TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- What's everyone's beef with the DJM800
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

What's everyone's beef with the DJM800

I've just read 2 threads that in some way reference the 800, and they only reference it they don't discuss it directly, and then everyone jumps in and bashes it.

I don't get it. It's a mixer. It works well. If you don't like it then move on......

What's worse than a Pioneer fanboy? The mindless bashers of Pioneer equipment. Seriously - just get over it and concentrate on something more important!

/RANT

A&H people...

u guys dont know what quality is....a&h, pioneer...

all about gemini son!

for the same price you can get a better build, 4 chan eq, better sound quality.

fx is for trance dj's.

Hey Jarv, have you played on a 92?

quote:

Originally posted by i got big pants u guys dont know what quality is....a&h, pioneer... all about gemini son!

Behringer imo!

Re: What's everyone's beef with the DJM800

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister concentrate on something more important! /RANT

like making threads bashing those who bash the 800?

Its what most everyone has= people will talk shit about it.

Sound quality.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak for the same price you can get a better build, 4 chan eq, better sound quality. fx is for trance dj's.

Umek whores the roll fx though.

I think it's a decent mixer, the layout is familiar and easy to use. Sound quality is OK (worlds better than the DJM-600 was), and the effects (when used very sparingly) can be useful.

Build quality is OK for Pioneer products (they tend to make very plasticy products, like the CDJ-1000 and EFX-1000).

The problem with the DJM-800 is that it's just overpriced.

An A&H or Rane in that price range will be better built and sound nicer.

Before buying my dj kit, I tried multiple mixers, such as the DJM800. I ended up buying a Xone92 because I liked it more. I would qualify the Xone to be more a "studio" mixer than the DJM800. I was a sound tech for 4 years before getting the kit and was used to the studio / live mixers. Everyone has their own taste.

i've never liked how shitty the knobs are on djm. that and sound quality is my two main beefs with djms

quote:

Originally posted by Waterproofpaper Behringer imo!

it was a joke, i am 99% sure.

inb4choiseinmixerscomesdowntopersonalpreference

My main beef is you can get better mixers for the same price or cheaper. And they are fugly.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak fx is for trance dj's.

It really isn't though is it - quite the opposite. Trance is about the hardest genre to use FX effectively with.

I could easily go on a rant about how shitly made the Xone 62 was, it was an absolute abortion of a mixer but people still bum it. The 92's better but there's not a lot in it between that and the Pioneer in terms of build quality - not to mention the 92's incredibly unergonomic layout (I've got fairly skinny fingers and I still find it hard not to knock the EQ knobs above/below the one I'm trying to crank).

And I don't think there's a lot of difference in sound quality between the 92 and the DJM800 - yeah if I had to pick one I'd probably rather be listening to a 92, but with the appauling sound rigs in most clubs if anything it's a waste trying to go any better.


I'm not advocating one or the other here, just trying to point out that for every flaw on a Pioneer mixer, there's a flaw on an A&H mixer

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox And I don't think there's a lot of difference in sound quality between the 92 and the DJM800 - yeah if I had to pick one I'd probably rather be listening to a 92, but with the appauling sound rigs in most clubs if anything it's a waste trying to go any better.

Amen. Though I'll guess this statement (and my agreement with it) will be met with replies of "Must suck for you guys. Out here, __________ has the best (funktion/dynachord/jackovasaur) sound system ever, you can totally hear everything perfectly at ear shattering levels!"

Which will of course be met with "Great. One club is not 'most clubs.'"

And the circle will be complete yet again.

And my $0.02 on the DJM800 - I don't mind playing on it at all at clubs, I wouldn't buy one because I think they're overpriced, and the curve on the filters sucks.

Other than that, no real qualms. There are dozens of mixers I'd rather play on, but I won't call it complete shit.

I don't mind an 800 just that I almost never see one. And I'm addicted to the filters on the Xones. IMHO there isn't much between a 62 and a 92 so to say that one is total shit is ridiculous. Especially for just under $800.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild IMHO there isn't much between a 62 and a 92 so to say that one is total shit is ridiculous. Especially for just under $800.

I suppose it depends how you mix, but for a quick mixing/technical DJ the 62 had awful fader knobs, no sharp cut on the crossfader, crossfade select buttons in a position which means you knock them whenever you try and move the fader quickly, no cue/pgm mix (although you could have a rough equivalent using the aux system) - all of which were resolved on the 92.


All that said, I don't actually mind playing on a 62 now that I've got used to working around all of the problems - at least I know where I stand with it (and I actually quite like queueing with the aux sends!)

The only problem is that particularly now that it's an older mixer, just about every time I face one in a club it's knackered in one way or another. But you'd be amazed at how often I used to turn up to play on a 62 only a couple of months old to find channels already knackered, knobs broken etc. It's no worse than any other mixer, I'm just pointing out that the A&H build quality isn't necessarily any better than Pioneer.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox The only problem is that particularly now that it's an older mixer, just about every time I face one in a club it's knackered in one way or another. But you'd be amazed at how often I used to turn up to play on a 62 only a couple of months old to find channels already knackered, knobs broken etc. It's no worse than any other mixer, I'm just pointing out that the A&H build quality isn't necessarily any better than Pioneer.

I disagree with that. When have you ever heard of an A & H product having bleed in the faders? Every second Pioneer mixer seems to suffer from this problem.

I agree with you on the poor ergonomic layout though. I remember the first time I had to cue on an A & H it took me forever to work out and I remember thinking "why the hell did they do it like that?!".

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox I suppose it depends how you mix, but for a quick mixing/technical DJ the 62 had awful fader knobs, no sharp cut on the crossfader, crossfade select buttons in a position which means you knock them whenever you try and move the fader quickly, no cue/pgm mix (although you could have a rough equivalent using the aux system) - all of which were resolved on the 92. All that said, I don't actually mind playing on a 62 now that I've got used to working around all of the problems - at least I know where I stand with it (and I actually quite like queueing with the aux sends!) The only problem is that particularly now that it's an older mixer, just about every time I face one in a club it's knackered in one way or another. But you'd be amazed at how often I used to turn up to play on a 62 only a couple of months old to find channels already knackered, knobs broken etc. It's no worse than any other mixer, I'm just pointing out that the A&H build quality isn't necessarily any better than Pioneer.

I guess it is personal preference. My friend mixes quick and technical, but he loves 62s over 800s. I mix slower and more methodically and I still love 62s over 800s. I guess it has to do with the person like you said. I understand all your points fortunately none of them are issues for me. I actually prefer the fader knobs, and I have a scratch mixer if I want to scratch or mix like that.

mainly don't like the sound...

I tried using my brothers pioneer 800 to put together a mix tonight.

It's a fuckin horrendous thing.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak fx is for trance dj's.

no, they are for those people playing entire sets of dj tools that they THINK are songs. constantly looping, stuttering, echoing, and flanging bleeps and bloops apparently makes them sound better.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco I tried using my brothers pioneer 800 to put together a mix tonight. It's a fuckin horrendous thing.

I'd say most people would think that's a little too far to call it "horrendous."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.