Calvin Harris
and Dillon Francis
worked there... no way!
| DJM vs DB help please Im stuck between DJM900 or a XoneDB series. Instincts are telling me to stick w pioneer because im already familiar w their products. And i like em. But i know A&H deliver pure quality. Looking to put together a minimal, powerful, quality setup. using Traktor and K2 controller. Any suggestion greatly appreciated.
thx | Alphonso Deitchman
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
... and virtually every single DJ with a rider, performers who bring their own gear
, and the entire menagerie of producers who perform. Thats... a massive market. The DB series isn't really billed as an ideal "DJ mixer."
What proportion of performance DJs have a rider? 1%? 0.1%?
What proportion of that number will request an Allen and Heath? 20%? 10%?
What proportion of that number will request a DB over a 92?
Are you so sure about that "massive market"? | Nancey Inderlied
26.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
So you're saying that having superior I/O options available is pointless? Think of all the money manufacturers could have saved!
It's not exactly pointless, it's just redundant. The extra inputs are really just a contingency for if a channel decides to start acting up or someone screws up an RCA terminal. You're very rarely going to absolutely need more than two timecode boxes patched in at once.
The fact is you're losing 4 analogue inputs compared to almost every other DJ mixer out there, including the rest of the Xone series. People mixing on 2 channels will tend to use 2+3, and being able to seamlessly move from one DJ to the next while keeping the preferred channels is ideal.
.... and with the matrix, you can cram in Serato boxes, a full set of CDJs, and still route anything you want to whichever channel you prefer. The matrix also alleviates the massive headache that occurs when people are allowed to plug their own stuff in and dont fully understand the input bus.
The RMX-1000 is not the only device that can make use of a S/R loop.
Oh yeah, people are still using EFX-1000s and Kaoss Pads, both of which are completely unneeded and a borderline detriment to the absurd effects units built into the DBs.
So bedroom and mobile DJs only? That's a pretty small market.
... and virtually every single DJ with a rider, performers who bring their own gear
, and the entire menagerie of producers who perform. Thats... a massive market. The DB series isn't really billed as an ideal "DJ mixer."
Of all the differences between a DJM and a DB, the LAN port is probably the least significant. Teething issues with build quality certainly aren't what attract install buyers.
You really underestimate the power of a built in LAN switch then. Using an outboard one is like having a big Serato box with crappy terminals that requires power dangling off of your setup.
They certainly couldn't have gotten away with less I/O for sure. There aren't many devices that support digital outside of CDJs though.
Technically, about 90% of media players have an S/PDIF terminal, but that was kind of my point, the digital stack serves as a dedicated standalone CDJ input. Leaving the entire analogue input bus open for patching, and giving the CDJs a sort of dedicated timecode output over it's analogue outs. | Alphonso Deitchman
26.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
For a joint gig/install situation, the DB's still have more than enough room for everything you could realistically need, thanks to the digital stack.
So you're saying that having superior I/O options available is pointless? Think of all the money manufacturers could have saved!
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Given that a DJM-2000 is split 6 line/2 phono, you're really only losing a pair of extra line inputs.
The fact is you're losing 4 analogue inputs compared to almost every other DJ mixer out there, including the rest of the Xone series. People mixing on 2 channels will tend to use 2+3, and being able to seamlessly move from one DJ to the next while keeping the preferred channels is ideal.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
The people who complain about an S/R loop, and the subsequent pseudo sound engineering circlejerk, are just being absurd, in a situation where you're realistically purchasing a DB4 for it's intended use, an RMX-1000 probably isn't the centre of your setup.
The RMX-1000 is not the only device that can make use of a S/R loop.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
When you really break it down, A&H aren't really pushing the DB mixers as installs, but personal performance types. Absurd sound cards, mixer personalisation, and the x-link weirdness, all point to a more sacrosanct relationship with the hardware.
So bedroom and mobile DJs only? That's a pretty small market.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
If they were really pushing it as an install, they'd drop the x-link stuff nobody in a multi-user will ever use, and replace it with a LAN switch, which is really the main thing that keeps savvy owners on the DJM over a DB.
Of all the differences between a DJM and a DB, the LAN port is probably the least significant. Teething issues with build quality certainly aren't what attract install buyers.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
The real point of running S/PDIF lines is to keep the analogue RCAs open as a free patch bay, and to cut down on install wiring. The whole "A/D/D/A conversion/sound quality improvement" crap is just fluff for people who like jerking off to numbers and the thought of "pure sound."
They certainly couldn't have gotten away with less I/O for sure. There aren't many devices that support digital outside of CDJs though. | Nancey Inderlied
26.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
One thing I really like about my DJM is being able to have everything sound related connected up at home, and having plenty of inputs available for gigs where there'll be multiple DJs using Traktor timecode, Serato timecode, controllers, turntables, CDJs etc.
Their matrix input system wouldn't work the same if they added more inputs but I believe it's worth the tradeoff for such useful functionality. They might even have sold a few more units by doing so. Proper Send/Return, additional Master Out, and multiple analogue inputs per channel are things you find on most mixers these days, including the analogue Xone series.
For a joint gig/install situation, the DB's still have more than enough room for everything you could realistically need, thanks to the digital stack. Given that a DJM-2000 is split 6 line/2 phono, you're really only losing a pair of extra line inputs. You can still run 4 CDJs in standalone thanks to S/PDIF lines, and still have room for two separate SL2s to be patched in for non-push-pull changeover. The only reason I could believe you might be pressed is if you had a 2 CDJ/2 1200 install, but even then, the 1200's probably wouldnt be hard patched to the mixer on account of timecode readiness and such. The people who complain about an S/R loop, and the subsequent pseudo sound engineering circlejerk, are just being absurd, in a situation where you're realistically purchasing a DB4 for it's intended use, an RMX-1000 probably isn't the centre of your setup. The gushing and theorycrafting surrounding that particular concept is mostly just wet dreaming over ~$3800 worth of effects hardware people aren't going to own and might get used 1-2 times per set practically.
When you really break it down, A&H aren't really pushing the DB mixers as installs, but personal performance types. Absurd sound cards, mixer personalisation, and the x-link weirdness, all point to a more sacrosanct relationship with the hardware. If they were really pushing it as an install, they'd drop the x-link stuff nobody in a multi-user will ever use, and replace it with a LAN switch, which is really the main thing that keeps savvy owners on the DJM over a DB.
The real point of running S/PDIF lines is to keep the analogue RCAs open as a free patch bay, and to cut down on install wiring. The whole "A/D/D/A conversion/sound quality improvement" crap is just fluff for people who like jerking off to numbers and the thought of "pure sound." The digital stack is mostly just a hidden bone thrown to multiple user system owners to make us hate ourselves less, kind of like the SD card slot and personalisation settings on CDJ-2000s. | Alphonso Deitchman
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
With the matrix, digital stack, and patchable sound card, there's not really any reason to go cray cray on the back panel. The only reason DJMs have RCAphilia is due to the fact that in an install or multiple user situation, everything's gonna be plugged into everything gonna be plugged into everything all at once (don't even get me started, Ill get flashbacks).
4 triple stacked inputs across 6 line ins, 2 preamps, and 4 S/PDIFs is just redundant redundancy levels of redundancy for patching purposes. The DB's I/O across a matrix is more than enough for sensible operations, and youre not actually losing much. The only issue with it really is doing a retard roundup trying to explain matrix inputs to an install crowd when that redundancy is needed. For personal performance, the DB series' design goal, the I/O on top of the sound card is straight overkill.
One thing I really like about my DJM is being able to have everything sound related connected up at home, and having plenty of inputs available for gigs where there'll be multiple DJs using Traktor timecode, Serato timecode, controllers, turntables, CDJs etc.
Their matrix input system wouldn't work the same if they added more inputs but I believe it's worth the tradeoff for such useful functionality. They might even have sold a few more units by doing so. Proper Send/Return, additional Master Out, and multiple analogue inputs per channel are things you find on most mixers these days, including the analogue Xone series.
Originally Posted by GeekGod
Right but did they add major new features? For example the DB4 updates bring new FX.
