Relative Pitch Tempo Fader behaviour with no Soft takeover

  • What is the feature or ability you would like to have?

For the Sync and Instant double users, An option to have pitch/tempo slider in a relative position with a secondary shift to move the pitch fader without affecting the pitch.

Example- if I push sync on Deck 1 with Deck 2 as master, I can use the pitch fader on Deck 1 from that point to control tempo of both decks, without the extra step returning Deck 1s pitch fader to the absolute position (ie where the current tempo is).

You know them green arrows that tells you to move up or down

  • How will this feature help you and others?

It will be helpful to keep things moving quick without having to worry about returning the pitch to the absolute position for any tempo changes.

I use it all the time, and when I run out of slider space, I hold shift and pull the fader back up and continue from there this is helpful when making huge tempo transitions

  • Is this feature available in an existing product? If so, what product?

Serato DJ Pro

  • Does a workaround currently exist?

Not that I’m aware of.

  • How often would you use this feature?

All day, every day

  • Is there any additional information you’d like to add?

I request this as an option.


I like this feature request, I also used to DJ in this way and is great

1 Like

Ignoring that mess of a sentence that seems to be contradicting itself…

Why don’t you just reach over and adjust Deck 2’s pitch fader instead since it’s the master? Relative non-temporary pitch changes is usually relegated to rheostat encoder knobs on controllers that lack pitch faders. You mentioned in the autogain threads that you were lazy, but this is next level couch potato stuff, man. Am I missing some other complicated thing you’re trying to do here? Because your request would greatly foul up soft takeover functioning and add an extreme level of complexity if that’s the only benefit you’re getting: simple slight time saving.


I used this feature in Traktor and I miss it.

1 Like

2 likes already fam :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Like I said …as an “option” in the settings or user preferences profile thingy.

It won’t “foul up” anything that is standard.

It’s not a deal breaker.

If you can request a “blank screen” option to make you and your djs job harder, then I will like to go in the opposite direction of that

1 Like

I didn’t ask for a blank screen. I asked for on-screen customization, as both VDJ and Traktor have. I can also deactivate BPM on the Hanpins, deactivate analysis on the Gemini MDJ, and just put a sticker on the BPM counter of the Pioneer CDJ-900, but the screen real estate on the Primes varies and thus you don’t just have one spot that has no other use.

Are you using this relative fader thing in Serato (or Traktor) with layers and sync both on multiple decks?

One of the problems I foresee is the use of the shift button with the pitch fader. The pitch faders now are very high resolution again, which we asked to have back after they strangely got rid of it in one firmware. If there is now a new function for the pitch fader every time the shift is held, every slight wobble of the increments between two values from heat effects on the lubricant, wind, or vibration, is going to cause a background pitch change.

You’re also eliminating the utility of the pitch fader still reflecting either layer absolutely if you move the slave layer pitch fader on the same deck in this relative manner. Both the slave and master layers on the same deck will now be in soft takeover mode… again, just so you don’t have to move the pitch fader as the green lights tell you or reach over to the master deck?

You still didn’t answer my question as to what you’re trying to do outside of very slightly save time by asking for a drastic increase in complexity. I’m not saying there’s not some special purpose to what you might be trying to do with this feature that can’t be done any other way, but so far you have not actually elucidated that.

I’m not sure where to start or how to explain this feature. It’s just something that I often use with sync

Let me try

  1. Say i have Deck A with a track at 100bpm and I want to move to Deck B 128bpm.

  2. My pitch is at 8% settings, so dropping B pitch fader to -8% will not get me to the low bpm i desire let’s say 105

  3. I hit Sync on Deck B with its Pitch at -8%, this drops its BPM to 100 or whatever BPM deck A is at. I may decide to loop a beat on Deck B as well.

  4. I wait for an acapella or desired transition point in Deck A. I trigger a One beat loop just catching the acapella

  5. As deck B is at 100bpm I then start moving the tempo back to 130, looping stuff, applying FX etc

  6. Basically I’m creating a transition track on the fly.

That’s one example of how I use the feature in Serato

That doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with sync, though. That’s wanting to bypass changing pitch range settings and having to utilize soft takeover, which could occur in a variety of settings. You’re actually using sync right now to partially bypass them, but that doesn’t entirely solve it, as you’ve figured out.

The problem with what you’re asking for is that while you imply you don’t like soft takeover slowing you down, what you’re trying to do by bypassing it will actually cause it to occur more often. Soft takeover will switch on on the master layer if you’re doing your relative fader thing on the opposing slave layer on the same deck. Soft takeover will also potentially switch on whenever you hit the shift button for any other function other than your virtual relative pitch fader changing thing. You hold shift to clear a cue or loop and it’s going to potentially register a fine wobble increment on the pitch fader and switch all the fader positions on that deck to soft takeover… necessitating even more bypassing of it with your feature.

If Layer A is the master, Layer B is the slave, and you want to suddenly bring Layer B’s fader way down and then have all the other decks and layers follow its fader, you should be able to hit Sync first on Layer B, then Master on Layer B, and move its fader, even if that means you have to move to some soft takeover location first before actually changing the speed. Range will adjust automatically to accommodate the on screen pitch state when soft takeover lights. Master lights for the entire deck on both layers, but your soft takeover lights (that don’t go away even when you move to it) tell you which of the layers on that deck is not the master. You need that master lit on both layers in order to know which deck has the master on it. They could always add on on-screen master/slave indicator in future firmwares, though.

Set Pitch Range to the Pitch Bend buttons directly instead of requiring shift. It’s under Preferences/Utility. That will be easier to switch Pitch Range when you’re trying to manually move any layer or deck to a wider pitch fader position than currently possible. You already hit Sync. If you hit + instead of Sync, you could actually get to 100 BPM using just the fader and without even having to hit Sync then Master.

If you’re using sync a lot and especially if you’re toggling master around and don’t want to manually adjust the fader, you will also need to go into Utility/Preferences and allow sync toggling without shift. That’s actually the only way to easily toggle sync on and off quickly and reassigning master at-will.

You do know that rather than always questioning everyone else’s feature requests, you simply just don’t like them and hope no one else does?


This is a forum. Discussing is what you do on a forum.

1 Like

No, this is a feature request section, where you like it if you want it, not you shout down everyone’s ideas that you don’t like.


That’s a slanderous statement. I didn’t shout the OP down. It’s still a forum. A back and forth. We’re all adults here, being respectful and sticking to the issues. If you don’t like my own feature requests or my rebuttals or modifications to someone else’s, please explain why so we can hash out the details. It’s constructive.

1 Like

Wow, bit of a snow flake there lad!! The forum (ie discussing the equipment) is the place for discussion. This section is meant to be for feature requests. You click the heart if you want Denon to implement. There is absolutely no reason for you to give your opinion on someone else’s Feature request. None.

Edit - sorry, from a negative perspective. If you are clarifying or “improving” a request, then it is relevant.

In regards to yours, I’ve actually liked quite a lot of yours, and ignored the one’s I didn’t, in accordance with how this should work in the feature request section.


That was the term I was going to use for you and held my tongue. That’s what we call people who can’t have (or try to avoid entirely) a civil conversation with someone who doesn’t already hold their view. Safe spaces. Etc. Look it up.

This is going nowhere guys. And I kinda agree with you both!

Discussion can be made on someone’s feature request to get to understand the “why and what”, but keep it civilized (I know I’m not sometimes…). :woozy_face:

Part of being civilized is to not completely hijack a request topic to push and make your point (yep I perhaps did that also). :sunglasses:


No one’s preventing them from responding. Are they? If it means someone eventually sort of dominates a conversation because they can explain why, for instance, a feature might be unnecessary, have adverse consequences, and/or if there’s an alternative way to get more of what they really want without needing the feature (which I actually did if you guys read the above posts), then you’re going to end up with the conversation apparently ended sometimes. Of course, you’re going to have an ended conversation also if they couldn’t even be bothered to read it, but this isn’t Twitter. If people want to call having more facts and needing more space to say it hijacking or a microaggression, I’d say they need to grow up. Not every side in a debate is going to hold up. That’s reality. No need to self-deprecate or declare everyone’s a winner, either. This isn’t a contest, but sometimes an idea isn’t going to hold up. It’s nothing personal. If it can hold up, then hopefully they respond and the debate continues. If my ideas or facts are off about the gear, I want to know.

I get your reasoning, but just a little tip from me: Keep it (a little) shorter, because most will not read (at) all.


I try in the age of Twitter, but some of this stuff is really complicated.

True. But it’s like asking 5 questions in an e-mail message and only getting an answer on the last.

1 Like

So what is it? ASD or bad experience at High school? The desire to be right and more knowledgeable than everyone else when your input isn’t necessary must stem from one of those, and no I’m not taking the p*** here. I genuinely feel for your lack of social graces.