TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Paul van Dyk switched to Scratch Live
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by CivicRydr Hahahaha....what a load of bullshit! You should edit your post to say "BTW I love talking outta my ass and making myself sound like I'm better than the rest of you all."

ok listen... I feel terrible to have gave you that impresion.
I will not try to explain to you why the signal moves faster via firewire
and not ubs because its kinda like explaining
why dsl connection is much faster than 56k.

Still though if after carefully examing the 2
you prefer rane and that works better for you, use that.

And you dont have to be rude now... :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Keith Chambers Please don't come out here and state incorrect technical data as fact. Do you think my mouse would react faster if it was a firewire vs usb? Please. Throughput and latency don't have anything in common. If data needed to be queued because USB didn't provide enough throughput there would be more delay. But that doesn't happen with SSL making the added throughput of firewire a moot point.

If you really dont have anything better to do
check he review on the latency issues...
yeaa its faster ,boy you people are stupid!!!!!!

I doubt that the only reason he is using it is because he has some sort of endorsement with them. I think it has to do with him trying new things and he happened to like the idea of using his Mac laptop with all these unreleased tracks/reworks and without carrying chunks of vinyl around, while still getting quality sound. I've read where he clearly stated that he's known other djs to have many technical issues with Final Scratch, however, he's never encountered a single one, and he believes it has to do with it him using it with a Mac, instead of PC. he also says he converts all his waves and cds to 16 bit aiff digital files when spinning on final scratch... he said he doesn't like the cheap sound of mp3.

quote:

Originally posted by harriz ok listen... I feel terrible to have gave you that impresion. I will not try to explain to you why the signal moves faster via firewire and not ubs because its kinda like explaining why dsl connection is much faster than 56k. Still though if after carefully examing the 2 you prefer rane and that works better for you, use that. And you dont have to be rude now... :-)

One tip, before you begin to talk out of you ass about how much you know, be sure you know what your talking about and by the way... It's called USB not UBS! Drivers and software also play a major part in how it performs. From my experience NI/Stanton's is a major resource hog. Also, when FS2 first came out i had a client that had major stability issues, i tried everything from reinstalling the os, different drivers, every possiable xp tweak, and it ended up being Fs2 didn't like the via chipset firewire card that was integrated in his laptop. I had a hard time getting a Ti chipset based pcmcia card from our distributors which worked ok.

You seem like a smart ass customer that would buy a mobo from my shop and go on about how much you know, but you would bring it home and fuck it up... "It's not my fault, i just screwed it in, wahhh!!!!"

i got a long day ahead of me now...


btw, ssl 1.4 and 1.3 has even less lag for needle droping than the previous versions, making it feel much better.

quote:

Originally posted by harriz ok listen... I feel terrible to have gave you that impresion. I will not try to explain to you why the signal moves faster via firewire and not ubs because its kinda like explaining why dsl connection is much faster than 56k. Still though if after carefully examing the 2 you prefer rane and that works better for you, use that. And you dont have to be rude now... :-)

I don't want to beat a dead horse here but even your analogy is wrong. But I assume you know that and that is why you are not going to try to explain it to us.

I assume you're talking about 56k dialup vs DSL. With 56k dial up the data is being converted to analog sound by a modem and then bad to digital data on the other site. This is where the latency in 56k dialup comes from.

If you had a 56k frame relay circuit which is pure pre digital and 768k DSL -- and you were transmitting a 20kbps stream the latency would be the same. The latency would only be greater on the 56k link if you were exceeding 56k of throughput. In that case data would be queued.

The entire point is that SSL doesn't exceed the throughput available for USB so using firewire or USB2 has no advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by Keith Chambers I don't want to beat a dead horse here but even your analogy is wrong. But I assume you know that and that is why you are not going to try to explain it to us. I assume you're talking about 56k dialup vs DSL. With 56k dial up the data is being converted to analog sound by a modem and then bad to digital data on the other site. This is where the latency in 56k dialup comes from. If you had a 56k frame relay circuit which is pure pre digital and 768k DSL -- and you were transmitting a 20kbps stream the latency would be the same. The latency would only be greater on the 56k link if you were exceeding 56k of throughput. In that case data would be queued. The entire point is that SSL doesn't exceed the throughput available for USB so using firewire or USB2 has no advantage.

