Forums/Pioneer Gear/CDJ-350
CDJ-350 BPM Counter
DJ KIKI
posted this on Feb 20 20:40
Well, we all know that no BPM counter can be precise when using CD's or unanalysed tracks. CDJ-350 have a decimal point in BPM counter, which makes it 10x precise than previous series of BPM counters.
Now, I'm renting CDJ-350 almost every weekend to many DJ's here, and trust me that every DJ who worked on 350's for first time thought that it is not working properly, that pitch is not working properly, that he is dumb etc... very few DJ's realise that it is normal. CDJ-350 is on a bad voice because of lot DJ's who don't understand BPM counter, and trust me there is very few DJ's that are using rekordbox.
My suggetstion to development team is just to tweak BPM counter a little bit, it does not have to be more precise, it is allready precise enough, it needs just a little tweaking, 99% songs that DJ's spin have solid BPM (for example 128.00), but BPM counter still detects 127.9 and 128.2, non stop, all the time. It is ridiculous, I mean, tweak it to show just a little more average bpm, it is better for BPM counter to be wrong in 1% cases then to be wrong in 100% cases (which is right now). I'm sure the calculations can be done to improve it just a little bit.
I know that everything is going toward Rekordbox support blah blah, but keep in mind that most of DJ's are still using CD's, and those who are using USB's, most of them don't know about Rekordbox. I have about 300 DJ's in phonebook, 3 of them including me is using Rekordbox, so push CD story just a little bit further, CD's will live at least 3-4 years, I'm sure Pioneer wants CDJ-350 to be highly rated CD player, but it can't be highly rated because of confusing BPM counter :)))
Thank you.
Comments
@kiki > Just because the unit displays the decimal point doesn't mean it is ten times more precise; previous units were probably equally precise but just didn't display the numerical value after the decimal point.
Essentially what we have is everyone in the CDJ900 forum screaming at us to try to implement decimal display on that unit but what you are effectively saying here is that the decimal display isn't required.
The BPM is, as always stated, a guide. I don't understand what the issue...?
@gavin > Sorry for my bad English, I wanted to say that DISPLAY IS CAPABLE to display 10 times more precise BPM, but BPM detection is probably same.
Problem is that decimal point is confusing a lot of DJ's, who think that:
1. Pitch is broken
2. They mix bad
3. Song don't have steady BPM
4. God knows what they think
AND they DON'T realise it is NORMAL, and blah blah etc... read the first post :P
Again, I'll echo Gavin's sentiment -- I don't see what the issue is.
I agree with KIKI, it is frustrating to use the BPM counter when playing CD's the fluctuations are confusing. When playing a modern production say Britney Spear which is a solid 128.0 BPM the 350-display fluctuates during the song even if it confuses the DJ (all DJ's really) . My guess is that a more conservative "average calculation" / say: 98% of the song is 128.0 / then this number i correct for the last 2% / It's really not no different fra the way Rekordbox does it (one average for the whole song (and not a new average every 5 seconds like CD350 does now in CD-mode). Regard Ole
@Ole > The rekordbox calculation for the BPM is MUCH more accurate than the player on its own. If the CD has already been played in the CDJ, some information is retained so it loads faster. If you're playing un-analysed MP3 tracks from USB, it will take longer to obtain the BPM as the calculation occurs in realtime as the MP3 is decoded.
@ Pulse, there is no issue, it was advice for improvement of BPM counter, to focus BPM counter on "solid beat music". Obviously my English is not good enough to explain what I mean :/
For example take a look BPM counter on this mixer: (LINK TO COMPETITION MIXER)
it deceted solid 127.9 and after that solid 128.0, and it did not wobbly jobbly up and down all the time.
I think it is stupid for BPM counter to change value every 5 seconds, 98% of songs today have solid BPM's, so BPM counter would be more precise if it measures longer samples I guess,
Only issue with BPM counter on CDJ-350 is decimal point which really don't need for CD, it just confuses a lot of DJ's. If it can't be precise enough, it is better without it, I think :)
@Kiki > If the player is playing an unanalyzed track it'll need to decode the BPM information - the more of the track it analyses, the more accurate the BPM display gets.
Again, if everything sounds fine I don't understand what the problem is - I've never taken the BPM on any player, from any manufacturer, as gospel.