|
Pioneer or Denon? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Floorwhore |
if you are just starting off - get the cdj-200's
if you have experience - get the cdj-1000's
*edit - just checked your response, DEFINATELY get the 200's. |
|
|
| Slixter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorwhore
if you are just starting off - get the cdj-200's
if you have experience - get the cdj-1000's
*edit - just checked your response, DEFINATELY get the 200's. |
Are they easier to use than the 800's? (Especially for a beginner!) |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
No, not easier to use.
The jog wheel of the 800 is just like that of the 1000. It makes cueing and pitch bending very nice, and if you ever intend to scratch it's obviously there for a reason.
The 200 has .02% pitch accuracy, the 800 .05%. .02% is definately nice (better than .05%), but I don't know if I'd trade the nice jog wheel of the 800 for the less user friendly 200 just for the increase in pitch resolution.
I say if you can afford 800's, then get them. If someone blames their poor mixing ability on not having .02%, they can't mix very well to begin with.
Then there are the effects in the 200 to think about... for me effects aren't very useful in any case.
| quote: | Originally posted by Slixter
Are they easier to use than the 800's? (Especially for a beginner!) |
|
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
No, not easier to use.
The jog wheel of the 800 is just like that of the 1000. It makes cueing and pitch bending very nice, and if you ever intend to scratch it's obviously there for a reason.
The 200 has .02% pitch accuracy, the 800 .05%. .02% is definately nice (better than .05%), but I don't know if I'd trade the nice jog wheel of the 800 for the less user friendly 200 just for the increase in pitch resolution.
I say if you can afford 800's, then get them. If someone blames their poor mixing ability on not having .02%, they can't mix very well to begin with.
Then there are the effects in the 200 to think about... for me effects aren't very useful in any case. |
+1 on all what he said |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
+1 on all what he said |
Yeah great post there. |
|
|
| Allen Mueller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
No, not easier to use.
The jog wheel of the 800 is just like that of the 1000. It makes cueing and pitch bending very nice, and if you ever intend to scratch it's obviously there for a reason.
The 200 has .02% pitch accuracy, the 800 .05%. .02% is definately nice (better than .05%), but I don't know if I'd trade the nice jog wheel of the 800 for the less user friendly 200 just for the increase in pitch resolution.
I say if you can afford 800's, then get them. If someone blames their poor mixing ability on not having .02%, they can't mix very well to begin with.
Then there are the effects in the 200 to think about... for me effects aren't very useful in any case. |
I'd pick the nice jog wheel over the pitch resolution. .02 vs .05 is like splitting hairs. I use my 800mk2's with serato and only get .1 resolution when serato is reading the coaded cd's and to get a pitch change of .1 the movement in the pitch is so small. And on top of that I have no problem holding a mix for ever at that resolution.
The jog wheel is one of the reasons I picked the 800mk2 over the denon.
Allen |
|
|
| Liam |
| well i have a 200 and think that for the price they are def worth it. the accurate pitch resolution isn't necessary, but is a nice benefit. mp3 playback i don't make use of. i guess you can't go wrong either way really. for me it was either a 200 or a 1000... didn't want an 800, but that's just me. |
|
|
| razzi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
No, not easier to use.
The jog wheel of the 800 is just like that of the 1000. It makes cueing and pitch bending very nice, and if you ever intend to scratch it's obviously there for a reason.
The 200 has .02% pitch accuracy, the 800 .05%. .02% is definately nice (better than .05%), but I don't know if I'd trade the nice jog wheel of the 800 for the less user friendly 200 just for the increase in pitch resolution.
I say if you can afford 800's, then get them. If someone blames their poor mixing ability on not having .02%, they can't mix very well to begin with.
Then there are the effects in the 200 to think about... for me effects aren't very useful in any case. |
+1
and people say TAs arent helpful.
id take the 800 over the 200 any day, it has a better (more familiar and more intuitive at least) feel to it. if you can spring the extra $1000 go for the 1000s, but in all honesty i think thats overkill for home use.
razzi. |
|
|
| spolitta |
| If you cant mix with .05% dont blame the cdj. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Liam
well i have a 200 and think that for the price they are def worth it. the accurate pitch resolution isn't necessary, but is a nice benefit. mp3 playback i don't make use of. i guess you can't go wrong either way really. for me it was either a 200 or a 1000... didn't want an 800, but that's just me. |
ya i think they are both a win win situation....
but as u said i dont use mp3 on my 800mk2.... but im glad i picked a 1000 and a 800 because they act differently.. so im getting used to both :) |
|
|
| punjabi |
| I say Pioneer as well, but whoever it was that said the 3500 feels cheap has got to be out of their mind. I doubt anyone here would agree with you. |
|
|
| Mikacouli |
| I have 2 pioneer CDJ 1000 mk3's. Can't do anything without them. The only thing you have to wory about is the price but when you get them you allready forgot. :happy2: |
|
|
|
|
