Thoughts
The Great Debate: Media
With the 2012 National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) show this weekend, I'm reminded many times of the endless debate that the technological progress in DJ equipment has brought. If any of you have been following the advancements over the years, you'll of course notice how much the laptop has become a mandatory part of most DJ setups, and even analog media (vinyl records and CDs) being pushed out for digital media (MP3, Flac, WAV, etc.). On top of that, midi controls have now become even more widespread and it's pretty clear they will push CD players and vinyl turntables out.
Probably from the birth of the CDJ, I've been hearing this debate to death. Even more now with the advent of digital technology and software-based DJing. I can't go one week without seeing a Facebook posting, YouTube video, or blog entry from someone lamenting on how DJing has taken a nosedive because of the decay of analog vinyl or the onslaught of software and midi.
Now I've tried dispelling this argument in the past both here and here. However, this debate simply just won't end, and I grow astounded at the lengths many will go to defend their own chosen medium as the "proper" medium, or even claiming that "you're not a real DJ unless you use _____".
What do I mean by "medium"? I mean vinyl, CD, and MP3. That's what this debate is on today. I'm not going to go into the debate on the sync function versus manual beatmatching because that's better served for another day. I want to keep today's focus on just on the medium because this is a big part of it all. I honestly want to show why this debate is pointless and thus not something many should be focusing so much energy on.
Getting off vinyl
When I started DJing in 1992, I was on vinyl, but not by choice. At the time, that was the only medium available to use if you were a DJ. DJ-level CD players did not really exist, and computers were unable to do what they can now. If you wanted to be able to DJ, you had to do it on vinyl.
To this day I've had many DJs ask why I stopped playing vinyl in favor of midi. Why I'll happily show up with just my controller and a laptop to play, when in the past I'd have one or more crates or boxes of records. I will admit some find an allure in the "visual" of a DJ playing vinyl on turntables. It's that old school love of the classic DJ, cutting and scratching. I can understand that, but in most avenues I've played, I've barely ever ran into someone who gave me flack for not playing vinyl records. If anything, I was met with more fascination on what I was using.
Turn the clock back to just five or six years ago, and you would have found me using CDs most of the time. Granted I did have a Digital Vinyl System (DVS) setup, but I never brought it out for many of the short sets I was invited to play. Still, some wondered how I could have given up on vinyl.
The answer first came from the one problem you have with vinyl. You have to place a tonearm with a needle attached to it onto the spinning record and hope nothing will make that tonearm skip or jump. I've seen many elaborate attempts at making a setup where the turntable won't move or shake, but time and time again I'd have points in sets where something bounces. It could have been someone bumping into the table, or a vibration through the floor, or my sleeve sometimes brushing the tonearm, or even just bass thumps through the speakers causing vibrations.
In my opinion, that's a weakness, not a strength. I've seen many make the argument that a more "skilled" DJ can handle this, but I look at it all as a problem that should be fixed. When I moved over to CDJs, this problem went away. Some can claim it's not "keepin' it real", but think about it this way, would you give up power steering in your car to go manual? Have you ever seen how hard it is to steer a car when there isn't power steering?
One shouldn't look at the solving of problems or fixing of weaknesses or faults as a bad thing. It's progress. Even when I went over to using midi controls, that was progress. It meant I can bring a simple control and my laptop to an event without having to risk my rare records or deal with faulty equipment in a club. I know many vinyl purists talk of how they love the feel of their records, and I understand that, but that's a personal preference...not a valid thinking of what makes a "real DJ".
The sound quality issue
This brings us to the next part of the debate, the mythical "warmth" or "full sound" you get with records that you cannot get out of a CD or MP3. The general response is how when you record sound into a computer, you lose parts of the full sound through the compression, and thus the claim a CD or MP3 will never sound as good as a vinyl record.
There is truth to that statement. A sound recorded into a computer will not sound as full to a trained ear as the same sound recorded onto a tape or another analog recording system. The problem is you won't see barely anyone ever recording original music through analog means anymore. From full-fledged recording studios to home setups, everyone is recording into computers and processing them out. So even the records you might have bought last week were recorded into computers first. Some pressing plants even will make the vinyl cut from a WAV file sent to them. If you're hearing "warmth" now, it's probably more the very low-level sound of the needle sliding in the groove as the record spins.
I listen to mixes of mine from years back, and compare them to now. It's honestly funny how many cling on to analog thinking when my more recent mixes sound so much better than ones in the past. In the past I'd record mixes from vinyl to an analog cassette or to a DAT. From there I'd make cassette copies or CDs. The older MP3s on this site were made off those DATs before my machine died. Still, I listen to newer mixes where it was recorded straight into the computer, normalized, and hit with some compression filters to boost the levels without distortion, and they sound phenomenal compared to those older mixes. In my opinion, digital has enhanced sound over analog.
