Pioneer DJM900 vs Allen & Heath Xone 92. Which one's better?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2024
- There has always been a divide in the dance music community between these two mixers. They're both very different and I wanted to do some tests to try to figure out what they were.
:35 Setup Overview
Skip To the Testing
1:49 1khz sine wave tone (Harmonic Distortion)
6:58 19khz sine wave
9:00 Filters
13:07 Clipping
16:00 Conclusion
P.S. If you have any requests for follow up tests or want me to test the NEW DJM900 Nexus (we just got this) let me know in the comments below. - Розваги
We all need a mixer with the xone 92 sound but with the pioneer effects
I’ve used pioneer for years and all I can say is Allen and Heath is better
Great video! As a tech guy, I deeply appreciate you going through the numbers. Thank you!
Great comparison! we have all heard them but it's nice to see the reason behind the difference in sounds. In a comparison like this it's no surprise the A&H is 'technically' less accurate, however the analogue characteristics are what make it so special & such a favourite with DJs. Thank you for sharing, you clearly know your craft!
This video is great. It takes time and effort to make a video like this. Thank you very much
years later, and new models later I still love this technical analyse!
1:40 Paris Hilton's setup
looooool
ahahhah
🤣🤣🤣
that comment killed me
LOL, best dj mock comment ever. Bravo.
Very good and unique video. Thanks a lot. Now I understand more about sound.
Wow. I love this, been debating djs for years on this and I'm so grateful that someone took the time to do a quantifiable A/B of this...... one thing that he didn't go into (and isn't particularly relevant anymore) is the phono pre amps of each. The only real argument I've heard is that the A&H is better for vinyl and Pioneer is better for....everything else. I'd like to see the nxs2 done here as well as I think it sounds much better than the 900nxs but that could be subjective (especially considering parameter control over color FX and build in isolater for effects makes it all so much easier on the ears) thank you for this video!!!!!
I don't know what the pioneer I'd better at?
hey Josh. really good video. i know it probably excites engineers more than dance-heads but it's great that you actually did the comparison in a technical way with reference signals. kudos for that. i've owned a DJM500 for years, never tried an Allen & Heath and as you say most people probably wouldn't hear the difference especially if the sound system and other amps have their own flaws. but it's good to see that both companies have put a great effort into making it all tick perfectly. you'd be disappointed if somebody charged a lot of money for equipment that is just a "badge". Would be cool if you had the methodology to test out more parts of the whole sound system by analyzing the sound all the way through cables to the speakers. i bet it shows up how rubbish many speakers are
Nice to see someone comparing the two based on science rather than opinion. Personally I own a xone 64, I find it a lot more forgiving on the sound system with guest DJs than when I have used DJM offerings and I like the 4 band EQ myself. I would be interested to see how the new 96 performs as a&h say it is supposed to be more refined.
Thx for making this!
very detailed video Josh!
Thanks
The A_B test on a big-ass soundsystem would be sooo interesting!
good to know! i've seen top DJs go in red in pioneer and the sound was still nice. i'll try hard to not go red in xone 92. really helpful!
DJM900 had a maximum output voltage of +26dbu. Your Behringer sound card has a max input voltage of +22dbu. So according to the specs the sound card will clip 4db before the DJM900.
To test this appropriately you would need a different setup, for example: a sound card with a higher input voltage capability or some 20db inline XLR pads or similar. You would also need a way to test the pads are not causing any distortion.
This is great as my crew is at the point of getting a new high end mixer and there is alot of debate about what to go with. If you could do this test and compare results against the Nexus (or any other mixers you can get your hands on, I'm super intrigued by the new denon prime line after messing with it at the tech area at Movement) that would kick ass! Subscribed.
it's like a WorldWar2 movie. I mean, you know who wins, but let's watch anyway ... grabs Popcorn
And who wins in your opinion and why?
Exactly :-) its Allen and Heath game over
@@robertstevenson6715 ... how? He just proved via Fourier analysis that the Pioneer has less distortion.
@@ErwinSchrodinger64 IMO Distortion can sound good. Thats why Tube Amps are loved. In the end it's a matter of taste. I still use Mixers from the 80s and 90s...
@@Toastkeonig in the case of tube amps what you're referring to is a distinct ground noise that adds a layered sound or filter type sound. Overall, that's a degradation of sound. However, analog vs digital, in vinyl, I will admit I preferred the vinyl sound for the warmth vs MP3 320kps vs vinyl. However, once 16bit wav.files at 44kHz, came out, the ground noise was heavily reduced and was evident at higher gains. This also allows for better signal manipulation via effects processors. If you go to even a higher bit level, like true 24bit music sourced file, you get the "warmth" back because you increase the ground floor. Pioneer is going for purity in sound. In that respect, today's Pioneer mixers, especially with the case of DJM V10 produce a cleaner sound. In that respect, the Pioneer mixer is superior. However, if you want a distinct distortation-filter, created by tube amps, as a sound you're looking for... I can see why someone would like that, however, from my point of view, I see it as added noise. But it's obvious that a large segment of the market likes this sound. There is no arguing that. Thus, it becomes a pointless argument of which better. What is really being argued is what type of sound do you prefer.
I love using the Xone:92 so much, I dropped the cash on one. For me the Voltage Control Filters are just leaps and bounds ahead of the digital filters on any DJM. I like having resonance control and the full rotation of the filter pots to really dial in on the resonance I want. I don't find use for digital effects, but then again mixing DnB isn't really all about those elongated builds IMO. 4 band eq is a little overkill for most DJs I think, but it can be handy. I guess growing up on turntables helped push that for me, but because I am used to the ergonomics of the mixer I much prefer it personally.
I am kind of toying with the idea of getting a DJM, but that's mainly because I will, in the next year or 2 be investing in 4x XDJ1000s so it means easier integration with Pioneer hardware, and of course Pioneer DJMs are in far more abundance in club setups now. Only problem is the 900 NXS2 is stupid money as we speak (2,333 Euro) and in my opinion drastically overpriced. With current pricing I'd not bother and just buy a LAN router to connect digital players anyway.
Eh, I dunno. Both mixers are great but I know which I personally prefer. I've always loved the Allen and Heath, but I'd not turn my nose up at a Pioneer either.
Did you consider getting Denon players?
wow that was really good! a comparison with the new denon mixers would be interesting to me
Thank you, very interesting.
One mistake: Pioneer's filter is not turned on until you turn the frequency knob. Filter button is just a switch between different effects (blue buttons on the left).
From my personal experience, Pioneer sounds terrible with vinyl, its vinyl (phono) pre-amps are really cheap and bad-quality. So it would be interesting to test both mixers with vinyl (if you can get test waves on vinyl?)
Playing digital on Pioneer is OK, but those filters... High resonance is killing them.
Of cause digital mixer should have less distortion, but surprisingly it has some (ok not many peaks as Xone but one).
So it's understandable why many many 'top' DJs (even when playing digital files) prefer Xone.
I wish you could add a Rane into a comparison
I still use a completely analog djm 500 connected to the technics 1210 today. I use the cdj 900 exclusively combined with the CDjs. The only problem on the djm 500 is that as soon as you press the effects button, the Gain rises a lot and distorts, to remedy it you have to lower the fader every time you want to use the effect.
It's all down to the individuals ears, and the acoustics of the room.
Great video, would love to see a tutorial about clipping so I can send it to repeat Redline offenders,
hi thanks for the video!! what do you think ABOUT THE DENON mixer x1850? thank you
Just found this video looking for sound quality info on the 900NXS2. The 900NXS was so harsh at high volumes back in the day if I remember correctly. Would LOVE to see an actual club sound system AB that would be amazing!!
I have a small place in Austria. We have a Funktion One System with top of the line amps and controllers; these speakers are very honest and I saw a pattern here with dj's who run all pioneer gear.
Now I'm not saying that pioneer sound worse than other "brands" (except the 600 - that should have never existed) but the problem in my eyes is that DJs nowadays are conditioned that they always run too much gain(too hot hot signal) out of habit. I give the dj booth more volume than the main system. That way they can blast their ears away. I used to have F10.1 as Dj Monitors but i swapped them out against f1201 which are set 3db louder then the main system. They cant controll the booth volume :)
You would not believe it but Dj's still square the signal off. If you ask them why they say it sounds better or more familiar :(
I love the guys who come in with rotary mixers. I dont know what it is but I would assume that not having a fader where you can punch in a new signal (new track) in a couple MS helps with keeping a good overall volume.
