It's not exactly a one-time issue @Pulse... it occurs that even analysing 30 tracks is taking HOURS to sync the same playlists again. I was using USB 2.0 for that. 1800 tracks on my stick. A "complete" sync is taking a whole night. So I replaced it with an USB 3.0 stick Sandisk Extreme ---> my *ENTIRE* library is syncing in max 10 minutes or so.... this was a MAJOR improvement!!! Everybody should use 3.0...
Rekordbox USB Transfer Speed
I can't take it anymore.
I have a 16gb Transcend USB 2.0 which is brilliant, 2 seconds per track to transfer to USB.
I now have a 32gb Transcend, again 2.0 and the SAME write (16mb per sec) & read speeds
HOWEVER....the 32gb takes approx (I've timed it)....FIFTEEN seconds per track transfer.
I've tried both 1.4 and 1.5 versions, tried swappin USB's, loads of stuff.
What is the crack? Is there anything I can do?
Iniciar sesión para dejar un comentario.
Are you getting the same difference in transfer speeds when not using rekordbox?
Everything is the same, I'm now tranferring a 60-track playlist which I'm timing on my iPhone....
It has taken 15 minutes to transfer 29 songs, this is nigh on unbearable
Hello, I have the same problem.
Why is so extremely slow to export files in high quality (aiff) from rekorrbox to a USB? And the more surprising thing is that is as well very slow to erase files from a USB from rekorbox. I am doing something wrong? is really slow and mi computer is a new super powerfull imac and the usb sticks are the "Pioneer dj 64GB USB pen drive".
Thanks for your help.
It's not just exporting the tracks, it's also updating the external database and sending the artwork in a separate file. I'm not sure why the transfer speeds are slow but the engineers have been informed of this complaint before.
The answer from the engineers is as I thought -- the software needs to create folders for the audio file, and it then exports the album artwork and track analysis file (waveform), so it is naturally slower than a bulk-transfer directly from the operating system.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure you/engineers are getting me.
My 2 USBs are the exact same MAKE & MODEL.....but different storage capacities, 16 &32gb
The 16gb has a great transfer speed in Rekordbox
The 32gb transfer speed makes me want to commit
I've checked them both out and they're formatted etc exactly the same, I cannot find a reason why the 32gb is so much slower in Rekordbox
I understand that you have two "identical" different drives that are performing differently but to be honest, it could simply be the architecture of the memory which is not allowing the drives to perform identically -- they may even have different control chipsets resulting in slower write speeds on the larger drive.
<EDIT> Okay, this is the only warning I'll give -- you know why I edited out the info the first time, now you've posted it again to an unrelated thread. </EDIT>
Okay i also have the same problems but it can't be a bottleneck in my system
i'm using a SSD for my system and my rekordbox
i use SDHSX cards
and i use usb 3.0 stickt whitch has an transfer rate of 50mb/s (write) and 120mb/s read.
for me it takes at least 5 seconds to copy one track. while in mij windows explorer it takes 5 seconds for like 10 tracks.
not only write takes that much time. when i'll play tracks from my USB (3.0) my rekordbox will allmost crash when i open a playlist. after like 15 seconds the playlist wil show itselves and ik can play some tracks.
all my storage devices are 32gb
I purchased a 3.0 USB when I first ordered my gear not knowing Pioneer was limited at 2.0 USB. :-( I now use it as a backup of for songs i purchase.
I'll be buying a card soon. Heck, I'll buy one tonight. Anyone have a brand name/model of the best card out there (I use wav so it must be large)
you can use a 3.0 usb. but maybe you have to format it to FAT32. then it will work
it works out of the box, i was just hoping pioneer supported 3.0 usb for speed...
let me rephrase, rb works. i have not tried plugging it in to a cdj... once i found out 3.0 wasnt supported i never tried. guess i should lol
usb 3 is only useful in the transfer from computer to drive, the cdj doesnt support it (as we all know) but doesn't need to, the transferring of data while tracks are playing between usb and cdj probably doesn't even reach usb 1 speeds so usb 2 is already overkill.A usb 3 drive will work in the cdj, the speeds are irrelevant, except for when you are exporting from RB to the drive
@ BriChi: we're not talking about transferspeed from usb 3.0 to CDJ but from Rekordbox (pc) to USB 3.0, 5 seconds for one track is far to much for a windows explorer speed of 50mb/s
oh damn, that sucks, i didn't know that RB wasnt reading the usb3 too, that definitely stinks.
pleas read thit topic's history. it reads but very slow
nah i'm good, lol the issue is obvious and RB will include a fix in a future update i'm sure, may be a very loooong time away though
I don't think this is recordbox fault. There something wrong with the drivers or something like that. I bought a usb3.0 motherboard a year a go and i always had problems with it, even to get a stable connection. I upgraded to a new motherboard with latest usb3.0 controllers and i have no problem at all now. Rockstable and very fast.
I did a little test too with a 8gb class 2 Sandisk SD card
transfer a 13mb AAC directly to SD = 4 seconds
export the same file from rb = 10 seconds.
thats a hug difference, it should take RB 6 seconds to create a folder or 2 to export a file to. if you export a couple hundred songs and tack a an extra 6 seconds per track, that's a lot of added time
@BriChi > rekordbox doesn't just transfer an audio track - it transfers 4 files in total (the audio track, the analysis data file, a large-waveform file and a small album image file). These are, of course, all necessary for full functionality on the CDJ.
ok cool, they need to speed that sh%# up, LOL
thats awesome, I wish I had a usb3 port :( maybe that can be my excuse to buy a new Macbook, lol
Well i agree tripster. I use also ssd drives and the transfer speed also the reading speed (track load etc) at the cdj are musch faster. Except that, my mp3 library is totaly emty from useless tags and covers. I fully clean every mp3 i use with mp3 tag, and the only thing that i wanna have is the bpm, and its added by rekordbox.
Hey Pio team,
I have two identical usb memory sticks by kingston model DTGE9 both 16 GB. Loading time of MP3's through RB is about 25-30 seconds per song, it is just insane. Also RB becomes incredibly slow even when I'm not exporting tracks, but when usb's are plugged in. What should I do? My music library is not that huge, just approximately 300 tracks, but it is incredibly difficult to manage them at that pace of work! Hope you will sort it out in RB 2.0.4
it is very slow, i transferred 600 tracks and it took over an hour, Then I dragged the contents folder off the usb drive which contains all the files and folders and dragged it back on to see the time and it took 10-15 minutes so the engineers need to stop blaming this on "creating folders" and speed this up somehow, When i drag the contents folder onto the usb drive it too is re-creating all those files and folders.
Moving strict audio files (several large files) is going to occur a lot faster than moving lots of little files, which is exactly what happens when you export data to a USB device from rekordbox. Not only is the audio file being copied but also hidden files for the beatgrid, album artwork and waveforms, plus the database is updated.
The engineers are always looking to improve the performance speeds of the software, so it's not something they're unaware of.
thats not an answer to @Brichi his comment.
Well I do understand in response to Pulse that yes, RB does have to not only transfer the song, but the cues, loops, waves, etc...... along with it BUT, Maybe the engineers should look into a better way of doing the export (which like pulse said, they are always looking to improve speed)
Serato did it the best in my opinion where they embed it into the track info, that way even if you change computers or move tracks, the cues and loops stay with the track, which once again bring me back to how well RB would have taken off is it had Serato's name attached to it