+1

What benefit would we get apart from a memory allocation of more than 4GB?

We shouldn't be hitting anywhere near that with our systems so I can't see the need, unless I've missed something?

agree with Mr Wilks
I think main power comes from CPU, than RAM, so even with *6GB and 2.5GHz* you wouldn't be able to squeeze more from SDJ then on *2GB and 3.4GHz*

SDJ is having problems with big libraries. The whole conversation and detailed background for this request you can read here: serato.com

I wouldn't mind support for 64 bit machines but I feel they need to find a way to get Serato streamlined to adequately work with under 4GB of RAM as that's just excessive.

I have 6GB of RAM on my machine but I dare say most people are running 4GB as standard? That means the software is running on the verge of what PC's are coming installed with at the moment.

4GB is still the norm to find in a laptop from new. To be running at nearly that is a stretch.
I think they should be looking at getting the memory use down as a priority as running on a backup machine that has less memory would be problematic.

I have an Acer with 4GB as a backup and to run that on the verge of what the program is capable doesn't leave me comfortable.

I would like to see a 64bit version but think they are stretched enough as it is when it comes to coding. Optimise the data in the database and we won't need to have a super-duper machine just to manage a database with a larger library. Hopefully they will rewrite for 64bit someday.

Yes we definitely need that... to avoid the memory leak.. The more innovative the software gets, the more the memory it needed. Specially on MIDI, where the the computer process the sound compared to timecode/dvs.. In SDJ now, if the memory usage exceeded at 1.5, audio drop out will occur. And in the long run Memory Usage is inevitable..

If SDJ can use more memory then it cache whole song to ram like traktor do.
that would literally kill drop outs.

+1

+1

To be honest, I'm not sure this has to do with the range of products from Serato being a 32-bit application so much as it has to do with there being a bug in every single one of them with regards to database management.

The serato software is getting more and more advanced with tons of new functions, effects, etc. Sooner or later they need to build a 64bit version as these new features also need more and more RAM memory. Now they have problems reading large databases because the RAM memory can't handle it anymore if I understood it correct, later it will be something else which don't work in 32bit mode anymore.
SDJ is now at the very beginnning of it's excistance, so better to build a 64bit version now and develop this parallel to the 32bit version instead of building one when they have no other choice to do so.

SSL is very stable in 32bit, and I guess that sooner or later SDJ and SSL will be merged as 1 software product. We will be able to use our hardware and the serato software then optimal.

Totally.

Having 4GB of memory shouldn't be a minimum to run DJ software, at least yet. Traktor and VDJ seem to cope better work larger databases.

I think squashing the bugs would go much better then a full rewrite (as that's what's needed).

Eventually we will have the 64 bit but feel is a very very long way off.

+1

Don't think this is happening anytime soon. Would love to be wrong about that.

+1000 I have a i7 16gb 64 bit windows machine, 64 bit is the new standard because all 64 bit applications use all of the ram instead of just 4gb of ram.

This is a bit of misinformation.

64-bit is neither new nor standard.

Due to the sheer proliferation of persons still using 32-bit systems (and this will continue for some time), 32-bit remains the standard application type while many developers produce 64-bit editions to take advantage of the extra addressing space while providing native support for users on supported operating systems (or providing working drivers - NVIDIA + Linux... <_< ). Check out how many people are still using Windows XP (news.cnet.com).

I've been using a 64-bit operating system ever since AMD brought it to the desktop platform and I loaded up Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (which never passed SP2) in 2005.

64-bit operating systems, however, are not standard by any means, though they have become significantly more ubiquitous in the past 6 years as opposed to how they were prior.

The fact of the matter is that many programs to this day (even video games) remain 32-bit. The reason for this is that many computers distributed today are from the ultrabook / notebook / tablet market that still come with no more than 4GB of RAM. As recently as last year, they tended to be bundled with 32-bit editions of Windows 7 Home Premium more often than not (especially the $360-$500 Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy laptops which make up the majority of non-direct consumer PC sales).

While more and more machines are distributed with 64-bit editions of Windows 7/8, many an OEM still chooses to go with 32-bit in order to conserve RAM on machines - especially when they tend to not need to bundle with on-mobo nvidia / amd GPUs anymore courtesy of Intel's on-die GPUs (which shares memory with the system - hence rendering the 32-bit address limit moot as the system will never reach it).

Likewise, 64-bit doesn't use "ALL THE RAM", it just has a higher theoretical address space than 32-bit. While your statement is not wrong, it is not correct either. So while 32-bit can address 2^32 bits of space (4,294,967,296 bytes), 64-bit can address 2^64 bits of space (18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes). So, again, it'll definitely allocate 16GB of Space, but there is a theoretical limit. Not wrong, but not entirely correct ;).

