Pioneer DJM-A9 vs. 1850 - what's lost when switching mixers

Yeah, as far as I can tell. I get the expected increased impulse ringing with the mixer SRC 96 to 44.1khz, but the ultrasonic crap from the players is reduced, and all downstream analog gear, including the headphone amp, headphones, amps, and speakers should perform better.

I subjectively notice that weird energy or distortion to the treble at 96khz with the SC Prime players or sending in 44.1khz from old players to upsample is now absent. There’s no way I’m actually hearing the players’ ultrasonic garbage itself when the mixer’s set to 96khz, but it seems to be causing signal-correlated noise in the audible bands that gives a sense of fatiguing lift even though the mixer otherwise measures clean & ruler flat.

It doesn’t 100% attenuate the noise past 25khz (it’s not a brick wall filter), and you’ll still get the rest of the SC Prime players’ sound characteristics (grimy, smeared both in frequencies & transient timing, and rolled off), and, combined with the X18xx constrained sense of dryness and not the best low-level resolution, the whole combination is certainly a bit mushy, dull, constipated, and not a crisp, taught, pristine, vibrant sound like an old Pioneer CDJ-1000 into a Tascam X-9, but on a positive note, the Prime combo set up this way is probably less fatiguing at high volumes. Granted, this combo requires higher volumes to hear fine details that other combos seem able to render better at lower volumes.

As for the A9, it seems to at least reduce some of the bloat to the lower frequencies from the earlier digital DJMs prior to the V10, even if the A9 otherwise sounds mostly like a 900NXS2. Not bad, but certainly won’t win over others who already despise the Pioneer front-end sound at high volumes. Personally, I would like the option to listen to Prime at lower volumes and hear that kind of resolution, and I think the X1700, MP2015, and DB4 with DJ software easily demonstrates such a happy medium sweet spot compared to either Pioneer DJ or new Denon DJ mixer ‘voicing’… and that in itself is notable considering those are three digital mixers that all have their own unique flavor. I think at this tier of digital sound, some amazing nuance is possible. First world problems.

If I had to choose only one of those three aforementioned (for me, near Goldilocks-sounding) digital mixers, though, it would probably be the MP2015, as it compels me to mix and focus on the DJing. Sure, all the retro-like rotary’s knobs kind of look the same, especially in the dark, but the X1700’s euphonic sound would cause me to lose myself in just listening and stop DJing, and the DB4 either causes confusion or, once you get the hang of it, is basically a giant options & effects rabbit hole that’s hard not to get lost in instead of DJing. As great as the MP2015 sounds, I never got so distracted by listening or features that I couldn’t focus on the mixing; in fact, sort of the opposite: it focuses you on it. And yet, still I’ve got the Prime mixer set up right now for the integration stuff. :stuck_out_tongue:

Correction: You only need 48khz to roll off the ultrasonic garbage.

Buy an Allen & heath mixer instead you will have a way better sound than Pioneer or Denon.

But for practising/playing on club device, buy the Pioneer.

4 Likes

I won’t give up my DB4 or my 4D even though I rarely use them of late. I think if I just had those and the Prime mixer, I might not have bothered with anything else… which would be sad from a gear herder perspective.

image

1 Like

XONE96 gang gang gang

3 Likes

Maybe this is something to Check before. @Pwnda shared this a while ago. This changes the behavior more to your own needs.

1 Like

To me, pontificating over which £2000 mixer has the best sound is a largely pointless task. At that price point, just buy the one you think you’re going to enjoy mixing on the most, Be it A&H, Playdifferently, Pioneer, Mastersound, Formula Sound or whoever.

If one mixer has a feature set you are attracted to, go for that mixer and enjoy it… they will all sound fantastic through a good set of speakers and sub anyway.

2 Likes

I have a question about the low / high crossover settings of the x1850. Referring to the first post from the second link you have posted.

I can not get my head on it clearly. For example, I am not able to take over the Pioneer values because the low crossover on the x1850 mixer can only set to 100hz. Also the High’s, 13000hz, I can not take over…

For the Xone:42 I could easly set my values to low 420hz & high 2700hz?

Or do I missunderstand here something.

Setting the crossover points on the x1850 (and any of the all-in-ones) is super easy :blush: they’re set to 220hz for the low shelf and 2kHz (or 2.2kHz) for the high shelf.

I think those values are pretty good, and haven’t had a need to change them - but if you do, it’s super easy :blush:

EDIT: just read your post again, and I might have misunderstood - you’re not able to set the values to the desired frequencies? Which lo/hi-freqs would you like?

2 Likes

Or just buy one of these beauties and none of it matters:)

On a slightly more serious note Kris, something like a radius would be absolutely perfect for your genre and style of mixing, in fact id go as far as saying it’s almost what it’s designed for.

I describe it differently: I have some problems with EQ management. I feel like I have to take away a lot more of the high’s and mid’s EQ on the x1850 with default low and high crossover settings, so the tune loses a lot of volume when I mix mashup’s.

I see all the pioneer users just kill the low EQ and maybe a litte of the high’s and thats it for a good mashup / tune in the background.

So I looked into it more and also found a table on Reddit with EQ band frequencies for the most popular mixers.

I played around a bit with the values, but I’m still not really satisfied.

Maybe I just don’t realized that with the x1850 you have to work differently…

You can also change the EQ from ISOlate to KILL in the settings which can change the way you play and feel the EQs.

1 Like

Iam already using ISO for EQ type. Iam gonna try some things on the weekend

1 Like

It’s definitely different to the Pioneer EQs most people will be used to. At least it is on the Prime 2 anyway.

I also find I have to work the highs and mids quite a lot, but even a tiny amount to the left on the low knob takes out a significant amount. I think part of this might be the way the pot curves are done in the mixer firmware. I’ve said for quite some time that the bass knob is definitely too touchy and could use more nuance, but I get what you’re saying about the other knobs maybe not doing enough. The happy medium could be somewhere in between such curve extremes.

Yes. Even an iso all centered, assuming it’s not X18xx that does an auto bypass, will cause phase distortions and color the sound in unique ways. Isolators are just crossover filter networks that are summed, as opposed to true EQs that usually cause more phase distortion the further from center you are. On an iso, tone knobs are controlling trim-gains for the bands passing through filters. On an X18xx, just one tone knob on that channel tweaked from center will bring channel’s filter network into the virtual signal path.

Besides the mentioned DDM4000, you can use the DB4 to test this very quickly, too. It’s not just the bands and corner frequencies used, though, but the type of tone controls implemented – iso vs EQ, corner frequencies, filter type, etc. It’s also hard to say how much of a mixer’s sound is inherent to the main line-level pass through and how much are the filters and tone controls. Many analog mixers’ true EQs are also often not perfectly component matched in the way that’s easy to do on digital mixers’ firmware.

A mixer with hardware tone controls bypass (Xone 62), auto bypass (X18xx), or just a lot of different options (DB4) will let you quickly hear the primary path. For instance, in bypassed tone knob filter mode the DB4 sounds closer to a mint Mackie d.4 (that always has its isos in the path) than it does to any other analog Xone mixer, but you turn on either EQ mode or especially isolator mode and it starts to sound very much like other Xones… just cleaner and more precise. I guess the Mackie’s isos must be pretty good.

By the way, that only affects its iso mode on the tone controls, as the EQ mode is a parametric style with fixed parameters. When the tone knobs are closer to 12 o’clock for a channel in EQ mode, the closer to zero effect on the sound they have, which is usual for most digital mixers’ EQ modes, with the DB4 being the exception off the top of my head where its EQ mode slightly colors the sound compared to filter bypass.

True, and also curious how high-end digital mixers, in particular, tend to sound strangely different from each other, like at that tier you’re able to hear the subtle differences more, not less. The Djr-400, Model 1, Xone 96, and FF4000 all seem more similar sounding to each other than an X1700, X1800, DJM-900NXS2, and MP2015 that have very unique flavors. It could be because digital is worse, but I tend to lean towards it being a combination of better per dollar and different. At least some of this is probably related to what Max and Kris are talking about.

image

Mastersounds have an announcement coming in 2 days time so may be worth waiting to see what it is?

I know they’re a niche product but I love mine and would recommend their mixers to anybody.

3 Likes

Just to be sure I understand correctly - is what you’re saying that the crossover frequencies only apply when the 3-band EQ’s are set to “ISO”, and ignored when set to “EQ”?

Yes. When you set the tone controls to isolator mode, you have control over the corner frequencies. The frequencies are ignored in EQ mode, which doesn’t have crossover frequencies and is a parametric notch/boost style EQ that increases phase distortion as you move from center, but with fixed parameters. The iso’s phase distortion is constant, except if auto-bypass is engaged when all three channel’s tone knobs are centered. Those filter frequencies are the corner frequencies of a summed crossover network… standard speaker style stuff being modeled, so it sums evenly and is in-phase at the crossover points, but there is phase distortion elsewhere along the spectrum. If you run some test waveforms through it to a scope or record them to a waveform editor, you will see how the iso mutilates them with its usual phase distortion regardless of your trim-gain settings for each band (the tone knobs), assuming you’re not all centered on a channel (auto-bypass), while the EQ mode gradually distorts phase as you push away from center. If you want more control over full kill and frequency areas of effect than the EQ mode provides, use the iso, just know it’s more destructive of phasing even used in small amounts.

Ah, interesting. I was under the impression that the only difference was that “EQ” attenuated 24 dB’s, where “ISO” took out the desired frequency range entirely.

Oh well - you live and you learn :blush:

It’s a much bigger difference than just full kill or not. Iso doesn’t even have to be full kill in the same way some trim-gain knobs don’t go to infinite cut, but not much reason not to provide it. Different maths going on. Iso mode on the DJMs is also a summed crossover filter network. X18xx mixers are only ones I know that do this auto-bypass, though.

Think of a 3-band EQ as three dudes digging a hole or piling up dirt in different parts of the audio spectrum, while the isos are that crossover network and what you have control over are literally the trim-gains for each separate channel of sound going through those paths subjected to filter(s). For a 3-way iso, you have one duplicate channel of full-range audio going through just a low pass, another duplicate going through a low pass and high pass together, and one duplicate going through just a high pass filter. Then these three are summed together.

Back in the old Jamaican street scene, dudes would use their actual speaker crossovers as the tone controls on their sound systems, since they had the crossovers already in the signal path and they built it and ran them all by themselves. Made sense. Pretty smart. Discos started to copy that, but increasingly began summing such a filter network back to just one stereo pair, and then putting other processing after it, like opto-compressors and other stuff. Plus, a lot of disco sound systems were too complicated to be just some 3 or 4-way tone controls thing you could tweak… and you didn’t necessarily want the DJ to have control over the actual crossover network.

Having it as its own ‘iso’ box earlier in the chain before the actual speaker crossover also lets you change where the frequencies are, as compared to on a speaker system where you don’t want to mess with those. Isos color the sound way more than EQs, where you can be gentle with an EQ to keep from adding much phase distortion. Isos are all or nothing on the group delay they cause.

Mastersounds Valve MK2 Rotary Mixers: First Look | Beatsource Tech - YouTube

Its here, awesome update.

3 Likes