Which mixer for a bedroom DJ: Xone 92 or Xone DB2?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Tech Mentor Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    116

    Default Which mixer for a bedroom DJ: Xone 92 or Xone DB2?

    I record a podcast once in a blue moon that typically vary from deep house to techno and tech house. I'm not an audiophile but would prefer use an "ideal" setup if that makes sense.

    I use a pair of CDJ-900's, a Rane mixer from the 90's and two studio monitors. I currently record using 1/4-to-1/8th into the headphone jack and finally into Audacity, but I'd like to revisit this if it would give me better quality. I'd say the most important thing is sound quality - something that will give my sets the best opportunity to shine.

    Some thoughts:
    • The DB2 would allow me to keep things digital throughout the entire chain. How much better is this than having to use analog (RCA etc) on the 92?
    • The DB2 has a built-in soundcard. Will this be any better or worse than a buying external soundcard with the 92?
    • I'll probably never use more than two channels, but I do have two 1200's that I might use one day
    • Are these the two mixers I should be looking at? I've eyed the Xone 42
    Last edited by Ever; 03-30-2015 at 01:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Tech Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    TBH, you can't go wrong with either one... Both are fantastic.

    I loved my Xone 42, but I really like my DJM800. That said, I use my RMX-1000 as my effector now and never really use my DJM800 effects much besides channel FX.

    External vs internal soundcard isn't going to make that much of a diff.
    Bedroom DJ | Pioneer DJM-800 | Pioneer CDJ2000 and CDJ900-NXS | 2 x Mackie MR8MKII | Sennheiser Amperior

  3. #3
    Tech Mentor Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Thanks SlvrDragon.

    I actually eyed the 42 as well. Any thoughts on it versus the other two, at least in relation to what I'd be using it for?

  4. #4
    Tech Guru Kwal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,066

    Default

    42 if on a budget

    92 if you have money to spend and want pure quality

    DB2 is dope too, but I personally favor the 92.

  5. #5
    Tech Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    I've never used the 92 so I can't really comment on it. Or the DB2.

    That said, I imagine the 42 isn't that different from the 92 other than 3 vs 4-band EQ. DB FX are supposed to be amazing as well.
    Bedroom DJ | Pioneer DJM-800 | Pioneer CDJ2000 and CDJ900-NXS | 2 x Mackie MR8MKII | Sennheiser Amperior

  6. #6
    Tech Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the freezing rain in Glasgow.
    Posts
    338

    Default

    92 has a lovely sound. Wish I had the time to use it more often. Also, the filters are just lush.

  7. #7
    Tech Mentor Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Thanks all. It sounds pretty down the middle. At least for my personal needs.

    My final thought has to do with sound quality. I'm curious if recording from a fully-digital setup would yield a higher-quality mix than an analog recording.

    For example, here are two possible signal paths. I'm curious if the DB2 would sound better:

    • DB2: CDJ-900 digital out -> DB2 digital in -> DB2 usb to computer -> Audacity
    • 92: CDJ-900 rca out -> DB2 rca in -> DB2 rca or 1/4" out to an external soundcard -> usb to computer

    What's more is that some people say the 92 naturally sounds better than the DB2. But on the flipside, the DB2 can stay digital. So when it comes to recording from either of these setups, which one would win?

  8. #8
    Tech Guru Kwal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,066

    Default

    I don't think the difference between recording will be very drastic. Probably won't even be noticeable.

  9. #9
    Tech Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the freezing rain in Glasgow.
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ever View Post
    Thanks all. It sounds pretty down the middle. At least for my personal needs.

    My final thought has to do with sound quality. I'm curious if recording from a fully-digital setup would yield a higher-quality mix than an analog recording.

    For example, here are two possible signal paths. I'm curious if the DB2 would sound better:

    • DB2: CDJ-900 digital out -> DB2 digital in -> DB2 usb to computer -> Audacity
    • 92: CDJ-900 rca out -> DB2 rca in -> DB2 rca or 1/4" out to an external soundcard -> usb to computer

    What's more is that some people say the 92 naturally sounds better than the DB2. But on the flipside, the DB2 can stay digital. So when it comes to recording from either of these setups, which one would win?
    My current set up (when I have the time and space to actually set it up) is two SC2900s into a 92, which goes into my MOTU Ultralite Mk3 and then recorded into Audacity or Ableton, usually Ableton.

    The sound is absolutely spot on so don't worry about that. It's about a thousand times nicer sounding than if I played the same tracks with Traktor.

    Either mixer will be good. To be honest, I doubt you will notice much audible difference in quality either way so it really comes down to what one you fancy the look of most. I'll just say this: There is a reason so many DJs love the 92. Nothing wrong with the DB2 from what I've heard (never used one myself, just seen it in action) but the Xone 92 is one of the best DJ mixers ever made. It's made its bones a million times over and it's still going strong.

  10. #10
    Tech Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    I think you just need to figure out how much you want effects. That'll be the real decision maker there.

    If you can't live without FX besides your filter, go with the DB2. Otherwise, go with the 92. If you feel you need FX later on down the road, pick up a RMX-1000.
    Bedroom DJ | Pioneer DJM-800 | Pioneer CDJ2000 and CDJ900-NXS | 2 x Mackie MR8MKII | Sennheiser Amperior

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •