DJing Discussion

This area is for discussion about DJing in general. Please remember the community rules when posting and try to be polite and inclusive.

USB buffer in Serato

hoops120 8:40 PM - 11 February, 2009
I had this on quite low below 10. I had a few dropouts so I have put it on 10. For the last 6 months its been 5. Should I put it lower? Is the reason why its good to have it lower is because of latency?

Cheers

Ben
sixxx 8:47 PM - 11 February, 2009
Yes. Lower = less latency
sixxx 8:48 PM - 11 February, 2009
Find the lowest that your computer can handle without USB dropouts.
hoops120 10:19 PM - 11 February, 2009
seem to be mixing 100% ok with it at 10 - anyone got in lower??? I am sure they have
Dj-M.Bezzle 10:21 PM - 11 February, 2009
lower than 10......probably damn near everyone here, i think i have mine on 3, it could prob go lower but i dont wanna mess with it since it works well
agentorange 10:28 PM - 11 February, 2009
-0-
Certified Quality Entertainment 10:36 PM - 11 February, 2009
As low as I can go on my macbook.
djdalite 11:05 PM - 11 February, 2009
shit i have mine on 10 but still get occasional blips, i think is mainly my comp acessing my external hd. Still never been able to slove it, my comp specs are pretty good, 4 gigs of ram, like 2.8 , 3.0ghz processor (its all in my sig). Hopefully some firewire or a esata connection can solve this in the future
MSF 3:01 AM - 12 February, 2009
im on 5 now with my macbook... was on 10 for a long time when i was using my powerbook.
Dj_KaGeN 4:29 AM - 12 February, 2009
I set mine as low as you can go, while recording your set live, if you have a 57. that way anytime you should be ok, but I still get drops every so often.
DJ Sniffles 4:45 AM - 12 February, 2009
-1- no drop outs!! Now that I'm forced to use the oh so bloated Vista, Im curious what my buffer will be.
DJ C.A.P 5:33 AM - 12 February, 2009
When I got my new laptop I was running at 3 perfectly.. It is slowing getting higher.. I'm at 5 right now.. with occasional blips.. which sucks when your recording cuz you need to get back to editing
Big Fred 5:36 AM - 12 February, 2009
-0-
Dj_KaGeN 5:46 AM - 12 February, 2009
Quote:
When I got my new laptop I was running at 3 perfectly.. It is slowing getting higher.. I'm at 5 right now.. with occasional blips.. which sucks when your recording cuz you need to get back to editing



aint dat aboutta bitch. LOL
DJ C.A.P 6:06 AM - 12 February, 2009
u tellin me.. I've been takin good care of my lappy.. I believe it's the my mass hard drive.. I got my lappy filled to the tippy top!
Laz219 7:14 AM - 12 February, 2009
I am running one click higher than 5 at the moment. Get the very rare drop out from it.

If your computer is starting to lag in performance, backing up and resetting everything works perfectly to get it back to 'as new' performance.
kalibhakta 7:38 AM - 12 February, 2009
Why would the acceptable buffer increase over time?

This issue is confusing to me.
Laz219 10:22 AM - 12 February, 2009
Computers just generally slow down over time when programs get added, the hard drive gets a little full...whatever. Either way they lose performance which then affects the amount of latency scratch live can run before you start getting dropouts.
sixxx 3:59 PM - 12 February, 2009
I think the reason the buffer has to be increased (with each version) is because the software is getting bloated with (some) useless features. I wish we could just turn some off and they didn't take any resources or whatever.


I used to be at the lowest 2 on my fucken iBook G4 of all computers. When I switched to my Macbook, I was at 2, but slowly - with every new version, I have to go up. I was at a 10. Then, it went down to 5. Then to 2...after they possibly caught some bugs. Now, back again at 5 with the latest beta.
dj shadow from detroit 4:35 PM - 12 February, 2009
im at the lowest on a dell e1705 intel core 2 duo 1.73 processor 2 gigs of ram with xp.i use it for serato only.its all tweaked out.
ever since i bought this laptop i been using serato at the lowest settings.even with 1.9 pb 2 i use it at the lowest settings with no problems.

if you want the lowest buffer go with a macbook or a macbook pro.even with a pc at the lowest and a macbook at the lowest settings the mac has tighter response.

for the money a pc with xp is the way to go.for tighter performance and a laptop that will run both audio and video.spend more and get a macbook pro.
Gamble 4:43 PM - 12 February, 2009
I'm on 1 - Macbook. Version 1.8.3 Never had a dropout. Make sure you don't run too much crap in the background and you should be under 5 for sure on a decent machine
edsonr 8:47 PM - 12 February, 2009
I have dell e1505 smaller version to what DJ Shadow uses. Pretty much same specs. I've been able to run it at the lowest setting 0. I've had a few dropouts before, but since I removed the battery while playing out I don't remember a dropout since.

