Oh.. you mean align the track where you are triggering the cue to the other deck?
If not check
scratchlive.net

Yeah.. cuz sometimes it lines up with the other songs, but many times it doesn't. Then when you are beat matching, you're *always* starting with the two tracks in phase...

I dont know. Sounds a bit too much automation for me. Auot mixing is then one step away.

Where do you draw the line on that, and really, why should there be a line? We've already crossed that threshold of "you guys suck because you're not using vinyl" a looooooooong time ago. You could easily say the same thing about people using MIDI, ableton, or any other computerized aid and how it's making the DJ less of a DJ. I think it does the opposite, especially when tied with a very creative DJ/producer. The same argument could be said about asking for timecode out of SSL, yet I think it would be awesome to sync outboard equipment up to your records...

Remember, DJing is not all about beatmatching and more about song selection, so I'm not particularly worried about "auto-mixing" DJs taking my gigs. If we're going to be purists, we should be using vinyl ;)

I am not a purist, but ... this



is different than automixing. It is.

Automixing = No!

bring the automixing features

beatmatching is not that difficult!!!

only jokers think that's what makes a good dj a good dj

don't hate on technology

Then we should also get rid of the tempo matching display and the beat matching display. Heck, we might as well get rid of looping and make DJs juggle songs back and forth over and over.

People like to place their misery upon others: "Because I had to DJ the old way, so should everyone else." Just because songs were beatmatched the old way doesn't mean other people should now have to live by those limitations - this is a very poor argument.

Why does automixing bother you? Are you worried that automixing DJs are going to steal the show? And if so, then you better pick a new career because if Serato doesn't do it, I can bet someone else will, and you'll *still* be competing against them, SSL or not!

This same argument has been made over and over and over (for sooooo many things besides DJing), but innovation still moves forward and people find new and creative ways to do things, and more importantly, new challenges to conquer.

The only reason not to do it is if Serato were to actually lose customers because of a feature like this, and I *highly* doubt that would be the case.

Viva innovation!

babysitting is for suckers

It is not doing anything automatic. (BTW I dont mind if you want to get rid of it)

Your suggestion is doing it automatic.



I am not placing my misery. Its just that Scratch LIVE is what it is - it is not an automated DJing solution. A moderator has already commented that something like automixing will not come in the near future which is saying in nice words "nope, aint coming". Why? They know why. ScratchLIVE is for a difference target market.



I dont care what others do. If they want to use auto-whatever, let them do it. I am just against that it should be added to SSL because I am an elitest DJ - I would hate it to come to a gig and people think I am "auto"-whatever'ing. I take pride in doing it my way. There are already enough microwaves out there. Let them use Traktor and PCDJ and all the other "auto"-whatever-tools.



Sure. I agree. If you want to go that route - buy Torq. SSL should not become a "jack of all trades - master of none". It is good at what it is doing right now. Not 'auto'ing.



Nah, I'll bet: if there was an alternative rock-solid app like SSL and SSL would add automixing - DJs would switch.

Heh.. if you were an elitest DJ, you'd be spinning vinyl ;)

"A moderator has already commented that something like automixing will not come in the near future which is saying in nice words "nope, aint coming"."

you should source your quote nik39

Rane is a company trying to make money and if that's what a lot of people want I'm sure they would incorporate it. Do you think that SSL will *never* have auto mix or beat snapping?

"I'll bet"

What would you bet?





Of course, I could only win that bet and you could never win it since there would always be a future potential for it being added I could not lose even it it isn't ever added (unless Rane goes out of business or discontinues SSL).

& pride is a deadly sin:)

ScratchLIVE is my vinyl. Besides this... I got all the gems on vinyl, believe me.



I am pretty sure I read it here, but not 100% sure. However, if you need a "confirmation" its up to you to search the thread, sorry.



We agree here.

I doubt the majority wants to see auto mixing.



Beat snapping? Yes. Auto Mix - most likely no.

Bet? Read again what I am betting on. Eff that - I am ready for the bet. What do you want to bet?



See? Anyway I dont care whether I never win.



I dont think being pride on something you can do, which you have learned, or being pride on something you have achieved is wrong.

BTW. to be fair and to give me the chance to win - how about we limit the bet to.. lets say the next two years.

"Bet? Read again what I am betting on. Eff that - I am ready for the bet. What do you want to bet?"

Read again - I didn't say what I was betting on *or* what you were betting on. What you are betting on is unclear to me. Are you saying that DJ's would switch to SSL or from it?

"if there was an alternative rock-solid app like SSL and SSL would add automixing - DJs would switch"

Most people I talk to... and I talk to a lot of dj's from all over the world... are against Serato integrating automixing.

"I doubt the majority wants to see auto mixing."

you can always doubt that the majority wants to see auto mixing, but you have to ask the majority to know whether or not you are correct.

A *true* vinyl DJ will posit the same exact argument against DJs using SSL: "You really should be playing your vinyl because using SSL is just cheating, especially if you use loops, bpms, relative mode, cue points..." and the list goes on and on and on. Heck, I could call all the SSL DJs cheaters just because they have the tempo display and the beat matching display, but I don't, because they use it to accomplish things that weren't possible with regular vinyl.

In the end, who's right? Neither.. because it has nothing to do with right or wrong - it has to do with creativity. Just because you use all these extra little tools or helper functions doesn't mean you're less of an artist. But people still insist on placing themselves on a pedestal, putting others down that don't do things quite the same way they do?

To bring this back into perspective, there are people that are using traktor and PCDJ, and yes, they might be using some autoDJ tool. Does that make me a better than them because I use SSL instead? Of course not...

Oh, sorry, misunderstanding. I thought you wanted to know what I was ready to bet :)

I bet DJs will go away from SSL.



I am basing my judgement on what I read on these forums, on what people tell me when we talk about SSL.

This is a classic argument: "Because I had to go through the pain and misery of doing something one way, you should to." Goes for soooooo many other issues.

Heck, people give me a hard time because I never got my degree in college. Why should it matter to them?? Well, it's because they spent a whole lot of time and money and realized that I am accomplishing more than they are!

Sorry, it's just a bad argument and people need to be more open minded and appreciative for people doing things differently than they do...

And when CD decks were just starting, everyone was pissing and moaning that CD djing was lame, yet you see huge artists doing it. And to show how even more pointless of an argument this is, people still pay lots of money to go watch them!

I don't know if you guys realize this, but the only people that actually care how you are playing your music are the other DJs. The crowd could honestly give a hoot.

Someone who doesnt know SSL would say that. Use SSL in absolute mode - and it is vinyl.



BPM counting was there since day one.

Relative mode - thats indeed something different.



Sorry, but thats your perceiption. That is how you would like to see. Actually I dont really care about what you or he or him does, of course I am thinking that what I am doing is the good way - why else would I do what I do?



It [auto-programs] is something different. I dont like the push button mentality, all the auto-crap. Therefor I think that what I am doing is better, of course. But in the end - it really doesnt matter what I think is good or bad.

The point is - there are programs which can already to the 'auto'thing. Ever spent a thought on why they are not so successful? I dont think it just b/c of the GUI and how easy or difficult they are to use - it is the auto thing. SSL would not have been so sucessful if it had automixing since the beginning - b/c it would have caught the attention of the 'wrong' (compared to the current) audience, meaning it would had taken the attention of a different type of DJ and most certainly would had developed into a different direction.

i do not see the clear logic against auto matching. all i hear is emotions from everyone who says that it should not be implemented.

it's not that big of a deal but people seem to be scared of it. there is a lot of planning and preparation involved with DJing, including a knowledge of the audience and current and past music as well as thorough knowledge of individual tracks and what parts go well with others, not to mention skratching and juggling, etc. that is far beyond current automation technology.

in short, I believe beatmatching is the grunt work of a DJ. it hinders creativity and should eventually be automated. when someone asks "so the computer does it for you" you can still know that you do a lot more as a DJ than just beatmatching.

who cares that they are good at something that is so easily automated? lots of great DJ's use mashups in their sets, and that is basically the same thing as using beatmatching (but not as flexible - unless you have mashups of every possible beat and track and acapella that you own:)

Read above - it has nothing to do with misery.



Haha. I know many DJs went the CD route b/c of the music they could not get on vinyl. Now I am reading about DJ's going back to vinyl and SSL. "There is no excuse for using CD's nowadays." (I am quoting).



Why are you mixing then? Use a software which will replace you.

scratchlive.net <- click. It is discussing a work named "hpDJ: An automated DJ with floorshow feedback" from Dave Cliff. ( www.hpl.hp.com <- click)

nobody does complex math in their head or on paper when there is a calculator lying around - some things are just right for a computer to do and auto mixing may be one of them.

My crowd does care whether I mix or not... your crowd may not... but mine does.

My crowd does care whether I mix or not... your crowd may not... but mine does.

You may forget that there a lot of DJ's out there who don't use it to play in front of your typical non caring crowd....

that looks like a dope paper nik39 i'm checking it out

You can't compare DJing to doing math. So, stop right there. Lots of analogies sound great for argumentative purposes but mean shit in the real world.

i was talking about functions of computers, not math

calculator=computer

the only thing you can do better without auto-matching is train wreck a beat. any deviation from "perfect" beatmatching is bad, not creative. that is why it is logical for a computer to do it.

