DJM vs DB help please - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Tech Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    York, UK
    Posts
    3,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shishdisma View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shishdisma View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shishdisma View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shishdisma View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shishdisma View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shishdisma View Post
    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.
    VCM100 / X1 / DJM250 / DJM900 / CDJ2000s / Maschine / Audio2+4 / 2i4 / HS8s / TSP 2.6.8
    Macbook Air i7-3667U+8GB 10.9 / Win7x64 i5-3570k+24GB


  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by makar1 View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    Tech Mentor JDFS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tiel, The Netherlands
    Posts
    407

    Default

    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.
    MacBook Pro 13 (Q1 2011) | Adam A5X | Akai APC20 | Alesis QX49 | Behringer BCR2000 | NI Komplete Audio 6

  4. #34
    Tech Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    York, UK
    Posts
    3,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shishdisma View Post
    ... 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"?
    VCM100 / X1 / DJM250 / DJM900 / CDJ2000s / Maschine / Audio2+4 / 2i4 / HS8s / TSP 2.6.8
    Macbook Air i7-3667U+8GB 10.9 / Win7x64 i5-3570k+24GB


  5. #35
    Tech Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    NE Scotland
    Posts
    372

    Default

    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.
    Technics 1210 mk2's, Pioneer CDJ 500, Allen & Heath DB4, NI F1's (x2), Reloop Contour Controller Edition, Sennheiser HD25 1-II or Allen & Heath XD2-53's depending on my mood...

    Mixcloud : xs2man - Latest Mix: Latest Mix 13-10-2016

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •