39 Comments

1. With regard to Ableton Link & Pioneer Hardware, there is always this….

   http://djtechtools.com/2017/07/19/decoding-pioneer-pro-link-connect-cdjs-ableton-link/

   https://github.com/brunchboy/beat-link-trigger

   I wish Pioneer would officially endorse the use of Beat-Link-Trigger. Then I could update the firmware without worry. So far, every firmware works, but there is always that chance that Pioneer will break this functionality. Especially since the DJS-1000 came out.

   • This is still a hack, though. the problem is, everyone wants to be Apple. Except they aren’t, and will never be. Native Instruments closed off everything a few years ago… and got burned. Closed systems very rarely benefit anyone. And as I say in the article, I can’t think of one instance where open standards have harmed a company’s bottom line or product.

2. There are PLENTY of easy to use, well documented open protocols that are more than suitable to address the issues you bring up in your article. Most companies even use them (MIDI, TCP/IP, HID, etc). The problem isn’t that someone needs to go our and develop a new “standard” for everyone to use. The problem is that everyone has the ability to adopt these open standards and none of the major players see the VALUE of it.

   Due to the massive consolidation in the market, there are really only 3 (in some cases only 2) companies doing the bulk of DJ product sales. Everyone’s at a point now where in order to grow their market share, they have to shrink someone else’s. So now everyone wants to build an ecosystem and not just a product. Like our hardware? Great, but you can only get its full use if you also use our software. Like our new tabletop? Great, but it only really makes sense when you combine it with our new mixer.

   Really, this all started years before we got to the place we are now regarding consolidation. We’ve had high resolution platters for over 10 years and no one has been interested in agreeing on a standard messaging for them. Traktor has been around for the better part of 20 years, and there are still companies that hide large parts of their MIDI implementation from the users that purchased their software.

   So, the companies making the products we all use don’t seem to care about the 1% of users that want deep integration between products. I don’t think that’s shocking. Most DJs have no use for things like Ableton Link, and they know that. What does surprise me is that with all the stagnation in the DJ market right now, no one seems to be learning from the hardware synth market – which is experiencing exponential growth in a customer category that didn’t really exist 10 years ago. It seems like they would all rather fight over the same leftovers instead of making a totally new meal.

   As for answers, I have none. Even in the face of failure, no one seems to want to change. The only thing I can tell the end users that are tired of this cycle is to stop buying new gear and embrace the used market and DIY. But sadly, the customers don’t want to change, either. I guess that’s the real point.

   • Yes, yes – but if that happened, what would I do in my spare time? Make actual music instead of teaching people how to work around all the various industry f̶u̶c̶k̶u̶p̶s̶ shortcomings and make things play nice? Does that sound like fun to you? Do you want to kill my inner nerd? Hmm? ;)

     • Would Bome help translate protocols? I know that it’s compatible with A&H dLIVE, GLD and Qu mixer over Ethernet.

   • I don’t begrudge closing a system like Serato does, for example. But wanting a standard way to connect, power, and sync your gear together in a modern way isn’t deep integration, it’s just making stuff work together. If you own a pair of SC-5000s and a Xone:PX5, they should just talk to each other. You should be able to have any mixer with a clock become the true hub of your setup.

     And the used market is no help, because they still have the same problem.

     • “I don’t begrudge closing a system like Serato does, for example.”
       I don’t understand your argument, then. This is intentional avoidance of the open standard you’re asking for. Plus, you’re not thinking this through from a manufacturing standpoint. Let me just give you one example. Let’s say your Allen & Heath mixer does indeed supply power to your Denon SC-5000s. When audio equipment is developed, a LOT of work goes into power. Power is tied to all kinds of things you wouldn’t immediately think of. If there is an issue where the A&H PSU causes a problem with the Denon SC-5000, who is responsible for supporting that issue? What if your Pioneer tabletops were clocked to a Rane mixer that has a jittery master clock? How long do you think it would take for that to get figured out and fixed? Do you figure everyone would just play nice and work together?

       “And the used market is no help, because they still have the same problem.”
       As it stands right now, you have zero chance of realizing your open standard dream. The ONLY way things change is if you make it financially attractive for manufacturers to break out of the cycle they’re in, and disincentivize the manufacture of new versions of the same old products. You have to make companies look to the users for product ideation INSTEAD of the salesmen.

