I have tried out RB DJ at home and the other night for a 5 hour gig. I have very mixed feelings.
Been on on Serato Scratch Live and then Serato DJ for 10 years and started to look at Rekordbox DJ. Laptop and CDJs in HID mode are the best of both worlds to me. But being on Serato and having to wait forever to get HID supported every time a new CDJ comes out is frustrating. As of now Serato DJ can't be run in HID mode with CDJ 2000NXS 2 for example.
Apart from compatibility RB has so much going for it and I really want to make the switch. Things like library management no need for extra soundcard and custom key commands for a bunch of features, are way beyond what Serato DJ can offer.
However, what really counts out in the field is reliability and smooth operation.
Here I find that RB DJ is still behind Serato.
At home I've been trying RB out with DDJ-SX. Serato is rock solid with a buffer size of 64 samples whereas RB, even with the standard 256 samples setting, gives me random nasty audio dropouts/glitches. Also the pads on the DDJ-SX have way more latency and are less touch sensitive when running RB. The pads have more latency than the CUE button. They also require more force to trigger properly!?
I thought this might be due to the DDJ-SX being originally made for Serato but the other night I ran RB with CDJ2000 NXS2s in HID mode and used the CDJs as soundcards. I had the same issue with audio glitches. I ran at 256 sample buffer size (which is very different when you're used to 64 samples) and got 4-5 nasty raspy sounding glitches during a 5 hour gig.
The other thing that really bugged me is the sluggishness of the program. When selecting/clicking things especially with the mouse - tracks and some intelligent playlists - they took 2-4 seconds to get selected. Maybe it's because my library is some 24500 tracks but Serato handles it no problem and is super snappy. The one thing where RB excels in speed is needle search. Way faster in RB.
There are a bunch of other quirks I'd like to see fixed and features I think should be added but that's for another post. I could still use RB as it is now but I need it to be reliable and snappy. Does anybody else experience these problems? Is this something Pioneer are working on?
I have a very fast ASUS gaming laptop, i7-4720HQ, 16 GB RAM running Windows 8.
All the latest drivers for DDJ-SX and CDJs installed. No other programs running in the background. Process/resource monitors shows nothing unusual. CPU never goes over 25%.
I can also run Ableton with a Steinberg UR22 interface at 64 samples without problems.
This topic is closed as it references an outdated version of rekordbox.
For similar issues, please file an inquiry ticket here and our rekordbox support team will be able to gather additional information to assist you.
Post is closed for comments.
Happens in both 4.1.0 and 4.1.1
same .. I am facing same issue with rekodbox dj running on DDJSZ .. dropout meter spikes and I had few dropout during performance.. My laptop spec i 7 5700HQ 16gb ram. When i run the task manager , CPU usage 7 to 11% . Hope Pioneer comes up with something to solve this issue . Btw i agree with RBDJ looks better and feels good and what we hope and want is. RBDJ works to the best .
+1
I'm currently a SSL user that has bought RB with the intent of using it in future and have migrated my Serato library (30k+ tracks) over and I simply cannot use the program to tag or organise music within RB as it is unacceptably sluggish - 2-5 seconds to load info tab on tracks, similar time to edit genre, intelligent playlists taking ages to load, basically totally unusable.
SSL (which is old tech!) handles my large library without a hitch, with instantaneous editing and playlist loading, no matter how many tracks or smart playlists I throw into it.
My feeling is is that RB needs some serious optimisations as it is currently lagging (pardon the pun) way, way behind SSL in terms of usability.
Can we at least have an acknowledgement from Pioneer that this is an issue within Rekordbox and that a fix will come in future?
The same for me here, all RekordBox 4 versions even 4.2.1 has this bug, I have been facing this audio glitches even 4 or 5 times during an hour at any buffer rate (i tried 192, 256, 320, 512, 1024 it was useless). They are short noises but annoying, i can't record a 1 hour set without having this annoying short sounds coming thru the mix.
I'm sure this is a software bug, you can try many gears and it will be there too, i tried using CDJ 350, CDJ 900, CDJ 900 nexus, DJM 750, DJM 850, DJM 900 nexus, DJM 2000 nexus as soundcard and the issue is present with all their gear.
My laptop is good on resources as well, RB barely consumes 1 GB of RAM while mixing 2 tracks in CDJ HID mode with DJM soundcard. I have an intel i3 CPU processor and consumption graphics are in the floor all the time, I have 4 GB ram and the laptop is used only with RB, no other software is installed in this Windows 7 64 bit home premium laptop.
Its been impossible to mix with this buggy software since the very beginning! I can't believe i paid 130$ for something i can't trust....
Your gear is awesome but your software and drivers are a complete mess. Please do something for us!! We want to use RB without issues one day!!!
I am having the same issue. I am using Lenovo Thinkpad T410S with i7 CPU, 16b of ram and 512 sdd.
Having those glitches 3-4 times per hour. Happens with and without the controller. Tried to change the buffer from 190 to max, nothing helps. No other DJ software has this issue on my machine, have used Serato, Traktor etc.
Also tried disabling Fast Boot on Windows 10, no help. Did not have those glitches before with RB 4.2.4. I cannot download it anymore but would really like to get it back!
If this thing doesn't get fixed in a few months, I am going to give up with Rekordbox DJ forever. I dont want to count the number of times this software has already put me to embarrasing or uncomfortable situations.
I contacted their support regarding this and got no help from there either.
@Sigmar > I have responded to your post here; please don't cross-post.