andy-chiles
Hi!
Since Pioneer once again released their flagship mixer "Pioneer V10" with a Master Equalizer and people point out that this is one of the best features on this mixer, I can't resist to emphasize the importance of a simple but effective Master EQ in our beloved and undisputed best DJ software on the market!
It's not that hard to implement and it would elevate the user experience by a lot.
(And no, please don't bring up some master-effect-equalizer-workarounds, these don't work without interfering to much in any kind of the overall workflow.)
Genuinely, please give us this feature!
- Thank you very much in advance!
Since Pioneer once again released their flagship mixer "Pioneer V10" with a Master Equalizer and people point out that this is one of the best features on this mixer, I can't resist to emphasize the importance of a simple but effective Master EQ in our beloved and undisputed best DJ software on the market!
It's not that hard to implement and it would elevate the user experience by a lot.
(And no, please don't bring up some master-effect-equalizer-workarounds, these don't work without interfering to much in any kind of the overall workflow.)
Genuinely, please give us this feature!
- Thank you very much in advance!
发表时间 Sun 26 Oct 25 @ 6:44 pm
DJ VinylTouch
Just curious, how does VirtualDJ having a built in EQ applied on master differ from a VST EQ applied on master?
Is it that it is preferred to smartly apply it at a deck level and then shift to master when all mixer channels are dedicated to a specific VirtualDJ instance?
I ask this because implementing it software wise will always have that problem vs it being implemented in the hardware (which can always be applied on master, regardless of what software/source is sending to its channels).
Is it that it is preferred to smartly apply it at a deck level and then shift to master when all mixer channels are dedicated to a specific VirtualDJ instance?
I ask this because implementing it software wise will always have that problem vs it being implemented in the hardware (which can always be applied on master, regardless of what software/source is sending to its channels).
发表时间 Sun 26 Oct 25 @ 7:04 pm
groovindj
Playing devil's advocade here, if it was so important then why don't all DJ mixers/controllers and all DJ software already have a master EQ? It just seems that it's now only become "important" (to some) because Pioneer did it.
Just curious.
Actually now I've checked the V10 I don't see a master EQ. There's an isolator, and a booth EQ but I see no master EQ (unless it's digital in the settings).
Just curious.
Actually now I've checked the V10 I don't see a master EQ. There's an isolator, and a booth EQ but I see no master EQ (unless it's digital in the settings).
发表时间 Sun 26 Oct 25 @ 8:14 pm
andy-chiles
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
Just curious, how does VirtualDJ having a built in EQ applied on master differ from a VST EQ applied on master?
Is it that it is preferred to smartly apply it at a deck level and then shift to master when all mixer channels are dedicated to a specific VirtualDJ instance?
I ask this because implementing it software wise will always have that problem vs it being implemented in the hardware (which can always be applied on master, regardless of what software/source is sending to its channels).
Is it that it is preferred to smartly apply it at a deck level and then shift to master when all mixer channels are dedicated to a specific VirtualDJ instance?
I ask this because implementing it software wise will always have that problem vs it being implemented in the hardware (which can always be applied on master, regardless of what software/source is sending to its channels).
Clearly, a VST EQ or Virtual DJs 10-Band-EQ are probably a more precise way to adjust the volume of certain frequencies, but it also interferes with several mappings regarding the FX controllability.
- Having a blinking button indicating a running effect while you have no echo (for example) is not what an EQ should bother you with.
- Also there are commands which turn off FX entirely, but you don't want your master eq to shut down every time you de-activate your reverb.
- Not every VST is made for hour-long performances, nor does a weak laptop support this workload.
- And not every user knows how to set up VST or FX-based EQs.
It's just a workflow thing...
Just slap three knobs in the upper right corner and call it a day - nothing more - simplicity is the key.
It's just for rough adjustments, no chirurgical accuracy!!
Code-wise there shouldn't be so much to take care of...
Either it's just a "hidden second eq" after the first one per deck, which it's controlled all at once with the master eq knobs, or you route the sound through some fx-slot which isn't affected by the regular fx controlling commands, just something like a "undercover fx slot" for every deck - that's it.
Easy, but effective.
发表时间 Sun 26 Oct 25 @ 8:44 pm
DJ VinylTouch
I see what you're saying. I do think though this is better handled by the engineer's EQing later down the audio chain, because now the software now has to fiddle with smart 10-band EQ application per deck on top of EQing you may do with the regular 3 band.
This is pretty similar to the Maximizer discussion btw (ability to tune the sound to a liking independent of regular FX path), and now one has even more rope to potentially cause harm to themselves if uses incorrectly (more knobs to turn - novices will most likely crank all of them in an attempt to sound like other software).
This is pretty similar to the Maximizer discussion btw (ability to tune the sound to a liking independent of regular FX path), and now one has even more rope to potentially cause harm to themselves if uses incorrectly (more knobs to turn - novices will most likely crank all of them in an attempt to sound like other software).
发表时间 Sun 26 Oct 25 @ 9:54 pm
andy-chiles
groovindj wrote :
Playing devil's advocade here, if it was so important then why don't all DJ mixers/controllers and all DJ software already have a master EQ? It just seems that it's now only become "important" (to some) because Pioneer did it.
Just curious.
Actually now I've checked the V10 I don't see a master EQ. There's an isolator, and a booth EQ but I see no master EQ (unless it's digital in the settings).
Just curious.
Actually now I've checked the V10 I don't see a master EQ. There's an isolator, and a booth EQ but I see no master EQ (unless it's digital in the settings).
Then you can ask the question why not every DJ software has pitch_reset, or why not everyone supports almost every controller, and why don't all mixers have a display or an fx section?
Without offending you - Mr. Advocade - but your question is nonsense, and I'll explain to you why that is:
You would rather swim with the current, thinking because brands don't deliver a specific feature it is not needed or people wouldn't utilize it or even that it is just the right way - just because the majority of dj stuff hasn't this included.
How about thinking innovatively?! Outside the box?! Thats why we use Virtual DJ right?!
Or did you every think about that it is such a useful feature that Pioneer builds this into their flagships only, just to have a good selling point for a 3000+ € mixer?
And call it isolator, call it sound-shaper, call it what ever you want, but you are talking about one and the same thing - Three knobs on the Master Channel used to broadly regulate the three major parts of the frequency spectrum, for non-chirurgical, fast and easy adjustments - Which you might wanna use if you could manage to use your curiosity for some innovations, rather than against them.
发表时间 Mon 27 Oct 25 @ 10:52 am
andy-chiles
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
I see what you're saying. I do think though this is better handled by the engineer's EQing later down the audio chain, because now the software now has to fiddle with smart 10-band EQ application per deck on top of EQing you may do with the regular 3 band.
This is pretty similar to the Maximizer discussion btw (ability to tune the sound to a liking independent of regular FX path), and now one has even more rope to potentially cause harm to themselves if uses incorrectly (more knobs to turn - novices will most likely crank all of them in an attempt to sound like other software).
This is pretty similar to the Maximizer discussion btw (ability to tune the sound to a liking independent of regular FX path), and now one has even more rope to potentially cause harm to themselves if uses incorrectly (more knobs to turn - novices will most likely crank all of them in an attempt to sound like other software).
Yes, you are correct, that's why I'm asking for some easier and just more usable solution.
Not much, but just enough to do the majority of jobs.
These fx-solutions are way over the top.
发表时间 Mon 27 Oct 25 @ 10:57 am
Adion
I'm not sure how adding the EQ as an effect on master complicates things though.
In that case it is not affected by resetFXOnload, and effects_used is by default deck-dependent as well, so is also not affected by an active plugin on master.
In that case it is not affected by resetFXOnload, and effects_used is by default deck-dependent as well, so is also not affected by an active plugin on master.
