Stanton Attack SSL.........

Here is a comparison that a member of French SSL Forum found on the Stanton Website :
Rane SeratoScratch Live 1.0 vs
Stanton FinalScratch 2.0
SSL1.0 FS2.0
Hardware Protocol USB 1.1 FireWire
Sampling Bits 16 bit 24 bit
Sampling Frequency 44.1 kHz 96 kHz
Latency > 7ms Less than 7ms
Frequency Response N/A 20Hz-20KHz +/- 1dB (Line)
Signal to Noise ratio > 94 dB > 105 dB
THD < .004 % < .002 %
Max Channels 2 Stereo Pairs 3 Stereo Pairs
RCA Input 2 Stereo Pairs 3 Stereo Pairs
Input Level Switch None Yes
Microphone Input 1/4" TRS Unbalanced XLR Balanced
Input Gain Microphone All Phono / Line, Microphone
Balanced Instrument Input None None
Input Clip Indicators None Mic, Phono / Line
Max Channels 2 Stereo Pairs 3 Stereo Pairs
RCA Output 2 Stereo Pairs 2 Stereo Pairs
Headphone Output None 1/4" & 1/8"
Balanced Output None None
Output Gain None Headphones
Thru's Phono / Line , Mic Phono / Line, Mic
Midi In None Yes
Midi Out None Yes
Bus Powered Yes Yes
Passes Audio w/o Power No Yes
Power LED Yes Data LED
Compatible TK DJ Studio No Yes
Record Label View Yes Yes
Tempo Match Display Yes Yes
Beat Match Display Yes Yes
Track Overview Display Yes Yes
Cue points displayed Yes Yes
Cue points "clickable" Yes Yes
Main Wave Display Yes Yes
3 Band Colors Yes 2 Color
Zoomable Yes No
Needle Position Adj None Yes
End of Track Indicator Yes Yes
Minute Markers None Yes
Needle Position Shift None Yes
Lead-in Indicator None Yes
Software Gain Adjustment Yes Yes
Master Adjustment Yes Yes
Key Correction None Yes
Auto Gain None Yes
Scratch Alg Adj None TBA
Absolute Yes Yes
Relative Yes Yes
Internal Yes Yes
Pitch Control Yes TBA
Reverse Inputs Yes TBA
Repeat Playback Yes TBA
Playlist Support Yes Yes
"Sort By" Support Yes Yes
Searching Yes Yes
Search Categories Yes TBA
Prepare Window Yes TBA
Review Window Yes TBA
Mp3 tag editing Yes Yes
Itunes Support Yes Yes
Album Art Support Yes TBA
Auto-BPM None Yes
Headphone Cue None Yes
Auto Stripe Mp3 Yes Yes
Cue point support Yes Yes
Cue point rec indicator Yes Yes
Mic Record Yes Yes
Signal Quality Meter None Yes
Signal Threshold Control Yes Yes
Phase Control / Meter Yes Yes
Audio Latency Adjustment Yes TBA
Audio Quality Adjustment No TBA
Time code Quality Adjust No Yes
Time code Lead In Adjust No Yes
Resizable Interface Yes Yes
Keyboard Shortcut Assign None Yes
Font Size None Yes
Minute Dividers Yes Yes
Lead-in Time code Yes Yes
Vinyl Scroll Yes TBA

FS 2.0 features are preliminary as of July 30, 2004

It seems that Stanton want to attack directly SSL! Maybe they think that SSL user will switch to there very expensive with no support system?? you are the judge.........

PS: To see it clearly, copy and paste it in notepad with a police with equal space.

Wrong, SSL has a software switch



You got a mixer, right? Seen the gain switches on a mixer?



Next version of SSL has that. Version is in beta testing.
(isnt that botht the same?)



Big drawback of SSL, I agree.



Sounds good.



Wrong, SSL has minute markers, on the record and on the screen.



Whats that?

T-One, can you post the link as the comparison is hard to read...

I don't think the "Audio Quality Adjustment" feature proposed by FS is realistic because the audio quality can only be as good as the audio file u have saved in your computer....know what I mean?

Anyways...I still think SSL is WAY BETTER and MORE STABLE than FS!

Cya's!

[P]-Mode

I think: Time code Lead In Adjust = Track Offset, which has been announced as a feature for future SSL release. And whats the deal with TBA? Couldn't every future be considered TBA (especially for a product that isn't even out yet?)

No link on the web, this document was given by a Stanton crew in PDF format to a member of the french SSL forum.
Better visibility if you go there :
www.finalscratch.free.fr

Its looks like a document that Stanton commercial guys give to music shop in order to promote FS2.....and as a lot of people were disappointed by Finalscratch 1.5 and migrate to SSL they surely wants to take back these customers....... LOL......

It looks like Stanton feels threatned by SSL. There are some nice features (like phono pass through without power) but for the rest it is not an impressive list.

One feature they forgot: Backspinning/Scratching Yes/No :-)

you're right.......lol!!!!!

you mean: yes/tba

And I suppose with "Scratch Alg Adj" they mean 'Scratch Algorithm Adjustable'.
There should be no need for that, it should just work like regular vinyl...

It sounds like Stanton needs to hire "President" Bush's people to go after Serato

I know who I'm voting for!

i dont care which program has the better ad campaign or whatever.
it's all about how well does it perform?
i strongly believe that serato is a superior product, and i've never used fs.
not b/c of people fs bashing all the time, but b/c of the way the people at rane and serato have handled themselves and their product.
after owning a rane mixer (ttm-56) that is bar-none the best built mixer i've ever owned or played on, i was very confident in this product.
another reason why i strongly believe in serato is b/c from what i have seen the people behind the scenes have integrity and class.
i have not once seen anyone on this board with any rane or serato ties really go on an f/s bash, in fact they have supported the competition being there, more competition means more market for this type of product.
awesome tech support and awesome people, that's what makes serator number one for me,
Josh

serator, lol.

I can't wait to test it for myself. If everything they claim is true, it's gonna be very good. But as they've made misleading claims in the past, especially on the _all-important_ topic of latency, I'm not putting any money on FS yet. And if they've stuck with timecode as opposed to 'noise map', I'm curious to know how FS2 will handle fast scratching, backspins and very slow record movements.

Speaking of money, it looks expensive. Any word on the price?

799$ MSRP.

so prob comparable street price i'd imagine. not holding my breath tho.

I don't care what comparison they got...My friend in D.C. got the FS with all the updates and He is jealous of me and My SSL..He puts up with it because he paid for it..but that's about it. I have experience with both. But I have to say...It was because of FS that I bought SSL. IF SSl doesn't come with another update(but they are scheduled) I would be o.k. with that. But I'm not into splitting hairs though. YOu give up the ablility to loop needle drop(please), but you gain so much more.

Sure SSL right now is much better than FS1. IF everything will be as stantons says it will be, then FS2 could be something which will be the next step, which I still doubt.

LK, didnt know you were also an ex FS-user. Funny, how many ex FS users we have on this board.

Oh, and if you compare FS to SSL surely you dont give up loop needle drop, thats something FS cant do (we are not comparing real vinyl with SSL but FS and SSL). Except auto gain... I miss that feature,...

Please....I think that we should forget Stanton and FS.
This is a SSL forum and we should work with / for SSL.

rubidj, I think there is nothin wrong "comparing" competetive programs. Competition is evolution, evolution is progress. Its good for the customers. And right now comparisons are good for SSL as its the best mp3-dj-vinyl thing out there.

comparison?

:-P

So this is just toooo precious. Someone over at the traktor boards grabbed a post made here on SSL about FS2 not being able to do backspins.... So the mod jumped right on it with a vengence:

"That statement on the SSL board is complete BS! They are mad that the timecode is in FS2 is tighter than theirs now, and with a huge difference in latency compared to SSL. I mean hell, John Aquaviva was blown away by how tight it was. If need be, next week, I will record video of it while we test the new stuff along with using the MIDI on a XONE 92 with with the new versions."

I love the bit about the timecode...then you read through the posts and people are saying that it's still the original timecode...uhh so that means they're still using the org. timecode right?

I even asked what the latency (in ms) for FS2 was...cause all the while on the board I couldn't read one solid answer...

Does anyone have actual specs about this stuff? Cause it just seems like the typical Stanton/NI "super cool new deal thingy" that won't really work in real peoples hands...

For the sake of all the die hard FS users, I wish them well with FS2, cause it was a pain in my side for too long and I can't even wish that on my worst enemy ; )

haha "John Aquaviva was blown away" he used the original FS all the time didn't he, that would make the Tascam wheel thingy seem mind blowing.

haha, aquaviva suxxxxxxx!!!

what a crappy dj... he knows nothing about scratching. he is not even a good beat-mixer.

he would be better closing his big mouth. he (like other superstar f@ck$rs djs) spreaded FS hype.

go to hell, aquaviva... and take hawtin, j masters (hahaha) and others with you! >(

You have to face that the 'superstar dj's' are important for promoting the product. A lot of people only look at advertisments and follow what the 'stars' do.....

At the time N2iT developed FS (together with Hawtin) there was nothing else on the market, so you can't blame them for using it. Now it's just time for the next step :-)

well they get paid for use it.

What we're trying to do in that thread on the traktor forums is come up with an as objective as possible methodology to compare various digital-analogue hybrid DJ systems using quantitive measurements.

Ideally this would give us some reasonably objective data for comparing the various current and future D/A-Hybrid systems.

My hunch is that neither D/A-Hybrid system currently available is superior in all aspects, but instead different systems have both weak and strong points (e.g. hypothetically SSL has better pitch stability, FS1/2 have lower needle drop latency).

These results would be of great interest for someone planning on purchasing a D/A-Hybrid system because it allows one to determine which system best fits one's needs (e.g. turntabalists have different usability requirements then Club DJs).
Additionally the results could be used by the manufacturers of the D/A-Hybrid system to observe which areas of their D/A-Hybrid system possibly requires improvement.

Xspring, as someone in that thread allready said, this is one of the most interesting threads I have ever read on a FS board :) Keep on rocking.

Thanks, there's a lot of good contributions from a lot of different people in that thread.

I'd do the testing myself if I had FS2 and SSL (as I do have the required testing hardware).

But in theory the methodology should be of such quality that it shouldn't really make a big difference *who* does the testing (if it's an "independant" party) as long as the experiments are consistently reproduced.

I'll try to get something on paper before FS2 is released.

Yea, personally I could give a crap less what DJ's use to perform. If FS works for you great, if SSL works for you, great!... if Traktor Dj Studio works, Fine... as long as your mixes are tight and the music is rockin the crowd, you've got my vote.

Now if I were watching a scratch DJ, I'd expect him/her on tables with vinyl of some sort...simply cause you need to see what they're doing to get their performance...

but with dance stuff, it's all in the assembly and what you can do with the music...aside from putting a mixed CD into a cd player... anything goes in my opinion.

lancota, yep, I also dont give really a ish about which djs use this or that. I mean, DJ Craze was a DMC champ, but honestly his scratchstyle cant be made with FS, cause Fs sucks when it comes to scratching. Mixingwise FS is okay.

It is quite misleading the way latency is listed on the comparison. The comparison is obviously talking about the internal delay before the system works out its absolute position after a needle drop. However this does not take into account the other delays inherent in the system like buffering, bus transmission and even digital conversion.

When you create a system for tracking absolute position on the disc, you have to make a tradeoff between reliability (through redundancy) and decoding time (through compactness). We went one way, and FS went the other way. Our control signal takes much longer to decode after a needle drop, but it is so robust and clear that you can decode it at any speed in any direction, and also it is no subtle compared with the directional carrier signal, that it does not destroy the all-important speed detection part, which is where frequency distortion comes from.

The FS timecode has compressed twice as many bits per cycle into the carrier, and the bits are at least twice as loud as the SL NoiseMap, however this compactness comes at the cost of smoothness and reliability at changing speeds.

In essence, the main difference between the two systems is that FS cares more about working out where the needle was dropped as fast as possible with little regard for how good it sounds, and SL cares more about staying locked to the movement of the record with little regard to how long it takes to work out where the needle was dropped.

We still think that this is the best way to go, because as long as the system can work out where you needle-dropped within say a 20th of a second, who cares how long it takes? On the other hand the quality of the sound and the fidelity of the scratching movements are so crucial, that sacrificing them just to speed up needled dropping seems crazy to us.

AJ and the rest of the Serato Team, thanks for keeping your honesty and integrity. It's cool for you to say 'hey, we won't sacrifice sound quality just so we can try and make some lame-needle-dropping claim'. Pretty big of you guys, I think. As I see it, I still can't get over the fact that I can play mp3's from my computer through a record that's sitting on my turntable, so the fact that this product is just going to get better than what it already is with time - HUGE bonus.

stanton's is faceless... dont know why people dont see it... there is never real nfo from real people from that scam-ish company... its always a mass mail clone to reduce overhead and cost, never to improve quality... its always 'oh this dj uses it and says its bad ass'... they always pay off big name djs to make their money... o well, bottem line stanton make cheap dj stuff PERIOD... all of it, mixers, needles, ALL OF IT... its all crappy IMHO...!

Thanks everyone from Serato and Rane for doing a badass job of making quality dj gear for quality djs =) THANKS GUYS!

i love my stanton needles. there really good

I also have a stanton rm-100 mixer and it kinda sux, but oh well. ill get a rane mixer one day

mmm lets see... i dont think Stanton and NI position about reliability / decoding time is really wrong...

unfortunately, at the very beginning, most amateur djs dont realize about sound quality and tracking reliability. they only take care about what happens when they put needle on the record.

let me explain:

needle drop is the FIRST IMPRESSION, and this is what every djs in the world make in first place.

after that, the dj try to scratch. and ok, scratching FS is horrible, but enough for most trance/house djs.

and finally, the dj try to backspin. we know what happens when you backspin with FS... CRAP!

but i repeat, needle drop is the first thing every dj try at the beginning. i think Stanton / NI position about this is a market strategy. we cant blame them for that... in fact, its our fault.

you see, sometimes consumers behave like silly people (me too).

of course, Rane / Serato position is honest. they try to offer the best product, the best sound, and the best tracking response when scratching-backspinning. if they could improve needle dropping latency without lossing tracking reliability, it would be awesome!!

... just my thoughts...

Or a slide to choose/compromise between both.

I know there are turntablists that use needle dropping as part of their technique, I personally always have the fader down when I needle-drop. I'm guessing that 99,998% of the DJs out there, needle drop latency is the least important aspect of a system's performance. Scratching, on the other hand...

Why does everyone keep saying this? Okay, I've been djin for over 8 years now and playin with the vinyl mp3 systems for 2 years. Final Scratch SUCKED ASS FOR ANY SORT OF DJING. When you spin electronica you need to beat match right? FS couldn't even hold a freakin solid mix for 5seconds before the signal flipped out and the song jumped forward/backward (just enough to trash your mix). Then it would self correct by pitch bending the song the opposite way! really annoying...

If you would play a breakdown with vocals or any sort of instrumental solo, it sounded like the sound was being filtered through water, all wavery and stuff...

Aside from that, the biggest point IMHO of a good dj system is the sound quality. I would spend hours upon hours removing little 1ms dropouts in the audio because they came through as a digital pop or spread.

Hands down, SSL is the best for what EVER djing you do... FS sucks and always have (since I've owned it).

Not to snap at people, but there's a big misconception here that FS is somehow great for anything but Scratching...it's not, plain and simple.

^^^ what he said :)

yeah both of those points sucked tremendously

i mean the points are great but the flaws sucked tremendously
;]

heh

other djs dont think same thing, like you and me :)



good point!

That'd be a nice possibility. But it's not possible as the qualities described are intrinsic to the timecode, the software has no influence on this aspect.

The only option I can imagine is either simply improving the timecode, or having two types of timecode: one with fast needle drops and one with slow needle drops. The second option is a cheap way out though and doesn't really improve the system so I wouldn't recommend it.

Won't this latency (which is less than one second so I don't see the big deal about needle dropping) improve as CPU processors improve?

probably not. imo current cpu's are plenty fast for what needs to be done. the difference is how it's coded. according to AJ:

That may be true, but I think you have possibly overestimated the impact of our position. The reason we decided that it doesn't matter how long needle dropping takes is not because we don't think it is important, but because you can't really tell the difference. I'm not talking about a whole second of latency here, I'm talking about a tiny fraction of a second.

When you're talking about scratching, every millisecond of latency counts, and that is our strong point the SL system is 7ms of total latency. The reason latency is important with scratching is because it effects your hand to hand co-ordination between vinyl and fader movements. But when you're talking about needle dropping, the sound is going from stopped to go, and you can't tell the difference between 10ms and 20ms, even 50ms is perfectly acceptable. 50ms is one twentieth of a second, it is a small, barely perceptible gap when you are talking about the delay between the needle hitting the record, and the software playing from the correct place.


