Feature Requests - What would You like to see?

sc5000

#358

4% and 8% are the only ones I use. Anything above 10 is a gimmick for me.

I mostly play techno so plus minus 4% for me makes a mix super tight at an average of 128bpm or so.


#359

I routinely do multi-genre stuff with higher pitch ranges. Units that jump from 16% range to 100% range are slightly annoying but usable with 0.1 increments, but very troublesome if at 100% the pitch resolution isn’t 0.2 or better. Increments or 0.5 or (!!!) 1.0 are sort of appalling for that purpose. So some ranges between 16 and 100 I find quite useful, though I do often stay at 10 or 16% within genres. So 8% wouldn’t work for you if it still had 0.02% increments?

Seems like with the current 0.05 increments at 4%, the tiniest movements of the pitch fader will probably do nothing, right? I’m used to 0.05 increments at 4X larger pitch range and every little nudge of that fader causes an expected change in speed. My biggest grievance with digital DJ gear is doing something to it and it not having any effect, whether that be a jog bend deadzone or increments on a pitch fader not being fine enough. If I bend that outside of the jog even a little, I want it to do something, even if just a little bend. If I nudge that fader, it’d better change the speed.


#360

Yep. That’s why I like your suggestion of smaller increments on lower pitch ranges. I’ve already asked it to be a setting after it had been changed to 0.05.


#361

I can’t imagine them making the increments an optional setting. There’s got to be some reason they chose to standardize the pitch resolution increments and I’m curious what the reason is. It looks like they chose it based on the smallest increment they could achieve at 100% range. So then, is this reason so important they can’t bring back at least just one deep pitch at a small range? If it could be just one pitch range (and not two) then I’d vote for 8 or 10% having 0.02, drop the lower ranges (since classic deep pitch is 0.02 at 4 or 6% and that’d now be redundant), and leave the 0.05 at the higher ranges. If that happened, would you be angry at the loss of the lower ranges if this new lowest range (the higher one) now has 0.02?


#362

It used to be lower (0.01 @ 4%), but was changed in a later firmware version to 0.05.

I wouldn’t drop the lower ranges for other reasons.


#363

I assumed that was just at lower ranges. Someone also said 0.01 was the increment at 4% originally. Are you saying it was 0.02 at all the pitch ranges before?

Testing players and controllers with 14bit faders in VDJ with edited skins, the pitch faders do allow deterministic increments of better than 0.01 at 6% and nearly 0.01 at 8% and 10%.

At 12% it’s starting to get closer to 0.02 increments with only occasional changing by 0.01.

While I personally think 0.02 would be sufficient to be truly deep long-blend pitch resolution, having 0.01 increments is not too touchy or random where it falls upon, even if it might be higher resolution than necessary.

VDJ actually internally registers and calculates for keylock & sync to the fourth decimal, but as I stated previously the 3rd and 4th digits are essentially random, so I don’t show them on skins.

Assuming they wouldn’t have removed capability/features on a whim and they standardized the increments for some good reason, then what’s the highest increment at the lowest pitch range you’d be comfortable preserving (or going back to) if they can sacrifice one or two of the standardized/same pitch increments at the lowest ranges and re-implement them as unique increments?

That’s “if” they can; not saying that’s really doable since we don’t know the coding reason for the change. That many different ranges all with the same resolution is pointless, in my opinion, and counter-intuitive if at the lowest ranges you can nudge the fader and it does nothing.

In my opinion either the lowest range or two should be removed or they need to have deep pitch ability.


#364

Btw I think we need to move the pitch discussion to the other topic:


#365

Don’t exactly know what the values where at different ranges. I noticed the change after the firmware update when mixing tracks. Like stated, I only use 4 or 8%. Those where way more precise than it is now.


#366

Pre 1.0.3 had 0.01 at the lower ranges (I think at least up to +/- 8%) as this was my preferred range.


#367

While a deck is playing, you can touch the lower waveform to add cue points to the track on the fly.


#368

Due to resolution, track length and finger size (!) considerations, that would be really inaccurate.

You can already Needledrop/needle search on that lower waveform (although this action can be set by the user to be ignored by the unit, if the user is worried that they might affect performance by accidental touching of the lower waveform.


#369

I would like to see two different search meaning a Global search like it is now but also like to see just search in a play list like in serato itune & other software’s


#370

I’d like to order tracks by the time they were added to the Engine database. That way, it’s quick to find the latest tracks that I’ve bought. That was my default ordering in Serato.


#371

Ok, got one.

Pitch resolution is around 0.2 at 100% in 1.0.3. So they do not have 0.05 at every pitch range, let alone better at the lowest ranges.

Jog bend needs a sensitivity setting in utility/preferences and possibly some adjustment of the way it’s even implemented. Arguably oversensitive and weird and even unpredictable at times. And this is coming from a frequent user of the Hanpins (that have very sensitive but predictably-sensitive jogs) and Pioneers and vinyl and your legacy, touchy DN-HS5500 7" rotating platters. Great that the SC5000 has no deadzone and even little amounts do something, but not quite intuitive even after 6hrs on the SC5000. I’d rather use the Gemini MDJ-1000 jog bend than the SC5000 right now, too.

You might want to add an option in utility/preferences for the dreaded jog bend deadzone… maybe. Along with changing its curve or whatever is feeling wonky about it and adding adjustable sensitivity, an optional Pioneer-like deadzone might entice and satisfy people that would miss it. Just a thought.

I definitely want ability to lock key somewhere other than zero.

Still want retro mode even now that I’ve got one. Waveforms shmameforms (especially the moving one and those distracting BPM counters).

