Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Analog vs Digital mixers.....????

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,268
    If you are going to plug in your USB flash drive into the CD player and plug the CD player into the mixer, any mixer will work, since the CD player is doing all the converting. If you are trying to plug in the USB flash drive straight into a digital mixer and play off the flash drive, I don't think that is possible yet, but I could be wrong since I haven't kept up with digital mixers. I think you need a laptop running Serato or Traktor in order for that to work. As far as best sounding mixers go, the old rotary mixers like the Bozak and Urei 1620 are considered the best sounding analog mixers, but they where design to make vinyl sound good. For digital files, I really don't think it is going to make that much difference as long as you get a good quality mixer.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by inthered View Post
    Depends on the mixer. Some are designed to accept multiple media types while others are not. At this point in time some mixers accept a phono source, a line level source, and a digital source such as USB (IE it transmits bits before being converted into audio).

    More than likely in such a scenario, the mixer is converting the digital source because it would have to in order to mix with the two analog signals in order to get a stereo out routed to an amplifier. OR, the two analog sources would need to be converted into digital bits so the resulting mixed signal could be sent as digital bits to some kind of DAW, digital mixer, digital processor, or etc.

    What you should study is signal routing, busing, and where conversion would need to take place. Look at products after that. Also, figure out a way to minimize conversion in your entire set-up (media, mixing console, converters, processors, amplification).
    Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh now its starting to make some sense!!!!!

    See....my MAIN PROBLEM was trying to understand "WHERE" the signal gets "CONVERTED". And therefore like you....I too felt like you should try and AVOID as many CONVERSIONS as possible for the best quality.

    What I DID NOT KNOW was...."WHERE" in the signal chain is the signal being converted. And therefore my confusion as to whether I should be using a Digital mixer because I want to use files on a USB (digital)...OR....can I still use a analog mixer anyways and why manufacturers make such a BIG DEAL as to why there mixer can process digital in/outs and therefore it produces a "BETTER SOUND" if you want to use digital media.

    For example:

    I wanted to use a CDJ 900 with USB flash drives (320 kbps MP3, WAV) and I was in a pickle between:

    1. Pioneer DJM 250 (Analog mixer)
    or...
    2. Pioneer DJM 800 (Digital mixer)

    You see....on a basic level....I know what a analog signal is (turntable) and what a digital signal is (CDJ/Controller/USB comp) and their respective sources/connections. In the back of my mind...I also know that somewhere in the mixer or CDJ....there HAS to be something converting the signal in order to send it to the mixer/speakers.

    So therefore my conscious/mind already wanted to pick the DJM 250 because I know the USB/CDJ combo would work with that mixer and because its the cheaper one. What I did not know...was...where or which source (CDJ or mixer) is the signal being converted so the two can "talk to each other" and also to make the signal more "streamlined"...so to speak and have a better sound.

    ON THE OTHER HAND....my mind also knows that if I choose the DJM 250 and the sound is NOT GOOD...than my conscious already knows that I should pick the DJM 800 because its a digital mixer, my files are digital and therefore my sound would definitely sound better.

    Hope that all made sense. Sorry for the long post. Haha .

    Thanks guys for the clear up and understanding.
    Last edited by DjBetta; 08-19-2014 at 01:18 PM.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    463
    Sorry to make this thread even longer....just one more quick question....SO....

    Why is it than that manufacturers make BOTH the CDJ and MIXER convert the signals...?? That's just more REDUNDANCY. I mean...shouldn't you be trying to avoid as many conversions as possible..?? I don't get it.

    They should make 1 source the converter to make it more SIMPLE and STREAM LINED. Why make 2 sources a converter and make it more difficult on the CONSUMER (US) as to which 1 we should pick/buy to have the best quality sound...???
    Last edited by DjBetta; 08-19-2014 at 01:33 PM.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    463
    So......In my example above....If I choose the DJM 250 for example....

    Does it go something like this.....:

    USB (Digital signal OUT) -----> CDJ 900 (Digital signal IN)...Converts signal to (Analog Signal OUT) -----> DJM 250 (Analog signal IN)...reads analog signal from CDJ and therefore (Analog Signal OUT) -----> Active speakers.

    Do I have the right "signal Path/conversion"...???
    Last edited by DjBetta; 08-19-2014 at 01:34 PM.

