|
New Allen & Heath Xone:42 mixer (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omega_Blue |
| wait, upon checking a UK DJ sales site.. they have their xone:62s for £627. why not get the higher model for 30 bucks more? |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
see? i don't understand that. less EQ's, easier FX setup + USB. i dunno.
also i see it shares the same cueing system as the xone:62, which is teh suck. worst feature on the xone. |
|
|
| nrjizer |
| quote: | | The mixer sports a new and original feature - the 'X-FX' system - enabling an external effects processor to be easily interfaced. A single knob controls the proportion of the channel signal sent to the effects unit, from 0 to 100%, and the affected signal is returned to the main mix, or can be routed through the filter. |
You know, up until a week or two ago I would have applauded this. But after having done a few recent gigs on the DJM-500/600 series (which has the same type of function for send/recieve) I realize that the Xone 92's method of indivudal Aux 1/2 controls per channel is superior.
The problem I ran into is this: say I have one deck playing a track, and from the other deck I run the signal into my EFX-1000 and make a Feedback Loop, which I leave running over the track. With the fader now up (so that the loop is audable), I can no longer cue on this channel at all.
Now, I would have assumed that if I were to get my Loop from a deck on channel 1, I could just open the fader on empty channel 2, then switch the send/receive from channel 1 to channel 2, effectively moving the return channel--and thus the Loop--from 1 to 2, allowing me to then cue on channel 1's deck. But in practice this did not work. If I had a loop running on one channel, any attempt to switch channels silenced the loop for some inexplicable reason. If I switched back to the channel from which it came, the loop would come back (but I still couldn't cue).
So for me, unless I can alternate which channels recieve a loop from my EFX-1000, then this send/recieve feature won't work. Actually, I just realzed that there's no good ing reason why that shouldn't work just fine, and that the DJM-500/600 series are just retarded. |
|
|
| Progress Ent. |
| Good thing I still have the receipt for the 800 I just bought last week...... |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| their answer to the djm-700, I guess. |
|
|
| diego992 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Progress Ent.
Good thing I still have the receipt for the 800 I just bought last week...... |
Good luck getting a full refund |
|
|
| Neo Hacker |
| Very sexy mixer, but I'll stick with my 92:) |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| This looks great! I love this time of year when all the new gear comes out. |
|
|
| Progress Ent. |
| quote: | Originally posted by diego992
Good luck getting a full refund |
It was bought 7 days ago.....full refund!
Probably not really going to do that though... |
|
|
| Neo Hacker |
Seriously, if I didn't get the 92 3 months ago, I might have got this one. It's a nice mix between the 92 and 62. The X:FX function is nice, but I'm already used to the AUX/SEND on my 92 with the EFX1000.
Good work A&H ! I'm really looking forward the next Xone:92...possibly a Xone:92 with X:FX AND AUX/SEND. |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| too bad it doesn't have the MIDI on/off switch like the 700. |
|
|
|
|
