Serato DJ USB Buffer and Rane Panel USB Buffer

djcrap 9:27 PM - 27 January, 2014

Step 1

my macbook bro laptop is mid 2012

Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro9,1
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.7 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 8 GB
Boot ROM Version: MBP91.00D3.B08
SMC Version (system): 2.1f175

open serato dj go setup to change the serato dj audio latency to 1ms.
load any song on any deck.
minimize serato window

go to system preferences on your mac task bar click the rane 68 audio panel
on the 68 audio panel set the buffer size fader slider to 5ms

note: with those settings above the rane68 works perfectly with no sound artifacts.

Step 2
Now lets get to the part and settings that cause sound issues

leave serato dj software audio latency still set at 1ms . start playing the song you loaded before
now go to the rane68mixer audio panel and move the buffer sizer form 5ms to 1ms while the song is playing.

Step 3
when the buffer size in the 68panel is 1ms and the latency of serato dj software is set to 1ms the song starts skip forward and sounds like plain a scratched disk.

Step 4
while the song is still playing, move the buffer size slider back from 1ms to 5ms from 5ms to other settings

moving back n forth the buffer size from 1ms to 5ms or even to the highest buffer size in the rane68 panel while the song is playing has no effect on getting reed of the skipping and bit crushed audio sounds

Actual Result
sdj audio latency set at 1ms and rane68 buffer size at 1ms results to skips in audio plus glitchy skiping wave forms while song is playing

while song is stopped and rane68 buffer size set at 1ms then play the song and move sdj audio latency from 2ms to 1ms results in bit crushed sounding like audio

Expected Result
songs should not skip or hear artifacts that sound like bit crushed audio when serato dj latency is set 1ms and rane68 buffer size is set to 1ms

Workaround
Either set sdj audio latency to 1ms and then set rane68 buffer size at 5ms and above

or

Either set sdj audio latency at 2ms and then set rane68 buffer size at 1ms

djcrap 9:32 PM - 27 January, 2014

below is a screen recording with audio of what i was trying to portray above on the bug report of the test or what i was trying to explain above hope it helps.

9:46 PM, 27 Jan 2014

djcrap attached a file: 68audio buffer.mov

Download· Permalink

nik39 10:46 PM - 27 January, 2014

Thanks for the video. I still don't get the connection between the different buffer settings in SDJ vs. the device panel.

djcrap 12:56 AM - 28 January, 2014

Quote:

Thanks for the video. I still don't get the connection between the different buffer settings in SDJ vs. the device panel.

Based on reports i see in this beta section This seems to be affecting only Rane products mostly i don't get it either why the user has to tinker with both the sdj usb buffer settings and the rane device panel in order to find that sweet spot that provides a clean clear sound.

This brings up a question if by tinkering with both settings in sdj vs the rane device panels has an effect on the response of tightness of serato vinyl play back during scratching.

Maybe a mode can elaborate on this one

Martin C 4:28 AM - 30 January, 2014

Hey djcrap,

Quote:

This seems to be affecting only Rane products mostly i don't get it either why the user has to tinker with both the sdj usb buffer settings and the rane device panel in order to find that sweet spot that provides a clean clear sound.

Did you previously used to have to do this with Scratch Live? The control panel has been made accessible through the setup screen for its other hardware related settings (effects etc), but you shouldn't really need to adjust the buffer size in there.

Are you able to achieve 1ms in the Scratch Live and 1ms in the Rane Control Panel without problems?

I would recommend leaving the USB buffer in the Rane Control Panel alone and try to get your settings right in the Serato DJ setup screen first and foremost.

Regarding the latency issue you experience, this is something we aware of and are working on too. For the same reason, I would recommend leaving the Rane Control Panel at one setting and not adjusting it when using Serato DJ.

Thanks :)

djcrap 7:06 PM - 30 January, 2014

Did you previously used to have to do this with Scratch Live? The control panel has been made accessible through the setup screen for its other hardware related settings (effects etc), but you shouldn't really need to adjust the buffer size in there.

no i never had too . but the buffer size was always at one in both softwares. plus i think in scratch live when scratch live is opened scratch live serato driver takes over and the 68 contra panel is disabled.

Are you able to achieve 1ms in the Scratch Live and 1ms in the Rane Control Panel without problems?
yes am able to achieve 1ms in both but the only difference i noticed since the the 68 firmware 1.40 update is that if the 68 device panel is opened and then you open scratch live . as scratch live is trying to take over it crashes

below are the test the videos and the crash logs

7:09 PM, 30 Jan 2014

djcrap attached a file: Scratch LIVE_2014-01-30-124823_IVANs-MacBook-Pro.crash

Download· Permalink

7:10 PM, 30 Jan 2014

djcrap attached a file: Scratch LIVE_2014-01-30-124542_IVANs-MacBook-Pro.crash

Download· Permalink

7:10 PM, 30 Jan 2014

djcrap attached a file: Scratch LIVE_2014-01-30-124332_IVANs-MacBook-Pro.crash

Download· Permalink

djcrap 7:22 PM - 30 January, 2014

as you see in the video the crashes in the beginning as scratch live serato driver is taking over or disabling the 68 control panel. am able to achieve 1ms in scratch live audio buffer size.

nik39 7:35 PM - 30 January, 2014

Quote:

Did you previously used to have to do this with Scratch Live? The control panel has been made accessible through the setup screen for its other hardware related settings (effects etc), but you shouldn't really need to adjust the buffer size in there.

Should the driver panel also be available from the SDJ setup screen for the 64?

8:03 PM, 30 Jan 2014

djcrap attached a file: scratchlivetest.mov

Download· Permalink

djcrap 8:17 PM - 30 January, 2014

^^^ scratch live video test at 1ms as i was saying before

djcrap 8:22 PM - 30 January, 2014

I would recommend leaving the USB buffer in the Rane Control Panel alone and try to get your settings right in the Serato DJ setup screen first and foremost.

when i leave the rane control panel alone at 1ms

and try to get the settings right in serato dj set up screen

at 1ms in serato dj the sound audio sounds like robotic, or bit crushed audio like some users describe it. its only at 2ms setting where i can get clean sound in serato dj

below is the video for that test

8:40 PM, 30 Jan 2014

djcrap attached a file: serato1ms.mov

Download· Permalink

Roy Gill 1:07 AM - 31 January, 2014

The lowest setting in the Rane control panel I have ever been able to achieve with clean audio is 3ms.
I do not recommend running it any lower than 3ms with any application on any machine.

1ms buffer size means 24 samples in and 24 samples out for the 48 kHz sample rate.

I recommend starting at Rane CPL = 8ms, This setting will provide clean audio. If you feel there is too much latency at this setting, then lower it 1 ms at a time.

nik39 2:36 AM - 31 January, 2014

Hey Roy,

to what total latency (incl. SDJ's work) does 3ms buffer size translate to?

Roy Gill 6:46 PM - 31 January, 2014

I cannot speak to the SDJ buffer size scale, I do not know what it is.

But here are a couple examples for the Rane Driver Control panel.

Roundtrip (RT) latency is measured from an analog input to an analog output with the signal being sent to the computer and looped back on a USB channel.
The following examples use Live in Record Monitor mode for the loopback, ie no software processing.

Windows:
Total RT latency = CPL setting + Device buffers/converters
For Sixty-Two, CPL set at 8ms = 8 + 2.26 = 10.26 ms
For Sixty-Four, CPL set at 8ms = 8 + 3.09 = 11.09 ms

Mac:
Total RT latency = Application setting + CPL setting + Device buffers/converters
For Sixty-Two, Live Buffer size 96 samples, CPL set at 4ms = 96*2/48 + 4 + 2.26 = 10.26 ms
For Sixty-Four, Live Buffer size 96 samples, CPL set at 4ms = 96*2/48 + 4 + 3.09 = 11.09 ms

Known issue for Mac OS-X 10.8 and later:
If you adjust the CPL buffer size while an application is open, the latency jumps to approx. 350ms. The work-around is to set the CPL buffer size while all applications are closed, then open the application and adjust the application buffer size, leaving the CPL buffer alone.
An alternate work-around for Live and other third-party software is to re-select the device in the app's preferneces after adjusting the CPL slider. For SDJ hot plug the device.
We are working with Apple to resolve this issue.

knox001 8:29 PM - 31 January, 2014

Quote:

Thanks for the video. I still don't get the connection between the different buffer settings in SDJ vs. the device panel.

