TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- CDJ200 vs CDJ800 for Trance DJs without FXs
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

CDJ200 vs CDJ800 for Trance DJs without FXs

Just out of curiosity, what are the ups and downs of choosing a CDj200 or a CDj800 when ur a trance DJ.

One thing I don't understand is why many would go for the CDj800, when the real upside of them versus the CDj200 is the scratch ability, which is useless for a general trance DJ, unless he actually scratches, whereas, the CDj200 have built in FX (albeit very limited).

any explanations?

cdj 800 platter > cdj 200 platter



for many having a bigger platter might make it easier to mix smoothly rather than .02 pitch


personally i like the 200 and the 1000 the best... 800 is kinda meh

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations cdj 800 platter > cdj 200 platter

I sold my 200 and took a 800 for that.
It feel easier for me to correct beatmatch on 800 platter.
Fx on 200 are totaly useless compare to a real fx.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations cdj 800 platter > cdj 200 platter

+infinity

Yeah it's pain in the ass to mix with cdj200 platters, but nothing too annoying. Just takes some getting used to

If you are good at beat matching, then the CDJ 200s are good. If you aren't and don't need to be super precise, then the CDJ 800s are good. It depends on what type of trance you play.

If you play say epic trance, not being as precise is important, so 10% pitch is fine. Prog trance/house is better i've found with 6% pitch (0.02 pitch resolution). The platter on the CDJ 800s I think is really designed for those who are scratching, as it's made to emulate a turntable's feel.

If you just want to mix and able to match tempos fairly well...then there's no need for a platter like on the CDJ 800s. I chose the CDJ 200s because 1. I like 0.02 pitch because I like to play downtempo and progressive house which to me require a little more precision 2. I don't scratch and 3. The CDJ 200s are about $300 less.

I actually went from a CDJ 1000 to CDJ 200s and I actually like mixing with the small platter vs. the bigger one. But I guess it's personal preference. I don't pitch bend that often.

Although I've never used the CDJ-200, I can say that the reason why I went with 800s is because of the vinyl emulation. I'm not really a fan of the 'stutter cue', and if I want to try scratching (dabbling into it here and there just for fun), I can (I don't have turntables =(

Also, the 800 is closer to the 1000 than the 200, although transitioning from either shouldn't be too difficult.

I ended up choosing the 800 due to flexibility and allowing more options on what I can do with the decks.

quote:

Originally posted by AnomalyConcept Although I've never used the CDJ-200, I can say that the reason why I went with 800s is because of the vinyl emulation. I'm not really a fan of the 'stutter cue', and if I want to try scratching (dabbling into it here and there just for fun), I can (I don't have turntables =( Also, the 800 is closer to the 1000 than the 200, although transitioning from either shouldn't be too difficult. I ended up choosing the 800 due to flexibility and allowing more options on what I can do with the decks.

i think it all comes down to what you are willing to spend. i have the 200's and imo the FX shouldn't be a factor to consider, i rarely ever touch them. on the other hand i wouldn't pay almost twice the money just for vinyl and the few other extra features... i feel like i wouldn't make enough use of it for the money. i think the 200's are a solid piece.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 The platter on the CDJ 800s I think is really designed for those who are scratching, as it's made to emulate a turntable's feel.

I disagree!

Speaking about the platters, is it possible to do backspins and such on a CDJ-200? I thought that wasn't possible, unless you can somehow emulate the effect with the onboard effects and/or with the pitch bend + pitch control. =P

CDJ-200s are indeed a solid deck, and are more than enough for straight mixing. One thing they had going for them was the ability to play mp3s, at least before the 800mk2 and 1000mk3 were released. Oh, and the 200 also has cool blue lighting which the 800 doesn't have. =D

I think Pioneer really hit the mark for a solid beginner CD deck with the CDJ-200. Heck, it's not just for beginners, but are definitely the CD deck I most often see recommended for first-time buyers.

quote:

Originally posted by AnomalyConcept CDJ-200s are indeed a solid deck, and are more than enough for straight mixing. One thing they had going for them was the ability to play mp3s, at least before the 800mk2 and 1000mk3 were released. Oh, and the 200 also has cool blue lighting which the 800 doesn't have. =D

mp3s are good in theory, but the lag on them due to the extra processing required (at least on the 200s) is such that playing with them becomes more trouble than it's worth.

Also, having 50 or 100 songs on a CD is great, but finding them can be an annoyance, though folders help with that immensely.

p.s not possible to do backspins on CDJ 200s, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

And you also have to remember if you burn a bunch of MP3 CD's, they won't play on just any deck... bad, bad idea.

Unless you're a mobile jock who needs 1000's of songs at your disposal, and you'll be on your own gear all the time. But in that case, SW really wins out over HW.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog mp3s are good in theory, but the lag on them due to the extra processing required (at least on the 200s) is such that playing with them becomes more trouble than it's worth. Also, having 50 or 100 songs on a CD is great, but finding them can be an annoyance, though folders help with that immensely. p.s not possible to do backspins on CDJ 200s, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

if you like the feel of vinyl emulation and a nice platter, go cdj-800.
if you're broke, don't care about stutter-cueing, and want sub-par effects go cdj-200.

honestly the difference between .05% and .02% isn't going to affect your mixing that much.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog I disagree!

Feel free to disagree but ultimately the idea behind vinyl emulation is to allow someone to scratch. You can mix fine without vinyl emulation. Ableton Live doesn't have vinyl emulation. If you mix tracks together, all you really have to do is beat match and press play on the 16th or 32nd beat or wherever is a good point to bring in the next track. You don't really even need to pitch bend unless you can't really match tempos accurately. You can also ride the pitch. Sure there's more you can do with mixing than just cueing up the track, matching the tempos and pressing play, but that's the basics of it. The CDJ 200 is designed for those who just mix and don't scratch and just need the basics in order to mix, but prefer a more hands on feel vs. using a laptop.

Also if you just play for fun at home, at house parties....then CDJ 200s and MP3 discs are fine. Not everyone does this as a career or makes money. Some people use this as more of a hobby. I myself when I mix, I mix for myself, my own enjoyment, cause I mix to tell a story, not make people dance obviously.

I'm not a fan of mp3 discs, but in a pinch (eg. your CD collection gets misplaced) they can save your ass.

Also, you don't get the same pitch resolution with mp3s. My opinion is if you're going to go mp3s, use Serato or some other form of tactile control, since a computer has way more processing power.

quote:

Originally posted by AnomalyConcept Also, you don't get the same pitch resolution with mp3s. My opinion is if you're going to go mp3s, use Serato or some other form of tactile control, since a computer has way more processing power.

what? cdj-800mk2 and cdj-1000mk3 support mp3, same pitch resolution.

Re: CDJ200 vs CDJ800 for Trance DJs without FXs

quote:

Originally posted by Abhay Just out of curiosity, what are the ups and downs of choosing a CDj200 or a CDj800 when ur a trance DJ. One thing I don't understand is why many would go for the CDj800, when the real upside of them versus the CDj200 is the scratch ability, which is useless for a general trance DJ, unless he actually scratches, whereas, the CDj200 have built in FX (albeit very limited). any explanations?

cdj200 is to cdj800 like subaru wrx is to subaru wrx sti

you pay a little more, but the rewards are great.

benefit > extra cost

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 If you are good at beat matching, then the CDJ 200s are good. If you aren't and don't need to be super precise, then the CDJ 800s are good. It depends on what type of trance you play. If you play say epic trance, not being as precise is important, so 10% pitch is fine. Prog trance/house is better i've found with 6% pitch (0.02 pitch resolution). The platter on the CDJ 800s I think is really designed for those who are scratching, as it's made to emulate a turntable's feel. If you just want to mix and able to match tempos fairly well...then there's no need for a platter like on the CDJ 800s. I chose the CDJ 200s because 1. I like 0.02 pitch because I like to play downtempo and progressive house which to me require a little more precision 2. I don't scratch and 3. The CDJ 200s are about $300 less. I actually went from a CDJ 1000 to CDJ 200s and I actually like mixing with the small platter vs. the bigger one. But I guess it's personal preference. I don't pitch bend that often.

I agree with you. Plus if you are mixing in your bedroom you don't need more than 2 cdj200 to practice.
Cdj200 + rane empath rotary (since you are not going to scratch with it) is what I would choose for a nice bedroom setup for $1400-$1500. Ideal!

