|
XONE:92 vs XONE:S2?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cmay119 |
Alright guys, I've searched and found some information on the S2 (not much however), but didn't find any info on how it compares to the 92.
I'm pretty confident an A&H mixer will be my next choice, but I'd like to know the positives and negatives to each one, and if anyone has first hand experience with both to see how they really stack up.
Thanks for the help all. :) |
|
|
| skip |
let's see.
the 92 is either linear or rotary. on the s2 you can purchase a rotary kit, so you'll have both options.
the s2 is rack mountable, the 92 doesn't have to be mounted.
the 92 has 2 independent filters, the s2 has only one.
92 has 4 band eq, s2 has 3 band.
92 has really good cueing options, the s2 has standard ones.
the s2 apparently has some sort of an efx loop which works only on the master. the 92 has aux sends which basically do the same thing as a normal efx loop and more. the aux sends are a bit trickier to use than a normal efx loop though. but they offer way more than an efx loop (IMO at least)
s2 = black = sexy. 92 = silver = not so sexy. this is a personal preference naturally. ;)
s2 has a usb connector for plugging the mixer into your computer for recording and playing stuff from your computer and for other stuff too, which i didn't understand fully.
s2 has an extra input on the front panel for plugging in stuff fast (quest djs bringing something they want to plug in).
s2 has fader start control (useless IMO).
s2 has some weird alarm input connection (useless if you're not installing it in a club i think).
92 has limited midi controls.
92 has an lfo on both filters.
personally, i got the 92 rotary. i didn't even look at the s2 as it didn't interest me one bit (didn't offer what i wanted). but i am sure they both have the same sound quality and are both fine mixers, but for me the 92 is a definite winner without a doubt. ;)
dunno if any of this helped as pretty much everything i listed can be read from the manuals anyway. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
| Also remember rack mount mixers, well, have to be rack mounteded. Usually all the connections are on the bottom so you can't sit it on a desk. |
|
|
| cmay119 |
Actually both posts were extremely helpful. All the connections are on the bottom of the mixer? Well that pretty much takes it out of the running as I don't have a rackmount to place it in... I was under the assumption that it was like my buddies DJM-3000. Where the connections were still on the back.
Thanks for the help guys. it's much appreciated. |
|
|
| cmay119 |
Yeah, I knew they were on the back on the 92, but I also thought they were on the back on the S2. I see from pictures on google now that they are on the bottom so it can't sit on a tabletop. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
Some of them are like that, but not many. If you have it in a fully loaded rack, you wouldn't be able to connect the cables because it would butt up against the next device.
This picture of the S2 clearly shows the connections are on the bottom:
| quote: | Originally posted by cmay119
Yeah, I knew they were on the back on the 92, but I also thought they were on the back on the S2. I see from pictures on google now that they are on the bottom so it can't sit on a tabletop. |
|
|
|
| cmay119 |
Damnit, that S2 still looks so damn sexy. But the 92 is the better mixer for me. Rackmount though is just outta the question, unless I wanted to replace my entire stand that I have right now (which I don't).
92 it is. Thanks again guys, I appreciate it. :) |
|
|
|
|
