Given that everyone here seems to have different opinions regarding what is or isn't sufficient to run Serato well (processor-wise, as the RAM memory issue is more cut and dried), I have a few questions I'd love to hear an answer to. Perhaps one of the Serato folks could weigh in here.

Let's start with this...Serato's minimum PC specs haven't changed in at least two (I'd speculate 3) years. In fact, I'm not sure if they've ever changed the listed minimum specs since the product was first released. Through all the version updates going back to at least 1.7.2, the minimum specs haven't changed, even up to 1.9.1.

So, we currently have the minimum for a PC listed at "1.5 ghz Intel processor".

I'd say further clarification is in order. Are we talking about a 1.5 ghz Pentium 4, a 1.5 ghz Celeron , a 1.5ghz Pentium M, 1.5 ghz Pentium D, a 1.5 ghz Core Duo or a 1.5 ghz Core 2 Duo? Obviously all of these processors perform at different levels, although they all have the same ghz rating, right? I've personally played several flawless 8 hour sets off of an old, old 1.8 ghz single core Pentium D (its does have 2GB RAM), and while I would never depend on that rig for a paying gig, it raises the issue of what the minimum spec really means.

Also, I'm curious as to the value of the second (or even the third and fourth core, as we're just starting to see mobile quad core processors being released). I'm going out on a limb here, but Serato seems to have the ability to take advantage of a second core for processing files/ building overviews (a single core computer can only process one file at a time, whereas a dual core can process two at a time). That said, is a 1.66 or 1.73 ghz dual core barely above minimum spec, or can Serato take advantage of the second core (running "live" with a 57 or SL box connected), making the dual core a machine that is well above minimum spec?

It depends on the performance expectations you expect out of SSL, if you're happy to run high latency other settings low I'd say even lower end computers COULD run scratch live.

In my books the realistic SSL minimum is a 2.0ghz dual core+2gb RAM for high end performance. The issue with latency is it can be affected by lots of variables that you will never see written on a spec sheet, generally it just is referred to as build quality.

As far as the processors go, that's an interesting question. Technically a dual 1.6ghz is not a 3.2ghz processor. It can run to close to that effect if you have properly written multi-threaded programs. I would not expect when serato is running in 'live' mode it would be using multi-threads. Someone from serato should be able to comment on this though.

Bump.

Jumping in here late in the day - one thing I don't seem to be able to find an answer to is whether or not Serato Scratch Live is multi-threaded (can make use of multiple cores simultaneously).

If it cannot, then you're actually better off going for an older single core processor with a high clock rating over a quad core with a four lesser cores. You could argue that a dual core would have increase benefits as one core could be used for 'everything else', configuring one core to prioritize Serato only,

Anyone from Rane have any comments?

A multi-core processor definitely comes in handy when building overviews -- Scratch Live will build two overviews at a time on a dual core processor, but only one at a time on a single core processor (I've not had the chance to test it out on a quad-core machine).

Looking at Scratch Live 1.9.2 running on Win7 x64 and playing two files at the same time, it's running 18 different threads.

So, yes, it is multi-threaded.

Looking at it more closely, each deck looks like it's a separate thread.

Once again, I have to think that this is a point the Rane/ Serato people should clarify for the public.

If the program can truly use both cores, then a dual core Intel processor of 1.5 ghz or greater should be able to run Serato with processing power to spare. That was always indicated in my Task Manger, as my 1.66 ghz Core 2 Duo was usually drawing no more than 20% of the available processing power whilst running Serato, yet many individuals on this forum were claiming that this processor was grossly underpowered and inadequate.

So, moderators/ staffers, could we get a bit of insight on this subject?

Hi Strom,

I'm running Win 7 x64 on all my PCs but my DJing laptop - who does it handle Serato? I'm a bit nervous about running that setup on a production system!

If its running a thread per core this is a slight advantage but not huge as 50% of the time you're not playing something on both decks simultanouesly. I want to start mixing video soon and so the performance factor becomes critical at that point.

J H - is your Core 2 Duo a single or dual core (despite the name it comes in single core flavours)?

Apologies JH - have since realized you put "Duo" (the 'Core 2' bit covers single, dual and quad cores) so I guess you have two cores. Have you been running any video on it by any chance?

i play since 2 year with an old laptop: hp pentium M 1,73 with 2 go of Ram. Starting with 1.7.2 and now with 1.9.2, i can play with my midi controller or CD players without any problems. My USB Buffer is on 4. At an USB Buffer of 3, my usb LED lights sometimes but not at 4

This is how it is done

www.youtube.com view

wonderfull powerrrrrrrrrrrr lol

dell inspiron, intel core solo 1.66ghz 504 mb of ram. I can run ssl, 500 gb ext and a midi controller with out any problems. now that's minimum lol but i've shut everything off that i can and use it strictly for djing and surfing the web.

That doesn´t go together very well.

fixed

how else am i going to download new music ^^^dingus lol haven't heard anybody use that term in awhile

Download it on your desktop machine, then transfer it over on an SD card or something.

And scan them for viruses! Digiwax tried to install a virus on my machine. No joke

I also go on the web with my laptop but not during a gig. I got antivirus and Firewall on.
Surfing with it when i mix with SSL causes Usb dropout. So when i'm mixing, i disable all network devices.

So the question remains I guess - is SSL truly multi-threaded? Is a quad core going to be better than a dual core?

I can't believe no one from Rane has piped up here with a definitive answer!

write them a pm. They will answer quickly.
Don´t think they can read on the forum every day for hours.

Hey guys,

Yes, Scratch Live is multi threaded :)

I'm using a HP Dv7 Quad Core, 4 g Ram. 1TB hard drive.
CPU: Q9000 - running at 2 GHz
Running Windows 7, 64 bit
I had it for almost 9 mths
Its Wonderful !!!
I DJ with it almost every weekend and it has never let me down.
It definitely uses all 4 cores for processing files/ building overviews .

Will I get even better performance with the new i7 processors ???
Is there any limit to the number of threads Scratch L will use??
Finally what are the requirements for running Abelton & Scratch together via "the Bridge"???

i have a pc with:
2ghz cpu
1.2 gb ram
40gb harddrive
running windows xp pro sp3

will this be good enought for serato?

thanks

I was wondering...If they apply latency compensation (or what ever it's called:) into scratch live we could achieve 0 ms latency? Ableton has this option. I am not exactly sure if I'm right with this one

ups sorry driver error compensation

In response to Perry07 .
I think you will just scrape by.

The CPU speed is OK,
Hard drive size isnt so impt I think ... though a faster one would be useful
The RAM is just enough though is it possible to up that spec?
.. when i first started using serato (version 1.5 i think), it ran with half a gig of ram without a hitch. I wouldnt do that now.
The requirements must have increased as the software has gotten more complex.
Try running serato with Windows task Manager open ... you can see for yourself
The CPU usage, Memory usage, etc
I did this on the weekend while playing at a gig.
I was only running Serato ..
CPU was usually below 30% and the RAM never went over 1 gig.
I had 3 gigs to spare.

ok no worries, im definatly gona upgrade my hard drive to a 500gb 7200rpm 16mb cache, & put another 1gig in so it would be:
2ghz cpu
2gb ram
500gb hard drive
will this be good enought then?
thanks for you reply dj strangelove

Hi Perry,
It sounds good mate.
The 7200rpm drive should speed things up alot.
All computers are only as "fast" as the slowest component.
I think my hard drives ( which run at 54000rpm) are a weakness.
Just remember though that the faster drives generate more heat which might be a problem in a steamy nightclub. Maybe you can use a laptop cooling fan to keep things running sweet.:-)

Re: multiple cores --- it looks like serato uses all the cores while running.
If you run Task Manager and open the" Performance Tab" you will see graphs of each core - definitely activity in all of them.

Finally, I experience a slight (a fraction of a second) freezing of the screen when I run a search through my song database.
This is most pronunced when I have 2 tracks running and someone requests a song.
Hitting "Control F" freezes the two spining platters momentary.
Has anyone else noticed this problem??

Could the solution lie in reducing the Maxium Screen Updates ?

Jay, my 17" MBP does the same thing...did you ever figure out a solution to this?

Hi, Im still getting a slight freezing of the spinning platters.
I have no idea whether this is a safety mechanism built into serato.
I have a big database of songs - about 25,000 - Ive been trying to reduce this size by removing duplicated files, etc.

Possibly more ram may fix this issue (I currently have 4G).
Or maybe a graphics card with more memory ???

Love to hear from the serato guys