[CLOSED] No wave form support rekordbox / xdj aero

@Bobgavid > Thanks for your thoughts. Ultimately, the waveforms are on the mobile device (and display much better there than they possibly could on the Aero itself). I will certainly forward your suggestion. I would hope a native iPad could pack in more functionality than the iPhone app.

Hi Pioneer,

can rekordbox on the pc/mac already show the waveform while dj'ing with the aero  ?

i'm choosing between an aero and an sx and this is important for me. (an ipad waveform would be good to of course ;) )

cheers

@Gavin.

Any news yet on the waveform issue? Haven't heard a thing from pioneer in a while.

Is it coming in an update for rekordbox or will the xdj be updated of....? Would really like to get the use of the waveform in rekordbox.

Gr Mark

Wow, mining some old threads...really gives me a take on the relative level of responsiveness and follow through...

Pioneer has stated in other threads that the display and processor on the Aero is not capable of displaying the track profiles.  But what about the wireless devices?  The Aero supports up to 4 simultaneous wireless 'controllers,' iphones, pads, etc., and those devices both show the current Aero state, as well as allow you to control various features on the Aero.  I really don't see why it can't load up the Rekordbox track profile (a lowrez bitmap file) and show you all the other data that Rekordbox creates.  I also don't see why the Aero can't send the track progress to the wireless device so that the device can grey out the part that has played or walk a progress bar across the bitmap.  All of this seems somewhat trivial...

So, considering the time elapsed since release, and the seemingly trivial nature of the feature, it would appear that the true reason is one of marketing.

I can't say officially, but I would expect the answer is due to the design of the AERO.

Design?  That is an ambiguous answer.  If you mean by system capability, I would call foul, as if the device is capable to update a simple time count on the deck's respective displays as well as a simple progress bar, and it is responding to/reporting of HID state between up to four wirelessly connected devices in what appears to be real time, it is obviously capable of reporting time count and progress information on at least an up to the second bases.  

Now, is the wifi interface capable of bouncing the track profile bitmap from a USB stick to the connected devices? (I would consider this the worst case scenario, even though those bitmaps appear to be only 400 bytes.)  In any other case, the rekordbox data is on the wireless device itself, so there would be no bandwidth other than the AERO sending progress bar percentage or track time updates.  The wireless device would simply show the bitmap for the currently playing tracks, then grey out the part that has been played according to the progress status (or translate track time to a progress percentage based upon the length of the track...trivial.)

So, in the case of USB media, the question lies in AERO's ability to bounce the bitmap from the appropriate ANLZxxxx.DAT file to the wireless device when the track is loaded, assuming Rekordbox put it on the USB in the first place.  If the track is coming from the wireless device's Rekordbox library, well...the bitmap is there already.  So the remaining piece is AERO's ability to send the deck progress information, and we know it has access to that otherwise it's own display would not work.

If the engineers were capable of making it happen, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it already.

Despite the label that the question is answered, you have indirectly asked exactly the question.  My assertion is the solution (AERO + wireless device) is in fact capable of displaying track profiles, just as it is capable of dealing with cue memories (hot cues are debatable, as hot cues require instantaneous access within a track.)  One of the more obvious answers being that development of these easier features are curtailed by the Marketing department to stratify the product into specific applications.

I can also assert that you don't work in either marketing or engineering.

Actually, I do: Hardware & Systems engineering and some signal processing (especially embedded systems.) Executive management of hardware and software start-ups to public IPO. And a smattering of product marketing. I've done or am wearing quite a few hats at any given moment. So, now that we've got the pissing out of the way...

Pulse, your answer was a statement of supposition absent substantiation. My questions are based upon experience, and the frustration that getting a straight answer out of the company is inconsistent, tedious, and fraught with incomplete information. If marketing does not want the product to do these functions, that's okay...but it is better to be up front and say that they are reserved for a different product line. If engineering really can't do it, there would be some background information provided as to the reason(s) (and they can be lack of allocated development resources because there's something really big in the works...) But, there's the communication issues, or rather, the lack of integrity in communications (integrity defined here as the 'whole' or sum of all parts.) Why is it so difficult to get timely and high quality feedback to questions, bug status, even complete software and firmware release notes? This is not really your bad, Pulse, but a management and process issue surrounding support and customer relations. Folks post stuff, and it's like a black hole, where sometimes things get a response, and sometimes we get results, but most of the time it is frustrating. I can see that there appears to be a Zendesk update that shows status, and I hope that helps get some consistency and follow-through, but it needs to be backed up with a higher quality response than " I don't see why they wouldn't have done it already."

But, what do I know? ...I'm just another customer who is not having a great experience.