And if they don't even know the system, they're not going to care if it has snap to cue points!




and I'm sure many a DJ called it cheating when mixers started doing it, but do they care now? Nope.





And you should do what you think is best. But you should also appreciate other ideas, even if you choose not to use them.




exactly, so even though you might not like or use the feature, because it might be helpful for someone else should be reason enough not to try and shoot it down.




I think this is completely false. The reason that SSL is so popular is because it is the only system that actually bridged the gap between vinyl and the PC. No other system has done this as reliably or accessibly as SSL has. It has very little to do with the feature set.



I mix because I enjoy it. I like the vinyl interface and SSL gives me the flexibility to do what I want to do.

All I'm saying is that I'm asking for a feature and you're shooting it down because you, for some reason, don't like it. Whatever that reason is, is valid for you, not for me. I'm not trying to convince you to change the way you do things, I'm just asking that you appreciate when I have a suggestion, that it might have some valid uses outside the realm of what you might think is cool or uncool.

All those who praise or want auto beatmatching.... have you seen it in action? It's never perfect either. Wrong counts. On songs that change bpm, it does go off beat too. So, yeah. Automatching can trainwreck too.

As said before, SSL is very good at what it is doing right now. It is not one of the "jack of all trades - master of none", and I am glad it is not.

Auto-mixing and whatever you guys think you can do with it - is something different. I give props to DJs who can get more out of it when using auto-mixing and not have to carre about mixing. People like... Paul van Dyk, using 3 laptops, midi, turntables and effects is something special, no doubt. But it is something different. As sixxx said, your crowd may not care, others do care.

You can have an orchestra coming out of the computer, cello's violins, piano. Name it - you can have it fromt he computer. But hey - people still visit music shows with a real human orchestra. It is something different.

And... if you want automixing? Why dont you go with one of the already existing auto-mixing software? What is the reason for buying something like ScratchLIVE when you want to use automixing? You dont need turntable/cd or any external control at all.


--


Not sure what you mean. People know about ScratchLIVE - NOT automixing.



It is something different. Go and buy the other [auto]-software.




I didn't decline that. But if SSL had auto mixing it would not had been successful and well accepted worldwide and *credited* that much. If it had automixing I doubt all the big (mostly) hiphop DJs (who really brought SSL to that level at what it is right now - I am talking about being accepted) would had used it.


Uhm... how can bridging the gap between vinyl and a computer not have anything to do with the feature set?



*for some reason*? Yes, I do have my reasons. You do have your reasons. You were explaining yours, I was expressing mine. What is the problem here? In the end if the automixing was added to SSL, we still have to use the *same* SSL. I dont care if you wanted that automixing for a different software - if you need it. But if they add it, they will add to the same ScratchLIVE which I am using. I had to use the same SSL software as you would, I would not be happy, and that is what I am expressing here. That reason should be as valid as the reasony you are posting it here.



Sorry man, dont act like I am the one spoiling the fun. You are posting about a feature suggestion in the public. If you dont want to discuss it, send it by a PM to one of the moderators. If you post it here, expect some other opinions and accept that there are other opinons as well. If you dont want me to post my opinion, you are actually shooting down *my opinion*.

And funny enough, I never even suggested that!

All I was asking for was when you jump to a cue point, it would snap to the other song's beat so I can fine-tune my tracks without having to get them in phase again. Shoot, we might as well kill instant doubles cuz that's a form of beat-matching, too! Funny nobody's complaining about that... maybe it's because it's so useful.. hmmm

This feature is not going to compensate for poor pitch adjustment, funky turntables, incorrect song phrasing, etc. It's just another tool to add to the bag of tricks.

that's not a logical argument against snapping or beatmatching or automated tempo assistance of some sort. that just means that it isn't perfect 100% of the time (but neither is doing it manually - unless you are perfect). a lot of music is "metric" or has a measured regular rhythm and it could be helpful for those tracks (and other non-metric tracks to a degree if a "beat-snapping" is an option).

besides you could make the same faulty argument against calculating bpm's in general sixxx.

we aren't saying auto mix/snap/tempo assist is god (or perfect), but you guys act like it's the devil:)

You can instant double again (load up the track) and there you go... beatmatched again. :)

I have used that argument before. No computer will ever measure up to a DJ who has skills cause all songs are not the same. Simple as that.

Funny enough, I never said auto mix/snap/temp assist is the devil either.

