DJM vs DB help please

[makar1]

For a joint gig/install situation, the DB's still have more than enough room for everything you could realistically need, thanks to the digital stack.

So you're saying that having superior I/O options available is pointless? Think of all the money manufacturers could have saved!

Given that a DJM-2000 is split 6 line/2 phono, you're really only losing a pair of extra line inputs.

The fact is you're losing 4 analogue inputs compared to almost every other DJ mixer out there, including the rest of the Xone series. People mixing on 2 channels will tend to use 2+3, and being able to seamlessly move from one DJ to the next while keeping the preferred channels is ideal.

The people who complain about an S/R loop, and the subsequent pseudo sound engineering circlejerk, are just being absurd, in a situation where you're realistically purchasing a DB4 for it's intended use, an RMX-1000 probably isn't the centre of your setup.

The RMX-1000 is not the only device that can make use of a S/R loop.

When you really break it down, A&H aren't really pushing the DB mixers as installs, but personal performance types. Absurd sound cards, mixer personalisation, and the x-link weirdness, all point to a more sacrosanct relationship with the hardware.

So bedroom and mobile DJs only? That's a pretty small market.

If they were really pushing it as an install, they'd drop the x-link stuff nobody in a multi-user will ever use, and replace it with a LAN switch, which is really the main thing that keeps savvy owners on the DJM over a DB.

Of all the differences between a DJM and a DB, the LAN port is probably the least significant. Teething issues with build quality certainly aren't what attract install buyers.

The real point of running S/PDIF lines is to keep the analogue RCAs open as a free patch bay, and to cut down on install wiring. The whole "A/D/D/A conversion/sound quality improvement" crap is just fluff for people who like jerking off to numbers and the thought of "pure sound."

They certainly couldn't have gotten away with less I/O for sure. There aren't many devices that support digital outside of CDJs though.

[Shishdisma]

So you're saying that having superior I/O options available is pointless? Think of all the money manufacturers could have saved!

It's not exactly pointless, it's just redundant. The extra inputs are really just a contingency for if a channel decides to start acting up or someone screws up an RCA terminal. You're very rarely going to absolutely need more than two timecode boxes patched in at once.

The fact is you're losing 4 analogue inputs compared to almost every other DJ mixer out there, including the rest of the Xone series. People mixing on 2 channels will tend to use 2+3, and being able to seamlessly move from one DJ to the next while keeping the preferred channels is ideal.

.... and with the matrix, you can cram in Serato boxes, a full set of CDJs, and still route anything you want to whichever channel you prefer. The matrix also alleviates the massive headache that occurs when people are allowed to plug their own stuff in and dont fully understand the input bus.

The RMX-1000 is not the only device that can make use of a S/R loop.

Oh yeah, people are still using EFX-1000s and Kaoss Pads, both of which are completely unneeded and a borderline detriment to the absurd effects units built into the DBs.

So bedroom and mobile DJs only? That's a pretty small market.

... and virtually every single DJ with a rider, performers who bring their own equipment, and the entire menagerie of producers who perform. Thats... a massive market. The DB series isn't really billed as an ideal "DJ mixer."

Of all the differences between a DJM and a DB, the LAN port is probably the least significant. Teething issues with build quality certainly aren't what attract install buyers.

You really underestimate the power of a built in LAN switch then. Using an outboard one is like having a big Serato box with crappy terminals that requires power dangling off of your setup.

They certainly couldn't have gotten away with less I/O for sure. There aren't many devices that support digital outside of CDJs though.

Technically, about 90% of media players have an S/PDIF terminal, but that was kind of my point, the digital stack serves as a dedicated standalone CDJ input. Leaving the entire analogue input bus open for patching, and giving the CDJs a sort of dedicated timecode output over it's analogue outs.

[JDFS]

Even for just one thing I would choose A&H above Pioneer: Filters. I hate the Resonance boost with the DJM-series (HPF/LPF) and to come back to 12 o'clock, which sometimes you miss because the detent isn't that noticable. Pioneer improved that on the DJM-2000 though.

[makar1]

... and virtually every single DJ with a rider, performers who bring their own equipment, and the entire menagerie of producers who perform. Thats... a massive market. The DB series isn't really billed as an ideal "DJ mixer."

What proportion of performance DJs have a rider? 1%? 0.1%?
What proportion of that number will request an Allen and Heath? 20%? 10%?
What proportion of that number will request a DB over a 92?

Are you so sure about that "massive market"?

[xs2man]

Meh. Should read Thermalbears review on the DB series mixers in this months DJ Mag.

Of course, in the very same mag someone reviews Involv3r at 6/10. Pffftttt.