pardon the typo's was in a rush...

I think the Manual is misleading but I could be wrong. Almost everything at the time the TTM57 came out was USB 2.0 and the manual says 1.1?

its 1.0

Shadow, you use your 57 strictly as a mixer? I checked out your bio and it says your not a scratch live user? even though you have a 57? have you updated your firmware? Just curious.

i have a sl1 - 56 and a 57. i use the 57 all the time and the 56 with the sl 1 for back up.which the 57 has been flawless for almost a year :)
i always update the firmware to the version of serato im using.


i been using serato since 2005.

USB 1.1 :)

Hi Shaun.

Why is it 1.1 and not 2.0? USB 2.0 was already in development in consumer products and 24/96KHz was already around.

I am wondering why USB 2.0 wasn't installed from the get-go and how is that calling the TTM57 "future proof" if you limit the hardware to USB 1.1?

Since the new Serato box has USB 2.0, would there be any updates to the TTM57 to bring it to USB 2.0 OR should we expect a new TTM57SL to come out to replace this? Reason I invested in the TTM57SL was due to it being "future proof" that was a big selling point to me. And I guess I am concerned whether USB has a direct relation to the updated 24/96Khz audio in the new Serato Box. I use the 57 in gigs and production so this has caught my attention which prompted this thread. It would be nice to have the 57 to have 24/96Khz and USB 2.0.


Thanks for your attention.

Carlo

Found this thread...the last post states a "wish list" breifly of what is wanted in the 57:
scratchlive.net

Guess I'm not alone in this..

Both the TTM 57SL and SL1 use USB 1.1

USB 2.0 was not as widely supported as it is today and, from what I've been told, USB 2.0 would not decrease latency or enhance SL1 or TTM 57SL performance.

*whew*

are your sources good? just a ques.

lol, yeah they're good :)

why dose he want usb 2 so bad it not gunna change it any

I don't care about usb 1 or 2 or 3 or 10. lol. was just making sure there's really no difference between 1 and 2

Hi Shaun,

I wanted USB 2 as i thought it would be better performance and quality wise. SL 3 is USB 2....why not keep it at USB 1.1 if it doesn't affect anything? I also bought it cuz it was "future proof", so I hope it lives up to it. Don't get me wrong. I love my 57, I just want to make sure that it's still the primo mixer as it was when it was released. I've been using serato since its initial release and prior...before it was released...so i just want to make sure...

Ok, so USB 2.0 doesn't do anything better for the 57?
Are there any plans then for increasing the output audio to 24/96?

everything will be updated at rane-serato.

the 57 will always be what it is.a great mixer.expect a upgrade.because the rane - serato team is on top of this industry :)

The SL 3 has 3 stereo inputs and 3 stereo outputs (12 channels in total), that's too much bandwidth to send down a USB 1.1 cable so stepping up to USB 2 was required. The TTM 57 actually only has 8 channels in total so it only requires USB 1.1

The TTM 57 is actually 24bit internally, the files you play are only 16/44.1 which is plenty. The mixer upsamples these to mix them which gives the mixer plenty of headroom internally where it counts. I believe the output DACs are also 24bit.

Hello Shaun,



1. Regarding USB 2.0:
While this is obviously true in terms of control-vinyl and MIDI related activity, with the introduction of 'The Bridge' there is the potential for more complex applications, such as production/ recording, as shown in *demo videos. USB 2.0's ability to support 24/96+, and simultaneously maintain low latency (as it has twice the transfer rate) would be most advantageous for such. With this newly introduced capacity to work with Ableton, which is equally production/ playback centric, and the inclusion of USB 2.0 in many of your new products, will the TTM57 line be reconsidered for USB 2.0's inclusion?

I am inquiring, as I would very much like an excuse to buy a TTM57 for the purpose of better implementing my DJ rig with my studio, as well as performance... but with the cost of a TTM56S and SL3 at equivalent cost, it doesn't seem worth sacrificing audio quality (and upgrade potential, with an external SL device) simply for MIDI functionality.

2. Regarding playback:
Given the rise of formats such as FLAC, which offer comparatively small size in contrast to WAV/AIF, but arguably equal (or greater) sound quality (in excess of 16/44.1), are there any plans for support of this format (or others) in the near future? As an audiophile, and (an attempting to convert) vinyl purist, while the differences may be subtle, there are noticeable enough... and in a field such as the performance of live audio, even the slightest of improvements can prove significant.

*Anybody that's heard someone play an MP3 (even at 320kbps) of a bass-centric genre in/out of 'actual' vinyl, on a big system, will know to what I refer... and filling a HD with WAV's is just impractical, when you've got a few hundred pieces in your collection, as most professionals do.

Well, think about it as a business man. If you have ever single option available the first time up, there's really no need for the consumer to re-buy a product.

For example, SL-1 is in the "decline" stage of its product life cycle. Most people have bought it and only a few new consumers are purchasing it. You can't really sustain a business with only a few new customers a year. So while SL-1 is in its "mature" and "decline" stage, SL-3 was being "developed" and "introduced" into the market.

By not giving you the "Aux Input" or the "24-bit" sound in SL-1, they've given the consumer new reasons to buy SL-3, the added features. As a business you want to have products that grow.

When the ttm-57 reaches, if it hasn't already, its "maturity" and "decline" stage of its product life cycle, there will be a new mixer "introduced" into the market to replace this dying product (ttm-57). I predict it will have USB 2.0 or maybe even USB 3.0, depending on how universally USB 3.0 becomes accepted by the computer companies. I can see in Empath style three channel mixer, with two USB input like the 68 mixer.

Businesses are smart, they get you with gimmicks. As consumers we don't really need half the shit they throw at us, but we think we do.

Well, yeah... absolutely understandable from a business perspective. The product has, in fact, been released for about 5 years now though. By terms of measuring technological advancement, by time, it is even at the official lifespan for antiquity.

It's just curious, that an SL-3 + a TTM56S is the same cost as the TTM57SL, but with older integration protocol... the only appeal that it still offers is self-containment and MIDI functionality, for use with 'The Bridge'. While very appealing in this aspect, for any application where quality/performance/functionality is a most central attribute... I would favor a TTM56S+SL-3 thus far, unless further modifications are made before purchasing such... which is a pity, as I would love to more actively integrate my decks into production applications.

I have a both a ttm-56 and ttm-57 and SL-3. After having the ttm-57 and using it, I think the ttm-56 and SL-3 is just as good as a ttm-57. The "instant doubles" feature and "cue" points in "Group 1" is all I really use. Every once and I while I'll use the effects, but I really haven't put in the time to really master the effects.

I have the previous ttm-56 and I think the cross fader on it is a little crispier. I'm not sure if its because of the the USB 1.1 or the contour controls variation between the two mixers.

The only reason I bought SL-3 is because I don't really want to take the ttm-57 to a gig and be there from beginning to end. Sometimes I just want to plug, play, and go.

I think there are pluses and minuses in either setup.