SEARCH --------------------------------------->

this debate has been done a million times.

this sounds familiar......

ttm57sl all the way, 3 magnetic faders!!!

the control section for SSL will make you a faster DJ for switching/finding tracks, cue points, loops, etc. Only reason i touch the laptop when i use the 57 is to do a search for a specific track that i can't find in my crates/smart playlists.

Pioneer has better FX, but the TTM57SL has a flexfx loop you can use to get instant usability out of the internal echo, or you can hook up a dedicated fx processor to it.

also the 57 is lighter, and will allow you to record your SSL mixes with much greater quality than the pioneer would (to record ssl through the 909 and into a computer you're looking at 4 seperate a/d or d/a conversions... thats alot of signal loss there)

prices are close enough to each other too... can find the 57 for around $1150 if you look.

Of course, i am biased. :)

ps. theres a 57sl general discussion section of this forum too!

an old linux saying is applicable here.

"Would you ever buy a car with the hood welded close?"

The TTM57 is adjustable to the users liking and Rane is still making updates, adding effects, plugins, etc...

Sorry guys, you are right. My bad.

I have a 909 and love it! I love the TTM57 also! You would be happy with either one.

Buy a Radio Shack mixer... realistic is the best! :P

^ that's only cause it has split cue

depends on how you record analog with the 909 to compare apples to apples. Is the analog hardware of either superior?

im talking about recording SSL mixes with the TTM57SL's recording features.... those are 100% digital, therefore analog hardware on the TTM57SL, for the sake of recording SSL mixes, is not even in the equation...

digital .wav and .mp3s mixed on a digital mixer, recorded digitally to your hard drive = 0 conversions in the recording process.

vs. the 909... you have D/A out of the SL1 - A/D into the 909, D/A out of the 909, A/D into your recorder (computer, standalone CDR, DAT, HD recorder, etc.)

btw, your boy Alan came by our club Friday and threw down a fun impromptu set on my macbook pro in the lounge.. it was funny later when i was just dishing him obscure electro and techno tracks. good times!

nIIIICE...he was the reason I was asking this btw

right on, i know he prefers the 909 and that says alot. im not a fan of the level fader curves on the 909 but i do more long mixing than cutting, i love the adjustable curves on the 57.

i'd like the 909 more if they used an optical or magnetic design on the level faders instead of limiting it to the optical crossfader only. Perhaps its a new design but i hate the crosstalk on the level faders that DJMs develop after a year of regular usage. The Xone:92 (i know, totally left field) has this problem too, almost to the point that the faders become microphonic... yes, microphonic.

I won't pretend that the 57 isn't without limitations.... sweet, that was like a triple negative.

It has the best digital filters i've heard in any mixer, no digital stepping whatsoever (some high cost software filter and EQ plug-ins can't even achieve that) so they're great for manual sweeping. The echo leaves a little to be desired but i think it is good enough in most instances. Alan has some great points about how the 909's echo sounds vs. the 57's echo. But i do prefer the fx track bpm joystick clicks over tapping on the 909.

May be we're just a firmware update or two away from it blowing away the 909... or maybe we're not. We'll see.

:-)

no no say it ain't so.

i've played on a couple Xone92s that become microphonic.

the last one was at A-Warehoue in Roppongi, Tokyo..

It was microphonic to the point that the 2 middle up-faders, if you held them with one hand on one finger at around 30% level, and tapped down on the top side of the fader, pushing it into your other hand/finger... you would hear the tapping through the monitors and main system.

no bueno!!!!

that would drive me insane!!

ugggghhhh...that's terrible!

i've tried explaining some of the reasons i love the 57 to him like the auto bpm and the groups (now i rarely need to look at the screen for group jumping buttons anymore) but i don't think it's easy to explain - anyway its easier to understand once you get familiar with it, just like he is with the 909. He knows it in and out and is cozy with it so i don't think he's crossing over that far just yet.

plus the 909 can sample and re-add samples over samples while looping from what I understand...is that correct?

No, there is no sampler on the 909. Also, you cannot layer effects.

i guess i mean via echo on 100% feedback status

...something i wish serato could enable btw...

huh? the 57 CAN do that.

with 1.7.2 and the 2.1 firmware you get a "Hold Echo" which allows 100% feedback.

its my 3rd deck!

ooooh it didn't before! it used to only go up to 93...does it go all the way now?

ah i got you now. i haven't rocked that yet. niiice

the hold echo is good

tell Alan about that junk... the conversion process is slow - but he WILL be converted! :)

Thruth is I want a The TTM57, but I'm very used to the curve adjustmante of the 909.. Hard choice

Werd to Big Bird...

57

That's not entirely true. The hold echo on the 909 can "sort-of" act like a sampler when the depth is at 100%. This will create an infinite feedback loop where you can keep adding more sounds to the loop. It's not easy to do though, but possible.

You can also "sort-of" layer effects, but only with CH1. You can run CH1 into CH2 then use an effect on CH2 while CH1 is also playing and running an effect. Then use the crossfader to cut between effects, or keep the crossfader in the middle to play both effects. I often do this with the fader HP filter on one channel and fader LP filter on the other channel, giving a notch filter type effect. But no, you can't run 2 effects on the same channel at the same time.