The article only talks about the actual circuit that is behind that potentiometer.
Having built some MIDI controllers myself in the past, I noticed that rotary potentiometers allow you to better "decouple" arm/shoulder movements from hand/finger movements. I.e. when you're standing and and holding that knob, It's easier to make precise adjustments when there's a rotary knob you can "hold on to" and slowly twist your fingers, whereas with a linear potentiometer I usually have to keep a finger on the surface next to the knob to "compensate" for involuntary movements coming from my body and arm...
A lot of people talk about as it was primarily a design decision, but I suspect touch screen controls are the cheapest one out there right now.
As alluded to in the article, rotary vs. linear seems to be a proxy for the circuit which actually influences the sound. I would think that anyone claiming "mixers with rotaries always sound better" does not fully understand how they work. There's a lot of those kind of claims in the music scene.
However in these modern days with motor driven potentiometers, I guess it is less of a big deal.
It became one of the most commonly available rotary mixers, was the house mixer for many NYC clubs, and one of the mixers commonly found on tech riders of DJs who were the last to transition to CDJs.
Random bit of trivia: if you see old school photos or videos of rotary mixers in American clubs, sometimes it wasn't actually the Rane MP2016, but the Phazon SDX 3700: https://www.integralsound.com/sdx-3700-mixer It was the house mixer for Tunnel/Limelight.
Technically, regardless of the rest of the product design there are high quality potentiometers available both as linear faders or rotary knobs. I guess dirt is more likely to get into a linear fader and make it scratchy - especially in a club environment.
Anyways, it’s not the knobs that make the sound…
Pioneers have many options to quickly bail out of a train wreck mix!
At this point it's mostly a user interface problem.
They cost more than most studio mixers with far more channels and features.
The margins on these things must be insane - probably 5-10X between production cost (including R&D) and end-user price.
Pioneer DJMs have dozens of FX combinations to aid with fast/fancy transitions, whereas techno/trance (and similar) genres that rely on long smooth blends like the extra EQ channel and filters.
I don't know any hip-hop DJs that use Xones?
The Xones are also analogue vs digital Pioneer mixers which also plays a part in audio quality, especially if the source is analogue (vinyl, rack modules, etc).
I'm happy with my Pioneer DJM-750mk2... but also happy to exchange a kidney for Xone:96 :-)
Two CDJs cost less than weekend’s worth of personnel for a small club even.
If you’re a DJ that’s just starting out, it suck’s a little though. Usually you’ll start out on Native Instruments’ Traktor S2/S4 or Pioneer’s cheaper DDJ, and for your first club set you arrive early so you can familiarize yourself with the quirks of the CDJs. Or find a buddy with a CDJ home setup that you can practice on.
Today you also have influencers which are DJ-ing, but they don't have the skills, so either they have a pre-recorded mix or just use the CDJ auto-mixing features. Having a standard device they know how to operate is again critical.
It's depressing that audio software still widely subjects users to this skeuomorphic failure, trying to do everything with on-screen "knobs." Ugh.
Having said that you can totally map a physical rotary encoder to a linear one in the software so this is not a good excuse.
Piece of software I use frequently has most of the important programming and setup done through touch screen and relatively little through its command line which prior version used more off, the touch screen rotary encoders are just confusing and I can never seem to get it to the right value
I will say, though, that a circle whose perimeter is partially filled in is a space-efficient way to depict the current value vs. the total range available.
I assume you're using it a lot and then it's intuitive. For novice it's not. If I click on bottom part will it operate in another direction compared with clicking on top part? Or what about if I click on left or right edge? Can I also move mouse up-down and left-right or is only one direction allowed? Is mouse-up turning knob up or down? Are these rules same in all software or knob behaves slightly different everywhere? I have no idea for any of that except if I try and see. And since I rarely use them it's always a source for frustration.
Especially compared to linear slider which is impossible to misunderstand and you can't operate in it wrong way.
They're different everywhere.
My own opinion is that on-screen knobs for audio-type work can be fine as long as one can grab any part of the knob with the mouse and adjust it by moving the mouse up and down (er...well, physically forward and back).
But things are not always this way so it seems that opinions vary.
How I see it [1], absolute values don't matter audio software, except when working with loudness compliance or some very technical things. What's important is how things sound, and it's generally a bad practice relying on UI metering to dial in sound in most cases. The typical audio work involves fine tuning parameters until things feel right. In UX terms, relative parameter tuning is the most common kind of interaction, and sliders absolutely suck balls at it, in my humble opinion.
Linear sliders actually have more inconsistencies across implementation than knobs, that have converged to more or less the same pattern. E.g. some sliders reset value if you click in the middle of it, at which point all prior tuning is lost - this is super annoying and I hate it. Others operate in relative mode and they're similarly intuitive in regards to which direction they should operate depending on slider orientation (should horizontal slider change its value with up-down movement? should interaction range extend beyond slider length?). Also, such sliders are identical to knobs, essentially, but take more screen space.
So, in a a nutshell, knobs are superior for fine tuning, which is 90% of all audio software interactions.
1. I'm not a professional, but I have clocked in thousands of hours into DAWs and other related software over the years as a hobby, also I played on a few local gigs and made some simple audio software.
Just no.
- One where some type of spoon goes back and forth. This would probably just be worse than a rotary mixer though.
- One where the entire "basin" oscillates back and forth like a seesaw, like the machines they have at the blood bank to make sure the blood mixes well with the anticoagulant in the bag(s).
- One where the basin is airtight and vibrated up and down vigorously. I could see this work quite well for dry-ish mixtures of different particles, like if you have flour and sugar together in a container and want them mixed.
I got curious and found https://making.com/equipment/high-frequency-vibratory-mixer, but that is for liquids and not for solids.
Turned out it's just about rotary vs linear potentiometers. Or I misunderstood everything.