+1

Wouldn't it be accurate to disable the operating systems settings for the audio interface (62,SL2 and so on) if SDJ is opened? Right now you have two panels to set the buffer which is really confusing for me...

And I guess I am a user that is more likely to deal with technical difficulties :-)

nik39 9:45 PM - 31 January, 2014

Quote:

Windows:
Total RT latency = CPL setting + Device buffers/converters
For Sixty-Two, CPL set at 8ms = 8 + 2.26 = 10.26 ms
For Sixty-Four, CPL set at 8ms = 8 + 3.09 = 11.09 ms

Mac:
Total RT latency = Application setting + CPL setting + Device buffers/converters
For Sixty-Two, Live Buffer size 96 samples, CPL set at 4ms = 96*2/48 + 4 + 2.26 = 10.26 ms
For Sixty-Four, Live Buffer size 96 samples, CPL set at 4ms = 96*2/48 + 4 + 3.09 = 11.09 ms

Hey Roy, thank you very much for the numbers.

Two more questions:
1. The device panel setting is actually the incoming plus outgoing latency (minus the device buffers+converters)?

2. The latency slider in SDJ - is this the latency of the application (like Live in your example calculation) or is this the value which is being sent to the Rane device and changes the CPL latency value? In other words - are these two independent settings?

Sorry for the dumb questions, but I have difficulties properly understand the relationship between the different settings for the SDJ use case.

Roy Gill 10:16 PM - 31 January, 2014

Quote:

1. The device panel setting is actually the incoming plus outgoing latency (minus the device buffers+converters)?

yes

Quote:

2. The latency slider in SDJ - is this the latency of the application (like Live in your example calculation) or is this the value which is being sent to the Rane device and changes the CPL latency value? In other words - are these two independent settings?

they are independent settings.

nik39 11:01 PM - 31 January, 2014

And adjusting the SDJ slider (and applying the change) does what? Does SDJ copy the setting over to the driver and CPL?

Roy Gill 11:12 PM - 31 January, 2014

No they are independent settings, the driver has its buffers and the application has its buffers as far as I know.
Serato can explain what the SDJ slider does.

nik39 11:33 PM - 31 January, 2014

Thank you very much, Roy.

This is in line with my observations:

- The sliders do not sync
- The latency seems to be added from each setting (SDJ's latency plus the Rane device panel's latency)
- Setting *both* sliders to 1 makes the audio chop, but not necessarily if one is at 1 and the other is at a higher value (this kind of proofs that the settings for each affect something different)

Roy Gill 11:46 PM - 31 January, 2014

Thanks nik39,

yes, your observations are correct.

nik39 11:52 PM - 31 January, 2014

Offtopic:

Quote:

And I guess I am a user that is more likely to deal with technical difficulties :-)

Gude knox, Clay 369 hier ;) Grüße nach Österreich ;)

nik39 11:54 PM - 31 January, 2014

Quote:

Thanks nik39,

yes, your observations are correct.

Thanks for confirming, Roy :)

Do you also have numbers for the latency of the other current Rane hardware?

Roy Gill 12:11 AM - 1 February, 2014

Quote:

Do you also have numbers for the latency of the other current Rane hardware?

Somehow I knew you were going to ask this ;)
The 68 is the same as the 64
The 61 is the same as the 62

I will get numbers for the SL2/3/4 to you next week.

nik39 12:24 AM - 1 February, 2014

:)

Nathan.H 12:27 AM - 1 February, 2014

SDJ has no internal buffer. Instead we instruct the Core Audio driver on connection what to set the driver's buffer to (in samples, not ms). It is then the responsibility of the core audio driver to ask us for that many samples and clock itself off the device.

