Xone db4 or Rane68

BigDaddyCan

which one would you buy?

I'm using traktor hence am leaning a little bit towards the xone, only problem is it isn't traktor certified yet so it won't work with scratch! or will it?

what say you boardsies?

YOP1992

first thing i say is where are you getting the money to buy one of these and can i get in on it?! :P
I'd go with the 68 if I had the choice, optimised for serato so might not be your best option at the minute

electrogrimey

The new Pioneer mixer is a few hundred quid cheaper, and is Traktor certified. I know some people have qualms about the sound quality of Pioneer mixers, but if you're playing from mp3s anyway it's not gonna make much difference.

eeloe

The rane will never make it to industry standard, either will the xone due to it's price.

I wish I had 2k + to drop on a mixer for the bedroom tho.

I guess if money was no object it'd be the db4 for me.

BigDaddyCan

eeloe wrote: »

The rane will never make it to industry standard, either will the xone due to it's price.

I wish I had 2k + to drop on a mixer for the bedroom tho.

I guess if money was no object it'd be the db4 for me.

not for a bedroom!

think its gonna be a db4 or a xone92!

electrogrimey

BigDaddyCan wrote: »

not for a bedroom!

think its gonna be a db4 or a xone92!

If it's not for a bedroom, and then presumably for other DJs to use to, I'd go for the Pioneer. In experience, although the sound quality is better, DJs are generally not used to the layouts of A&H.

Unless you're a mobile DJ, in which case sound quality is less important (because you're not playing of huge rigs), and price, weight and durability is. A&H are definitely work-horses.

hans aus dtschl

Can,

I wouldn't bother with the 92, come over and have a cut off mine and you'll see it's probably not for what you think. Get some xone 1d's or something. The rane 68 is nice, but perhaps overkill? Also every time I see one it's different, so are they even out of development phase?

The 92 is lovely, but if you're going to keep going with midi control, you'd get a better controller for less money. The 92 is an awful lot more than a midi surface.

BigDaddyCan

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Can,

I wouldn't bother with the 92, come over and have a cut off mine and you'll see it's probably not for what you think. Get some xone 1d's or something. The rane 68 is nice, but perhaps overkill? Also every time I see one it's different, so are they even out of development phase?

The 92 is lovely, but if you're going to keep going with midi control, you'd get a better controller for less money. The 92 is an awful lot more than a midi surface.

its gonna be run with 1210's, cdjs, and midi

@electrogrimey, both myself and the other resident are opposed to getting a pioneer, its looking more and more like the db4 vs the 92!

hans aus dtschl

If I had to install one of those it would be the 92.
But installing a midi mixer...I wouldn't...
And installing a high end digital mixer in an Irish cattlemart? Kamikaze.

eeloe

8 out of ten clubs in this country have pioneer installed, the other two either have an A&h 62 or a ****ty denon.

The djm 900 will probably become the staple mixer of the market in the next few years.

A lot of clubs probably won't install the db4 due to the complexity of the layout, no matter how good it sounds.

hans aus dtschl

eeloe wrote: »

8 out of ten clubs in this country have pioneer installed, the other two either have an A&h 62 or a ****ty denon.

A lot of clubs probably won't install the db4 due to the complexity of the layout, no matter how good it sounds.

Amen.

4 sound source inputs too. It's not an installation mixer at all.

Pioneer are an easy safe install, if bad quality mixer. Lots of inputs, lots of channels, lots of outputs, identical replacements easily found. Satisfies most installation criteria.