       • Serato’s system is that the software only works with approved hardware. That’s very different than having no way for hardware interoperability, like all those RJ-45-based connectors use. Serato has Ableton Link, which is a huge leap ahead of what Pioneer, Denon, and A&H aren’t doing.

         • “Serato’s system is that the software only works with approved hardware.”
           Why is it OK for Serato to close their system, but not Pioneer or Denon (or NI)? They’ve all built ecosystems that they’re encouraging users to adopt. And if you think it’s OK for all of these manufacturers to close off their systems, what is the incentive for A&H to create an open system (if the only thing it’s going to work with is itself)?

           • Because people are more likely to buy more gear when things work together. Did MIDI on electronic instruments signal the end of music tech? Kraftwerk would like a word…

             EDIT: also, At this point, Serato is more open with sync communication than Pio or Denon, thanks to Ableton Link. They didn’t have to implement that. But they knew it would help their userbase.

             • “Because people are more likely to buy more gear when things work together. Did MIDI on electronic instruments signal the end of music tech?”
               You’re arguing against your own point. Pioneer, Serato, and NI have ALL developed closed ecosystems where their own products work well together, and offerings from other manufacturers suffer. But you’re giving Serato a pass because they implemented Ableton Link, yet Traktor and Virtual DJ have had open, full featured MIDI implementations for over 10 years. Also, doesn’t Traktor have Link integration? I’m pretty sure it’s been in there for a long time.

               For Pioneer specifically, I think they’re pretty comfortable telling their users that they’ve built a closed system that covers the typical user experience from beginner to headliner. And that experience provides a solution that includes compelling software, multiple tiers of hardware, social media outreach / marketing, light control, and production. It also wouldn’t surprise me to see them add Link support (not that it would make their system “open”).

               I don’t want to speak for Denon. I don’t have enough visibility into that shop to know where their heads are. Link support couldn’t hurt, but if I were making the decisions there I would be focusing on polishing core Prime functionality and addressing the current user base with efforts like supporting recent products like the MCX8000.

               In any case, Adding LINK support does not make any of these systems “open”. It just makes them a little more compatible (requiring the use of a 3rd party tool).

               • Link isn’t a 3rd party tool, though. Well, no more than ethernet, or USB protocols are.

                 And how am I arguing against my own point? I gave the example of how MIDI helped electronic music flourish. People bought more gear from more manufacturers because they knew it worked well together. If you own a Denon mixer, you’re more likely to consider buying a set of Pioneer decks or a Roland drum machine if you know there’s a reliable way they’ll communicate. Closed systems have been proven to be short-termist over and over. Yes, people might discount the idea of leaving the closed system, but that’s more likely to lose a sale overall…

                 • “Link isn’t a 3rd party tool, though. Well, no more than ethernet, or USB protocols are”
                   Ableton Link isn’t made by any of the DJ hardware manufacturers, so they’re a 3rd party. Ethernet isn’t a protocol – that would be TCP/IP (Ethernet is the transport layer). USB IS a low level protocol, but all it does provide a framework for the higher level protocols that actually do work (like MSC, HID, etc).

                   ” I gave the example of how MIDI helped electronic music flourish. People bought more gear from more manufacturers because they knew it worked well together. ”
                   That’s an interesting example to bring up, because when MIDI was first introduced there WAS an agreed upon standard for the messaging. But when MIDI’s use became more widespread than keyboards and breath controllers, those standard definitions stopped being accurate. That doesn’t mean MIDI became less “open”, just that it’s use became more broad. And while MIDI remains a useful and flexible protocol that most of the major players use (to varying degrees), we still have companies with 10 years of MIDI support who still don’t allow the user to adjust the sensitivity of an encoder, or define the last byte of a message. This is the first part of my overall point. Everyone already uses a common open protocol to communicate with other programs and hardware. They’ve been using it for years. But they can’t agree enough to try and standardize even the most simple messaging.

                   “Closed systems have been proven to be short-termist over and over. Yes, people might discount the idea of leaving the closed system, but that’s more likely to lose a sale overall.”
                   I don’t agree with this at all. I think closed systems have worked out very well for a LOT of companies. When was the last time you loaded HP ink into your Cannon printer? Or installed an iOS app on your Android phone? Or had a chat with your Facebook friend over Skype?

                   I agree with you in the broad sense. DJ products should be more open. But that means I also don’t apologize for companies that have intentionally closed off large parts of their application. And if I take myself out of DJ nerd mode for a minute, I also understand the appeal of the Pioneer ecosystem. Opening that system up isn’t going to change their sales, and it might weaken a brand image that they’ve worked very hard to develop.

                   • Ethernet works in the 1.Physical and 2.Data Link Layers. The 4th. “Transport” Layer would be TCP for Transport Control Protocol.

       • “You have to make companies look to the users for product ideation INSTEAD of the salesmen.”
         Again,
         SO Insightful….
         too bad someone wasn’t preaching this yeaarrsss ago, oh wait…

   • “stop buying new gear and embrace the used market and DIY”
     this is great advice, wish I’d thought of it and written here 3 years ago, oh wait, I did

3. The most important step would be to get the market leader to endorse an open protocol and the rest would follow.
   That unfortunately is very unlikely to happen, especially in the current situation:
   Pioneer desperately wants to drag people into their rekordbox DJ eco system – why support a protocol that lets the user decide on software?
   Also, Denon have released a strong competing media player, that probably even more people would buy if it worked with the DJM mixers.
   And since NI was so clever to f*ck over Pioneer with the Z2 back then, there’s probably a very low chance of these two companies working together in near future.

   So, who in the industry would really benefit from that open protocol?
   Pioneer, by selling less of their overpriced and under-equipped media players? Nope.
   Denon, by selling less of their X1800s, because people seem to have more love for the DJMs? Nope.
   Allen & Heath: Maybe.
   Rane: Maybe (or maybe not, if they don’t even manage to implement the engine protocol in the 72 – WTF?)
   All independent, smaller manufacturers: Hell yes!
   NI & Serato: Probably

   My guess is that we’ll never see any open protocol.
   Sad thing, it could be so much fun.
   But what do I know, I’m only to buy all the stuff.

   • But I’m not talking about software. Well, not in the way we usually discuss closed ecosystems. I’m talking communication between systems. We have Ableton Link on the software side. It works really well (apart from a couple of issues, like not being able to reset the time signature… For example if you have a track with an extra or missing beat). We need that same situation for hardware. Every one of the big manufacturers have their own system. Which is such a waste of energy.

     And it’s completely false to think less people would buy hardware if the protocols were open. MIDI didn’t stop people buying instruments from one manufacturer when it came out. In fact, it helped the electronic music scene explode. USB didn’t stop audio technology companies making money. In fact, it helped the digital DJ scene explode.

     We’re seeing more and more outboard gear coming out from manufacturers. Drum machines, controllers, effects units, audio interfaces, mixers, media players. We’re expected to connect this stuff up together, but heaven forbid it’s to gear from elsewhere. It’s stupid. It’s short sighted. And it’s got to stop.

     • I just included the software perspective as I think it’s an important factor in the cutthroat competition we’re seeing, and therefore the tendency to build closed eco systems.

       When it comes to just linking DJ hardware with an open protocol, Denon would probably sell less mixers and Pioneer less media players (in the current situation).

       Also, Pioneer has entered the “casual” production / live performance market.
       Why would they support a standard link protocol?
       Who would buy their overpriced Toraiz crap over a Maschine, the upcoming TR-8S, an MPC Live, Ableton Push 2, etc.?
       The only reason for people to buy Pioneer production gear (besides the shiny looks) is that it can easily be linked with their DJ products.

       • Agreed.

     • Ableton link at its first iteration (the Bridge) was more powerfull (as syncing protocol) but failed due to “scratch test” fail. Then partnership broke and we have bits of that idea disseminated in both companies.
       Ableton link is open clock (now has the play/stop integrated thanks to cycling’74 improvements) and get Ableton revenue from the Bridge fail, recycling code instead ditching it.
       Serato improve the scene launching and perform record (mixtape and Ableton as deck) with Flip. Also give Ableton users Sample to get chopping into live and Roland partnership for midi clock user demand (tied to hardware as midi din inside dj808/505). It could be done on cheap as I pointed so many times in Serato forums but again users want “plugnplay solutions” not working on open or hacked ones due they don’t trust on their own, it’s easy to blame brands.

       It’s possible to develop your protocol ATM. You only need:
       Max (or PD with extra coding)
       OSC (it could be improved being open source)
       Hardware platform of your choice (from simple arduino to bomebox going through raspi or any product you decide)
       Send the specification to each brand and wait for implementation.

       How is possible it’s not available nowadays?
       Well, most “vjing” software has built in OSC support in any form (even Traktor has OSC support) but the main problem is user. Users don’t want to deal with this things meanwhile vjs do. The nearest approach is maxforlive…

       Ableton is implementing more and more tools from Cycling’74 because they are not only the actual “djing” standard, they are the “live performance” standard giving it’s users the full chain from producing at home to performing live and backwards. Scratch or mixing (sync rants) are avoid from its foundation so they keep themselves going fast forward and are the brands who need to adopt their technology not the opposite. That’s why them implement arduino and alternative sensors and through maxforlive (now more thight) vizzie/v-module.

       The previous djworx post was about stagnation and curated content but IMHO the issue isn’t only social media or comodization of djing… it’s the rejection of paradigm shift. There are lots of things happening in our field or “skin2skin fields” like vjing/live cinema but djworx only talks about them from Arkaei posts mainly.

       The same problem about mobile platforms… Ableton link was implemented first in iOS apps than desktop ones (and was probably designed with these in mind more than desktop) creating an explosion in live jams with iOS devices… but very few of such content arrives to djworx (and not so much more to djtechtools) also blogs like cdm has less and less post about djing (with 0 comments) pointing that paradigm shift even in how actual “creative users” avoid even the blogging themselves.

       Lack of protocol is just the top of the iceberg…

4. Back in the olden days, when I were a lad and I used to come round here when it was all just fields, I started my working life as a bath and shower product engineer. And while I was allowed a degree of creativity with my designs, they still had to strictly adhere to British Standards.

   This means that you could be sure that all the key dimensions and connections conformed to the standards that everyone else made their products to. The whole bathroom industry stuck to these standards, or retailers wouldn’t stock them.

   Sadly, we don’t have such standards in the DJ industry. So while they all use standard electronic connectors, everything else is a mist mash of whatever the hell the manufacturer wants to do. Just ask the fader guys how bloody hard their job is. And the third party knobs makers too.

   There needs to be standards, but there are none. I wrote this same story almost 13 years ago (http://skratchworx.com/newspage.php?fn_mode=comments&fn_id=311), and we’re still no nearer sorting this mess out. Perhaps we need to take leading hand in this devising a set of preliminary set of standards. Even for simple things like pot orientation or fader openings would be a good place to start. And I’m certain that a standardisation for mixer and controller sizes would be welcome by everyone.

   • Let’s also consider a standard for collection databases and the use of ID3 tags (waveform, key, beatgrid, comments, etc) – something that would render software like rekordbuddy redundant – Sorry, Damian :)

     • This is also my dream. To see one database that rules them all. Fire up any DJ program and find your collection just ‘works’.

       It’s a good starting point but and open database would be a killer right now.

       But that’s as unlikely as an open link protocol.

5. It’s the Apple effect. Companies want to build an ecosystem that provides you everything you need, connected and seamless and easy, all working perfectly so that you don’t notice the high walls surrounding your enclosure, and dare to venture out and explore products from other manufactures. It’s against their best interest to even allow you the thought that you might give your money to someone else, so why would they focus any resources towards building a gate into that wall that might allow you to spend your dollars elsewhere. It’s just so nice and synced inside the wall, you should just stay in here with us where it all works.

   I agree with you entirely. I just think it’ll be a cold day in hell before Pioneer opens up to a cross-manufacturer standard. Or at the very least, they’ll need to get taken down a few pegs, to the point where offering cross platform sync is something they might consider necessary to keep people buying their products.

6. OpenSoundControl has all and even more of what you ask for… but as Nemonic said there is no interest from djing to adopt standard and open protocols. Djs want plugnplay and so… not mess like Arkaei in quest for the awesomeness.

   • Surely the point of these protocols is that they ARE plug n play?

     • Inside their own ecosystems usually or should be almost. Outside them usually not to keep users inside them as someone pointed. It will seem less sell of individual units but the brands pursue sell “the pack” or exclusivity. It’s inside the djing DNA itself: scarcity as value of proposition.

7. open protocols for hardware would make life so much easier. for literally anyone making music. please manufacturers, get on this right away :)

8. Absolutely right, I couldn’t agree more. Ableton link is a huge game changer and from my experience is rock solid. It’s enabled me to link outboard hardware to Serato or Traktor and add extra layers and a live element to my enjoyment of mixing. I found the thrill of mixing digitally via software less exciting than vinyl, but now with the added elements of a drum machine and synth locked in the groove the buzz is back when I bring in a new melody, bass line or beat.
   If Denon really want to make an impression, they should take your advice and offer this solution to the less expensive alternatives in an effort to level the playing field and force the hand of the over priced “professional” option in the market.

