Jog Wheel Rotation Resistance Production Variance


It was not only printed on the board but there was physical antenna inside the unit. Yes the board is probably not an original design since there are also some unused connectors inside which have no cables attached. But the antenna is in there. We will see.


Could you imagine if they did go full wireless? It would be a huge slap in the face of Pioneer (They claimed to have wireless compatible players leading people to think that the players themselves were wireless, when they were only wireless using a wireless switch… which you can do with ANY Pioneer Link compatible player smh)


Why should it be a slap in the face of PioneerDJ? The wireless modul on the Mainboard of the SC5000 isn’t activated. DenonDJ does not have Software today to connect with the SC5000. Right now this is dreamland and I think there are other priorities for Engine Prime before this might be even considered. With PioneerDJ you can do all this today with the rekordbox App and a 40$ wireless router to connect with the CDJs. For DenonDJ it makes absolutely sense to implement Bluetooth and wireless capabilities into the devices from the very start. But without knowing the Roadmap it is not possible to know if it is on and if yes, by when we can expect this. It would be interesting to know if the X1800 got wireless as well….


I get where he’s coming from. If Denon ever implements any of this wireless stuff, it does make Pioneer look bad considering there was a little misrepresentation of the Nexus line’s capabilities. You’re right, though, that Denon currently can’t even connect the players to Engine Prime, even over Ethernet for track offloading. I would also mention they’re not even universal HID/MIDI controllers yet like the Pioneers. But the future looks bright!


This. There were (since deleted by mods) a boatload of threads in the pioneer forums from people who purchased the nxs units thinking the wireless was built in.

And you are correct, we have no clue what Denon’s roadmap is, but its never to late to implement updated technologies in hardware if the hardware is already there.


Bluetooth jogwheel ?

Where would any DJ put if not on player where place alleady ?


On the other hand this might be a feature for bedroom DJs as it might not be that much critical when the music stops due to connection issues. In a club I would much more rely on cable connection. Yes - they can fail as well but seem to be much more reliable still.

Question: In a gig, who of you would use wireless connections instead of cables? Honest answers please.



Never with the music, no!

I would like a Bluetooth or wifi remote controller of a play -pause feature


I even wouldn’t go as far as controlling via BT or WiFi.

I would go on the safe side and only send playlist and history through this connection. Nothing that could interfere with the audio in any way.


Exactly… non-critical stuff that now they seem to be having trouble with sending consistently over the link in all directions. Hopefully the link will just keep getting improved, though, because if the analog outs and screen have had interference issues with close-proximity smart phone transmissions, not sure if implementing other wireless is going to work out. At least they’ve been trying to think ahead and prepare though.


I work in IT

Always hardline.


Has someone a close up picture of the breaking mechansim? Because i‘m curious how it works. The jogwheel of one of my sc5000 is spinning free with almost no resistance till the last click of the tension knop. Thats a bit annoying espacially when you prefer the higher Settings.


I don’t have a pic but I can tell you. It’s basically just a little plastic break which is conical and comes closer to the inside of the platter when you adjust the tension knob. It simply presses against the platter.


I recently spent an hour at a music store in Helsinki trying out the Prime-series gear (SC5000 & X1800). As far as I know the gear was never touched before me as the plastic protectors were still on the platters. Firmware on the decks was 1.0.0.

The thing that was immediately noticeable was the strange jog feel no matter what the tension setting was at. ‘Light’ was very loose and anything above it made the jog stick harder at certain sections of rotation. Also felt the pitch bend was bending at different speeds depending on the direction I’m turning the jog. This made the overall feel of the deck very inconsistent and made mixing feel rather frustrating.

Other than that and some firmware issues that have already been resolved in newer versions I really did like the decks. Especially the screen and UI felt years ahead of the competition.


I prefer the lightest tension I can get, so that’s not really a huge dealbreaker for me. I suppose once we get some kind of low-risk, standard step-by-step procedure, some of us might be able to open up and lube that part with silicone grease or something so that increased tension has more consistency. I assume jog bend adjustability in both forward and reverse is forthcoming in the firmware.


I gave up on that. How do the M perform, btw? Are they having the same bend issues when motor is off?


I feel the Ms platter sensitivity are equal back and forth…with motor on.

Never considered using them with Motor Off.


The M’s jog bend with motor off appear to be symmetrical just very sensitive… probably about the sensitivity in both directions of the non-M in forward, maybe more. The M does not have a jog bend deadzone like the Pioneers and the Denon 5500 had. On the 5500 you also could not use the platter itself to slow down or nudge when the motor was on, which, while it’s probably not great on the motor of the M, does at least work. Oh, and the 5500’s jog bend was asymmetrical similar to the SC5000’s current jog bend, by the way. I’m not sure how the 2900 was.




Some people might even prefer the asymmetry flip flopped, with rearward twice as sensitive as forward, as that would sort of match the movement you do with vinyl, where it takes a lot more hand movement to nudge than to slow down. For me, I’d just put it the same in both directions and tune it down. If the asymmetry is to be dropped entirely, though, and a single, non-adjustable sensitivity chosen, I would vote in favor of the current rearward sensitivity on the non-M to be applied to forward on the non-M and also the M model when the motor is off. The M model when motor is off appears to be symmetrical, has no jog bend deadzone like the old 5500 had (which was annoying), but is about as sensitive as the non-M’s forward bend… so it’s really sensitive.