@Brett > I've asked for more technical information to help better explain.
[SOLVED] Auto Loop Function Only
"The CDJ-500II had a resolution of 75 frames per second (standard redbook audio spec), or 0.0133s / 13.3ms. I was able to set near-seamless loops and even if I was off by a frame (or ten) when setting them manually, I was able to adjust the size and correct the speed in order to achieve loops that sounded how I wanted; in sync.
The CDJ-850 is not the CDJ-2000; it will not have the same level of accuracy as it was not engineered to that specification, nor should it be expected to achieve the same performance even if it shares the same rekordbox architecture.
As Gavin posted above, the engineers investigated the complaints and worked to create a solution, unfortunately they found the accuracy the users were desiring was not capable of being achieved within the existing hardware.
No credits or discounts will be given as the hardware and software operates within design specification and tolerances, even if those result in occasionally undesirable loop inaccuracy."
Firstly I'm not here to moan about threads closing or pioneer products and their reasons as to why updates cant be done!
Personally I feel previous threads have drifted off topic. As said above, with 75 frames a second and setting the loop manually, a seamless loop in sync can be achieved. So the CDJ850 can do it. So my only question is why can't that be achieved on the auto-loops, if i want an 8 beat loop quickly I should be able to just press '8'. But at the moment it's not seamless and it drifts! This function shouldn't be on the player if it doesn't work! I might as well take the buttons out.
I also want to state this has nothing to do with rekordbox!! The CDJ-850 was never advertised to be able to read beatgrids in rekordbox and quantize/sync or use the loop function via pre-set loops in rekordbox! So it's ridiculous people are moaning about this.
Il post è chiuso ai commenti.
Thanks Gavin! Did what I say make sense to you? I may have rambled on a bit :)
@Brett > I'll always give a logical and considerate question the time and attention it deserves ;)
So Gavin, I don't mean to beat the dead horse here... So manual looping is basically the go around for the "looping problem"?