Traktor Pro feedback thread - post your impressions here!

This is not really true, As I am a wedding photographer and have been shooting for some 15-16 years. I shot manual when that's all I had. Autofocus is faster,more accurate and can see in the dark better than I ever could!. i do shoot with other settings on manual because I know what my finished photo should look like to me. You could take 2 autofocus cameras and you shoot one photo and I will shoot the other, The photos will look different because I will change other settings to manual. Yours may look better? But I doubt it because they will be a guesstimate acquired by a computer. My settings will be based on experience and lighting. ;-)

Harry

 

Pictures are gay.

 

ROTFL. That's hilarious.

 

I should've user something other than autofocus as a basis for this comparison, but anyway...

so you're essentially saying that bpm sync is okay as a feature because the real quality of the mix mainly depends the other factors (like EQing and timing). I could partly agree with that, but then we would have to expect every clubber to listen to a DJ in the same way you, an experienced photographer, look at pictures - seeing every detail. but they do not. for most people, a good mix is one where the beats are matched well - in the same way as most people won't able to tell a good picture from a not-so-good one because they lack the sense for it. as a result, kids with cameras in clubs call themselves photographers, and now other kids with MIDI consoles call themselves DJs. and that, dear sir, is a trend that IMnsHO stops evolution of music (and photography) as an art. while one has to admire the idea of NI (setting aside its moneymaking aspects) to make DJing available to everyone, on the other hand, it's a bad idea because it becomes a bit harder to weed out the crap.

I still say sync should be an unlockable feature (e.g. after 1000 clean mixes using timecode records)

if you've spun records for a number of years, using sync is something that could be overlooked. but only then! because if it fails, you'll know how to do it manually - and a console user who "grew up" as a DJ pushing sync will fail miserably.

oh yeah @karlos: you're right in saying that this discussion is childish, but... time will tell.

 

Traktor Pro rocks

Hey, just to cheer you up guys.
I have traktor pro 1.1.1 well set up and running very smoothly now.
Sound is excellent and it is so easy to use even my 1 yr old daughter can rock the house :lol:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VNzuuziw40"]YouTube - Dj Melodie[/ame]

 

super sweet!

 

The worst thing in Traktor Pro is the fault of mono option in input routing for use of microphone.
In Traktor 3.3 the left channel become mono if is the only channel conected.
Traktor Pro need this update urgently or nobody will can use mic correctly .
I don´t like the booth fault too.
The rest is perfect to me.
---

I agree.
I´m still using Traktor 3.3, even having bought Traktro Pro because this fault.
I´m wedding DJ and the mic use is essential.

 

Interestingly I've noticed that people are in fact able to spot the difference between a good DJ and "merely a skilled beatmatcher" quite easily. Whether they do act on that or not is of course debatable. Some do (and leave the dancefloor) while others do not (of course it is possible that these are the people who didn't manage to spot the difference).

 

kiddy talk. if you're playing with four decks and loops you need autosync...

this discussion is like photographers are blaming photoshop for having a feature, which makes it easier to calibrate the color of photos. does this affect the quality of the photographer?

 

Bring it on.

That is a very bad analogy to start with.

Autofocus is only successful if you know what you are doing.
Photographers use manual mainly because of the limitations of autofocus (or plain-old personal preference).

But, just as a pilot has autopilot (a good analogy)
a photographer will still have RESPONSIBILITY for the end-result.

So, if you can deliver pro results using autofocus, by all means use it.
If you can do better without, do it without. Rather simple.

How do you know it's not a challenge? You even have a camera?
I think not, because you only state you know photographers.
You really think autofocus ALONE will make you a good photographer?

What makes a good picture? (just a few points)

1 Good Composition
2 Good Subject
3 Depth of Field
4 Lighting
5 Sharpness (and for that you use autofocus)

True, autofocus can help to get your subject sharp.
So you can take good or bad pictures more sharply.