The Rane drivers are the only Core Audio drivers I am aware of that offer up a second slider, all others require the application to inform them of what to run at. When you change the slider in SDJ we reconnect to the driver with a new instructed buffer size. Rane's CA drivers do listen to our instruction and combine it with their own.

Nathan.H 12:27 AM - 1 February, 2014

Quote:

The Rane drivers are the only Core Audio drivers I am aware of that offer up a second slider, all others require the application to inform them of what to run at.

With great power comes more complex answers :-)

nik39 12:41 AM - 1 February, 2014

Ugh... this is getting a "little" bit confusing ;)

Obviously I don't know what is going on under the hood, but here is my observation:

(1) Set Rane latency to 2ms, SDJ 2 ms
- scratch
- it feels tight

(2) Set Rane latency to 50ms, SDJ 2 ms
- scratch
- it feels lagged

(3) Set Rane latency to 50ms, SDJ 20 ms
- scratch
- it feels more lagged that in (2)

So it looks like the latencies are adding up.
I'll leave it to you guys to find the cause for this ;)

Roy Gill 12:51 AM - 1 February, 2014

@nik
short week, haha

SL 2:
fs=44.1k: 1.39ms, fs=48k: 1.28ms

SL 3:
fs=44.1k: 1.59ms, fs=48k: 1.71ms

SL 4:
fs=48k: 1.27ms, fs=96k: 0.83ms

DJ Dynamight 2:09 AM - 1 February, 2014

Hi Roy,
Is 8ms the recommended control panel setting for all Rane hardware? (I'm currently testing with the SL3).

Thanks

ninjagaijin 9:24 AM - 2 February, 2014

I was using 7ms last night with no issues after USB dropouts at around 2-4ms on the Rane control panel. For me, the SDJ latency bar is greyed out!! I'll see if it popped up today.

nik39 11:20 AM - 2 February, 2014

Ninja, are you on a Mac?

ninjagaijin 6:17 PM - 2 February, 2014

Nope Win 7 SP1, haven't used any other beta versions of SDJ before and migrating from SSL - usually 5-7ms SSL is fine, just pitching in what happened for me since it could be a non-o/s dependent bug.

Nathan.H 7:42 PM - 2 February, 2014

Hi ninjagaijin,
ASIO drivers (aka windows audio drivers) don't have a way for client apps like DJ to set the latency. On windows it is ONLY the driver panel that can control latency (and we just show what it's set to).

DJNitro12 9:07 PM - 2 February, 2014

Ok I've encountered one problem so far. So I noticed when I am playing, sometimes the sound drops or "stutters". I'm pretty sure its a buffer issue. Also little background, using Win 7 64 bit with Serato DJ Beta 1.6. I have never had a problem as far as latency running Serato DJ w/ video with either of my MC2000's.

djcrap 4:18 AM - 3 February, 2014

Quote:

Ugh... this is getting a "little" bit confusing ;)

Obviously I don't know what is going on under the hood, but here is my observation:

(1) Set Rane latency to 2ms, SDJ 2 ms
- scratch
- it feels tight

(2) Set Rane latency to 50ms, SDJ 2 ms
- scratch
- it feels lagged

(3) Set Rane latency to 50ms, SDJ 20 ms
- scratch
- it feels more lagged that in (2)

So it looks like the latencies are adding up.
I'll leave it to you guys to find the cause for this ;)

Can you try this same test with needle dropping or needle droping to cue. Am just curious of the results in relation to latencies added up from both buffers

djcrap 4:23 AM - 3 February, 2014

Quote:

The control panel has been made accessible through the setup screen for its other hardware related settings (effects etc).

Should the driver panel also be available from the SDJ setup screen for the 64?