All I'm saying is that Serato doesn't need it to be #1 on the market.... Just like at how it became the standard and it was lacking all the features that barely came out.

ahhaha.. I don't! I want the cue point to snap to the beat of the other song. I never asked for automixing and my suggestion should not be misconstrued as such. If it is, then you should feel the EXACT same way about instant doubles.




uhhh.. because I bought this, and the software makers are open to new feature suggestions, hence my reason for suggesting it.



pure speculation.





heh.. I never asked for automixing...




You are trying to spoil my feature suggestion, and that's totally fine. I'll just keep supporting it.. no harm, no foul.

Real DJ's prefer Serato... simple as that.

Now if I could just get it to do that with cue points! :)

and by Real DJ's... I mean turntablists.

"Funny enough, I never said auto mix/snap/temp assist is the devil either."

That's ok, I didn't say you did either either:)

Vinyl Emulator vs DJ Emulator.
Im sure that SSL intends to be the former not the latter. And the argument is over where the lines are drawn.

I think that auto beatmatching is squarely in the DJ E column.

I understand that it would free some people up (not me) to do other cool things. But what happens down that road when those cool things are also emulated? Eventually we will find a place where the only cool thing left to do is say "wow that program DJs really well"

Let me go back and read (again) why you want to do that....

See... thats what I am talking about - "spoil" your feature suggestion. Before you said I should not "shoot down" your idea. Actually you are crying foul. If you don't want to discuss your idea - there is not point in posting them here. Simple as that.

+1

Uhm nope. I have talked to quite a few DJ's in my life. Maybe not the biiig DJ's from the states I mentioned earlier. But a lot of those DJ's who I have spoken to do think the same way.

Well said.

"All I'm saying is that Serato doesn't need it to be #1 on the market"

don't get it twisted, although you may not want them to, Rane very much does want Serato to be the number 1 on the market. Rane is a business, not an elitist group of DJ's on this board.

Don't you rane???

What are you talking about? Serato ALREADY IS the number 1 on the market. lol

Go to any club and you'll see DJ's using Serato. Most places where there is a DJ.... Serato is he software/hardware of choice.... and this is pre-1.8.

Does that mean Serato will be the only one on the market (only one for sale) nah. But, where it really matters... Serato is already there.

i didn't say they weren't. I quoted you sixxx.

i have a 57 so you don't need to sell me on Rane.

or Serato

When you quote me... make sure you READ what I wrote...


This is the important part: need it

meaning automixing or snap to cue

touché sixxx:)

No thanks. lol

why would you assume that they would need it though if they are already #1 anyway? I wasn't proposing that they did.

Read again? I don't know what you're talking about now... I have never said they need it.

b/c some people on this board act like they neeed IT to stay on top. I say: they are on top because they do not have IT.

you said that they didn't need it to be number one, but that is moot since they don't have it and they already are number 1.

I am more than happy to discuss my idea and I apologize if you feel that I was not respecting your viewpoint. I'm just trying to state my case why I think this feature should be implemented, nothing more...

They do not need it, cause they are #1.

They will not need it to stay #1.

However, this has nothing to do with my feature suggestion. I don't want to be #1, I just want to play music and have my cues snap to the other song's beat.

There you go. Clear as water... from the Potomac river... hahaha

Once again... why? Can you explain to me why you need it?

straight from the Potomac I'm a block away sixxx

This was a response to cappincark.

BTW, yes, I do feel like you didnt want to respect my POV. Esp. since I just mentioned it sounds too muhc like automixing and then *you* started to talk how we should forget the line between automixing and SSL.


However, I hope you mean it seriously with your apologize. All good. Lets continue being constructive.

Oh.. sorry. yeah, when I'm beatmatching two tracks, I'll hop back to the first cue point quite a bit. When I press the cue, it would be nice if it snapped to the beat of the other song.

And yes, I can drag the record or speed it up, it would just be handy if it snapped to the beat so I could get straight to pitch matching instead of phase-matching and then pitch-matching.

I see what you mean but...

If you hit the cue on the beat, it would fall on the beat and why would you want it to snap to the nearest beat when you still need to beatmatch it? It's the same as it is right now. I think.

How much could you gain by that?

sometimes you don't hit the cue perfectly on beat and it would allow for not being perfect all the time & make for less pushing & pulling. is that correct msoultan?

to go a step further (possibly deviating from msoultan's request but following the same logic)...

if it was snapping you could get the tempo close (or maybe not so close, i don't know how this stuff works usally) and it would correct and make the beats on time. i've never used any auto-assist of any kind so I'm not familiar with the nuances of this type of thing. is this what you have in mind msoultan?

usually

Yeah. I can see how you don't hit the cue perfectly sometimes... but that's the "magic" of djing. That's what takes practice. Kinda like scratching and dropping the song on beat. If you practice it long enough, you will get it on beat... all the time. Well, 99% of the time. :)

Let's say I have a track playing on deck 1 and another tracked being previewed on deck 2. I hit 6 to jump to the first cue point of track 2 and start beatmatching. Then after I've played them long enough and they're matched, I decide to reset back to the cue point by hitting 6 right on the beat of track 1. Now track 2 is lined up beat to beat and you can continue beatmatching or just go ahead and crossfade over if it's already matched and timed correctly.

