Review of DJ equipment?

[nagster]

These are measurement results for the AlphaTheta / CDJ-3000X.
There are a lot of them, so I'll only post a few. DJ equipment has too many variables.
This is an AP dashboard with a 997Hz / 0 dBFS sine wave and intersample peak test signal.
From what I saw, the response was similar when the tempo reset function was enabled and when the tempo slider was set to 0 %.

The Pioneer logo appears to be gone.
The screen is fast, vivid, and easy to read with no afterimages.
File operations and scrolling are very quick.
The response of each button was also direct.
I can't evaluate the DJ play functions.
Wired and wireless LAN are built-in.
It is advertised as being capable of streaming music from the cloud.
These days, DJs may be touring empty-handed, without even a USB stick.

CDJ-3000X - Next-generation professional DJ player - AlphaTheta

The CDJ-3000X offers speedy access to online music, and the “X” in its name embodies multiple meanings: transformation in the evolution of media, expanded connectivity with various devices and platforms, and extraordinary reliability and sound quality that surpasses the CDJ-3000.

alphatheta.com

 

[nagster]

I don't have access to a CDJ right now, but from what I remember, it was as follows:
44.1 kHz source -> 44.1 kHz coaxial output
48/88.2/96 kHz source -> 96 kHz coaxial output

I can only guess at the sampling frequency of the DAC section, but I will check the coaxial output again next time.

This is about the sampling frequency of the digital output of AlphaTheta / CDJ-3000X.
TEMPO slider is 0 % and MASTER TEMPO is OFF.
The CDJ-3000X's digital output was 96 kHz for 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 kHz sources.
The CDJ-2000NXS2's digital output was 44.1 kHz for 44.1 kHz sources and 96 kHz for 48 / 88.2 / 96 kHz sources.

 

[nagster]

This is the frequency response, J-test, and 32-tone of the AlphaTheta / CDJ-3000X.
The 32-tone measurement results were so bad that I repeated them several times, but the results were the same. This may be due to measurement artifacts.
That's all for now.

edit: Added explanation to 32-tone screenshots

 

[naagratrax]

Wtf is that big hole in the frequency response at 2KHZ ? It's horrible

I'm semi professional DJ and don't know that the master tempo impact the sound quality so much

Can you try with others players ? Like the Denon SC6000

 

[Reticuli]

Can you try with others players ? Like the Denon SC6000

See my prior post for RMAA of old Pioneer, Hanpin, Gemini, and new Denon over SPDIF. Not a full-on audio analyzer, but useful for comparison of the ones I looked at.

***
Odd that there appears to be little to no pad on the audio processed by the CDJ-3000 and X, because I believe it was Pulse that told me they had the necessary headroom already built into the processing to prevent intersample peaks. We got a substantial pad put into the firmware of the Denon DJ Prime series standalone players pretty early on to prevent this issue based on my recommendation, and previous to that we learned there was an omnipotent lookahead limiter that was in there to prevent any form of clipping in the player processing from the SRC, speed change, and key change... though obviously it was causing some additional roll off and limiting beyond the crude anti-aliasing filter. So, the pad added to the Prime playback later should have simply prevented the playback limiter from being utilized. On the Prime mixers, we also have the ability to disable both the FX and Master limiters, as well as change the mixer sample rate to 44.1, 48, or 96khz.

On the topic of SPDIF vs analog output on the Prime players, I'm still not certain if the former is fed the same exact data stream as the latter. A number of users have told me they don't believe that's the case based on their own ears. The AKM 4413 DAC is capable of much higher sampling rate than the 96khz the Prime SPDIF is set to.

 

[nagster]

Wtf is that big hole in the frequency response at 2KHZ ? It's horrible
I'm semi professional DJ and don't know that the master tempo impact the sound quality so much

The same thing happened with the CDJ-3000, but it's a shame that it hasn't been improved. (The overload issue, too.)

One thing I forgot to mention above is that the SD card slot has been changed to USB-C (host). SD cards have the advantage of being physically less likely to break, but having more USB ports might be more convenient. (The person who lent me the CDJ told me that one time, during a DJ change, a USB stick broke, stopping the sound, and they couldn't remove the remains of the connector, causing panic onstage.)

Can you try with others players ? Like the Denon SC6000

If I ever get access to a Denon DJ player I'll definitely measurement it out.

