cstoll
DJ Vinny wrote :
What is on trial is the new version of the software.
I would have to say that nothing is on 'trial'. And it is a discussion / debate of 'OLD' vs 'NEW'.
DJ Vinny wrote :
4.3 had a feature that many MANY paid users received tremendous value from. We are now trying to work together to see if we can mimic that same value-added feature in 5.2 or if a software revision that offers the old style/new style of automix is required.
The 'OLD' style is just that 'OLD'. And can the 'NEW' style be improved upon - Yes. And, what are those improvements?
DJ Vinny wrote :
My opinion is a revision that offers the old way of doing it along with an option for the new configuration will accomplish 2 things:
1) Make many fans and paid users of the old version extremely happy.
2) Make Virtual DJ a even more versatile program continuing to prove it is the best out there!
1) Make many fans and paid users of the old version extremely happy.
2) Make Virtual DJ a even more versatile program continuing to prove it is the best out there!
This is always the goal for every version. And, Yes there will be another version and yes there will be improvements made. What they are will be based on the feedback / discussion from the users. DO NOT turn this into a fight of opinions.
To clarify some things:
-- there is no version 5.2 - it is version 5.0 revision 2
-- the single deck Automix was and is the best solution to handle several issues that were in version 4.x (and not just the skipping issue)
-- the discussion here has made an impact towards improving the Automix for future version(s)
I hope you all understand that your contributions have been received well and listened to.
cstoll
Forum Moderator
Posted Wed 12 Sep 07 @ 8:26 pm
fatkatzdj
Vinny:
Your correct about the dj not being on trial thing. That was not my intention but I guess it does come off that, My apologies.
I was thinking about all the situations I would use automix for and maybe I just can't understand the need for such detail of the function. After reading your post again I remembered some of the situations I may be placed under. Reading long threads, sometimes the point gets lost in many opinions.
Your point taken!
So with that being said I guess I will step back wait for the next version results.
Your correct about the dj not being on trial thing. That was not my intention but I guess it does come off that, My apologies.
I was thinking about all the situations I would use automix for and maybe I just can't understand the need for such detail of the function. After reading your post again I remembered some of the situations I may be placed under. Reading long threads, sometimes the point gets lost in many opinions.
Your point taken!
So with that being said I guess I will step back wait for the next version results.
Posted Wed 12 Sep 07 @ 8:30 pm
michaela_liebisch
option between single and the old automix would be the best solution, everybody would be happy!
Posted Thu 13 Sep 07 @ 9:44 am
DJ Vinny
I agree Michaela!
Chris,
In response to your post. Everytime I write about 2 deck automix I notice you reply with the same passion and vigor that I do. Except yours is always in defense of the new format. If you were a contributor to this new version of automix my apologies in advance if I have offended you in anway. I just don't want to be misunderstood. I think the authors of VDJ have succeeded in creating a new 1 deck automix that will serve many of its users well. I also know that 2 deck automix served many of its users well as indicated by the hundreds of messages on this topic. My hope is to see a VDJ with both versions of automix making VDJ even more versatile than before.
Forgive me I don't know how to reply/quote properly so I just cut and paste:
cstoll wrote:
The 'OLD' style is just that 'OLD'. And can the 'NEW' style be improved upon - Yes. And, what are those improvements?
I disagree. The old style is 2 deck automix, not just "old" and the new style is 1 deck automix. They can probably both be improved upon but right now we only have the ability to use 1 deck automix.
cstoll wrote:
This is always the goal for every version. And, Yes there will be another version and yes there will be improvements made. What they are will be based on the feedback / discussion from the users. DO NOT turn this into a fight of opinions.
No fighting, just discussions. Its ok for users to like one version or another better and have different opinions. That is how we all get better.
cstoll wrote:
I hope you all understand that your contributions have been received well and listened to.
I am glad they have been and appreciate your efforts as well. If there is anything I can do to help (besides post less about this :-) )please let me know. I would be happy to beta-test a version/revision of VDJ that had 2 deck automix as an option in the future.
Vin.
Chris,
In response to your post. Everytime I write about 2 deck automix I notice you reply with the same passion and vigor that I do. Except yours is always in defense of the new format. If you were a contributor to this new version of automix my apologies in advance if I have offended you in anway. I just don't want to be misunderstood. I think the authors of VDJ have succeeded in creating a new 1 deck automix that will serve many of its users well. I also know that 2 deck automix served many of its users well as indicated by the hundreds of messages on this topic. My hope is to see a VDJ with both versions of automix making VDJ even more versatile than before.
Forgive me I don't know how to reply/quote properly so I just cut and paste:
cstoll wrote:
The 'OLD' style is just that 'OLD'. And can the 'NEW' style be improved upon - Yes. And, what are those improvements?
I disagree. The old style is 2 deck automix, not just "old" and the new style is 1 deck automix. They can probably both be improved upon but right now we only have the ability to use 1 deck automix.
cstoll wrote:
This is always the goal for every version. And, Yes there will be another version and yes there will be improvements made. What they are will be based on the feedback / discussion from the users. DO NOT turn this into a fight of opinions.
No fighting, just discussions. Its ok for users to like one version or another better and have different opinions. That is how we all get better.
cstoll wrote:
I hope you all understand that your contributions have been received well and listened to.
I am glad they have been and appreciate your efforts as well. If there is anything I can do to help (besides post less about this :-) )please let me know. I would be happy to beta-test a version/revision of VDJ that had 2 deck automix as an option in the future.
Vin.
Posted Thu 13 Sep 07 @ 9:07 pm
cstoll
Vin,
Appreciate the response. To answer your first question of my involvement in the 1 deck design. No, this was the Development Teams choice as I pointed out in the previous post. However, I did challenge the choice; but, as I used it more and more and understood what benefits it gives me now - I have learned to like it more than the previous (old) 2 deck method.
As for offended, not at all. Where I am disappointed and what drives my 'defense' of the 1 deck method, is the lack of attempt and effort people want to place in at least learning something different. Instead of really working with it and trying to find the ways it will work for them, they immediately say 'It's no good.' and then never try. Those that have at least try are able to articulate what they are missing. That was one of the reasons why Bagpuss made his post about 'tell us what you don't like'. The majority of posts prior to that were really that stated what was missing or didn't like. They were just re-iterations of the topic and not recommended solutions to what would make it better.
As I said the comments in this thread and the others have been well received by the Development Team and I am positive they will find a method for improving the 1 deck method. And, return capabilities back to the user that people have voiced that they lost from now it being a 1 deck process.
As for my passion and vigor -- I believe in the product and the development team. When the first video version released I jumped on this wagon and I am not getting off of it. And, I really don't care what the other company's do with there products. With all the bugs, issues, and awesome improvements this product makes - it's the one for me. So that's where it comes from - it's like saying " I'm a Ford person, and Chevy can shove it!" Doesn't matter how many bad Fords one buys, they would never own a Chevy even if given to them for free." And the reverse is true for the die hard Chevy owners.
So, please all - please stand by and wait for the next release and let's see how much the Dev Team has listened.
cstoll
Appreciate the response. To answer your first question of my involvement in the 1 deck design. No, this was the Development Teams choice as I pointed out in the previous post. However, I did challenge the choice; but, as I used it more and more and understood what benefits it gives me now - I have learned to like it more than the previous (old) 2 deck method.
As for offended, not at all. Where I am disappointed and what drives my 'defense' of the 1 deck method, is the lack of attempt and effort people want to place in at least learning something different. Instead of really working with it and trying to find the ways it will work for them, they immediately say 'It's no good.' and then never try. Those that have at least try are able to articulate what they are missing. That was one of the reasons why Bagpuss made his post about 'tell us what you don't like'. The majority of posts prior to that were really that stated what was missing or didn't like. They were just re-iterations of the topic and not recommended solutions to what would make it better.
As I said the comments in this thread and the others have been well received by the Development Team and I am positive they will find a method for improving the 1 deck method. And, return capabilities back to the user that people have voiced that they lost from now it being a 1 deck process.
As for my passion and vigor -- I believe in the product and the development team. When the first video version released I jumped on this wagon and I am not getting off of it. And, I really don't care what the other company's do with there products. With all the bugs, issues, and awesome improvements this product makes - it's the one for me. So that's where it comes from - it's like saying " I'm a Ford person, and Chevy can shove it!" Doesn't matter how many bad Fords one buys, they would never own a Chevy even if given to them for free." And the reverse is true for the die hard Chevy owners.
So, please all - please stand by and wait for the next release and let's see how much the Dev Team has listened.
cstoll
Posted Thu 13 Sep 07 @ 9:55 pm
michaela_liebisch
hmmm
Posted Sun 28 Oct 07 @ 8:00 am
yourt
a little late maybe, but a pro for the two decks automix: as many say software does the job but the man behind the buttons is still (or should be) better. Small example: automix gets started while you are taking note of a song request. Volume appears to be ok, but the highs of the new song can use a little more... with a 2 player automix that goes in a twitch. On one deck? Seems automix has been devaluated to be an playlist mixer (iTunes style and others), and that's a loss. 'cause it used to be more tha that. Something in between "let the playlist roll" and active mixing. Something good and usefull.
Just my two cents. At work, a collegue installed his BPM on a workstation. Mostly runs automix, and depending on the collegue handling it, display and options change a little. Give us the option, and stay ahead of the others. That's mainly why I got Virtualdj in the first place.
Y.
Just my two cents. At work, a collegue installed his BPM on a workstation. Mostly runs automix, and depending on the collegue handling it, display and options change a little. Give us the option, and stay ahead of the others. That's mainly why I got Virtualdj in the first place.
Y.
Posted Sun 28 Oct 07 @ 11:06 am
discjockeydoc
I have to admit that I actually prefer the one-deck automix because it frees up the other deck for drop-in requests during starters. I never use it during a set, like most of you have said in the forums because I need control over the tracks for mixing (of course!), but it's also great for bathroom breaks, lol. It is handy for these reasons and it's easy to use and setup.
I do understand the reasons why some folks want it back though, especially the variations in songs...Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to have a setting for which the user can make the choice of which one to use. It's good to have options :)
I do understand the reasons why some folks want it back though, especially the variations in songs...Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to have a setting for which the user can make the choice of which one to use. It's good to have options :)
Posted Sun 28 Oct 07 @ 5:32 pm
djstevieray
I like the one deck automix, so I can use the automix to play a dinner playlist while getting the first dance for a wedding cu'ed. When it comes time for real mixing, I do the mixing not the software.
Posted Sun 28 Oct 07 @ 7:05 pm