Mind you, sometimes even perfectly matched beats on the beat match display don't even mesh well, but this makes jumping to cues more consistent. This is much like how they currently implemented the beat snap with autoloop snapping to a track's beat.


If you want an example of where else it would be really handy, look at 2:28 of this DJ AM video:

Watchwww.youtube.com

You'll notice that pressing the cues is not very exact, and I think a lot of that is due to using a keyboard.



DJ AM is a great DJ, but even he can't do it perfectly - heck, he's pretty far off. If it snapped to the beat of the other record that was playing, it would lock in perfectly.

So, you wanna be like DJ AM? OK.


You should've stated that from the beginning.

*Leaves thread*

hahahaha.. man, tough crowd!

It's funny cuz I've never done what he did, nor would I (I play house). I had just seen that a while back and remembered it...

I should have said, he's a veteran DJ, and even a veteran can't get it right on time...

You can't back paddle. lol


Well, here's the thing. Sometimes, imperfections (like doing something live and I'm not talking about trainwrecks) is actually a good thing.

No, msoultan was not trying to say he wants to be like AM.

He thinks DJ AM needs either to practise more or he needs auto-snap-cue-point-to-other-deck. He was giving AM advice.

Wait, AM is on the board. Lets send him a PM to this thread ;)

hehehe

well, I'm not even doing it live, I just wanted to make it easier to jump right to the beat. My goal is perfection (using SSL and turntables) :)

Yeah.. his fingers are kinda slow.. he really needs to work on that :)

TIM, seriously! ;)

tim?

It's TMI... not TIM.


hahaha

hahahahaha

lol...

TMI, yeah. :)

I think that ssl loops are snapping to transients, and not a grid.

I think the suggestion would require a grid system. Also it would require another variable, resolution- whole, quarter, sixteenth, etc.

Unless it where going to snap to transients which would prevent you from sample triggering type stuff... (like the AM vid)

The problem for tapping out cues like a sample is that if you hit early it would sound fine, but if you hit late the correction would have to chop the front of the sound off which would sound horrible.

And I imagine it would 'feel' like each tap was a misfire which would probably cause you to not tap on beat again and so on. I doubt highly that it would work for hitting sample like cues.

And it would probably be looked at like a keyboard player with some sort of midi quantizer controlling his play because he is sloppy.


As far as being used for synchronizing before you mix you would probably want the bpms to also match otherwise its only a half solution. Sure you could have the cue hit on time, but still have to adjust the bpm manually. If you are manually adjusting the bpm you might as well correct the cue tap error as well right?

Syncing the two bpms opens a whole new set of problems whos logical solution is x-fader position. How would ssl know which bpm to be the master? And there we are at auto-mix.

For lots more reasons I think it is just the wrong direction for the program. But maybe Im wrong, the market will tell us, there are those other programs. And even if SSL where to loose share because it lacked this feature, I would bet that Serato would give us an entirely new platform instead. A platform that would put automix at the foundation and build from there which would be way more of a fantastic a program then trying to move SSL off into that direction.

I just think that a different app for this type of stuff would serve everyone better. SSL is focused primarily on vinyl emulation. The loops and cues are just icing, manual live editing. If SSLs focus were automix it would be an entirely different beast.

And yes I think it does hold the market because it is NOT that beast.

SMA (Serato Mix Auto) bring it

AKIEM is the man!

I have no intention of doing what AM did. I was just showing how hitting these out on the keyboard isn't necessarily precise (by no fault of AM).

I would probably have it snap to the transient like autolooping. That way it doesn't even need to know about the BPM.



Even if you hit it late, that would be fine, because in my case, I'm only using it during cuing, not live. However, in that case, it would have to use bpm to figure out how far forward to go to catch up to the other song.






Just like instant doubles will drift if the bpms don't match, the same would go here. The goal here is just to get the cue to start on the same beat as the other track when you trigger it. If they drift, then they drift. That's where regular beatmatching comes in, just as you would do with instant doubles. It's really to start the two tracks in phase with each other, no more, no less.



I'm not looking for it to do anything with beat matching. Just have the cued up track be in sync when you hit the cue point (like instant doubles). As far as which is master, the deck that's not being cued would obviously be the deck that's snapped-to.




