Pioneer DJM 800 - Why is it the industry standard?

electrogrimey · 11-03-2010 08:54PM #1

After scrolling through post after post on different DJ forums of people saying that they were nowhere near the quality of A&H mixers, it leads me to wonder why do 90% of clubs have them? Do the people buying them not care? Seeing as the Twisted Pepper are using one in the Basement, I wouldn't say this is the case...Do the owners just want to save money by getting a package of 2x1000s and an 800?

Also, what clubs in Dublin are using an A&H mixer?

R.Shackleford · 11-03-2010 09:11PM

Marketing, Branding and millions of euros to do it. Their CDJ's are by far the best out there with no one bar denon getting close to them so people prob just assumed their mixers were the best too. never actualy used an A&h mixer but what i hear is that they are the business. ive been using numark and pioneer mixers over the years and i love my pioneer. Id say in the next 2-3 years A&H with two pioneer cdjs will be the industry standard.

Executive Steve · 11-03-2010 10:54PM

R.Shackleford wrote: »

Id say in the next 2-3 years A&H with two pioneer cdjs will be the industry standard.

Wouldn't hold your breath if I were you...

I rather like the DJM 800 I must say, the size of the EQ's is marvelous for those of us with big hands.

The EQ's on A&H mixers always make me feel like a big friendly giant drinking tea out of a small child's china cup.

hans aus dtschl · 12-03-2010 10:30AM

They're not industry standard as far as I can see. Bigger name guests only seem to request "a high quality mixer like...". Think its pretty much even between A&H and Pioneer, on that end.

Jev/N · 12-03-2010 04:28PM

I'd have to agree with Steve... even though I own a DJM800, I've still used my mates' A&H mixers, including the 32, 62, 92 and even a 464.

The filters are great, no question but that's about it. Most of them don't have independent channel filters however, just X & Y, which can be annoying. Personally I think the filters on the 800 are alright, although I do agree the Q point is waay to pronounced

Also, the addition of a second band of mid EQ is good but takes up more space, hence the smaller knobs as Steve said.

Another issue I have is the quality of the faders, and the LEDs in particular; they're extremely short and very hard to accurately read, unlike the 800.

I know the effects even on the 800 are overboard for pretty much any DJ but I'd rather them any day with the addition of possibly an A&H VF1 if you want that nice filter sound.

Put it this way, my friends who own A&H mixer rave on about them all the time but in the end, they're generally the ones ringing me to borrow the 800 for a mix :pac:

Zascar · 12-03-2010 05:00PM

Apparently Pioneer basically gave them away in the early days to all the big clubs in Ibiza and international superclubs - and pumped loads of money into promotion etc so the big dj's would get used to them and demand them as standard.

I've seen way more people who claim to know their stuff diss pioneer in favour of A&H - mostly around sound quality. I've used both but not enough to really make a firm decision on which is significantly better. Some say once you've used 4 EQ's its hard to go back to 3. Traktor Pro emulates the A&H EQ's (you can have 4 or 3+filter) - must be a reason why...

I'd be inclined to sway to the A&H especially the Xone 4:D <drool> if I had the money. If money was tight I'd still look at alternatives besides the DJM800.

jtsuited · 12-03-2010 05:38PM

soundwise i think they're pretty close (A&H being slightly rounder). however the allen & heath stuff just looks a lot nicer.

Zascar · 12-03-2010 05:45PM

jtsuited wrote: »

soundwise i think they're pretty close (A&H being slightly rounder)

What does 'rounder' mean exactly jeff?

I remember an which went into digital v analogue which said how some mixers add colour to the sound... have a read: http://www.djtechtools.com/2009/12/07/digital-vs-analog-mixing-which-is-better/

jtsuited · 12-03-2010 05:57PM

Zascar wrote: »

What does 'rounder' mean exactly jeff?

a little smoother on the transients. if memory serves me correctly the a&h mixers were a little mellower sounding up around the highs. tbh with the amount of processing between the mixer and speakers in a club it's all a much of a muchness.

btw, everything colours the sound. unless it's perfectly linear. but i'm pretty sure a perfectly linear analogue circuit doesn't exist. not in dj gear anyways.

hans aus dtschl · 12-03-2010 06:27PM

I find the A&H less brittle in the highs and a little wider in the lows, but nothing major. Sound-wise, I wouldn't be gone on what the 800 sounds like, but they both sound like ass compared to the urei 1620. We have all three in our house. To be honest, when it comes to sound, there's **** all point discussing the 800 or 92. The 1620 is king.

But again:
Pioneer "all reds on = signal present", 3 eq's, 1 grounding post, no effect send level control, no effect return channel, 3 eq's, that horrible horrible filter, crappy all-on all-off eq's, 3 eq's

A&H:
faders too light, eq's too close, eq's too small, horrible sound at low volume, faders that die young, one grounding post...

They're both equally ****.

The 1620, then, just has no features at all, no vu meters and a load of its own problems. Putting the 92 through the 1620 is always nice...

Zascar · 12-03-2010 06:50PM

Eh, 6 channels with just volume faders? I think I see some Treble and Bass knobs over at the side but really, is that it? I'd love to hear it I'm sure its amazing, but with almost no features is it really suitable for normal djing?

How does plugging a 62 through it work exactly?

Quiggers · 12-03-2010 09:16PM

Of course these would all sound better if everyone didn't run them into the red!

hans aus dtschl · 13-03-2010 05:02AM

Zascar wrote: »

Eh, 6 channels with just volume faders? I think I see some Treble and Bass knobs over at the side but really, is that it? I'd love to hear it I'm sure its amazing, but with almost no features is it really suitable for normal djing?

How does plugging a 62 through it work exactly?

I'm not really sure how to answer your question. Yes its suitable for normal dj'ing. It's a standard install in a lot of clubs??? Plenty of my friends have these or R1's etc. They're unrivalled, sonically. Have you really never dj'd like this? If not, and you really don't understand the concept behind it, I implore you to explore this avenue. I know in this computer-age of bells and whistles its a tough one to grasp how having a stripped-down mixer is a bonus, but if you get to use one, you'll understand a whole lot better. If you A-B them with the other mixers we're discussing, it's game over.

Those rotaries aren't just tacky linear faders like your standard pioneer etc. The way they make you work is a lot different.

Putting the 92 through, you can use the 1620 as the master, and the 92 as the signal "source". The 1620 just adds warmth and its characteristic sound. Better the 1620 on its own, but still...It means you can "techno mix" with some of the 1620's love...

I'm speaking without any kind of ulterior motive here: I own a 92, a vestax pmc50A and an ecler smac right now. All of these are lovely. The urei is better. It doesn't have some of the functionality I'd like, but I'd happily go without.

Pioneer DJM 800 - Why is it the industry standard?

Comments