 |
|
|
|
 |
i got big pants
Your Face
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
|
personally if it were the 800mk1s...i'd keep the 400s. mainly due to mp3 and usb support. the bigger jog wheel is nice though.
|
|
Apr-22-2009 18:52
|
|
|
 |
 |
terrytutone
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: in front of the class
|
|
|
Re: CDJ-400 vs. CDJ-800
| quote: | Originally posted by Jimmie
and the only other downside I can think of is the 0.05 vs 0.02% pitch resolution. Which I suppose I can live with. |
This is a HUGE factor for me. In my opinion the 800 really offers very little and i think the model is kind of a rip off. I would stick with the 400s and to be honest i would even go for 200s before 800s based on the pitch resolution alone.
|
|
Apr-22-2009 20:01
|
|
|
 |
 |
Jimmie
tranceaddict in training
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Copenhagen
|
|
|
I'm unsure of how much to put into the pitch resolution, as before the 400s I were used to play with 0.1%. Which I did quite well, so I don't reckon 0.05 being so awful.
But I appreciate your opinion, as the main factors I'm considering are bigger wheel vs. pitch resolution.
___________________
Pas på dig selv, der er ikke så mange andre til det.
|
|
Apr-22-2009 20:08
|
|
|
 |
 |
terrytutone
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: in front of the class
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitranceman
Okay, it's been a while since we've had the .02 vs. .05 debate. I have 800 mk2s and have used 1000s extensively as well. The .02/.05 is an absolute non-factor for anyone mildly skilled at beatmatching and mixing. In fact, I set the 1000s to .05 when I mix.
That said, the 800 mk1s had some issues back in the day. Don't get me wrong, the large platter is a game changer, and if they were mk2s id ay go for it without a doubt. I'd be wary of the mk1s though. |
My experiences have always been the opposite and i always dread switching over to +/-10% on the 1000s. I find it tends to take longer to get the pitch right where i want it and i just refuse to accept 0.05 when it is obviously inferior. Whether you notice a difference or not 0.02 is just quantitively better.
Everything aside though, it is not worth it to trade new gear for older stuff. I've seen a few problems with older 800mk1s especially when it comes to cds loading improperly and the eject mechanism operating poorly.
|
|
Apr-22-2009 20:53
|
|
|
 |
 |
DJ RANN
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2001
Location: Hollywood....
|
|
|
Personally, having owned over the last 10 years these CDJS: 100, 500, 400 and now an 800mk2 and still a 100, the 800 is the best deck of all of these.
I think the 800 is great piece of kit especially at $500 new. Feels the closest to a 1000, has great functionality at less than half the price of the 1000 - even though the 1000 is great and does a lot, I think it's way too expensive, especially I don't really need all those extra features.
I actually don't understand why people buy 400's - they cost nearly the same as an 800 but if you're buying them to practise for club DJing, good luck, becuase they feel and use nothing like an 800 or 1000 I have never seen 400's in even a small bar environment.
My feeling is that if you can't mix and get it tight with 0.05% resolution, 0.02% resolution really is going to be no help to you.
I'm with MiamiTM on this - and he's right, the mk1's did have a few probs.
|
|
Apr-22-2009 22:48
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:08.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|