The decimal point BPM was added at user request IIRC. | Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by GeekGod
Right but did they add major new features? For example the DB4 updates bring new FX.
I do remember one - It was the beatmash feature for the 2K, when they released the 2KN.
Anyone know what happened to FEP? Haven't seen him post in a while. | Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by xs2man
fullenglishpint figured out the S&R on the DB4...
That is one way, but I am talking about an aux channel being feed from for each channel on mixer.
After watching this video, I believe it might be possible. The loop fader (wet/dry) functionality is making me believe that the K2's soundcard is being used to sample. If that is true, then it may be possible to have K2 act as an aux(out) feed w/ the possibility to control volume and eq for each channel(in). This could be used to do something as simple as chaining effects (direct back to mixer) or even better yet, throw the RMX back in there and BOOM....
Im no audio engineer or computer guru.. I may just be way off on this, but the thought of it being remotely possible gets me smiling. | Rosina Steinkuehler
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
All the time? My CDJ-2000s are on version 4.20, and my DJM-2000 is on version 3...
Right but did they add major new features? For example the DB4 updates bring new FX. | Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
I'm having some trouble deciphering what point you're trying to get across there. There is next to no fragmentation in core features going from the 17 year old DJM 500 right up to the 900.
One thing I don't understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel.
That was a bit of fan-boy gibberish. In all honesty, I don't follow PIO's updates, so I wouldn't know. Depending on how you look at either mixer, there are always going to be pros and cons. It comes back to personal preference. You're more or less likely going to get what you payed for.
As far as the I/O goes - my theory for A&H not including a proper S&R, was that they ran out of magical rainbow colored unicorn piss.... but I believe Shishdisma has a better explanation.
Off topic - wonder if a linked K2 could host as a S&R...? It could work in theory right? if anything you could use the master out on the K2 into the mic in on the mixer... | Nancey Inderlied
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by GeekGod
DarioJ brings up a great point - how many times has PIO released a firmware upgrade that added new features?
All the time? My CDJ-2000s are on version 4.20, and my DJM-2000 is on version 3...
Originally Posted by makar1
I'm having some trouble deciphering what point you're trying to get across there. There is next to no fragmentation in core features going from the 17 year old DJM 500 right up to the 900.
One thing I don't understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel.
With the matrix, digital stack, and patchable sound card, there's not really any reason to go cray cray on the back panel. The only reason DJMs have RCAphilia is due to the fact that in an install or multiple user situation, everything's gonna be plugged into everything gonna be plugged into everything all at once (don't even get me started, Ill get flashbacks).
4 triple stacked inputs across 6 line ins, 2 preamps, and 4 S/PDIFs is just redundant redundancy levels of redundancy for patching purposes. The DB's I/O across a matrix is more than enough for sensible operations, and youre not actually losing much. The only issue with it really is doing a retard roundup trying to explain matrix inputs to an install crowd when that redundancy is needed. For personal performance, the DB series' design goal, the I/O on top of the sound card is straight overkill. | Tamela Batara
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
One thing I don't understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel.
This also annoys me a little, but then again, I can't really complain as I currently have 4 vinyl decks, and 4 Traktor decks, with the ability to add another line in, and a further 4 digital inputs. There isn't really too much call for any more inputs when I already have access to 13 separate sources. | Tamela Batara
27.04.2013 | Meh. Should read Thermalbears review on the DB series mixers in this months DJ Mag.
Of course, in the very same mag someone reviews Involv3r at 6/10. Pffftttt. | Alphonso Deitchman
27.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
... and virtually every single DJ with a rider, performers who bring their own gear
, and the entire menagerie of producers who perform. Thats... a massive market. The DB series isn't really billed as an ideal "DJ mixer."
What proportion of performance DJs have a rider? 1%? 0.1%?
What proportion of that number will request an Allen and Heath? 20%? 10%?
What proportion of that number will request a DB over a 92?
Are you so sure about that "massive market"? | Basil Forshee
26.04.2013 | Even for just one thing I would choose A&H above Pioneer: Filters. I hate the Resonance boost with the DJM-series (HPF/LPF) and to come back to 12 o'clock, which sometimes you miss because the detent isn't that noticable. Pioneer improved that on the DJM-2000 though. | Nancey Inderlied
26.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
So you're saying that having superior I/O options available is pointless? Think of all the money manufacturers could have saved!