An interesting point, however what I forgot to say is that even with a smaller needle-dropping latency, once you add it to their other latencies, their overall needle-dropping latency is not much better than ours. I said that their system is designed with low needle-drop latency in mind, not that they actually achieved a really low latency as a result.

I will have to measure the needle drop latency of the FS system and post my results so that we can actually talk about some real figures.

That's what I'm talking about. I mean JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!! Any DJ who is complaining about this needle dropping latency is just a pure complaining BITCH. Fuck!!! Ok, so it took a whole second or less for ssl to find the position on the track, but what if it took that DJ 10 seconds just to find that record cause it wasnt where he left it in his crate (cause when you put it back and then you turned around and another DJ or just a fan/customer grabbed it while you were not looking and then put it back in your crate somewhere else, so you cant find it for a friggin week, or what ever? then you wouldnt complain about this latency, that you cant even calculate in your head, CAUSE ITS LESS THEN A FRIGGIN SECOND. SHEESH!!!!

So I ask again, "What is the big fucking deal?"

Or the complainers here must work for the "Final Crizap" - As inspecta J would say - damage control team.

Well, I wasnt looking for an HONEST OPINION, i wanted a technical answer. What you said doesn't make sense and I belive you have misquoted AJ. If all CPUs were 2 times as fast as they are today, It just makes SENSE that it would interpret this noise map lets say most likely 2 times as fast as CPUs are able to now. IMHO - not that it maters, cause it doesnt.

At least, AJ, Can you squash this?

DJ White Lightning, you misunderstood me. of course, there are a lot of aspects that makes SSL better than real vinyl! i was talking about the difference that you feel when playing SSL compared to real vinyl.

i think the ONLY difference is needle dropping. but i agree with you, SSL is awesome. in fact, i gonna never play real vinyl again. and i was FS user you know... i sold it and bought SSL hehe :)

i prefer tracking reliability and real scratching over other aspects. if Serato could improve needle drop latency without losing reliability, it would be great. SSL will be even more closer to real vinyl.

but if they cant do that... well, it is a secondary aspect. i can live with small needle drop latency, no problems :)

BTW, sometimes i get 1/4 - 1/2 second needle drop latency. is this normal?

thanks for your support AJ :)

DJ WL, first dont insult Jesus ;) 2nd, what might be important to you might not be important to others. There are some "issues" which are not issues to others, and of them is the relative big needle drop latency. Why accept less if you can get more/better? BTW I havent measured it, but to me it looks like SSL has more then 50 ms needle drop latency (though I am not 100% sure). What is the average number you figured out for SSL, AJ?

I'm a turntablist and to make a big deal about the needle droppin is really splitting hairs..if you ask me. Think about it..How many djs are posting on the boards, then ask yourself how many are really complaining about it. Of course they will try to make a molehill into a mountain(southern cliche).They are trying to convince people that haven't have no experience with SSL..All people have to do is come to the boards with experienced users and they will see MOst of us are having a ball with our sSl. And I am booked every fucking weekend because of it. And it will only get better with updates..(its a fucking computer program). SSL started off great..so it should only get better.

BC, Nik, and LK - thanks for the responses I enjoyed reading them. And I just posted that so others - like you said - who have not tried SSL will realize that this is a bullshit issue - the needle dropping latency. And it will get better over time. The SSL team is brilliant - just check out some other work they have - like Pitch Time correction - The industry's STANDARD for pro-tools. Need I say more? What has NI ever contributed that can match what this team has accomplished?

Yeah, normally I just sit back and observe, but like I said in a previous post if you want to do all your needle dropping, battle, and scratch with your butt cheek tricks then bring your twenty real records with you and call it a day.

absolutely.

If you're technical enough that SSL needle dropping is an issue then you would be using battle records anyway.

JBravo, I see you complaining why SSL cant do a faster needle drop when a competitive program can do it much faster.

BTW, I have checked again, it might take 50ms to play an audio portion, but then it takes another at least half second until the correct audio plays with needle dropping on my P4 2.4GHz PC, with good calibrated scopes.

er, i wasn't complaining at all.

what about laptop dropping----what's the latency on that? *LOL

Gotta love skutch's laptop dropping. Well, the answer is the time it takes for your brain to transmit the signal thru your nerves to your hand, or something.