|
ohmygod. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ_Ikronix |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ 00 Tommy
Doesnt that guy spend months creating a set before he goes on stage.
I guess 4 decks is kinda easy when you have evrything perfectly planned out. |
I'll just be blunt and say that you're wrong. |
|
|
| SpecRadio |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ikronix
I'll just be blunt and say that you're wrong. |
No, he's correct. DJ 2nd Nature and Roonie G do plan their mixes on ProTools. So they do it first, pop the dvds in, flip the vid fader...dance around. |
|
|
| Nemesis44 |
I still say that the coolest thing with that picture is the guy on the bottom left just under the dancer... He's the man if you ask me... :)
Cheers
Nem |
|
|
| DJ Libor |
| I agree with some people, it does look a bit over the top maybe a bit of an advert for Pioneer. Personally i wouldn't know where to start, but then again i wouldn't want to as id rather be in the MOS booth using vinyl ;) |
|
|
| Nemesis44 |
Hey Libor,
Noticed you are from Brighton. Do you play anywhere local?
Cheers
Nem |
|
|
| Psiweaver |
| Pioneer mixers are trash imo. Sound quality is awful on everything but the DJM1000 and that still won't have nearly as warm or rich a sound as the s6 or v6 that it would compete with. Nothing like having a 4 band eq, kickass filters and tube preamps. I would much rather have a great analog signal path then a digital one. EFX1000 is cool but i would have to say i would rather have some turntables in there rather than all dvj's. I don't understand why he needs 3 mixers either. |
|
|
| SpecRadio |
Hey but don't worry everybody. The Xone 92 will still have it's uses.
 |
|
|
| DJ 00 Tommy |
| Whoever took that pic better watch there back on TA haha and if it was you spec then i would get ready. |
|
|
| SpecRadio |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ 00 Tommy
Whoever took that pic better watch there back on TA haha and if it was you spec then i would get ready. |
No way In hell I would ever buy a DJM 1000 :stongue:
I don't know who could afford it? It's a DJM 600 with an extra channel and digital domain mixing which YOU DON'T NEED! Who has 24/96 audio? Big DJ's might, but the little home, bedroom DJ's that occasionally get gigs sure as hell don't have a 24/96 copy of their songs. Beatport only gives 44.1/16 because CD's can't hold 24/96.
Pioneer went over the top and made something useless. And it's far overpriced. You can buy a DJM 600 for $1000. |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by SpecRadio
Hey but don't worry everybody. The Xone 92 will still have it's uses.
|
People who spend too much money on mixers and not much on the soundsystem that will actually amplify the ing music are advetising victims.
Although there is some practical use I guess with the two efx...
My 62 doesn't even have a send return :( :(
Just one request to people who use effects:
Please get the ing timing right.
Seen Phil K or Zabiella (sponsored by pioneer)
They divide everything they do into half, 1/4 , 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 little pieces both when using the jog thing and the buttons.
Work around that.
They chop stuff up but they keep good timing with the beat, they don't randomly press buttons like most dj's that own one... |
|
|
| SpecRadio |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
People who spend too much money on mixers and not much on the soundsystem that will actually amplify the ing music are advetising victims.
Although there is some practical use I guess with the two efx...
My 62 doesn't even have a send return :( :(
|
No send/return on the 62....AHAHAHAHAHA...I would think that would be something xone would put on every mixer of theirs :wtf:
I don't relize why people buy the DJM 1000 just because it's Ginormous. And they previously have a Xone 92 :wtf: |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
Agreed most people won't have 24/96 quality audio, in fact very few sources will be able to provide it BUT you'll lose quality in any system, so a 16/44.1 source feeding a 24/96 mixer will lose less signal quality as it propagates through the system than 16/44.1 feeding 16/44.1, especially if you're using the analogue outs from the CD player.
Whoever said "Why do you need 24/96 for vinyl? Vinyl is analogue" obviously is still under the misconception that an analogue recording is by definition worse than a digital recording (taking this from your wording)... I'm not saying it's better, just that it has the potential to be infinitely better or indeed infinitely worse.
Personally I'd say PARTICULARLY with vinyl a higher sample rate/bit depth would help increase quality.
Tbh, my general belief about this is that maybe this mixer isn't "necessary" right now... but with digital storage space and processor speeds becoming less and less of an issue (as they become cheaper and cheaper and smaller and smaller) isn't it just going to be beneficial all round if higher quality standards are introduced with time, seeing that technology now allows it much more feasibly than ever before?
Kinda the natural progression to always continue trying to improve what you do... |
|
|
|
|
