Omg i think the Mixer costs 100 Dollar lol
I love you guys, but really?
As a previous owner of a DJM-350, if I still had one I might have a coronary. Seeing as how the color filter was about the only effect I used, having 2 filters plus balanced XLR's in a cheaper package a year later would really chap my cheeks. I see your target, but you're alienating your 'beginner' crowd with this one. You crowed about how balanced outputs weren't needed for 'bedroom dj's'... A USB record and three more effects are certainly not worth another 200 bucks.
I won't say you missed the mark, but you have probably p/o'd a good plenty of your amateur group. Next time just put balanced outputs on a $600 battle mixer.
(flame suit on)
Iniciar sesión para dejar un comentario.
@geminimech > Your 350 has the ability to record AND play back to/from a USB device, the 250 does not (and yes, to me that's worth the extra cost). Your 350 has 4 built-in effects, the 250 has none. Your 350 was released 18 months ago, that means 18 months of progress, evolution and feedback from users. Should I complain that I have an iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4 is better? Or that the iPhone 4S / 5 will be coming out soon and it too will be better and possibly cheaper? You buy what you need, when you need it and you can't regret that a newer piece of technology will eventually come out that is better and shinier than what you have, at a price that's less than what you paid for your gadget.
I'm getting one just for home. I'd much rather have modular systems than an all in one controller system.
Hopefully soon this means there will be some single deck MIDI controllers (with no CD drive, sample deck triggers, and effects controls) to go with it.
Balanced outputs Pulse...That's not a huge leap forward in technological advances. And of course you are going to say the USB record/playback is worth the extra cost. Is it a great feature? Sure, it really is. But the question that should be asked is are the 'lack' of features on the 250 vs the 350 worth 'upgrading' to the 350? How did nobody suggest when it was on the drawing board that it should have balanced outputs? This isn't shinier and better, that's just my point. It's nearly equivalent (or better) in the eyes of some people, and costs far less, but the one thing that makes it attractive, would aggravate the hell out of 350 owners for not having on a 'higher level' mixer. It has been said before and it will be said again, the price you pay for a 350 is too high to not have balanced outputs. I was okay with it, because me personally, I could deal (my mixer stayed in my house), but Pioneer said one thing, and 18 months later did another, and that's certainly going to irk some people.
Geminimech > Believe me, I've sat in on the product planning meetings where they've shown us the drawings of the mixers without XLR and that was the very first question out of my mouth, and the answer that came back was "cost' and "market". The cost of adding the XLR outputs to a mixer whose market was targeted at the bedroom user was unjustified -- but the problem was the market for that mixer was larger than the bedroom user; mobile jocks also wanted the 350.
We said the same thing about the DDJ-T1; why does the DDJ-S1 have XLR but the T1 only has TRS? Sure, it's balanced and provides the same quality output, but it's perceived as being a different ease-of-use.
I'm in the same boat as you - I think they should have had XLRs on ALL mixers, but the fact is that they've only now seen the light and included XLR outputs on the 250. But it's not equivalent, and if you've got buyer's remorse, you will ALWAYS have buyers remorse when the next shiny thing is better and cheaper.
I understand Pulse. It's not that I have buyers remorse, I really did enjoy the 350. I was just a little surprised to see them on the 250 was all, particularly when Pioneer tried to sell that it wasn't needed for the bedroom jock (which if we are honest, is not). On the bright side, I guess it's nice to see that they listened, and decided to incorporate them.
I agree with the statement. With time things get better, faster, powerful, and cheaper. Those who jump on board early on the train will pay premium, those who wait and see may not get it but will pay cheaper at a later date. No need to be po'ed cause you had it first.
just fyi.. DJM900NXS pwn's all..... lol j/k i like all the djm products.
Guys, if you're trying to say Pioneer couldn't have made this mixer 18 months ago, you would be incorrect. And the sales pitch is for home/beginner dj's, so it doesn't matter what you think it's aimed at, Pioneer has very clearly staked their claim that the mixer is primarily aimed at home dj's and small bar installations. I wasn't as much bothered about having a 350 in terms of the overall feature set, you just get irked that they changed their tune so quickly about balanced outputs being needed on a 10inch mixer. I could have definitely seen myself trying to pick up a gig with my setup, and lugging my mixer with me in my flight case and been bummed about the rca outs. And Pulse even stated above, that the initial demo for the 350 wasn't as inclusive as it wound up being, which seems like a mistake. I know they have people a lot smarter than myself, who make a lot more money that determine the target market of these mixers, but didn't they have history from the 400? That was a beginner to mobile jock mixer as well, so I'm sure they heard the cries for balanced outputs since the initial sales of the 400.
Pulse maybe you can shed some light on this for me. Is it really that cost prohibitive to put balanced outputs (TRS even) into a mixer as well as unbalanced? How much would it have increased the cost to the end user to have them in the 350/400?
I believe they could have came out with mixer 18 months ago. But not at the same cost.
This sort of thing ALWAYS happens with technology. Specifically with Pioneer the DJM700 had a number of advanced features that the 800 does not have. It's OK, it happens. That is the way it's supposed to happen with technology, it gets better and less expensive over time.
Hi, Ive just bought the DJM250 mixer and im wondering, what is the best way to record my mixes using this mixer? Thanks.
@Alan > Through a soundcard to your computer.
I think Pioneer has finally hit it on the nose. A beginner targeted mixer at a beginner price with an XLR bonus. And in White to match my 1200's. Plus they did it all without sacrificing Pioneer quality. Let's be honest the 350's price tag was not set to stay in some kids bedroom. I'm picking one up for studio use, Xone:22 for mobile, and DJM-800 for the residency. Thanks Pioneer.
First time poster here...I have played a ton on the DJM-800 and my favorite function of it was the filters. That said I couldn't justify the price for home seeing that I already own a Kontrol S4 / Audio 4 / Serato SL2. That said I thing the 250 fits a great market for people like me who want the quality without the giant price tag of one of the flagship mixers. I bought the 250 a few months ago and really love it. My studio monitors at home support XLR so for me it's a nice touch on the mixer. My only gripe is that it's missing a dedicated record out. I was actually contemplating getting a small studio mixer to support those functions as well as an effects send. Another thing is the placement of the headphone buttons. I think they should have been switched with the fader start button.
All in all, I love my mixer and would have paid 100$ more for a few more features.
To my best opinion, I think 2000, 900, 850, 350 is good enough for now. I just brought a 850 k and it looks like it is going to be my main mixer for the next 5-10 years. I moved up from the DJM 500 and my God, this is a huge bump for me. My DJM 500 is still in use when I have paid gigs and it is the only way to make money while keep equipment fresh and useable for the next few years.
@Joe > If you're using the XLRs as your mains, you can use the RCAs as your Record Out.
@pulse how to do that? record out into pc? or what?
@Vlad > Into whatever your recording device is.