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Feel free to disagree but ultimately the idea behind vinyl emulation is to allow someone to scratch. You can mix fine without vinyl emulation. Ableton Live doesn't have vinyl emulation. If you mix tracks together, all you really have to do is beat match and press play on the 16th or 32nd beat or wherever is a good point to bring in the next track. You don't really even need to pitch bend unless you can't really match tempos accurately. You can also ride the pitch. Sure there's more you can do with mixing than just cueing up the track, matching the tempos and pressing play, but that's the basics of it. The CDJ 200 is designed for those who just mix and don't scratch and just need the basics in order to mix, but prefer a more hands on feel vs. using a laptop. Also if you just play for fun at home, at house parties....then CDJ 200s and MP3 discs are fine. Not everyone does this as a career or makes money. Some people use this as more of a hobby. I myself when I mix, I mix for myself, my own enjoyment, cause I mix to tell a story, not make people dance obviously.

O...k.

My point was that, no, a CDJ is not meant to "emulate a turntable's feel". A CDJ feels nothing like a turntable.

Yes, it's made to allow you to do the same things as you would on a turntable, but not to replicate the feel.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog O...k. My point was that, no, a CDJ is not meant to "emulate a turntable's feel". A CDJ feels nothing like a turntable. Yes, it's made to allow you to do the same things as you would on a turntable, but not to replicate the feel.

I see what you mean. I was thinking you were disagreeing with the fact that the platter is used to scratch...which it really is (and to cue as well but don't need one like that to do something so simple). It doesn't feel that much like a TT, so I agree, but the idea behind vinyl-emulation is to give those who used TTs for mixing and scratching the ability to have a larger platter with scratching ability, and to also cue like you would on a TT. That's where it comes from. Exact feel is different...I agree.

I'm gona bring this thread back to life..haha....ok here's the deal...I can get two cdj 800's for approx. the same price (give or take $100) as i can get two cdj 200's for. What would eveyrone do? And does anyone know of any major flaws with the 800's?

and i'm saying 800, NOT 800mk2.

i heard that with the 800mk1, that the software was a bit glitchy and the master tempo wasnt that great. but if you dont need mp3 support, and getting the 800s new...i would probably do it

As I said before in this thread...just mix in your bedroom, don't plan to be a pro/club DJ and don't scratch, the CDJ 200 is fine. If you want to scratch, aren't picky about pitch resolution (I think the more precise pitch is better for progressive house/trance music) and may plan to play in clubs, then the CDJ 800 is for you..doesn't matter if it's MK1 or MK2 (the only good thing really about the MK2 is that it plays MP3s and minor tweaks to the hardware and platter perhaps). I chose the CDJ 200 cause it's just a hobby (and I hardly mix anymore...hardly any time).

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 As I said before in this thread...just mix in your bedroom, don't plan to be a pro/club DJ and don't scratch, the CDJ 200 is fine. If you want to scratch, aren't picky about pitch resolution (I think the more precise pitch is better for progressive house/trance music) and may plan to play in clubs, then the CDJ 800 is for you..doesn't matter if it's MK1 or MK2 (the only good thing really about the MK2 is that it plays MP3s and minor tweaks to the hardware and platter perhaps). I chose the CDJ 200 cause it's just a hobby (and I hardly mix anymore...hardly any time).

Well, I've gone for the 200s.

I do intend to go a bit further with my DJing, though i doubt it'd ever be a career. The minute its not fun, is the minute i stop doing it and trying to draw more and more people.

Form my knowledge the CDj200s have a higher resolution than the CDJ800, and i can use turntables to scratch anyway. The jog wheel feels different to the CDJ1000 on the CDJ800s anyway, so i didn't see the point in people saying the CDJ800s are better if you intend to go to a club. I mean, sure they might be more like the 1000s, but considering the price differnce it's definately not worth it.

Re: Re: CDJ200 vs CDJ800 for Trance DJs without FXs

quote:

Originally posted by discobiscuit cdj200 is to cdj800 like subaru wrx is to subaru wrx sti you pay a little more, but the rewards are great. benefit > extra cost

Actually 200 to 800 is more like Smart to Wrx, and the 1000 is the sti.

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