Sign In:     

Forum: General Discussion

Topic: BPM limit of 200? - Page: 1

This part of topic is old and might contain outdated or incorrect information

I was trying to mix Bangles' "Walk Like An Egyptian" this weekend, which should be around 212. But I didn't realize that VDJ limits it to 200, which is why I was having such a tough time with it.

Is there any plan to eliminate this 200 BPM limitation?


 
Posted Wed 27 Feb 08 @ 10:05 pm
if it's not some kind of mix
the bpm should be around 103~106
the half of the value you have
try to reanalyze the song or manually edit/change the bpm

cheers,
matt
 
I did try to manually change it, but it won't even let me type it in. That song may be easily mixable with a 103 song, but is definitely a ~205 song. Regardless, this should be an easy fix for the next rev...? At least to be able to manually edit?
 
There were request already made a few times for this "fix". But the argument of devs to not include
this was definately that the vast majority of music is well below this BPM limit. Another reason is probably
the automatic BPM detection algoirthm works better in narrower area of interest. The last might even
be that such tracks are of no musical interest / simply too fast to enjoy, with which I happen to agree.
 
erxon wrote :
There were request already made a few times for this "fix". But the argument of devs to not include
this was definately that the vast majority of music is well below this BPM limit. Another reason is probably
the automatic BPM detection algoirthm works better in narrower area of interest. The last might even
be that such tracks are of no musical interest / simply too fast to enjoy, with which I happen to agree.


The house of commons roars "Here Here!"..
 
Yes - I agree that certainly the vast majority of music is well below this range. But that's why the BPM calculation algorithm should remain as is.

Howevere, I think you should still be able to manually edit if desired. This way, the at least the beat matching part can be accurate if someone takes the time to enter in the true number in the BPM field, right?
 
Eric Sands wrote :
Howevere, I think you should still be able to manually edit if desired. This way, the at least the beat matching part can be accurate if someone takes the time to enter in the true number in the BPM field, right?


I'm a big fan of flexibility Eric, and I understand your point. But I fairly doubt that devs will
consider it, even though it might be an easy fix. Of course it's just my personal opinion based
on those arguments above, the history of recent fixes and the frequency of similar requests,
at least I wouldn't raise my hopes too much.

Mr. Speaker has the word.
 
OK sounds good... thank you for the thoughts.
 
Eric Sands wrote :
OK sounds good... thank you for the thoughts.


As a work around, maybe you could edit the BPM on the file to half it's true value and then match up knowing that you need your BPM half of that whatever the active deck is?
 
Yes - well certainly a half value is better than a 95% value in terms of mixability...
 
Why can't you edit the bpms manually, by tapping? I just checked, and I have 4 versions of this, and they are all 103.1 and 103.2. I'm not sure, but think they were all analyzed by VDJ. Now I have 3.
 
Using the SET ANCHOR is a more accurate way of calculating BPM since we can fine tune the first and last beat. But that's not the point. We're talking about simply being able to manually enter a number over 200.
 

I'd imagine any future development of the BPM engine would see the end of the two scanning options, and introduce a scanning "range", allowing the user to specify a realistic range, giving the engine far greater accuracy.

If this is done, there would be no such limitation.
 
Promo only's catalog lists Walk like an egyptian as 206... but I think they're counting the tambourine or something.... it's not even close to 206.

very little music is in that range... they need to half the beat count.

it's all in the way you count beats.

you could also say walk like an egyptian was a 412 bpm song... but it's wrong...

based on 206, the song would be un-listenable .

oh well.....
 
Maybe watch how people dance to it, good dancers normally dance to the beat.

BPM - Bops per minute

:)
 
Eric Sands wrote :
I did try to manually change it, but it won't even let me type it in. That song may be easily mixable with a 103 song, but is definitely a ~205 song. Regardless, this should be an easy fix for the next rev...? At least to be able to manually edit?


why don't u mix another track into it by ear and see what it come out at either 2?? or 1?? thats how you will find out for sure, you dont need to wait for the next rev! thats the stupidest thing iv heard on the forum yet.
 
Some of you guys might know how to DJ, but don't know about measures and beats. That song IS 206 BPM. Count 1,2,3,4 between the snares and that will give you an idea of how long the measures are in the song. Yeah you could just use 103 but it still wouldn't be accurate. I don't just DJ, I'm also a musician.
 
AMEN buddy! I've been beat mixing since 1982, and I know 206 when I hear it!
 
Too right, 206. Not 103 or 412. That song flies. I wouldn't dance to it though. @ 42, I'd be dead within a minute!
 
People don't dance to measures, they dance to beats, and can decide which beats they will dance to. I have played and danced to this track, since it came out, and can tell you that I, and 95 % of my guest, are dancing to 103 bpm. The other 5% could not catch a beat, with a catchers mitt. I'm 55 and can still dance to this track, because I know which beat to dance to. I played this today, after reading this post. Maybe as a musician, playing with the NY Philharmonic, you need to be a rocket scientist, and know all the measures. As DJs, and dancers, we do not. I can not believe that this is causing so much grief. Then again, maybe the people that you play for, are slitting their wrist, because VDJ can't get the beats and measures, to equal 206. I bet I can pick you guys out on the dance floor. I have real issues to think about, and will move on from this one. Help me baby Jesus, help me Oprah.

 
61%