Also I think that the music industry as a whole is to blame. If you produce a track which is 0.1 db below clipping and ppl mix those tracks with +2dbfs digital clipping - only hot garbage can come out. No matter how good anything is. Then you need a bunch of dsp'ing to not burn your speakers or clip your amps and any system no matter how much money you spend sounds lworse than airpods.
I had a dance music label have an aniversary and they had a "Master Sounds Radius2" Mixer. I came in late after setting everything up. The sound was absolutely clear. No distortion at high db peaks. Havent heard such a good sound quality in years.
I was just standing there and it made me almost cry. For the first time the Source Material, the DJ's Tools and the Speakers came together.
Imo gear alone cant make a place/gig sound outstanding. It starts from production and ends with the speakers. Its a long chain and even if you buy the best mixer you still have to have the discipline to not square the signal off & the Audio should be Mastered with a PA in mind. Then you pass the signal down the signal chain where you have no influence. So just buy the gear that makes you happy and when you get somewhere and they have some exotic mixer, just try it out it might be awesome too.
just ordered a Radius 4 'BLU Edition' from Master Sounds over the weekend.. dunno if it'll make me cry, but I am looking forward to that famous analog warmth. Good analog sound always gives me the feeling of being hugged by an old friend. Haven't had a good analog hug in years..
Pioneer mk2 and allen and health 23 which mixer better sound quality
Awesome vid
Which is preferible forma you this Is my questions.
you did the mono or stereo test???
Both types of distortion looked like analog clipping tbh. Expected it to look sharper on the Pioneer, but it was almost more sharp on the A&H
What is not shown here is the jitter, ailiasing and non linearity errors on the pioneer unit which far outweighs the 'noise' on the A&H. Also pioneer have terrible RIAA phono preamplifiers which cause muddiness and feedback (it comes as no surprise they did this on purpose when they did their heavy marketing in the early 2000's to cause problems with turntables and make people go digital).
As an engineer myself I often find myself advising against pioneer, as the (extremely slight) s/n ratio on the A&H unit is nothing compared to issues which pioneer face. And then theres earthing.... all mixers must have a mains earth (3 pin IEC inlet) to be classed as pro audio standard, which is not the case on pioneer units as their power supplies would inject too much noise, so they leave it 'floating' - hence the readings shown above. That causes many other problems.
The list goes on.... but only pioneers heavy marketing and over-priced strategy (creating the stockholm syndrome) made them as famous as they are. Thankfully us engineers keep fighting back with the truth.
Richard Talmage, LCGI EngTech TMIET
Engineer
UK Engineering Council Registration No: 590664.
IET Registration No: 1100173589
Thank you for spreading the truth, Richard
The Xone 92 is definitely the nicest looking mixer on the market
also one of the best sounding
Can you test the Nexus2 vs Xone DB4?
@Mathew Johnston How is that?
It really comes down to how you like to dj, if you like long blends, go zone, if you like effects smashing the cross fader you'll prefer the Pioneer
True, it’s about how you wan’t to play. 2 totally different mixers...
That's ridiculous and makes no sense. There's nothing about a Xone:92 that makes it more suitable for long mixes. My mixes average 150 seconds (I mix longer than almost anyone I've ever heard) and I've played on both of these hundreds of times. There's absolutely nothing about the 92 that makes anything better for the DJ that likes to do long blends.
I agree. it has nothing to do with "mixing style" or whether a dj prefer long mixes vs quick cuts. what it really comes down to is a DJ's ability. all these guys are making excuses for why they don't use 1 over another.
a good dj, understands how mixing works.. subtractive and additive EQ, and understands the concept of "summing"... the Hallmark of a good DJ is putting them in front of the mixer that they have never used before, giving them a few minutes to get acquainted with the controls, and they should be able to perform just as well as if they we're using the mixer that they own at home or are familiar with. the controls may be in different locations, there may be different labels used from manufacturer to manufacturer.. but all in all these are summing mixers. if you understand what summing entails, then you're good. if you can't understand that concept, you're going to have difficulties in translating your skills from device to device. as an audio engineer, we learn the basics of signal flow.. we might have been trained on an SSL 948, but that won't limit our ability to sit down in front of a Neve, API, Soundcraft or a vintage Harrison or Amek and effectively run a recording session or mixdown.
come on people. the equipment is only that. equipment. you might prefer a certain guitar as a guitarist, but doesn't mean you can't use another guitar and still sound good. the equipment is only part of the equation. your skills and confidence behind the decks is not mixer-specific. (the amount of DJs that show up to a gig carrying their bedroom controller it's just astonishing to me. we've got the best industry standard equipment all ready for them in the DJ booth, and they walk in and won't even give a second thought to using any of that equipment..)
I think it depends on your style of mixing. For smooth long blends go with the allen & heath. For a more "intense" style of mixing go with the pioneer. I wanted an xone 92 for a long time but finally ended up buying a djm 800 because I wanted the effects section and most importantly the sound colour effects which are really handy for quick effects sweeps on the last bar of a phrase.
MP2015 and DN-X1700 almost make the DJM800 sound defective by comparison. About the only thing that's impressed me with regards to the sound on the DJM800 is the bodacious bass, but it's also kind of bloated. The DJM900's gain and headroom architecture appears to be mis-designed, though.
For House and techno xone 92 all day!
Nice test!
I also think that a lot of DJs are not aware of the drop in low frequencies when the filter is enabled :/
Never heard anyone assume analog filters were in bypass on one end or the other. That's a digital cheat.
As someone who never cared about the details much and used the pioneer DJM500 from 1999 to 2003, and the xone 92 from 2003 till 2013. Having put all effects and features aside for a second. I never noticed much difference, Except that the heathe always sounded better in lows as far as even monitoring. And the DJM was still great! My residency used DJM, but at home I have always had a 92. And ever since owning it. I have always preferred the sound on the heath. But its very minimal.... heathe always had less clipping and more headroom. And the filter control is second to none. the pioneers resonance has always been a bit of an issue. Especially when using LFO filtering. But, There is a cool effect you can pull off on the DJMs u simply cant on the heathe. But SOUND QUALITY. I never took a lot of notice. Until now.
The best technical dive I have ever seen. Do you have something between 96 and a lower pioneer mixer like 750mk2? I m curious how these same generation but different tiers are acting on this test
When is the next vid my man?! This was fun to watch and also very informative on how the sound is effected!
That distortion will never be heard at 55 db below the signal. So they basically sound the same at 1 kHz and probably any frequency in a double blind test. Which one looks better is probably all that matters now, translating into how the dj feels. That master gain reduction is an engineers dream.
I'm not an expert, but is there any sense in playing digital record through analog mixer?
Yes because, by and large, a lot of harmonic distortion inherent in most analog gear is interpreted by your ears and brain as desirable.
@JoshBillings this isn't a fair comparison if, as it appears, you used the digital connection going into the DJM mixer? The CDJ loses sound quality and adds distortion in it's DAC which you haven't accounted for. Do this test again using the analogue output of the CDJ in BOTH! :)
Fair point. Very fair point.
I wonder how would the djm850 match up instead of the djm 900.
Probably pretty close. I ran the 850 on the same club systems for years and when we updated to the 900nxs2 it was hard to tell if we noticed a difference. Most of us thought we did, but it could have been a placebo effect.
Was the Peak Limiter turned on inside the DJM900 settings?
I would love to see the comparison with the new DJM900NXS2.
I talked to Pioneer engineers and was also told when using digital SPDIF inputs on DJM900 (both), you cannot clip the individual channels no matter how loud you turn the gain because of the 32bit floating point DSP. You can still clip the master channel, however with attenuation & Peak limiter this is drastically reduced. Would love to see your test results to this claim.
Lastly, I noticed on DJM900 (first gen) it’s very easy to clip the Booth Output after about 3 o’clock on the booth volume knob. There is no attenuation on the first gen, but I know there is on new NXS2 booth output.
It's called harmonic distortion. And it's what most vinyl djs love. sending sinewaves through the signal path is nice but not everything.
