Talk:Final Scratch

Can someone please post release dates in the History section with references? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.24.36 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1 It's not a history, if whe don't know WHEN things happened. --Panoramedia (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could the author of "=== Issues regarding time code errors ===" please clarify the definition of 'a timecode'? You state:

"A bit that has become unreadable due to a scratch can make an entire 40 bit long time code permanently unreadable."

The paragraph makes it sound like a speck of dust can make the whole record useless, which obviously isn't the case. How long is the 40 bit 'bit' in playback time (at 33.3 rpm)?--Djdannyq 12:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that if there is a scratch on the record that makes one of the 40 bits un readable or incorrect, a position code can not be found using those 40 bits. For example, supose that you have a binary string such as 10110 which equals 22 in decimal. If one of those five bits is read wrong, you won't get the correct decimal value. This isn't really an issue in most usage cases because it's rather hard to destroy the record groove enough for a bit to read incorrectly. However, there is still a chance that this could happen. Another analogy might be a non-error-checking transmition code: one bit wrong can corrupt the entire data stream.

My basic point in even bringing this point up in the article is that the coding scheme isn't as robust as other vinyl control schemes.

The code is a 1k hertz along the entire record groove. So at 33 rpm you can do some math to figure out how many degrees the record has to turn to get 40 bits (20 cycles of the time code). I always mess something up in the math when I try to do the conversion so I'll spare the humilation.--71.214.58.157 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, degrees of arc on the record don't really matter so much as the time itself. 20 time code cycles at 1 kHz (plus or minus 8%) is 0.02 seconds, or 20 ms. Then the question is, how does the software playback a corrupted bit? I've gotten some annoying pops in the audio, but was able to avoid them by turning off some Windows services, so I think that's a data-processing issue. As for hardware, I've found that if I have a bad needle or stylus contact on the turntable, I get relative playback—speed and pitch—just fine, but no absolute positioning (which is a real pain if I'm trying to cue up). In lieu of actual error-checking, it seems like the system is still designed to playback and plow right over bit errors in the time code.

My guess is, if 20 or 40 ms are corrupted by dust or scratches, it will continue playing at the pitch based on the last good signal it had. Is FS able to tell if a bit is corrupted, as in 0100110 to 010?110, would FS then know to ignore it or go ahead and misinterpret it? Does it fill in the data with whatever is closest, or does it check against some threshold, as in does [0.01,0.95,0.01,0.4,0.99,0.98,0.02] (analogue on vinyl) translate to 0100110 or something like [error at "0.4", unreliable bit] (digital)? --Djdannyq 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Traktor handles it, but in my own software (djDecks) I just check if three timecodes in a row actually point to time positions close together. If one or more bits are incorrect, it is very unlikely that the three time codes will still all point to similar time positions. The time for one timecode is about 8 ms I thought btw. A 1 khz sine wave has 2000 peaks per second (one positive and one negative) AdionC (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the following from the article to here, because it seems too subjective and speculative for the article itself:

"With Stantons move to make Final Scratch Open, they decided to use the ScratchAmp for it's real purpose. If Stanton wished to take their product further, they could, instead of using the ScratchAmp for input and output they could use a PCI or PCMCIA sound device that has the same number of outputs."--Djdannyq 12:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is to speculative. However, the switch over to Final Scratch Open makes public what the interface box really is. A 4x input by 4x output audio device with phono amps and some other gadgetry on it. The only thing that the Final Scratch software needs (which ever version one chooses to use) is two stereo timecode audio streams. Someone useing cd decks could easily route the output into their sound cards and not have to worry about having the hardware interface at all. With turntables, phono amplification comes into play and would make the use of sound cards a bit more difficult.

Again, this information probably doesn't have to be in this article.--71.214.58.157 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Scratch uses special vinyl records. As you have to use it again and again, don't they wear out within the first twenty tracks you have played? --Abdull 10:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, but you can get replacements for the standard price of a vinyl

It is mainly the high freqs that mostly fade out (of course it will all level out in the end, but not after 20 or 200 plays). I don't know what's on the special record but in my head it doesn't need to have high frequency content.

