[SOLVED] RMX Market Placement

One view, you could argue there is room for anonther EFX, but also, another view is that the EFX is now part of the DJM-2000...

@mark90 Good point!

I find it very odd they have omitted Spdif connections, stops it being a true "pro" unit in my eyes and a reason why I'm not screaming "I want, I want, I want"

well i decided against the 2000 and went for the 900 for the overall feel of the unit and the new eggects. i just thought the 900 was a better designed unit to use and whenever you see top dj's it always seems to be the 900 in the set-up which must mean something.

I havnt really used the efx for a while now with the 900 being quantized and everything it just doesnt seem to fit in anymore.

I dont quite understand where the RMX 100 fits in at the moment, I just find it hard to see what other hardware and software lacks and this would take its place.

Hi all! Found this brilliant new video. Shows us a lot! Got my Pre-order in! ;)
http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/musikmesse-2012-video-pioneer-rmx-1000-535746

Including SPDIF didn't make a whole lot of difference to a large percentage of DJs. So to keep costs down, it was left out.

@Michael > there really aren't that many dedicated hardware effects units and Pioneer has long been about hardware solutions.

I don't think a large percentage of DJs actually understand the concept of SPDIF/digital out, which is a shame, since now it appears I don't get to benefit from 1) optimal signal quality 2) enough outputs to easily route the audio to the places I'd like it to go.

Will we see the removal of digital from future generations of mixers?  It seems unlikely, but it also doesn't seem in-line with the trend.

@Mark90 > Hard to say; I imagine another reason it was left out of the RMX was to keep the unit as compact as possible.

The reason there is no digital on the RMX -- it's designed as a send/return device and the majority of mixers with S/R are on 1/4" TS connectors.  You're not losing much quality by going D/A and A/D via the SR on a DJM. Plus, it keeps the costs down.

So is my assumption correct that if you were to connect a mixer such as the 900 nexus master out to master in on the rmx 1000 then route the sound to amp or powered speakers there will be a major downgrade in headroom as well as sound quality. Or where there be no significant difference in sound quality and head room compared to djm master out to amp or powered speakers. Just wondering why send/return is the best option because I like many others on here would like to combo my on board djm beat effects with the rmx 1000.

I see no reason why there'd be a downgrade in headroom or sound quality.  I had no trouble with my EFX using it in this way.

Pioneer are just heavily pushing this as a send/return device.  You get a nice level of flexibility - per channel effects - with send/return.  I've been thinking about how I'd combine the DJM effects with the RMX, and I'm not sure how much you'd get out of it

Either way, it'll be fine for using direct or send/return, I have no doubt about that.

No downgrade.

Personally, the S/R loop is the best way to use it.

Cool thanks for the comments. Yeah was thinking about how I will incorperate the on board djm nexus beat effects along with rmx. Its good to know we can use it either way without worring about getting less headroom and or lower sound quality when connecting the djm master out to input in rmx back out to an amp or powered speakers. Thanks will have to try both connections out to see what works best for me.

Oh, and to address the original post, as far as I'm concerned.... THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE NEW KING!  (EFX = dead king, RMX = new king)

Hello! Been holding off on the RMX, but really want an external unit to bring with me to gigs. Just curious if there were any plans to release a 2000 series RMX unit? Just wondering, because all of my stuff is the 2000 series, and would be nice to match everything:)

@lennonpearson > There have been no such announcements at this time.