Wouldn’t it be better to have the layout on the Prime 4 mixer be more like a traditional mixer as far as the channel order goes? Instead of 3/1 2/4, go 1/2 3/4 for the layout on the mixer, and have layer A and B on one side and C and D on the other side? Less confusion overall when mixing and would follow the standard order of an independent 2 - 4 player setup scenario. The staggered order seems like a carry over idea from a traditional controller that was implemented instead of designing it more like a traditional mixer. When using the standalone players, this can be achieved properly on the SC5/6000 series by plugging into ports 1 and 3 on the X1800 mixer when only using 2 dual layer players.
I have also thought about it and it would be more intuitive for the DJ to have the tracks numbered 1,2,3,4 from left to right. I do not understand the mania of DJ controllers to put channel 1 and 2 in the center and 3 and 4 on the sides.
Because left to right we usually have decks 1 → 2 then 3 on the left and 4 on the right so the deck layout is 3, 1, 2, 4. This means the mixer channel layout matches the deck layout.
This isn’t a “mania”, this is called logical thinking…
3 Likes
I prefer the traditional system, 1,2,3 and 4, from left to right.
Well that’s your preference - I myself would be caught out by a 1, 2, 3, 4 layout as my brain would look at the decks and assume the same layout would be on the mixer.
The reason behind 3, 1, 2, 4 is because on a 2-deck layout you are constantly going left → right → left → right when mixing, so naturally when adding an additional 2 decks for a total of 4, we go inside left → inside right → outside left → outside right (and repeat), which is a continuation of the 2-deck workflow.
Well ehm I grew up with 3 turntables and later adding CD players in the mix.
Mixer layout was always from left to right: 1-2-3-4.
Only when Pioneer mixers came to play I saw the 3-1-2-4. Don’t like it actually.
2 Likes
And this is exactly why it is 3-1-2-4 because of Pioneer…If Denon want to encourage DJs over from Pioneer they have to keep it similar and familiar to them.
No they don’t. Pioneer users just need to adapt.
4 Likes
I don’t agree, the most logical is 3-1-2-4. Why? Well if you are working with the x-fader the two center faders should be 1 and 2 and the outer faders is channel 3-4. “It’s logical”.
2 Likes
I fail to see the logic for crossfader use, but I’ll take your word for it (still have to find someone who uses a crossfader in my 35+ DJ years, but okay…)
Uhm, me as mobile and EDM jockey have no issues with using the crossfader at all. Logic in what way? If it’s there, why should everyone ignore it? A bit less “precise” than working with two linefaders, sure, but a) I have one hand free to work with filters/EQ and b) never like the stiffness of most linefaders and c) usually the x-fader is more robust and can be replaced more easily.
And I have zero issue with 3-1-2-4. I don’t even get why this extra thread just got opened for that. It’s just a bit different but not of any major difference in workflow. As a DJ I can adapt. I have switched between Pioneer and Denon gear, controllers and decks, several times - no issues at all 
1 Like
I’ve been using x-fader since the 80’s. It give you the advantage of one hand free to use so you can push or slow vinyl during mixing. And for schratching it’s a must!
1 Like
I use it a lot… But I have decks like 1234, because of 4 decks mixing, and my both left decks are on channels 1,2. right side decks are as follows 3,4.
The setup looks like 1,2, Mixer, 3,4 So logic way is 1234.
But if You mix in software like serato, traktor, vdj… Logic is that You don’t have decks next to each other, because of the size of the screen limitations. So You have the layout 1, Mixer 2 and under that 3 mixer 4.
That makes 3,1,2,4 layout more familiar to software based djs.
1 Like
When having four identical decks (like 4 SCs/CDJs) I would agree. But I think for the people going for a mixed setup, like a Prime 4 with using 2 internal decks + two external ones, or 2 turntables on the outside + 2 medaplayers next to the mixers, 3-1-2-4 allows me the group the different types of sources together, like 1-2 being the mediaplayers and 3-4 the turntables, which wouldn’t work well with 1-2-3-4.
There seems to be no right or wrong principle, as user scenarios are just very different.
That’s why “I failed to see the logic” of 3-1-2-4.
Forgot about that…sorry
Anyway, I didn’t mean to question the use of a crossfader, but more the logic behind the numbering as to why it should be 3-1-2-4. Must be my background. 
I understand, that’s why I explained where the 3124 comes from - this is software based setup.