Bpm takes longer time to load

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

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.

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

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

Yeah, that's normal.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.