The timecoded vinyls contain a 1200Hz signal

I used the software pretty heavily for a couple of years before switching to Serato; the vinyl never wore out, though the software did have trouble picking up the timecode on dirty bits of the plate. And there is an option to move the lead-in on the records through software to mitigate needle burn from continuous cueing at the beginning of tracks. Deejaysomething 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the timecode on the FinalScratch records, is it standard SMPTE LTC (Longitudinal/Linear Time Code) that's used, much like on the audio (or dedicated linear timecode) tracks of videotapes, or is it proprietary to FinalScratch? misternuvistor 06:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows a breakdown of the code: http://www.9elements.com/scratchlib/index.php?f_categoryId=14 and I think confirms that is isn't SMPTE LTC. Serato timecode is different again 80.0.9.255 11:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the RZA thing. I think it should hang out here until there's someone to back up RZA's claim.

RZA Controversy[edit]

There is an article that he did with Time Magazine in 2000 where RZA trys to explain the concept of the replicator.[1]
In 2007, on Kotorimag.com and XXL Scratch RZA details how he invented the technology with a Switzerlander and called it the Replicator around 1997. He invested 2 million dollars into the company and patented the technology in several countries. Final Scratch was manufactured in a country where the patent was not available. Rza sued the company for the better part of a year and has said he couldn't financially support the lawsuit. He currently has 50 Replicators and used the technology on Brought the Glock from Iron Flag and possibly as early as Stroke of Death from Supreme Clientele. It should be noted, Rza's replicator is claimed to have zero latency and the capacity to scratch in relative real time, unlike Final Scratch.

A word search the time article does not yield one instance of 'final', 'scratch', 'replicator' or 'patent'.
The XXLmag article is incredulous, with this lead-in to the video clip: "Sound a little far fetched? Rza’s always had a thing for embellishment. You be the judge:"[2]
Zero latency is physically impossible AFAIK. Although I would love to see a link to patent claim that explains it.
While we're on patents, can anyone source any of these alleged multiple patents or lawsuits directly?

So, I would say this section shout be held in limbo until someone can address these problems. Any takers? Djdannyq (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note---In the youtube/xxlmag video, although RZA says "I invented it." He then immediately says that he saw it at someone's house and invested in it, which is something entirely different than inventing. If this story is true, he helped develop, not invent, it. but I am still very dubious on this whole story because it's a single account. Even the xxlmag readership is pretty incredulous if you read the comments.Djdannyq (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be referring to the numark cdx in his video. From what I understand, they have just connected something to their turntable to read out the speed directly, rather than through a regular vinyl. This means that the whole thing is quite different from final scratch, and in particular that it wouldn't allow for 'absolute mode' where you can also set the position as you would do on regular vinyl. Since the actual working is entirely different from final scratch, it is not very likely that even if they had a patent that there would be enough resemblance to win a case with. Also the device they made seemed more to be a sampler, so it may not even have had the ability to hold entire songs, which also makes the concept a bit different, and more limited to scratching only. AdionC (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the cdx, but after watching the video and RZA's story, he seems to be talking about a buffer/delay system with a vinyl-like control interface to control the speed. So you could route any analogue sound through it, and scratch or pitch it as it plays back. It's unclear whether the device provides its own playback, but RZA's description makes it sound more like an FX tool. So the talk about zero latency would not be a valid comparison. What RZA describes is zero latency between the creation of the sound and the ability to play it back and scratch it e.g. "one two" spoken, "one two" repeated and scratched---no waiting for audio to render to a file, selecting the file, loading etc. I suppose this is possible in FS, but it's not the intended design, and it certainly wouldn't be as quick as a dedicated hardware device. Similarly, if you provided your own playback, you could use this replicator to control the speed, for a while, depending on the buffer size I suppose.

Still, the problem is that we only have the one youtube/xxlmag video to go on. It's an incomplete story and there's no other source (yet) to back up User:Ibyshi. If there is more to the story, I would really like to see it (please!), but all I can find online is that one video, and another video based on that first video, and blog posts talking about either video. Can anyone get an independent source to confirm this? Until then, I'll try to slim the paragraph down to a one-sentence blurb and link to the Youtube video as a source. And maybe the whole replicator legend thing could be moved to its own article...? Djdannyq (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

compatible software[edit]

is there any other software that is compatible with final scratch v1.5? e.g traktor pro, virtual dj etc?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.155.27 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]