Calvin Harris
and Dillon Francis
worked there... no way!
| The reason WHY A&H sounds warmer than Pioneer IMHO I dont like the crossover points for the EQ on Pioneer mixers. But I didn't know why until now.
I know each mixer manufacturer is known to have a slightly different "color" based on the individual components used, and how they are manufactured.
But I really thought there was more too it than that.
With a look at where different manufacturers set their frequency points for the channel 3 band EQ, a lot of very interesting things can be learned.
Pioneer sets the low knob to everything 70hz and below.
Then the high knob to everything 13000hz and above.
Meaning the mid band knob has everything from 70hz to 13000hz!
That leaves it with very little room for sonic manipulation of any music through EQing.
Whereas an Allen & Heath runs the 3 band EQ in the Xone:42 like:
Low: 420hz and down
Mid: Center point at 1200hz
High: 2700hz and up
This gives you a VERY warm low band, as well as giving you MUCH greater manipulation ability of the high band.
Allen & Heath's Xone:92 with its 4 band eq is run thus:
Low: 100hz and down
low-mid: center point at 250 hz
high-mid: center point at 2500hz
High: 10000hz and up
^Now THAT is a sexy set of frequencies.
What this all means is, in a pioneer when you boost the lows, you don't boost ANY of the mids. So as a result the music becomes muddy, and lacks warmth. In order to compensate for this you would normally boost the mids a small amount with the lows, to retain the warmth. BUT Pioneer has to much high range on the mid (13khz and down!) so boosting the mids adds the warmth from the mid range just as equally as it adds the dry tinny highs, so in effect it cancels itself out, and instead of sounding warmer, it just sounds like you turned up the volume.
So how do I know all this? Well I have played quite a bit at live shows on pioneer's and A&H's, but I don't own either of them.
I own a DDM4000 for my practice setup, and it allows 100% customization of all frequency points in its 3 band channel EQ!
WIN!
So, I took a manual from a Pioneer DJM800, and plugged those frequencies into my DDM4000, and coming from someone who is VERY familiar with how Pioneers EQ feels (and from someone who thought his DDM4000 sounded "better" than a DJM800) it was very weird to have my DDM4000 feeling EXACTLY like the pioneer in terms of EQ. It was creepy.
I then plugged in the A&H frequency point, and it was INSTANTLY clear why A&H mixers are considered "warmer" than pioneer.
They all have a slightly different "color" .. or "tone" with the EQ knobs centered, this is definitely the case. But as soon as you put +1db on all three knobs evenly, that is where, based on the frequencies they are set at, the EQ's will really begin to change the "color" of the sound.
Where those frequencies are set has a huge effect on this "coloring".
And as no DJ plays an entire set with ought moving any of the EQ knobs from dead center, the "color" a certain mixers EQ's are going to add to a sound become apparent throughout a mix.
Its that simple.
I hope there is at least someone out there that has a constructive argument to this, because although I really feel this is the main contributer to the "color" a certain mixer has compared to another one (that is if all mixers were created equal in terms of noise isolation, and proper circuitry), I would love to hear why I could be mistaken somewhere along the way.
Here I'm going to be listing different mixers, as well as my custom frequency setting for the channel EQ's.
Check back as Ill be updating it.
3 Band EQ's:
All DJM low: 70hz
Evo4 low: 200hz
X:42 low: 420hz
X4D low: 120hz
All Rane low: 300hz
DDM low: 330hz
My low: 180/200hz
All DJM mid: 1000hz
Evo4 mid: 1200hz
X:42 mid: 1200hz
X4D mid: 1400hz
All Rane mid: 1200hz
DDM mid: 1400hz
my mid: 1200hz
All DJM high: 13000hz
Evo4 high: 6500hz
X:42 high: 2700hz
X4D high: 10000hz
All Rane high: 4000hz
DDM high: 4200hz
my high: 5000hz
4 Band EQ's:
X:92 low: 100hz
X:92 low-mid: 250hz
X:92 high-mid: 2500hz
X:92 high: 10000hz
To add, Mixers that have fully Adjustable frequency points for EQ:
DDM4000
Ecler Evo 5
And Mixers I cant find info for:
Ecler Nuo series
Traktor default
Serato Itch | Doreen Schurle
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
To be fair, while a bit basic, the SC-2900's are a pretty decent alternative to a CDJ-850 rig, trading off a sensible cue memory, a decent screen, and intuitive visual feedback for a player link, slip mode, and sync. I'd still give up only carrying one drive to keep my library stuck in Rekordbox rather than using both Engine and RB, but Denon does make a pretty solid offering, if a bit quaint.
Additionally, the 3900's are pretty decent if you scratch, with the whole standalone system sans laptop/serato box and needles, they're a great way to get vinyl feel without having to lug around a timecode system.
That being said, "Id rather install Denon players over top end CDJs" is a hilarious statement. Playing on Denon players isnt too much of an inconvenience, but talking about installing them like theyre the state of the art is a joke.