So we can dive then into the issue even fought out between digital DJs - the bit rate issue. When I started DJing with MP3s, I actually was using 128 kbps and 192 kbps files. Even then I had some ridiculing my choice, claiming you had to use 320 kbps or WAV. Now I hear how MP3 shouldn't be used and DJs should use full uncompressed WAV files or Flac format files.
My choice to use lower quality files in the beginning came from my desire to avoid a computer crash over anything. I tried WAV files initially when I got into Final Scratch, but found my system struggling to play them. I'd see the same with others who initially used Final Scratch, Traktor, and Serato. In my opinion, 192 kbps and 320 kbps was the best most could get.
Still, I heard many "claim" how they could hear the difference. They would tell me to go into a big club on their system and you'll hear it. I will admit I can tell the difference between a poorly-made MP3 versus a well-made MP3, but if you play a well-made 192 kbps file in comparison with a well-made WAV file, chances are you won't hear any difference. Go on Google and you'll see academic tests that prove this.
Plus, you have to step away from your own audiophile thinking and look at the crowd. They are the #1 factor of importance. I have yet to see a crowd sit there pondering the bit rate of a track they're hearing, nor would I expect anyone in a noisy room full of people be able to tell the difference, especially if they are inebriated.
Should consumers demand quality?
At this point in the debate, I'll then hear someone proclaim how the clubbers, ravers, etc. should "demand quality". How they should demand vinyl DJs on turntables who can manually beatmatch. How they should scream and boo any CD or midi DJ out of the booth.
The question is...how do you define "quality"?
There is the problem. You're trying to define "quality" by what YOU see as "quality". In your eyes it might be a DJ playing analog vinyl on Technics 1200s. However, if someone doesn't agree with you, then does it mean that person does not know what "quality" is?
What if you're alone? What if you're in a room with 1000 clubbers who think the DJ playing on his midi control is very talented and his set is of a "high quality"? Does this then mean you don't know what "quality" is?
It's naive to expect average people to care about what medium the DJ is using, or what file format or bit rate his audio files are. Come on, do you seriously go to clubs and raves with this on your mind? Or are you thinking about the actual tunes that DJ is playing? The pretty girl or hot guy you see in the room? The overall vibe of the party? Getting some drinks in you?
In my opinion, the "demand" for the crowd to "demand quality" is more about you wishing they saw things as you did. Believe me, I used to get that way about music, but realized you can't fight the mob.
A better way to look at all this
I'm going to roll back to my giving up on vinyl and go into a bigger reason I got off analog media that has nothing to do with wobbling tonearms. The bigger reason was that I never had a deep connection with the medium...only the music. I could listen to Energy Flash by Joey Beltram as an MP3 and be just as happy as if I put on my old vinyl record. I got excited when I found the classic cut Daylite by Gypsymen on Beatport. Not just because I could get it for $2, but because I found it and could own it.
That's the beauty of the digital age. I know if my home ever burned down and my vinyl collection destroyed, I'd be able to replace most of it from online MP3 stores. I even like how I can shop at my own convenience. I simply can log on to the sites and listen to tunes all day while working. No more rushing to Gramaphone Records on a Thursday or Friday night in the hopes of grabbing a few limited releases. To some, that record store communal time is golden. For me, it was a misery fighting my way there and trying to find new music in a crowded space of guys all looking to grab the newest coolest stuff before it sold out.
I like that there is choice, and people made that choice. Yes it sucks for the local record stores that are disappearing, but it speaks volumes on how many newer, younger DJs look at this craft.
They love the music more than the medium.
If you want to play analog vinyl, you can still buy it out there. If you want to simply keep playing on turntables with timecode, you can. If you want to play CDs, you can. If you want to go midi, you can. That's what makes this age of the DJ better, and why this silly debate over the medium has to end.
I want to leave this with one final thought. Look at this photo:
This is an audio setup Ken Kesey had set up for some of his famous acid parties back in the 1960s. There is a turntable there, but also several reel-to-reel tape players. Now one can point out that this happened before the real "age of the DJ", but even look at famous booths and setups over the years. Look at the movie Beat Street, or Larry Levan's Paradise Garage setup, or Tony Mancuso's Loft setup. Vinyl was dominant, but that was mainly because it was what was available. They still used tape players and any other means they had to play the music. When Jamie Principle composed Your Love, DJs all over Chicago pumped it in the clubs off poor quality audio cassettes.
The lesson to learn is to love the music. Choose your medium based on what you like, but don't judge those who choose something else. DJing is about music, not 12" pieces of vinyl plastic. Remember that.
What do you think?
