Using digital will reduce the number of conversions by 2, so quality will be slightly better and latency slightly lower. Surely that’s worth $2?
Absolutely. All I’m saying is that the included RCA’s can also handle it.
well technically it can, but it wouldnt hurt to put down a few extra dollars on a screened cable.
regarding the sound of a djm 800 to 900 its quite a big difference actually. More than you ever would dream of regarding sound quality lies in the DAC and pre-amplifier which both is housed within a djm 800 or 900.
I would describe the sound of a djm 900 as clear, detailed, neutral and digitally clinical whereas the 800 sounds like it wants to be like the 900 but fails. Since what we believe sounds nice is subjective, some may like the extremely clear output of the 900, I myself prefer more punch in the bass, more groove and musicality like xone analogue mixers over the digital and sterile 900.
Don’t listen to everything Pioneer says or any other manufacturer, there not going to say there brand new replacement product is not that different from the old one are they?
Also i’m well aware what processors etc do but A/B an 800 and 900 and you will hear the 900 is louder
Sure, that’s because nobody sets the master attenuator on the DJM900NXS to -6dB. Hardly anybody knows how to even do that on a DJM900NXS. It’s set to 0dB by default.
On the DJM800 the default is -6dB.
Last but not least, the DJM900NXS sports a 32bit DAC on the master channel instead of the 24bit DAC on the DJM800’s master out.
Its not that mate I assure you, I have just put a 900 in the main club I look after, the 800 has been running at 0db for the last 5 year but has had one too many drinks, does random shit and basically needs a new main board which is £450ish, so we got a new 900 which I have had to attenuate to -6db to get it the same volume as the 800 running at 0db
Hey lip, how did you make out?