TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Tascam X9 vs. Allen & Heath Xone:62
Tascam X9 vs. Allen & Heath Xone:62
Well? Which one is better? I will be in the market for a mixer towards the end of the year and I would like some opinions.
Tascam.
Hi There
Definitly go for the Tascam X9. I own a X9 & its stunning. The quality of everything on the mixer is nothing like i've seen on other mixers, theres top quality & thens theres out of this world quality (X9). Theres also little subtle touches like variable Q, which is this little knob under each eq to basically expand the eq so you can do more with it. Theres the fx's which are stunning, theres 2 samplers, two sets of fxs banks, which I think is the only mixer to have it.
The only way your gonna relise which mixer to buy is to use them. I have never used the Allen & Heath, but I imagine from thir reputation that is one hell of a mixer. The quality will be very high as they make very very good studio mixers as well.
Personally I would get the X9, as I have one & I know thats its very good. But basically, have a go on both & see which you like.
I can vouch for the Allen & Heath Xone:62. It's a amazing mixer!
If you are able to go see both mixers at a store give them both a test spin.
Zzyzx
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJTranceworld Hi There Definitly go for the Tascam X9. I own a X9 & its stunning. The quality of everything on the mixer is nothing like i've seen on other mixers, theres top quality & thens theres out of this world quality (X9). Theres also little subtle touches like variable Q, which is this little knob under each eq to basically expand the eq so you can do more with it. Theres the fx's which are stunning, theres 2 samplers, two sets of fxs banks, which I think is the only mixer to have it. The only way your gonna relise which mixer to buy is to use them. I have never used the Allen & Heath, but I imagine from thir reputation that is one hell of a mixer. The quality will be very high as they make very very good studio mixers as well. Personally I would get the X9, as I have one & I know thats its very good. But basically, have a go on both & see which you like. |
So what your saying is that the X9 is good on a small and big system? Hmmmm sounds like the ultamite mixer to me!
Whats your best price on a X9 DJ Tranz? 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Tranz hehehe, that little knob you are referring to is a sweeping filter within that frequency range of each EQ. and Yes I really love my X-9 as well. wouldn't trade it for anything else except maybe for Allen and Heath Xone V6 w/tubes(around $6,000.00 USD) Vladik, I don't remember if I mentioned to you b4 or not, but to really appreciate SQ of A&H Xone mixers you need to have a very clean, and mega sounding sound system, thus many clubs small or big have A&H mixers because they sound so damn good, but for home or small gigs use, there is no need to spend the extra money on A&H and an external FX processor. Get the Tascam X-9 you won't be disappointed, I promise. Cheers... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Seany_G So what your saying is that the X9 is good on a small and big system? Hmmmm sounds like the ultamite mixer to me! Whats your best price on a X9 DJ Tranz? |
I am interested also, PM me as well..
If you could send another PM this way re: the Tascam it'd be much appreciated! 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by amdmaxx I am interested also, PM me as well.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dj_pulse If you could send another PM this way re: the Tascam it'd be much appreciated! |
It's all about personal preference. I love my 62 and wouldn't trade it for anything... well ... perhaps for that crazymofo stanton...
Let me say I'll never touch a X9 again in my life. I tested three models when they were still new (one of the models was even still a prototype), and all three shocked me (and one literally).
One of them the lights started to fade as soon as I touched the faceplate (probably bad grounding), one went up in smoke, and the last one almost succeeded sending me to the hospital : upon touching it I got a surge through my arm.
Plus the EQ was really inadequate for fast tweaking as it reacted very slowly (about 1 second to go to full cut). But this seems to be addressed by an update already.
In theory this is a very fine mixer, great features, good layout. I think by now those beginner flaws should be solved (I hope so). But I'm not touching one again, any mixer that makes an attempt at my life is not worth a second chance by me. I stick with my Xone:62. Less features, much cleaner sounding. And that's what counts for me.
The thing with the Tascam is I KNOW I would be needing all the features it has... I probably wont ever use the f/x or samplers. But the Tascam is cheaper. And being the Tascam has all the features that A&H has and doesnt have with good sound quality - not as good as A&H but good enough.
If you're not going to use the samplers and effectors, there's absolutely no point getting the X9. Better get a Pioneer DJM then (the only real advantage the X9 has over those are the extra sampler/effector, and the digital in/outs, which most dj's don't use anyway). Layout is identical (as the X9 borrowed it's layout from the DJM600). And sound quality is comparable (DJM may sound a bit noisy to some, but thinking the X9 as being a digital mixer means that it sounds better is wrong also. If you use it like any normal dj mixer (analog in and outs) you'll have 2 conversions going on, one to convert your analog signal to digital, and then back again to analog at the output). And each conversion means more quality loss.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dj Thy If you're not going to use the samplers and effectors, there's absolutely no point getting the X9. Better get a Pioneer DJM then (the only real advantage the X9 has over those are the extra sampler/effector, and the digital in/outs, which most dj's don't use anyway). Layout is identical (as the X9 borrowed it's layout from the DJM600). And sound quality is comparable (DJM may sound a bit noisy to some, but thinking the X9 as being a digital mixer means that it sounds better is wrong also. If you use it like any normal dj mixer (analog in and outs) you'll have 2 conversions going on, one to convert your analog signal to digital, and then back again to analog at the output). And each conversion means more quality loss. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Tranz don't forget that pioneer still uses last century's(literally) 16bit technology whereas everyone else including X-9 moved onto 24bit digital technology for effects |
1) X9 DID borrow the DJM layout. As a matter of fact the original prototype was even a Pioneer DJM case with the new internal circuitry, and even the DJM faceplate with new holes drilled in for the extra buttons. It's not as "stolen" as the Behringer layout. But take a look at the X9 as it is now, and take a look at the DJM600. Looks quite similar to me. Some extra buttons, and maybe the displays changed place, but for the rest don't tell me it's completely different. And frankly they shouldn't be ashamed to have borrowed that layout, as the DJM600 layout is one of the best around for dj's. Even a complete beginner could get around it.
2 and 4) yeah, but you compare them to some of the most clean mixers around (you forgot Dateq and Bozak/Urei ). I never said the X9 doesn't sound better than the DJM600, it does. But far better? No. The difference between an X9 and a Xone is bigger than the difference between a DJM and an X9 (and sorry, but you can clearly hear the digital aspect of the X9). I'm not the biggest fan of the DJM (once you worked with mixers like Xone or similar in that range, you'll know why), but you make it sound like DJM are shit, they are not.
3) like said above that doesn't guarantee anything (good 16 bit convertors are still better than bad 24 ones). The convertors are not bad, but far from the best either (it's not like they have Burr Browns in there, I believe the X9 uses mass produced AKM convertors and two motorola 56k processors, might be wrong though).
5) yeah, feature wise it's a good mixer, and it blows the DJM away. But it's sad to say, you'll use maybe 30% of them after some time. Those parametric EQ's are nice, but I don't see many dj's using it if you would install the X9 in a club, same for the advanced effects with the routing etc.
6) I didn't deny either that the X9 has qualities and ingenious idea's (although I still don't like they idea they tried to kill me )
But about the industry standard, there is none really. You can't compare the mixer market with the turntable market. You'll never have something like the SL1200 that will dominate the market, because so many mixers have similar features, and little things some people prefer, some not. But they main thing why the DJM is so popular is not because of the sound quality (otherwise everyone would be using Bozaks/Clouds/Xones), but because it's ease of use. The layout is about the clearest I know, everything does what it should. Put any decent dj behind it and he will operate it at it's full capability in no time (yup even the effects). The sound quality isn't the best out there, but by far not the worst either (otherwise it would be dissed long time ago for big PA systems). Do you know that many dj's don't even want to work on Xone's because they can't seem to work with the 4th EQ band? Let alone with parametric ones and multiple sampler/effects.
To end a long post, the X9 is probably not a bad mixer (I say probably, because after what happened to me, I haven't exactly had the urge to see if they fixed things), and can probably rank in the pro category. But I would rank it in the same class as the DJM's. That's it.
This is convincing me to just go with the Xone:62... I really dont need to horns and whistles, I just want a mixer to put out clean cut sound. And since Ill be using a Xone with monitors, the sound should be crystal.
Xone62 is Superior, by far!!!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by amdmaxx Xone62 is Superior, by far!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by amdmaxx Xone62 is Superior, by far!!! |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.