Don't get me wrong, I never asked for an automix feature. If you want to compare it to anything, compare it to instant doubles, which essentially does the same thing. I'm just trying to cue another track so it syncs up with the beat right when the cue is pressed.

It kinda boggles me that people are complaining about this when it's so similar to instant doubles, yet I would think instant doubles would be way more like "cheating" than this would.

Instant doubles is a life saver instead of doing the old reverse input crap.

Now, if you didn't know, hitting cues from the 57 is a lot more precise than doing it from any keyboard. I found this out when trying my new 57.

And just like instant doubles, this could be a helpful item as well. It doesn't perform magic, it just allows you to move a little faster.

I'm debating getting the 57, but I'm not sure if I really need it. I do want another interface, though...

The 57 allows you to move faster. If anything, the keyboard is hindering you.

Or something Midi.

yeah.. I'm stuck cuz my laptops only have one USB port and I'm extremely reluctant to use a hub.

Midi or an external xkeys controller would be pimp... or 57, of course ;)

tru pimp

hahaa, mi disagree, I think that IS his fault.



so what would happen if you re-cue the playing deck?





true

but, I think its the edge of a slope

isnt 'start point' and 'speed' just two sides of the same coin?
I mean that the time/hassle you would save by having it start precise for you is exactly the same as the time/hassle that you would save if you had the tempo match for you. Asking for it to match start is the same as asking for it to match speed for you. Its a similar problem with practically the exact same solution (adjusting manually).

What Im getting at is if we travel down that road, might as well go all the way. Well, like what you are saying with instant doubles. If we get a 'cue-to-transient-of-other-deck' we might as well get a 'match-speed-of-other-deck' and so on....

But if we get all that, I think it is being done from the wrong end. Meaning it should have been done from the ground up, it would make more sense.

Its like asking for the 57 to become a 4 pgm rotary. To me it would make more sense to go ahead and do a full blown Soulsonica mixer then to try and get the 57 to do everything.

not hating tho

If Serato/Rane made a Traktor type program and a 4ch rotary 57, I would be asking for a 2ch mixer and Scratch program.

but yes, you are correct about some 'emotion' in place of 'logic' (just not too much)

It would just jump to the selected cue point. If the other deck is playing, it will snap to the same beat of the other deck.




Depends! If you're INT, that would be possible. However, if you're in REL, then the speed is dependent on the deck speed, which the software has no control over. And I'd venture to guess that there aren't too many people buying SSL so they can DJ in INT mode. At that point, you might as well buy a system that does everything internally without controllers that have their own speed-control (i.e. control surfaces instead of turntables or cd decks).



I don't think it's that difficult. They are already able to detect the beat (as is evident from the auto loop feature), and they're able to start a track at the same time as another (i.e. instant doubles).

Going even further, instant doubles does match speed, but that's again in INT mode. Once you switch back to REL you're SOL in regards to pitch. Remember, I'm only asking for the track to start on the beat of the other track - I don't want to lose the turntable interface as that's what makes SSL so valuable. This means that the pitch will always be controlled by the turntable and you are simply unable to match speed because of this.



You can't, because speed is dependent on how fast the turntable is spinning.



I think this feature request is completely within the realm and abilities of the software. Like I keep saying, instant doubles and auto loop have very similar functionality to what I'm asking for, yet nobody has any problems with those. And interestingly enough, those two features alone are a *huge* departure from traditional DJing because they're use the computer to do a very complicated task for you. How is my suggestions any more evil than those? But for some odd reason, this idea is seen as worst thing since unsliced bread. I just don't get it...

Horrible night yesterday.

I dreamt of this function and automix. Aint kidding!

Right, paying attention to the selected deck. I forgot because I set everything up so that I dont have to look at the screen and pay attention to which v-deck is selected.





If I was a wedding DJ I would drop the tables, but...

In REL mode, you could offset the pitch for the decks to match. If you can offset the whole file, Im sure you could offset the pitch.



right, but I meant the work/hassle/time in your performance, not development.

Matter of fact, (let me know) I would bet that bpm matching would be even more useful a function. Imagine if each new song you load, it automatically matched tempo to the other deck. To me that sounds like it would be even more helpful. Then all you would have to do is find the beat. And I would bet that it would be more easy to implement. Never having to fiddle with the pitch again, sounds good.

My point is that if you want it to snap to the beat for you, you might as well have it match the pitch for you as well. (...and so on)


To elaborate on how bpm matching would work:
On deck 1 you have a song with a tempo of 110.
On deck 2 you load a song with a tempo of 105.
SSL automatically offsets the speed of deck 2 by a percentage that would bring the bpm up to 110
(I would go ahead and use that, shhhh dont tell the purists)




nah, just a simple offset.



except, you can have an offset (shhhhhhh)



I like unsliced bread.