 

[kidprofessor]

This is really late in the game, but when the Pioneer CDJ decks were around they were considered, by far, the best.

It would be interesting to try one, play with the pitch controls especially since they were always said to be inferior to those on turntables.

I DJed for years and used CDJs a couple times. The pitch control isn’t inferior, but when you’re beat matching fast, it’s easier to manipulate the speed of a standard Tech 12 by brushing the side or turning the spindle

 

[Reticuli]

I can confirm the SC Prime player separates analog outputs measure similarly in RMAA to the digital outs. Same treble roll off. Same aliasing distortion causing the IMD hump that shows about 100X the original test signal's IMD + noise. I am inquiring on whether the analog outputs get the same data stream as the digital outputs, but them seem pretty similar. If the audio streams to both the DACs and SPDIF are the same all the time in the firmware, then obviously there's no advantage to using the analog outputs into a 96khz digital DJ mixer that has digital inputs. Here are the analog outputs with a 24/96 RMAA test wav file, pitch fader at zero, key lock off into a Tascam 366 set to 24/192:

 

[Reticuli]

More SC Prime player separates graphs of the analog outs, this time generated by Chat GPT:

"HF rolloff
raised noise
ultrasonic imaging spike
spectral time-domain smearing
loss of detail

Evidence of zero stuffing SRC, polyphase FIR resampler leakage, or imperfect anti-imaging filters. Possibly DSP running at only 48khz even with higher rate content, and the data stream could then be poorly upsampled to 96khz for marketing reasons at the SPDIF"

InMusic says these run at 96khz internally, but it looks like a 48khz data stream to the analog outputs even with 96khz files, and the SPDIF has nothing useful above 24khz except added noise. Actually, roll off begins at about 12khz.

 

[Querkle]

all these tests are super helpful.

I have use CDJs since the CDJ800MK2, i have owned that model and also currently own XDJ-700 i have owned for 5+ years. i also have a friends older CDJ900NEXUS to add a third deck to my set up, in addition to my 2 SL1200 MK2 and DJM900NEXUS.

I can tell that the A/D D/A on my pioneer mixer is not the best, but honestly my ears can not tell the difference between master tempo on or off, or digital vs RCA inputs.

Personally my whole collection is 16/44.1 AIFF as a trade off between quality and file size, seeing this data makes me wish i used 24/48 or 24/44.1 AIFF, but i can only get maybe 10-15% of files in that format. its NOT a good idea to use ALAC, FLAC, or anything over 48KHz sample rate as those files wont work with alot of CDJs and controllers, and its best to have files that work with all pioneer hardware, as cool as it is that some support 24/96 its still not practical. also i would avoid WAV with CDJS all together as its been known to have issues

https://www.reddit.com/r/DJs/comments/kb36z9/a_tool_to_fix_compatibility_issues_with_wav_files

AIFF 24/48 or AIFF 24/44.1 would be the best format to use as a DJ hoping to be able to plug into and use all Pioneer/Alpha Theta CDJs and Controllers

it would be great to see measurements on DJM-A9, DJM-V10, DJM-V5, and the Euphonia mixer Alpha Theta produce.

 

[Reticuli]

all these tests are super helpful.

I have use CDJs since the CDJ800MK2, i have owned that model and also currently own XDJ-700 i have owned for 5+ years. i also have a friends older CDJ900NEXUS to add a third deck to my set up, in addition to my 2 SL1200 MK2 and DJM900NEXUS.

I can tell that the A/D D/A on my pioneer mixer is not the best, but honestly my ears can not tell the difference between master tempo on or off, or digital vs RCA inputs.

Personally my whole collection is 16/44.1 AIFF as a trade off between quality and file size, seeing this data makes me wish i used 24/48 or 24/44.1 AIFF, but i can only get maybe 10-15% of files in that format. its NOT a good idea to use ALAC, FLAC, or anything over 48KHz sample rate as those files wont work with alot of CDJs and controllers, and its best to have files that work with all pioneer hardware, as cool as it is that some support 24/96 its still not practical. also i would avoid WAV with CDJS all together as its been known to have issues

https://www.reddit.com/r/DJs/comments/kb36z9/a_tool_to_fix_compatibility_issues_with_wav_files

AIFF 24/48 or AIFF 24/44.1 would be the best format to use as a DJ hoping to be able to plug into and use all Pioneer/Alpha Theta CDJs and Controllers

it would be great to see measurements on DJM-A9, DJM-V10, DJM-V5, and the Euphonia mixer Alpha Theta produce.