发表时间 Mon 27 Oct 25 @ 1:03 pm
groovindj
@Andy Chiles
I was merely questioning your use of the word "important" - as logically if the DJ industry did think it was important to have a master isolator, then they would already be ubiquitous.
The fact is, they're not. They've been around for decades, but the vast majority of DJ hardware does not have them. Equally, no other DJ software has a master isolator either. Ergo most DJs get along fine without it, so it can't be that important in the big scheme of things.
I agree with others here. If that's what YOU consider "important" or "useful" then use a VST.
I was merely questioning your use of the word "important" - as logically if the DJ industry did think it was important to have a master isolator, then they would already be ubiquitous.
The fact is, they're not. They've been around for decades, but the vast majority of DJ hardware does not have them. Equally, no other DJ software has a master isolator either. Ergo most DJs get along fine without it, so it can't be that important in the big scheme of things.
I agree with others here. If that's what YOU consider "important" or "useful" then use a VST.
发表时间 Mon 27 Oct 25 @ 1:03 pm
andy-chiles
Adion wrote :
I'm not sure how adding the EQ as an effect on master complicates things though.
In that case it is not affected by resetFXOnload, and effects_used is by default deck-dependent as well, so is also not affected by an active plugin on master.
In that case it is not affected by resetFXOnload, and effects_used is by default deck-dependent as well, so is also not affected by an active plugin on master.
Actually I didn't knew this before, because I always tested it with Pioneers DJM Mixers, where the sound configuration requires Deck1 & Deck2 as outputs rather than a Master Output Channel.
So fat you are indeed correct, the only thing I could argue on that is:
Three knobs which match the frequencies of the regular EQ still would be somehow easier, as you can just apply the setting in which you find your ChannelEQs all the time, to the MasterEQ.
But thats kind of a smaller point.
On the other hand, your solution does not apply on the "External Mixer Sound Settings", when you have your decks routed separatly to the different channels of your sound interface, where due to that your Master-FX-Slot only adresses the current Master-Deck, even if its automatically selected.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, I just tested it the fast way at this moment, but for this setting I see no capable solution for this sound setup.)
The idea is to correct misadjusted sound in different venues so far that I'm able to set my channelEQs on neutral position, without getting the MasterEQ resetted all the time (either by FX reset stuff nor by EQ reset.)
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 1:49 pm
andy-chiles
groovindj wrote :
@Andy Chiles
I was merely questioning your use of the word "important" - as logically if the DJ industry did think it was important to have a master isolator, then they would already be ubiquitous.
The fact is, they're not. They've been around for decades, but the vast majority of DJ hardware does not have them. Equally, no other DJ software has a master isolator either. Ergo most DJs get along fine without it, so it can't be that important in the big scheme of things.
I agree with others here. If that's what YOU consider "important" or "useful" then use a VST.
I was merely questioning your use of the word "important" - as logically if the DJ industry did think it was important to have a master isolator, then they would already be ubiquitous.
The fact is, they're not. They've been around for decades, but the vast majority of DJ hardware does not have them. Equally, no other DJ software has a master isolator either. Ergo most DJs get along fine without it, so it can't be that important in the big scheme of things.
I agree with others here. If that's what YOU consider "important" or "useful" then use a VST.
Your point is right in a way. But that's what I consider as conservative or to simple thinking.
You rely on the fact that what the industry is offering you is enough or that this is the right way, rather than thinking for yourself about the cases on which you can utilize such feature.
And what really makes me mad about this conversation is that you are arguing against a pretty good and simple idea by relying on a decision of the whole industry while you are playing with a software which proves the whole industry on basically every feature that there IS A BETTER WAY.
And you completely ignoring that we have sooooo much reeeeeally specific commands and functions in this software which only a fraction of users are able to use at all, but when i'm presenting you an idea which got build into flagship machines by leading manufacturers, you dismiss it regardless of everything.
In my opinion, this is by no means a well-developed debate with rather weak arguments from your side, and thats why I reacted this way.
Sorry if you found this to be too harsh, didn't mean to step to close to you, but please think about certain points before going against features which can elevate this piece of software.
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 2:50 pm
groovindj
What makes you think I'm against it? I never said I'm against it.
Once again, if it really was "important" and something that DJs really wanted/needed, it would've already been standardised and be on the majority of kit rather than the minority.
Once again, if it really was "important" and something that DJs really wanted/needed, it would've already been standardised and be on the majority of kit rather than the minority.
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 3:38 pm
Adion
andy-chiles wrote :
Three knobs which match the frequencies of the regular EQ still would be somehow easier, as you can just apply the setting in which you find your ChannelEQs all the time, to the MasterEQ.
Three knobs which match the frequencies of the regular EQ still would be somehow easier, as you can just apply the setting in which you find your ChannelEQs all the time, to the MasterEQ.
Isn't the implementation as pioneer did a different style of eq (sharper, more resonance), which is even the point? If it was just the same as the regular eq then you could just use the regular eq?
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 5:01 pm
andy-chiles
groovindj wrote :
What makes you think I'm against it? I never said I'm against it.
Once again, if it really was "important" and something that DJs really wanted/needed, it would've already been standardised and be on the majority of kit rather than the minority.
Once again, if it really was "important" and something that DJs really wanted/needed, it would've already been standardised and be on the majority of kit rather than the minority.
Because your argumentation is everything but supportive.
And you could also ask the other way around: How come that only flagship hardware has this feature?
So there must be something to it if professionals seemingly want this feature... So why don't use professional features in our software?
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 5:05 pm
andy-chiles
Adion wrote :
Isn't the implementation as pioneer did a different style of eq (sharper, more resonance), which is even the point? If it was just the same as the regular eq then you could just use the regular eq?
andy-chiles wrote :
Three knobs which match the frequencies of the regular EQ still would be somehow easier, as you can just apply the setting in which you find your ChannelEQs all the time, to the MasterEQ.
Three knobs which match the frequencies of the regular EQ still would be somehow easier, as you can just apply the setting in which you find your ChannelEQs all the time, to the MasterEQ.
Isn't the implementation as pioneer did a different style of eq (sharper, more resonance), which is even the point? If it was just the same as the regular eq then you could just use the regular eq?
You can set the regular EQ to behave as an isolator.
And the point of a master EQ or ISOLATOR is to either do master filtrations and isolations when you happen play with a lot of decks at the same time, so you just need to take care turning this three knobs rather than 3 knobs on every of the 6 channels.
But you also can use it as a Master EQ to free your regular channel EQs from beeing in a specific setting all the time. Your performance gets easier because you can just focus in the center-click of your knobs and leave them there while your master EQ is set in every other way to shape the sound, and your channel EQs are more available for performance rather correcting the misadjusted sound.
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 5:13 pm
groovindj
andy-chiles wrote :
Because your argumentation is everything but supportive
Your choice of words is interesting, because I'm not arguing. I'm just suggesting that it's not as "important" as you'd like to think - for the reasons stated.
Also nobody here is being UNsupportive. We've already said it's possible to do this without Atomix building it into the software.
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 6:04 pm
andy-chiles
groovindj wrote :
„Your choice of words is interesting“
andy-chiles wrote :
Because your argumentation is everything but supportive
„Your choice of words is interesting“
Yes, because I tried to not be unpolite.
But thank you anyways.
It’s not the first time I asked for it, and this obviously happens for a reason, meaning it’s just not that practical the way it is, and that’s why I asked for a change.
发表时间 Fri 31 Oct 25 @ 10:27 pm
andy-chiles
So I tried around with the MasterFX solution a little bit...
With a internal mixer setting (one Master Output and a Headphone sound routing) it works pretty fine, but as I expected somehow, I couldn't get it to work on both decks on a external mixer setting (separate Deck1 & Deck2 routing).
So is it at least possible for the developers to get the software to apply the same instance of the MasterFX to every Deck there is in the routing?
With a internal mixer setting (one Master Output and a Headphone sound routing) it works pretty fine, but as I expected somehow, I couldn't get it to work on both decks on a external mixer setting (separate Deck1 & Deck2 routing).
So is it at least possible for the developers to get the software to apply the same instance of the MasterFX to every Deck there is in the routing?
发表时间 Sat 08 Nov 25 @ 12:38 am
Oli K
andy-chiles wrote :
Hi!
Since Pioneer once again released their flagship mixer "Pioneer V10" with a Master Equalizer and people point out that this is one of the best features on this mixer, I can't resist to emphasize the importance of a simple but effective Master EQ in our beloved and undisputed best DJ software on the market!
It's not that hard to implement and it would elevate the user experience by a lot.
(And no, please don't bring up some master-effect-equalizer-workarounds, these don't work without interfering to much in any kind of the overall workflow.)
Genuinely, please give us this feature!
- Thank you very much in advance!
Since Pioneer once again released their flagship mixer "Pioneer V10" with a Master Equalizer and people point out that this is one of the best features on this mixer, I can't resist to emphasize the importance of a simple but effective Master EQ in our beloved and undisputed best DJ software on the market!
It's not that hard to implement and it would elevate the user experience by a lot.
(And no, please don't bring up some master-effect-equalizer-workarounds, these don't work without interfering to much in any kind of the overall workflow.)
Genuinely, please give us this feature!
- Thank you very much in advance!
I fully support the request for a dedicated Master Equalizer in VDJ.
Hardware like the Pioneer V10 validates this feature's critical role for professional system tuning and final frequency contouring. Current effect-based workarounds are functionally inadequate, introducing unacceptable workflow complications for power-users.
Implementing this discrete, high-quality Master EQ is a high-impact priority that will significantly enhance VDJ's professional utility.
发表时间 7 days ago @ 11:28 pm
DJ VinylTouch
I'm curious - can you share a scenario where it is functionally inadequate?
The reason I ask - I'm pretty sure what the request is really asking for is essentially a dedicated effect that is not associated to any deck channel (just the result of the mix of the channels) and is applied somewhat intelligently if two or more decks are mixed to give the output, and in the best case, you want to apply it on the mixed result.
This is already achievable with master output based effects, especially if it is an internal mixer (master + headphones) setup, or if it is an external mixer setup (e.g. the DJM V10) if it has a FX send/return path for the mixed output result (which I think the DJM V10 has). In the latter case, if you don't have such an FX path you can't really do that much better than smart application per deck due to the software only being able send out specific deck output to specific channels for the mixer to mix itself, and then hope you didn't introduce clipping (which is why it's normally better to let the engineer make the adjustments for the room - they always have the view of final mixed result to adjust before it goes out to the room).
The only thing the request adds is not having to source and add a custom EQ effect yourself on the master output (I believe @Adion stated the master effect application is done with some intelligence in external mixer setups).
The reason I ask - I'm pretty sure what the request is really asking for is essentially a dedicated effect that is not associated to any deck channel (just the result of the mix of the channels) and is applied somewhat intelligently if two or more decks are mixed to give the output, and in the best case, you want to apply it on the mixed result.
This is already achievable with master output based effects, especially if it is an internal mixer (master + headphones) setup, or if it is an external mixer setup (e.g. the DJM V10) if it has a FX send/return path for the mixed output result (which I think the DJM V10 has). In the latter case, if you don't have such an FX path you can't really do that much better than smart application per deck due to the software only being able send out specific deck output to specific channels for the mixer to mix itself, and then hope you didn't introduce clipping (which is why it's normally better to let the engineer make the adjustments for the room - they always have the view of final mixed result to adjust before it goes out to the room).
The only thing the request adds is not having to source and add a custom EQ effect yourself on the master output (I believe @Adion stated the master effect application is done with some intelligence in external mixer setups).
发表时间 7 days ago @ 11:53 pm