9. I would remove the xone link. Allen and heath have pretty much abandoned their user base. They made one controller to take advantage of it like 8 years ago and haven’t done anything since.

   • The K1 was 3.5 years ago, and the K2 was 6 years ago. But yes, additional controllers would have been nice, perhaps even a rudimentary media player. Or just opening up the X-Link protocol for everyone to use. But given the products that have appeared in the last 8 years, A&H has far from abandoned their user base.

     • Let’s be honest the k1 was made up of leftover parts from the k2

       They may have launched a few new mixers in the last few years but they aren’t anything like the db4 and while that is still a current mixer ( according to them ) there is still issues with it and they pretty much stated they aren’t updating it.

       I bought a k2 link didn’t work and they had no ideas how to fix it. I’m pretty sure al development is done by 3rd party.

10. interface/computer/display device
    Just like a desktop, it has all the various in/out
    Seems like a no brainer for recordbox

11. Hmmm. Has me thinking. Cant be that hard to build a translator app to run on linux and throw on a pi.

12. I think we’re all generally agreed that open protocols would be amazing. Despite the walled off world designed to keep people firmly inside one ecosphere, it’s my contention that more sales would be generated if we could pick and chose our gear, knowing that it would all just work together.

    But there are issues with making this happen. Firstly, it would require the creation and adoption of a common standard. And in such a small industry, that simply isn’t going to happen. Although a brilliant idea, Stems is proof that a supposedly but not really open standard killed a game changer, because NI wanted to keep control of it. If it was so open, it would be in every bit of DJ and production software out there.

    The flip side of that is that somebody really does have to own it and control it for it to remain a standard, otherwise it’ll just get chipped away at and eventually devolve into many “standards”. Link is a prime example of an open protocol done correctly.

    The bigger issue is support. Not for the protocol, but for the end user. Let’s say that via the new fangled standard protocol, you were able to hook up the Denon DJ SC5000 Primes to a Pioneer DJ DJM-900NXS2. Great when everything works, but what happens when something isn’t quite right? Who do you go to? And what do you think will be the response? An “it must be (insert the other unit here)” fingerprinting session will ensue.

    It’s not like consumer standards where billions of people will benefit and industries can make piles of money. The number of people you’re talking about who would benefit from this is minuscule in comparison, and in reality will generate a loss rather than a profit for whoever decided to take it on. This is why it’s easier for companies to use standard ports, but fire their own brand of data back and forth, and not give a crap about what’s happening outside of the walled garden.

    In terms of a standard, I don’t know if it’s achievable. But there’s nothing stopping manufacturers publishing specifications of their protocols and letting other hardware companies let their gear work with others, if indeed it’s possible to do that at all.

    Ultimately, it comes down to scale. To develop standards, publish specifications, and ensure that they’re adhered to would take a big pot of money. But when the industry is in the hands of a much smaller group of companies than ever, they probably ask themselves why they need to bother at all.

    • If memory serves me right, wasn’t Steinberg using an open protocol 20+ years ago? Pretty sure they were using rtpMIDI or ipMIDI… It’s been a while.

13. I for one am grateful that at least manufacturers have almost all switched to USB Audio and MIDI class compliant devices in the last couple of years. Linux users have benefited a lot from this although I think manufacturers were largely motivated to do this by iOS only working with class compliant devices.

14. USB-C could be an opportunity to standardize all this. Class Compliant audio + MIDI combined with the power provided by USB-C would probably do the job for a start. Then if they want to improve MIDI standard to bring things like messages specific to some mixer’s blur-in LCDs, they just need to work together under a consortium.

    As for the software part, the same needs to be done regarding music files ID tags that store cues, sync info and other meta-data needed for a smooth operation.

    One last thing, we all know that scratch certifications and mixer/controller compatibility are currently driven by each editors’ or HW maker’s business model. I believe they really need to rethink that to a business model that is more user-centric.

    It’s really crazy that in the early 2000s, we could use any mixer/controller we wanted with any DJing piece of software that existed at the time (Traktor/VDJ), use the audio ins/outs, map jog wheels, everything and now almost 20 years later we are so much locked into “echo system wannabe” marketing strategies.

    That would be a perfect world of Djing. One of the leaders has to initiate this.