm not a professional, but I have clocked in thousands of hours into DAWs and other related software over the years as a hobby, also I played on a few local gigs and made some simple audio software.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#47

Post by angled »

comprev wrote: post #15
angled wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 qual…

HÖR use A&H mixers when people play vinyl on their YouTube channel. It’s very noticeable, especially for the proggy stuff!

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#48

Post by magicalhippo »

relaxing wrote: post #34
magicalhippo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but not all mixers are DJ mixers.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#49

Post by OptionOfT »

formerly_proven wrote: post #32
exitb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

BMW is a good example. They started putting in that horrendous double wide screen/touch screen removing all buttons (the radio 1-8 shortcuts), temperature, heated seats, fan speed etc onto the screen.

This of course has made their dash design a lot cheaper. The only things remaining are:

Volume (which can be pressed for on/off/play/pause), previous, next, park-anywhere-button, front and rear windshield defroster.

One thing that is amazing about BMW's volume control:

It clicks, but the clicks don't corelate directly with volume change. It depends on how fast you turn the knob. Turn it 5 positions slow = volume += 10. Turn it 5 positions fast = volume += 5. To prevent you from accidently turning it too fast and blowing up your eardrums.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#50

Post by DidYaWipe »

grujicd wrote: post #23
scott01 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it's operated by a mouse you're not sure where to click and hold, and how it will react when you move mouse in which direction. I assume you're using it a lot and then it's intuitive. For novice it's not. If I click on bottom part will it operate in another direction compared with clicking on top part? Or what about if I click on left or right edge? Can I also move mouse up-down and left-right or is only one direc…

Nailed it. Even if the knob worked like a real knob, it would suck. I'm supposed to drag the cursor around in a circle? What a fussy PITA. And what is the hittable zone for that? The very edge? The center to the edge? Some slop area beyond the edge too?

Just no.

Post reply on HN