|
Final Scratch 2 Question
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJChrisB |
So, I am selling my DJM-600 and this dude is offering me a cash + trade deal. For the trade part, he's offering Final Scratch 2 in great condition. I've used Serato quite a bit and briefly had Final Scratch 1 back in the day. I'm a big fan of Serato but didn't like the original FS. Since I have not used FS2 I was wondering if anyone has experience on this and what they think about it compared to Serato. Also, I'm not entirely sure how the technology works from a hardware perspective, so I'm wondering if I can use the Final Scratch hardware to control Serato. I imagine that is unlikely, but thought I'd ask anyway.
Thanks! |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| I'd pass on FS 2, based on what I've heard. Go with Torq or Serato if you're thinking in that direction. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJChrisB
So, I am selling my DJM-600 and this dude is offering me a cash + trade deal. For the trade part, he's offering Final Scratch 2 in great condition. I've used Serato quite a bit and briefly had Final Scratch 1 back in the day. I'm a big fan of Serato but didn't like the original FS. Since I have not used FS2 I was wondering if anyone has experience on this and what they think about it compared to Serato. Also, I'm not entirely sure how the technology works from a hardware perspective, so I'm wondering if I can use the Final Scratch hardware to control Serato. I imagine that is unlikely, but thought I'd ask anyway.
Thanks! |
No you can't use final scratch to control serato. The timecodes are different.
Also know that final scratch 2 is a discontinued product.
Final scratch needed too much horsepower from the computer to run. It was way too consuming for the laptops to handle. So freezes, pops clicks where the norm unless you hooked it up to fast computer like a loaded G5.
But the hardware was quite nice. Real convertor chips that cost real money to make plus the ability to record your set.
Serato while using the cheap codex convertors had better software emulation. It did sound a bit cheaper than final scratch 2 but the software vinyl emulation was more realistic and the unit was far more reliable for live mixing.
Note that serato is the maker of the industry standard timestretching algorithm pitch and time that until recently was Pro tools HD only.
So they put on the table something that always worked and that was cheap to make and buy and they won!
Stanton and NI are no longer partners final scratch 2 is a dead stock project. |
|
|
| dJohn |
I've used FS1 and FS2, and FS2 is a big improvement. I've never used Serato, so I can't argue for or against FS2 vs Serato....
BUT, FS2 rarely crashes on my laptop(Powerbook G4, a pathetic 256 MBs, and less that 10% of disk space left), and every once in a while you can hear errors, pops, and clicks, but very minimal for the most part. All in all, it's great for what it is, but Serato seems to set the standard when it comes to live performances and reliability, from what I see and hear.
Existo, could you elaborate on the technicalities of the hardware? I never knew that FS hardware was more "expensive" not just in terms of shelf price... |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dJohn
I've used FS1 and FS2, and FS2 is a big improvement. I've never used Serato, so I can't argue for or against FS2 vs Serato....
BUT, FS2 rarely crashes on my laptop(Powerbook G4, a pathetic 256 MBs, and less that 10% of disk space left), and every once in a while you can hear errors, pops, and clicks, but very minimal for the most part. All in all, it's great for what it is, but Serato seems to set the standard when it comes to live performances and reliability, from what I see and hear.
Existo, could you elaborate on the technicalities of the hardware? I never knew that FS hardware was more "expensive" not just in terms of shelf price... |
I have owened and used both! Final scratch 2 uses 2 stand allone Digital to analog 24 bit convertor chips that while they are not the best chips they are way better than the serato consumer grade Codex ones!
To my ears final scratch 2 sounded and felt a bit more expensive!
The analog stage had a signal to noise ratio above 105 db.
Another good thing about it was the timecode resoltution. While for sratching purposes
it wasn't the most realistic the pitch resolution was down to 0.01 even better than the cdj1000. It was as acurrate as the technics deck! As long as the tracks where mixed the stayed mixed for as long as vinyl stays!
Another good thing where the thick records. These where ideal for finetuning during the mix.
What didn't work was the key lock. As long as the key lock was on mixing records impossible. But that was never a issue as I kept that off.
Another good feature was the midi.
You could asighn a midi controller to the box and ditch having a mixer all together.
So one may ask if this is the product had so many features why did they split with NI and put the development on hold.
A - It had much of a bad name from the first final scratch that while a good idea it was far from complete.
B - It cost too much to make so less money to advertise. Less money to advertise - less superstar djs use it live. Less superstar djs use it live - Less people want it.
C - It cost too much to make so less develop and support - Less develop and support more problems - More problems - Less people want it.
I do not have turntables anymore but miss final scratch more than any other dj product ever. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
I have owened and used both! Final scratch 2 uses 2 stand allone Digital to analog 24 bit convertor chips that while they are not the best chips they are way better than the serato consumer grade Codex ones!
To my ears final scratch 2 sounded and felt a bit more expensive!
The analog stage had a signal to noise ratio above 105 db.
Another good thing about it was the timecode resoltution. While for sratching purposes
it wasn't the most realistic the pitch resolution was down to 0.01 even better than the cdj1000. It was as acurrate as the technics deck! As long as the tracks where mixed the stayed mixed for as long as vinyl stays!
Another good thing where the thick records. These where ideal for finetuning during the mix.
What didn't work was the key lock. As long as the key lock was on mixing records impossible. But that was never a issue as I kept that off.
Another good feature was the midi.
You could asighn a midi controller to the box and ditch having a mixer all together.
So one may ask if this is the product had so many features why did they split with NI and put the development on hold.
A - It had much of a bad name from the first final scratch that while a good idea it was far from complete.
B - It cost too much to make so less money to advertise. Less money to advertise - less superstar djs use it live. Less superstar djs use it live - Less people want it.
C - It cost too much to make so less develop and support - Less develop and support more problems - More problems - Less people want it.
I do not have turntables anymore but miss final scratch more than any other dj product ever. |
good analysis, i feel the same way about FS2 and own it, and have used fs1 as well.
tried serato the other day, it's cool, i just dont like this technology.... not for me right now, regardless of who's making it. |
|
|
| DJChrisB |
| quote: | Originally posted by Existo22
I have owened and used both! Final scratch 2 uses 2 stand allone Digital to analog 24 bit convertor chips that while they are not the best chips they are way better than the serato consumer grade Codex ones!
To my ears final scratch 2 sounded and felt a bit more expensive!
The analog stage had a signal to noise ratio above 105 db.
Another good thing about it was the timecode resoltution. While for sratching purposes
it wasn't the most realistic the pitch resolution was down to 0.01 even better than the cdj1000. It was as acurrate as the technics deck! As long as the tracks where mixed the stayed mixed for as long as vinyl stays!
Another good thing where the thick records. These where ideal for finetuning during the mix.
What didn't work was the key lock. As long as the key lock was on mixing records impossible. But that was never a issue as I kept that off.
Another good feature was the midi.
You could asighn a midi controller to the box and ditch having a mixer all together.
So one may ask if this is the product had so many features why did they split with NI and put the development on hold.
A - It had much of a bad name from the first final scratch that while a good idea it was far from complete.
B - It cost too much to make so less money to advertise. Less money to advertise - less superstar djs use it live. Less superstar djs use it live - Less people want it.
C - It cost too much to make so less develop and support - Less develop and support more problems - More problems - Less people want it.
I do not have turntables anymore but miss final scratch more than any other dj product ever. |
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed analsysi Existo. |
|
|
|
|