I’d rather the Allen and heath and I’m typing this before even watching the whole video. Purely for the hipster UK cool value of it.
is that minus 6db on master default setting or not? u have done gain distortion comparasining but with diferent mastering knob setting...so as you been said pioneer distorts more a & h distorts @+6db...
but lets b real .. this is how someone wil going to use device..anyone who knows something will be in a range Beatween 0db and +2db..and it is not about visual it is about sound,you can clearly hear it in your headphones..i like both of them... if you prefer stock fx then pioneer is best choice but if you have tourntable than a & h is far more better choice and fx/sendReturn is so much fun with external fx units...pioneer is more popular @boots across the world but every artist that i admire uses a&h and it can not be coincidence and imho more precise transitions can be made on xone mixers analog eq section realy matters if you know what are you doing..with pioneer you can do it only with bass rotary knob nobody can tell diference you do not need to touch mid and high eq knob thats that kind of compression everybody talks about...
I noticed the high pass filter on the A&H does that as soon as you hit the button. I wish it wasn't so.
Just don't press it till you want it. It has a big blue light
You'll want to keep the resonance at around 1 o clock when engaging the filter to not lose as much bass. This dude doesn't really know Allen + Heath mixers (just like I don't know Pioneer mixers).
played on a pioneer once years back, never again. xone till i die
I will be honest, the sound quality is just so much nicer to listen to on the xone 92 imo. It makes almost anything sound good.
right? every time I have to use a pioneer mixer in the club it just feels weird and I feel my music sounds undefined and blurry, vs. a xone mixer and the experience is totally different, so sharp, balance and tight
please review DJM1000 6 channels (iconic mixer)
So Pioneer deserves its glory after all
Real-world testing is what counts
The filters on the A&H are the best out there
awesome video bro, very informative mad respects.........
helpful thanks
they wether runed the xone 92 or that its an old analogue gear, it needs an upgrade, or stick with developing the xone PX series evolved from the xone 43c which is the small brother of the xone 92
i luv allen heath analog s the best
For a realy smooth mix the xone is the better choice!!
For the EDM freaks the DJM is the better one
Allen & heath... the rolls Royce of mixers. Had a xone62 for years, couldn't fault it in any way. Paired it with 1200 mk5, the carlsberg of dj set ups!!!
DJM900NXS vs PX5 or DB2 would have been a better comparison.
PX5 is an analog mixer. DB4 would be a better A&H to compare the Pioneer with. DB4 I guarantee you is not badly designed like the DJM900's gain and headroom structure, though.
You should use an analog source (vinyl) in order to see the differecnce.
Thanks teacher. Now, we go to rest
Where do you have that shirt? Fucking love it!!! House music all life long
Way different mixers to compare between, now because of preference i would say A&H is better.
great video.
pioneer ftw.
Xone forever ...
Record 2 mixes using each mixer then let the audience spot which mixer was used ...............I bet hardly anyone would even notice the difference
I'd rather have A&H (for techno, trance, progressive) than pioneer (for trance, progressive) for my opinion.
Josh seems like a nice guy and did a good scientific analysis on both mixers, however this was not a very comprehensive review. He didn't go into the 4-band EQ on the Allen & Heath or the array of FX on the Pioneer. It would have also been helpful to hear the comparison between the VCF filter on the A&H and the filter sweep on the Pioneer. Anyhow, personally I would always choose an analog mixer over digital any day. I don't care how much clarity it has, it's still a digital signal and therefore not giving you the true sound. As for the distortion on the Xone:92, on a loud system nobody would notice it and even on a recording I doubt there would be any audible difference. If anything, a bit of subtle distortion might add some more character.
you just contradicted yourself.. you say a digital mixer isnt the "true sound" but by the end you mention how the extra distortion (which changes the sound) on the A&H is good!?! LMAO people shouldnt talk audio without understanding...
Analogue sound wave always represents the original sound wave, whereas digital sound wave only replicates sampled sections of the original sound wave. The extra distortion on the A&H is very subtle and adds to the warmth. Is that a good enough explanation for you?
The lessons learned here is that measurements are not everything. Manufacturers of audiophile equipment only use measurements to aid in the design process, but the final say are their ears.
Nice test, but for companies who dry-hire equipment the Pioneer is the most asked mixer (and players)
ofcs, but most really high quallity dj´s want the xone at a venue
I´m looking forward to buy one too in the next couple of months, but its for me a hugh financial desicion, considering you need two players as far as i know for the xone
These famous filters AeH broke the balls
The cheesy af filter on the Pioneer mixer was a deal breaker for me. No matter what other bells and whistles it had, the crap filter ruins the mixer.