Absolutely unquestionably need a SPDIF sample rate selection in utility/preferences, as the PPD9000 won’t accept 96khz. I’m having no issues obviously on DJM800 or MP2015 since they accept 96 in. Need me my tube mode, though, and want to put three SC5000s side by side with the PPD9000 below/in-front of them to keep everything close.

Not being able to set a main cue and hot cues before the track is analyzed is a hassle. And here I thought the need to pause the DN-HS5500 to set the cues and hot starts (when holding record) was annoying. Wow. Yeah, that needs resolving.

When I have changed layers and load a new track, there’s no reason for the soft takeover of the pitch fader to be doing its thing and requiring me to move the fader to the layer’s former pitch position. A new track on a layer should cause the pitch fader to register exactly where it currently is at.

Is analysis even absolutely necessary? Sure, adding the feature of allowing cues be set even before analysis is finished is certainly a good idea, but for someone not even interested in the waveforms at all, an option to disable analysis would be nice.

Anyway, i’m pretty darn impressed.


#372

Great to hear.

Between any two (or more) different models, there will always be different and new features, and a different “feel”. That “difference” can come across as feeling wrong or in need of change. Just like how pedals feel different when driving a friends car etc.

With that in mind, it’s worth giving it all a few months of considerable and frequent usage.


#373

You can use this idea for the second layer (layer B), I think this could be a new development in the next firmware , What are the comments of other users?


#374

Interesting shop-job :slightly_smiling_face:

The low adoption rate of NI’s remix decks (or even the less sophisticated / complicated STEMS) will render this very unlikely to ever happen…

I’d rather put my bets on some way to connect the MPC Live / MPC X.


#375

Oh, speaking of the layer thing, something’s got to be improved on that. Take a page from the 5500 and maybe put like a big glowing band or color code or something on left or right side of screen depending on which layer you’re on. Or rearrange the pre-existing information on-screen and flip flop it around so a quick glance of it can tell you based on which side some column of info is as to what deck you’re on. While I’m no color blind, the color thing just is not as quick and takes a second or third thought to figure out. Don’t get rid of the color coding obviously, but add some types of bold, obvious positional aspect to the layer selection on that screen somehow.

Absolutely possible. Hopefully that’s what’s going on, but the curve doesn’t quite feel linear or even entirely just velocity-based or something. Maybe sometimes lagging, too? Occasionally almost feels like the forward and reverse bend curves might be different. Overall for a (mostly) velocity-based-feeling jog, it feels too sensitive down low at the smallest rates. Ignoring overall firmware stability/predictability comparisons of the units or the exact curves or latency on the jog bends, the Gemini MDJs, by the way, have adjustable jog bend sensitivity, read-only for NTFS, superior deep pitch resolution at low ranges compared to v1.0.3, manual cue assignments immediately on track loading, option to turn the grid off, and the ability to turn off analysis if all you want is to play tracks and mix & assign/loop by ear. A retro mode hiding moving waveforms & BPM counters would largely make the need for the latter sort of moot, but I’m curious how the performance would change and the ability to find bugs or refine overall feel would improve with such an option available. I would also posit that if the possibility of over-correcting or under-correcting on the SC5000 jog bend when jumping on it for the first time is about as likely as on a industry standard unit that basically never becomes fully intuitive whether you’re a first timer or a veteran with their currently-non-optional safety deadzone, that the SC5000 is missing an opportunity. It certainly could be worse. However, the initial elation during my first hour on it of not having the deadzone on something this pretty and stable wore off a little during the second 4hr session. That elation was powerful enough for me to immediately buy another two and it has not wore off so much that I regret doing that. These are very special players. But then I plugged a Gemini in and went, “wow, this jog bend feels way better”, and that’s literally after having not used the MDJs for like well over 6 months. So objectively speaking, this is coming immediately from 12" vinyl, the old super touchy DN-HS5500s 7" motorized that I use to practice vinyl without wearing my vinyl, the Pioneer CDJs, and the Hanpin media players (American Audio, Stanton, and DJ Tech) I keep at a venue for tutoring and open deck nights that I’ve been alternating between. That’s a really wide swath of tolerances my mixing is fresh with. I have this nagging feeling that my impression of the jog bend – being over-sensitive minimally at the foot of its curve or maximally even overall and perhaps a little wonky in other ways – might not improve as much as I hope over time. But we will see. On the plus side, yeah, the jog bend is usable as it currently is and not worse in outcome for a first time user than the quote/unquote “industry standard”.

All that said, your designers, engineers, coders, and beta testers have achieved something real here. I know the journey isn’t over for your team and you’ve got a lot up your sleeves, so I say all this with respect and quite a bit of admiration.


#377

These points came to my mind after using and comparing with similar models of this hardware :

  • List item

Add Quantize on/off for select loops and hot cues

Add Quantize on/off for Cue

More zoom on screen and engine prime

After turning off sync and want to change bpm manually up or down fader, we have to raise the fader first up or down to reach the previous one and then change the bpm, add the cursor when the fader bpm made the slightest jump to the desired speed at the moment

When the layer A is master , automatically Layer B Becomes a master, I think this two should be independent and separate.


#379

This is “Go collect” or “Soft takeover” and is how the physical pitch control is “re-united” with the pitch value that the player calculated and used in order to synchronise two tracks of different BPMs.

If the pitch control was a motorised pitch control which moved itself to the correct place when a new track was loaded then a “go collect” or “soft takeover” solution wouldn’t be needed, however motorised controls can either be fast, or accurate but rarely both.