Because CDJs don’t have dual layer, they are of course showing the waveforms of tracks playing on two different CDJ-3000s that are connected to each other, but I haven’t seen anything yet from them for anything more than two two tracks’ waveforms stacked. Not even sure if they handle more than two tracks at a time. Curious about that though, so maybe someone else here who’s more familiar can chime in.
Anyway, like I said earlier, I believe Denon could easily represent stacked waveforms across multiple decks better than what Pioneer is doing, mainly because of how much larger the SC6000’s display are in comparison. Denon already does a good job showing two stacked waveforms on a single player across dual layers. That same look could apply to two stacked waveforms across two decks, and easily display up to eight stacked waveforms with proper scaling and still have decent visibility off all of them at same glance (although the most I would ever use is four stacked waveforms together, usually just three though).
Which task are you referring to? If it’s displaying two stacked waveforms across two decks, my guess would be that it’s the same as what’s currently done when displaying two stacked waveforms across two layers. If it’s displaying more than two stacked waveforms across more than two decks my guess would be that each deck would be responsible for processing at least up to the two waveforms they already process, just fed to the other deck(s) via the interconnect cable that would be required to link two or more decks together. I’m not a software engineer though, so these are merely guesses. At a minimum though, two stacked waveforms across two decks is what Pioneer is already doing on the CDJ-3000 and I was of the understanding the SC6000 has at least the processing power of that.
PS: No idea if this could be considered relevant or not, but FWIW, when running four decks on SDJP with all four waveforms stacked playing simultaneously, the processing load indicator and % under Activity Monitor is barely anything.
I was referring to this part, specifically the ‘easily display up to 8 stacked waveforms’
Pulling that data across an Ethernet connection from other devices then having to render it alongside 7 other waveforms, we are getting way beyond the realms of sensible conversation here.
I don’t even want to address the absolute mess of what simultaneously playing 8 tracks together would sound like.
That makes two of us. Yikes! lol. I was just saying earlier that the size of the SC6000’s display could easily support showing eight stacked waveforms space-wise. Can’t speak for others, but I’d be happy with two stacked waveforms across two decks, thrilled with three stacked waveforms across two decks, and beyond ecstatic with four stacked waveforms across two decks (even though I’d rarely do that, but three often for sure).
PS: The only time I’d ever have four decks going is the fourth one just cue’d up and ready to go for quicker transitions into something, but never four tracks actually playing at once. When I’m doing three decks (which is most common) the third deck is either handling acapellas, or a snippet from a track that’s looped and layered over the other two playing as an effect (like drums, high hat, or some other signature sound).
Yeah fair enough, it’s why I need a 3rd player in my home booth, I love just mixing 2 tracks sometimes but I miss my old setup where I could add accapellas. Some tracks too sound really good if you leave a short loop layered in the background so being able to do that then have a third one to mix in would be epic.
Just wish Denon had a small player like the XDJ-700
Yup.
Anway, I just know that even if they do this smaller cousin of a Prime player they will mess up by not putting foldable “legs” on it like the NI D2 to make it truly portable.
