I think we're confusing the terms here.
I'm not sure what you mean by audio compression, but if it's dynamic compression you're talking about (which is what is heard in the example) then chronology definitely plays a part.
What Google seems to be doing is to make sure the volume stays fairly consistent between clips, which is a noble enough goal. The problem seems to be that they've applied a very ham-fisted algorithm (translated to compressor terms, their ratio, threshold, release and makeup gain settings are too aggressive) but I suppose this is what they considered necessary given the extreme range of material posted on YouTube on a daily basis.
I applaud the effort, but the end result could have been a lot better.
Stanton Final Scratch
on
Learning to DJ?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well, there are a few. I'm sure links will pop up later, so I'll stick to the info part.
The first step, obviously, is learning to beat match. This involves working up a sense for tempo and rhythm, and also for listenting to two simultaneous songs and determining which needs to be slowed down / speeded up in order to match the tempo of the other. Most modern DJ software (and a few CD drives) does this automatically, but it's still a required skill to have.
Next comes harmonic matching. This involves learning about keys and chords, and making sure the two songs don't interfere harmonically. There are less rights and wrongs here, it's more a matter of "do the two songs blend?".
Finally, there's music selection. DJ:ing isn't just making sure everything is in place, it's also about using two songs to create a third. This is where taste trumps theory, so you just have to take inspiration from other great DJ:s and learn the "groove."
Going from DJ Software to CD:s is a minor change today, most CD:s can even play the same mp3:s directly. You lose a lot of information (such as the scrolling waveform or the handy playlist search function), but you're not ready to hit the floors until you know your selection by heart anyway.
Hitting the vinyl requires a lot more tactile training, and you're also immediately stripped of any beatmatching, looping or cue point facilities. It's you, the needle and the track.
A great segway, however, is getting Stanton's Final Scratch. This product comprises a special soundcard and two specially encoded vinyl discs with timecode information. The timecode is reported to the software, which then plays the appropriate part of any song you choose. This way, you get most of the benefits of digital music playback, but you also teach yourself how to handle vinyl. The move to real analog playback is then made much smoother.
Personally, even though I'm well past my active DJ years, I'd love to give Final Scratch a go. Given a small enough buffer size and some clever interpolation, it'll be at least as good enough as the real thing, and in many aspects far superior.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're confusing the terms here. I'm not sure what you mean by audio compression, but if it's dynamic compression you're talking about (which is what is heard in the example) then chronology definitely plays a part. What Google seems to be doing is to make sure the volume stays fairly consistent between clips, which is a noble enough goal. The problem seems to be that they've applied a very ham-fisted algorithm (translated to compressor terms, their ratio, threshold, release and makeup gain settings are too aggressive) but I suppose this is what they considered necessary given the extreme range of material posted on YouTube on a daily basis. I applaud the effort, but the end result could have been a lot better.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world...
Well, there are a few. I'm sure links will pop up later, so I'll stick to the info part.
The first step, obviously, is learning to beat match. This involves working up a sense for tempo and rhythm, and also for listenting to two simultaneous songs and determining which needs to be slowed down / speeded up in order to match the tempo of the other. Most modern DJ software (and a few CD drives) does this automatically, but it's still a required skill to have.
Next comes harmonic matching. This involves learning about keys and chords, and making sure the two songs don't interfere harmonically. There are less rights and wrongs here, it's more a matter of "do the two songs blend?".
Finally, there's music selection. DJ:ing isn't just making sure everything is in place, it's also about using two songs to create a third. This is where taste trumps theory, so you just have to take inspiration from other great DJ:s and learn the "groove."
Going from DJ Software to CD:s is a minor change today, most CD:s can even play the same mp3:s directly. You lose a lot of information (such as the scrolling waveform or the handy playlist search function), but you're not ready to hit the floors until you know your selection by heart anyway.
Hitting the vinyl requires a lot more tactile training, and you're also immediately stripped of any beatmatching, looping or cue point facilities. It's you, the needle and the track.
A great segway, however, is getting Stanton's Final Scratch. This product comprises a special soundcard and two specially encoded vinyl discs with timecode information. The timecode is reported to the software, which then plays the appropriate part of any song you choose. This way, you get most of the benefits of digital music playback, but you also teach yourself how to handle vinyl. The move to real analog playback is then made much smoother.
Personally, even though I'm well past my active DJ years, I'd love to give Final Scratch a go. Given a small enough buffer size and some clever interpolation, it'll be at least as good enough as the real thing, and in many aspects far superior.
That pretty much sums up our existence.
So, while Google is expanding its new evil empire, Yahoo is courting indie developers? Strange days on planet earth...