The reason WHY A&H sounds warmer than Pioneer

[mdcdesign]

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...

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.

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:

Edit: It wasn't that long ago you said the Reloop players were the only ones you'd consider purchasing.

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.

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.

[makar1]

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.

[Shishdisma]

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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...

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?

[mdcdesign]

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.

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...

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.

[Reticuli]

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

[ImNoDJ]

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.

Yeah id like to see some evidence of this claim. What do you mean specifically by the phasing of the channels being off?

[the_bastet]

Yeah id like to see some evidence of this claim. What do you mean specifically by the phasing of the channels being off?

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[Reticuli]

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.

[Reticuli]

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.