People don't typically use CDs in installed 2000's, so all this talk of being "limiting" is hilarious. I can't really believe of something I can't do with CDJs that I can do with Traktor, but I can believe of several things that CDJs can do that are just straight up impossible on a DVS...
Also wtf is "unfortunately, an FSM-400" supposed to mean? You have one of the nicest analogue boards ever made installed, and you're complaining about it?
Oh don't get me wrong, it's a rock solid mixer, it just lacks a couple of features I find it a PITA to live without these days, like Cue Mix and per-channel VU meters, and it's MASSIVE and rackmount, which means I can't move it out of the way or put anything on top of it without making some kinda bracket. | Nancey Inderlied
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
FX control is irrelevant, as no decent media player has it. The mixer is what handles FX. And loop controls are not "really limited". You have access to any typical sized loop from the needle search pad.
Does the lack of proper software integration, access to only 4 cuepoints, awful dot matrix screen with unusable waveform, no SD/DVD support, no quantized FX, and no quantized loops/hotcues make the Denon the "best CDJ device out there"? Add to that the full beatgridded waveforms of the Nexus(adjustable on player), sync, phrase meter, traffic light key system, emergency loop, Wifi connection.
The 3900 is pretty much a mix between the CDJ 850 and 900, plus hot cues and a moving platter.
To be fair, while a bit basic, the SC-2900's are a pretty decent alternative to a CDJ-850 rig, trading off a sensible cue memory, a decent screen, and intuitive visual feedback for a player link, slip mode, and sync. I'd still give up only carrying one drive to keep my library stuck in Rekordbox rather than using both Engine and RB, but Denon does make a pretty solid offering, if a bit quaint.
Additionally, the 3900's are pretty decent if you scratch, with the whole standalone system sans laptop/serato box and needles, they're a great way to get vinyl feel without having to lug around a timecode system.
That being said, "Id rather install Denon players over top end CDJs" is a hilarious statement. Playing on Denon players isnt too much of an inconvenience, but talking about installing them like theyre the state of the art is a joke.
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
I played on my colleague's own 2000s which he brings with him every week. The mixer is - unfortunately - an FSM400, but because it's literally screwed into the booth, there's no room for anything else. If I start playing there more regularly, I'll have to build some sort of shelf thingy so I can put something decent over the top of it.
Using the 2000s was still godawful though... no FX control, really limited loop controls, no beatjumping, etc etc. Next time I'll have to bring my Zomo down for those features.
Personally, I just wouldn't use CDs full stop. In the past few weeks I've been playing around with 1000Mk3s, some 900s a couple of weeks back, and those 2000s on Friday evening
, and there is NO way I would use them for a "proper" set; they're just far too limiting.
People don't typically use CDs in installed 2000's, so all this talk of being "limiting" is hilarious. I can't really believe of something I can't do with CDJs that I can do with Traktor, but I can believe of several things that CDJs can do that are just straight up impossible on a DVS...
Also wtf is "unfortunately, an FSM-400" supposed to mean? You have one of the nicest analogue boards ever made installed, and you're complaining about it? | Doreen Schurle
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
A moving platter does not in itself put it in another league. If you require a moving platter then the 3900 is your only option, but there are many features on the high end Pioneers that the Denons do not have.
I thought you said you were playing on CDJ 2000s recently? Did you still bring your own mixer then?
Any decent club will have either a DJM or Xone in the booth...
I played on my colleague's own 2000s which he brings with him every week. The mixer is - unfortunately - an FSM400, but because it's literally screwed into the booth, there's no room for anything else. If I start playing there more regularly, I'll have to build some sort of shelf thingy so I can put something decent over the top of it.
Using the 2000s was still godawful though... no FX control, really limited loop controls, no beatjumping, etc etc. Next time I'll have to bring my Zomo down for those features.
EDIT:
Edit: It wasn't that long ago you said the Reloop players were the only ones you'd consider purchasing.
I still maintain that they're the only ones I'd recommend to those looking for more affordable CDJs. If they've got an insane amount of money, and would be buying 900s or 2000s, then go for the SC-3900s; if they're looking at the 350s or 400s, then I'd recommend the RMP-3s.
Personally, I just wouldn't use CDs full stop. In the past few weeks I've been playing around with 1000Mk3s, some 900s a couple of weeks back, and those 2000s on Friday evening
, and there is NO way I would use them for a "proper" set; they're just far too limiting.
EDIT2: The reason I'd even consider getting an SC-3900 is so I could get my scratching up to scratch, if you'll pardon the pun. Obviously vinyl would be a better solution, but I wouldn't want to lug a set of TTs into a club and try to find a place to put them these days. The 3900, at least, would offer a similar feel in a more compact package. The other - probably more likely - option would be Numark V7s, but the 3900s are still the best CDJ-style devices out there. | Doreen Schurle
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
+1. Adjustable EQ is just yet another way to tie you down to your bedroom gear
, leaving you unprepared for any other setup.
The Denon players are the only real alternative to Pioneer CDJs IMO, and are comparable to the 900/850.
*shrug* I take all my gear
to whatever venue I'm playing at. If you saw the condition of most of the gear around here, you would too.
And the Denon SC-3900 is in a whole different league to the Pioneer stuff. It's the only CD player I would EVER consider purchasing, due to the moving platter. For everything else, MIDI is the better option. | Alphonso Deitchman
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Frequency bands are set a certain way for a reason. Its a DJ mixer, not an FOH desk. You're using it to mix between two tracks, not tune the sound. Adjustable bands arent really helpful, but multiple bands (:92 and DJM-2000) are much more helpful. A EQ with adjustable frequencies is more likely to either annoy you, get set a weird way and annoy you more, or set at A&H/Pio stops and left there.
+1. Adjustable EQ is just yet another way to tie you down to your bedroom gear
, leaving you unprepared for any other setup.
The Denon players are the only real alternative to Pioneer CDJs IMO, and are comparable to the 900/850. | Gaynell Rydberg
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
That's not strictly true... different frequency bands can be very useful when playing different genres of music. As a DJ, you're in the perfect position to adjust things to suit the style of music that YOU play.
This is true Still, for those of us in the UK it's pretty widely available, just not as actively promoted as Numark/Gemini/Pioneer. They had a bit of an issue a couple of years ago as their UK distributors went tits up or something, so they were left completely without a supply chain over here. A new company has taken it over and seem to be doing pretty well now... a lot of the DJ stores in major cities are stocking Reloop now which is nice.
I wish we had more alternatives to Pioneer... Pioneer CDJs are just too damn expensive.
I really want to try out the Gemini, Denon, and Reloop CDJs. At least it seems like DJ gear in the US is much cheaper than the rest of the world. | Nancey Inderlied
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
That's not strictly true... different frequency bands can be very useful when playing different genres of music. As a DJ, you're in the perfect position to adjust things to suit the style of music that YOU play.
Not really. As long as the bands are all even, whatever you pull out of one track will still be present in the other. Where that point is isnt really relevant. The only kind of issue I can see is basslines that carry up into the low-mids, but even in that case, a broader EQ range wont help you if the other track doesn't have the same bleed, it's the tracks that don't blend anyway. The EQ range doesn't really do much for you, because the EQs are identical across the channels, and the tones evenly replace each other. | Doreen Schurle
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Frequency bands are set a certain way for a reason. Its a DJ mixer, not an FOH desk. You're using it to mix between two tracks, not tune the sound. Adjustable bands arent really helpful, but multiple bands (:92 and DJM-2000) are much more helpful. A EQ with adjustable frequencies is more likely to either annoy you, get set a weird way and annoy you more, or set at A&H/Pio stops and left there.
That's not strictly true... different frequency bands can be very useful when playing different genres of music. As a DJ, you're in the perfect position to adjust things to suit the style of music that YOU play.
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Reloop is pretty much nonexistent in the US though. We only get decent deals on discontinued Reloop items.
This is true Still, for those of us in the UK it's pretty widely available, just not as actively promoted as Numark/Gemini/Pioneer. They had a bit of an issue a couple of years ago as their UK distributors went tits up or something, so they were left completely without a supply chain over here. A new company has taken it over and seem to be doing pretty well now... a lot of the DJ stores in major cities are stocking Reloop now which is nice. | Gaynell Rydberg
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
Tbh that, for me, is the KILLER feature of the RMX-80. I was considering the DDM, but having a per-channel filter knob AND adjustable EQ frequencies pretty much sold me on the RMX.
Reloop is pretty much nonexistent in the US though. We only get decent deals on discontinued Reloop items. | Nancey Inderlied
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Wish we could manually change the frequencies like on the DDM4000.
Frequency bands are set a certain way for a reason. Its a DJ mixer, not an FOH desk. You're using it to mix between two tracks, not tune the sound. Adjustable bands arent really helpful, but multiple bands (:92 and DJM-2000) are much more helpful. A EQ with adjustable frequencies is more likely to either annoy you, get set a weird way and annoy you more, or set at A&H/Pio stops and left there. | Doreen Schurle
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
I've messed around with all the Traktor settings, but they still don't compare to the A&H mixer.
Wish we could manually change the frequencies like on the DDM4000.
Tbh that, for me, is the KILLER feature of the RMX-80. I was considering the DDM, but having a per-channel filter knob AND adjustable EQ frequencies pretty much sold me on the RMX. | Doreen Schurle
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
To be fair, while a bit basic, the SC-2900's are a pretty decent alternative to a CDJ-850 rig, trading off a sensible cue memory, a decent screen, and intuitive visual feedback for a player link, slip mode, and sync. I'd still give up only carrying one drive to keep my library stuck in Rekordbox rather than using both Engine and RB, but Denon does make a pretty solid offering, if a bit quaint.
Additionally, the 3900's are pretty decent if you scratch, with the whole standalone system sans laptop/serato box and needles, they're a great way to get vinyl feel without having to lug around a timecode system.
That being said, "Id rather install Denon players over top end CDJs" is a hilarious statement. Playing on Denon players isnt too much of an inconvenience, but talking about installing them like theyre the state of the art is a joke.
People don't typically use CDs in installed 2000's, so all this talk of being "limiting" is hilarious. I can't really believe of something I can't do with CDJs that I can do with Traktor, but I can believe of several things that CDJs can do that are just straight up impossible on a DVS...
Also wtf is "unfortunately, an FSM-400" supposed to mean? You have one of the nicest analogue boards ever made installed, and you're complaining about it?
Oh don't get me wrong, it's a rock solid mixer, it just lacks a couple of features I find it a PITA to live without these days, like Cue Mix and per-channel VU meters, and it's MASSIVE and rackmount, which means I can't move it out of the way or put anything on top of it without making some kinda bracket. | Nancey Inderlied
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
FX control is irrelevant, as no decent media player has it. The mixer is what handles FX. And loop controls are not "really limited". You have access to any typical sized loop from the needle search pad.
Does the lack of proper software integration, access to only 4 cuepoints, awful dot matrix screen with unusable waveform, no SD/DVD support, no quantized FX, and no quantized loops/hotcues make the Denon the "best CDJ device out there"? Add to that the full beatgridded waveforms of the Nexus(adjustable on player), sync, phrase meter, traffic light key system, emergency loop, Wifi connection.
The 3900 is pretty much a mix between the CDJ 850 and 900, plus hot cues and a moving platter.
To be fair, while a bit basic, the SC-2900's are a pretty decent alternative to a CDJ-850 rig, trading off a sensible cue memory, a decent screen, and intuitive visual feedback for a player link, slip mode, and sync. I'd still give up only carrying one drive to keep my library stuck in Rekordbox rather than using both Engine and RB, but Denon does make a pretty solid offering, if a bit quaint.
Additionally, the 3900's are pretty decent if you scratch, with the whole standalone system sans laptop/serato box and needles, they're a great way to get vinyl feel without having to lug around a timecode system.
That being said, "Id rather install Denon players over top end CDJs" is a hilarious statement. Playing on Denon players isnt too much of an inconvenience, but talking about installing them like theyre the state of the art is a joke.
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
I played on my colleague's own 2000s which he brings with him every week. The mixer is - unfortunately - an FSM400, but because it's literally screwed into the booth, there's no room for anything else. If I start playing there more regularly, I'll have to build some sort of shelf thingy so I can put something decent over the top of it.
Using the 2000s was still godawful though... no FX control, really limited loop controls, no beatjumping, etc etc. Next time I'll have to bring my Zomo down for those features.
Personally, I just wouldn't use CDs full stop. In the past few weeks I've been playing around with 1000Mk3s, some 900s a couple of weeks back, and those 2000s on Friday evening
, and there is NO way I would use them for a "proper" set; they're just far too limiting.
People don't typically use CDs in installed 2000's, so all this talk of being "limiting" is hilarious. I can't really believe of something I can't do with CDJs that I can do with Traktor, but I can believe of several things that CDJs can do that are just straight up impossible on a DVS...
Also wtf is "unfortunately, an FSM-400" supposed to mean? You have one of the nicest analogue boards ever made installed, and you're complaining about it? | Alphonso Deitchman
28.04.2013 | FX control is irrelevant, as no decent media player has it. The mixer is what handles FX. And loop controls are not "really limited". You have access to any typical sized loop from the needle search pad.
Does the lack of proper software integration, access to only 4 cuepoints, awful dot matrix screen with unusable waveform, no SD/DVD support, no quantized FX, and no quantized loops/hotcues make the Denon the "best CDJ device out there"? Add to that the full beatgridded waveforms of the Nexus(adjustable on player), sync, phrase meter, traffic light key system, emergency loop, Wifi connection.
The 3900 is pretty much a mix between the CDJ 850 and 900, plus hot cues and a moving platter. | Doreen Schurle
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
A moving platter does not in itself put it in another league. If you require a moving platter then the 3900 is your only option, but there are many features on the high end Pioneers that the Denons do not have.
I thought you said you were playing on CDJ 2000s recently? Did you still bring your own mixer then?
Any decent club will have either a DJM or Xone in the booth...
I played on my colleague's own 2000s which he brings with him every week. The mixer is - unfortunately - an FSM400, but because it's literally screwed into the booth, there's no room for anything else. If I start playing there more regularly, I'll have to build some sort of shelf thingy so I can put something decent over the top of it.
Using the 2000s was still godawful though... no FX control, really limited loop controls, no beatjumping, etc etc. Next time I'll have to bring my Zomo down for those features.
EDIT:
Edit: It wasn't that long ago you said the Reloop players were the only ones you'd consider purchasing.
