<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DJM 800 vs. Xone 92 Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thcdj.com/2008/10/djm-800-vs-xone-92-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thcdj.com/2008/10/djm-800-vs-xone-92-review/</link>
	<description>Virtual music community and latest DJs downloads</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:47:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Blueprint</title>
		<link>http://thcdj.com/2008/10/djm-800-vs-xone-92-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1478</link>
		<dc:creator>Blueprint</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thcdj.com/?p=492#comment-1478</guid>
		<description>Yes, you can tune the DJM 800 but it doesn&#039;t sound good - there is too much artifacting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, you can tune the DJM 800 but it doesn&#8217;t sound good &#8211; there is too much artifacting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Strange Matter</title>
		<link>http://thcdj.com/2008/10/djm-800-vs-xone-92-review/comment-page-1/#comment-726</link>
		<dc:creator>Strange Matter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thcdj.com/?p=492#comment-726</guid>
		<description>Excellent review.  I&#039;ll probably get the 800 on the back of that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent review.  I&#8217;ll probably get the 800 on the back of that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dazpanzan</title>
		<link>http://thcdj.com/2008/10/djm-800-vs-xone-92-review/comment-page-1/#comment-269</link>
		<dc:creator>dazpanzan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 14:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thcdj.com/?p=492#comment-269</guid>
		<description>I use the xone92, to be honest the ability to mix with 4 EQ&#039;s, that compiled on a no frills mixer is all i need to &#039;hone the tuning of my mixes&#039; to near perfect. I would say that the ability to use an external effects unit on the xone makes this a more preferable choice for myself and would recommend this as 90% of effects are just gimmicks and only a few work well when mixed in a subtle way. Bear in mind that the faders on the 92 can alter any tune and can make the emotion of the tune change dramatically. 

For any first time buyer looking to step up to using these type of mixers i would advise the xone for a number of reasons, the sound quality is spot on (as is the 800) but the price you pay for a djm now days is near £1450 and considering you can pick the xone up for nearly £500 less and end up using the mixer for what it is..... a mixer! and not a mash up of noise, it wins hands down. Dont forget you can pick up any unit for korg if you require the fun of effects for a much cheaper price than whats built in to the djm.

On a personal note i have used the 800 and get distracted, annoyed when changing quing channels and will stick with my trusty steed of the xone92 for the rest of my mixing days.

But like all things in life, its choice! Happy mixing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I use the xone92, to be honest the ability to mix with 4 EQ&#8217;s, that compiled on a no frills mixer is all i need to &#8216;hone the tuning of my mixes&#8217; to near perfect. I would say that the ability to use an external effects unit on the xone makes this a more preferable choice for myself and would recommend this as 90% of effects are just gimmicks and only a few work well when mixed in a subtle way. Bear in mind that the faders on the 92 can alter any tune and can make the emotion of the tune change dramatically. </p>
<p>For any first time buyer looking to step up to using these type of mixers i would advise the xone for a number of reasons, the sound quality is spot on (as is the 800) but the price you pay for a djm now days is near £1450 and considering you can pick the xone up for nearly £500 less and end up using the mixer for what it is&#8230;.. a mixer! and not a mash up of noise, it wins hands down. Dont forget you can pick up any unit for korg if you require the fun of effects for a much cheaper price than whats built in to the djm.</p>
<p>On a personal note i have used the 800 and get distracted, annoyed when changing quing channels and will stick with my trusty steed of the xone92 for the rest of my mixing days.</p>
<p>But like all things in life, its choice! Happy mixing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hughball</title>
		<link>http://thcdj.com/2008/10/djm-800-vs-xone-92-review/comment-page-1/#comment-145</link>
		<dc:creator>Hughball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:36:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thcdj.com/?p=492#comment-145</guid>
		<description>Theres one big difference that you haven&#039;t mentioned. Among the effects on the DJM 800 is the ability to alter the tuning of the track you are playing without affecting the tempo. This allows you to mix tunes that are in different keys together in the same key, and far from being cliched, people wont notice the effect being used (so long as its not being pushed too far from the original key) but the mix will sound so much better. So many people overlook this, but for me it makes a massive difference to the capabilities of the DJM 800 and would be the decisive factor in choosing between the two.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Theres one big difference that you haven&#8217;t mentioned. Among the effects on the DJM 800 is the ability to alter the tuning of the track you are playing without affecting the tempo. This allows you to mix tunes that are in different keys together in the same key, and far from being cliched, people wont notice the effect being used (so long as its not being pushed too far from the original key) but the mix will sound so much better. So many people overlook this, but for me it makes a massive difference to the capabilities of the DJM 800 and would be the decisive factor in choosing between the two.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: djames</title>
		<link>http://thcdj.com/2008/10/djm-800-vs-xone-92-review/comment-page-1/#comment-86</link>
		<dc:creator>djames</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thcdj.com/?p=492#comment-86</guid>
		<description>thanks for this review!

i have the xone:92 at home. i use vinyl, so its a pure analogue process - perfect!

personally, i can&#039;t stand it when djs use more than an occasional effect, so the effects of the djm-800 are lost on me...

unfortunately, most clubs are pioneer only, so as an allen &amp; heath user you have to be flexible!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for this review!</p>
<p>i have the xone:92 at home. i use vinyl, so its a pure analogue process &#8211; perfect!</p>
<p>personally, i can&#8217;t stand it when djs use more than an occasional effect, so the effects of the djm-800 are lost on me&#8230;</p>
<p>unfortunately, most clubs are pioneer only, so as an allen &amp; heath user you have to be flexible!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
