I already posted about this in the past but then about the lower limit. I think the boundaries are to narrow, a range of say 30 - 250 would make sure nobody encounters the limits.
[CLOSED] Limit BPM in Rekordbox Why ??
Why the BPM of Rekordbox is it stuck at 180?
Sometimes mixing with high BPM, I think 180 is too low a limit.
In styles such as hardcore for example, starts at about 170 BPM.
Would it be possible in future updates, this limit is increased (to 200).
Because everyone does not mix at 128 BPM or 130 so do not restrain Rekordbox just for that.
Pulse, can you let us know if this is taken up by the engineers or investigated? Or maybe what the reason is why the BPM range is as it is and why it is hard or impossible to change?
it has been noted since the release of the feature and is on the agenda for the limits to be opened up a little afaik..
Since exactly which release Pionix?
if i remember correctly it was 1.4.0
Had already been passed along as a suggestion to engineering but no info on future inclusion.
Ok, good to know Pulse. Looking forward to an answer and even more to a solution :)
Any way when it is implemented for higher and lower BPM's, that the user can have control over the range as well?
Some users might only want to use 65 - 100, or 120 - 150, and so on...
User control would be extremely nice for the BPM Range. ;)
I'll put it on my list with my next e-mail list for updates.
A narrower range results in better accuracy in detection.
Agreed Pulse. Do you think user control would help the user since they could specifically set the BPM range to suite their music style perfectly?
It's a double-edged sword; a user will likely preset the range most of their music falls within then one track will be outside that range, analysed incorrectly then they'll complain. Either way, we can't win.
But if the user has control over the range, wouldn't it be easier if each user can fix their own problem themselves with a simple adjustment to the set range?
I think it would at least help with less threads requesting increases and decreases to the the range and having everyone use a standard range. I know I would be grateful to control my range. Would only be about 120 - 150, then it will weed out all the incorrect analyzed tracks that are way over or under.
I can imagine that it has influence on the precision of detecting the BPM. But isn't that more in the order of detecting 60 instead of 120 and the other way around? Because that is quickly solved by pressing the x2 and :2 buttons. Maybe the detection range is problematic to widen, at least users should be able to manually define a BPM value and beat grid that is outside of it's current range.
Once in a while RB doesn't detect the BPM properly. Very rarely but it does happen. And it's not a simple x2 /2 fix for the ones I'm referring to.
It wouldn't be problematic to be widened if it was set at an average standard of say 100 - 170 or something roughly, but give users the ability to control the limit within a range of 60 - 200 or what ever people have requested as the max and min. DJ's like me who have a fairly narrow Library BPM would really appreciate the control because 99.3% of the music I play ranges from 126 - 142. So increments of 5, or even 10 would be perfect. I'd be more than happy to select 120 - 150 and have everything properly being analyzed.
+1 for wider range BPM
whats up with this? update
they should do something like serato does and let you select ranges to avoid BPM's doubling a 70bpm song to 140
This is crazy, I have half my RnB folder displaying Drum & Bass speeds.
I have to double click on every incorrect one and half the speed individually? Theres 100's of them!
This is when you can do it... I have some songs with a BPM under 70 and due to the limit, I can not get a good beatgrid...
The feedback will be passed along again, but I can't guarantee its inclusion now or in the future.