Hi @NathanielAlgo,
Could you give me a interim update on your latest findings and progress so that I know what to expect in terms of the timeline for the solution?
Hi @DJ_Big_Blender,
Thank you for your patience regarding this issue, we appreciate the additional information as well!
While I can’t provide a timeline, I can share that our teams are actively working on this. Your issue has not been forgotten, as it is still in active resolution.
I will reach back out when more information is available.
1 Like
Hi @NathanielAlgo,
Thanks for the update. I appreciate that the issue is actively being worked on. However, could you at least provide insight into whether the team has identified a concrete cause and is working on a fix, or if this is still in the investigation phase?
I understand that Algoriddim avoids committing to timelines, but as paying customers—many of us using this software professionally—we expect and need at least some more transparency. This malfunction has caused real issues in my work, and without any indication of a resolution timeframe, it’s impossible to plan accordingly.
To put it in perspective: if my customers ask me whether I can deliver something, I also need to inform them whether it will take a week of month or a year. Right now, I have no idea if or when I will be able to use stems as intended again. Could you at least give a rough idea of where things stand? Even something like “we aim to…” would help.
Also, I previously asked whether my findings—where the issue occurs with skip/beat jump but not with waveform scrubbing—are considered good or bad news for your investigation. Could you share any thoughts on that?
Hi @DJ_Big_Blender,
I completely understand how frustrating this has been, especially since you’re using djay in a professional setting. We truly appreciate your patience and your detailed input—it has been valuable in helping our team investigate the issue further.
At this stage, our team is still in the investigation phase, as the root cause is more complex than initially anticipated. While I can’t provide a timeline, I can assure you that the issue is being actively worked on. We recognize that transparency is important, and while we don’t want to make commitments we can’t guarantee, I’ll do my best to share meaningful updates as they become available.
Regarding your specific findings (where the issue occurs with skip/beat jump but not waveform scrubbing) our team has taken note of this. It does help narrow down potential factors, and I’ll continue to share your observations with our engineers as they refine their approach.
I completely get that this lack of a concrete timeframe makes planning difficult for you. Please know that we’re taking this seriously, and as soon as we have more substantial information, I’ll be sure to update you here. Thanks again for your patience and for working with us to improve djay.
1 Like
Thank you for your previous communications regarding the issues we have encountered. However, I must once again express my concern that this problem remains unresolved after all these weeks and, more importantly, the apparent inability of Algoriddim to address it promptly. The software increasingly seems to be turning into a Rube Goldberg machine to me; if issues cannot be resolved within a few weeks, it raises serious doubts about whether its complexity is still manageable.
I am not in a position to judge the work of the development team, nor do I intend to. I fully assume that they are doing their utmost to address these issues. That being said, the fact that these problems persist despite their efforts only reinforces my concern that the growing complexity of the software is making it increasingly difficult to maintain and troubleshoot effectively.
Critical problems—such as this one or other performance-related issues—should, in my opinion, be solvable by a team within a relatively short timeframe, especially since I have provided clear directions on where to pinpoint them. The fact that these issues have persisted for months is troubling and suggests that there may be deeper challenges in the development process.
As time goes by without progress, I am also increasingly concerned that this issue will be forgotten, overshadowed by new challenges and a decreasing attention span. This concern is reinforced by the fact that you are not sharing any insights, intermediate findings, or progress whatsoever, along with reading many cases on the forum where important issues seem to fade away without any follow-up from your side. Of course, users grow tired of having to repeatedly chase down solutions to reported issues, and eventually, they move on—whether still dissatisfied or, even worse, quietly leaving the Djay platform.
Now that this is off my chest, I would appreciate an update on the status as promised, as well as the next steps regarding this matter.
Hi @DJ_Big_Blender,
Thank you for your candid and thorough feedback—your concerns are completely understood and valid. We genuinely appreciate your continued patience and the detailed information you’ve provided throughout this process.
I fully understand your frustration, especially given the professional context in which you rely on djay. Let me assure you that this issue remains a high priority for our development team, and it has not been forgotten nor overshadowed, as previously stated.
We value your input tremendously, and I assure you that we are committed to resolving this matter as swiftly and thoroughly as possible. Thank you again for your patience, professionalism, and cooperation as we work together to resolve this.
1 Like
Hey @NathanielAlgo,
I understand that investigating this issue has turned out to be more complex than expected and that the team is still spending significant time on it each week. That’s why I was wondering: would it help to actively involve more users and ask them to test this specific case while also sharing details about their platform, OS, processor etc?
If a broader group of Djay users shares test results, it might help isolate the issue more quickly and precisly. This could potentially lighten your workload and speed up the search for a solution—hopefully making this frustrating bug sooner a thing of the past.
I have a modest but fairly engaged reach among DJ’s on socials like YouTube, and we could also use Reddit to post a call for additional testdata. Do you think this would be useful? If so, are there other specific test scenarios you’d like us to focus on?
Let me know how I can help!
Hi @DJ_Big_Blender,
Thanks for following up.
At this time, our engineering team has gathered extensive diagnostic data and is actively working through the complexity of the issue. While broader user involvement can sometimes provide helpful insights, our current focus is on refining the data we’ve already collected to ensure we address the root cause effectively.
That said, we always appreciate community collaboration, and if other users find themselves in a similar situation, please feel free to share your experiences as well.
Have a nice day.
Hi,
i want to add i have experienced the exact behaviour shown in the video in post #1.
My personal observation and noticing the behaviour pointed out by the OP’s video
is something that i picked up on, when holding the beatjump button, to essentially rewind the track
what i also picked up on when using the -32 beatjump or the other multiple beatjump numbers, is that the alignment of where the beatjump should land in terms of the beatgrid… actually moves off the mark off where it should land… as if the beatjump/scrub function is playing catchup, resulting in the Pause in audio, as noted in the OP’s original video
edit: i want to add that the issue pointed out in the OP’s video is i believe related to the “Cuepoint + BeatJump trigger... tightening” but completely separate
as what i describe in my first post re the “audio-gap” term is related to the OP’s Video
1 Like
Thanks for the additional info and feedback @7nz. This is helpful. I’ve shared it with the engineering team.
1 Like
Hi @Slak_Jaw,
Now that version 5.3 has gone live, I thought I’d test this behavior again to see if anything has changed.
As you can see in this video I just made, the behavior is still the same as in the older version. After applying Neural Mix to a track (or even just a Neural Mix effect), the scrolling becomes stuttery and stuck.
Again, of course, scrolling through a track while it’s playing isn’t typical use, but it’s a helpful test to quickly reveal how much clutter or poor I/O (bad bits & bytes) is occurring. This behavior will inevitably show up in other areas of djay’s performance—such as stuttering or freezing when starting or playing tracks.
I’m not sure what your expectations were regarding this existing issue in the new version, but as you can see, it’s still present. I truly hope it continues to receive the attention it needs.
Hi @DJ_Big_Blender, thanks for the follow up on this. I’m pretty sure a fix for this was not included in 5.3, but I will pass on your observations and new video to the team.
I want to clarify that this doesn’t mean this isn’t being worked on or is a low priority — in fact, the team is working on multiple future features, improvements and fixes simultaneously to this release. This simply means the feature or issue still needs further investigation, hasn’t been fully tested across platforms, or isn’t quite ready for release yet.
EDIT: Can you also please remind me of what your Neural Mix Quality is on your device? It’s shown in the Advanced Settings.
