|
CDJ200 vs CDJ800 for Trance DJs without FXs
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Abhay |
Just out of curiosity, what are the ups and downs of choosing a CDj200 or a CDj800 when ur a trance DJ.
One thing I don't understand is why many would go for the CDj800, when the real upside of them versus the CDj200 is the scratch ability, which is useless for a general trance DJ, unless he actually scratches, whereas, the CDj200 have built in FX (albeit very limited).
any explanations? |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
cdj 800 platter > cdj 200 platter
for many having a bigger platter might make it easier to mix smoothly rather than .02 pitch
personally i like the 200 and the 1000 the best... 800 is kinda meh |
|
|
| Rippey64 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allied Nations
cdj 800 platter > cdj 200 platter
|
I sold my 200 and took a 800 for that.
It feel easier for me to correct beatmatch on 800 platter.
Fx on 200 are totaly useless compare to a real fx. |
|
|
| DJChrisB |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allied Nations
cdj 800 platter > cdj 200 platter
|
+infinity |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| Yeah it's pain in the ass to mix with cdj200 platters, but nothing too annoying. Just takes some getting used to |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
If you are good at beat matching, then the CDJ 200s are good. If you aren't and don't need to be super precise, then the CDJ 800s are good. It depends on what type of trance you play.
If you play say epic trance, not being as precise is important, so 10% pitch is fine. Prog trance/house is better i've found with 6% pitch (0.02 pitch resolution). The platter on the CDJ 800s I think is really designed for those who are scratching, as it's made to emulate a turntable's feel.
If you just want to mix and able to match tempos fairly well...then there's no need for a platter like on the CDJ 800s. I chose the CDJ 200s because 1. I like 0.02 pitch because I like to play downtempo and progressive house which to me require a little more precision 2. I don't scratch and 3. The CDJ 200s are about $300 less.
I actually went from a CDJ 1000 to CDJ 200s and I actually like mixing with the small platter vs. the bigger one. But I guess it's personal preference. I don't pitch bend that often. |
|
|
| AnomalyConcept |
Although I've never used the CDJ-200, I can say that the reason why I went with 800s is because of the vinyl emulation. I'm not really a fan of the 'stutter cue', and if I want to try scratching (dabbling into it here and there just for fun), I can (I don't have turntables =(
Also, the 800 is closer to the 1000 than the 200, although transitioning from either shouldn't be too difficult.
I ended up choosing the 800 due to flexibility and allowing more options on what I can do with the decks. |
|
|
| JD8180 |
| quote: | Originally posted by AnomalyConcept
Although I've never used the CDJ-200, I can say that the reason why I went with 800s is because of the vinyl emulation. I'm not really a fan of the 'stutter cue', and if I want to try scratching (dabbling into it here and there just for fun), I can (I don't have turntables =(
Also, the 800 is closer to the 1000 than the 200, although transitioning from either shouldn't be too difficult.
I ended up choosing the 800 due to flexibility and allowing more options on what I can do with the decks. |
i think it all comes down to what you are willing to spend. i have the 200's and imo the FX shouldn't be a factor to consider, i rarely ever touch them. on the other hand i wouldn't pay almost twice the money just for vinyl and the few other extra features... i feel like i wouldn't make enough use of it for the money. i think the 200's are a solid piece. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
The platter on the CDJ 800s I think is really designed for those who are scratching, as it's made to emulate a turntable's feel. |
I disagree! |
|
|
| AnomalyConcept |
Speaking about the platters, is it possible to do backspins and such on a CDJ-200? I thought that wasn't possible, unless you can somehow emulate the effect with the onboard effects and/or with the pitch bend + pitch control. =P
CDJ-200s are indeed a solid deck, and are more than enough for straight mixing. One thing they had going for them was the ability to play mp3s, at least before the 800mk2 and 1000mk3 were released. Oh, and the 200 also has cool blue lighting which the 800 doesn't have. =D
I think Pioneer really hit the mark for a solid beginner CD deck with the CDJ-200. Heck, it's not just for beginners, but are definitely the CD deck I most often see recommended for first-time buyers. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by AnomalyConcept
CDJ-200s are indeed a solid deck, and are more than enough for straight mixing. One thing they had going for them was the ability to play mp3s, at least before the 800mk2 and 1000mk3 were released. Oh, and the 200 also has cool blue lighting which the 800 doesn't have. =D |
mp3s are good in theory, but the lag on them due to the extra processing required (at least on the 200s) is such that playing with them becomes more trouble than it's worth.
Also, having 50 or 100 songs on a CD is great, but finding them can be an annoyance, though folders help with that immensely.
p.s not possible to do backspins on CDJ 200s, at least not to the best of my knowledge. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
And you also have to remember if you burn a bunch of MP3 CD's, they won't play on just any deck... bad, bad idea.
Unless you're a mobile jock who needs 1000's of songs at your disposal, and you'll be on your own gear all the time. But in that case, SW really wins out over HW.
| quote: | Originally posted by Beat Blog
mp3s are good in theory, but the lag on them due to the extra processing required (at least on the 200s) is such that playing with them becomes more trouble than it's worth.
Also, having 50 or 100 songs on a CD is great, but finding them can be an annoyance, though folders help with that immensely.
p.s not possible to do backspins on CDJ 200s, at least not to the best of my knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
