I’m having some trouble deciphering what point you’re trying to get across there. There is next to no fragmentation in core features going from the 17 year old DJM 500 right up to the 900.
One thing I don’t understand about the DB2/4 is why A+H decided to go with such poor IO on the rear panel.
This also annoys me a little, but then again, I can’t really complain as I currently have 4 vinyl decks, and 4 Traktor decks, with the ability to add another line in, and a further 4 digital inputs. There isn’t really too much call for any more inputs when I already have access to 13 separate sources.
All the time? My CDJ-2000s are on version 4.20, and my DJM-2000 is on version 3…
With the matrix, digital stack, and patchable sound card, there’s not really any reason to go cray cray on the back panel. The only reason DJMs have RCAphilia is due to the fact that in an install or multiple user situation, everything’s gonna be plugged into everything gonna be plugged into everything all at once (don’t even get me started, Ill get flashbacks).
4 triple stacked inputs across 6 line ins, 2 preamps, and 4 S/PDIFs is just redundant redundancy levels of redundancy for patching purposes. The DB’s I/O across a matrix is more than enough for sensible operations, and youre not actually losing much. The only issue with it really is doing a retard roundup trying to explain matrix inputs to an install crowd when that redundancy is needed. For personal performance, the DB series’ design goal, the I/O on top of the sound card is straight overkill.
That was a bit of fan-boy gibberish. In all honesty, I don’t follow PIO’s updates, so I wouldn’t know. Depending on how you look at either mixer, there are always going to be pros and cons. It comes back to personal preference. You’re more or less likely going to get what you payed for.
As far as the I/O goes - my theory for A&H not including a proper S&R, was that they ran out of magical rainbow colored unicorn piss… but I think Shishdisma has a better explanation.
Off topic - wonder if a linked K2 could host as a S&R…? It could work in theory right? if anything you could use the master out on the K2 into the mic in on the mixer…
fullenglishpint figured out the S&R on the DB4…
Right but did they add major new features? For example the DB4 updates bring new FX.
That is one way, but I am talking about an aux channel being feed from for each channel on mixer.
After watching this video, I think it might be possible. The loop fader (wet/dry) functionality is making me think that the K2’s soundcard is being used to sample. If that is true, then it may be possible to have K2 act as an aux(out) feed w/ the possibility to control volume and eq for each channel(in). This could be used to do something as simple as chaining effects (direct back to mixer) or even better yet, throw the RMX back in there and BOOM…
Im no audio engineer or computer guru.. I may just be way off on this, but the thought of it being remotely possible gets me smiling.
I do remember one - It was the beatmash feature for the 2K, when they released the 2KN.
Anyone know what happened to FEP? Haven’t seen him post in a while.
One thing I really like about my DJM is being able to have everything sound related connected up at home, and having plenty of inputs available for gigs where there’ll be multiple DJs using Traktor timecode, Serato timecode, controllers, turntables, CDJs etc.
Their matrix input system wouldn’t work the same if they added more inputs but I think it’s worth the tradeoff for such useful functionality. They might even have sold a few more units by doing so. Proper Send/Return, additional Master Out, and multiple analogue inputs per channel are things you find on most mixers these days, including the analogue Xone series.
The decimal point BPM was added at user request IIRC.
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. Given that a DJM-2000 is split 6 line/2 phono, you’re really only losing a pair of extra line inputs. You can still run 4 CDJs in standalone thanks to S/PDIF lines, and still have room for two separate SL2s to be patched in for non-push-pull changeover. The only reason I could think you might be pressed is if you had a 2 CDJ/2 1200 install, but even then, the 1200’s probably wouldnt be hard patched to the mixer on account of timecode readiness and such. 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 gushing and theorycrafting surrounding that particular concept is mostly just wet dreaming over ~$3800 worth of effects hardware people aren’t going to own and might get used 1-2 times per set practically.
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. 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.
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.” The digital stack is mostly just a hidden bone thrown to multiple user system owners to make us hate ourselves less, kind of like the SD card slot and personalisation settings on CDJ-2000s.
So you’re saying that having superior I/O options available is pointless? Think of all the money manufacturers could have saved!
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 RMX-1000 is not the only device that can make use of a S/R loop.
So bedroom and mobile DJs only? That’s a pretty small market.
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.
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.
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.
[quote]
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]
… 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.
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.
… 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.”
[quote]
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]
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.
[quote]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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”?
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.