Doesn't the 32 have the gains on the back so you literally have to blindly reach behind the mixer? Completely impractical.
For fast and aggressive EQing and x/channel fading the Pioneer is far more sturdy than A&H I find. For smooth, delicate mixing the 62 wins hands down. This is comparing a 600 with a 62. -----Original Message----- From: Benoît Pueyo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2007 6:25 AM To: list 313 Subject: Re: (313) votes I have A&H XONE 32. Except the fact it has 3 channels, it already beats every pionner I got in hands (300,500,600) though i've never tried the 800. Anyways I dont think Pioneer have changed thier stupid EQs cutting everything when you low too much the bass. A&H are soft, precise, and still have punchy efft. Hooray for the filters aswell. So forget Pioneer... Now between 62 and 92 I would say 62 becasue its cheaper, and for the extra $$$ 92 doesnt bring much more technically talking (except if youre fan of all these hawtinesque concetual effects and stuff). -- Benoît. [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > can I have your votes pls..? > > Allen & Heath 62 > Allen & Heath 92 > Pioneer DJM 800 > > ? >
