Sorta kinda depends on what you mean by that. I mean, the Tascam X-9 didn’t have true full digital inputs because there was SPDIF to DAC to ADC for its digital inputs. That Pioneer line does have real digital inputs. That line’s tone control knobs adjust the trim-gain in the analog domain when using analog inputs of the signal going into the ADCs while the meters are entirely digital domain until the NXS2 put “clip” word LEDs above the meters on the channels. The “clip” on the master meter is entirely redundant with the old top red peak LED and was only added to have consistent looks and smack people upside the head with it flashing “CLIP!” The V10 changed the analog input design to be like Rane, Denon, and Numark digital mixers. Both techniques have positives and negatives, so there’s not a perfect way to do it.
Usually when you try to convert analog to digital in a studio, you do want to be able to adjust the signal level going into the converters to optimize S/N ratio and all that. The Tascam X-9 predated the first consumer TI SRC chips. Ditto with the PPD 01, but Numark simply left SPDIF inputs off that mixer. Tascam, however, had a long history of digital studio mixers already and certainly got their options and ADC stage channel metering right. PPD 9000 was the first DJ mixer to use the TI chips and stayed with the 01’s style of fixed trim-gain ADC stages that Denon and Rane would later use, which is convenient from a metering standpoint. Assuming you have sufficient headroom (Denon, Rane, Numark, and V10 easily do), the fixed method means you’re not going to accidentally clip the inputs if you’re being careless with the digital domain tone controls.
I still own the Tascam X9, haven’t used it for years but I loved the parametric eq’s on that mixer.
how does that hold up sound quality wise against more recent contenders?
The problems the 100hz . That’s surely way too low to catch much in the way of useful sound all the way down there. If there’s not much there to begin with, losing a few dB or % on the slight turn of a filter or eq is going to sound very different, very quick
Mines up at about 200/240hz somewhere.
The X-9 sound reminded me of an old 80s or early 90s JVC full size shelf CD player… can’t remember if that player was 1-bit or MASH or what – not what I’d call the most analog-sounding highs and kind of cold-sounding, but precise, crisp, and with one of the best low-ends of any mixer I’ve heard. My X-9 was also slightly noisy compared to any other digital mixer. Into a common DAC digitally and using CDJs, I found the DJM-800 sound superior in most respects except the low end, but the Pioneer also had the sonic advantage in that it had true digital inputs and you were forced into the Tascam ADC stages no matter what.
The Tascam is built like a tank and has more settings options than any DJ gear I’ve ever seen, but is also quite convoluted and confusing to use those settings, effects, and limited/partial matrix channel routing. I suppose with enough time I could have gotten proficient with it, but I kept the Pioneer and sold the Tascam. Usability and human factors stuff was probably a big motivation. Probably the big, cheap, multi-channel Cirrus Logic input converters on the DJM-800 are not as nice sounding as whatever the Tascams are that were similar to their studio boards. As for the master DAC, I was mostly routing them both digitally into outboard DSPs. And then there’s the X-9’s latency it takes for the EQ knob manipulation to actually do anything… like half a second or something between action and result, which is annoying.
If I recall correctly, the master volume fader on the X-9 also affects the mix bus in the headphones like on most of the Pioneers, but the master fader’s unity to get channel fader unity at max was 50% on the master fader. So, I believe I took the master fader cap off, taped the master fader at 50%, and was running the channel faders to max as unity on them. That worked o.k. to at least get the metering to line up consistently between channels and master. I also didn’t want to accidentally grab the master fader.
Probably my favorite thing was the sampler, which worked bizarrely well.
The X-9 is a weird design, but a piece of history and certainly doesn’t sound bad other than that little bit of interference noise.
sure, for transitions only i’d use something around 400hz. but that doesn’t work for “regular” use as elaborated in this thread in great detail.
This topic was automatically closed 24 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.