The Xone's beauty is in its simplicity and that it does all its limited functions so well. Not only does the 4 channel eq give you more flexibility, but each individual channel just sounds more organic when you adjust it. It also has two individual effects sends, so you could easily plug in a reverb pedal or whatever if you want.
You should have opted for the NXS2 or the DJM-2000/NXS. They both have filter resonance control and control over what frequency's the effects affect. The NXS2 have only set buttons while the 2000 have knobs to really fine tune the use of effects. It's really the opposite of the 900NXS, and if money is no factor, the new Pioneer V10 takes everything to a new level of controlling the sound, internally and externally.
Thanks for a different out take on these two great mixers, can comparisons be made fully when one is running digitally and the other is running analogue?
Nevertheless, anything created from an English company will be built to the highest standard and built to last. So I'd go A&H every time. I honestly believe most people favour pioneer mixers to not look out of place with their cdj deck units, as pioneer are the best on those. However, A&H filters are better sounding than Pioneer, most agree.
What you should of run the tests between is the pioneer DJM900 against an A&H Xone DB4, both digitally comparable
I'd go with any company that Pink Floyd swore by, Allen & Heath.
and ATC speakers 👍
Can’t beat the warmth of the a&h
bring back the xone 92 with effects and sound colour and call it XONE 92 MAC2 and watch
They are completly different. Digital x Analog. Best analog Mixers are the older ones such as Rane and a few others...if you like thousands of effects - go digital. if you like deep bass and vinyl, go with analog old ones
A&h for me . Actually You just proved that the a&h is better 1khz harmonics , clear bass sound . Harmincs are the reason why it has reacher sound. Next test for you . Djm800 or 900 to djm 500 . Massive difference .
harmonics added by a device is not good. You can say it sounds fuller all you want but that warmth and harmonic content should already be perfect in a good mixdown and master. it is changing the sound, if you subjectively like it more thats fine but from a spec point the xone mixer is worse.
In fact the harmonic distortion is not good, but at -61dB could not be that important as other things, like the ability to manage all 4 decks at full 0dB volumes without distortion and with enough headroom. Digital mixers may miss this probe. The other thing is the reach of sounds, this can't be measured with a single tone, should be white noise instead and also check how accurate is the input of the source to the output given, measuring latency, dynamic range between other things. Also About clipping, is no sense DJs use the master out to get all leds up to red, that is why Pioneer fool them to see that way but internally set at -6dB (like done at the video) or even do deeper up -12dB. However, the marks of 0dB are there for a reason, and the reason is to get the levels in a good operation mode (cool be peaking at +6dB but never at +12!!!) If you do not know how to use gains, volumes and levels, then yes use a DJM, Xone analog mixers are to use them wisely and as they where design to work. And yes, Xone could give a better final sound too.
@@andrescamargo9752 , xone92 trash.
Have not even pressed play but... Do you really dare to compare any A&H device with a Pioneer mixer? Whichever this last one is?
it s amazing how most DJ's still don't know what a vu-meter is for
It's more amazing how faulty this guy's test methodology was.
Why would a DJ need to even know what a vu meter is for
itˋs the xone for meeeee
A/B testing on a high quality sound sytem yes there is a big difference. A&H sounds so much better.
can you not run it through the behringer it has a terrible output and internal leakage, im sure they will both perform better results. oh an allen and heath for me.
If it says Behringer anywhere on the device it's most likely shit.
Every time he got similar results between the two mixers, one cannot rule out the Behringer as the culprit.
If the soundcard is not great, but it's the same for both, it doesn't matter.
Allen and Heath in my experience is better in terms of accuracy and sound quality but pioneer is a more durable mixer , suited for all types of DJ's and designed for club than for studio in my opinion. I would take Allen and Heath because I like deep house music and enjoy ''mixing'' tracks rather than anything else.
what do you mean by more durable, xone 92 its a very solid and much better quality than the pioneer its metal vs plastic
My xone 62 is build like a bunker and still good after 20 years.. no knob wobble. My DJM800 knobs wobble and wear down, same as line faders…
субтитры в гугле переводили?))
Denon or A&H sounds better. Pioneer is overrated for his price.
Definitly xone92 output is just a real sound, filters sounds way more smooth.
I see a NAMM badge that says "Pioneer Electronics" in the opening shot. Hmmmm... industry bias much?
The tests show the truth, he doesn't give opinion not based off fact at any point.
@@K_514 his tests are done incorrectly. He needs to use a real scope. When he was seeing distortion, he was clipping the input of the sound card, not the mixer.
Thats why adjusting the master Att helped the pioneer.
Why is everyone so fussed about the Xone being analogue when both mixers would take their music from players via USB therefore > MP3 / FLAC or WAV, but mainly MP3 (digital format).
When you play MP3 through an analogue mixer, surely it would still not sound as good. To use the full potential of Xone mixers - one would have to use turntables. And when you are using turntables, why would you use a digital mixer?
MP3s > Pioneer
Turntables > Allen & Heath
You told us that 92 has more distorsions. We apreciate your work but tell us why xone 92 has a better sound than pioneers 900
Well the Xone 92 is old as balls. which is fine, since its a very good analogue mixer. But the debate started right around the DJM 600. That mixer was innovative for its time: digital effects and the likes. However it had atrocious sound quality, and the old skool jocks preferred the Xone mixers. The divide was made and stayed ever since, however in my opinion with the way club sound systems are set up nowadays and the readily available quality files of digital music, the DJM 900 is the better choice. It simply works a lot nicer with the CDJs and digital limiters and digital amps. Plus, you can actually run the Pioneer in the red without issues, since thats the way the mixer is set up.
xone 92 is from times of djm 800 , not djm 600. You have missed for about 10 years...
People bitched and complained about the DJM 600 distorting too soon and harshly when they were deep in the red. They were morons, but the full digital DJMs are obviously better. BTW, you need to stop using limiters. Limiters are for bands, studios, and amp outputs. The only time you should have a DJ mixer's limiter on is when you're in the studio.
I know the review was an honest attempt to compare the 2 mixers, but so much was left out it makes the review meaningless. There's no way the results can be relied upon. For example, its very common to have a component that doesn't measure well, easily outperform another piece with better specs.
If you plan to buy one of these things, your best bet is to listen to both units and pick the one that sounds the best. Its much safer way to do it.
This is DJ tools, so the way you play, or intend to play will be the determining factor for most buyers. Also, if you are a touring DJ, even if it is at a local national level, you will probably want to have what's in the booths where you play. Also, in most places there's a lot of other elements that will affect the sound negatively, from hardware, room acoustics and people/activities, to a level that what mixer you use won't matter at all when it comes to what sound quality your mixer can deliver. I was, and still am, very satisfied with my DJM-800 and when it was time to upgrade a year ago, I had to decide where to invest my money.
It's an investment for the next 10 years, or at my age perhaps for life ;) , so I took the time to really dive into the options out there. My personal preference in music is soulful funky house and electronic dance music. I love traditional long blends with layered transitions in key, but as a dj, I play almost always commercial dance music. It's in the job description. So, the choice was between the A&H DB4 and the Pioneer 900NXS2, and the later won. Very well build and superb sound. Unique connectivity possibilities and with added control over effects, even if not as subtle as on the DB4. Hopefully one day I'll win the lottery so I can have booth :) .
In fact the harmonic distortion is not good in any audio system, but at -61dB could not be that important as other things, like the ability to manage all 4 decks at full 0dB volumes without distortion and with enough headroom. Digital mixers may miss this probe. The other thing is the reach of sounds, this can't be measured with a single tone, should be white noise instead and also check how accurate is the input of the source to the output given, measuring latency, dynamic range between other things. Also About clipping, is no sense DJs use the master out to get all leds up to red, that is why Pioneer fool them to see that way but internally set at -6dB (like done at the video) or even do deeper up -12dB. However, the marks of 0dB are there for a reason, and the reason is to get the levels in a good operation mode (cool be peaking at +6dB but never at +12!!!) If you do not know how to use gains, volumes and levels, then yes use a DJM, Xone analog mixers are to use them wisely and as they where design to work. And yes, Xone could give a better final sound too. A more actual and fair comparison would be between DJM-9000NX2 and Xone PX5 now days. Could be interesting and this time use the same ANALOG input on both mixers too, just to know how these are in that way.
Put them against a numark
Pioneer mixers killed vinyl in clubs, pair of technics thru an a+h sounds so much better
all day every day
i don't care - the Xone 92 visually is a beauty
DJM 2000 is the best
... literally sponsored by Pioneer