|
The New Pioneer DJM-1000 (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| beats and beeps |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheAddict
As far as what it offers, how about the best sound possible?
[IMG]http://www.lilypix.com/photos/data/d1fe173d08e959397adf34b1d77e88d7/947_p42058.jpg[IMG] |
Best sound possible?
So this mixer is the end all huh? Never ever will anything produce better sound quality. 3000 years in the future, they will be using the same technology, and it will have the same sound quality?
Thats a real shame, thanks for the heads up though. Its good to know that this is where sound technology advancements end. |
|
|
| TheAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by beats and beeps
Best sound possible?
So this mixer is the end all huh? Never ever will anything produce better sound quality. 3000 years in the future, they will be using the same technology, and it will have the same sound quality?
Thats a real shame, thanks for the heads up though. Its good to know that this is where sound technology advancements end. |
up to now. what is hard to understand about that? |
|
|
| zizack |
| I don't know how peopel are makign rash statements about how good or bad this mixer will be when no one on here has tried it yet. Personally, I think the layout is very cool and it looks cool. I can't wait to try it. |
|
|
| beats and beeps |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheAddict
up to now. what is hard to understand about that? |
Best sound quality possible is not a very good way to express
"Arguably best sounding dj mixer to date." Which is what you seem to be trying to say.
I can assure you that you will find various people who will not allow you to compare digital to analogue.
I can also assure you that there are various audio devices for professional use that produce better sound quality than this. But we best keep this about dj mixers.
zizack, for the record, they had one for demo at the pioneer booth at WMC. I was not there, but alot of people were so a fair number of regular people have tried it out a bit...aparantly it does sound very clean, and better than the xone 92, but it has a much different sound. As it does not have that crispness that you find with the xones along the more extreme high and low ends. |
|
|
| Soundwerks |
I'd LOOOOOOOOOVE to have a head to head comparison of the ECLER SCLAT 200vs against the DJM-1000
Same layout, similar features....ones a super hi-end digital mixer, the other, a super hi-end analog mixer.
LET THE BATTLE BEGIN!
VS
 |
|
|
| TheAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by beats and beeps
Best sound quality possible is not a very good way to express
"Arguably best sounding dj mixer to date." Which is what you seem to be trying to say.
I can assure you that you will find various people who will not allow you to compare digital to analogue.
I can also assure you that there are various audio devices for professional use that produce better sound quality than this. But we best keep this about dj mixers.
zizack, for the record, they had one for demo at the pioneer booth at WMC. I was not there, but alot of people were so a fair number of regular people have tried it out a bit...aparantly it does sound very clean, and better than the xone 92, but it has a much different sound. As it does not have that crispness that you find with the xones along the more extreme high and low ends. |
I haven't listened to this mixer obviously. However I did listen to dvd audio which has the same specs of 24bit/96khz and the sound was very impressive, clean and powerfull.
All the music is produced at 24/96 today and this mixer can reproduce that studio sound. I've read somewhere it has 200 times the clarity of cd sound.
Taken from pioneer boards:
The DJM-1000 actually has an unprecedented SNR rating of 105 dB. No other club mixer has this kind of SNR.
The combination of a high SNR as well as the world's first sampling rate of 96kHz/24bit positions the 1000 to be the best sounding club mixer in the world.
WHY is this mixer expected to be the best sounding mixer on the market? Here are some simple answers to that question.
#1 Recording Studio Quality
1. Currently Recording Studios have the highest sound quality mixers in the world.
2. Almost all sound engineers use Digital Recording for laying and mastering their tracks.
3. The Standard of Digital Recording is 96kHz/24bit.
4. Pioneer wants to bring that studio quality sound to clubs !!
#2 The Capability/Potential of 96kHz/24bit digital system
1. Currently, DJs use vinyl and CD (CD is 44.1kHz/16bit.)
2. DVD or next the future digital media is capable of 96kHz/24bit.
3. DJM-1000 can take advantage of this sound quality because of it's DIGITAL IN using 96/24.
#3 The Sound Quality surpasses any Analog Mixer
1. The best quality A/D & D/A converter. (S/N is over 120dB.)
2. Inside the DJM-1000 digital processing is done by 32bit DSP. The DJM-1000 has a dynamic range surpassing analog mixers.
3. DJM-1000 also has the highest quality parts and components in the analog circuitry i.e. power supply; Input/Outputs & more.
4. High performance digital and Analog circuits are fused together to surpass any Analog mixer.
and last but not least, it's being tested by the most accomplished dj's .
Tiesto
BT
Erick Morillo
Carl Cox
Paul Oakenfold
Steve Lawrence
Pete Tong
Timo Maas
James Zabiela
 |
|
|
| webbie |
Yes, yes. Everything can look great on paper, even my Behringer DJX-700 looks great in the specs.
Lets give it some time to actually see how its performing, how good it holds up and how that build quality is. |
|
|
| beats and beeps |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheAddict
Carl Cox
|
Thats not a djm 1000 its...
Anyways I'm not concerned who is using what. Djs have been hammering the djm600 for ages, and how is its sound quality? They will play whatever is put in front of them. And pioneer is very talented in getting its gear in front of pros.
I'm impressed with your ability to copy the specs from other websites, and back it all up with pictures of djs getting paid thousands of dollars to play at an event that has clearly be sponsored by Pioneer (check the wmc flyer) though. I hope you know that on paper, stanton mixers have better sound quality than A&H.
Regardless of how good this mixer sounds, it is digital, and as a result it will sound different from analogue. The people i've talked with that have tried it all say it sounds amazingly clear, but at the same time very different from common analogues, such as A&H. Of course not all 'logs sound the same either. A rane will have a much different sound character than an A&H for example. |
|
|
| Briden |
| quote: | Originally posted by beats and beeps
Thats not a djm 1000 its...
|
bwhahah, 0wned. I was going to post the same thing. that vestax looks sweet, but, it's just as overpriced as the pioneer. |
|
|
| J:\Digital |
| quote: | Originally posted by Soundwerks
I'd LOOOOOOOOOVE to have a head to head comparison of the ECLER SCLAT 200vs against the DJM-1000
Same layout, similar features....ones a super hi-end digital mixer, the other, a super hi-end analog mixer. |
Give me the Ecler ANY day over the Pio.... |
|
|
| TheAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
This is moot if SACD becomes the next standard (and hopefully it will be, its far superior to DVD-A), it would actually be a decrease in sampling and bit rate as the sample rate on SACD is something like 1.6mhz and the bitrate is totally off the wall (its technically 1bit audio, the DSP and the way its encoded though is much different than PCM audio [aka what CD, WAV, all that stuff is]). SACD is more closer to analog than DVD-A, with advertised (and to some extent proven) 99.8% accuracy to an analog source. |
That's interesting and I believe SACD to be superior than dvd if only by the specs event though I haven't heard it myself. I did listen to dvd. But neither format is very popular right now. What's interesting is that SACD is marketed by Sony and Philips but both of them and Pioneer included are touting blu-ray disk as the next disk medium for everything from computer storage to audio/video. It's specs are something like 50GB/36mb bit rate. It will be interesting to see if it becomes the all around medium the other formats tried to be
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
Now this might seem all fine and dandy and you might not care, but what good does a digital mixer do if it has to technically downsample the sound? This dosnt happen on an analog mixer, and if SACD becomes standard, in the next 10 years you might only have vinyl records and SACD, and then anything less than something that can do on the fly SACD encoding (unlikely) or analog will be a downstep in soundquality.
Of course all this is hypothetical, but its good to think about. |
Technically, it won't be a downsample in many ways. The finest analog recording goes up to 50khz sampling and newer digital recording can match and surpass that.Analog has had 50 years to perfect itself and digital recordings are very recent and far from mature. The difference in bit rate between 16bits and 24bits is huge and don't forget the multi channel audio which analog can't produce. |
|
|
| djcl.ear |
I wasnt paying attention to the fairly known DJM-1000, so I didn't notice the arguments here... that are quite interesting.
| quote: | | I can assure you that you will find various people who will not allow you to compare digital to analogue ///Beat & bleeps |
Yeah, that's true and those opinions are based on their preference and taste which is perfectly legit, they are not really talking about sound accuracy, which is a different matter altogether.
Plus | quote: | | Djs have been hammering the djm600 for ages, and how is its sound quality? ///Beat &Bleeps |
Correct again, DJM-600 is very noisy indeed(see specs everywhere) as DJM-707 and 909 also are...It was time that pieces of gear like DJ mixers -which basic function supposedly is to put sounds together- not to add any coloration, warmthness or such to the sound. If you want that extra ommp to your sound you may add a tube preamplifier, simulating effect or such... but leave the sound as truthful to the original it is possible, please, at least in that stage; there's a lot of extra gear to interfere with as desired.
More | quote: | | Regardless of how good this mixer sounds, it is digital, and as a result it will sound different from analogue. The people i've talked with that have tried it all say it sounds amazingly clear, but at the same time very different from common analogues, such as A&H. ///Beat & bleeps |
Actually however transparent, ANY stage in the sound-chain will add its signature, very specially if it is analogue or has analogue filters, convertors, Opamps, knobs, cables, connectors and such. Getting the signal in the digital format avoids precisely that if it is correctly done.
The usual analogue stages colour and many times COVER imperfections already present in the original recordings, done at the mastering or else intervention. And of course, as a result, we've learnt to love certain tints, shades and particular warm noisy textures or soundscapes. The lack of which is fastly deemed as cold or "digital" when in fact, many times it is just revealing the bad source.
And I'll say it again; if you like that warmth you'll be better with just one tube stage(iexample) as opposed to several analogue coloring stages...but at the end this issue is just matter of prefference but then we step out of the sound accuracy topic, which is what many of us intend to talk about when "the best sound" title comes in.
At a very near future When the amplification rigs will be optimized(to today's level) and the DJ gear will be up to 24/96 or more and the recording studios, musicians and engineers will also catch up.
...Then most clubs and parties will have a much less noisy and distorting audio experience; much more detail will be heard, much more 3D cues and phase coherence will allow pin point precission of spatial sounds, then the music will be a much more architectural experience.
It will affect not only dancers and DJs but musicians...
I already look for that kind of experience in today's music and gear, it will just be much easier then.
About the SACD v/s DVD-A discussion?
Nou, both are over the top formats and where SACD seems to be better at midds, DVD-A is still better at the whole freq range. That is my take from long reviewing specialized forums.
What do you want? Thousands of pics a sec. of only one bit depth or 96.000 pics a sec. of 24 bits of quality ? Whatever happens to be. both are way far superior to any actual user format.
Plus nowadays players are able to play both...
I recall a blind listening test done to 500 studio related techs that where presented to pieces of the same music recorded in different formats. At over 96.000 HZ of sampling, they preferred this choice even to 2" thick analogue tape(which is extra-quality master tape), let alone all the rest lower analogue formats in which vinyl is low, low down the rank.
Remember that vinyl can hardly reproduce over 17Khz of treble, and it needs a RIAA equlaization to help it with it. Plus the noise of the phono preamps, -like the ones every mixer has- are as much as 76 dB noise free(S/N). So the background noise starts to come out at that level and when you get to 120 dB of volume -as parties usually go- then there is 46 dB of amplified noise mixed with your music, when digital DJM-1000 will just have (120-105)= 15dB of it. (dB being an exponential scale, that is many times over of noise difference)
Of course, cheap Numark digital mixers like PD01 also have this good S/N ratio... but still cannot reproduce the 96/24 info and the DAC filters(which are very important) are nothing special.
Thus, so far DJM-1000 -if it would be available now- it'd be the best sounding DJ mixer.
I just wish other firms catch up fast S/N and sound accuracy wise, particulary Tascam, that with X-9 did -to my taste- many things better than Pioneer already or Allen & Heat that has recently released a Studio line of Digital mixers, so their excellent craft would pbbly get there sometime.
Peace |
|
|
|
|
