Pros & cons of upgrading from djm 800 to 2000

I don't remember much about the filter parameters on my 800 as I went to a 900 and now to a 2000 but in my opinion, DO NOT buy the 2000.  It is hardly supported (evidence right here on these forums) by Pioneer and is already outdated; big fail by Pioneer.  Your best bang for your buck is the 900.

Don't think that my reply is out of frustration because of the firmware situation, if I found someone who would take my 2000 and give me a 900, I would do it in a second.  The 2000 is a weak puppy compared to the 900, some people are just blinded by the many useless features and by useless I mean half complete.  If Pioneer actually puts some effort in to the development of the next firmware and add/'change some features (as well as fix broken ones) then I may have a different opinion. 

Just my 2 cents...Good luck.

Thanks for the insight John, might keep the 800 for  while longer then. Apparently the 900 has a few issues aswell at the moment, with quantize and a change in echo effect etc...

John Walsh, your reply is a little bit hostile.

cdjbasile, the 2000 is a very good piece of kit.  The results of combining the filters with the beat effects alone are very powerful.  The latest firmware is a must - Quantized effects are a great addition.  If you are linking players, the network switch  on the back of the 2000 is also very useful.

Regarding the levels of the Noise effect and the Remix section, whilst annoying that they are loud, you CAN turn them down.  And I'm not sure what you mean about loose quantization.  For me, the quantization has been fine.

The filters are similar to the 800.  You have high pass, low pass, crush, noise, zip and jet (flange).  The 800 combines the high and low pass filters, where the 2000 has them as seperate filters.  It's a shame the jet can't be faded out entirely, but there's not been any acknowledgement from Pioneer whether they will (or can) amend that.

The 2000 is an older mixer than the 900, so bear that in mind, and it is obviously a lot bigger.

Overall, the 900 will provide you with familiarity with a few little additions and changes.  The 2000 is an entirely different thing to love and learn.  The pricing is similar too, so it's a tough choice.

so we are saying that the efx unit inside the 2000 is now quantized using the prolink info?

how do you switch it on and off or is it 'on' only... when this unit first came out the weak link was the fact that the efx unit was just like a bolt on with no link into the world of pro link.. a bit like the recently introduced stand alone RMX-1000!

im a little lost with the pro link and why some pio kit has it and others (quite key bits of flagship kit) dont!?

@mark 

Thanks for the info. Regarding the comment about loose quantisation , i seen someone mention it on another thread just. I don't think i want something the same as the 800, i'd like something a bit different especially cause of the fact the 2000 has the link built in. IMO for how much the 900 cost to have to trail a switch round to put in the back of it swell would be a pain and i'd rather have it all in 1 like the 2000. Its good to get views of everyone to help me decide!

Matt Jackson, yes, the EFX section of the 2000 can be quantized via Pro Link.  You need to upgrade it to firmware v2.01, and it can be turned on/off by going into the Utility menu (hold the Live Sampler button), selecting Quantize and then selecting On or Off.

It is strange the RMX doesn't link - but you can see why.  Its onboard quantize function is very, very good and along with the fact it doesn't heavily tie in with existing Pioneer technology means it's more accessible/appealing to non-Pioneer users.

As for what you said about Pro Link on other kit - where is it missing?  It's on all of their pro range:  CDJ 900/2000, DJM 900/2000.  The only exception is the RMX.

That's good news as I too was looking at the 900 but would rather not faff about with external switches and cables when for a few quid more the 2000 has it all built in - and knowing that those fx now work with pro link makes me very happy as the 2000 mixer is the daddy!

My comment was mainly regarding the rmx unit - however while targeted at everyone, while not all may have pio kit seems a no brainer to include it as there are many out there with!

My other gripe was with the 900 only having one pro link port - so needing an external switch to make it work with both my cdj2000s... Gripe covered in another post!

DJM-2000

Pros:

• Lot's of usable effects
  
•  Frequency Isolators
  
• Total EQ-Kill
  
• Rekordbox pre-listen function
  
• Frequency mix mode
  
• Record mixes with USB or use the DJM as soundcard

CONS:

• Quantize does not work as well as on the DJM-900.. (this is FW issue and can be heard on creative usage of sliproll for example)
  
• Sidechain and noise levels are way to high. (they can be adjusted but it's still a pain..)

Other then that the 2000 is a great mixer! and with a new FW update it could even be greater ;)

Still I would never want to go back to my old DJM-800 after I had the 2000 for about a week! 

I don't disagree but just saying the extra money I paid for the 2000 and the fact that I can not comfortably use the side chain due to firmware bugs while at a gig makes the 2000 a bit not worth the so called upgrade I paid for. Having had the 900 and being a Traktor user, I would say I regret changing from the 900 to the 2000.
Like mentioned above, we all have our reasons and opinions and mine is just as it suits me.

I am a 2000 owner and user.

even tho the 900 is a great mixer. When we look at "FX usage, the 2000 wins in my opinion. here is my reason.

the 900 has not ability to adjust the paramater of any of the intant fx; HPF, LPF, ZIP, JET, Crush, Noise

the 900 does not have the ability to EQ control the Beat FX; i.e. i only wana echo the bass at 1/2 time. instead of the vocals and hi-hats etc.

the 2000 has the above ability that the 900 does not, which in my opinion has been a major factor in how i use my fx. More control only means better and more natural sound. I believe FX usage can be "alot" if you make them sound as natural, and as organic as the song it self.

But im still waiting for the firmware. I do feel like the 2000 is getting slowly left out unfortunately. 

But in my opinio, to all djm 800 owners, save the upgrade of a mixer, and just get the RMX-1000. the 800 is the classic, and is as solid as any new pioner mixer in terms of sound quaity. Vintage, and it will soon be a valued in prestige-ness like the SL-1200 techniks in my opinion. 

@ speakerhandz - a few interesting points you Make there!

Does a rmx1000 have totally different effects to the ones on board a djm 2000. Or is there much overlap?
Also is there no benefit at all Having a prolink mixer with the rmx1000?

i personally think there is benefit of the pro link on the rmx... no matter how good the rmx is at grabbing the bpm, it for sure isnt going to be as quick as grabbing the info from the pre-analysed track. saying that, if the rekrodbox data is not that good for whatever reason.. then the rmx could come out on top... as we know rbx isnt that good at bpm variation (if the dynamic box isnt ticked)... if the rmx unit is listening all the time, you could potentially have a tighter bpm aver the entire track... horses for courses!

Pro link, is beneficial, for having say "quantized" fx. 

I personaly dont even have the quantize on. Due to the firmware, my slip roll, and echo was kind effy, so i turned it off. I set my bpms manually and it works fine for the way i mix.

Pro Link for the CDJ2000 if your using rekordbox, you really only need a ethernet cord connected with both cdjs. 

if you wana use labtop rekordbox, all you need is a Ethernet hub and connect them all together, even tho the 2000 offers a hub for all that to work perfectly.

if you wana serato scratch live, you only needa connect USB to USB hub and connect them all together and switch the option in options to advanced on the cdj 2000

The RMX-1000 is more of a atmospheric and, live aspect bending tool. Its uses from my understanding are similer to a functioning of these effects combined, 

HPF, LPF, Echo, Spiral, Zip, Reverb. More atmospheric.

What i think the RMX-1000 is great for is that it adds alot of elements to the music "FX" wise, that make it really organic, and you have ways to enter, and exit fx mode really smoothly to make transitions sound massively complex, but natural at the same time. 

I highly do not recomend getting djm-2000 with rmx-1000 due to the fact that you "could" do many things that the rmx-1000 can offer on the 2000, but it doesnt do it the same as the rmx-1000, they are different things.

with your set up, for more bang for your buck, the RMX-1000 will allow you to have te 'same" mixer your use to already, and allow you to have top notch fx, and the organic touch for a mix. another great thing about the RMX-1000 is...... its a VST, Into production? need some white noise? no problem plug that baby in and you've jsut created half of your tracks fx usage of your production.

If i said anything wrong here someone can correct me. I am not a RMX-1000 owner. 

@ Matt Jackson, I agree that having the pro link quantize info is important. but. if you have your bpms set already, its really not that big of an issue in my opinion. but i'm also a house dj, alot of times the bpms dont drift much, so i'm biased in terms of this aspect. 

Plus I dont have my fx on for like.... 45 seconds. so quantize is not that important to me.

Just go the 900 and have a better supported mixer.

Like Musichaos said, go with the 900,  it clearly has better support. The 2000 has potential to do great things,  but i highly doubt those things will come to life.