Nice ... you might have talked me into buying a DDM4000. I have had my eye on the DB4 for a while but it's really so far out of my budget as to be dreaming. This might just be the perfect solution to tide me over until I win the lottery....
Printable View
Nice ... you might have talked me into buying a DDM4000. I have had my eye on the DB4 for a while but it's really so far out of my budget as to be dreaming. This might just be the perfect solution to tide me over until I win the lottery....
thanks OP! lots of cool info in this one.
DDM4000 sounds sexier with each new find lol. I can emulate any mixer you say? sounds like an ultimate test unit as well for practicing
super helpful man thanks
Ive had it for 2 years now, and I'm having a hard time deciding weather to get another one, or a new Nox606...
Probably stick with the DDM since Im thinking that the Nox series are analogue and not digital.Quote:
Originally Posted by exokinetic
i was always under the impression equalizers just pull up and down from a center point based on what freq the knob is set to?
you are making me think that you are thinking that the eq knobs are crossover points...which they are not...
so if you set your bass knob at 200k and a + or -24db slope, you will either gain or lose 24dbs per octive starting at the center point of 200k...depending on which way you turn the knob...so by this rational you will definitely hear a major difference between EQs because their center EQ frequencies are different...
yes? no? please correct me if i am wrong...
:) (i didnt come here to fight...just clear up my thinkning)
Wow that's backwards from basically every other discussion I've read. I mean…you're not explicitly wrong, but it's really weird to see someone actually say that………Quote:
Originally Posted by MuzicFreq
Heh, and the Nox being analogue was definitely a factor in its favor for my consideration...Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha
And its mostly a price point decision...
If the Nox turns out to have solid sound quality then the money I save can to my $400 Audio 10 Upgrade with TSP2, another X1, and all kinds of other things I need more than an Allen & Heath sticker on the mixer in my bedroom.
The day I'm outfitting my home studio, not bedroom, and I support my life with my income from performing, all number of high end sound equipment will be mine. But until then I am fully content with getting the most for my money.
Its just that from all I been reading it seems their analogue mixers seem to crap out compared to the DDM4000Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha
People will want their Xone/Numark knockoffs but quality of the faders would be my fear unless they're all optical which I haven't read anything about the Nox series having.
Unless Behringer got even dumber, audio doesn't go through the faders.
Exokinetic, I don't disagree with you. But, i'm probably going to end up with a Vestax instead...after i end up getting rid of my 62 (it's a great mixer but not what i want at the moment).
Totally, and I'm not dead set on anything yet, what particular models you looking at from Vestax?
I've just been a huge fan of the 004xl since it came out…simple, no non-sense, everything I actually need…fine sound quality compared to basically everything I've heard.
I'm seriously considering doing a rotary conversion on one before Vestax has a chance to discontinue them…and probably sell my xone when I'm done. The 62 is obviously a fine mixer, but I just don't feel like it's right for me because of some of the ergo choices they made.
Thank you for this awesome information :)
I've never really thinked about it...
It makes me think about keep with my internal mixing again...
I hate the fact to use different EQ configs on every club that I go...
What do you think to make this a DJTT Article ?
I really think you should do it! ;)
great article for the homepage. And one where people will stop bitching about it being traktor specific, or a sales pitch by the DJTT team. +1
There was an article a year or two ago about internal vs. external mixing that covered a little of this ground. The article concluded that internal mixing could be better at least in terms of possibilities and flexibility but the problem is that we still don't have software that takes advantage of such possibilities. Traktor gives you a few EQ options but they are poorly implemented and even more poorly documented. None of them feature full kill EQs. This doesn't seem to be changing in Traktor 2. And I think Traktor is better off than any other DJ software in this manner. What would be really great is much more flexible control over EQs, and perhaps even a 7 or 8 band EQ with crossfader options like the Pioneer DJM 2000 offers. Shouldn't be terribly hard to implement in software but it doesn't seem like a priority for programmers working on such things at this time.
On another note, thanks to this thread I went looking for and found a used DDM4k for a really good price. I've been playing around with this feature a bit and the increments you can change the EQ settings in are awkward -- you really can't get to exactly 1200Hz for example. Not that it makes much difference but I'm wondering if I'm missing something on the adjustments? Overall this is a fun mixer to play with; it's just too bad the buttons and knobs feel so cheap and the effects are pretty lame. And to add insult to injury, Behringer designed their pots 180 degrees opposite every other pot I've seen, which means you can't just replace the knobs with nicer ones. Damn I still want a DB4....
I suppose if the Behringer grows on me though I might stick an innofader in it....
Actually, proben, Ableton can do everything you mentioned if you're clever enough with mapping.
I was seriously considering using my VCM-600 and Ableton just as a mixer when I switched to Traktor and going the controller route…even had a decent als built up. In the end, I decided it wasn't worth it…IMHO, EQs are an effect like any other and putting that much of a focus on them makes it really easy to ruin an otherwise good set.
When I started–and for years afterwards–I wanted tunable full-kill EQs. Now…I still kinda like a deep-cut hi-mid from a xone because it emphasizes and removes snares so well and so many producers of tech house, techno, and progressive have been using snares to swing a groove, but I don't really use the others very much at all.
If you really give a damn, you can still find Electrix EQ Killers and Presonus EQ3B boxes, which can be used with whatever mixer you want so long as you're not mixing internally in Traktor. I'm pretty sure Alpha Recording and Electronique Spectacle make even higher-end units…and I know Rane makes some great parametric EQs that could be added to a DJ setup.
And if you are mixing in the box with a controller, a cheap version of Ableton Live should still come with EQ8. There are even presets floating around for EQ8 that more-or-less copy the Xone EQ style…they're +/- 16dB because of the constraints of EQ8 and the fact that the developer wasn't clever enough, but…they're out there. Even Ableton's EQ3 device has tunable crossovers.
Between that stuff and phase cancellation tricks, you have all of the customizable EQing you could ever want for a price.
It's just not worth the hassle, IMHO.
i love xone and tbh would rather own a 92 than pioneer 800 anyday
all the stuff i have bought from a&h has sounded great and never let me down
Ahh yeah I hadn't thought about Ableton when I posted that comment -- I was thinking more DJ-centric software like Traktor, Serato, Torq, etc. But you're right, if you're adding Ableton (or one of those nifty hardware boxes) in just to mess with EQs you wind up doing way too much effort for effects that are more likely to cause trouble than make things sound better. That's why I like the way Pioneer is implementing the 7 band EQ as a bunch of virtual crossfaders -- it makes it really easy to incorporate much more fine-tuned EQing into a set without going through the trouble of tweaking things in another program on another controller.Quote:
Originally Posted by mostapha
In ancient Rome, Cato the Elder used to end every speech no matter what the topic by saying "Carthage must be destroyed." I think I'm going to start ending every post by saying "I need a DB4."
I'm actually upping this old thread for it awesomess! :D
I use this info a lot and most of my friends doesn't know about it too... They are just pionner's fanboys :P
And I need to ask, where is the article about it? Who can write it?
This info is so damn cool that can't be lost in a simple random thread :D
After purchasing a DDM4000, I wanted to set it up just like a Pioneer to understand how the installed rigs are general going to sound. This thread was very helpful, however, the specs noted (and updated) in the OP seemed a little off.
To test this, I used the pioneer eq emulation tool for ableton found here:
http://www.softcore.net.gr/projects.php
And then balanced the DDM4000's settings against the pioneer emulation using the spectral analyser within ableton.
Scientifically, I've made the two white noise waveforms match with the following settings (this works for both boost and cut frequency analysis):
So my view of setting the DDM4000's crossover points to emulate the colouring/frequency shape of a Pioneer is:
High: 4862Hz
Mid: 994Hz
Low: 476Hz
Mid Q: 0.76
*PLEASE NOTE that this likeness is only present before the DDM4000 EQ knob "kills" the signal (i.e. only the same upwards of 8 o'clock on the dial.)
I'd be very interested for someone independently to try the emulation that actually has access to a pioneer and report back?
Enjoy!
you want warmth, I give you fire.
Two 1200's, a UREI 1620 mixer and a Vestax DCR-1500 filter isolator (knob heaven):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DT8WcY2kT8
Ace thread. Really interesting information and I'd assume that the simulated EQs in traktor use the same bands as the mixers they're simulating (pretty sure this has already been said). Thanks :)
Actually he ended them with "Carthago delenda est" :p!Quote:
Originally Posted by djproben
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by itskindahot
I also think this is an interesting read, but the question that Keithace asked never got answered. Can anyone clarify more clearly? It's basically the basis of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithace
Get into filters and how they are designed and its more complicated....isolators are also more complicated. The idea of the cutoffs for eq ranges is pretty trivial imo....i would like to see a comparison of the curves for a&h heath filters vs. pioneer filters.
I would imagine the pio filter would just be have steeper slopes but it would still be cool to see a visual comparison
This is a nice theory the OP has there, but it's basically wrong.
What he's describing is technically correct, but it's not the reason why Pioneer Mixers sound different from A&H Mixers.
First to the EQs. There are two main reasons why there are EQs on a DJ Mixer:
1. To avoid crashing frequencies when mixing, by removing the respective band on one channel if necessary
2. To adjust frequencies on single tracks to match them to the overall sound, e.g. if you're playing an old disco record that has less bass than a modern production, or you're playing a worn out record that lacks highs.