  5. #15
    Moderator pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    old orléans
    Posts
    2,527
    Quote Originally Posted by DjBetta View Post
    So......In my example above....If I choose the DJM 250 for example....

    Does it go something like this.....:

    USB (Digital signal OUT) -----> CDJ 900 (Digital signal IN)...Converts signal to (Analog Signal OUT) -----> DJM 250 (Analog signal IN)...reads analog signal from CDJ and therfore (Analog Signal OUT) -----> Active speakers.

    Do I have the right "signal Path/conversion"...???
    correct.

    with one proviso:


    The DJM 250 (along with 95.7% of mixers that include FX) actually gets the analog signal going in... then converts it to digital, put it through all the mixer bits (faders, FX DSP etc) ... and then converts it to analog on the way out.


    Now you would probably say this is too many D/A A/D conversions in the signal path to have decent sound quality.

    Take a step back. You're talking about Pioneer gear - so its made in China with the cheapest components available. This is not the hifi realm. And in all honesty 99% of the population don't care, especially DJs. They sometimes even think that it is quality because of the brand name.
    Last edited by pete; 08-19-2014 at 03:31 PM.
    bored, curious, deaf or just bad taste in music?
    finally a mix by me
    and what's this, another shoddy mix...another dull mix

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DjBetta View Post
    Sorry to make this thread even longer....just one more quick question....SO....

    Why is it than that manufacturers make BOTH the CDJ and MIXER convert the signals...?? That's just more REDUNDANCY. I mean...shouldn't you be trying to avoid as many conversions as possible..?? I don't get it.

    They should make 1 source the converter to make it more SIMPLE and STREAM LINED. Why make 2 sources a converter and make it more difficult on the CONSUMER (US) as to which 1 we should pick/buy to have the best quality sound...???
    The Digital Mixer can take a digital output from the CDJ so the signal stays digital all the way until the analog output from the mixer. Many dj's forget that the CDJ has digital outputs. If you look at the back of both the CDJ and the digital mixer you can see the digital inputs and outputs, it actually saves you on wiring since digital only needs one cable per channel.



    QSC GTDaudio B52 Numark NS7 American DJ Hercules 4Mx ACER Behringer Peavey Koss CerwinVega Selenium VDJ= Sweet Music
    Owner DRZ Inc.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by DjBetta View Post
    So......In my example above....If I choose the DJM 250 for example....

    Does it go something like this.....:

    USB (Digital signal OUT) -----> CDJ 900 (Digital signal IN)...Converts signal to (Analog Signal OUT) -----> DJM 250 (Analog signal IN)...reads analog signal from CDJ and therefore (Analog Signal OUT) -----> Active speakers.

    Do I have the right "signal Path/conversion"...???
    No, close but not quite right.

    Yes the CD player reads the digital data off the USB drive.. if it is an MP3 file it is converted from compressed to uncompressed format.. or if playing a CD, the uncompressed audio data is read off the CD.. then outputs it either in digital form through the orange SPDIF jack.. or through a D/A converter through the Red/White analog line output jacks.

    But no, the mixer does not keep the signal as analog simply because you brought the signal in through the analog jacks and back out through the analog jacks. If it is a digital mixer (and yes, the DJM-250 and 800 are both digital) then it HAS to convert any analog signals to digital before it mixes them, and HAS to convert them back to analog before it outputs them through any analog output jacks. So yes, with the DJM-250, you will always get two conversions on any signal, regardless of whether it came from a vinyl record, a CD or whatever source. Because that mixer, although digital inside, does not offer digital (SPDIF) in/out jacks.

    The DJM-800, which offers both digital in and out options (the orange jacks) in addition to the analog ins and outs, allows you to skip the conversions if you have equipment which can handle it. So, if you take your CDJ digital out, and connect it to the mixer digital in, then yes, you will avoid two conversions and increase your sound quality.

    So, in theory you would think that the DJM-250 sounds bad because of all these conversions. But actually, it doesn't. Because analog mixers are complex and have lots of stages of circuitry that the signal must pass through.. for example the bass, mid and treble knobs have their own circuitry for each channel, the crossfader uses a special circuit, effects have circuits.. filters have circuits.. etc.. and each stage of analog circuitry adds its own degradation and noise to the signal. So, designing a really super quality analog mixer is not that simple, and good ones tend to be expensive. Whereas with digital, once you take the initial quality hit on the conversions, everything else is just numbers in a computer.. so you don't get any additional noise or distortion. In the case of a cheap mixer like the DJM-250, you are really likely to get just as good if not better sound than you would from an analog mixer at the same price.

