CDJ-1000mk1's aren't sold anymore

I managed to find some for 700.

EDIT: There are plenty of places to get them if you just search froogle.

Last edited by sp1nm0nkey on Jul-02-2005 at 07:49

Get CDJ 200's.

Top of the pioneer line, I'd say it beats the CDJ 800 dance music wise.

You can get one on ebay for $330, or a pair for fairly cheap.

having spent 2 weeks going at it side by side with CDJ800 and a CDJ200 i can say the following:

evcen tho the 200 has the best pitch accuracy you can get in any CD player at the moment, the one thing i did not like about it was the jogwheel. the thing is slightly wobbly, and offers very little, if any resistance to push. so while it vcan be donde, and can be done quite well, correcting on them is a bit of a bitch, specially if you're used to its larger counterparts.

what i mean is, you're used to vinyl, or even a CDJ800. you hear it drift, so you give it a little pull/push. like a half inch. that gives you X amount of correction. since the 200 has a joghweel that is that much smaller, a half inch will give you a LOT more correction, hence, you must adapt to it. you have to be a lot more gentle as well.

don't get me wrong, great unit, and i'll be buying one soon. but if i could, i'd deffo go for a 1000/1000Mk2.

the Mk2 deal? i dunno if its worth the extra money, but i must say i love both of them, and prefer the Mk2's platter to the Mk1. the Mk1 is quite heavy, the 800 is too loose. the Mk2 has a nice point in between the two.

___________________
check out my guest mix for OndaSonora Podcast (aug.2009)

quote:

Originally posted by Inertia having spent 2 weeks going at it side by side with CDJ800 and a CDJ200 i can say the following: evcen tho the 200 has the best pitch accuracy you can get in any CD player at the moment, the one thing i did not like about it was the jogwheel. the thing is slightly wobbly, and offers very little, if any resistance to push. so while it vcan be donde, and can be done quite well, correcting on them is a bit of a bitch, specially if you're used to its larger counterparts. what i mean is, you're used to vinyl, or even a CDJ800. you hear it drift, so you give it a little pull/push. like a half inch. that gives you X amount of correction. since the 200 has a joghweel that is that much smaller, a half inch will give you a LOT more correction, hence, you must adapt to it. you have to be a lot more gentle as well. don't get me wrong, great unit, and i'll be buying one soon. but if i could, i'd deffo go for a 1000/1000Mk2. the Mk2 deal? i dunno if its worth the extra money, but i must say i love both of them, and prefer the Mk2's platter to the Mk1. the Mk1 is quite heavy, the 800 is too loose. the Mk2 has a nice point in between the two.

Pitch bend is also on the 200's

are the mkI still produced? i know people will laugh at me for saying this but i've never seen an mkI, i thought they've been discontinued.

if you can afford them, get the mkII, they're beautiful.

if you can still find the first generation cdj1000's, get them. There's almost no difference between those and the mk2.....to be honest, I have owned both and couldn't tell you what the difference is without looking it up.

quote:

Originally posted by zizack if you can still find the first generation cdj1000's, get them. There's almost no difference between those and the mk2.....to be honest, I have owned both and couldn't tell you what the difference is without looking it up.

Can anyone else agree with this statement? or is the mk1 annoying to use in any way..

I've played on the MK1 (out, at a club even)... it's pretty much the same as the MK2/MK3:

1. Platter is tighter, doesn't have the silver "ring" around it.
2. The display looks a little different on the center of the jog, not much, but it's slightly different.
3. It's supposedly a little slower at loading discs and such.
4. The pitch range doesn't go to +/- 100% as it does on the MK2/MK3.
5. The digital output can't be used for connecting to a mixer, because it doesn't output pitch changes and such. It can only be used for straight up playback. This was of course fixed with the MK2/MK3, and you might consider that if you are planning on using a digital connection to a digital mixer (ala DJM-800).

Other than that, I really didn't notice a differnce worth caring about.

Pioneer really hasn't done much to the 1000's except increase the price

quote:

Originally posted by starboy Can anyone else agree with this statement? or is the mk1 annoying to use in any way..

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 5. The digital output can't be used for connecting to a mixer, because it doesn't output pitch changes and such. It can only be used for straight up playback. This was of course fixed with the MK2/MK3, and you might consider that if you are planning on using a digital connection to a digital mixer (ala DJM-800).

Dammit!

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 I've played on the MK1 (out, at a club even)... it's pretty much the same as the MK2/MK3: 1. Platter is tighter, doesn't have the silver "ring" around it. 2. The display looks a little different on the center of the jog, not much, but it's slightly different. 3. It's supposedly a little slower at loading discs and such. 4. The pitch range doesn't go to +/- 100% as it does on the MK2/MK3. 5. The digital output can't be used for connecting to a mixer, because it doesn't output pitch changes and such. It can only be used for straight up playback. This was of course fixed with the MK2/MK3, and you might consider that if you are planning on using a digital connection to a digital mixer (ala DJM-800). Other than that, I really didn't notice a differnce worth caring about. Pioneer really hasn't done much to the 1000's except increase the price

Thanks!