I've messed around with all the Traktor settings, but they still don't compare to the A&H mixer.
Wish we could manually change the frequencies like on the DDM4000.
Printable View
I've messed around with all the Traktor settings, but they still don't compare to the A&H mixer.
Wish we could manually change the frequencies like on the DDM4000.
Tbh that, for me, is the KILLER feature of the RMX-80. I was considering the DDM, but having a per-channel filter knob AND adjustable EQ frequencies pretty much sold me on the RMX.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Frequency bands are set a certain way for a reason. Its a DJ mixer, not an FOH desk. You're using it to mix between two tracks, not tune the sound. Adjustable bands arent really helpful, but multiple bands (:92 and DJM-2000) are much more helpful. A EQ with adjustable frequencies is more likely to either annoy you, get set a weird way and annoy you more, or set at A&H/Pio stops and left there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Reloop is pretty much nonexistent in the US though. We only get decent deals on discontinued Reloop items.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
That's not strictly true... different frequency bands can be very useful when playing different genres of music. As a DJ, you're in the perfect position to adjust things to suit the style of music that YOU play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
This is true :( Still, for those of us in the UK it's pretty widely available, just not as actively promoted as Numark/Gemini/Pioneer. They had a bit of an issue a couple of years ago as their UK distributors went tits up or something, so they were left completely without a supply chain over here. A new company has taken it over and seem to be doing pretty well now... a lot of the DJ stores in major cities are stocking Reloop now which is nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50
Not really. As long as the bands are all even, whatever you pull out of one track will still be present in the other. Where that point is isnt really relevant. The only kind of issue I can see is basslines that carry up into the low-mids, but even in that case, a broader EQ range wont help you if the other track doesn't have the same bleed, it's the tracks that don't blend anyway. The EQ range doesn't really do much for you, because the EQs are identical across the channels, and the tones evenly replace each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
I wish we had more alternatives to Pioneer... Pioneer CDJs are just too damn expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
I really want to try out the Gemini, Denon, and Reloop CDJs. At least it seems like DJ gear in the US is much cheaper than the rest of the world.
+1. Adjustable EQ is just yet another way to tie you down to your bedroom equipment, leaving you unprepared for any other setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
The Denon players are the only real alternative to Pioneer CDJs IMO, and are comparable to the 900/850.
*shrug* I take all my equipment to whatever venue I'm playing at. If you saw the condition of most of the gear around here, you would too.Quote:
Originally Posted by makar1
And the Denon SC-3900 is in a whole different league to the Pioneer stuff. It's the only CD player I would EVER consider purchasing, due to the moving platter. For everything else, MIDI is the better option.
A moving platter does not in itself put it in another league. If you require a moving platter then the 3900 is your only option, but there are many features on the high end Pioneers that the Denons do not have.
I thought you said you were playing on CDJ 2000s recently? Did you still bring your own mixer then?
Any decent club will have either a DJM or Xone in the booth...
Edit: It wasn't that long ago you said the Reloop players were the only ones you'd consider purchasing.
I played on my colleague's own 2000s which he brings with him every week. The mixer is - unfortunately - an FSM400, but because it's literally screwed into the booth, there's no room for anything else. If I start playing there more regularly, I'll have to build some sort of shelf thingy so I can put something decent over the top of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by makar1
Using the 2000s was still godawful though... no FX control, really limited loop controls, no beatjumping, etc etc. Next time I'll have to bring my Zomo down for those features.
EDIT:
I still maintain that they're the only ones I'd recommend to those looking for more affordable CDJs. If they've got an insane amount of money, and would be buying 900s or 2000s, then go for the SC-3900s; if they're looking at the 350s or 400s, then I'd recommend the RMP-3s.Quote:
Edit: It wasn't that long ago you said the Reloop players were the only ones you'd consider purchasing.
Personally, I just wouldn't use CDs full stop. In the past few weeks I've been playing around with 1000Mk3s, some 900s a couple of weeks back, and those 2000s on Friday night, and there is NO way I would use them for a "proper" set; they're just far too limiting.
EDIT2: The reason I'd even consider getting an SC-3900 is so I could get my scratching up to scratch, if you'll pardon the pun. Obviously vinyl would be a better solution, but I wouldn't want to lug a set of TTs into a club and try to find a place to put them these days. The 3900, at least, would offer a similar feel in a more compact package. The other - probably more likely - option would be Numark V7s, but the 3900s are still the best CDJ-style devices out there.
FX control is irrelevant, as no decent media player has it. The mixer is what handles FX. And loop controls are not "really limited". You have access to any typical sized loop from the needle search pad.
Does the lack of proper software integration, access to only 4 cuepoints, awful dot matrix screen with unusable waveform, no SD/DVD support, no quantized FX, and no quantized loops/hotcues make the Denon the "best CDJ device out there"? Add to that the full beatgridded waveforms of the Nexus(adjustable on player), sync, phrase meter, traffic light key system, emergency loop, Wifi connection.
The 3900 is pretty much a mix between the CDJ 850 and 900, plus hot cues and a moving platter.
To be fair, while a bit basic, the SC-2900's are a pretty decent alternative to a CDJ-850 rig, trading off a sensible cue memory, a decent screen, and intuitive visual feedback for a player link, slip mode, and sync. I'd still give up only carrying one drive to keep my library stuck in Rekordbox rather than using both Engine and RB, but Denon does make a pretty solid offering, if a bit quaint.Quote:
Originally Posted by makar1
Additionally, the 3900's are pretty decent if you scratch, with the whole standalone system sans laptop/serato box and needles, they're a great way to get vinyl feel without having to lug around a timecode system.
That being said, "Id rather install Denon players over top end CDJs" is a hilarious statement. Playing on Denon players isnt too much of an inconvenience, but talking about installing them like theyre the state of the art is a joke.
People don't typically use CDs in installed 2000's, so all this talk of being "limiting" is hilarious. I can't really think of something I can't do with CDJs that I can do with Traktor, but I can think of several things that CDJs can do that are just straight up impossible on a DVS... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcdesign
Also wtf is "unfortunately, an FSM-400" supposed to mean? You have one of the nicest analogue boards ever made installed, and you're complaining about it?
Oh don't get me wrong, it's a rock solid mixer, it just lacks a couple of features I find it a PITA to live without these days, like Cue Mix and per-channel VU meters, and it's MASSIVE and rackmount, which means I can't move it out of the way or put anything on top of it without making some kinda bracket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Distortion.
The A&H have mushy, phasey low-end. Run a trace on the low frequency response on them and look at the phasing of the channels. Way the hell off. Inferior separation. Inferior S/N ratio. Inferior transients.
Everything's a touch softened and euphonic. Their phono preamps are also very high capacitance, and with most MM carts is going to cause big top end roll off. They're very analog-sounding mixers. It's like having a bit of scrim over everything. Not all analogs are like that. Mackie, Rane, and Rodec seem to have less of that. Old Biamps almost sounded like digital mixers, but the "British" tone of the A&H can be like re-recording the signal onto tape sometimes. If you think your stuff sounds too clean and clear and "digital", then it can be the remedy.
The X-9 is amazing even ignoring those EQs, other than its lack of real SPDIF inputs, that excessive dip in the headphone cue pan (you never have exactly the same signals on both sides to justify a perfect constant power fade), and its surprising amount of analog output interference. Yeah, there's RF from things like the meters into the analog outputs. Drives the analog out specs all down even further than the baseline noise floor on its excellent transients op opamps. Using the digital out and analog inputs, though, it's got shocking punch and precision; extremely musical in a constantly surprising way. The channel meters tell the truth, unlike on the DJM800, which is why Pioneer added "clip" lights to the DJM900. The X-9 is basically Tascam studio stuff using dedicated TI chips with a curious dual FX and sampler system added to it. I do not like how they designed the master out, though, with unity for it at 50% on a fader! Should have been a knob with unity at zero, and I already mentioned the lack of true digital ins and the headphone pan dip. User friendliness is definitely missing compared to the DJM-800, but it's got more going on.
