Technics Pitch Control: Analog vs Digital

[djdiggla]

I came across this and this forum rant about the 1210 MK5G having digital not analog pitch control. It was new news to me. Apparently everything after that model have digital pitch. I wondered if anyone had any opinions on it. I used to have 3Gs and loved them. Years later bought some used MK5Gs and eventually sold my 3Gs which I slightly regret doing. I can't say i've noticed any difference but wondered if anyone else had info on this. Not real keen to find out tho... to me that's just one more thing that will eventually break. But i don't see myself rushing out to buy some used MK2s like this guy is saying. TBH I mostly use a controller now anyways. Don't recall this ever being discussed so wanted to post about it. 

[Steve]

I remember talking about this on DJForums years ago. I can't remember what the figure is, but apparently the pitch resolution is super small (something like 0.05%), so I can't see how that would make any real world difference tbh.

If a record is slightly too slow and you were able to move the pitch slider up by such a small distance that it only increased by a single 0.05% step, there's no way that the record would suddenly be playing too fast that it would throw your mixing off.

It may prevent you getting the pitch set 100% correctly, but how often do you do that anyway? It's borderline impossible, especially when you take minor fluctuations in motor speed into account. I've done plenty of transitions in mixes that sound perfect, but if I tried to play both records at the same time for the full length of them, eventually they would start drifting cos the pitch isn't set perfectly, but it was totally fine for the length of the transition I was doing.

[Deft]

Ahhh my favourite topic - or it was when I used to review CD players for Skratchworx (nearly 20 years ago FFS).

Now you can take my opinion with the pinch of salt it deserves, but I spent a huge portion of my dj'ing life playing extraordinarily boring progressive house music. But, the mixing was long and boring too - overlapping and holding tempos together for minutes at a time very delicately. This was all on a Technics SL1210mk2 setup. I was not an interesting or engaging dj, but fuck me I could make very smooth seamless mixes that sounded like they had been sequenced on a PC. It was what I aspired to, mixing perfection. I got super attuned to the smallest nudges in pitch control and would generally use the smallest physical movement of the pitch fader to keep things in time - just nudging it forward and backward every 5-10 secs to let the track drift up and down as close as possible around the perfect matched point. So I got a very good sense of how quickly things could drift at 130bpm-ish.

Then I had Denon DN-S5000,S3000 and S1000 (owned S5000 and then a S3000, and reviewed the S1000). These things had various pitch control resolutions of 0.02 %, 0.05% and 0.1%. Ok you've got to be careful as if you are playing files straight from a digital source I suspect they have better inherent timing than a pressed record that you then record to playback (in those days I ripped lots of vinyl as you really couldn't buy much digitally if you didn't have the CDs). I remember you can see these little imperfections in timing if you are meticulously warping tracks in Ableton that came from vinyl.

My intuitive feel and experience with those different pitch resolutions is that 0.02 % resolution is noticeable better control than a Technics SL1210mk2 (i.e. takes longer to fall out of sync, needs less babysitting). 0.05 % is quite comparable, though perhaps a little worse. 0.1 % is clearly worse.

You could probably test this with some special record and nudging an analog pitch fader. I would say if the new Technics is really 0.05% steps you may well feel a little worse performance if you are very attuned to a long mixing style where you use the pitch fader nudging to control the drift.

[djdiggla]

That makes sense. I love that both of you (especially Deft) actually have some knowledge on this. I don't do long mixes like that so it will probably never matter but good to know. A little disappointed that it's not analog tho just from a long term functionality perspective but is what it is.... I probably woulda still bought em even knowing that. Probably woulda held onto my old decks tho too. Anyways, I'm just glad it's not like the CDX which I absolutely loved... not sure what the drift was on those but it was definitely noticeable. 

[Deft]

The thing about it being potentially 0.05% steps sounds about right too. The Technics analog control feels somewhere between 0.02 and 0.05 % if using my ears / drift time as a benchmark vs. a cd player. So then consider the electronics engineering side of it. Those Technics people are not dumbos, they've implemented a digital control system for some benefits. I don't think it's a "digital" fader whatever that means. It's a standard analog fader / potentiometer with a digital control circuit attached. So it's still a big resistor varying a voltage, but that voltage gets converted into a digitally stepped output.

