Traktor Pro 3.8 still has flashing browser when you load tracks



  • wayfinder
    wayfinder Member Posts: 221 Pro

    just as an aside, I would love to have #-descending, but NI doesn't allow that for some reason

  • Sûlherokhh
    Sûlherokhh Member Posts: 1,281 Expert

    Yes. I started missing that feature the day i started using Traktor Pro for the first time.

  • Vladyk _Dj
    Vladyk _Dj Member Posts: 100 Helper

    If he sorts the collection in this attribute # this problem disappears, if he sorts this collection in other attributes this problem appears in him,other attributes are unstable and will not sort this collection correctly than the attribute # ,sorting of this collection in the program traktor pro 3 there is a problem that cannot be solved the traktor pro 3.There are tracks in his collection that can't process.But as if it sorted the collection by this attribute, but it did not sort this collection, that the sorting process did not go 100% and because of this it flashes.When it returns to this attribute # stops flashing, and the filter will turn on and wants to take those tracks from the collection, which it cannot process.

  • Kubrak
    Kubrak Member Posts: 2,595 Expert


    just as an aside, I would love to have #-descending, but NI doesn't allow that for some reason

    I agree, that it is strange that NI does not allow to sort by # in descending order. I do miss it as well....

  • Vladyk _Dj
    Vladyk _Dj Member Posts: 100 Helper

    They considered then during the development of the sorting collection that this parameter it is not necessary, and because of this it is not available,and now if it is necessary and important for people ,they will fix it then and this attribute parameter, ascending order, will become available.

  • Oxy
    Oxy Member Posts: 85 Helper

    The faster your computer the less flickering you will see.

    On my i9 12900k it's basically non existent.

  • mainTAP
    mainTAP Member Posts: 1 Newcomer

    On a mid-2011 Mac mini is the flickering quite noticeable

  • SteveKDJ
    SteveKDJ Member Posts: 101 Helper

    Is this now considered bragging? :)

    not everyone can afford the expensive processor and configuration.

    It doesn't blink for you, be happy about it. it also blink when analyzing numbers, loading numbers, no matter what I set. So that's my problem, and I'm really annoyed by this kind of flashing. 


  • Kubrak
    Kubrak Member Posts: 2,595 Expert

    I am not defending NI, but what you describe is not a bug. It is behaviour. Not optimal function is not bug, it is behaviour. It does not behave wrongly, it is just toooo sloooow.

    The flickering described is not a bug as well. It is behaviour. NI has decided to show user the warning that sorting will take some time... It make the flickering on decently fast systems, but is appropriete on slow ones. The solution might be that text is shown only on slower systems....

    You are right that things could be made better, or even much better. I guess, programmers do not test it for 100k tracks. I do not know if it is typical use case. By the way, it would cost about 100k USD to buy such an amount of tracks.... And it would take almost one year day and night to listen to it at least once.

    But still, you are right, it should be programmed with better care....

  • T_G
    T_G Member Posts: 8 Member

    Are you joking? Users with literally 50 tracks in their collection experience this behavior.

    I perfectly explained above that it is impossible that it is that slow without a buggy implementation behind it. Please feel free to name it what you want. The implementation is buggy.

    No proper sort in these ranges takes this amount of time. The flickering is not only caused by the/a warning message.

    Just enabling a preference without actually using it but using the browser same way as without the preference set speaks for a buggy implementation, because nothing in the usage changes. You do not even need to click onto an inline editable field. It is just the setting. So, buggy.

    They do not need to test for 100k tracks, because people with much less tracks experience such issues. Althoug they should test for 100k+ tracks. I also explained that there is no reason that there is ANY lag with this small amount of entries. 100k is nothing from an IT standpoint. We are talking IT small, I don't care how much 100k tracks are for you.

    And thanks for showing your math skills and interest in money. What exactly do you want to tell me with that statement?

  • Kubrak
    Kubrak Member Posts: 2,595 Expert

    Why should NI think about testing 100k tracks' database? As I explained you such a big library of tracks would cost about 100k USD and would take almost one year to listen to it at least once. It does not seem to be typical user use case.

    I have not been able to reproduce any flickering problems even on relatively slow system (passively cooled 4C i5 "tablet"). And what that video has shown was just "flickering" caused by showing that user warning.

    OK, we both have been SW developers for 30+ years... Your and my definition what buggy means is different....

    Still I agree with you NI could do those things better and much faster. If they decided to invest human resources (money) into it. As a long time developer you must know, that managers decide, on what the time should be spent, not the programmers. Programmers prefer to make the best code ever and spend years on that holly grail goal.

  • T_G
    T_G Member Posts: 8 Member

    Because they optimized the import for DBs bigger than 100k tracks some time ago. This must have had a reason, don't you think?

    And if the sorting/searching for something is sub 1sec in a db greater 100k and after I enable inline editing I get black screens for seconds than something is not right. This is not "behavior"

    But you know what, you are right because I really have things to do worth the time than discuss what a bug is or how many tracks people are allowed to have after collecting music for more than 3 decades.

    Have a nice sunday!

  • Kubrak
    Kubrak Member Posts: 2,595 Expert

    100k tracks in 30 years is roughly one CD a day.... I love music and have collected many, many CDs and LPs. And also downlosded a lot, lot from elsewhere, but I am still very far from 100k. And most of it is not very suitable for dancing, so my Traktor collection is only 2k or so.

    I believe you that you need 100k track's database in Traktor, but to me it does not make much sense. But I trust you that it makes sense to you.

    I hope for you, NI will improve DB searches, it is doable. I do not need it and will not ever need it. Maybe 20k in several years. And that time' CPUs will handle 20k database even with current Traktor code...

  • Spazoo
    Spazoo Member Posts: 41 Helper
    edited March 19

    How about NI adds "Fix the browser bug" to their roadmap??? I would really appreciate that.

Back To Top