I still maintain that they're the only ones I'd recommend to those looking for more affordable CDJs. If they've got an insane amount of money, and would be buying 900s or 2000s, then go for the SC-3900s; if they're looking at the 350s or 400s, then I'd recommend the RMP-3s.
Personally, I just wouldn't use CDs full stop. In the past few weeks I've been playing around with 1000Mk3s, some 900s a couple of weeks back, and those 2000s on Friday evening
, and there is NO way I would use them for a "proper" set; they're just far too limiting.
EDIT2: The reason I'd even consider getting an SC-3900 is so I could get my scratching up to scratch, if you'll pardon the pun. Obviously vinyl would be a better solution, but I wouldn't want to lug a set of TTs into a club and try to find a place to put them these days. The 3900, at least, would offer a similar feel in a more compact package. The other - probably more likely - option would be Numark V7s, but the 3900s are still the best CDJ-style devices out there. | Alphonso Deitchman
28.04.2013 | A moving platter does not in itself put it in another league. If you require a moving platter then the 3900 is your only option, but there are many features on the high end Pioneers that the Denons do not have.
I thought you said you were playing on CDJ 2000s recently? Did you still bring your own mixer then?
Any decent club will have either a DJM or Xone in the booth...
Edit: It wasn't that long ago you said the Reloop players were the only ones you'd consider purchasing. | Doreen Schurle
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
+1. Adjustable EQ is just yet another way to tie you down to your bedroom gear
, leaving you unprepared for any other setup.
The Denon players are the only real alternative to Pioneer CDJs IMO, and are comparable to the 900/850.
*shrug* I take all my gear
to whatever venue I'm playing at. If you saw the condition of most of the gear around here, you would too.
And the Denon SC-3900 is in a whole different league to the Pioneer stuff. It's the only CD player I would EVER consider purchasing, due to the moving platter. For everything else, MIDI is the better option. | Alphonso Deitchman
28.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Frequency bands are set a certain way for a reason. Its a DJ mixer, not an FOH desk. You're using it to mix between two tracks, not tune the sound. Adjustable bands arent really helpful, but multiple bands (:92 and DJM-2000) are much more helpful. A EQ with adjustable frequencies is more likely to either annoy you, get set a weird way and annoy you more, or set at A&H/Pio stops and left there.
+1. Adjustable EQ is just yet another way to tie you down to your bedroom gear
, leaving you unprepared for any other setup.
The Denon players are the only real alternative to Pioneer CDJs IMO, and are comparable to the 900/850. | Gaynell Rydberg
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
That's not strictly true... different frequency bands can be very useful when playing different genres of music. As a DJ, you're in the perfect position to adjust things to suit the style of music that YOU play.
This is true Still, for those of us in the UK it's pretty widely available, just not as actively promoted as Numark/Gemini/Pioneer. They had a bit of an issue a couple of years ago as their UK distributors went tits up or something, so they were left completely without a supply chain over here. A new company has taken it over and seem to be doing pretty well now... a lot of the DJ stores in major cities are stocking Reloop now which is nice.
I wish we had more alternatives to Pioneer... Pioneer CDJs are just too damn expensive.
I really want to try out the Gemini, Denon, and Reloop CDJs. At least it seems like DJ gear in the US is much cheaper than the rest of the world. | Nancey Inderlied
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
That's not strictly true... different frequency bands can be very useful when playing different genres of music. As a DJ, you're in the perfect position to adjust things to suit the style of music that YOU play.
Not really. As long as the bands are all even, whatever you pull out of one track will still be present in the other. Where that point is isnt really relevant. The only kind of issue I can see is basslines that carry up into the low-mids, but even in that case, a broader EQ range wont help you if the other track doesn't have the same bleed, it's the tracks that don't blend anyway. The EQ range doesn't really do much for you, because the EQs are identical across the channels, and the tones evenly replace each other. | Doreen Schurle
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Frequency bands are set a certain way for a reason. Its a DJ mixer, not an FOH desk. You're using it to mix between two tracks, not tune the sound. Adjustable bands arent really helpful, but multiple bands (:92 and DJM-2000) are much more helpful. A EQ with adjustable frequencies is more likely to either annoy you, get set a weird way and annoy you more, or set at A&H/Pio stops and left there.
That's not strictly true... different frequency bands can be very useful when playing different genres of music. As a DJ, you're in the perfect position to adjust things to suit the style of music that YOU play.
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Reloop is pretty much nonexistent in the US though. We only get decent deals on discontinued Reloop items.
This is true Still, for those of us in the UK it's pretty widely available, just not as actively promoted as Numark/Gemini/Pioneer. They had a bit of an issue a couple of years ago as their UK distributors went tits up or something, so they were left completely without a supply chain over here. A new company has taken it over and seem to be doing pretty well now... a lot of the DJ stores in major cities are stocking Reloop now which is nice. | Gaynell Rydberg
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
Tbh that, for me, is the KILLER feature of the RMX-80. I was considering the DDM, but having a per-channel filter knob AND adjustable EQ frequencies pretty much sold me on the RMX.
