i've never liked how shitty the knobs are on djm. that and sound quality is my two main beefs with djms

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Waterproofpaper Behringer imo!

it was a joke, i am 99% sure.

inb4choiseinmixerscomesdowntopersonalpreference

___________________

Sonorescent

Facebook
Propagation Podcast (Soundcloud)
Ep. 18 - The Cops Are After Me (Bonus Mix)**NEW July
Ep. 18 - Like a Train**NEW July
Ep. 16 - Sounded Like It Was Wonderful May 2012 (Progressive)
Ep. 15 - I am a Visitor, April 2012 (Deep)

My main beef is you can get better mixers for the same price or cheaper. And they are fugly.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak fx is for trance dj's.

It really isn't though is it - quite the opposite. Trance is about the hardest genre to use FX effectively with.

I could easily go on a rant about how shitly made the Xone 62 was, it was an absolute abortion of a mixer but people still bum it. The 92's better but there's not a lot in it between that and the Pioneer in terms of build quality - not to mention the 92's incredibly unergonomic layout (I've got fairly skinny fingers and I still find it hard not to knock the EQ knobs above/below the one I'm trying to crank).

And I don't think there's a lot of difference in sound quality between the 92 and the DJM800 - yeah if I had to pick one I'd probably rather be listening to a 92, but with the appauling sound rigs in most clubs if anything it's a waste trying to go any better.


I'm not advocating one or the other here, just trying to point out that for every flaw on a Pioneer mixer, there's a flaw on an A&H mixer

___________________
Stu Cox |

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox And I don't think there's a lot of difference in sound quality between the 92 and the DJM800 - yeah if I had to pick one I'd probably rather be listening to a 92, but with the appauling sound rigs in most clubs if anything it's a waste trying to go any better.

Amen. Though I'll guess this statement (and my agreement with it) will be met with replies of "Must suck for you guys. Out here, __________ has the best (funktion/dynachord/jackovasaur) sound system ever, you can totally hear everything perfectly at ear shattering levels!"

Which will of course be met with "Great. One club is not 'most clubs.'"

And the circle will be complete yet again.

And my $0.02 on the DJM800 - I don't mind playing on it at all at clubs, I wouldn't buy one because I think they're overpriced, and the curve on the filters sucks.

Other than that, no real qualms. There are dozens of mixers I'd rather play on, but I won't call it complete shit.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

I don't mind an 800 just that I almost never see one. And I'm addicted to the filters on the Xones. IMHO there isn't much between a 62 and a 92 so to say that one is total shit is ridiculous. Especially for just under $800.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

quote:

Originally posted by Zild IMHO there isn't much between a 62 and a 92 so to say that one is total shit is ridiculous. Especially for just under $800.

I suppose it depends how you mix, but for a quick mixing/technical DJ the 62 had awful fader knobs, no sharp cut on the crossfader, crossfade select buttons in a position which means you knock them whenever you try and move the fader quickly, no cue/pgm mix (although you could have a rough equivalent using the aux system) - all of which were resolved on the 92.


All that said, I don't actually mind playing on a 62 now that I've got used to working around all of the problems - at least I know where I stand with it (and I actually quite like queueing with the aux sends!)

The only problem is that particularly now that it's an older mixer, just about every time I face one in a club it's knackered in one way or another. But you'd be amazed at how often I used to turn up to play on a 62 only a couple of months old to find channels already knackered, knobs broken etc. It's no worse than any other mixer, I'm just pointing out that the A&H build quality isn't necessarily any better than Pioneer.

___________________
Stu Cox |

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox The only problem is that particularly now that it's an older mixer, just about every time I face one in a club it's knackered in one way or another. But you'd be amazed at how often I used to turn up to play on a 62 only a couple of months old to find channels already knackered, knobs broken etc. It's no worse than any other mixer, I'm just pointing out that the A&H build quality isn't necessarily any better than Pioneer.

I disagree with that. When have you ever heard of an A & H product having bleed in the faders? Every second Pioneer mixer seems to suffer from this problem.

I agree with you on the poor ergonomic layout though. I remember the first time I had to cue on an A & H it took me forever to work out and I remember thinking "why the hell did they do it like that?!".

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox I suppose it depends how you mix, but for a quick mixing/technical DJ the 62 had awful fader knobs, no sharp cut on the crossfader, crossfade select buttons in a position which means you knock them whenever you try and move the fader quickly, no cue/pgm mix (although you could have a rough equivalent using the aux system) - all of which were resolved on the 92. All that said, I don't actually mind playing on a 62 now that I've got used to working around all of the problems - at least I know where I stand with it (and I actually quite like queueing with the aux sends!) The only problem is that particularly now that it's an older mixer, just about every time I face one in a club it's knackered in one way or another. But you'd be amazed at how often I used to turn up to play on a 62 only a couple of months old to find channels already knackered, knobs broken etc. It's no worse than any other mixer, I'm just pointing out that the A&H build quality isn't necessarily any better than Pioneer.

I guess it is personal preference. My friend mixes quick and technical, but he loves 62s over 800s. I mix slower and more methodically and I still love 62s over 800s. I guess it has to do with the person like you said. I understand all your points fortunately none of them are issues for me. I actually prefer the fader knobs, and I have a scratch mixer if I want to scratch or mix like that.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

mainly don't like the sound...

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

I tried using my brothers pioneer 800 to put together a mix tonight.

It's a fuckin horrendous thing.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak fx is for trance dj's.

no, they are for those people playing entire sets of dj tools that they THINK are songs. constantly looping, stuttering, echoing, and flanging bleeps and bloops apparently makes them sound better.