Forums/Pioneer Gear/CDJ-900

Bpm takes longer time to load

Sid Viscious
posted this on December 09, 2011 21:58

I have a pair of 2000s but I was playing from cds on a friends 900 and i noticed it takes considerably longer for the bpm to load. A couple of other guys told me that the 900 is a bit slow,even compared to the 1000 mk 3, any opinions?
 

Comments

User photo
Gavin
Pioneer DJ

Never noticed anything but a second or two. Were they on the latest firmware?

December 13, 2011 12:56
User photo
Sid Viscious

I actually forgot to look that up but i dont think they were updated to 4.05 I guess I am so used to the 2000s that I did not find the 900 as comfortable due to the small display aswell.

December 14, 2011 02:05
User photo
Pulse
Pioneer DJ

If you're using CDs, that's normal.

December 15, 2011 08:22
User photo
Sid Viscious
I beg to differ pulse,on the 2000,bpm with cds comes almost instantly but the 900 seemed to take way longer and 2 other djs i spoke to agreed that 900 is somewhat slow
December 15, 2011 09:57
User photo
Pulse
Pioneer DJ

Yeah, that's normal.

December 18, 2011 13:41
User photo
Roy
That was one of the 1st negative things I noticed about the 900, I really hope Pioneer fixes this problem especially if the old 1000's are quicker seems like a step back in quality for this perticular feature.
December 20, 2011 10:40
User photo
Pulse
Pioneer DJ

If you use Rekordbox-prepared USB devices, the waveforms load instantly.

December 20, 2011 13:12
User photo
Roy
Yes Pulse I realize that but I'm talking about a good ol' CD, in the previous CDJ1000's if you put a CD in it shows the BPM along with the wave form almost right away so why in a new CDJ900 that should be more advanced it doesn't. I had 2 friends with CDJ1000's come over to try them out and noticed it right away.
December 20, 2011 17:46
User photo
j-s

The answer is simple: the CDJ-2000 is meant to replace the CDJ-1000mk3. So they both are (were, for the 1000) the top-end gear in their respective era. As a result, they have faster processors than the other models down the product line.

You can't expect from a product that is not at the top of the line to behave as fast as one that is.

But I agree that the 900 is slow and that Pioneer could have tried to make it jst a bit faster.

January 09, 2012 06:08
User photo
travellingpom

hi pulse can you confirm if this is the correct reason why cdj900's seem to take longer to load a track from cd and then build the waveform then 2000's concerning the faster processor inside the device? I do find the response is pretty slow when using cd's though in all honesty i dont use them much anymore and my devices have latest firmware.

January 09, 2012 21:23
User photo
Pulse
Pioneer DJ

Yup, it's normal -- I can't say if it's "because it's a lower model" or not, but it's likely due to the processing available.

January 09, 2012 21:34
Add a comment