|
CDJ-800MKII's or CDJ-1000's?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ultraphu |
Ok, I'm finally getting around to buying some cd decks... I love my MK5's and I love my vinyl, but I want to add to my setup. But, I just can't decide between waiting for the new CDJ-800MKII's, or buying some used CDJ-800's, or buying one of the CDJ-1000 varieties!! Now, I don't plan on doing anything special, just mixing the tracks as I do on my Technics...
For those who have used the older CDJ-800's and the CDJ-1000's, which did you prefer? I realize the new CDJ-800MKII's will have the same feeling as the CDJ-1000's... but I have spoken to those who prefer the feeling of the older 800's.
Thoughts?
:thepirate |
|
|
| punjabi |
| it really depends on what kind of pitch step you want/need. the 800's have .05 and the 1000's, 200's, and denon 3500's have .02. for the money i'd probably go with the denons, which hurts to say because i love pioneer. |
|
|
| Ultraphu |
| everybody I know uses the pioneers, so i want to get to know them, as i will most likely be playing on other people's pioneers at clubs / events... i messed around on the denons and they're pretty easy to use but i'd rather get the feel for something more widely used. |
|
|
| wizniz |
whatever you can get cheaper
i prefer the 1000's but am going to buy 800 mk1's because of $$ |
|
|
| Munchy |
| 800MK2 cause you won't have to dish out as much for 1000's and you can play MP3's still ;) |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Munchy
800MK2 cause you won't have to dish out as much for 1000's and you can play MP3's still ;) |
I don't know why everyone makes such a big deal about being able to play MP3s - even if I had CD decks with MP3 playing facilities, I'd never bother burning a CD with MP3s on because by the time every venue has CD decks which can play MP3s, technology will have improved to the point whereby you can fit 6hrs of 24/96 audio on the little data crystals which will have replaced CDs or something lol (i.e. no one will need to bother with compression anymore so we'll have said goodbye to MP3s)
Unless EVERY venue you could possibly play in has the facilities to play MP3s off CD, there's no point in going down that route as you might get to a gig and won't to play any of your music - unless you burn off an MP3 and a CD audio copy of everything which would be ridiculous!
Of course you could take your own CD decks along as I have to do for the few venues that still don't have CD decks, but if they've got some installed and you just want to use your own flashy ones, they may just tell you to off.
The only people I can think it could really be useful for is mobile DJs who take their own equipment everywhere anyway, but then you've still got to wait until you've got 50 or however many tracks to fill a CD with MP3s otherwise you're wasting space... so you may play a gig having left your most recent 40 tunes at home to avoid wasting CD space! |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
I agree... and all the players that have MP3 capabilities all seem to have bugs playing them, or they limit the functionality of the deck. It's really not necessessary.
And I REALLY can't believe that the CDJ-800MK2 didn't bump the pitch resolution up to .02 at 6%, considering it's on the CDJ-200. That really puts buyers in a quandry.
| quote: | Originally posted by Stu Cox
I don't know why everyone makes such a big deal about being able to play MP3s - even if I had CD decks with MP3 playing facilities, I'd never bother burning a CD with MP3s on because by the time every venue has CD decks which can play MP3s, technology will have improved to the point whereby you can fit 6hrs of 24/96 audio on the little data crystals which will have replaced CDs or something lol (i.e. no one will need to bother with compression anymore so we'll have said goodbye to MP3s)
Unless EVERY venue you could possibly play in has the facilities to play MP3s off CD, there's no point in going down that route as you might get to a gig and won't to play any of your music - unless you burn off an MP3 and a CD audio copy of everything which would be ridiculous!
Of course you could take your own CD decks along as I have to do for the few venues that still don't have CD decks, but if they've got some installed and you just want to use your own flashy ones, they may just tell you to off.
The only people I can think it could really be useful for is mobile DJs who take their own equipment everywhere anyway, but then you've still got to wait until you've got 50 or however many tracks to fill a CD with MP3s otherwise you're wasting space... so you may play a gig having left your most recent 40 tunes at home to avoid wasting CD space! |
|
|
|
| Basstard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
And I REALLY can't believe that the CDJ-800MK2 didn't bump the pitch resolution up to .02 at 6%, considering it's on the CDJ-200. That really puts buyers in a quandry. |
because that would put it into direct competition with the 1000 and they dont want that. |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Basstard
because that would put it into direct competition with the 1000 and they dont want that. |
Indeed.
And it would also cost a bit more, making it harder for them to keep it in the same price bracket as the original CDJ800. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
I disagree. It's but one feature, and for those who are primarily interested in mixing, it will actually make those buyers consider a lesser player. Maybe if they had actually added FEATURES to the 1000, they wouldn't have problems differentiating their products.
| quote: | Originally posted by Basstard
because that would put it into direct competition with the 1000 and they dont want that. |
|
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
I disagree. It's but one feature, and for those who are primarily interested in mixing, it will actually make those buyers consider a lesser player. Maybe if they had actually added FEATURES to the 1000, they wouldn't have problems differentiating their products. |
Well as my mate said last night, it isn't supposed to be a new model... it's just a slightly improved version. They didn't change much between the original 1000 and the mk2 |
|
|
| Basstard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
I disagree. It's but one feature, and for those who are primarily interested in mixing, it will actually make those buyers consider a lesser player. Maybe if they had actually added FEATURES to the 1000, they wouldn't have problems differentiating their products. |
if they put the 2% range on the 800 and kept it in the same price bracket then the 1000 would not sell AT ALL. by keeping the 2% exclusive to the 1000 (im not counting the 200s in this debate) then they ensure that they will still sell. the 800 mkII is the replacement for the mkI - simply meant to give it some minor design improvements |
|
|
|
|