It's not exactly pointless, it's just redundant. The extra inputs are really just a contingency for if a channel decides to start acting up or someone screws up an RCA terminal. You're very rarely going to absolutely need more than two timecode boxes patched in at once.
The fact is you're losing 4 analogue inputs compared to almost every other DJ mixer out there, including the rest of the Xone series. People mixing on 2 channels will tend to use 2+3, and being able to seamlessly move from one DJ to the next while keeping the preferred channels is ideal.
.... and with the matrix, you can cram in Serato boxes, a full set of CDJs, and still route anything you want to whichever channel you prefer. The matrix also alleviates the massive headache that occurs when people are allowed to plug their own stuff in and dont fully understand the input bus.
The RMX-1000 is not the only device that can make use of a S/R loop.
Oh yeah, people are still using EFX-1000s and Kaoss Pads, both of which are completely unneeded and a borderline detriment to the absurd effects units built into the DBs.
So bedroom and mobile DJs only? That's a pretty small market.
... and virtually every single DJ with a rider, performers who bring their own gear
, and the entire menagerie of producers who perform. Thats... a massive market. The DB series isn't really billed as an ideal "DJ mixer."
Of all the differences between a DJM and a DB, the LAN port is probably the least significant. Teething issues with build quality certainly aren't what attract install buyers.
You really underestimate the power of a built in LAN switch then. Using an outboard one is like having a big Serato box with crappy terminals that requires power dangling off of your setup.
They certainly couldn't have gotten away with less I/O for sure. There aren't many devices that support digital outside of CDJs though.
Technically, about 90% of media players have an S/PDIF terminal, but that was kind of my point, the digital stack serves as a dedicated standalone CDJ input. Leaving the entire analogue input bus open for patching, and giving the CDJs a sort of dedicated timecode output over it's analogue outs. | Alphonso Deitchman
26.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
For a joint gig/install situation, the DB's still have more than enough room for everything you could realistically need, thanks to the digital stack.
So you're saying that having superior I/O options available is pointless? Think of all the money manufacturers could have saved!
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Given that a DJM-2000 is split 6 line/2 phono, you're really only losing a pair of extra line inputs.
The fact is you're losing 4 analogue inputs compared to almost every other DJ mixer out there, including the rest of the Xone series. People mixing on 2 channels will tend to use 2+3, and being able to seamlessly move from one DJ to the next while keeping the preferred channels is ideal.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
The people who complain about an S/R loop, and the subsequent pseudo sound engineering circlejerk, are just being absurd, in a situation where you're realistically purchasing a DB4 for it's intended use, an RMX-1000 probably isn't the centre of your setup.
The RMX-1000 is not the only device that can make use of a S/R loop.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
When you really break it down, A&H aren't really pushing the DB mixers as installs, but personal performance types. Absurd sound cards, mixer personalisation, and the x-link weirdness, all point to a more sacrosanct relationship with the hardware.
So bedroom and mobile DJs only? That's a pretty small market.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
If they were really pushing it as an install, they'd drop the x-link stuff nobody in a multi-user will ever use, and replace it with a LAN switch, which is really the main thing that keeps savvy owners on the DJM over a DB.
Of all the differences between a DJM and a DB, the LAN port is probably the least significant. Teething issues with build quality certainly aren't what attract install buyers.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
The real point of running S/PDIF lines is to keep the analogue RCAs open as a free patch bay, and to cut down on install wiring. The whole "A/D/D/A conversion/sound quality improvement" crap is just fluff for people who like jerking off to numbers and the thought of "pure sound."
They certainly couldn't have gotten away with less I/O for sure. There aren't many devices that support digital outside of CDJs though. | Nancey Inderlied
26.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
One thing I really like about my DJM is being able to have everything sound related connected up at home, and having plenty of inputs available for gigs where there'll be multiple DJs using Traktor timecode, Serato timecode, controllers, turntables, CDJs etc.
Their matrix input system wouldn't work the same if they added more inputs but I believe it's worth the tradeoff for such useful functionality. They might even have sold a few more units by doing so. Proper Send/Return, additional Master Out, and multiple analogue inputs per channel are things you find on most mixers these days, including the analogue Xone series.
For a joint gig/install situation, the DB's still have more than enough room for everything you could realistically need, thanks to the digital stack. Given that a DJM-2000 is split 6 line/2 phono, you're really only losing a pair of extra line inputs. You can still run 4 CDJs in standalone thanks to S/PDIF lines, and still have room for two separate SL2s to be patched in for non-push-pull changeover. The only reason I could believe you might be pressed is if you had a 2 CDJ/2 1200 install, but even then, the 1200's probably wouldnt be hard patched to the mixer on account of timecode readiness and such. The people who complain about an S/R loop, and the subsequent pseudo sound engineering circlejerk, are just being absurd, in a situation where you're realistically purchasing a DB4 for it's intended use, an RMX-1000 probably isn't the centre of your setup. The gushing and theorycrafting surrounding that particular concept is mostly just wet dreaming over ~$3800 worth of effects hardware people aren't going to own and might get used 1-2 times per set practically.
When you really break it down, A&H aren't really pushing the DB mixers as installs, but personal performance types. Absurd sound cards, mixer personalisation, and the x-link weirdness, all point to a more sacrosanct relationship with the hardware. If they were really pushing it as an install, they'd drop the x-link stuff nobody in a multi-user will ever use, and replace it with a LAN switch, which is really the main thing that keeps savvy owners on the DJM over a DB.
The real point of running S/PDIF lines is to keep the analogue RCAs open as a free patch bay, and to cut down on install wiring. The whole "A/D/D/A conversion/sound quality improvement" crap is just fluff for people who like jerking off to numbers and the thought of "pure sound." The digital stack is mostly just a hidden bone thrown to multiple user system owners to make us hate ourselves less, kind of like the SD card slot and personalisation settings on CDJ-2000s. | Alphonso Deitchman
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
With the matrix, digital stack, and patchable sound card, there's not really any reason to go cray cray on the back panel. The only reason DJMs have RCAphilia is due to the fact that in an install or multiple user situation, everything's gonna be plugged into everything gonna be plugged into everything all at once (don't even get me started, Ill get flashbacks).
4 triple stacked inputs across 6 line ins, 2 preamps, and 4 S/PDIFs is just redundant redundancy levels of redundancy for patching purposes. The DB's I/O across a matrix is more than enough for sensible operations, and youre not actually losing much. The only issue with it really is doing a retard roundup trying to explain matrix inputs to an install crowd when that redundancy is needed. For personal performance, the DB series' design goal, the I/O on top of the sound card is straight overkill.
One thing I really like about my DJM is being able to have everything sound related connected up at home, and having plenty of inputs available for gigs where there'll be multiple DJs using Traktor timecode, Serato timecode, controllers, turntables, CDJs etc.
Their matrix input system wouldn't work the same if they added more inputs but I believe it's worth the tradeoff for such useful functionality. They might even have sold a few more units by doing so. Proper Send/Return, additional Master Out, and multiple analogue inputs per channel are things you find on most mixers these days, including the analogue Xone series.
Originally Posted by GeekGod
Right but did they add major new features? For example the DB4 updates bring new FX.
The decimal point BPM was added at user request IIRC. | Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by GeekGod
Right but did they add major new features? For example the DB4 updates bring new FX.
I do remember one - It was the beatmash feature for the 2K, when they released the 2KN.
Anyone know what happened to FEP? Haven't seen him post in a while. | Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by xs2man
fullenglishpint figured out the S&R on the DB4...
That is one way, but I am talking about an aux channel being feed from for each channel on mixer.
After watching this video, I believe it might be possible. The loop fader (wet/dry) functionality is making me believe that the K2's soundcard is being used to sample. If that is true, then it may be possible to have K2 act as an aux(out) feed w/ the possibility to control volume and eq for each channel(in). This could be used to do something as simple as chaining effects (direct back to mixer) or even better yet, throw the RMX back in there and BOOM....
Im no audio engineer or computer guru.. I may just be way off on this, but the thought of it being remotely possible gets me smiling. | Rosina Steinkuehler
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
All the time? My CDJ-2000s are on version 4.20, and my DJM-2000 is on version 3...
Right but did they add major new features? For example the DB4 updates bring new FX. | Tamela Batara
25.04.2013 | fullenglishpint figured out the S&R on the DB4...
| Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
I'm having some trouble deciphering what point you're trying to get across there. There is next to no fragmentation in core features going from the 17 year old DJM 500 right up to the 900.
One thing I don't understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel.
That was a bit of fan-boy gibberish. In all honesty, I don't follow PIO's updates, so I wouldn't know. Depending on how you look at either mixer, there are always going to be pros and cons. It comes back to personal preference. You're more or less likely going to get what you payed for.
As far as the I/O goes - my theory for A&H not including a proper S&R, was that they ran out of magical rainbow colored unicorn piss.... but I believe Shishdisma has a better explanation.
Off topic - wonder if a linked K2 could host as a S&R...? It could work in theory right? if anything you could use the master out on the K2 into the mic in on the mixer... | Nancey Inderlied
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by GeekGod
DarioJ brings up a great point - how many times has PIO released a firmware upgrade that added new features?
All the time? My CDJ-2000s are on version 4.20, and my DJM-2000 is on version 3...
Originally Posted by makar1
I'm having some trouble deciphering what point you're trying to get across there. There is next to no fragmentation in core features going from the 17 year old DJM 500 right up to the 900.
One thing I don't understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel.
With the matrix, digital stack, and patchable sound card, there's not really any reason to go cray cray on the back panel. The only reason DJMs have RCAphilia is due to the fact that in an install or multiple user situation, everything's gonna be plugged into everything gonna be plugged into everything all at once (don't even get me started, Ill get flashbacks).
4 triple stacked inputs across 6 line ins, 2 preamps, and 4 S/PDIFs is just redundant redundancy levels of redundancy for patching purposes. The DB's I/O across a matrix is more than enough for sensible operations, and youre not actually losing much. The only issue with it really is doing a retard roundup trying to explain matrix inputs to an install crowd when that redundancy is needed. For personal performance, the DB series' design goal, the I/O on top of the sound card is straight overkill. | Tamela Batara
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
One thing I don't understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel.
This also annoys me a little, but then again, I can't really complain as I currently have 4 vinyl decks, and 4 Traktor decks, with the ability to add another line in, and a further 4 digital inputs. There isn't really too much call for any more inputs when I already have access to 13 separate sources. | Alphonso Deitchman
26.04.2013 | I'm having some trouble deciphering what point you're trying to get across there. There is next to no fragmentation in core features going from the 17 year old DJM 500 right up to the 900.
One thing I don't understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel. | Judi Sissel
26.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
Pioneer generally try to avoid fragmentation (to provide more of a consistent standard), which is why you don't see much customisation in the options.
As a avid android user and a MBP owner - I agree with you that controlling fragmentation (to keep a consistent standard) is key for user end experience. But on either end the firmware updates are developed and released for a specific product (in this case a mixer), so the responsibility falls on the end user, and not the manufacturer. IMO, Options in this case would be considered preferences, not features.
There is more fragmentation in the product line (DJM vs DB), then there is in an update feature list (from release to release), on any mixer. Granted that the DB series has only had 1 major update | Alphonso Deitchman
25.04.2013 | Pioneer generally try to avoid fragmentation (to provide more of a consistent standard), which is why you don't see much customisation in the options.
They do tweak existing features depending on feedback though. Here's the update history for the DJM900:
http://community
s.pioneerdj.com/entries/...ivers-firmware | Rosina Steinkuehler
25.04.2013 | DarioJ brings up a great point - how many times has PIO released a firmware upgrade that added new features? | Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by city_boy07
considering i hate the xone series, for numeurus reasons...
i have been slightly inclined witht the DB...
you post might just have sealed it for me dario
LOL, no worries. That's what I am here for | Hayden Raugh
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by DarioJ
Just my .02
I've never gigged out and have no real desire to (as I have a great full-time job). If I gig out once, on my gear
, it will be all to surreal. I am nut for technology and have a passion (more like addiction) for good music - especially bass (infra-bass )! I am lucky enough to have a budget that allows me to have had a good amount of gear
such as an S4, X1600, and a DB4.
I say this because.....
Even though I do not have real industry experience, I have personal experience. While the DB4 is not perfect, its 90% of everything I want in a mixer. It's got tons of features - features that I am still learning to use, effectively. When I get the chance to mix, I am always greeted with something new to try, or enhance what I am already working on. For me, this has already made my purchase more then worth it. On top of that, A&H have been pretty open to user input on adding features and product development. The DB series mixers were made with the future in mind, I believe it has that spot. With the possibility of a end user firmware utility (for setting user preferences) this mixer would be future proof... but that may just be my wishful believeing.
I am not saying you wont find these intricacies in Pio gear (as they have their own), but that's just my insight. You can have Pio gear that you can feel comfortable and build upon mastering it.... or you could grab a DB series mixer, believe a little outside the box, and start from scratch.
Profit( what you get out of it, tangible or not) should be equal or greater then, the Sacrifice (time, effort) + Value ($$$)
Good luck on your decision.
Sincerly,
A&H fan (w/ less money in his account)
considering i hate the xone series, for numeurus reasons...
i have been slightly inclined witht the DB...
you post might just have sealed it for me dario | Judi Sissel
25.04.2013 | Just my .02
I've never gigged out and have no real desire to (as I have a great full-time job). If I gig out once, on my gear
, it will be all to surreal. I am nut for technology and have a passion (more like addiction) for good music - especially bass (infra-bass )! I am lucky enough to have a budget that allows me to have had a good amount of gear
such as an S4, X1600, and a DB4.
I say this because.....
Even though I do not have real industry experience, I have personal experience. While the DB4 is not perfect, its 90% of everything I want in a mixer. It's got tons of features - features that I am still learning to use, effectively. When I get the chance to mix, I am always greeted with something new to try, or enhance what I am already working on. For me, this has already made my purchase more then worth it. On top of that, A&H have been pretty open to user input on adding features and product development. The DB series mixers were made with the future in mind, I believe it has that spot. With the possibility of a end user firmware utility (for setting user preferences) this mixer would be future proof... but that may just be my wishful believeing.
I am not saying you wont find these intricacies in Pio gear (as they have their own), but that's just my insight. You can have Pio gear that you can feel comfortable and build upon mastering it.... or you could grab a DB series mixer, believe a little outside the box, and start from scratch.
Profit( what you get out of it, tangible or not) should be equal or greater then, the Sacrifice (time, effort) + Value ($$$)
Good luck on your decision.
Sincerly,
A&H fan (w/ less money in his account) | Annalisa Shogren
25.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by nerdbias
and nothing against pio, but why is the club scene so saturated with pio gear when a&h prove to provide such quality instruments?
Originally Posted by OmniRoss
Mainly because of the stupid fucking knobs.
Fin. | Gema Padon
25.04.2013 | Thanks for all the feedback. Greatly appreciated. A lot to consider.
Appears the mixer war boils down to personal preference. I grew up on a djm 400 (old i know) so that's why im more inclined to go for the 900. Familiar w the layout, built in sound card, and yes, the universal punch amongst the club scene. However, i don't want to ignore a&h because its the odd man out. As much as id love the familiarity of the pio mixer i dont want to shy away from something brand new, foreign
really. But damn that db4 is expensive!! well, they both are a pretty penny.
im not so concerned w the effects, i use traktors. im not a huge fan of pios, (no hate). but new effects would be a plus.
I mainly mix house 128-132 and am lately getting sucked into this trap scene.
just looking to invest in a minimal, durable, quality mobile setup. that's why i love that both mixers eliminate the need for an external soundcard. wanna plug and play.
just looking for that perfect workhorse.
and nothing against pio, but why is the club scene so saturated with pio gear when a&h prove to provide such quality instruments? | Nancey Inderlied
24.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by OmniRoss
If you hate stubby little bastard EQ knobs, don't get the Xone.
It'd help to know what genre of music you mix. I'd say for house and techno, go for the Xone as the effects work with that genre/bpm range.
I wouldn't recommend it for say drum & bass as the only believe you're likely to use on the Xone are the filters.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Xone mixers. Mainly because of the stupid fucking knobs.
Allen and Heath seem really committed to building amazing quality mixers, with a "death by papercuts" approach to virtually every single aspect of usability on the gdmf things.
"Im just saying, I know a few engineers, and this.... this feels like it was built by just engineers." | Mimi Mahaffee
24.04.2013 | haha so much hate ^
i'd also say it boils down to what you will mix, or least mainly mix. tech house and around that range i find xone mixers to be very useful.
Very good point made about that you already have learned the pio mixers and that is probably enough to have a good enough workflow on them, ofcourse it can be better but im gonna tell you little about my situation.
I have a 900+2000 setup and sure its sweet and fun to mix on, but im also a audiophile kindofguy and the sound of xone analogue mixers is what draws me towards them. Thats why the DB (digital range) has no appeal to me, only the xone 92 and 4D is what i would like to use.
I played with the idea of having a DB4 because of all the cool effects and stuff but then i realized only 1 club has it in the city i live in and the 100 other clubs have pioneer mixers, so I would just be sad to come to use pioneer mixers when i learnt tricks on the db4 and could not justify the load of cash it costs for the occassional gig which i need to bring my own gear to.
My solution was getting a 4D which doesnt cost so much but is a real beast. So when i know a club has a decent pio mixer and cdjs i just use theirs, if i know they have some shit/nothing/bashed gear i just bring the 4D. | Annalisa Shogren
24.04.2013 | If you hate stubby little bastard EQ knobs, don't get the Xone.
It'd help to know what genre of music you mix. I'd say for house and techno, go for the Xone as the effects work with that genre/bpm range.
I wouldn't recommend it for say drum & bass as the only believe you're likely to use on the Xone are the filters.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Xone mixers. Mainly because of the stupid fucking knobs. | Alphonso Deitchman
24.04.2013 | There is much more to a mixer than its effects. And what good are the DB4's effects if you're not gigging with it? If you're only using 2 decks EQing your FX is simple on a DJM900, and it comes as standard on the 2000. And timing/depth/frequency control is of course on both.
A non-standard mixer is only worth if it you'll actually be gigging with that specific mixer. Only the big name DJs can pick and choose what gear they'll get. | Tamela Batara
24.04.2013 |
Originally Posted by epikeddie
Unless you're a touring act and have a rider....I say stick with the DJM.
I've already come across several beat up house mixers at the clubs we play in....the last thing you need in that situation is figuring out where the filters and effects are at.
And to those that keep saying the DJM effects are harsh....use it less!
The OP has already stated that they are already familiar with the DJM line-up, so it's a non starter to suggest he would have to look for filters and effects.
In comparison to the A&H effects, the best description for the DJM effects is that they are harsh. There is nowhere near the same amount of control, subtlety and quality in the effects on the DJM as there are on the A&H. I have yet to see a Pioneer mixer, for example, effect a delay on a narrow frequency range, with timing and frequency control, as well as level depth and attenuation.
Looking for a mixer that is minimal, powerful & quality, when used in conjunction with a K2, as the OP is looking for, the DB series is a much better choice than the DJM.
If the OP was unfamiliar with the Pioneer line-up, then my advice may have been different, but for what he is looking for, the DB series mixers can't be beat. Well, not by Pioneer anyway.
Originally Posted by makar1
The Level/Depth knob is there for a reason, the effects are only as harsh as you make them.
Judging the Pioneer on it's own, yes, you are correct. Comparing it to the A&H, you are wrong. The A&H effects are a completely different league to the DJM effects, with a lot more subtlety and control available on the DB. Hence why some of the biggest DJ's rider includes a DB4 (John Digweed, Pete Tong, Sasha etc...). | Alphonso Deitchman
24.04.2013 | The Level/Depth knob is there for a reason, the effects are only as harsh as you make them. |
|