Right after the X-9, which was preceded by the two channel PPD01, was the PPD9000, which was before the DJM800 came out. The 9000 was dedicated TI chips, too, adding brand spanking new digital resampler chips, making it the first full digital in/out DJ mixer, and Alesis pro processing inside. Bare bones. Really poor switches and soldering jobs, and a goofy i/o board that would pop out if not hot glued, but super duper transparent and the blackest background of these digital 4 channel designs from that era.
DJM-800 has significant low-end roll off with its AD converters and is basically just the sort of components in a $200 Pioneer home theater receiver from that era. If you go digitally into it and then digitally out with the switch at 96khz into an external DSP for a sound system or recording device, it can be pretty darn warm and gooey, if perhaps a little mid-fi in its processing compared to hardcore studio gear. The SPDIF out is strangely -4.4dB down from full scale, but that's a minor gripe. Pioneer scored a hit with durability, just the right amount of features, and performer/user friendliness.
As for players...
Pitch resolution on Wide: Reloop (0.1 - true 14bit ADC fader reading) > Pioneer (0.5) > Denon (1.0)
Platter response: Reloop & Denon (different) > Pioneer (jog bend dead zone)
Link: Pioneer (sees all drives at once, always works) > Reloop (one at a time per carefree USB path)> Denon (requires restart on change, one at a time)
Track browsing: Pioneer > Denon > Reloop
You can deactivate that damn BPM counter: Reloop (yes) > Pioneer & Denon (nope)
Keylock: VDJ8 > Pioneer & Reloop & Denon
Yeah id like to see some evidence of this claim. What do you mean specifically by the phasing of the channels being off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
I too would like to see the phase issues. Also would have to see it for each specific allen & heath mixer since each (except dbs and db4) utilize seperate hardware sets for the EQ's.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImNoDJ
This was with the EQs defeated on Xone 62s -- both a mk1 UK stainless steel and a mk2 UK matte finish. They both traced similarly with visible lack of alignment of the two channel traces (talking stereo, here) at the low end of the response. I own neither mixer any longer, and the additional traces done on three Biamps and two PPDs did not exhibit this. All the traces were done using an Emu 1212m and I believe RMAA and a scope program (True RTA?). The traces, which I usually saved, would be on a desktop that's in Oregon in storage. The next time I'm there I'll upload them for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bastet
Anyone with an analog A&H should be able to duplicate it, though. All Xone 62 and 92s I've used sounded woolly to me compared to the Biamps, Ranes, and even the Mackies. Granted, that's not low end phasing issues, but they seem to all have a similar tone. And I remember the 62s imparted a bit of grit on top, a kind of subtle texture to the highs that got worse when the EQs were engaged. This is not getting into the phono preamp capacitance issue, either, which if you're using low inductance MM carts and vinyl is a further problem. Not bad mixers, but not as neutral and transparent as the others.
I tend to find people's glamorization of analog mixers usually to be the result of them not liking the sound of the source material they're piping into it. Try using outboard phono preamps or line-level sources and A/B it with the mixer in and out of the path. Would you want that mixer in the signal path for purely recreational listening of a single source? Furthermore, with digital sources why would you give up the opportunity to prevent D/A conversion as long as possible? And the idea that an analog mix bus is superior to digital one is ludicrous, especially (but not exclusively) with digital sources.
I will say the aux system on the Xone 62 is pretty neat. You can do some fun stuff with the filters using it, and you can also run them as rotaries using the aux as the main out and volume controls. The aux cue, filter routing, and pan all actually worked very well together for that purpose. If you like analog filters and have access to a 62, I recommend trying that out. You can do filter pan sweeps with the 62 in that arrangement that are impossible with any other mixer.
