You are a real one Thank You for the demo!!!The filter popping and phono preamps upgrade makes this mixer 10/10 for me!Always loved the eq's on the original too.Owned the original Xone 92 with silver faceplate for like 10+ years and I loved it even with those known issues.Then I went for the Xone 96 4 years ago as the "upgrade" while it was in many ways and I still love that mixer the quality on it is questionable for me.(Fader felt cheap and fragile although im not a fader smasher, got incredibly hot should have had an external power brick, and the paint from my faceplate started peeling off from a mixer only used at home and kept clean this things for me on a new less then 3 year old mixer is a no go)Went back to a newer built brand new Xone 92 and my unit has no issues and the filter popping was very minimal.Sold it as I seen this one announced, wish could have kept it though.... Looking forward to this one to arrive!
@@SameMan020 Yeah it's a shame really, it's not a bad mixer at all.Had the Model 1.4 for a month and returned it while the window was open.Are you satisfied with it?Really liked the form factor and no crossfader.Fader curve felt a bit more aggressive then on the xone mixers.Master eq really should have been an isolator.EQ section as filters with freq cuts is nice though it felt like30-40% of filter needs to turned up to have some change.Dual filters are a must the single filter didn't do it for me.Hype around the mixer was bigger then the product for me,preffered my Xone 92 still.Elara 4 would have been a nice choice but those phono preamps only on ch 1-2 was a dealbreaker for me.
@@gal3sz The Model 1.4 is great. I've had it for about a year. Just the printing is bad. The fader curve at the begging was a little bit strange but i got used to it.
It really does not matter. The design of the mixer is made by A&H, the production line is designed/approved by A&H and also the testing of ready made products (on the production line) is made/designed/approved by A&H and also products are verified by A&H with the same process no matter where it is produced. This UK vs China thing has started because there were claims that the china made would have been inferior. But If you actually look up about comments, there are quite many people who have owned UK and China procuded versions and state that the one made in China has been better - and why is that? Because the design of the mixer has been changed and upgraded during the last 20 years multiple times and the ones made in China are more recent design. Yes, the actual design of PCB's has been upgraded and changed multiple times during the years. Components have been changed (because some components have gone from the market), upgraded, minor issues fixed and so on. For user this can only be seen if you happen to order channel, master, or mic-PCB's to replace broken ones - then you would have seen that those cards are on their third or fourth revision - basically none of the components inside are the same as the original one. This leads to the fact that sometimes, at some point of the production, some components might have been weaker, some might have been stronger - that is just how things are. But it has nothing to do where it is manufactured and everything to do about the hardware. Of course there is always the possibility that something goes wrong in the factory, that happens too - but then A&H would have a recall of products or would replace faulty ones anyway.
I think it's a good update. I remember talking about the old 92 with my techno friends and we agreed that it's basically a 3 EQ knob mixer based on how much you get to use them.
EQ has the same range on all areas, that has not changed. What has changed is the threshold (at least for some knobs). Highs: On the original manual they state that Highs are affected after 2.5khz turning point - and in new manual they state about 12khz turning point. But the visual curve of the hi-eq still looks like it affects down to 4khz anyway (so not much of a change there). For me the old one was a bit "not so good" - it affect too wide range of the highs - maybe on the limited version one would not have to be as careful. H.Mid: Old manual states that it is High-Q (narrow band) for boosting and Low-Q (wide band) for cutting - working at 2khz peak area. Based on the image on the new manual, it is now Low-Q for both boosting and cutting and working at 2.7khz area. I would consider this to be better and more logical for controlling vocal or melodic instrument areas. High-Eq would now affect really the high-sounds (hissing etc), and H-Mid would control area of melodic instruments and vocals (approx. area would be 1.2 - 5.5 kHz). L.Mid: Old manual states that it is High-Q (narrow area) for boost and Low-Q (wide area) for cutting - Peak at 350Hz. New manual states that peak is at 270Hz (which is more of High-Bass/SubMids) and also Q-value is identical for boost and cut which makes it more logical. I would also consider this to be better, mainly because it affects on lower tones. Approximately the affected area is 120 - 650 Hz). Low: This is probably the biggest change. On old manual they state that Bass affects frequencies below 250Hz - and it really took all the bass away (I liked this) and it did not make the sound as thin as Pioneer did/does. But on the manual they state that the threshold is as low as 60Hz. It does affect higher, of course, but eg 120Hz is barely touched when the knob is turned. This should have an affect on the mix as the bass harmonics (on "bass guitar") can be heard. And it will leave a slight "thumb" sound on the kick drum also (which the older model did not do). The good thing is, that it preserves more "thumbing" on the sound and it does not go that thin - but the negative part is, that bassline melodies might get mixed up a bit. This should have side by side comparison to verify :
You are a real one Thank You for the demo!!!The filter popping and phono preamps upgrade makes this mixer 10/10 for me!Always loved the eq's on the original too.Owned the original Xone 92 with silver faceplate for like 10+ years and I loved it even with those known issues.Then I went for the Xone 96 4 years ago as the "upgrade" while it was in many ways and I still love that mixer the quality on it is questionable for me.(Fader felt cheap and fragile although im not a fader smasher, got incredibly hot should have had an external power brick, and the paint from my faceplate started peeling off from a mixer only used at home and kept clean this things for me on a new less then 3 year old mixer is a no go)Went back to a newer built brand new Xone 92 and my unit has no issues and the filter popping was very minimal.Sold it as I seen this one announced, wish could have kept it though.... Looking forward to this one to arrive!
