|
New CDJ-400 (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Rick D |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ryan0751
The 400 also lacks the wave display. That's such a nice feature of the 1000's. |
So so helpful, its like reading a vinyl, something i was worried about when switching over. Shame only the 1000's have them |
|
|
| spolitta |
| If this is an upgrade to the 200s I must say it's amazing. |
|
|
| SuPeRSaW2005 |
| Have a couple CDJ-800 MK2s right now, which also play MP3s, but I noticed that when I use MP3 CDs, each track takes a little time to load in the beginning and the pitch accuracy on mp3s is only .1 ...does anyone know how well this new CDJ-400 handles mp3s playback (pitch accuracy for mp3s and load time)? |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| The reading of the cd is slower with data cds yeah, but I've never heard of that pitch issue before. It's never happened to me. |
|
|
| SuPeRSaW2005 |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitranceman
but I've never heard of that pitch issue before. It's never happened to me. |
really? i mean I know normally the 800s have .05 accuracy, but with mp3 cds, i cant get it better than .1...hopefully ive been doing something wrong? because if i can get mp3s to be .05% accurate, w00000t |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuPeRSaW2005
really? i mean I know normally the 800s have .05 accuracy, but with mp3 cds, i cant get it better than .1...hopefully ive been doing something wrong? because if i can get mp3s to be .05% accurate, w00000t |
I just realized, I burn a "DATA" cd in itunes, not an "mp3" cd so maybe that makes a difference? |
|
|
| Gen3r4l1ty |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitranceman
I just realized, I burn a "DATA" cd in itunes, not an "mp3" cd so maybe that makes a difference? |
Same thing I believe. Essentially, you're burning the mp3 file as data rather than converting it to cd audio and burning it. I dont use iTunes though, so I don't know first hand. |
|
|
| richg101 |
| quote: | Originally posted by leph555
it definitely does look like , i don't see myself upgrading to these from my cdj 200's... |
yes.
it looks cheap and toy like. a bit like the e numark like to make |
|
|
| punjabi |
| how can anyone say that's hideous? it's ing beautiful. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by punjabi
how can anyone have an opinion that i don't share?? it's ing preposterous. |
fixed? |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
that video is sick. these decks look amazing. i love how you can control the effects with the jog wheel (much like what he was doing with the "zip" effect). also built-in transform function is badass and the seamless loop with the -/+ buttons for loop deterioration or whatever.. very cool.
again the only thing i'm worried about is how hard you need to press down on the platter to activate the scratch effect, that's what i hated the most about the denon dn-s1000's. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
again the only thing i'm worried about is how hard you need to press down on the platter to activate the scratch effect, that's what i hated the most about the denon dn-s1000's. |
Yeah, but I guess it's better than no scratch at all. And I can understand why they wouldn't want to make the scratch effect exactly as it is on the 800 and 1000 since they want to sell those units. If they made the scratch effect the same that would mean the only major difference between the 400 and the 1000 is the waveform display, and there would suddenly be no reason at all to purchase the 800. Doesn't mean we can't complain about it though. |
|
|
|
|