For everything else, you should trust the producer to have balanced the individual frequencies in his track so that the tracks sounds as good as possible and the sound guy in the venue you're playing at to have the settings of the system so it delivers the optimal sound (with the EQs on the mixer centred!). There is absolutely no reason to adjust the channel EQ (apart from the two mentioned above) and you shouldn't do it, as you actually woul probably make the sound worse.
If the OP's theory was true, Pioneer and A&H mixers would sound identical when the EQs are in the center position, which they don't. And here's why:
1. Pioneer mixers (the new ones post 500/600) are digital, whereas A&H mixers are analogue. Now what does that mean. As someone mentioned above, every component a signal passes can color the sound. Every ANALOGUE component, that is. A digital signal does not get affected by the various components it passes through, as it is merely a stream of 1s and 0s. So apart from the manipulation that is deliberatly applied to the signal through use of EQs and EFX, the signal stays completely unaffected inside a Pioneer mixer, while in an A&H mixer the actual audio signal runs through a number of electric components, each of them slightly affecting the signal. Manufacturers actually chose the components they use at least partly by the way they affect the sound...
Another difference between analogue and digital sets in once you get into clipping. Digital mixers can either clip or not clip. Once you reach 0 dBFS you clip, below that you're fine. With analogue mixers it's more of a slight progression, once you come to the end of the headroom. And while digital clipping is harsh/diharmonic, analogue clipping actually adds harmonic overtones to the signal, which are often perceived as "warmth". (By no means do I want to encourage anybody to clip his mixer to get a warm sound. Clipping is just bad and will eventually kill your speakers. Period!)
2. While Pioneer mixers have a rather flat frequency response, A&H mixers deliberatly colour the sound, on top of what I said above. A friend of mine did a test and found out that the Xone's slightly boost the signal at about 50Hz, which is where kick drum and/or bass are sitting in many modern dance tracks, which adds to the warm sound as well.
If you think an A&H mixer sounds warm, you should try listen to an old Bozak mixer. Those things really emphasized the low end, partly to make up for the thin bass frequencies in disco records back in the days.
OT: @Citizen_Insane: Actually he ended them with "Ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam" ;)
Greetings to the forum! I just saw this message and wanted to say, before anyone starts accusing me of being inacurate, that my emulations were done in the mindframe of being "as close as it can be" to the emulated devices using only native Ableton Live EQ and grouped mappings. I hope they are not considered as the "end all, be all" super accurate stuff. They just get the job done, pretty close to the real thing and thats all.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelvin
In other words, my null tests were "close" to silence...but not complete silence!
Also, to contribute to the topic, the specs given by Pioneer and A&H about the Eq sections are indeed vague and inacurate too - thats why I had to use white noise recordings and, practically, make my emulations based on what the FFT analysers were showing rather than what the specs say.
Anyways, Im glad people have found them useful! Keep on the great stuff DJTechTools! ;)
Gibba mortuorum! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_Insane
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMuc
this +1
I recently updated my mixer from a Pioneer djm500 I bought of e-bay years ago to a brand spanking new Allen & Heath xone 42 & Ive been puzzled & concerned about the way & why its changed/coloured my sound........this explains it wonderfully......thankyou so much guys :)
Hi, everyone. Need help with choosing mixer for vinyl djing. It's a hard choice between analogue A&H-42 and digital Pioneer DJM-750, which is about to come in july 2013. Can't listen to any of them to choose. Now mixing with Pioneer DJM-350, which sounds too weak in my opinion.
Hi, everyone. Need help with choosing mixer for vinyl djing. It's a hard choice between analogue A&H-42 and digital Pioneer DJM-750, which is about to come in july 2013. Can't listen to any of them to choose. Now mixing with Pioneer DJM-350, which sounds too weak in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by exokinetic
What colors the a&h mixers sound to the warmer sound is the Pre amp and phono amp in the mixer. However you can for sure "tailor" the sound to more what you like it like with the EQs.
So what you said in the beginning is whats the truth and nothing else but the truth;
components and way of building is what makes a a&h mixer sound different to a pioneer, ecler or behringer.
That leaves it with very little room for sonic manipulation of any music through EQing.
interesting post! Now if there was a way to make the filters sound good too!
Internal traktor filters are sooooo awful. Only reason why I want to go external. I miss my A&H filter.Quote:
Originally Posted by 0Notice
Agreed. This is why I want a 92. That and 6 Channels.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
There's multiple settings for the filter algorithim in Traktor; play with the settings till you find something you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Personally I use Z-ISO and Ladder.
Seeing that the Ladder setting actually considers itself an emulation of a Ladder filter, you can see why people have serious complaints about the sound of Traktor's filters.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcdesign