|
What's everyone's beef with the DJM800 (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Max Thomson |
| it goes ecler -> A&H -> pioneer for me. I've never liked the feel or sound of the 800, it just feels really rigid and digital to me. I like my gear to have some give and flexibility to it. And the filters on the 800 really piss me off, the resonance is so high you just cant go past a certain point without making everybody deaf. I think eclers really are the best bang for the buck, but some people don't like the EQs. To each their own I suppose. |
|
|
| limin_li |
| I've used the xone 62 and as well as a djm 800. I really have to go with the DJM 800 because of the response time when i am the transition between two tracks. Xone mixer does about the same, but why would anyone need 4 eqs? It is not necessary. I know a lot of you guys who said that Xone will give you the analog feel to your mix. Honestly, I do not hear the difference. DJM 800 for me. |
|
|
| Nemesis44 |
Wouldn't think too much about the people that call this mixer or that mixer crap.
The AH, Ecler and Pioneer all work well in a club scenario and to be honest, there are so many other factors that will affect the quality of the sound that anything the mixer does as long as it's got the right controls i.e. channel faders and EQs that actually work, the rest is pretty irrelevant.
Go back 20 years and the mixers were no way near as good, DJs still mixed and people still managed to dance without having their ears bleed.
It's the same in the production world, people often slag off Floops and say that you can't produce pro sounding tracks on it, which is a load of crap but it's all part of that gear snobbery that exists in the business.
If you posted a mix done on an 800 the chances are that most people couldn't tell the difference anyway or care for that matter.
Could I tell the difference? Well maybe, but unless something was REALLY wrong with the overall sound, I would be more concerned with the quality of the mixing and how good the tunes were.
The main issue is probably the price as you can get more for your money in other ways but it's a choice that a DJ has to make.
Cheers
Nem |
|
|
| dainja |
-I had an Ecler Nuo 5
-I play out very often on A&H mixers (generally 62s but sometimes 92s).
-I now own a DJM-800
The best sounding is the 92. Followed by the Nuo 5, then the DJM-800. However, "Stu Cox" is 100% right: 90% of club sound systems sound like anyways. They're generally not tuned properly, and if they are, they'd have a sound tech there compensating for the DJM's slightly coloured sound.
The Nuo 5 had a great EQ but the effects unit was trash (almost unuseable), and the build quality was somewhat shoddy (I never even used the crossfader and it was broken by the time I sold it).
The 62 and 92 are amazing mixers for mixing prog. They are terrible mixers for mixing any type of technical/quick-mixing rave music.
I play UK hardcore/freeform type stuff (180BPM) as well as house and trance and such. It's nearly impossible to play a technical set with quick mixing on a Xone 92/62.
The faders are too long, the EQ knobs are too close together, the 4 band EQ hits the wrong ranges for my style of music AND that's just too many knobs to turn between bars, the gain knob is crap, the layout is unergonomic and NOT intuitive, etc.
I don't deny that it might be a good mixer for playing house or prog but for any kind of technical and/or quick mixing, it's terrible. Especially hardcore, but even for techno I can't say I like it.
The DJM-800 has an AMAZING layout. The effects just WORK. They're easy and sound good for the styles I play. The filters aren't great but they're just there to save your ass if you forget to drop the fader and such. Sound quality? If the DJM-600, which sounds like , could be the industry standard club installation mixer for years, the DJM-800 should be MORE than adequate.
When I show up at a gig and I see an A&H mixer I usually want to cry. I can never play as good a set because I have to sacrifice technical mixing to even get any decent mixes out of it. The bass knob doesn't cut the right range for hardcore so I have to with the lower mid too, and even then it's terrible. The knobs are all too close together so I can't be as technical. The faders are too long so I can't do complicated cutting. Etc.
The DJM-800 is really forgiving EQ wise, which allows me to do 3 deck mixes with ease.
People just want to bash Pioneer because they can. No, it's not the be all and end all of mixers, but at least it's USEABLE for more than prog. |
|
|
| Freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by dainja
I play UK hardcore/freeform type stuff (180BPM) as well as house and trance and such. It's nearly impossible to play a technical set with quick mixing on a Xone 92/62.
When I show up at a gig and I see an A&H mixer I usually want to cry. I can never play as good a set because I have to sacrifice technical mixing to even get any decent mixes out of it. The bass knob doesn't cut the right range for hardcore so I have to with the lower mid too, and even then it's terrible. The knobs are all too close together so I can't be as technical. The faders are too long so I can't do complicated cutting. Etc.
|
Funny you say that.
The hardcore events I engineer- big ones- i have found the overwhelming majority of djs in the scene prefer-and request- the A&H. The cross fader is far superior, and the filters better also.
There is also another reason why the a&h 92 is prefeerred within the d&b and hardcore scenes- the record out does not include the mic, meaning the mcs level can be recorded on a seperate channel and adjusted in post prod.
Tape packs are a huge part of these scenes still, and consequently it is very important to get a good recording, and recording the mic seperately is essential- as you can still adjust to the mcs requirements at the gig, without ruining the recording.
The two main guys that do recording for most of the big hardcoe events in the uk also request an a&h if possible for that reason.
You can push the a&h harder, and it sounds a lot warmer with far more headroom- the 800 starts to distort very easily when not even being pushed hard, and the top end is very harsh.
| quote: |
People just want to bash Pioneer because they can. |
Nothing of the sort. I work in clubs- some of the best in the world- and a base my opinions on my experiences.
im not going to bash something as some sort of bandwagon jumping- i work with these pieces of gear day in day out. |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| Almost every club I've been too down here in Miami has the DJM as its main mixer. I don't think I've even ever seen an A&H down here, come to think of it. |
|
|
| Inrush |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
fx is for trance dj's. |
so wrong. |
|
|
| ReDzY |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
fx is for trance dj's. |
Not quite, I would say fx are more for electro/house/tech house DJs |
|
|
| Brian Scott |
I've used the Xone92 and DJM800 many times each. I think the sound quality of the 92 is a little better than the 800, but it doesn't make that much of a difference in most of the clubs I've played. I do, however, find the que sound to be a little clearer in the A&H.
I spin techno/minimal/tech-house and I like to do long, drawn-out mixes and transitions (2:30-4:00). For this, the 92 is much better as I have the extra control with the 4th EQ band. I also find the Xone to sound better when sampling on a 3rd CDJ (because of the control with the 4-band EQ).
I do like the filters and FX on the 800, but they're not of dire importance to me.
I agree that the Xone mixers are not the most ergonomically friendly mixers, but the setup is not as bad as some make it out to be. The knobs are somewhat close together, but they're smaller and built solidly. |
|
|
| n3lly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brian Scott
I've used the Xone92 and DJM800 many times each. I think the sound quality of the 92 is a little better than the 800, but it doesn't make that much of a difference in most of the clubs I've played. I do, however, find the que sound to be a little clearer in the A&H.
I spin techno/minimal/tech-house and I like to do long, drawn-out mixes and transitions (2:30-4:00). For this, the 92 is much better as I have the extra control with the 4th EQ band. I also find the Xone to sound better when sampling on a 3rd CDJ (because of the control with the 4-band EQ).
I do like the filters and FX on the 800, but they're not of dire importance to me.
I agree that the Xone mixers are not the most ergonomically friendly mixers, but the setup is not as bad as some make it out to be. The knobs are somewhat close together, but they're smaller and built solidly. |
good post... |
|
|
| Brian Scott |
| quote: | Originally posted by n3lly
good post... |
Cheers!:toocool: |
|
|
|
|
