|
CDJ vs. CDX (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zizack |
| quote: | Originally posted by FunKenLouis
did you hear me say the pitch was 1% ?? :eyes:
second... who in there REALLY tried the decks to say that |
you implied that I said they had a 1% pitch step, which i didn't. I have tried the cdx, and to be honest, it feels like a toy. I personally think the idea of making an entire fake turntable to play cds is a little corny, but thats just me. And the fact that Numark spent all this time trying to come up with a new deck and completely overlooked giving it a decent pitch step is beyond me. There's a reason why Pioneer cdj decks are club standard, and why international DJs specifically request they be used in their contracts. |
|
|
| FunKenLouis |
| quote: | Originally posted by zizack
There's a reason why Pioneer cdj decks are club standard, and why international DJs specifically request they be used in their contracts. |
yes.. the reason is.... because they didnt try the cdxs yet
:D |
|
|
| dinoXpress |
| quote: | Originally posted by FunKenLouis
yes.. the reason is.... because they didnt try the cdxs yet
:D |
no, cuz they want a .02 step.
i had a bit of a go on the CDX's, its fun to play with, but for serious mixing, gimme the 1000MK2s..
numark makes fun stuff. but thats about it. |
|
|
| 3xx3r7 |
| CDJ, end of argument. |
|
|
| Vero |
| cdx suck, they break all the time. id go with the dns5000s |
|
|
| Axolotyl |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vero
cdx suck, they break all the time. id go with the dns5000s |
+1
Go against the grain, go with dennon s5000s!! :) the CDJ looks sexy but is en boooring... ;) |
|
|
| Luke Cartwright |
I have to come in and defend the CDX here, it makes me laugh how everyone says the CDX breaks. I've had one for about a year now and not had a problem with it and have not seen a single thread in this forum with anyone saying that they have?
The thing is built like a brick imo, If I dropped it on someones head I think it would fcuk them up more than it would the CDX.
Comparing the decks from a trance dj's point of view I would say that the CDX is aimed more at TT users simply because you use it as you would a TT. The CDJ and DENON are mostly reliant on using the pitch bend to cue up your track and keep it in the mix, with the CDX you touch the record or platter as you would a TT. I know which I prefer to use.:conf:
Pitch increasements are being mentioned alot here but when you cue up a track with your TT's/CDD's who is to say that you are not 0.1 out on your pitch slider anyway and that you are going to have to adjust it mid mix?
I can mix perfectly with the CDX, sometimes it drifts a little but how do I know that isnt me not getting it perfectly in sync as appossed to it having bigger pitch increasements?
After using all the mentioned CDD's I wouldn't say one is better as they all cater for different needs.
For exapmle the DENON's alpha track function although a little hard to use beats all the other CDD's hands down, if you can use it properly then you have got two CDD's for the price of one, no contest.
The CDX beats all the others for built in effects easily.
The PIO CDJ IMO beats them all in sound quality (only by a little)but if you are using digital out there is no difference between any of them as CD is a digital format and it comes down to the quality of the source.
The CDX beats them all in general use e.g platter and mixing techniques (forget all the gimmicks here) it is an exact replica of a TT and if you love spinning vinyl then you are gonna love using it.
At the end of the day it is really down to going out trying all 3 and then choosing which is better for you, not reading what has been said on a forum by people who own 1 of the 3 and then seem to swear by it when not having used the others or have tried one or two of the CDD's for about 5 mins. |
|
|
| FunKenLouis |
thanks you
the rest STFU
:D |
|
|
| beats and beeps |
I'd get the dns5000.
Second would be cdj1000MkII
CDX is out of the question. |
|
|
| Zild |
| Maybe if you suck and have to touch the vinyl or the platter to keep your mixes on then you'd like it better. I however only slightly suck because I know how to keep my mitts off the vinyl and the platter while mixing, making the CDX one big useless gimmick. |
|
|
| dinoXpress |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Maybe if you suck and have to touch the vinyl or the platter to keep your mixes on then you'd like it better. I however only slightly suck because I know how to keep my mitts off the vinyl and the platter while mixing, making the CDX one big useless gimmick. |
ouch. |
|
|
| Luke Cartwright |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Maybe if you suck and have to touch the vinyl or the platter to keep your mixes on then you'd like it better. I however only slightly suck because I know how to keep my mitts off the vinyl and the platter while mixing, making the CDX one big useless gimmick. |
:conf:
Your talking about when your mixing vinyl now right?
So when you are cueing up your track, matching it up preparing for the mix you do not touch the record or the platter??? I don't think so somehow, unless you have super TT's that can auto beatmatch once you've put the record on the platter :stongue: or you have TT's that have pitch bend allowing you too rely on that.
Mid mix you can ride the pitch on a TT (this can also be done on the CDX), granted but alot of people have different techniques I for one touch the record or the platter to keep my mixes in sync.
If you talking about mixing on CDD's then you are correct in one way because when using the DNS or the CDJ you rarely have to touch the the platter to cue up or correct yourself because IMO the platter really is not designed for that they are more reliant on the dj using the pitch bend and cue buttons to mix, like most the users of these brands of CDD's do.
The CDX as I said before is an exact replica of a TT which is also the main reason I bought it, the most important thing to me was that I could mix CD's the way I do my records. |
|
|
|
|
