Hey guys, I dont know if anyone agrees with me, but I would love to have the UI of Rekordbox DJ mimic the screens of the CDJ's more.
I think the Export version of the "track screen" is better than the Performance version. I get why you would want a rotating platter, but the BPM and Tempo make it crowded. Also the full length waveform is quite tiny.
I don't say you should completely copy Traktor, but I think their deckviews are more subtle.
It would be nice to be able to change the info you would like to see. Personally I rather have bigger cover art and wave form and no platter.
Like two of the export screen types next to each other, it is allready there... why not make the user be able to choose between those options?
Moved to Product & Feature Suggestions forum.
Nice mock up! I think a user-customizable GUI would be pretty cool. I'll pass this along to our product planning team. Thank you for your input.
Cette publication n’accepte pas de commentaire.
As the UI elements position are xml based and 80% of the ui is pngs, i'm looking to se some themes in the future? That would be nice, something for everyone =)
+1!
It would be great to have an open format like VDJ uses, with users being able to share skins, themes, samples and midi maps... but Pioneer is a bit more closed system method I think.
actually, it looks very skinable to me =) .. someone just needs to take some time and try .. i'm pretty sure we'll see some skins in the future .. 
and I would love to have RB remember my setting of displaying time at remaining... thats just annoying.
I did a quick photoshop of what I meant... I think everything is here that you would normally need if you DJ with a controller. So no pitch fader or mixer section... only the details that would be in a CDJ screen + some software specific stuff
I just copied the first deck instead of making a new one.. so thats why it's both deck 1 and master deck :P
Looks very good!
I like the clear GUI of RB so far much more than Serato. Traktor was for me the most beauty GUI as it is clean and not fancy, but this is static and total outdated.
I agree on this request. It would be perfect to have a customization setup available where you can select what to see and how big it is to create your on priorities.
Would be as well cool to have this for the single sections dedicated. For example: huge decks, huge library, small effects and small sampler. Even on a Full HD display the collection becomes pretty small if you like to have two decks, sampler, effects and recording displayed. With 4 decks is gone. (I know, the beautyfull split screen option can solve this, but on mobile gigs or in clubs there is often no option for a second screen)
I've just left a similar post here, which involved customising the browse layout to cdj style too. would love to see if its what you guys are feeling! and if rekordbox ever announced any support on this?
https://forums.pioneerdj.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360002290046-Rekordbox-performance-separate-browse-windows-for-each-deck-UPDATE-
I would love that UI you photoshopped there...
i agree. i have the ddj 1000 but use traktor at work 7 hours a night 6 nights a week. Really struggling to see 8 bars of 4 when i have a play on ddj at home and with 4 decks running the waveforms flying across screen get hectic. more detailed full waveforms and seperate deck waveforms like traktor would make this software no1. I cant even see where the kick drops out on some tracks unfortunately. I have even started to play about with a traktor tsi on the ddj 1000 as clearer waveforms are critical on 4 deck mixes to get everything dropping i the right place.I want to use rekordbox but needs seperate deck and better quality waves please
Definitely needs a side-by-side horizontal layout. I find the stacked horizontal zoomed waveforms really confusing, and also find the vertical waveforms strange.
It would be nice to completely hide the additional UI elements below the waveform overviews. If I'm using a controller with jogwheels and pads, I don't need to also see or click them on the screen.
Anyone one on this forum please, did a side-by-side ever get formulated, integrated or solved?
Thank you.
No, sorry!
and no intent to introduce it in a near update?
Low demand, high cost of time / resources to implement.
