In my opinion this could happen because the microprocessor should be able to manage double the work: one for layer A and another for layer B at the same time. In fact, no one forbids having a track in the final phase on layer A and wanting to enter the track on layer B.
Where did you hear they didnât do the dual layers thing because of sound quality considerations?
Prior old Denon DJ units with dual layers didnât have lousy sound quality even when you turned key lock off. Primeâs current sound seems mostly a matter of poor quality sample rate conversion (and many anti-aliasing filter steps) both in the compatibility with a huge range of sample rates while using a single common processing rate that doesnât just match the played track on that layer, and I would assume combined with the same questionable method of SRC for just changing the track speed with the pitch fader even when Elastique is deactivated.
Itâs possible Pioneer could have dropped its long-used and proven reference-quality transport method of sample rate matching and instead rely on good quality SRC on the CDJ-3000 that resembles something like the DN-X1700âs SRC method, which might be processor-intensive such that they canât manage dual layers and everything else theyâre trying to do on a single player. Using a common 32/96 on every player all the time might make the cue lookahead link thing and stuff like sample triggering easier to implement on the CDJ-3000.
Looks like they are doing a common 32/96 processing for every deck regardless of the track. Not âbetterâ but can be quite good, even if different-sounding, compared to their tried & true adaptive-rate audiophile method theyâve used wonderfully for over a decade⌠assuming they use a sophisticated-enough SRC and implement it well.
This also means, though, that InMusic should probably not bother too much with trying to improve Prime playbackâs SRC quality (maybe a little for the speed change algorithm 
) but instead move to the adaptive-rate method on each layer and forget about trying to do sample triggering or any of the other wiz-bang features that might require a common DAW-like processing format everything shares. They wouldnât just improve their own relative sound quality, but surpass Pioneerâs new flagship as technically âreference-gradeâ, no matter how pretty the new Pioneer SRC is⌠and it could be darn pretty-sounding going by what the DN-X1700 achieved. InMusic can leave sample triggering and other stuff that needs a common rate to something like Prime-branded Akai external hardware or communicating with a PC. Combining adaptive-rates on each layer of Prime playback with Denon DJ mixersâ ability to set the sample rate to match most of your tracks would be a heck of a selling point. After all, one of the stated Prime selling points is indeed âlegacyâ old Denon DJ sound quality, and the ability to change the mixer sample rates has really been unique to them.
4 Likes
Good note. I have always requested the option to remove the album artwork on the 5000âs screen so I have room for larger text, but your point raises the bar even more. Hopefully this becomes an option in the future!
2 Likes
Local retailer says itâs in stock already. Crazy right.
No, not crazy at all. Denon not being able to do similar is crazy.
Guessing thatâs where a huge chunk of the amount they charge goes into.
The world famous pio tax
Exactly! Denon need to stop teasing stuff that is not available right now with the retailer
1 Like
Well, either you pay for QA in parts quality and reducing manufacturing variance and getting all your development & testing done before release embedded in the actual price tag, or the users (or at least some of the users) pay for it in their time & sweat after-the-fact both in dealing with the associated gear headaches and working to improve the products later. We will see, but if theyâve developed and refined this design totally in secret like this without any pre-release hype and suddenly release it that quickly after announcement without any associated serious bugs, reliability problems, or need for a successor soon after due to design oversights they didnât resolve in-house, well, props on that.
From the look of it, though, they have only dealt with one of the three things I wanted them to, and they look to have no interest in updating their older modelsâ firmwares.
Sc6000 wins when it comes to features and future proofing, the cdj 3000 hardware is limiting from the off and no matter what software features are added the fact is Pioneer wants to keep you to RB and Serato, Denon open to all so its the classic Android vs Iphone situation.
Both marketing methods have their issues. Somewhere in between would be nice, I donât like to wait long alsoâŚ
- Announce > it will come, hold on. Wait a bit more, but hold the cash.
- Announce > instant available, sorry if you bought your CDJ-2000 in Covid time after waiting 4 years.
(However, in the last case you can relax, because your 2000 is not much different from the 3000 
)
4 Likes
That is definitely throwing shade at Denon DJ with their comment. Even if it is true, they are preemptively putting it out there in preparation for the barrage of comments theyâll get.
Has anyone seen their press release and how many times they write about stability? It is like they have to keep writing over again how stable they are in professional scenarios.
of course because they donât have much to offer otherwise.
Yeah, whatâs durability, stability, and better-than-compressed-to-ish-bluetooth-like sound quality really worth in pro sound circles, anyway⌠
2 Likes
TRANSLATION: Denon figured it out but we couldnât, so out of the 1000 people we asked if they needed it, we filtered the list down to 200 who said they didnât, and stuck with this as the answer. Thank you for watching and hopefully youâll find it in your heart to overpay for a media player with far less bells-n-whistles than the competition.
9 Likes
Oh, and I hate to keep giving Pioneer a beat down, BUT
the Prime players will play my Mp4 (video) files also. The CDJ-3000 canât.
2 Likes
Not a lot of interesting hardware changes imo BUT they have done some great updates to the interface. Credit there for sure. The ability to listen ahead in cue to a currently playing track is pretty great, more and better info in the table view, etc.
One of the angles that I think Denon has really considered â and Pioneer ignores â is the consistency of the experience between devices in the range. Most of the stuff works the same and has the same features, and new features can be rolled out across the line with Engine OS. CDJs have a consistent core paradigm, but as you go up the price ladder the features available keeps changing.
So itâs great that Pioneer has got a smarter interface here, but they canât bring that to any of their existing players. Itâs really yet another paradigm to have to know when youâre going out to play, and one that wouldnât trickle out to booths very quickly even in normal times.
They did a good job under the hood though. From my point of view Pioneer and Denon did a good job with their gear. The split will be from a difference in philosophy.
I canât wait to see the attrition warfare between the two now. The brinksmanship and one upping⌠
1 Like