TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- M-Audio Torq and Serato
M-Audio Torq and Serato
I know this has been discussed several time, and I don't want to bump an old topic for that 
I know there is this topic found in the FAQ, but at the end, it ends up bitching people.
I'm learning about the digital solutions for DJs. I actually don't have the money for that right now, but I like to learn I know that Serato is the most used in clubs/afterhours, but still, I'm curious about Torq.
What are the differences between Torq and Serato ? It basically does the same thing, but Torq is nearly half the price. Is it because Serato uses a Rane device (and Rane is expensive) ?? I just looked at some videos of Torq and some of Serato and I find Torq's interface more attractive and intuitive. I ain't a scratcher, and I heard that Serato was designed for Scratchers and this is why it has the lowest latency on the market (what they say). Is the latency of Torq that high over Serato ?
Anyone tried these products with CDJs (Denon, Pioneer, etc) ? I know that some functions such as the Master Tempo is having a hard time with Serato. I've seen many users complaining about it. I personnally use CDJ800MK2 (no turntables) and if I get a software, I'd like it to be fully compatible with my CDJs.
I mostly spin Trance, use my EFX and mix 2 songs together a la EQ/faders style, so no need for the latency to be < 0.00001ms. Of course, latency depends on the computer, but if I get a digital solution, I'm getting a MacBook and possibly MacBook Pro.
Overall, this topic is about what you like and dislike about Torq and Serato. If you got some experiences about these products, go ahead. I'm not talking about Final Scratch and other products here, mostly because I've taken a look at them and didn't enjoy them as much as the 2 discussed here.
So keep the thread clean please 
Thanks for the replies !
Neo
I think it prudent to state now that there are advantages and disadvantages to each. I've never used Serato but I own Torq so I'm gonna comment on that.
Advantages I can think of: midi support, advanced accurate looping (no cdj adjusting here), almost 20 sample banks, amputate mode where you can use one cdj and the internal mode together if needed. Configuration presets called "snapshots" accessible at the touch of a button , through midi, mouse, or keyboard, built in effects (say you set an effect or eq or both to give the track a certain effect, like bass cut with a flange for example. You set that to letter "f" on your keyboard and when you press it it sets the gui to that configuration instantly, cool stuff), and more importantly, vst support for endless effect options ( I know you have an efx, but still...). Yes Serato is tried and true by default because it's been on the market for years now, but I have had nothing but excellent performance from Torq from everywhere from my bedroom, to outdoor gigs, to club gigs. Never crashed or froze on me ONCE on my 5 yr old Dell laptop. (I've since gotten a MacBook Pro).
The only real disadvantage I can think of is the browser to search through your tracks is slower than I'd like.
It's important to note that Torq 1.5 is being readied for release. Up until now it's been v. 1.0-1.04. So they're jumping up to 1.5 which is supposed to address most of the issues out there right now, like the browser for one, and being able to lock the decks when a track is playing, among other things.
That's all I can think of right now, but if you haven't already done so, check out the videos at torq-dj.com. The guy in charge of the development of Torq goes through the entire hardware and software, from setup to advanced options.
Serato doesn't have quite the same feature set as torq (effects, sampler, etc), but what it does, it does really well. The file browser is definitely worlds better than Torq, though Torq's isn't terrible either.
The audio interface that comes with Serato is also MUCH better than the Conectiv. It's a metal box, and includes pass-through connections for ease of switching back and forth from vinyl to timecode. Plus, it lets you continue to use the pre-amps in your mixer (if you have a high end unit like a Rane or A+H).
As for using either with CDJ's, the limitations are the same. Anything on the CDJ that would affect audio normally, like master tempo or integrated effects, or the wave display, will not work.
Everything else, hot cues, loops, etc. all work just fine. It's actually a nice (albeit expensive) combo... you get the accuracy of CDJ's with the convenience of having your music at hand.
I'm a Torq user. All other DJs in my city either use CDJs or Serato. It's kind of funny; people talk shit about me using Torq, call me a wack ass, but I just took over a residency at one of the nicer clubs here in Des Moines.
Anyway, I've used both, still use Serato on occasion if I'm guest DJing somewhere. Torq is much more intuitive, much more powerful. The only thing lacking is M-Audio's support.
Both good products And Torq is cheaper.
You really find it more intuitive though?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by djkoolaide I'm a Torq user. All other DJs in my city either use CDJs or Serato. It's kind of funny; people talk shit about me using Torq, call me a wack ass, but I just took over a residency at one of the nicer clubs here in Des Moines. Anyway, I've used both, still use Serato on occasion if I'm guest DJing somewhere. Torq is much more intuitive, much more powerful. The only thing lacking is M-Audio's support. |
One thing I don't understand for CDJs...why affecting the audio will cause Torq or Serato not to work ? Shouldn't the softwares analyse the audio received ? I mean, if I modify the master tempo, isn't the same thing as modifying the tempo itself (which works with these softwares) ?
At the same time, what does timecode mean?
Well, the timecode is the audio on the cd and vinyl. It sounds like a fax machine signal...
The MS Pinky (which is what torq uses) website has a good explanation of this:
http://www.mspinky.com/WreckedSystem_RecordSignal.html
Anything that your CDJ can do to distort the signal will cause the signal to be invalid from the software point of view, such as master tempo or effects.
But you can just turn on key lock in the software to get the same affect.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Neo Hacker One thing I don't understand for CDJs...why affecting the audio will cause Torq or Serato not to work ? Shouldn't the softwares analyse the audio received ? I mean, if I modify the master tempo, isn't the same thing as modifying the tempo itself (which works with these softwares) ? At the same time, what does timecode mean? |
Don't like either- But I like torq less. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Allied Nations Don't like either- But I like torq less. |
Serato is simple, fast, reliable... and expensive... but if you don't care about bells and whistles, you will not find a better timecoded vinyl/cd package out there... imho.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ryan0751 Well, the timecode is the audio on the cd and vinyl. It sounds like a fax machine signal... The MS Pinky (which is what torq uses) website has a good explanation of this: http://www.mspinky.com/WreckedSystem_RecordSignal.html Anything that your CDJ can do to distort the signal will cause the signal to be invalid from the software point of view, such as master tempo or effects. But you can just turn on key lock in the software to get the same affect. |
I don't think they have a demo available for Torq, unfortunately.
Have you guys heard about Deckadance? It's an app from the creators of FL Studio that works with most timecoded stuff. Give the demo a spin.
I'm a previous owner of Torq, and a current user of Serato.
Torq was fine for home use, where I could control the noise in the system. Almost every time I played out with it, it would screw up on me. A dirty needle caused the track to be encoded backwards on the vinyl. Ground hum made torq not read the track at all. A mono deck caused Torq to vary the pitch widely as the track was playing. This stuff among many other occurrences.
I personally know 2 other people who have returned Torq for reasons like this. It just isn't stable enough to be taken into different environments where things aren't always set up just perfectly. I've never had a problem since switching to Serato with anything. I find it much more solid.
I hope M-Audio gets it right with the next update.
Oh... and I disagree with several people here. I liked the music library (or whatever it's called) in Torq better. I find organizing the one in Serato annoying.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by xtr3m Have you guys heard about Deckadance? It's an app from the creators of FL Studio that works with most timecoded stuff. Give the demo a spin. |
Anyone else find the timecode Serato uses to be noticeably more precise than Torq's?
I know Serato has the lowest latency, but it also seems to be just a bit more precise.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mr. Tippy I'm a previous owner of Torq, and a current user of Serato. Torq was fine for home use, where I could control the noise in the system. Almost every time I played out with it, it would screw up on me. A dirty needle caused the track to be encoded backwards on the vinyl. Ground hum made torq not read the track at all. A mono deck caused Torq to vary the pitch widely as the track was playing. This stuff among many other occurrences. I personally know 2 other people who have returned Torq for reasons like this. It just isn't stable enough to be taken into different environments where things aren't always set up just perfectly. I've never had a problem since switching to Serato with anything. I find it much more solid. I hope M-Audio gets it right with the next update. Oh... and I disagree with several people here. I liked the music library (or whatever it's called) in Torq better. I find organizing the one in Serato annoying. |
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do...233e062e21c9d51
| quote: |
| Originally posted by miamitranceman I think it prudent to state now that there are advantages and disadvantages to each. I've never used Serato but I own Torq so I'm gonna comment on that. Advantages I can think of: midi support, advanced accurate looping (no cdj adjusting here), almost 20 sample banks, amputate mode where you can use one cdj and the internal mode together if needed. Configuration presets called "snapshots" accessible at the touch of a button , through midi, mouse, or keyboard, built in effects (say you set an effect or eq or both to give the track a certain effect, like bass cut with a flange for example. You set that to letter "f" on your keyboard and when you press it it sets the gui to that configuration instantly, cool stuff), and more importantly, vst support for endless effect options ( I know you have an efx, but still...). Yes Serato is tried and true by default because it's been on the market for years now, but I have had nothing but excellent performance from Torq from everywhere from my bedroom, to outdoor gigs, to club gigs. Never crashed or froze on me ONCE on my 5 yr old Dell laptop. (I've since gotten a MacBook Pro). The only real disadvantage I can think of is the browser to search through your tracks is slower than I'd like. It's important to note that Torq 1.5 is being readied for release. Up until now it's been v. 1.0-1.04. So they're jumping up to 1.5 which is supposed to address most of the issues out there right now, like the browser for one, and being able to lock the decks when a track is playing, among other things. That's all I can think of right now, but if you haven't already done so, check out the videos at torq-dj.com. The guy in charge of the development of Torq goes through the entire hardware and software, from setup to advanced options. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by amdmaxx http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do...233e062e21c9d51 |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.