Oh, Ecler is another analog mixer brand that doesn't sound as dull as A&H, but Ecler has some of the most ass-backwards internal layouts I've seen. Not easy to repair. Imagine having to strip an entire mixer apart just to change out a crossfader or channel fader. Good riddance to their DJ division.
I cant comment on the eq's, but we replaced the cross fader in a nuo 4 with an innofader. It wasn't too bad. But yeah, everything else seemed ridiculous. Ecler's do sound pretty amazing.
This is entirely a subjective opinion, wrapped up in confirmation bias. Youve certainly not proved this claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
"The A&H have mushy, phasey low-end."
You might want to read up a bit on psychoacoustics, and why its experimentally worthless doing non controlled tests on audio gear.
So you're saying the Xones testing inferior in RMAA and on TrueRTA was making me erroneously hear woolly lows and a bit of grit on top?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImNoDJ
First of all, congratulations on an absolutely EPIC necrobump. 4 years has got to be a record. And I probably haven't posted in almost that long.
Second, if I'm reading this correctly, you're comparing several mixers (Tascam X-9, A+H 62, Pioneer DJM-800, and who knows which Ecler, Rane or Mackie) that are all discontinued, some for well over a decade. That's cool in the abstract but you appear to make blanket statements about the brand whereas the Xone 92 is for example a completely different beast than the DB2 or even the PX5 which I think is based on it. If you've measured something specific, be specific about which mixer it applies to. Personally I've not heard the 62, but I have heard the 92 a few times, though not under ideal testing conditions. But I've owned a DB4 for years and I doubt you'll measure any distortion as it's purely digital; I certainly haven't noticed any. I tried to do a sound shootout between the DB4, Ecler Evo 5, and Behringer DDM4000 and while the latter sounded noticeably different than the first two, I couldn't tell the difference between the DB4 and Evo5 (and I tried to) -- they were both fantastic. I also had extensively listened to the Denon X1700 alongside the Evo5 and they both sounded great to me. There are surely differences in the sound of DACs but I think on decent equipment those differences have been minimized significantly. And while analog paths create more distortion than digital, I'm not convinced that the phono preamps are going to sound much different on equipment of that class either.
I tend to think the original topic of this thread - that the A+H mixers and the Pioneer mixers sound different as a class due to different EQ crossover points rather than any significant difference in coloration - makes a lot more sense as an explanation for "warmth" than that the A+H sounds "mushy." It's certainly possible that there is measurable distortion on the 62 (and I'm sure there are fans of that mixer that would be interested in the data, or even in trying to replicate your results) but that hardly invalidates the entire line.
As for Ecler - the Evo5 still today would be my top choice of mixer if they could fix a few things in the firmware to make it more configurable. I do love what I see in the recent Ranes (and I've always loved the Rane sound), but a pure rotary just isn't my preference ergonomically.
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by djproben
Evo 5 seemed to have come out kind of late on the scene not to have digital inputs. Seemed like an oddball design to me. I meant the analog Eclers that I liked the sound of a lot but did not like the internal layout of components and ease of getting to stuff. I've never used any of their digital units.
I used to be obsessed with rotaries. I even used a 4 channel passive one for a while. Years later, though, the way I mix with multiple faders and the EQs now makes their smooth 2 channel rotary blends increasingly moot, but I like the idea of having it as an option if I want it. More on that later. The Xone 62, Formula Sound, and Rodec studio faders on some of their mixers I actually kind of miss. I'm frequently tempted to buy a bunch of studio fader caps to switch all my current mixers to.
I agree with you there's much less difference in sound between 24bit digital mixers with digital ins/outs than we've ever been spoiled with before.