Reloop is pretty much nonexistent in the US though. We only get decent deals on discontinued Reloop items. | Nancey Inderlied
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Wish we could manually change the frequencies like on the DDM4000.
Frequency bands are set a certain way for a reason. Its a DJ mixer, not an FOH desk. You're using it to mix between two tracks, not tune the sound. Adjustable bands arent really helpful, but multiple bands (:92 and DJM-2000) are much more helpful. A EQ with adjustable frequencies is more likely to either annoy you, get set a weird way and annoy you more, or set at A&H/Pio stops and left there. | Doreen Schurle
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
I've messed around with all the Traktor settings, but they still don't compare to the A&H mixer.
Wish we could manually change the frequencies like on the DDM4000.
Tbh that, for me, is the KILLER feature of the RMX-80. I was considering the DDM, but having a per-channel filter knob AND adjustable EQ frequencies pretty much sold me on the RMX. | Gaynell Rydberg
27.04.2013 | I've messed around with all the Traktor settings, but they still don't compare to the A&H mixer.
Wish we could manually change the frequencies like on the DDM4000. | Nancey Inderlied
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
There's multiple settings for the filter algorithim in Traktor; play with the settings till you find something you like.
Personally I use Z-ISO and Ladder.
Seeing that the Ladder setting actually considers itself an emulation of a Ladder filter, you can see why people have serious complaints about the sound of Traktor's filters. | Doreen Schurle
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Internal traktor filters are sooooo awful. Only reason why I want to go external. I miss my A&H filter.
There's multiple settings for the filter algorithim in Traktor; play with the settings till you find something you like.
Personally I use Z-ISO and Ladder. | Valeri Millstein
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Internal traktor filters are sooooo awful. Only reason why I want to go external. I miss my A&H filter.
Agreed. This is why I want a 92. That and 6 Channels. | Gaynell Rydberg
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by 0Notice
interesting post! Now if there was a way to make the filters sound good too!
Internal traktor filters are sooooo awful. Only reason why I want to go external. I miss my A&H filter. | Valeri Millstein
27.04.2013 | interesting post! Now if there was a way to make the filters sound good too! | Booker Genton
24.04.2013 | That leaves it with very little room for sonic manipulation of any music through EQing. | Mimi Mahaffee
24.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by exokinetic
IMHO I dont like the crossover points for the EQ on Pioneer mixers. But I didn't know why until now.
I know each mixer manufacturer is known to have a slightly different "color" based on the individual components used, and how they are manufactured.
But I really thought there was more too it than that.
With a look at where different manufacturers set their frequency points for the channel 3 band EQ, a lot of very interesting things can be learned.
Pioneer sets the low knob to everything 70hz and below.
Then the high knob to everything 13000hz and above.
Meaning the mid band knob has everything from 70hz to 13000hz!
That leaves it with very little room for sonic manipulation of any music through EQing.
Whereas an Allen & Heath runs the 3 band EQ in the Xone:42 like:
Low: 420hz and down
Mid: Center point at 1200hz
High: 2700hz and up
This gives you a VERY warm low band, as well as giving you MUCH greater manipulation ability of the high band.
Allen & Heath's Xone:92 with its 4 band eq is run thus:
Low: 100hz and down
low-mid: center point at 250 hz
high-mid: center point at 2500hz
High: 10000hz and up
^Now THAT is a sexy set of frequencies.
What this all means is, in a pioneer when you boost the lows, you don't boost ANY of the mids. So as a result the music becomes muddy, and lacks warmth. In order to compensate for this you would normally boost the mids a small amount with the lows, to retain the warmth. BUT Pioneer has to much high range on the mid (13khz and down!) so boosting the mids adds the warmth from the mid range just as equally as it adds the dry tinny highs, so in effect it cancels itself out, and instead of sounding warmer, it just sounds like you turned up the volume.
So how do I know all this? Well I have played quite a bit at live shows on pioneer's and A&H's, but I don't own either of them.
I own a DDM4000 for my practice setup, and it allows 100% customization of all frequency points in its 3 band channel EQ!
WIN!
So, I took a manual from a Pioneer DJM800, and plugged those frequencies into my DDM4000, and coming from someone who is VERY familiar with how Pioneers EQ feels (and from someone who thought his DDM4000 sounded "better" than a DJM800) it was very weird to have my DDM4000 feeling EXACTLY like the pioneer in terms of EQ. It was creepy.
I then plugged in the A&H frequency point, and it was INSTANTLY clear why A&H mixers are considered "warmer" than pioneer.
They all have a slightly different "color" .. or "tone" with the EQ knobs centered, this is definitely the case. But as soon as you put +1db on all three knobs evenly, that is where, based on the frequencies they are set at, the EQ's will really begin to change the "color" of the sound.
Where those frequencies are set has a huge effect on this "coloring".
And as no DJ plays an entire set with ought moving any of the EQ knobs from dead center, the "color" a certain mixers EQ's are going to add to a sound become apparent throughout a mix.
Its that simple.
I hope there is at least someone out there that has a constructive argument to this, because although I really feel this is the main contributer to the "color" a certain mixer has compared to another one (that is if all mixers were created equal in terms of noise isolation, and proper circuitry), I would love to hear why I could be mistaken somewhere along the way.
Here I'm going to be listing different mixers, as well as my custom frequency setting for the channel EQ's.
Check back as Ill be updating it.
3 Band EQ's:
All DJM low: 70hz
Evo4 low: 200hz
X:42 low: 420hz
X4D low: 120hz
All Rane low: 300hz
DDM low: 330hz
My low: 180/200hz
All DJM mid: 1000hz
Evo4 mid: 1200hz
X:42 mid: 1200hz
X4D mid: 1400hz
All Rane mid: 1200hz
DDM mid: 1400hz
my mid: 1200hz
All DJM high: 13000hz
Evo4 high: 6500hz
X:42 high: 2700hz
X4D high: 10000hz
All Rane high: 4000hz
DDM high: 4200hz
my high: 5000hz
4 Band EQ's:
X:92 low: 100hz
X:92 low-mid: 250hz
X:92 high-mid: 2500hz
X:92 high: 10000hz
To add, Mixers that have fully Adjustable frequency points for EQ:
DDM4000
Ecler Evo 5
And Mixers I cant find info for:
Ecler Nuo series
Traktor default
Serato Itch
What colors the a&h mixers sound to the warmer sound is the Pre amp and phono amp in the mixer. However you can for sure "tailor" the sound to more what you like it like with the EQs.
So what you said in the beginning is whats the truth and nothing else but the truth;
components and way of building is what makes a a&h mixer sound different to a pioneer, ecler or behringer. | Ervin Nise
16.04.2013 | Hi, everyone. Need help with choosing mixer for vinyl djing. It's a hard choice between analogue A&H-42 and digital Pioneer DJM-750, which is about to come in july 2013. Can't listen to any of them to choose. Now mixing with Pioneer DJM-350, which sounds too weak in my opinion. | Ervin Nise
13.04.2013 | Hi, everyone. Need help with choosing mixer for vinyl djing. It's a hard choice between analogue A&H-42 and digital Pioneer DJM-750, which is about to come in july 2013. Can't listen to any of them to choose. Now mixing with Pioneer DJM-350, which sounds too weak in my opinion. | Maude Buscaglia
25.11.2012 | I recently updated my mixer from a Pioneer djm500 I bought of e-bay years ago to a brand spanking new Allen & Heath xone 42 & Ive been puzzled & concerned about the way & why its changed/coloured my sound........this explains it wonderfully......thankyou so much guys | Teresia Janusch
04.10.2012 |
Originally Posted by TCMuc
This is a nice theory the OP has there, but it's basically wrong.
What he's describing is technically correct, but it's not the reason why Pioneer Mixers sound different from A&H Mixers.
First to the EQs. There are two main reasons why there are EQs on a DJ Mixer:
1. To avoid crashing frequencies when mixing, by removing the respective band on one channel if necessary
2. To adjust frequencies on single tracks to match them to the overall sound, e.g. if you're playing an old disco record that has less bass than a modern production, or you're playing a worn out record that lacks highs.
For everything else, you should trust the producer to have balanced the individual frequencies in his track so that the tracks sounds as good as possible and the sound guy in the venue you're playing at to have the settings of the system so it delivers the optimal sound (with the EQs on the mixer centred!). There is absolutely no reason to adjust the channel EQ (apart from the two mentioned above) and you shouldn't do it, as you actually woul probably make the sound worse.
If the OP's theory was true, Pioneer and A&H mixers would sound identical when the EQs are in the center position, which they don't. And here's why:
1. Pioneer mixers (the new ones post 500/600) are digital, whereas A&H mixers are analogue. Now what does that mean. As someone mentioned above, every component a signal passes can color the sound. Every ANALOGUE component, that is. A digital signal does not get affected by the various components it passes through, as it is merely a stream of 1s and 0s. So apart from the manipulation that is deliberatly applied to the signal through use of EQs and EFX, the signal stays completely unaffected inside a Pioneer mixer, while in an A&H mixer the actual audio signal runs through a number of electric components, each of them slightly affecting the signal. Manufacturers actually chose the components they use at least partly by the way they affect the sound...
Another difference between analogue and digital sets in once you get into clipping. Digital mixers can either clip or not clip. Once you reach 0 dBFS you clip, below that you're fine. With analogue mixers it's more of a slight progression, once you come to the end of the headroom. And while digital clipping is harsh/diharmonic, analogue clipping actually adds harmonic overtones to the signal, which are often perceived as "warmth". (By no means do I want to encourage anybody to clip his mixer to get a warm sound. Clipping is just bad and will eventually kill your speakers. Period!)