    So yea, I wouldn't freak out about the sound quality issue. Obviously yes, if you want the absolute maximum sound quality, you will want to either get a digital mixer with digital inputs, or get a really high quality analog mixer. I personally use an Ecler mixer, which is analog. But I've played on the DJM-250 and it is a good mixer, so is the 800. I really have very little complaint about either one. I think the DJM-250 is pretty much the best deal you will find at the price, and you'd need very high quality speakers and top quality music sources (hint NOT mp3) before the difference really mattered much at all.

    Actually when I am doing the sound system for a festival where there are a lot of DJs playing I will often just go ahead and use the analog connections even if I have the digital ones, because otherwise the many DJs and producers who are coming through plugging their stuff in will get confused as to what channels are in use and it is just pandemonium on stage during switchovers. I prefer to use the digital but sometimes it's not worth it.

    So yea, in short, if you have not got the cash for the nicer mixer, the DJM-250 is a perfectly good mixer for getting yourself started, it is actually a hell of a lot better than almost anything you could get at the price. But if you are for example coming from a high-end hifi background.. would never play an MP3 and own $1200 and up studio monitors, then yea, either go for a high quality analog mixer or a digital mixer with digital inputs like the 800.

    But ya know, it is a $250 mixer, so if you don't like it you can probably sell it a year down the road for $175 and by that time you'll know a lot more about DJing and know what mixer you really want.

    PS: It's not like you can really avoid these conversions.. because once you are djing real events, pretty much every sound system these days has a digital processor in it, and that does the conversions both in and out, just like the mixers do. Then if the sound system uses a class D (digital!) amp, there's another conversion. Sure, it would be great if you could come out of the mixer as digital, in and out of the processor digital, into the amp digital.. all down the line. In theory it's possible. A lot of processors do have digital ins and outs now.. but most of them don't have them for every connection. So at this point in time, there's still a lot of converting going on even in the big club sized or even stadium sized systems.

    BTW, all the newest mixers used for live concerts.. the BIG ones.. they are mostly digital now and do the conversions, just like the Pioneer.. it is just the new way to do it. For example, this one:

    Last edited by light-o-matic; 08-19-2014 at 06:12 PM.

  8. #18
    Ok, one more thing.. even though I just wrote an effin book in my last post..

    And that is, sure, if you have got Traktor or Serato and want to run the signal digitally into your mixer.. just because it is a "digital" source does not mean that you can plug it right into your digital mixer.. it does not work like that. The connections between traktor and CDJ's for example are special USB audio connections, you cannot plug that same connection directly into the mixer SPDIF inputs, they are different types of connections. If you want to join decks or mixers to laptop software you need to make sure that the software and the equipment you are trying to hook together is designed to do that with the software in question.. they are not all designed to do that. So for example if you have got a Serato controller, and a mixer you want to connect it into, you might very well be using an analog connection for that.

  9. #19
    Member Delta V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Way Out West (USA)
    Posts
    491
    Great post light-o-matic.

  10. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by KLH View Post
    Digital mixers typically have less noise added as a result of mixing, but can only handle mixes up to 0dB. On the other hand, analog mixers allow mixing "in the red" sounding "warm" when they do.

    For the DJ world, there's really little practical difference. In the production world, there's a world of difference - due to the sheer number of channels, EQ, effects, and bussing.

    Keeping it simple, pick one and master it. If you're in the analog world, stick to analog. If your sources are primarily digital audio, stay in the digital domain.
    This isn't true. On a digital mixer, the output goes to an analog stage which is an op amp same as it would be on an analog mixer. The "warm" sound in production refers to the natural sounding distortion of vacuum tube amplifiers which are rarely used in modern analog DJ mixers. Lack of headroom might happen on a digital mixer which say only used a DC 5V power supply on the output stage instead of the typical +/- 15V found in analog mixers. But a well designed digital mixer using +/- 15V on the output stage won't have this issue.
    Last edited by emarx; 08-24-2014 at 03:46 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
a