The dn-x1700 was a bit of an anomaly. Twin power supplies. Discrete component headphone jack and phono preamps. Very high end stuff. I wonder if anyone's going to be trying something like that anytime soon. The new Rane attempt at that kind of super high end didn't exactly save that company.
The OP and I are talking about the analog A&H mixers, not the DBs, which I believe were actually designed/co-designed by/with Denon. And if people are comparing mixers' sound differences because they're running them with the EQs up all the time like they're the gain knob, then they've got other problems.
Oh, and I have much envy and lust for the DB4, if nothing else it finally implements what I'd been asking for years on some of these DSP mixers: the option to flip the channel effect/filter/wet-dry knobs with the volume faders. Not so sure about going from the 1700's discrete phono stages to a shared line-level and soft RIAA phono stage, but it's got to be a step up from their analog mixers' high capacitance inputs for most cartridges.
PX5 is an analog design with a sound card, kind of like the Mackies. Those Mackie IEEE1394 soundcards are really sweet sounding, but I digress. (I have a D4 in my collection I still can't part with.)
BTW, for people who might ask the question, the new InMusic Denon DJ is not that Denon, either. It's the DJ brand name and some reps Numark brought over. The old products are discontinued and will not be improved. Different company. The X1800 appears to be a revamped version of the never-released X7 prototype. I assume it will also be excellent sounding. I don't fault Jack O'Donnell buying the branding to get some hidden Numark ideas out into the wild with a new face/name/rep. Denon DJ wasn't doing well financially and I suspected Numark had some good stuff in the works.
FWIW, I wish them well. I'm rooting for their success. I'm not pointing out the DJ brand separation from D&M Holdings or pointing out A&H working with Denon on their digital mixers as any backhanded comment. I think it's all good and, like I said, I like digital mixers. I think it's harder to make great, transparent analog mixers that are so good as to be nearly indistinguishable from each other. I also don't hate the A&H analogs even if I think they're a little flabby, gritty, and veiled compared to the most transparent analogs or the 24bit digital ones we're spoiled by now.
Evo5 has digital input through Firewire, but I know that's not what you mean... And while it can't pull that rotary switch trick the DB4 can, it has a separate wet/dry crossfader that is just incredible to use. For me the killer feature of the DB4 is the filter mixing. I can emulate that using the Evo5 and Traktor, but I like to play actual vinyl most of the time so that doesn't work that well for me.
As for the analog differences, I can't speak for the 62 or really for the 92 other than that they have many fans who love the sound. I love the sound of Rane (I owned and abused a TTM-56 for many years, and have toyed with the Empath), as well as the pure analog Eclers I've heard, but I'm not convinced I'd hear much differences in blind tests. Certainly I can't hear differences using the mixers I have listened closely to (which are digital but I used analog sources so I'm hearing whatever distortion the analog path in the preamp brings).
Which is all to say I think analog preamps are a mature technology and have been for many years; at a certain price point they are pretty much the same and any differences you hear you need the aural equivalent of a microscope to pick out. The rest of the circuitry is designed by engineers who are not trying to "color" the sound in any particular way; their goal is to create electronics that get out of the way of the sound. Whereas the argument that the different EQ cutoffs can make these mixers sound different is persuasive to me. And it stands to reason that those cutoffs are similar across most A+H mixers or Pioneers, which could account for differences that seem more noticeable. (BTW I don't think the OP was just talking about boosting the EQs; turning them down similarly will change the sound of course).
I used to believe the audiophile "everything matters" mantra, but I'm far less convinced of that these days. And perhaps it does but if it does, it doesn't matter enough to matter ;)
He is the king of necrobumps :DQuote:
Originally Posted by djproben
Hail to the king, baby.
I agree that the state of line-level analog pre-amps is somewhat more consistent at price points. I think the differences are larger for phono stages, as those signals are much weaker, there are many ways of designing them, and teeny tiny things like just the RFI filtering and loading caps are capable of causing deviations in the response of low inductance MM cartridges. Maybe your two digital mixers used opamp ICs with similar topologies and capacitor loading (the cables also figure into this!), but try putting a NCE on a vintage Biamp and compare it to a 62. I would guess the difference would shock you. I recall the Xone sometimes not even revealing overt, known right-channel IMD groove damage. Mint records sounded blah... all very inoffensive, pleasant, forgiving, and lacking nuance. It was like everything was being run through a Dolby noise cancellation filter. High output moving coils were more revealing and balanced, but the Xone phono gain was too weak to be practical with them. I think only the Shure Whitelabels' treble peak could kind of spoof past that blandness AND get loud enough overall. I wouldn't call it extension, but at least the high hats had some sparkle. I also remember the 500ALII being a nice tonal match, but again, not a particularly loud signal. Outboard phono preamps (I have a pair of discrete designs in storage) tended to make all the mixers sound much more alike, and the bland Xone sound more like the Biamps (relatively speaking, 62 still sound polite overall). I assume that the studio gear head obsessions with microphone preamps derives from similar variation. Of course, your mileage may vary, and at this late date we're all more hearing impaired than when we started this stuff.
"Wooly lows" "bit of grit" are subjective opinions not measurements of anything. Blind testing is required in audio to be able to make claims about relative sound quality. Non blind testing is completely worthless because of human bias. I just dont understand why so many audiophiles dont get this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
Non-blinded testing is more prone to error and human bias, but is not automatically worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImNoDJ
Just grab the mixers in question, run the same output to all of them. Run the mixers into a daw and compare them using parametric visualizers, spectrum visualizers, and oscilloscopes. Hell you could even route the source audio into the DAW at the same time to use as a baseline. You could then see which mixer reprodced the source audio the most accurately. ;-)
Yep. I've also done that with some of the DJ software out there. I need to do it again on them one of these days, as there have been quite a few updates in the last few years since I did that.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bastet
Traktor and it's famous "internal EQ affects the sound even when in external mixing mode" problem? Yes please ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
I remember on Traktor 2 Pro when I was testing most of the DJ software out there that the key lock algorithm wasn't actually turning off completely at the time. Once you triggered it, it mangled the impulse response to hell and then deactivating it wouldn't actually resolve that until the program was rebooted. They fixed that and some other issue I informed them about concerning pitch bending. I was quite impressed with the 16bit VDJ 7's processing. Very clean and precise. There's something to be said with not oversampling, doing lots of interpolation, and then dithering the hell out of it at the end. I know they've moved to 32bit now and their key correction seems wildly improved in 7.4 and 8. Torq 2 was appalling. I don't know what the hell was going on with that DSP coding of theirs. The basic specs it produces weren't too bad, but it couldn't deal with a lot of test waveforms. I think its impulse response was practically non-existent and like inverted or something. Sounds real dark, crunchy, and processed, too. Has an unmistakable signature it gives everything. The old pre-Pro (not sure if that's what it was called) 2 channel version of Traktor had very pleasant sound and good tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlayForMoney
because if they got it they would feel really guilty about spending so much money on cables.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImNoDJ
You can never spend too much money on cables. :-pQuote:
Originally Posted by djproben
Can I say how much I'm enjoying the resurrection of this post? It's quite possibly the most interesting necropost I've ever read. Thank you to all involved.
I recently hooked up my DJM-900NXS2 to ableton and ran some pink noise through it and observed the isolator work in a RTA graph and made a virtual NXS2 isolator EQ rack. From my expirience the NXS2 is quite a bit warmer than the old NXS. I have heard the analog A&H mixers are still wamer but I have never had the opurtunity to try one out.
http://rumrunn3r.com/wp-content/uplo...6.52.49-PM.png
In audio testing it really is. This has been proven experimentally time and time again. The entire audiophile market of pointless products also proves this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
You really can. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bastet
https://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/d...onster-cables/