17 Comments

1. I think this is a good software, but there are so many options out right now that it’s going to be hard for them to convince someone who’s invested into one of the others to switch. Especially if you have invested in specific controllers for specific software. It’s going to be a hard sell I would think. If they could get their software bundled with some hardware it might help.

   • Yes. I’ve been saying for a while that smaller software and hardware companies need to start working together to create something fresh. Imagine if Audio Artery and Faderfox collaborated on a controller and software bundle?

     • It would be, but now we are seeing this hardware/software collaboration make a comeback. But which software do the manufacturers pick? is it Serato, or NI, or Imagine or .. or … or …. The market is becoming too crowded. Example, I love DeckaDance, but have invested a lot into traktor. So for me to make the complete switch is time consuming. The only way i can see new startups being successful is by going after the NEW DJ/Producer who hasn’t invested in an ecosystem yet and hopefully they will stay the course and impose change. but then you have the same issues come up as with pioneer, what is the standard? Should I go with this cool new software or should I go with Serato or NI because everybody else is using them? At one time I would have been the oddball and use something like this, but now that i’m older, and maybe more safe because downtime is important to me, i probably would not use DJ One, not because it’s bad, but because I am going to stay with what works and will save me time.

2. I’ll probably end up picking this up eventually, because it does two things no other program does: 1) it allows the user to remix songs in the same environment they play in, and 2) it allows automation of some specific tasks. These features (along with being a VST host) allows the mix-up, mash-up DJ to go ears-deep into their sets and come up with some really wowing sets… that is *IF* the crowd is into that sort of thing.

   I like “the One” like I like Decadance, they have some really nice features I want, but I don’t see either company taking over unless they really strike a chord with their audience, get everything right everyone is complaining about in other software psckages (like crates), and making customization much easier than Traktor without the hassle of Traktor’s Controller Editor (which is currently the best command customization on the market).

   So many DJs are using more than just their DJ mixer in their sets now, it should be compelling for any company to incorporate drum machines into the DJ environment (not even Native Instruments is doing this yet), but with the One’s timeline, I can see that happening sooner than others.

   Ultimately, it will take many years of experimenting to get this environment right, but the One seems to have a slight advantage over everyone else, and that deserves respect as Native Instruments isn’t this far yet.

   • I think we will see maschine integration in the next Traktor.

     • I really hope so. This is something so very important, they should not even consider dropping this ball. My guess is that this is the super-secret integration project that just has to be right.

       • Out of curiosity, how would you want this integrated? For example, Maschine is not a full DAW, like Ableton is, and would be heavily limited in its scope for recording. It would be great to load Maschine samples into Remix decks, but you can already do that. Realistically, beyond virtually routing audio and MIDI from Maschine into a Traktor deck, what would you want it to do?

         • Well, this is a very complicated topic. Maschine does a lot more than just playing drums and drum sequences, it also handles effects adeptly.

           When they say Maschine isn’t a DAW, that’s only because it doesn’t record audio, and this is a bizarre decision on N.I.’s part, mainly because they have so many instruments and sound “expansions.”

           Traktor has the ability to record, but that’s more of an afterthought than it is intention, and the manner it handles it’s effects is a bit limited. VSTs would solve this, and Maschine hosts VSTs very well. It should be noted that Maschine has pressure sensitive buttons… useful for push expression.

           If Maschine and Traktor were integrated, not only would the BPM sync well, but timing for the effects (complete with holds, and reverses) should be solid as well even with Traktor Scratch Pro.

           More to the point, integration of Maschine and Traktor should produce a top-tier (re)mixing, live producting, and effects environment in one place, and possibly give us the final step in making Maschine the DAW environment we know it can be. I presume it’s been so difficult to integrate these two environments because it’s attempting to bridge two (formerly seperate) worlds… which is like merging two cultures.

           • Right, and one is VERY old and the other one is much sleeker.

             While those concepts are definitely what people want, I’m more curious in what that actually looks like. I mean, are you envisioning one tool, a sort of Trakschine, or Maschtor? Or are they still stand-alone, while one exists inside of the other?

             • If I put my Project Manager pants on, I’d assume that Traktor would be a hosted (either native or as a VST) inside Maschine (or Kore 3) as this just makes the most sense to me. I’d assume there’d be swivel tabs (as per MS Office Excel), and hopefully multi-monitor support. Reactivating Kore as a foundation for both Maschine and Traktor seems the right path to take, if N.I. determines it’s too hard to integrate Traktor inside Maschine.

               What do you think?

               • I actually think the opposite is the ideal.
                 I want Maschine to exist from within Traktor. I want the DJ software to run my clock, and be the basis for all events that occur, because I’m using the songs in my DJ software to dictate tempo and placement. I want to be able to set a deck in Traktor (or remove the loop recorder and literally replace it with Maschine) as Maschine, and have my loops, effects, and everything live there. All while working kind of like you mention, where I hit a switch and Maschine becomes the priority so I can drum and route effects. Obviously, this comes with challenges.
                 For example, I think it would spell the end of the standard Traktor effects. How much more awesome would it be if I could switch a panel and have Maschine effects. But everything is slaved by default to Traktor, not the other way around. If I want to quantize my live drumming, it syncs by default to Traktor.
                 This will also integrate better for recording, because Traktor just pumps audio straight to maschine. In fact, you could set a Group in Maschine to be Traktor, and there’d be four tracks that just record audio. That would be less than ideal, but I want the NML recorder back from Traktor 3.

                 • I thought about that too, but when I approached this from the angle of “what does the audio workflow look like?” I understood that Traktor was more like a real-time instrument (which derives most of it’s content from previously existing, recorded, content), and Maschine was more like the D.A.W.. Using Traktor as a (very complicated) VST, sending it’s output to a Production environment is generally how effects are handled best (at the end of the chain). This is how most people use Ableton and Traktor together.

                   With Traktor nested inside Maschine, you can still have Traktor tell Maschine at what BPM to operate, in real-time. Please note: Just because something is nested inside something does not mean it cannot be the MIDI clock master. Implementing the VSTs (or native, Native Instruments effects in Maschine) in sync becomes a workflow with less back-tracking. If Native Instruments is truly committed to the future of DJing, they’ll use the sequencer to manage automation in the same fashion, and loop sampling could become a non-destructive process (due to native usage of effects within the N.I. environment).

                   As an additional perk to the process, Native Instruments would generate it’s own business by hosting a location to manage VST Effects by both making it’s own, and allowing 3rd party companies (like iZotope) to create effects for their audio environment.

                   I need help envisioning this process in reverse (hosting Maschine within Traktor) but that doesn’t seem like it uses each tool to its’ strengths. Instead, this would appear to use Maschine as a super version of the Remix Decks, and then things become a little strange when implementing the VSTs, and such. Would you route channels into the Maschine Deck to process VST effects? How many decks would you then be able to open at once? I know that Maschine has unlimited (well, limited to the power of your computer) pages in which to operate, and they’re pretty easy to switch between/among.

                   I *like* my approach to the method of Maschine-Traktor implementation, but I’m not married to it. I’d like to be proven wrong, because if there is a better way, that’d be even more awesome for everyone… and better is just better.

                   • Let me think on this (and do more actual day job work) but I think I can manage to explain what I am looking for.

                   • Okay, so here’s my thought process.

                     First, it comes down to what I want Traktor to do, as opposed to Maschine. The ideal, of course, is this would be bidirectional, where I can have Traktor live inside of Maschine and be an extra tool, or have Maschine exist inside of Traktor and, for example, replace remix decks. And keep in mind, I really like your pitch as well. I just think that it becomes overly complicated.

                     The best counter I can provide is the Bridge. The Bridge allowed Ableton to live inside of Serato, and I could access everything there

                     I guess I see Traktor as a better host in the ideal (not as it currently exists). If I want to scratch something going on in Maschine, how do I do that if Traktor is inside of Maschine? And if I want to route effects in Maschine to individual decks in Traktor, how would that look? I think there’s a point where it makes more sense to start breaking Traktor up into zones.
                     A deck could be replaced with a Group in MAschine, or multiple groups, depending. And the effects section in Traktor could be replaced with effects in Maschine. Sort of like being able to use Maschine as the host but Traktor as the wrapper (like what M-Audio is doing with their drum software). It’s weird either way, as I see it, but I think for what people use Traktor for, having it as the primary would be better.

                     But realistically, I’d want as much to exist within Traktor as possible. For example, I want automation lanes in Traktor, that I can call into a remix deck (or directly into an effect) and trigger like a dummy clip in Ableton. I want the NML recorder back, as well as a mixtape recorder, sort of like what The One offers, except letting me record directly into it and then edit later. Things like that.

                     I like both of our approaches. I want them both. I want it all.

                   • Hmm, if Transport controls could be assigned to tracks in Maschine, you could scratch those tracks because the audio file in Traktor is just a sample. Real-time routing could be done, but it’d be a little complicated (you’d have to actively play with the crossfader assignment) example: Source A -> Effect B -> Output Deck C , crossfading with Output Deck F, which gets it’s side chain from Deck E etc.

                     I’m trying to see the tracks as more of an abstract thing, and less like the way they already exist. In this manner, actions could be recorded (as per Traktor 3), and all sorts of automation options open up.

3. I think it’s still the new born giraffe of DJ software – a bit wobbly on its feet. Even after all this time, there are still obvious things missing and it falls over way too easily IME.

   Shame there’s no user forum, because it’s not easy to report problems / get feedback. I don’t know how many devs they have, but it all seems very lethargic.

4. Is nice that there are a lot of new companies that coming….but will be unsuccessful DJ live software in my opinion.

   Djs really need for real use:
   – “unlimited” track?
   – Routing effect and vst? (if consider that most of djs just use Filter and eco only during Gig)
   – Timeline GUI?
   – Many windows to open?

   I am sorry for this new company, but in my point of view (I am small small potato), if their intention is to replace a classic djs software what maximum they can achieve is that some Dj will try for free and uninstall after 10 minutes .

   I personally will change strategy and focus on different audience, maybe for someone that want do some mixtape at home because is (can be) more intuitive than Ableton. Can be a sort of Ableton “dj oriented”..this can have a sense. and maybe next step to create some integration for “on air” use..

   just my 2 cent!