I don't think this option is available or accessible on a mac
Its only i think for pc

nik39 10:38 PM - 3 February, 2014

Quote:

@nik
short week, haha

SL 2:
fs=44.1k: 1.39ms, fs=48k: 1.28ms

SL 3:
fs=44.1k: 1.59ms, fs=48k: 1.71ms

SL 4:
fs=48k: 1.27ms, fs=96k: 0.83ms

Ha - thanks for the quick answer, Roy :)

So... just curious, have you guys (Rane+Serato) agreed to an answer which explains my mysterious observations?

Roy Gill 11:26 PM - 3 February, 2014

I think we agree,
SDJ instructs the driver of it's buffer requirements, our driver treats it as any other application and applies the offset to it's own settings so the two values are additive.

So, the values are additive, which is in line with your observations.
The difference is where the actual buffering is taking place, I thought it was within the application, but from Nathan's explanation it is within the driver. The app tells the driver to use it's core audio buffer size (application slider), then our driver adds the buffer size set in it's own control panel for the resulting buffer size.

At this point I agree that having a slider for core audio drivers in the control panel makes it confusing for mac users.

DJCaliChris 12:38 AM - 4 February, 2014

So is there a workaround to this issue because I have the same issue with my 62 I use a Macbook Pro as well. But it works fine with SL.

Roy Gill 1:08 AM - 4 February, 2014

Quote:

So is there a workaround to this issue because I have the same issue with my 62 I use a Macbook Pro as well. But it works fine with SL.

I suggest a control panel setting of 4ms, close the CPl, hotplug the mixer and adjust SDJ slider to lowest setting that gives you clean audio.

Dokumentary 12:28 AM - 7 February, 2014

Quote:

@nik
short week, haha

SL 2:
fs=44.1k: 1.39ms, fs=48k: 1.28ms

SL 3:
fs=44.1k: 1.59ms, fs=48k: 1.71ms

SL 4:
fs=48k: 1.27ms, fs=96k: 0.83ms

Ha - thanks for the quick answer, Roy :)

So... just curious, have you guys (Rane+Serato) agreed to an answer which explains my mysterious observations?

I'm not sure I fully understand these numbers...

SL 4:

Quote:

fs=48k: 1.27ms, fs=96k: 0.83ms

This is the device latency for the SL4 and is not affected by either SDJ buffer setting or Rane control panel setting, correct? So to roughly determine total latency with the switch on SL4 set to 48kHz I would add up:

ex: Mac (Core Audio)

8ms Buffer size (control panel)
+
2ms SDJ buffer size (latency)
+
1.27ms Device latency
=
11.27ms (total roundtrip latency)

Is this correct or am I just confusing people more? This is not the optimal settings for me (i7 MBP 2012) just an example using the default settings.

Also, here comes the dumb question: Why does a higher Sample Rate have less latency (shorter time)?

Roy Gill 1:31 AM - 7 February, 2014

Quote:

This is the device latency for the SL4 and is not affected by either SDJ buffer setting or Rane control panel setting, correct? So to roughly determine total latency with the switch on SL4 set to 48kHz I would add up:

ex: Mac (Core Audio)

8ms Buffer size (control panel)
+
2ms SDJ buffer size (latency)
+
1.27ms Device latency
=
11.27ms (total roundtrip latency)

Is this correct or am I just confusing people more? This is not the optimal settings for me (i7 MBP 2012) just an example using the default settings.

This is a correct example.

Quote:

Also, here comes the dumb question: Why does a higher Sample Rate have less latency (shorter time)?

simple answer is that the number of samples in the buffer does not change. For example 48 samples at 48 kHz is 1 ms, 48/48000 = 0.001 s = 1 ms.
48 samples at 96 kHz is 0.5 ms, 48/96000 = 0.0005 s = 0.5 ms.

Dokumentary 2:41 AM - 7 February, 2014

Quote:

This is the device latency for the SL4 and is not affected by either SDJ buffer setting or Rane control panel setting, correct? So to roughly determine total latency with the switch on SL4 set to 48kHz I would add up:

ex: Mac (Core Audio)

8ms Buffer size (control panel)
+
2ms SDJ buffer size (latency)
+
1.27ms Device latency
=
11.27ms (total roundtrip latency)

Is this correct or am I just confusing people more? This is not the optimal settings for me (i7 MBP 2012) just an example using the default settings.

This is a correct example.

Quote:

Also, here comes the dumb question: Why does a higher Sample Rate have less latency (shorter time)?

simple answer is that the number of samples in the buffer does not change. For example 48 samples at 48 kHz is 1 ms, 48/48000 = 0.001 s = 1 ms.
48 samples at 96 kHz is 0.5 ms, 48/96000 = 0.0005 s = 0.5 ms.

So if I set my box to 96k even tho my music is typically 44k or 48k I could shave off .5ms? It's pretty negligible but, what's the downfall? It's the hardware doing the audio processing so it won't effect CPU on my MBP, right? Does anyone really use the 96 setting? If so, do you notice better sound quality?

Thx for taking the time to answer the previous questions. I thought I had my head around it but I quess I just had to type it all out.

Roy Gill 5:57 PM - 7 February, 2014

Quote:

So if I set my box to 96k even tho my music is typically 44k or 48k I could shave off .5ms? It's pretty negligible but, what's the downfall? It's the hardware doing the audio processing so it won't effect CPU on my MBP, right? Does anyone really use the 96 setting? If so, do you notice better sound quality?

The downfall is that you will probably have to increase your buffer setting to achieve clean audio. The hardware buffers don't change but the computer has to keep up with samples streaming twice as fast. Basically that 0.5ms may have to be compensated for by increasing the streaming buffer size.

Martin C 3:05 AM - 13 February, 2014

Hi all,

Its clear that this is a confusing issue from a user perspective. We will look at making this more straight forward and providing some sort of solution to the problem.

I am curious to know, after reading what you have read in this discussion, as a user - what do you see as the best solution without losing functionality or creating other problems?

Appreciate your feedback as always guys, and thanks so much for chiming in Roy and Nathan!

knox001 9:03 AM - 13 February, 2014

from user perspective it would be the best to disable the latency settings in the system panel if Serato DJ is openend and connected to the Sixty-Two. If this is the case, the latency should only be set in SDJ, not in the system panel.

If Serato DJ is closed or not connected, you should be able to set the latency in the system panel for audio applications like Ableton Live etc...

This would be the best solution I guess, because this combination of 2 parameters is also for more technical experienced user a little bit confusing on the first sight...

s3kn0tr0n1c 10:08 AM - 13 February, 2014

Quote:

from user perspective it would be the best to disable the latency settings in the system panel if Serato DJ is openend and connected to the Sixty-Two. If this is the case, the latency should only be set in SDJ, not in the system panel.

If Serato DJ is closed or not connected, you should be able to set the latency in the system panel for audio applications like Ableton Live etc...

This would be the best solution I guess, because this combination of 2 parameters is also for more technical experienced user a little bit confusing on the first sight...

+1.

Also in windows (where you dont have latency control within SDJ). Please make it so you adjust latency only in SDJ with it disabled in Rane Control Panel when SDJ open.

Dokumentary 1:01 PM - 13 February, 2014

Quote:

Hi all,

Its clear that this is a confusing issue from a user perspective. We will look at making this more straight forward and providing some sort of solution to the problem.

I am curious to know, after reading what you have read in this discussion, as a user - what do you see as the best solution without losing functionality or creating other problems?

Appreciate your feedback as always guys, and thanks so much for chiming in Roy and Nathan!

IMO it's fine the way it is now. To simplify would mean to reduce functionality. Maybe update the user manual. Although it is explained properly as it is now.

Also, you could do a blog post explaining the issue for both Mac and PC. And you could even do a short video with the Kiwi gal who makes everything sound a little bit perverted.

Dick = deck in NZ I suppose...

djcrap 3:26 PM - 13 February, 2014

Quote:

from user perspective it would be the best to disable the latency settings in the system panel if Serato DJ is openend and connected to the Sixty-Two. If this is the case, the latency should only be set in SDJ, not in the system panel.

If Serato DJ is closed or not connected, you should be able to set the latency in the system panel for audio applications like Ableton Live etc...

This would be the best solution I guess, because this combination of 2 parameters is also for more technical experienced user a little bit confusing on the first sight...

Thats how scratchlive works and i think its disadvantage is other audio applications can not use rane gear as a sound card when scratchlive is open.

Well as as it is righ now with serato dj you can

nik39 3:48 PM - 13 February, 2014

Downside of SDJ handling the buffer slider is that you can't control the soundcards buffer anymore (except in apps which offer their own buffer size adjustment). Apps like the iTunes player can't adjust the buffers. This means using such apps to playback on a Rane device will not be manageable. :(

djcrap 4:34 PM - 13 February, 2014

As it is right now how about

on a mac just make the rane control panel accessible in setup-audio in sdj
And have both buffer size sliders in one place.

But let the rane buffer size to always default to 3ms as the lowest buffer size or even lock it at that number so that the user can not go below 3ms when sdj is open unless he manually goes to systems on his mac to change that setting on the rane control panel when sdj is closed.
Also mark 8ms on the rane panel as the recommended setting

I think if both buffers are in one place or panel this will be less confusing to the user

djcrap 4:44 PM - 13 February, 2014

^^^^ but then again just leaving it as it is now brings about the frustration of added latency from both buffers vs the specs of your laptop pc or mac. Then add pitch n time to the equation, it all turns from confusing to a frustration heaven for the user.

Dokumentary 11:30 PM - 13 February, 2014

Quote:

As it is right now how about

on a mac just make the rane control panel accessible in setup-audio in sdj
And have both buffer size sliders in one place.

But let the rane buffer size to always default to 3ms as the lowest buffer size or even lock it at that number so that the user can not go below 3ms when sdj is open unless he manually goes to systems on his mac to change that setting on the rane control panel when sdj is closed.
Also mark 8ms on the rane panel as the recommended setting

Please do not "lock" any of the settings.
What about when newer laptops come out with better throughput and faster/more robust processors. Who's to say that 3ms is the optimal lowest setting? I'm having no problems right now at 3ms on a 2012 MBP with 2.6GHz i7 but if I had a brand new RetinaMBP, I'd probably re-adjust to see what it's capable of. Who knows what's next for the Macbook lineup when they refresh in June or July. I would not be surprised at all to see integrated, dual, or even quad, Multi-core processors like we see in the new Mac Pro. Either way the processors are due for a refresh soon. I believe the current i7's are pretty deep into the "tock" phase of Intel's "Tic-Tock" method.

If anything just keep the setting available in the System Preferences window when using other programs but, have it greyed out when using SDJ. Then either have 2 sliders inside SDJ or find a way to integrate the settings for optimal latency adjustment and have 1 slider inside SDJ.

Or, just leave it how it is...

Dokumentary 11:43 PM - 13 February, 2014

Quote:

As it is right now how about

on a mac just make the rane control panel accessible in setup-audio in sdj
And have both buffer size sliders in one place.

But let the rane buffer size to always default to 3ms as the lowest buffer size or even lock it at that number so that the user can not go below 3ms when sdj is open unless he manually goes to systems on his mac to change that setting on the rane control panel when sdj is closed.
Also mark 8ms on the rane panel as the recommended setting

Please do not "lock" any of the settings.
What about when newer laptops come out with better throughput and faster/more robust processors. Who's to say that 3ms is the optimal lowest setting? I'm having no problems right now at 3ms on a 2012 MBP with 2.6GHz i7 but if I had a brand new RetinaMBP, I'd probably re-adjust to see what it's capable of. Who knows what's next for the Macbook lineup when they refresh in June or July. I would not be surprised at all to see integrated, dual, or even quad, Multi-core processors like we see in the new Mac Pro. Either way the processors are due for a refresh soon. I believe the current i7's are pretty deep into the "tock" phase of Intel's "Tic-Tock" method.

If anything just keep the setting available in the System Preferences window when using other programs but, have it greyed out when using SDJ. Then either have 2 sliders inside SDJ or find a way to integrate the settings for optimal latency adjustment and have 1 slider inside SDJ.

Or, just leave it how it is...

Ok, I just re-read what djcrap wrote. I must've skimmed through too quickly. For some reason I thought you (djcrap) wanted them to lock the settings. Now I see that's not exactly what you were saying. Either way, I don't really love the idea of defaulting to an optimal setting as there will be many people using computers with myriad capabilities. As it is, it sorta "defaults" to an average setting. 8ms (Rane) + 2ms (SDJ) (I think). This is better for the common user who can then optimize as we've done.

Serato: Figure out a way to intelligently incorporate both settings inside SDJ. (or don't)
Rane: Don't touch a thing.

Just my dumb opinion until some one comes along with a genius solution. I just don't wanna lose functionality/customization because other users are having a hard time doing math. (not talking about djcrap here. You clearly have a firm grasp on the situation).

PorkyG 7:07 PM - 18 February, 2014

I just bought a new Mac Book on the 14th, I'm currently toying with the buffer sizes. I can't sit there and play with it nonstop till it chops out at this moment but as soon as I can if someone doesn't beat me to the punch I'll post results on when it chopped out.

For the record my Macbook Pro 15" Retina specs are:

OSX: Maverick 10.9.1
Intel Core i7
2.3 GHz
Processors: 1
Cores: 4
Memory: 16 GB

PorkyG 8:47 PM - 18 February, 2014

Okay so I did get time today to fool around with the buffer and given my Mac specs above I left out my needles I tested this on which I'll provide below as well as my mixer.

Mixer: Rane 62 Z-Trip
Needles: Ortofon Scratch (or as most call them Pinks)

With PnT enabled I was able to drop the Rane Buffer down to 5 and SDJ to 5 and not have any lag or drop outs at all. Nothing chopped up but anything below randomly tossed up a orange dropout dot and sometimes but rarely a red one.

With PnT disabled I was able to drop Rane to 3 and SDJ to 1 and have absolutely no dropout or lag but going 1 to 1 in both Rane and SDJ caused lag.

I did a lot of scratching and tested each setting I listed for 20 minutes each.

Martin C 3:05 AM - 25 February, 2014

@knox001,

Quote:

If Serato DJ is closed or not connected, you should be able to set the latency in the system panel for audio applications like Ableton Live etc...

Currently Serato DJ works like how it does with Ableton Live, you can adjust the buffer size in two different places. I am not saying thats the best way, but wouldn't you want a consistent experience with how the Rane device works with any software? Or do you think Serato DJ should be a special case scenario?

Quote:

Also, you could do a blog post explaining the issue for both Mac and PC. And you could even do a short video with the Kiwi gal who makes everything sound a little bit perverted.

Dick = deck in NZ I suppose...

She left the company because you guys tormented her about that. Thanks! we only have dudes in the office now :(

But seriously.. the public beta area will be closing soon guys, but I still feel like this a valid topic/conversation that has no clear answer right now.

I have logged a "spec change" ticket with a reference to this discussion. I would like to continue tracking you guys thoughts and opinions if you don't mind. Perhaps I could move this to a general discussion area and re-title it? Definitely some great info here.

djcrap 6:16 PM - 26 February, 2014

I think you should just retitle it and stick in the general discussion that we every body gets to participate. My guess is since the release when final no body bothers to check this section

nik39 6:17 PM - 26 February, 2014

Quote:

I think you should just retitle it and stick in the general discussion that we every body gets to participate.

+1

1:07 AM, 3 Mar 2014

Discussion moved to Serato DJ General Discussion

Martin C 1:08 AM - 3 March, 2014

I agree. I have done that now..the title is vague, but it is very much a general discussion about the pros and cons of these things co-existing. Will continue to track! Thanks for the feedback and contribution so far guys.

Serato DJ Pro General Discussion

Serato DJ USB Buffer and Rane Panel USB Buffer

Serato DJ USB Buffer and Rane Panel USB Buffer

Search Results