2. While Pioneer mixers have a rather flat frequency response, A&H mixers deliberatly colour the sound, on top of what I said above. A friend of mine did a test and found out that the Xone's slightly boost the signal at about 50Hz, which is where kick drum and/or bass are sitting in many modern dance tracks, which adds to the warm sound as well.
If you believe an A&H mixer sounds warm, you should try listen to an old Bozak mixer. Those things really emphasized the low end, partly to make up for the thin bass frequencies in disco records back in the days.
OT: @Citizen_Insane: Actually he ended them with "Ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam"
this +1 | Danae Dumler
04.10.2012 |
Originally Posted by Citizen_Insane
Actually he ended them with "Carthago delenda est"
Gibba mortuorum! | Dorothea Belkin
04.10.2012 |
Originally Posted by kelvin
After purchasing a DDM4000, I wanted to set it up just like a Pioneer to understand how the installed rigs are general going to sound. This thread was very helpful, however, the specs noted (and updated) in the OP seemed a little off.
To test this, I used the pioneer eq emulation tool for ableton found here:
http://www.softcore.net.gr/projects.php
Greetings to the community
! I just saw this message and wanted to say, before anyone starts accusing me of being inacurate, that my emulations were done in the mindframe of being "as close as it can be" to the emulated devices using only native Ableton Live EQ and grouped mappings. I hope they are not considered as the "end all, be all" super accurate stuff. They just get the job done, pretty close to the real thing and thats all.
In other words, my null tests were "close" to silence...but not complete silence!
Also, to contribute to the topic, the specs given by Pioneer and A&H about the Eq sections are indeed vague and inacurate too - thats why I had to use white noise recordings and, practically, make my emulations based on what the FFT analysers were showing rather than what the specs say.
Anyways, Im glad people have found them useful! Keep on the great stuff DJTechTools! | Nikole Resende
04.10.2012 | This is a nice theory the OP has there, but it's basically wrong.
What he's describing is technically correct, but it's not the reason why Pioneer Mixers sound different from A&H Mixers.
First to the EQs. There are two main reasons why there are EQs on a DJ Mixer:
1. To avoid crashing frequencies when mixing, by removing the respective band on one channel if necessary
2. To adjust frequencies on single tracks to match them to the overall sound, e.g. if you're playing an old disco record that has less bass than a modern production, or you're playing a worn out record that lacks highs.
For everything else, you should trust the producer to have balanced the individual frequencies in his track so that the tracks sounds as good as possible and the sound guy in the venue you're playing at to have the settings of the system so it delivers the optimal sound (with the EQs on the mixer centred!). There is absolutely no reason to adjust the channel EQ (apart from the two mentioned above) and you shouldn't do it, as you actually woul probably make the sound worse.
If the OP's theory was true, Pioneer and A&H mixers would sound identical when the EQs are in the center position, which they don't. And here's why:
1. Pioneer mixers (the new ones post 500/600) are digital, whereas A&H mixers are analogue. Now what does that mean. As someone mentioned above, every component a signal passes can color the sound. Every ANALOGUE component, that is. A digital signal does not get affected by the various components it passes through, as it is merely a stream of 1s and 0s. So apart from the manipulation that is deliberatly applied to the signal through use of EQs and EFX, the signal stays completely unaffected inside a Pioneer mixer, while in an A&H mixer the actual audio signal runs through a number of electric components, each of them slightly affecting the signal. Manufacturers actually chose the components they use at least partly by the way they affect the sound...
Another difference between analogue and digital sets in once you get into clipping. Digital mixers can either clip or not clip. Once you reach 0 dBFS you clip, below that you're fine. With analogue mixers it's more of a slight progression, once you come to the end of the headroom. And while digital clipping is harsh/diharmonic, analogue clipping actually adds harmonic overtones to the signal, which are often perceived as "warmth". (By no means do I want to encourage anybody to clip his mixer to get a warm sound. Clipping is just bad and will eventually kill your speakers. Period!)
2. While Pioneer mixers have a rather flat frequency response, A&H mixers deliberatly colour the sound, on top of what I said above. A friend of mine did a test and found out that the Xone's slightly boost the signal at about 50Hz, which is where kick drum and/or bass are sitting in many modern dance tracks, which adds to the warm sound as well.
If you believe an A&H mixer sounds warm, you should try listen to an old Bozak mixer. Those things really emphasized the low end, partly to make up for the thin bass frequencies in disco records back in the days.
OT: @Citizen_Insane: Actually he ended them with "Ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam" | Lang Abriel
04.10.2012 | Get into filters and how they are designed and its more complicated....isolators are also more complicated. The idea of the cutoffs for eq ranges is pretty trivial imo....i would like to see a comparison of the curves for a&h heath filters vs. pioneer filters.
I would imagine the pio filter would just be have steeper slopes but it would still be cool to see a visual comparison |
|
