|
Paul van Dyk switched to Scratch Live (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by akkare
Complete bull, buy a clue. |
I rest my case... |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by CivicRydr
Hahahaha....what a load of bull! 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... :-) |
|
|
| harriz |
| 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!!!!!! |
|
|
| bachatu |
| 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. |
|
|
| dj chex |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Keith Chambers |
| 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. |
|
|
| jupiterone |
| 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. |
.son. |
|
|
| CivicRydr |
| 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 . "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. |
|
|
| harriz |
[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 . "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. |
|
|
| CivicRydr |
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?) |
|
|
| CivicRydr |
Paul using SSL in Dallas...
 |
|
|
| harriz |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