Digital DJ mixers are not the problem. I've tested many. They all measure great, aside from understandable (and usually inoffensive) group delay from isolators that mutilate test waveforms or the Euphonia's trans loop that adds (sometimes) pleasing harmonic distortion and acts as a kind of treble transients expander in spots. Even the old PPD 9000 measures better than most analog mixers that have ever been made, and the new Denon X18xx mixers, which I personally think sound dry, constrained, and a touch grainy, also measure better than most analog mixers ever made.

Even the DJM-800 isn't bad, especially if you bypass the analog ins and outs. I recall the Tascam X-9 did have some noisy analog outputs, but that might have been just the headphone jack. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a mixer with better low end than that old X-9. From that early digital mixer era to now, digital mixers have made good sound easy. You don't *have* to use a digital mixer to get good sound, but you will either pay out the butt to do it as well with analog or lose out on features. A lot of the hate for the DJM-800, though, seemed to be people going analog from CDJs into it, and then analog out from the mixer into a mixing board, then into a digital crossover, etc. Keep it digital throughout, and you will be amazed.

If you're looking for accuracy of those specific mixers you list, though, it goes DJM-A9 then V10 then Euphonia (basically A9 internally with trans loop but weirdly no SPDIF out), and then the V5 is in there somewhere, with the proviso the V5 has no digital ins or outs. You're right, they're all going to sound fine. People like the V10 and V5 because it's got more damped and less 'quick' transients... think of them like halfway between the A9 and the constipated-sounding Denon X18xx line. The Euphonia is subjectively very very nice for music with real instruments and/or with real acoustical spaces in the recording and/or very dynamic & sparse music. I think for those that believe the music they play sounds too perfect and sterile, the Euphonia also has merit. It's not a panacea, though, and the biggest appeal to it is, frankly, the layout and feel of the rotaries.

The Denon mixers, old and new, have the benefit of choice of internal sample rate for use with SPDIF inputs so you can potentially avoid SRC. Rane MP2015 also kind of has that sample rate change capability with the use of DAW, though it's hidden. In contrast, the Pioneers and Alpha Thetas are a fixed rate, 96khz on their flagships, which means SRC is unavoidable when used with the older CDJs' SPDIF. Quite a few people complained that the V10 SRC was inferior to some of the older models. I have no idea, but I can tell you the Denon of Japan last flagship DJ mixer the X1700 has really lovely SRC for 44.1 inputs when set to 96khz, sometimes seemingly enhancing the sound to the point it's so luxurious you want to just sit and listen and stop DJing for a while.

The digital DJ media players of various brands right down to the different product lines over the years measure with much wider variation than the digital DJ mixers, and it's rather shocking how good some of the cheap ones measure, particularly over digital. Some of those cheap brands don't have the software or hardware reliability to back that up, while some that measure o.k. are also pretty robust. That makes it all the more annoying that the expensive, fully featured ones treat the DSP firmware coding sound quality as an afterthought. The 'maths' that go into how a digital mixer works is pretty well established, but it's a lot more of an art form on the digital DJ media player side, as well as a lot of available short cuts to reduce processing throughput requirements.

 

[Querkle]

Digital DJ mixers are not the problem. I've tested many. They all measure great, aside from understandable (and usually inoffensive) group delay from isolators that mutilate test waveforms or the Euphonia's trans loop that adds (sometimes) pleasing harmonic distortion and acts as a kind of treble transients expander in spots. Even the old PPD 9000 measures better than most analog mixers that have ever been made, and the new Denon X18xx mixers, which I personally think sound dry, constrained, and a touch grainy, also measure better than most analog mixers ever made.

Even the DJM-800 isn't bad, especially if you bypass the analog ins and outs. I recall the Tascam X-9 did have some noisy analog outputs, but that might have been just the headphone jack. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a mixer with better low end than that old X-9. From that early digital mixer era to now, digital mixers have made good sound easy. You don't *have* to use a digital mixer to get good sound, but you will either pay out the butt to do it as well with analog or lose out on features. A lot of the hate for the DJM-800, though, seemed to be people going analog from CDJs into it, and then analog out from the mixer into a mixing board, then into a digital crossover, etc. Keep it digital throughout, and you will be amazed.

If you're looking for accuracy of those specific mixers you list, though, it goes DJM-A9 then V10 then Euphonia (basically A9 internally with trans loop but weirdly no SPDIF out), and then the V5 is in there somewhere, with the proviso the V5 has no digital ins or outs. You're right, they're all going to sound fine. People like the V10 and V5 because it's got more damped and less 'quick' transients... think of them like halfway between the A9 and the constipated-sounding Denon X18xx line. The Euphonia is subjectively very very nice for music with real instruments and/or with real acoustical spaces in the recording and/or very dynamic & sparse music. I think for those that believe the music they play sounds too perfect and sterile, the Euphonia also has merit. It's not a panacea, though, and the biggest appeal to it is, frankly, the layout and feel of the rotaries.

The Denon mixers, old and new, have the benefit of choice of internal sample rate for use with SPDIF inputs so you can potentially avoid SRC. Rane MP2015 also kind of has that sample rate change capability with the use of DAW, though it's hidden. In contrast, the Pioneers and Alpha Thetas are a fixed rate, 96khz on their flagships, which means SRC is unavoidable when used with the older CDJs' SPDIF. Quite a few people complained that the V10 SRC was inferior to some of the older models. I have no idea, but I can tell you the Denon of Japan last flagship DJ mixer the X1700 has really lovely SRC for 44.1 inputs when set to 96khz, sometimes seemingly enhancing the sound to the point it's so luxurious you want to just sit and listen and stop DJing for a while.

The digital DJ media players of various brands right down to the different product lines over the years measure with much wider variation than the digital DJ mixers, and it's rather shocking how good some of the cheap ones measure, particularly over digital. Some of those cheap brands don't have the software or hardware reliability to back that up, while some that measure o.k. are also pretty robust. That makes it all the more annoying that the expensive, fully featured ones treat the DSP firmware coding sound quality as an afterthought. The 'maths' that go into how a digital mixer works is pretty well established, but it's a lot more of an art form on the digital DJ media player side, as well as a lot of available short cuts to reduce processing throughput requirements.

why DJM A9 > V10 for quality, is there data for this?

 

[Snarfie]

My Allen&Heath Xone 4D in use from 2011 till now as digital workstation feeding Traktor Pro, Ableton Live. 1 repair a power Supply awesome device. Love to see this device tested.

 

[Ropeburn]

My Allen&Heath Xone 4D in use from 2011 till now as digital workstation feeding Traktor Pro, Ableton Live. 1 repair a power Supply awesome device. Love to see this device tested.

View attachment 539403

The Xone series certainly has a stable reputation for sounding better than others. Would love to see them measured too, what's behind the hype really.

 

[Snarfie]

The Xone series certainly has a stable reputation for sounding better than others. Would love to see them measured too, what's behind the hype really.

IMO the hype is more it rigidness an quality components like knob feel, quality frequency kill switches, fully programmeble MIDI channels/messages using digital faders, rotary knobs handy for Ableton or Traktor assignments etc etc. I've been running my Xone:4D since 2011 and it remains state of the art today combined with true analog heritage.

The 20-channel USB 2.0 soundcard inside (24-bit/96kHz) allows you to record or route any combination of signals independently between the analog mixer, your DAW, and external gear i even play my analog bass guitar over it directly an is digitized on the spot. As far as i know this architecture is still unmatched by any current DJ mixing desk i guess.

The heart of the unit the analog mixing section incorporates the exact Voltage Controlled Filter (VCF) circuitry an hardware from the legendary Xone 92 basicly it is a exact copy. These are physical circuits, not DSP emulations, which gives them that organic, musical saturation.

As for durability, my unit did not have to survived hundreds of gigs. It has been used 90% of the time as a home digital workstation, so it hasn't been abused or transported constantly. Yet after 14 years, aside from a single power supply repair, it works flawlessly. Most important it is fun working with.

My Xone 4D recordings (most of them) already many years ago still on Mixcloud. https://www.mixcloud.com/Snarf/

 

[Ropeburn]

IMO the hype is more it rigidness an quality components like knob feel, quality frequency kill switches, fully programmeble MIDI channels/messages using digital faders, rotary knobs handy for Ableton or Traktor assignments etc etc. I've been running my Xone:4D since 2011 and it remains state of the art today combined with true analog heritage.

The 20-channel USB 2.0 soundcard inside (24-bit/96kHz) allows you to record or route any combination of signals independently between the analog mixer, your DAW, and external gear i even play my analog bass guitar over it directly an is digitized on the spot. As far as i know this architecture is still unmatched by any current DJ mixing desk i guess.

The heart of the unit the analog mixing section incorporates the exact Voltage Controlled Filter (VCF) circuitry an hardware from the legendary Xone 92 basicly it is a exact copy. These are physical circuits, not DSP emulations, which gives them that organic, musical saturation.

As for durability, my unit did not have to survived hundreds of gigs. It has been used 90% of the time as a home digital workstation, so it hasn't been abused or transported constantly. Yet after 14 years, aside from a single power supply repair, it works flawlessly. Most important it is fun working with.

My Xone 4D recordings (most of them) already many years ago still on Mixcloud. https://www.mixcloud.com/Snarf/

Oh, it's definitely both and all of that. Build quality and reliability is well regarded for sure, and so is sound quality or "character". People have been praising that forever on various Xone models.

Of course it's all subjective impressions, which is why measurements would be very interesting!

 

[Chrispy]

@Mountain Goat

I worked with this kind of kit for years, both analog and digital (my well aged tech-12s, pioneer mixer, denon dual-decks from before CDJs were a glimmer in the digital-dj's eye, and a variety of other similar kit are in their road cases not 20 feet from where I'm sitting).

No DJ (that's mixing/producing live, i.e., might be using a CDJ, at least that I've ever met) cares if the output of the CD player (or turntable for that matter) needs a bit of EQ, is a bit heavy in the highs, etc... the DJ is, in all likelihood messing with the track anyway. That said, it is tremendously important that the audio coming out be clean. Not only is the CD player doing massive processing on the signal (speed correction with/without pitch change, loops, other built in effects), there's a high likelihood that not only is the DJ messing with levels (tone/volume/effects) in ways unusual in normal listening, the gain is cranked to 10, the levels are pinned at +3 DB (because a whole number of reasons), and the whole setup is run off garbage power... If it was truly kicking out a junk signal, after the abuse the signal takes from that point on, it'd sound like an out of tune radio... but it sounds just fine.

My guess would be that a modern Pioneer CDJ would compare against a modern Denon CD player (or other reputable brand). I would however be curious to see analysis of +/- 10% speed correction without pitch correction though... mucho processing must be happening to get that to work (beyond me)...

Also, though I'm out of date, Serato (and similar technologies) were hugely popular after the rise of digital. We still got to feel the record drag under our fingers (I can't help but chuckle at the number of people cringing to that thought), can still drag or nudge the platter, can still do a backspin... but have the full advantages of being able to use a digital source. I'd be very curious to see how this type of hardware/software handles the manipulation of the digital audio data and everything that's involved...

Edit: But I do agree with you, I wouldn't call any of this gear "audiophile gear". It's like comparing a Porsche 911 to a Cat 336. They might have quality in common, but their use cases are still completely different. No way a $1000 audiophile-oriented turntable would survive the same 35-40 years of use my Tech 12s have. Won't sound as good when tested, but will definitely beat that old thing in Grandma's cabinet.

Audiophile gear is a misnomer to begin with as audiophile refers to a person, not gear. An audiophile may choose gear for reasons that have nothing to do with audibility or accuracy etc. Audiophile these days is usually a flag for stupid stuff.

 

[egellings]

I think that audiophile gear means gear owned by people (audiophile or audio enjoyer) who like it. A piece of non sentient equipment can't like anything.

 

[Reticuli]

Xone DB4 > Xone 62 with EQ off > Xone 4D

4D is nice though. I like mine. Need to fix the mic knob on it, actually.

The A9 has a faster, more accurate impulse response than the V10, which uses a more damped, slower response in order to mimic analog mixers. This is directly from the mouth of Alpha Theta. I personally don't think either sounds that much like any particular analog mixer, but they sound fine. The V10 sounds more restrained and potentially less tinny to some people, but I think the A9 can also sound faster, more warm, and more open. At that tier, you should probably be choosing based on layout, features, etc, not sound. MP2015 and X1700 sound better than either, anyway.

 

[Reticuli]