|
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
Wuh?
1. The 200's are not more reliable than the Denon DN-S1000's. Why would you say that? Do you have statical data to back that up? I have friends who have the Denon's, and they have held up just fine.
2. Saying the CDJ-1000's aren't "all their cracked up to be", and then saying "unless it's an MK3" is retarded. The MK2 and MK3 are nearly identical. The MK3 adds:
- MP3 support
- A tension knob for scratching
- A slightly higher resolution display
- The ability to save more loops on the hot cue buttons
All of which are features which won't improve your ability to mix.
Don't be a Pioneer fanboy, it just looks bad. They make good products, but so do other manufacturers. |
As far as features go and build quality, the 200s are. Denon products are okay, but Pioneer seems to make better built players. Kind of like Technics is to Stanton, Vestax or Numark. Pioneers are known as the industry standard and more people use them because of their reliable, it's quite known they are. I don't have any statistical data to back it up, just people owning more Pioneer CDJs (look on the Bedroom Pics thread, and 9 times out of 10 you'll find either a CDJ 200, CDJ 800 or CDJ 1000. More clubs use them too. Sure they may be about the same price, but the CDJ 200s are newer, have more features, and feel sturdier.
I've played around at GuitarCenter on the CDJ 1000 MK3s. It may just be a subjective thing, but i've found the overall design and build on the MK3s much better than my CDJ 1000 MK2s. The platters on the MK3s seem smoother, and it has the ability to adjust the platter sensitivity. Mine are too sensitive, and at times, not sensitive enough. One platter is looser than the other. The whole thing just seems cheaper, I dunno exactly why. It doesn't feel like something worth $1,000 that I paid for it. It's not so much about the features, as it is the way it feels. They must have constructed the MK3s better.
|