I think the loop is looked at, not as automatically going back-to-back but rather as a manual, on-the-fly way of doing something that would otherwise be done in pre-production. I could extend a cut with an editor before I get on.

And I think that instant doubles is looked at as a substitute for the channel reverse switch.

Maybe if you repackage the idea as something else it would go over better.

'Never have to fiddle with the pitch'

It's thoughts like this one that make me wanna think you're just lazy and want everything done for you.

sixxx what does that personal remark have to do with his discussion?

you could make the same faulty argument about not wanting digital crates since a person would be lazy and doesn't want to carry crates.

you would probably have to have the mode set as INT for it to work with the "snapping"

or use the "offset" ability AKIEM is mentioning in REL mode

Sure you can, but you'll lose that argument in a heart beat.

Start a new thread and watch me demolish your argument.

Carrying crates vs not wanting to move a pitch. lol

you have sharp claws sixxx lol

don't get all emo on me

I never get emo so put your lipstick away. I never offended him or anything. I said that what he posted makes me wanna think... I'm not calling him lazy or saying he is.

You know. Action. Reaction.

my argument is still against a snap-to-beat.

my point is, if we get a snap-to-beat, might as well get a auto-pitch-match. and if you go that far, might as well get an auto-mix too.

I do not want to go down that road, and I think it would be better suited for a dif app. if at all.

but no lie, if they put in a auto-pitch-match I would use it. I would not tell anyone that I use it. Its the same with using cues instead of backspinning, I do it sometimes, how can you not, why wouldnt you? I dont think that was the only reason for cues, just happens to be a convenient extra.

If SSL wound up being a DJ Emulator, meaning you could go have a beer while it did its thing, it would suck. And it would damage the art of DJing to no end. Anything in that direction, Im not down for. I believe that Serato understands their position and will not go down that path because it hurts everyone. Anything that causes dumb people to say "hey you dont even need a guy up there, the computer does it all" is harmful, from ipods to traktor. I would bet that this debate hits all sectors of industry, should we make computers to aid human activity or replace it? my vote is for the former.

someone is going to do it tho. let the market decide. If they want to drop all kinds of software on us that nine year old kids buy up to make believe they are DJing, complete with flawless mixes, fine. I don't want to compete with that, but I will.

But I dont want my own best weaponry to go that direction.



at the same time, if it is going to match my pitch for me, fuck it, let it do its thing, more swigs of beer for me

do you guys know what Luddites are?

The Luddites were a social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested — often by destroying sewing machines — against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt threatened their livelihood.

This English historical movement has to be seen in its context of the harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars; but since then, the term Luddite has been used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. For the modern movement of opposition to technology, see neo-luddism.






.......

The difference is that we do NOT opposed to technological advancements. We actually welcome it. That's the difference between a microwave an a real DJ. You can still use Serato or a technology like it... but you have to ALSO rely on your skills.

That's the problem with microwaves. Starting to rely on the technology... and therefore, losing the essense of DJing along the way.

How is instant doubles relying on skills?

Akiem, by your rationale, we might as well go all the way and have it match the pitch in REL mode for instant doubles as well because we're already heading down that road.

However, I don't agree. I really don't see the connection between having it snap to a beat and having it match the pitch. Those are two entirely different functions.

Again, if we think this is so evil, then we should think the same exact thing about instant doubles, yet nobody does... why is that?

Heck, we should all be hating on cue points as well, because we really should be putting tape on our records to preserve the "art of djing".

I can see your guys point to some extent, but I think that this feature request is a lot less "evil to the art of djing" than stuff like auto loops and instant doubles...

Actually, instant doubles is not given a free pass... but it isn't auto-mixing. lol

Still... I rather catch up to the record than use instant doubles as it will fuck you up when you're really rockin' doubles UNLESS you're using the waves.

Once again, some features are useful, but are not used by a lot of DJ's....

Cues... I never use cues when in Absolute... same when I'm rockin' doubles... yes, the features are there... don't need them (sometimes) cause I got the skills to do it without the computer doing it for me.

I never asked for auto mixing!

"I really don't see the connection between having it snap to a beat and having it match the pitch. Those are two entirely different functions."

msoultan they are logically related in function

how is it supposed to snap a beat (adjust the location of what is playing to match another tempo) without either being in INT or having some variance applied to REL?

and then how are they not related? that opens the door for further expansion of variance to include pitch matching. do you see that?