shit.son.

quote:

Originally posted by harriz stanton final sc.2- firewire rane serato - ubs there are in a different class. serano is a fun bedroom toy Even if the mighty plastikman the most technical dj on earth switches to it you cant change this fact: firewire is faster then ubs faster means quicker responce quicker responce means closer to anolog closer to analog means better djing if your computer is up for fs2 no matter who endorses serato ud be just wasting your money. Now if your computer is not up for it well serato/pcdj/mixsoftware u name it is your next option. ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by harriz ok listen... I feel terrible to have gave you that impresion. I will not try to explain to you why the signal moves faster via firewire and not ubs because its kinda like explaining why dsl connection is much faster than 56k. Still though if after carefully examing the 2 you prefer rane and that works better for you, use that. And you dont have to be rude now... :-)

Buddy, I wouldn't be rude if you didn't come off like such a one-sided wanker. Look at how you are writing, and making point after point like you are the authority on this shit. "closer to analog means bettter DJing" ??? BTW, I use CDJ1000s and CDs (all digital manipulation), so you can see why am offended.

------------------

You are right that Firewire is faster than USB1. You are right that the latency or response is faster also. But if you look at the data rate which is required of these DJ systems, they only need to send audio and time code, which with USB1 at 1.5MB/s should be enough. And as for the response time, it is good enough that you can't notice a delay.

Using your analogy, it would be like sending a text file over 56k vs. DSL. You wouldn't notice a difference. Therefore I feel that your claim that FS2 & SSL are "in a different class" based on how their digital data is transmited has no merit.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CivicRydr
Buddy, I wouldn't be rude if you didn't come off like such a one-sided wanker. Look at how you are writing, and making point after point like you are the authority on this shit. "closer to analog means bettter DJing" ??? BTW, I use CDJ1000s and CDs (all digital manipulation), so you can see why am offended.

------------------

Hey no offence im sorry..
I own one cdj1000 and
the responce is great and its better than
fs2 or rane .
infact I am using it to learn how to scratch.
I dont play hiphop but
i would like to learn some basic scratches
to scratch vocal parts over downtempo /trip hop
which I like to spin.

My english isn't that good (second language)
so I keep giving the wrong impression to people.

My only consern with the cdj 1000 is the way
you pichbend.
I rarely make mistakes using vinyl
but with that I sometimes do when manually adjusting.

I am saving for a second one to get used to spinning with them.
I am not sure though if its a right choice and just a matter of getting used to using
the jog.
do you think its a good investment?

again I am sorry to have offended you.

Off-Topic, but thats the trend...

---------

Another CDJ1000 a good investment?

It really depends if you're going to be using alot of CDs. Like many of the other DJs, I feel that this software with time-code manipulation on a turntable is the way to go. A laptop and a box is smaller than a stack of CDs or records. (but I guess that really matters only if you are a mobile DJ)

That being said, I only use CDJ1000s. I'm so used to them. I have all my cue points & loops in memory. Scratching is great (it never skips). I love the digital read outs, especially the tempo. As for the pitch bend, I find the CDJ1000 is way better than other CD units, although not as nice as the "feel" you get on a turntable. The CDJ1000 pitch bend is not overly sensitive and therefore you can really fine tune the position of your music. So if you used alot of CDs, and you are okay with carrying them, I think the CDJ1000 is best choice due to all its digital features and the fact that the music won't skip (well unless you are PvD playing End Kiss at Ultra 2003).

---------

On-topic...

Why I'm interested in SSL & FS2 is that I have 2 1200s that are just collecting dust. Also all my music comes from MP3s. I'm too cheap/poor to buy vinyl and CDs. I get bored of songs so quickly that I'd be spending a fortune doing it the "right" way. I also do a couple of parties each year with a wide variety of music genres.

In my situation, using SSL or FS2 would be perfect for the resources and needs I have.

Does any one know the proper term that is used for systems such as SSL & FS2? (or what would you call it?)

Paul using SSL in Dallas...

quote:

Originally posted by CivicRydr Off-Topic, but thats the trend... --------- Why I'm interested in SSL & FS2 is that I have 2 1200s that are just collecting dust. Also all my music comes from MP3s. I'm too cheap/poor to buy vinyl and CDs. I get bored of songs so quickly that I'd be spending a fortune doing it the "right" way. I also do a couple of parties each year with a wide variety of music genres. In my situation, using SSL or FS2 would be perfect for the resources and needs I have. Does any one know the proper term that is used for systems such as SSL & FS2? (or what would you call it?)

well I know what you mean me skill got alot
better when I got that thing cause music can be so cheap/free
and it feels like you have a fresh record box any given time of day
not to mention rare classics of the genre/style you spin.
and vinyl is dying
but:
other older djs/promoters having spent a fortune on collecting vinyl
tend to not respect laptop djs and dont forget they are the people in charge...
and
nicking for the music makes you filter out the medeocre releases.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Major advantage of sfs is that it works with tractor and
you can mark your tracks and program easilly
(the in and out points of the mix)
It sounds sharper than ssl though which is a major disadvantage
changing rca cables to monster cable will make a significant
difference to the sound but still it is kinda sharp at its ideal
setting.
If you are familiar to tractor like I was you will feel right at home.
the pitch resolution of both software is great.

I have had no problems with FS1.5 or 2.0. I've used them both extensively at no less than 3hrs daily for quite some time.

I am very interested to test out the RANE SSL just to see how it compares and why one would actually switch from something they put so much effort into promoting in the first place.

I'm quite interested actually.

Ive owned FS1, FS2 and SSL.

SSL is the only one I still use.

quote:

Originally posted by Ludikruz Ive owned FS1, FS2 and SSL. SSL is the only one I still use.

Please explain to me why you think ssl is better?

What is it about fs2 you didnt like?
Is the time code more accurate?
Thats my only consern when digital djing. Percition.
Thats often lost in the digital world.
Technics pioneered acurate decks for years.

thank you :-)

quote:

Originally posted by harriz Please explain to me why you think ssl is better? What is it about fs2 you didnt like? Is the time code more accurate? Thats my only consern when digital djing. Percition. Thats often lost in the digital world. Technics pioneered acurate decks for years. thank you :-)

Maybe because Serato Scratch just works, whereas a number of people have had difficulties getting Final Scratch to work.

Regarding the timecode issue, let's see if there is any advantage to using Firewire (like Final Scratch) instead of USB (like Serato Scratch). Suppose we want to timecode every sample in 15 minutes of DVD Audio (96 kHz sampling rate). The total number of samples is (96 000 samples/second) x (15 minutes) x (60 seconds/minute) = 86 400 000 samples. Now if we want to assign an integer timecode to each sample, we need to allocate log2(86 400 000) = 26.3 bits/sample. Just to be safe, let's allocate a few bits for error correction, so let's say 32 bits/sample. Then the bitrate for the timecode is (32 bits/sample) x (96 000 samples/second) = 3 072 000 bits/second, or about 3.1 megabits/second. This is well below the 12 megabit/second bandwidth of USB, and Firewire is just overkill.

quote:

Originally posted by [NFC]Wave This I didn't know. Interesting to hear his reasoning on doing so from Final Scratch, especially with FS2.0 released now.

there prolle pay'n him more

quote:

Originally posted by las3rjock Regarding the timecode issue, let's see if there is any advantage to using Firewire (like Final Scratch) instead of USB (like Serato Scratch). Suppose we want to timecode every sample in 15 minutes of DVD Audio (96 kHz sampling rate). The total number of samples is (96 000 samples/second) x (15 minutes) x (60 seconds/minute) = 86 400 000 samples. Now if we want to assign an integer timecode to each sample, we need to allocate log2(86 400 000) = 26.3 bits/sample. Just to be safe, let's allocate a few bits for error correction, so let's say 32 bits/sample. Then the bitrate for the timecode is (32 bits/sample) x (96 000 samples/second) = 3 072 000 bits/second, or about 3.1 megabits/second. This is well below the 12 megabit/second bandwidth of USB, and Firewire is just overkill.

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

jeeze this argument is still going on. i suggest everyone jsut let people use what they like

I saw Paul at the Cream Amnesia opening party and he appeared to be using CDRs for the most part. Has he been having trouble with this new software?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Dingel I saw Paul at the Cream Amnesia opening party and he appeared to be using CDRs for the most part. Has he been having trouble with this new software?

Ahhhh! That's good to hear. I used love it when I saw Paul throw in a CD. Partly because I use CDJ1000s, and mostly because I knew it would be something new, not yet pressed.

I hope there are no problems with SSL and I hope Paul has run out of hard drive space for the latest tunes and is playing them (finally).

FS2.0 does not work probably. it glitched on Paul a few times during WMC. Stanton engineers from Ft. Lauderdale were trying to figure out the problem without success.

Some time in April Paul switched to SSL and have not had a problem with it afaik. He still uses the same notebook (powerbook g4) which would not work with FS.

I'm pretty sure I read Paul was being sponsored by Stanton, but nothing about getting actually paid for using the product.

hope this helps.

quote:

Originally posted by CivicRydr Ahhhh! That's good to hear. I used love it when I saw Paul throw in a CD. Partly because I use CDJ1000s, and mostly because I knew it would be something new, not yet pressed. I hope there are no problems with SSL and I hope Paul has run out of hard drive space for the latest tunes and is playing them (finally).

So at this show here in Seattle there was basically nothing between the PVD and the crowd. Since I own the Rane 2016, CDJs and SSL it was pretty much able to follow everything he was doing technically. (I think.) I noticed some pretty interesting things.



During the break down I am pretty sure (95%) he mixed the sound of a crowd cheering in from the CDJ. The reason I think this is that I have noticed that some of the tracks he plays have the sound of cheers pre-mixed in. Listen to 'Just For a Day' in any of his sets. The same crowd is ALWAYS there during the break down. So he has a history of doing it. Also, when I looked at the BPM count on the CDJ and it was in the 260's. I've mixed a couple effects in with CDJs and crazy BPMs are normal on non-beat tracks. Additionally I thought I could hear it but then again the place was going insane.

He did play a few CDs which he pulled out of Vandit 'Promo' branded cardboard CD cases. I thought it was odd -- why not just play them from SSL? But as the night went on he basically moved only to SSL. I think the last hour had maybe one CD and the rest was all SSL.

I also noticed that he would slightly drop the mid over a 32 beat count and then slam it back it. On a big system this reinforces the kick and sounds wicked. Nice little trick.

At some point during the show water (or a drink) flew all over the playing SSL record. Paul had a 'oh shit' look on his face and I was kinda surprised he didn't switch to internal mode. (Later in the night he switch to internal mode a couple time to clean the dust of the needles so he knows about it and all.) SSL didn't flinch at all. I continued to track just fine. I was impressed. He let the track play out, cleaned it off on his shirt and then when on mixing.

Outside of PVD I am happy that FS is out there. Competition is good although honestly it doesn't seem like the Serato/Rane people even pay much attention to FS. But still, I wouldn't want to see FS go away.

Keith

One thing I've always wondered with programs like SSL and FS, what if you are playing a set using it on your TTs, and you decide to chuck on a 'real' record, can you still play normal records thorugh it?

Or once you use the program are you stuck with using it unless you unhook and plug the TT into the mixer?

you can still use regular vinyl.

SSL and FS run on the line in's of the mixer's channels. if u want to use regular vinyl on 1 (or both) of the turntables just flick its channel over to phono.

UBS?

Its USB, my friend. Not UBS, the bank.. LOL

Couple of facts too.
Fire-wire 800 is the only fastr than USB. USB 2 is faster than non-powered firewire. I use ABLETON LIVE on USB.

The last time I checked, PVD was definitely using FS 2. So, I'm not even sure if this could be a hoax thread to start with ?

quote:

Originally posted by harriz stanton final sc.2- firewire rane serato - ubs there are in a different class. serano is a fun bedroom toy Even if the mighty plastikman the most technical dj on earth switches to it you cant change this fact: firewire is faster then ubs faster means quicker responce quicker responce means closer to anolog closer to analog means better djing if your computer is up for fs2 no matter who endorses serato ud be just wasting your money. Now if your computer is not up for it well serato/pcdj/mixsoftware u name it is your next option. ;-)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.