Is Numark NVII sound quality as bad?

Printable View

11-25-2016, 02:54 PM
The Lazy One

Is Numark NVII sound quality as bad?

I'm thinking about buying a 4 channel controller.

My options are:

· Numark NVII (new)
· DDJ SX2 (used)
· DDJ RX

I know, obviously, that Pioneer ones are sooo much better. But, I'm just a home dj at the moment (who knows if I could make a gig in a time), does it worth the money investing in that Pioneer bad boys?

The use will be: home dj practice, and maybe sometimes a gig or something.
11-26-2016, 03:23 AM
Mastah Kyler

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lazy One

does it worth the money investing in that Pioneer bad boys?

yes
11-27-2016, 06:32 AM
The Lazy One

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastah Kyler

yes

yeah, but I mean, I'm not a professional.

I just want to know people who has listen both and could compare the quality
11-27-2016, 07:29 AM
the_bastet

NVII will be fine for your use brother, but might I recommend getting an S8 instead?
11-27-2016, 01:05 PM
The Lazy One

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_bastet

NVII will be fine for your use brother, but might I recommend getting an S8 instead?

thanks for the reply!

Mmm that's what I think, It must be enought for me and I love the screens, which are the same as MCX8000, but If I would have the money I would go for DDJ RX. I've seen a few videos and reviews of the software and I love the Pad FX, the Release FX section, and recommendations of the music you are playing at the moment.

S8 is great and looks very nice, but I love jog-wheels and I don't like Traktor too much.
11-28-2016, 04:32 PM
rob2192

It might well come down to what software you want to use:
Traktor > S8
Rekordbox > DDJ RX
Rekordbox and or Serato DJ > DDJ SX
Serato DJ > NVII (bear in mind the NV is in part cheaper as it cannot mix extra sources or support DVS, whether this effects you entirly depends on you plans)
11-28-2016, 07:27 PM
The Lazy One

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob2192

It might well come down to what software you want to use:
Traktor > S8
Rekordbox > DDJ RX
Rekordbox and or Serato DJ > DDJ SX
Serato DJ > NVII (bear in mind the NV is in part cheaper as it cannot mix extra sources or support DVS, whether this effects you entirly depends on you plans)

yeah I have that in mind. NVII is cool and worths the money for the price, but it has a 16 bits interface, so maybe doesn't sound as good as the other candidates...
11-29-2016, 03:36 AM
SlayForMoney

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lazy One

yeah I have that in mind. NVII is cool and worths the money for the price, but it has a 16 bits interface, so maybe doesn't sound as good as the other candidates...

believe it or not but 16 vs 24 bit sound interface means almost nothing in regard to sound quality.

it's the same story as with megapixels on consumer cameras and every other tehnical term that the marketing department embraced and bastardized. :cursing:
11-29-2016, 03:56 AM
The Lazy One

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlayForMoney

believe it or not but 16 vs 24 bit sound interface means almost nothing in regard to sound quality.

it's the same story as with megapixels on consumer cameras and every other tehnical term that the marketing department embraced and bastardized. :cursing:

Is that true? I'm understand the megapixel comparation because I'm photographer also, but I don't understand it as well talking about sound. What a 24 bit gives you that a 16 bit don't?
11-29-2016, 06:10 AM
rob2192

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lazy One

Is that true? I'm understand the megapixel compression because I'm photographer also, but I don't understand it as well talking about sound. What a 24 bit gives you that a 16 bit don't?

Dynamic range and resolution (more possible levels for each sample) which are probably beyond what the human ear can detect in most conditions. Bit depth in audio translates better to bit depth / number of colours in photography, there is a limit to what the ear / eye can detect.

Sample rate is more similar to pixel count.

Sticking with the camera analogy: a camera more pixels and more bits per pixels (colours) gives more detail in the image. However can you tell the difference especially on an HD screen which can't even display all those pixels.

Whats the point in having 24 bit audio files and converters if the speakers and room and the listeners ear don't allow the difference to be noticed. Most audio setups are akin to an HD screen, they are unable to truly reproduce the original material, but give a good enough version.

Remember CD audio is 44.1kHz 16 bit audio, mp3 files are lossy compressed so of lesser quality than CD.

24 bit can have advantages for recording, but few if any for playback. Until recently you couldn't even buy 24bit music.

To tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit you would need an incredible sound system playing loud enough to block out any background noise.
11-30-2016, 12:20 PM
The Lazy One

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob2192

Dynamic range and resolution (more possible levels for each sample) which are probably beyond what the human ear can detect in most conditions. Bit depth in audio translates better to bit depth / number of colours in photography, there is a limit to what the ear / eye can detect.

Sample rate is more similar to pixel count.

Sticking with the camera analogy: a camera more pixels and more bits per pixels (colours) gives more detail in the image. However can you tell the difference especially on an HD screen which can't even display all those pixels.

Whats the point in having 24 bit audio files and converters if the speakers and room and the listeners ear don't allow the difference to be noticed. Most audio setups are akin to an HD screen, they are unable to truly reproduce the original material, but give a good enough version.

Remember CD audio is 44.1kHz 16 bit audio, mp3 files are lossy compressed so of lesser quality than CD.

24 bit can have advantages for recording, but few if any for playback. Until recently you couldn't even buy 24bit music.

To tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit you would need an incredible sound system playing loud enough to block out any background noise.

so you mean, people won't notice worse sound quality in a gig if I use a NVII or an RX?
11-30-2016, 12:31 PM
rob2192

I personally have not done an A/B test so I cannot say either way for certain.

When it comes to sound quality it generally depends where you play, in top club with a crazy good sound system maybe, in a bar with loads of small speakers pointing in all directions, amps cranked up to squeeze out every bit of volume and the hum of chitter chatter, I highly doubt it.

Like i said if your files are 16 bit (or MP3) then you can't magically add whats not there so 16 bit converters will be able to reproduce whats in the source file.
Which sounds better will depend on numerous other factors you won't find on a spec sheet.

To put your mind at easy, go to a store and test them for yourself before parting with your cash.
11-30-2016, 01:21 PM
The Lazy One

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob2192

I personally have not done an A/B test so I cannot say either way for certain.

When it comes to sound quality it generally depends where you play, in top club with a crazy good sound system maybe, in a bar with loads of small speakers pointing in all directions, amps cranked up to squeeze out every bit of volume and the hum of chitter chatter, I highly doubt it.

Like i said if your files are 16 bit (or MP3) then you can't magically add whats not there so 16 bit converters will be able to reproduce whats in the source file.
Which sounds better will depend on numerous other factors you won't find on a spec sheet.

To put your mind at easy, go to a store and test them for yourself before parting with your cash.

ok thanks for the reply! :D You're right, i mostly use 320kbps MP3, maybe some Wav's but very small amount. I think that's what I'll, and also test the small jogs and pads if they are comfortable enought for my hands hahaha