Ok, those are the two things that it takes to beatmatch, I understand that. However, I'm not asking for SSL to do the pitch adjustment, nor would I expect it to.



Right now you can press the cue button at any time you want. This feature, however, would just shift the start of the song being cued such that it snaps to the beat of the other track. This is the exact same behavior of auto loops. Even if you're a little behind, the loop still starts at the detected beat.

In the case of this feature request, it would line up the cue point with the beat of the other track. If you're ahead, it will delay the start until the other beat catches up (within a given range), and if you're behind, it will jump ahead a calculated amount in the track you're cuing. Nothing more.



And instant doubles does essentially the same exact thing, yet it doesn't match the pitch. I don't think SSL should go down *that* road (pitch matching), and I don't imagine SSL will any time soon. However, since the software already does instant doubles, I see no reason why it should be able to do this...

so it would automatically offset the track only, correct?

if the tempo or pitch was offbeat it would still be offbeat is that also correct?

yup!

I am *not* asking for any pitch adjustment what-so-ever, and would *never* ask for that feature.

So, just use the cue button then. lol

how would ssl know what to snap to without any quantization? just by the large part of the wave?

in auto doubles it is easy, it knows to match to the exct spot that the track is currently playing. That is much simpler than what you are proposing.

yeah you should just get your timing tighter i guess.

i guess i was confused because beat snapping (to me) implied that it would be continuous, not just for the introduction (or cue point) of the track.

The same way they're doing it with auto-looping. It detects the beat and snaps to it.



My timing is good, but the keyboard not so good.

you can skratch it in too, i find that works better anyway. "practice makes perfect" as they say.


but you probably already knew that you could do that (i hope)

you mean like when it guesses the length of a loop based on the bpm? that does not make sense. it would have no reference to guess from. To SSL is't just a big long wave it doesn't actually know where the 1/4 is.

instant doubles might be 'evil' if it has set us on the slope that leads to a 'DJ Emulator'

the way you use instant doubles as a argument for snap-to-beat, is the way anyone can use snap-to-beat as an argument for auto-pitch (and the cries for it will deafen us all)

its the direction

if the industrial revolution had failed the Luddites would have been right.

I have no problem seen as a Luddite, save me from the misery of factory work please!

What are you going to do as a DJ when it becomes an automated task?

there is a lot of planning and preparation involved with DJing, including a knowledge of the audience and current and past music as well as thorough knowledge of individual tracks and what parts go well with others, not to mention skratching and juggling, etc. that is far beyond current automation technology.

But it does know where beat is. And itt's able to appropriately set the start point of the loop and then it sets the length according to the BPM. That's why you can't use auto looping without the BPM value.

If Im not mistaken it calculates 'length' by bpm, and 'points' by transients in the wav. and where those numbers dont agree there is a protocal

if that makes sense?

you are incorrect sir.

what if the bpm is incorrect? the distance it guesses would be wrong.

it may be able to detect where a 1 is but there are lots of non-metric tracks and tracks where it switches and those wouldn't work.

Also it might get a false positive if the track doesn't have a big hit on the 1 (assuming you are trying to drop on a 1/4) or if its one of those tone-heavy tracks where you cannot distinguish the beat from the ambient tone.

correct?

msoultan is sir btw

i'm sure these are the same issues that arise with auto mixing etc.

acapellas wouldn't be much fun either.

now if you could set up a different type cue point for it to coincide with on the playing track you might have something.

Machines could make pretty good inferences about what a group of people would like to hear based on a set of variables.

I dont think that its to far fetched to see a machine plugged into a RIAA data base that does a pretty good job at selecting the next perfect track for the club. Maybe it takes note of attendance, drink sales, analyzing how krunk the party is, tracks individual party goers. is a star in the house? maybe it plays a drop from their publicity agency to let everyone know. not only that, its gathering statistics and learning...

and all this could have been prevented by not implementing instant doubles!

right, I was talking about the way it works, now

If you are referring to my statement about how autolooping works, then yes, the distance it guesses will be wrong. I have tried it, but it's an easy enough test.




All it has to do is pick the nearest transient, which is going to be pretty darn close to when I press the cue button. If my cue press is so grossly off, then of course, it's going to pick the wrong transient.



I'm not sure what magic they're using to snap to the beat for auto looping, but it works!

well you should work on your tapping skills my good man

i for 1 am all about the darkside

If you're curious, I just tested this and it does in fact use the bpm value to determine the loop length..

instant doubles was worth it

You didn't have to test it. It has been mentioned that looping works that way and it has been pointed out that it could be better if ssl detected bpm on the fly which would 'notice' changes in bpm as they happened on odd tracks.