A mix can be bad.. Even when it is synced to perfection.

So if I buy the car of Michael Shumacher I will be just as fast? (BTW.. Did you know he used traction-control?)

I have basicly the same setup as Richie Hawtin. (Just no extra mac for Ableton)
Do I dare claim I'm just as good? No way.

It's about the tools AND what you do with them.

All you have convinced me of is that you understand nothing about photography.
I hope you know more about music.

 

I was convinced.


<throws fuel on fire, runs away>

 

I was annoyed.

 

I really have no usefulness in here at all. lol

It just a comment to kind of lighten the mood a bit.

 

Chilly, I am happy with your refreshing perspective on things.

And, I totally got your joke...

 

Never thought id read that.

 

I provide refreshing perspective on things...Like a BOSS

 

Well Karlos, you might as well close this tread too.

 

lol

 

only if you're going hawtin on people. but there's only one reason said person can get away with it - his status. if a "normal" dj overdid looping like that, people would leave the floor...

I generally use 3 channels (2 tracks and an acapella) and add the 4th for scratching. you don't need autosync for that, so I guess that blows a hole in your theory.

there's nothing to bring on, as we share the same opinion. I've only voiced mine in a wrong way.

I've said so myself a few posts ago, because I was not able to exress it in a way that wouldn't be misunderstood. let me fix that.

of course all you said is correct, but the essence of all what I said was that many startup DJs THINK that "autofocus" is the only thing that matters. you are absolutely correct that there are more points that make a good picture - but it's the same with DJ mixes. beatmatching is actually the last thing that matters - what matters is track selection, a feeling for the moment, the mood and the interaction with the crowd. my argument is that people stop at the level of beatmatching and lack progress because the program does the rest for them. do you get me now?

it's clear that in the hands of a capable, experienced DJ, autosync is only a tool to give him more time to unleash his creativity... I'm not using it because if I did, I would have too much time left and fall asleep bored. same as I don't automate my livesets too much, because I want to keep my performance as "hand-made" as possible.

the point is that this (important!) step is being bypassed today. kids get traktor, they don't have a clue about music - let alone how a party crowd should be catered to - but their mixes are in sync, so they think they're already there, ready to perform in front of people. same as other kids get low-end DSLR cams, take hundreds of identical-looking pictures in clubs and call themselves professional event photographers.

photography vs. DJing is really not a bad analogy if you regard it from an artistical point of view.

a young startup DJ used to get a bunch of cheap records and practice beatmatching for a long, long time before he actually could afford enough records to rock out. this long practice and endless repetitions gave people technical routine, but it's not just that... they naturally realized that the next vinyl they'd be buying would be 1 or 2 playable tracks at most for a lot of money (compared to mp3s nowadays). so they thought twice before "just buying" a track. forcing people to buy only the stuff they REALLY loved refined their crates, and their sets.

it's the same with analogue photography. films are expensive. developing films is expensive (you can do that yourself, but you'll still need new film eventually). so people who started out earlier used to pay a lot more attention to the quality of the shot they're taking, which allowed them to become better photographers in due time!

now you have cheap DSLRs and auto-syncing dj software... and what you get from that is a handful of people using these new features as they're supposed to (because they have experience and refined skill), opposed to THOUSANDS of people trying to follow in their footsteps and failing hideously. and that's all I'm saying. there's no need to argue over this one, I think we mean the same.

(oh, because you asked - I own a canon A1 and will soon be using a nikon D90, depending on whether I can afford all the lenses and accessories I need, of course. that does not make me a professional photographer just yet - but I can tell a good picture from a bad one, yes)

 

Tranqui, your last post is much more nuanced, and I can certainly find myself more in what you said now.

I remember a time, that if the guys did not like you in the recordshop,
you just would not get that special EP: Like Dave Angel - Airborne (Carl Craig Remix)

Let's hope the audience will understand and appreciate the difference between a good and a bad artist.

Peace.