Now, that said, before we even THINK about moving into 64-bit, we're crashing at roughly 1.3-1.6GiB (+/- 100MiB) of memory usage. We've still got a realistic 1.6-1.8GiB of addressable 32-bit memory space for Serato's programs to use. Yet, they crash long before exhausting address space limitations as if the applications can only address 24-bits - and will hard crash if that is exceeded.

That said, we need to solve SDJ's/ITCH's/SSL's database issues first: serato.com

Thanks P.M.

I tried to make this point but you explained it sooooooo much better than I did.

Kudos.

From what I have read, Ableton/Serato don't have a Bridge Software for SDJ because SDJ needed to push out a 32bit version to meet time expectations. Live 8.3+ in 64bit mode has a hard time talking to anything in 32bit.

...so that we can eliminate misinformation (which I most assure you, that very much is), please provide a source for that statement.

In the mean time, let us also know about what "they" have to say about ITCH and The Bridge which we actually were promised in 2010 (and usually I challenge other forum users here regarding the point of Serato supposedly promising features, but the reps here made it very clear in no uncertain terms in multiple forum topics that it would be coming to ITCH coinciding with the release of ITCH 2.0).






Seriously, keep the misinformation out of it...

Sorry didn't have one.
I read something on an ableton group, thought it could be pertinent to the discussion, posted it as read not as fact.

apologies if/that it is wrong
have a nice night

+1

We wish serato software could even use 4gb jesus even 2gb but the software runs out of memory at 1.2-1.5gb!! Why we don't know we just know if it was 64bit it would use more. Would love to know if a 32bit application can use 4gb why doesnt any serato software???

+100

...and that will forever and a day remain one of life's unsolved mysteries.

What I find most frustrating is that Scratch Live with the SL1 works just fine on the same machine. No database problems.

That is because ScratchLive requires SIGNIFICANTLY less system resources than ITCH or DJ to operate. It's not that you have no database problems, it's that ScratchLive isn't hitting that magical 24-bit address like ITCH and DJ do that cause it to crash.

ahahahaha... 64-bit??
It's a dream that is to far, far away...

Who knows when processors reach 256-bit, Serato decides to migrate to 64-bit ....

LOL don't be so cruel

:-P

+ infinty

Serato DJ seems to be getting closer & closer to the finish line on this…still using SL1 for the important road gigs though since I can't 100% trust DJ. Basically studio sets & the bars get DJ, Clubs & private events get SL… I bring a macbook for back up regardless, but since my PC is the better machine, I am not ok with just "switching to Mac". Getting all of my crates over from PC to Mac has proven problematic & I merely shouldn't have to.

I'll say that DJ 1.1.2 & 1.5.1 have been the most stable versions on 64 I have encountered thus far, but I can't fully articulate how disappointing the situation is overall.

Hello! I know some of you may already be tracking this discussion: serato.com but in case you aren't, please check it out!

this is what we all were waiting for.. beta testing has begun bet this was only april fool's day joke but gonna check it asap

thank you Martin C & Serato for all attempts to meet our needs / requests (Y)

had no complaints since day 1. as for product Serato DJ made huge step forward /imho/ since version 1.0.0. for some people DJ works like a charm (as for me) others will meet glitches and bugs due to diversity of mac/pc parameters they are using and 64bit support definitely will reduce the number of these cases.

Oopsy... The beta isn't 64-bit and also the beta wasn't released today so it's most certainly not an April fool.

It's an improved library beta that should help people who have very large library's and lots of crates.

hi Mr Wilks.. yes it's not, you're right and i didn't say it is.. link to forum was posted here so suggesting it would be good to see it on next beta release ain't bad idea at all :)

and yes i know beta was uploaded in march, i have no idea of betas so it could be an april's 1'st joke as well

I'll certainly be playing around with this. Thanks for the heads up ;)

Great to hear DJ Aqueous, let us know how you go!

Finally got a moment of time to dive in on this. The original version was extremely choppy with both audio drop outs and intermittent screen freezing. I did not have a crash to report but it was also too unstable to give it a real whack.

I've since updated to 1.6.37190.

Looking real good now. QUANTUM LEAP in the right direction.

In general 1.5.1 had been the most stable for me to use on the 64 bit machine, as long as I did not use any audio or video efx. Going too hard with the effects was a sure way to force a crash in that version for the PC.

So what else am I to do if I am to run a test? Put all the effects on full blast to see what we are really dealing with here. I couldn't figure out how to attach files to the posts here so the following is a link to the results:
djaqueous.com

In the first image you can see that when I started to stack the visual effects she got a little upset with me. The highlighted area shows where there was a little screen burn but this is a huge upgrade as previously the entire screen would freeze and now it was just the area where the efx drop down was located. And at no point did the audio drop out. I also stacked the audio effects first, then added the visual effects.

In the second image you can see that instead of scaling things back I decided to press forward and added SP6 loops to the fold. Ironically this FIXED the area that was previously locked. The most important part is that it did not completely crash or lock during any of this which gives me a great deal of hope.

Hey DJ Aqueous,

Thanks for checking out the beta. It sounds like you didn't run into any memory issues, which is good.

Looks like you have discovered a separate GUI bug though, with that video effect drop down menu. I tried reproducing it with the same panels open and opening the video drop down, but wasn't able too. I wouldn't be surprised if this was also reproducible in 1.6.2 (full public release) too.

Are you able to reproduce it? What was the sequence of panels you opened? Did you have the video effect drop down menu MIDI mapped by any chance?

As far as I know the only midi mapping would be whatever default is controlled by the DDJ-SX. The fader does control the video fader etc. But I did not take the time to assign any midi on my own.

I was also unable to duplicate this visual glitch which would lead me to believe that the problem was specific to the effects used and/or as you mentioned the order in which they were opened. I can go back to the screen shots to see which effects but am not sure which order they were opened in.

I went ahead and installed the public release of 1.6.3 and that would not even open in stand alone mode without crash.

Went back to the updated beta version and I will try it out live tonight for the first time.

I also noticed that the beta version will crash for me no matter what if I have music playing from an external hard drive. I had the same problem with ITCH so all the tests I have run are from files playing off of the internal hard drive.

Hey DJ Aqueous,



That would be great if you were able to provide any further clues to how we might be able to reproduce it that would be helpful. If you are only using the Pioneer DDJ-SX, then it does not have any control over video effects drop downs - which rules that out as a contributing factor.



The public release does not include any of the Library that is included in the "Large Library Beta". We are hoping to include this work in a release that has not been finished yet.



That seems like something is specifically going wrong with your hard drive. I can help you further if you like, although I recommend starting a separate report rather than continuing to discuss that in the feature suggestion area. Create a report here: serato.com

Cheers :)

64 bit version will need to be available sooner or later no point arguing it

+1

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, as you can imagine late spring early summer is a busy season and I've been doing my Hollywood AQ thing so getting in the lab for testing has been harder than originally anticipated but this is GOOD NEWS. Because outside of the apparent hard drive issue I have had NO issues with the BETA version tested. However, the version released AFTER this BETA does NOT work for me even without the external hard drive hooked up. Not too worried about that as all my music is on the internal drive. If I start booking more video gigs I may try to get to the bottom of the external drive problem. For now, no time... busy busy busy. Good Problems.

Either way, I have a version that is stable on MY 64 bit with video & effects running. Thanks guys.

Anyone having trouble with the most recent RELEASED version I would suggest that you try the most recent BETA.

Thanks for the reply DJ Aqueous, no problem if you have gigs and other things to attend to! :)



Are you referring to the final public release (1.6.3)? This version does not contain any of the same library work that the beta does, so it will be the same as 1.6.2, 1.6.1 etc in that regard.

Good to hear that the beta version does work however, we are feeling pretty confident about this working being fully releasable soon in a public release, but it remains in beta for the time being.

As I mentioned, if you do wish to get some help with the external hard drive problem and you have some time to do so, please create a report here: serato.com and we can continue to investigate.

+1

isn't 1.6.3 already final, already exisiting for quite some time now.

we talking about 1.6.4 ???

Yes 1.6.3. is final, but the work for library improvements got pulled out before it was released.

So - the 1.6.3 beta is older than 1.6.3 final version, but it contains some newer things in an unfinished state (which we had to remove for safety).
This work is being refined and worked on still, and we plan to put the results of that work into a future version.

Again, 1.6.3. final version doesn't contain the library work we've done (and still do).

It was too risky by the time we released 1.6.3 to leave those changes in it.

ok, so library improvements COMING with 1.6.4 or later.... along with DN-HC4500 support ;-)

no plans for this. sorry :(

Why not? What 19" controller do you support? The DN-HC4500 would be a perfect fit. Especially those coming from the discontinued Scratch Live in which the 4500 is wonderfully supported. Do a $50 update for DN-HC4500 support in Serato DJ.

+1

+1

Yay :) :-*

This thread is years old:

So is the patch as a workaround:

www.ntcore.com