|
In response to your first comment, yet it seems like a lot of pioneer products seem to not all be made exactly the same. Two CDJ 1000s aren't made perfect, so I guess it's just an inherent thing to have one tigher than the other. The looser one is great for scratching, the tighter one is a bit better for pitch bending. It's not a huge difference though.
The feel is different. I tried all three. The CDJ 200 feels a bit different than the 1000 and 800, which are about the same other than the 800 having a slightly looser jog wheel and being smaller. The CDJ 200 is just too small as I noted, and it would take some getting used to when going from a 200 to a 1000 or 800. Going from an 800 to a 1000 is quite easy because of their vinyl emulation with their platters and the feel which is practically the same.
And with the effects, who really needs them? I mean the reason Pioneer didn't put these on the CDJ 1000 or 800 is because they have an effector, like the EFX 500, which true aren't cheap, but i've heard that the effects on those are superior to those on the CDJ 200 or those other CD players with built in effects. Guys like James Zambiela can truly do some great stuff with an effector, hence just adding it on to a CD player would take away from the player being what it is...a device to mix tracks and scratch. Imagine going back and forth on the same deck from using effects to trying to beatmix or scratch at the same time, it just seems kind of awkward. The EFX 500 or the 1000 were intended for effects...not CDJs.
|