TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Cdj 1000 mk3 or Cdj 800 mk2 Whats The Difference?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Cdj 1000 mk3 or Cdj 800 mk2 Whats The Difference?

apart from the jog wheel bein better on the 1000 what the main difference between the two???

is the 1000 way better to mix with???

1000 has 0,02% pitch resolution
800 has 0,05% pitch resolution
1000 is a lot sexier
1000 has a waveform display
1000 has a slot for an sd card so you can store as many cue points as you wish, 800 only has limited internal memory

can't think of anything else atm as i haven't played with either one.

1000 has (that the 800 doesn't) in additions to what he said ^^^^

Hot Cues/Loops
Adjustable Platter resistance
Separate Brake and Startup adjustment (800 has one setting that controls both)
Higher Resolution Display

The main one is the pitch resolution for me though - .05 is less than half as acurrate as .02 - Some people don't think it's worth worrying about, however thousands of professional DJs will argue otherwise.

Jarv

PS I'm no pro.

The 800 has hot loops that the 1000 doesn't have.

Another big difference was the platter. The 800Mk1 has a very loose platter, but they fixed it on the MK2 to match that of the DVJ-X1.

The 1000 has 4 choices for tempo (+6, +10, +16, +100)
The 800 only has 2... (+10, +100)

800 has Quick Return, 1000 doesn't.

1000 has an eject lock.
1000 has cd text.

in other words, the 1000 is more customizable.

quote:

Cdj 1000 mk3 or Cdj 800 mk2 Whats The Difference?

About $650 bucks.

quote:

Originally posted by DjWoody The 800 has hot loops that the 1000 doesn't have.

It's a beat cutter, not a hot loop.

quote:

Originally posted by DjWoody Another big difference was the platter. The 800Mk1 has a very loose platter, but they fixed it on the MK2 to match that of the DVJ-X1.

This is not a difference between the 800mk2 and the 1000mk3! Sorry to be picky!

Jarv

.02 always wins, i would much rather have a clean used pair of cdj 1000 mkI's than brand new 800 mkII's.. were talking the same price here.

I am quite happy with my 800 mk2s. Wasn't willing to shell out another 5-600 each for what is in my opinion a minimal upgrade for bedroom djing.

quote:

Originally posted by starboy .02 always wins, i would much rather have a clean used pair of cdj 1000 mkI's than brand new 800 mkII's.. were talking the same price here.

it doesnt affect your mixing whatsoever. anyone that thinks that the 0.03 is a difference is talking nonsense. ive used both and havent noticed any difference in terms in of cueing the beat and holding it.

wow!!

a hell of alot of good points there.....

the price difference between the two is crazy!!

ive used the 1000 an they are brill but never the 800 but am leaning towards them because of cost, like it was said earlier... they are only for bedroom mixing!!

i heard alot of mk1 1000's arnt even as good as a mk2 800 and that they are prone to freezing!

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis it doesnt affect your mixing whatsoever. anyone that thinks that the 0.03 is a difference is talking nonsense. ive used both and havent noticed any difference in terms in of cueing the beat and holding it.

If you have half a brain and can add at a very basic level you would retract your statememt.

Or maybe Pioneer got it wrong and put a feature on a top of the line deck that no one needed.

Statements like this really do my head in - I mean come on - it's one of the most sellable feature of the 1000.

Those that say they can hold a mix for just as long with an 800 as they can with a 1000 are talking bollocks. And thats a scientifically proveable mathmatical fact!

Jarv

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister If you have half a brain and can add at a very basic level you would retract your statememt. Or maybe Pioneer got it wrong and put a feature on a top of the line deck that no one needed. Statements like this really do my head in - I mean come on - it's one of the most sellable feature of the 1000. Those that say they can hold a mix for just as long with an 800 as they can with a 1000 are talking bollocks. And thats a scientifically proveable mathmatical fact! Jarv

if it was such a great feature then why would they put in the 200 which is at the low end of the price scale

mathmatics doesnt come into i dont need to hold mixes for longer that a minute anything over that and im over mixing a track i tend to keep it at around 45 seconds which on the 800 holds perfectly fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister Those that say they can hold a mix for just as long with an 800 as they can with a 1000 are talking bollocks. And thats a scientifically proveable mathmatical fact!

+1
(Without touching the platter/pitch riding of course)

How on earth can you not feel the difference between 0.05 and 0.02?!
If you don't think that this has any significance then fine.. but you should still be able to feel it.