I said I CAN assert... and it doesn't mean I'll be correct. Like the subsequent assertion that you've made:

If engineering really can't do it, there would be some background information provided as to the reason(s) (and they can be lack of allocated development resources because there's something really big in the works...)

Pioneer doesn't release any information they don't need / want to. What benefit would come of engineering giving away reasons something can or can't be done? If anything, the competition would glom the information more readily than the users would.

Listen, I am never happy when users have bad product experiences with Pioneer gear because I get to be one of the cheery fellows who gets to read about it and then I'm between a rock and a hard place as I'm not a Pioneer employee so I don't have the power to do much beyond report things to the engineers. They often provide solutions but occasionally give us answers which are for internal information only. (This is not one of those cases, fyi, as they haven't given us any details on it.) My answers are often based on experience in 15 years working with Pioneer, I don't always need to escalate an issue to engineering.

Why is it hard to get updates? Because most of the time we don't know they're coming until they do. I've got lists of issues with hardware several years old that haven't been resolved. Part of it's because of the inability for the product to do whatever the user was asking, part of it is the cost of development and roll-out.

Any chance we can provide feedback on products and features from the users to engineers to improve an existing product or future products, we do. Your posts don't fall on deaf ears even though sometimes you may not get the answer you're looking for (or a clear answer at all). I don't have the technical reasons why this feature isn't available, but having asked when the product was announced, I was told something about the design of the product and database not supporting it. If that was their reason for "It's too expensive" or "we don't know how" then I have to accept it regardless. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases.

Thanks Pulse. I was not aware you actually don't work for Pioneer, that explains so very much about the overall quality of communication and the persistence of issues with information exchange. My first gig waaay tooo long ago was a service tech (outsourced) for a big point of sale and computer company. We wore company colors, logos, and the like, and had to deal with a crazy array of issues. There was a complete disconnect between engineering and the field, too. We'd report back common failure modes, and the chances something got fixed in design was remote, we'd figure out fixes on our own and do field updates... so it can be worse I guess.

The last time I got all up in y'all's grill was about the 2000 master tempo issue. First, word from the factory was there was no issue and it was wonky tracks, then it was 'it is what it is' then after enough of us complained, a firmware update happened. We're sort of used to getting hazed, so we're more prone to hazing. I don't have an R1 because it's too big, so I'm not whipping that horse right now, but I am lurking. The Aero is a nice portable rig, but it is missing a few things to make me want to bust it out more than my 2000's. But sometimes I have to wonder why I paid so much for it when used with an ipad anyway (an S2/ipad combo is cheaper and has more features, even with Aero being out for over a year.) So part of this is the bruised ego of betting on a horse that runs with a limp from a ongoing support perspective.

If engineering reads this: My 2000's still rock, even after replacing the cue & play switches twice. They're just too damn big... The Aero does not have enough of the basics. The R1 is close, but needs to loose the CD drives, add cue memories, and needs a better display to show the track profile (oh, and not have reports of lock ups.) If corporate reads this: Y'all need to come up with a customer/factory communication method that is world class.

Thanks,
-P

I bought the aero and have been using it for a few months, and to be hones, this lack of waveform display is becoming a real deal breaker. Before I purchased it, I was almost certain that this feature existed - even the much cheaper wego has it. So i was very disappointed when it turned out to be missing. 

Some other users have suggested the possibility of implementing a big, detailed playback display with waveform via android tablet/ipad and that's a really good idea. Algoriddim managed to pull it of for your wego (as well as for competitors), so why not take the step for the aero as well? Especielly consodering the much bigger pricetag on the aero. To me it seems almost a trivially easy step. How ward can it be, really? Just some software work and update. Other than this major issue, Im VERY happy with my aero. With rekordbox and the android app and everything, it would be hands down the best all-in-one controller on the market - if it only had a nice waveform display.. 

I really don't wanna sell it, but to be honest Im considering downgrading or going to a competitor. Too bad, I really like pioneer quality.

Same here. Bought it because the waveforms are there in the video and obviously it would benefit the dj to show them while playing in real time. I just can't understand that the functionality isn't there. I also won't understand why this functionality isn't even under construction. It could be some quality issue. If you want to keep your top position in market, you can't really do bad quality, but you should also do capable products instead of crippled, overpriced hardware. =) 

Sorry guys, as previously noted, this is not likely to be implemented beyond the overview waveform on the iPad / iPhone / Android app.

There may have been a waveform shown in a video from pre-public-release firmware but as noted, it is not in the final version likely due to quality. I'm sorry if a marketing video made the decision to purchase based on one feature that didn't make it to final production, I understand that would be a disappointment.