So what's good about an analog fader and analog control circuitry? Well you can pretend it means it has infinite resolution but that's not true in reality. The change in voltage you see is still limited by the tiniest physical movement you can make. I'm sure the voltage varies a bit by simply wiggling the fader cap, add in some dust and dirt and you'll get a variable output. Also means if you want repeatability then moving the fader back to 0 and then some arbitary point on the fader is unlikely to give you exactly the same voltage. There's probably some smoothing circuitry in there. I dunno I'm talking bollox.

If you slap a digital control circuit on the top of an analog fader - what do you get? Bit like a dj mixer, you can keep a cleaner control signal by tidying up the slightly variable voltage (e.g. dust / dirt). So it should be a bit more resilient. But the question is how small digital resolution steps can you lay over the top whilst maintaining some repeatability in the output. If you make the steps tiny then small changes in voltage will cause the output to keep wobbling. I suppose maybe this is "no worse" than the analog fader, but I can't imagine an electronics engineering bod being happy with it. 0.05% would to me be the nearest "rounded up" steps that would make sense to ensure you're not causing too much wobble in the output.

That's my ill-informed speculation. Seriously though, fuck long mixes on a real turntable. Absolutely pointless nowadays. Digital files of digitally produced music in Serato + auto tempo match button and you don't even have to do any thinking about pitch control for most tracks. Everything stays locked together.

[Deft]

Also as a final thought on this - these products generally will have totally rational engineering decisions, but perhaps that digital approach does have a marginal downside for certain use cases. But most people won't care and I suspect it makes the normal control a bit more robust.

[Jam Burglar]

Like Deft, I tend to do some really long blends.  I'll do that with all types of tempo ranges though.  I've never been much of a house/techno guy so the pitch ranges I use are much more likely to be 80 - 120 bpm.  And I'm not one of these people who just mixes for hours and hours either, but when I make mixtapes, I tend to do some longish mixes and I am relatively picky about making sure my mixes hold.

Anyway, I had Technics 1200 MK2s, then went to 1200 M3Ds (which I still have) and then to the 2010 M5G.  I had no issues coming from the fully analog M3D to the M5G (which was some type of hybrid if I remember right).  The only real noticeable difference I found was that the M5Gs were always much more consistent as far as the amount of pitch change you would get along the fader and with each other.  With MK2s and M3Ds, you would frequently have a situation where +3 on one deck was the same as +2 on the other.  This could be really drastic at times.  Back in the day we used to try to get decks with really close serial numbers so that they were "matched" better.  At some points along the pitch slider they would more or less match up (typically +/-8% and a few other spots), but in other places they'd be considerably off.  My M5Gs, on the other hand, are much more consistent as far as the keeping the same amount of pitch adjustment as you move up and down the fader, and also are more consistent with each other.

Somewhere on youtube I remember seeing somebody showing how one of the newer technics don't hold the pitch as well.  I can't say I've personally noticed that issue but it's always possible.  I've even gone as far at times as to record a mix and then go back and look at the wave forms to see how the transients are matching up.  I just never had any really issues with pitch-hold.  Maybe I'm not mixing on the level of some of these techno guys, but that's my perspective.

My thinking is that you have 3 variables:

1) Consistency from deck to deck

2) Consistency of the amount of pitch change as you go up and down the slider

3) Ability to hold pitch

I imagine 3 is the most important and that's what I suspect people are complaining about but I've never had a problem with the M5Gs in that regard.

The dope thing BY FAR with the M5G is the +/-16% pitch range.  For scratching/turntablism they're way more versatile.  

[djdiggla]

Thats a good point about consistency from deck to deck. Never really though about it but it's definitely true. 

[Jam Burglar]

26 minutes ago, djdiggla said:

Thats a good point about consistency from deck to deck. Never really though about it but it's definitely true. 

I always liked the consistency between decks for doubles in the middle of a mix set.  With the M5G if a record is on +3 or something I can throw on the double, set the pitch at +3, and I'm pretty well set.  With the M3D it could be off at times.  Not that it matters all that much but the consistency is nice.

[djdiggla]

Yeah i remember my 3DS were maybe half a notch off.