|
Torq's issue.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| yogi bear |
short: torq cannot hold a loop
I think i found one bug in the program. Can someone try this.
Put your cdj to the vinyl mode.
create a loop, let say four bar (create the loop on your cdj not in the program)
Start doing backspins or "front spins" but really fast
What supposed to happen your track supposed to "leave" the loop but once your cdj slows down it will get back to the loop.
If you have torq, could you check it.
btw. i have cdj800mk2s |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| quote: | Originally posted by yogi bear
short: torq cannot hold a loop
I think i found one bug in the program. Can someone try this.
Put your cdj to the vinyl mode.
create a loop, let say four bar (create the loop on your cdj not in the program)
Start doing backspins or "front spins" but really fast
What supposed to happen your track supposed to "leave" the loop but once your cdj slows down it will get back to the loop.
If you have torq, could you check it.
btw. i have cdj800mk2s |
I haven't had any problems with it, but honestly, I really don't use the CDJ looping feature anymore. I think it might be one of those things that screws up the timecode (like master tempo). Have you tried Torq's looping? It's 10x better than the CDJ's. You can tweak the looping in the prefs menu to have it set loops by bars or beats. I use it all the time. |
|
|
| nousplacidus |
May I ask why you would use torq with CDJ's. Is it the effects?
I don't own the program, but I have always been curious about this. |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| The main reason I use it is it eliminates the need to burn cds which, for me, was a big hassle. I just boot up my laptop and have all my tracks organized there. Plus, yeah, you get effects and looping that is more accurate than CDJ looping. |
|
|
| yogi bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitranceman
The main reason I use it is it eliminates the need to burn cds which, for me, was a big hassle. I just boot up my laptop and have all my tracks organized there. Plus, yeah, you get effects and looping that is more accurate than CDJ looping. |
thats the same reason why im using cdjs along with torq, there is no need to burn cds, and if you need something quickly its right here.
I've used torq looping and it is really good but when i try to put some efx(i use efx from my dxm06 mixer) i would rather use looping on cdjs(why, i dont know)
I still havent read the manual to torq(lol) so i dont know how to use efx. i should start reading it |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| quote: | Originally posted by yogi bear
thats the same reason why im using cdjs along with torq, there is no need to burn cds, and if you need something quickly its right here.
I've used torq looping and it is really good but when i try to put some efx(i use efx from my dxm06 mixer) i would rather use looping on cdjs(why, i dont know)
I still havent read the manual to torq(lol) so i dont know how to use efx. i should start reading it |
Haha yeah you should. There's some good stuff in there! |
|
|
| yogi bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitranceman
Haha yeah you should. There's some good stuff in there! |
yeah im going to do it |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| Not to turn this into a big Torque vs. burning CDs debate but I feel that the CDJ + Torque combo is a waste if you aren't going to burn CDs to use. I think your better bet is some audio controller that works like a CDJ. They have some out there that are close to one, but they really should make more that truly feel/look like a CDJ. The CDJ 800 MK2, the CDJ 1000 MK3 and the CDJ 200 all have MP3 disc playing features (and so do ones like the Denon DN-S3500) so that can save having to burn a bunch of CDs, probably why they added that feature. Just my two cents. I guess it might be cool, but I don't always want to turn on a computer when I go to mix. I have an old MP3 player which I use to record and works just fine. But I can see Torque being used with TTs, considering vinyl is expensive and not being pressed as often. CD-Rs and MP3s are fairly inexpensive. |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| I don't know man. I mean, even with mp3 support for my 800s, I was burning piles and piles of cds, having to pre plan what I wanted to spin. When it's all in your HD, you can mix things up on the fly or be reminded of a long lost track in your collection just by scrolling through your library. At least, that's the feeling I get. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitranceman
I don't know man. I mean, even with mp3 support for my 800s, I was burning piles and piles of cds, having to pre plan what I wanted to spin. When it's all in your HD, you can mix things up on the fly or be reminded of a long lost track in your collection just by scrolling through your library. At least, that's the feeling I get. |
Yeah I mean once I get a laptop with bluetooth, that might make more sense and save money on burning CDs. But I kind of like making CDs. I guess I don't download music that often. I'm kind of selective. I used to download like $100 a month, now i've cut it to about $50 or $60. So I don't go through CDs as often. |
|
|
| tintin11 |
| I'd get torq... if it wasn't for there issue with switching from using digital tracks to original vinyl... everyone says the gain on records is low... So I'm either saving for serato or waiting for M-Audio to deal with the conetiv issue. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
Yeah I mean once I get a laptop with bluetooth, that might make more sense and save money on burning CDs. But I kind of like making CDs. I guess I don't download music that often. I'm kind of selective. I used to download like $100 a month, now i've cut it to about $50 or $60. So I don't go through CDs as often. |
what would you use bluetooth for? |
|
|
|
|