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis if it was such a great feature then why would they put in the 200 which is at the low end of the price scale

Thats been discussed elsewhere, and is more to do with them cornering all the target markets across the price spectrum - it's going to be a pretty tricky concept for you to understand if you can't grasp the mathmatics behind pitch resolution so I won't bother.

And, maths does come into it, .02 is exatly 40% of .05 - this means that the 1000's pitch is more than twice as accurate than the 800. To put it another way, you'll be able to hold a mix for 1 minute, whilst I can hold the same mix for 2.5 minutes. OR my 1 minute mix using 2 cdj1000s will be 60% tighter than your mix on 2 CDJ800s.

These are facts, and they're backed up by the mathematical proof I've given above. Regardless of the fact that you feel your mixing style doesn't need a mix longer than a minute, some of us like to mix for longer, particularly with the more progressive sound. Those that do will feel the benefit of a 1000 over an 800.

Jarv

Re: Cdj 1000 mk3 or Cdj 800 mk2 Whats The Difference?

quote:

Originally posted by jey apart from the jog wheel bein better on the 1000 what the main difference between the two??? is the 1000 way better to mix with???

i have both... and to be honest, i really like the jogwheel on the 800 better than in the 1000....

i like how you can u change the speed of the pausing of the track with out having it start out slow.. while on the 800 u cant do that...



if i could do it again, id save my money and buy 2 800's. the only thing i like about the 1000 is the wav format.

jarv didnt you have a pair of 800mk2's before getting you 1000's? now that youve had them for a while what do you think (regardless of mathematical facts)...is it worth double the price to goet a pair of mk3s?

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister Statements like this really do my head in - I mean come on - it's one of the most sellable feature of the 1000.

if it was such a big selling feature why dont any companys advertise it then? it sounds like your just trying to justify the vastly overpriced 1000 its worth more than the 800 but not that much more.
Nearly every one of your posts i see in this forum is just you being a pioneer hoar do you sleep with your deck?

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister Thats been discussed elsewhere, and is more to do with them cornering all the target markets across the price spectrum - it's going to be a pretty tricky concept for you to understand if you can't grasp the mathmatics behind pitch resolution so I won't bother. And, maths does come into it, .02 is exatly 40% of .05 - this means that the 1000's pitch is more than twice as accurate than the 800. To put it another way, you'll be able to hold a mix for 1 minute, whilst I can hold the same mix for 2.5 minutes. OR my 1 minute mix using 2 cdj1000s will be 60% tighter than your mix on 2 CDJ800s. These are facts, and they're backed up by the mathematical proof I've given above. Regardless of the fact that you feel your mixing style doesn't need a mix longer than a minute, some of us like to mix for longer, particularly with the more progressive sound. Those that do will feel the benefit of a 1000 over an 800. Jarv

What you just said there has nothing to do with mathematical proof, it's still completely opinion. Yes, if .05% is only good for 1 minute, then .02% would be good for 2.5 minutes. But....what I would argue, and what I think some others would argue...is that 1 minute is not the length it can hold. I have a CDJ 800 and a numark cd player(with .1% increments). I've held 4 minute long mixes on many occasions, with little to no pitch bending. The worst possible case with this combination is a difference of .05% between the tracks. If I had two CDJ-800s, the worst case would be .025% off - since that's twice as accurate, you'd argue that I could do 8 minute long beatmatchings.

Put another way...screw it, let's get mathematical. Say your one track is 130 bpm. With two CDJ-800s, the worst you can be is .025% off (note that this is worst case...usually you wouldn't be nearly that far off). .025% of 130 is .0325, so your second track would be 130.0325 bpm. If being "off" is say...1/10 of a second difference between the two, then let's see how long it would take for this to occur. Each beat is 1/130 minutes, or .4615385 seconds, long, for the first track. Each beat is 1/130.0325 minutes long in the other track, or .4614231 seconds. That means the tracks split up by .00011 seconds every second. Divide 1/10 by that, and you get that the tracks will be off by 1/10 of a second after 909.09 seconds, or 15.15 minutes.

That's the absolute farthest off it could be, and you won't have to adjust for over 15 minutes. Granted, 1/10 of a second might be a little too big of a difference, I'm not sure...but even if you say 1/20 of a second difference is when you can hear that it's off, it's still almost 8 minutes with no adjustment.

I rest my case.

By the way, I definitely think .05% makes a big difference over .1%. It's just the .02% vs. .05% I'm debating here.

umm.. you can get clean, hardly used mkII's for the same price as new 800 mkII's... so the argument of the 1000 being double the price is retarded

And yes the .02 is far superior to the .05 i don't care what anybody says, jarv is right.

quote:

Originally posted by IntegraR0064 What you just said there has nothing to do with mathematical proof, it's still completely opinion. Yes, if .05% is only good for 1 minute, then .02% would be good for 2.5 minutes. But....what I would argue, and what I think some others would argue...is that 1 minute is not the length it can hold. I have a CDJ 800 and a numark cd player(with .1% increments). I've held 4 minute long mixes on many occasions, with little to no pitch bending. The worst possible case with this combination is a difference of .05% between the tracks. If I had two CDJ-800s, the worst case would be .025% off - since that's twice as accurate, you'd argue that I could do 8 minute long beatmatchings. Put another way...screw it, let's get mathematical. Say your one track is 130 bpm. With two CDJ-800s, the worst you can be is .025% off (note that this is worst case...usually you wouldn't be nearly that far off). .025% of 130 is .0325, so your second track would be 130.0325 bpm. If being "off" is say...1/10 of a second difference between the two, then let's see how long it would take for this to occur. Each beat is 1/130 minutes, or .4615385 seconds, long, for the first track. Each beat is 1/130.0325 minutes long in the other track, or .4614231 seconds. That means the tracks split up by .00011 seconds every second. Divide 1/10 by that, and you get that the tracks will be off by 1/10 of a second after 909.09 seconds, or 15.15 minutes. That's the absolute farthest off it could be, and you won't have to adjust for over 15 minutes. Granted, 1/10 of a second might be a little too big of a difference, I'm not sure...but even if you say 1/20 of a second difference is when you can hear that it's off, it's still almost 8 minutes with no adjustment. I rest my case. By the way, I definitely think .05% makes a big difference over .1%. It's just the .02% vs. .05% I'm debating here.

I agree. I have held mixes for minutes at a time with no adjusting on the 800s. I'm sure it's even easier with the 1000s, but, to me, it's not worth the significantly extra money. That being said...all the power to you if you can afford them. We can all agree you can't go wrong with any PIO equipment.

I've never used 800s. But I use the 10% range on my 1000s on occasions when I need to pitch up that much - and I notice the difference.

I cannot understand why (or even how) anyone would argue that it's not noticeable. You have to have a pretty ropey ear not to be able to pick it out.

Jarv

Interesting debate on CDJ800 vs CDJ1000 pitch. I cope just fine with 0.05% but the main reason I consider switching to CDJ1000 is specifically for 0.02% adjustments but I every time I talk myself out of it due to cost, I just can't justify spending the extra money (I'm tight ).

What I would say is that maths is fine if you have 2 perfect tracks but what I often find is that some tracks must have speed fluctuations when they are mastered - they just will not hold pitch & you find yourself having to yank the jog wheel forwards & backwards every few seconds just to keep it anywhere near beatmatched yet other tracks will hold perfectly for minutes at a time even on 0.05%.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister I use the 10% range on my 1000s on occasions when I need to pitch up that much - and I notice the difference. I cannot understand why (or even how) anyone would argue that it's not noticeable. You have to have a pretty ropey ear not to be able to pick it out. Jarv

I dunno Jarv I know what you're saying, 0.02% is obviously more accurate but before CDJ's came along I'm sure many vinyl decks adjustments weren't as fine as 0.02% or probably even 0.05% yet DJ's coped OK (well most of em ). I think you've just gotten used to the accuracy of 0.02%. When CDJ1000 mk4 comes out with 0.01% adjustments we'll all wonder how we coped with crappy 0.02%

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Android I dunno Jarv I know what you're saying, 0.02% is obviously more accurate but before CDJ's came along I'm sure many vinyl decks adjustments weren't as fine as 0.02% or probably even 0.05% yet DJ's coped OK (well most of em ). I think you've just gotten used to the accuracy of 0.02%. When CDJ1000 mk4 comes out with 0.01% adjustments we'll all wonder how we coped with crappy 0.02%

Ha! Crazy as it sounds I'd love a .01 pitch resolution. I'd consider upgrading to a MK4 if they have this feature - thats how important I feel it is..... to me.

Jarv

i thought that .02 was the best u can get on cd decks cause of it being digital or something.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister I've never used 800s. But I use the 10% range on my 1000s on occasions when I need to pitch up that much - and I notice the difference. I cannot understand why (or even how) anyone would argue that it's not noticeable. You have to have a pretty ropey ear not to be able to pick it out. Jarv

Hey man, I'm not arguing about .1%...that I totally feel a difference. Just .05%

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