I also have a dual boot, where one OS is dedicated to Serato only. Also when I run it I have all extra services and applications off. I'm not sure if this helps, but for my external HD, I made sure it was Firewire to save usb bandwidth.
DJ Tank 9:33 PM - 12 February, 2009
Quote:
im at the lowest on a dell e1705 intel core 2 duo 1.73 processor 2 gigs of ram with xp.i use it for serato only.its all tweaked out.
ever since i bought this laptop i been using serato at the lowest settings.even with 1.9 pb 2 i use it at the lowest settings with no problems.

if you want the lowest buffer go with a macbook or a macbook pro.even with a pc at the lowest and a macbook at the lowest settings the mac has tighter response.

for the money a pc with xp is the way to go.for tighter performance and a laptop that will run both audio and video.spend more and get a macbook pro.

+1
ral 3:53 PM - 13 February, 2009
Quote:
I wish we could just turn some off and they didn't take any resources or whatever.


turn off the waves option!

usb buffer 1 mac/pc
sixxx 6:16 PM - 13 February, 2009
you cant go to 1 on the mac... it's 2.
ral 6:22 PM - 13 February, 2009
can! press control then move that slider!
sixxx 6:27 PM - 13 February, 2009
Is that a bug? Cause it's impossible to actually go to 1 on the mac (i forgot the technical reasons why).
ral 6:30 PM - 13 February, 2009
easter egg!

no problems so far (crossing fingers).
DJ Tank 7:14 PM - 13 February, 2009
Quote:
can! press control then move that slider!

i just did it. we'll see how it works.
Hawk 8:56 PM - 13 February, 2009
I'm on a five-year-old Powerbook G4, 1 ghz with 1 gb ram and I have mine on 5. Zero drop outs. I only use the internal HD (which I upgraded to 160 gb from the original 60 gb). I've heard that less than 5 on this machine will cause kernal panics so I've always just used 5.
Konix 8:58 PM - 13 February, 2009
The ctrl move slider down to 1 on a Mac is a graphic bug. It's still only set on 2 in reality.
sixxx 9:02 PM - 13 February, 2009
Quote:
The ctrl move slider down to 1 on a Mac is a graphic bug. It's still only set on 2 in reality.


and there you go. lol

Thanks Konix. I figured that's what it was. :)
ral 9:52 PM - 13 February, 2009
oh well. lol. thanks konix!
OakLawnDJ 11:52 PM - 13 February, 2009
lol @ the people who say they have it on "0." Count the ticks... the lowest is 1. ;p

I'm @ 1 with 1.72GHz, 2GB RAM (had it on 1 with 1GB RAM and it was fine, I just wanted some headroom and RAM is cheap).
DJ Tank 12:33 AM - 14 February, 2009
Quote:
lol @ the people who say they have it on "0." Count the ticks... the lowest is 1. ;p

I'm @ 1 with 1.72GHz, 2GB RAM (had it on 1 with 1GB RAM and it was fine, I just wanted some headroom and RAM is cheap).

what kind of laptop do you have?
Niro 12:40 AM - 14 February, 2009
I've been on the lowest with a mac since my 17" powerbook over 3 years ago. Still on the lowest buffer with my macbook pro, rarely do I get a drop out. I played on another DJ's macbook and he had it on 10. Don't know how he was able to DJ with it that high, way too much latency.
DJ Tank 12:45 AM - 14 February, 2009
Quote:
I've been on the lowest with a mac since my 17" powerbook over 3 years ago. Still on the lowest buffer with my macbook pro, rarely do I get a drop out. I played on another DJ's macbook and he had it on 10. Don't know how he was able to DJ with it that high, way too much latency.

he had it on the left side or right side of the scale?
OakLawnDJ 1:17 AM - 14 February, 2009
Quote:
Quote:
lol @ the people who say they have it on "0." Count the ticks... the lowest is 1. ;p

I'm @ 1 with 1.72GHz, 2GB RAM (had it on 1 with 1GB RAM and it was fine, I just wanted some headroom and RAM is cheap).

what kind of laptop do you have?


It's in my profile... Compaq Presario V6000 series. I'm an HP advocate - had good experience with their equipment my whole life.
Hassle 3:40 AM - 14 February, 2009
Alright, so I've been lookin into gettin a Mac because I was gonna get another laptop that I only use for music stuff. Peer pressure is a major bitch I guess. I got this dual core Acer with 3Gb of ram and XP, which is running very lean and I never have any drop-outs with the buffer at 1. I keep it empty, and only got Office, Firefox and Audition besides Serato on it. All my music is on externals. I'm also very cautious using innuhnet (Noscript, Stopsign firewall and anti-virus etc.) and dump everything from the cache/DNS regularly. Once again, never any problems.

How come you can't set the buffer on 1 on a Mac? I want to run Serato with optimal settings, since I like to scratch n beatjuggle. The buffer set at 2 on a Mac doesn't seem optimal to me? Why would a Mac be better? Can somebody explain whats up with that?
dj shadow from detroit 7:22 PM - 14 February, 2009
2 on a mac is a tighter response then 1 on a pc.trust me.i dont own a mac but will because of the response is so much tighter.

to be honest 2 on a mac is really really close to using normal vinyl.


i have a pc at 1 buffer and im happy but after trying out a mac my scratches came out tighter.

hassle,

pc parts are made by all different companies and linked together to make a pc computer.a mac is built all by apple.which means all the parts work together with more optimal performance.

a 2.0 processor in a mac is like a 3.2 processor in a pc.apple computers perform a little faster then a pc at the same specs.there a little more pricey but you get what you pay for.


this is coming from a pc owner that never owned a mac. loL!

hope this helps.
DJ Tank 8:12 PM - 14 February, 2009
Quote:
2 on a mac is a tighter response then 1 on a pc.trust me.i dont own a mac but will because of the response is so much tighter.

to be honest 2 on a mac is really really close to using normal vinyl.


i have a pc at 1 buffer and im happy but after trying out a mac my scratches came out tighter.

hassle,
++++++++++++ Millions
pc parts are made by all different companies and linked together to make a pc computer.a mac is built all by apple.which means all the parts work together with more optimal performance.

a 2.0 processor in a mac is like a 3.2 processor in a pc.apple computers perform a little faster then a pc at the same specs.there a little more pricey but you get what you pay for.


this is coming from a pc owner that never owned a mac. loL!

hope this helps.
DJ Tank 8:13 PM - 14 February, 2009
+++++++++++ Millions
DJStevieP 8:30 PM - 14 February, 2009
Quote:
2 on a mac is a tighter response then 1 on a pc.trust me.i dont own a mac but will because of the response is so much tighter.

to be honest 2 on a mac is really really close to using normal vinyl.


i have a pc at 1 buffer and im happy but after trying out a mac my scratches came out tighter.

hassle,

pc parts are made by all different companies and linked together to make a pc computer.a mac is built all by apple.which means all the parts work together with more optimal performance.

a 2.0 processor in a mac is like a 3.2 processor in a pc.apple computers perform a little faster then a pc at the same specs.there a little more pricey but you get what you pay for.


this is coming from a pc owner that never owned a mac. loL!

hope this helps.


Everything in this post is completely bunk.
Billy18bm 9:31 PM - 14 February, 2009
1 cuz macs can't go to zero, except for the ctrl thing, but i can't tell a difference
djdalite 9:57 PM - 14 February, 2009
macs suck both my nuts and gooch
dj shadow from detroit 10:28 PM - 14 February, 2009
DJ steviep

this is the truth.

ask the serato team :)
DJ Tank 10:29 PM - 14 February, 2009
Quote:
macs suck both my nuts and gooch

why hate on a mac? shadow is right. i've had hp's And gateway's in the past. they didn't live up to my expections. since i got a mac, no problems.
OakLawnDJ 11:45 PM - 14 February, 2009
LOL @ people who think that an equally equipped Apple will outperform a PC just by virtue of being Apple. Set @ 1 on my PC has no noticeable latency, just like the minimum setting on an Apple will have no noticeable latency. Apples are overpriced and overrated and survive by convincing people that they are magically "better." For the cost of any Apple laptop, I could find a PC laptop with far superior performance. If you like your Apple, fine, more power to you, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's superior simply because it has a glowing Apple on the lid. There's a reason PC is the recognized standard for computing in the world...
DJ Tank 11:58 PM - 14 February, 2009
to me, if you like the way pc's perform, then fine more power to you. i myself like mac's because of their programs. i like it because it holds up very under stress and heat. the things i been dealing on pc have not been great. but, i can say that there is a difference between the two. most people that say something bad about macs are the one's who can't afford them. (not speaking about anyone on this form.) i have a dell and gateway. their like night and day compared to a mac.
Hassle 5:01 AM - 15 February, 2009
I am sorry that I started this never-ending PC vs. Mac discussion again yall. But to me it seems so hard to get an objective answer. I know Windows XP like the back of my hand, and I never had any problems with my laptop hours of DJ-ing in clubs where it got tropical hot n stuff. I got Serato for a year now, and it took me a while to get XP adjusted for optimal performance, but now I am there, and I run it with the buffer at 1 with zero drop-outs, and I finally have the idea that especially with cuts, it's up to par with real vinyl.

But somehow it just got to me that Mac would be more stable, guess the indoctrination is almost completed. Shadow says all PCs are build with part from all different companies, and an Apple is all made by Apple, so that's why it runs better. The argument makes sense to me, but I got one word...Intel?

I already hear people saying 'well, if it works out for you like that, more power to ya' n all, but I am seriously conflicted. Will Mac improve my Serato experience....?

So yes, I am addressing the Serato team: I am convinced you guys tested it out really thoroughly. I know you all use Macs yourself, and there might be a business conflict to state your preference based on FACTS, but help me out here. You don't have to go public, drop me an e-mail or PM, I'll keep it to myself.

thanks.
DJ Tank 4:30 PM - 15 February, 2009
this will be a never ending argument. i think you will love the mac more over pc because of the response you get while running serato. i still own 2 pc's. i'am very happy with a mac. if your pc running like a champ, why change up? if your into scratching, beat jugging, cutting, etc, try a mac. i like the way they have held up under stress. my pc have crash in the past. find one of your friend with a mac and put'em side by side.
dj shadow from detroit 6:30 PM - 15 February, 2009
oaklawn dj,

why does all the pro scratching djs prefer a mac?
Dj-M.Bezzle 3:08 PM - 17 February, 2009
Quote:
I know Windows XP like the back of my hand, and I never had any problems with my laptop hours of DJ-ing in clubs where it got tropical hot n stuff. I got Serato for a year now, and it took me a while to get XP adjusted for optimal performance, but now I am there


That line right there should tell you something in the mac VS PC battle. I have both and for serato my mac runs better, still ahve an issue here and there but FAR less than my pc's. The fact that to run serato optimally you have to run it on an outdated OS on a PC should also tell you something. Everyone wants to make the point that 'if they have equal hardware bla blah blahh' when alot of why it runs smother ISNT the hardware its the software and how the software handles objects on the mac VS PC
DJ Tank 4:29 PM - 17 February, 2009
+1
DJ Super Mario 4:48 PM - 17 February, 2009
Everyone's missing a major factor in the PC vs Mac debate here... No one is taking into account Windows vs OS X... that's where a lot of the performance gain comes from in Serato and other apps... The operating system plays a big part, and Apple builds their code around their standard hardware specs, whereas Microsoft has to try to make theirs work with a ton of varying hardware vendors... not to mention new Windows versions are just older versions with new coded ADDED instead of rewritten...

just my $0.025...
Dj-M.Bezzle 4:49 PM - 17 February, 2009
Everyone excluding me who posted that 2 posts up
DJ Tank 4:53 PM - 17 February, 2009
Quote:
Everyone's missing a major factor in the PC vs Mac debate here... No one is taking into account Windows vs OS X... that's where a lot of the performance gain comes from in Serato and other apps... The operating system plays a big part, and Apple builds their code around their standard hardware specs, whereas Microsoft has to try to make theirs work with a ton of varying hardware vendors... not to mention new Windows versions are just older versions with new coded ADDED instead of rewritten...

just my $0.025...

good point
DJ Super Mario 4:55 PM - 17 February, 2009
haha... guess we were on the same track at the same time
djmatrix 8:06 PM - 17 February, 2009
Well, my boy in the Sound crew I'm in, just recently got a Mac, and he is very happy with it, this is a man who didn't care to get one in the first place (his standpoint was always, when my pc acts up I'll get a Mac). He knows Macs perform well, but he did not have the funds to get one when we started using Laptops to play out with. The point I'm trying to make is, PC's and Mac's are both great machines to work with, but as you can see in this forum, they have their trade offs, PC will work once you optimize it, while a Mac causes for minimal optimization.

I did not care for Serato (until I played on my boy's above)untill Stanton's Final Crap crapped out on me, then I got it, using the same pc and it works fine so far, I'm at work right now so all I can say is that I "think" I have my latency set to below 10. And this is a hp that is only 512MB of RAM on it (I'll let you know after I do at least 4 hrs. with it). AND YES I AM TAKING A RISK, but nothing happened yet, notice the trend, me and my crew don't make changes until it is necessary. =)
djmatrix 6:43 PM - 31 March, 2009
Well my Hp is now at 1.2 GB running at 1 or 2 with no dropouts.
DjCareer 5:33 AM - 1 April, 2009
12" iBook 1,2 Ghz with 1,25 GB Ram. Latency since ever on the lowest possible and system runs flawless! Even with all the recently installed beta versions.