I totally agree with you about the xone 96. I sold mine after 3 months and and I bought model 1.4
@@SameMan020 Yeah it's a shame really, it's not a bad mixer at all.Had the Model 1.4 for a month and returned it while the window was open.Are you satisfied with it?Really liked the form factor and no crossfader.Fader curve felt a bit more aggressive then on the xone mixers.Master eq really should have been an isolator.EQ section as filters with freq cuts is nice though it felt like30-40% of filter needs to turned up to have some change.Dual filters are a must the single filter didn't do it for me.Hype around the mixer was bigger then the product for me,preffered my Xone 92 still.Elara 4 would have been a nice choice but those phono preamps only on ch 1-2 was a dealbreaker for me.
@@gal3sz The Model 1.4 is great. I've had it for about a year. Just the printing is bad. The fader curve at the begging was a little bit strange but i got used to it.
which of the two mixer has faders with less resistance? i like doing tricks and the looser the fader is the easier it is for me
@@alias_mino Xone 92 and Model 1.4 faders are without resistance.
Hello, could you please tell me if the mixer is manufactured in China or in England?
On the bottom it says MADE IN CHINA.
It really does not matter. The design of the mixer is made by A&H, the production line is designed/approved by A&H and also the testing of ready made products (on the production line) is made/designed/approved by A&H and also products are verified by A&H with the same process no matter where it is produced.
This UK vs China thing has started because there were claims that the china made would have been inferior. But If you actually look up about comments, there are quite many people who have owned UK and China procuded versions and state that the one made in China has been better - and why is that? Because the design of the mixer has been changed and upgraded during the last 20 years multiple times and the ones made in China are more recent design. Yes, the actual design of PCB's has been upgraded and changed multiple times during the years. Components have been changed (because some components have gone from the market), upgraded, minor issues fixed and so on.
For user this can only be seen if you happen to order channel, master, or mic-PCB's to replace broken ones - then you would have seen that those cards are on their third or fourth revision - basically none of the components inside are the same as the original one.
This leads to the fact that sometimes, at some point of the production, some components might have been weaker, some might have been stronger - that is just how things are. But it has nothing to do where it is manufactured and everything to do about the hardware.
Of course there is always the possibility that something goes wrong in the factory, that happens too - but then A&H would have a recall of products or would replace faulty ones anyway.
do you know if it is possible to change the Cue configuration as it can be made in the xone 96?
@@andreagallego6702 not possible.
@@giode thank you!
cool ^^
And you still can't hear the filters while cueing 😂 .. WHY! this is just so stupid for that price of a Mixer! I buy one of these and hust shocked
I don't understand why they mess with the eq curves and filter. This is a dealbreaker for me.
I think it's a good update. I remember talking about the old 92 with my techno friends and we agreed that it's basically a 3 EQ knob mixer based on how much you get to use them.
@@giode I use all 4 knobs on my 92, but to each their own. Thanks for the review.
EQ has the same range on all areas, that has not changed. What has changed is the threshold (at least for some knobs).
Highs: On the original manual they state that Highs are affected after 2.5khz turning point - and in new manual they state about 12khz turning point. But the visual curve of the hi-eq still looks like it affects down to 4khz anyway (so not much of a change there). For me the old one was a bit "not so good" - it affect too wide range of the highs - maybe on the limited version one would not have to be as careful.
H.Mid: Old manual states that it is High-Q (narrow band) for boosting and Low-Q (wide band) for cutting - working at 2khz peak area. Based on the image on the new manual, it is now Low-Q for both boosting and cutting and working at 2.7khz area. I would consider this to be better and more logical for controlling vocal or melodic instrument areas. High-Eq would now affect really the high-sounds (hissing etc), and H-Mid would control area of melodic instruments and vocals (approx. area would be 1.2 - 5.5 kHz).
L.Mid: Old manual states that it is High-Q (narrow area) for boost and Low-Q (wide area) for cutting - Peak at 350Hz. New manual states that peak is at 270Hz (which is more of High-Bass/SubMids) and also Q-value is identical for boost and cut which makes it more logical. I would also consider this to be better, mainly because it affects on lower tones. Approximately the affected area is 120 - 650 Hz).
Low: This is probably the biggest change. On old manual they state that Bass affects frequencies below 250Hz - and it really took all the bass away (I liked this) and it did not make the sound as thin as Pioneer did/does. But on the manual they state that the threshold is as low as 60Hz. It does affect higher, of course, but eg 120Hz is barely touched when the knob is turned. This should have an affect on the mix as the bass harmonics (on "bass guitar") can be heard. And it will leave a slight "thumb" sound on the kick drum also (which the older model did not do). The good thing is, that it preserves more "thumbing" on the sound and it does not go that thin - but the negative part is, that bassline melodies might get mixed up a bit. This should have side by side comparison to verify :
IMHO it's better 96 (again) 😉
new 92 is better than 96, or 96 is better?
@@TheCaro2 96 better, it's A&H flagship