I like what I like. And yes, I do enjoy tinkering with a system till it is just what I want.
I am simply not a fan of all-in-one controllers. I have many reasons for this.
- All-in-one controllers tend to be larger than I like
- They have limited IO (e.g. 2 mics max and 2 stereo aux ins max)
- I don't scratch so I don't need large jog wheels
- I rarely use effects so I don't need countless buttons
- The built-in screens (on those that have them) are generally too small for my eyes
- I prefer to search via keyboard than via a knob
- Single point failure risk
I am considering adding a Tascam MZ-372 mixer to my rack. That gives me seven mic inputs and 12 stereo inputs in just a 3RU unit. This gives more flexibility than I will probably ever need but more importantly frees up rack space for other stuff.
There's a glaring contradiction in all of this.
You have available audio output from the DJ20GO, a redundant external sound card, and plans to add a 20 channel mixer. This isn't modular it's just stacked redundancy. You now have 4 separate ways to affect volume and that's more vulnerable to error than I'd want a system to be.
The DJ20GO unit's primary design is for DJs using Serato with tracks that have already been normalized in volume. Serato software on the PC provides individual player volume controls, as do other DJ programs. Tactile track control is the DJ20G0's only real purpose.
All-in-one is
not an accurate description of DJ controllers. They are just modules of
varying capacity.
You seem to want a modular system but your blueprint is speculative rather than operative. (i,e. You're guessing at it's future applications.) Applications we
imagine rarely reflect the reality of what we are booked to do, so we can easily fall into the trap of merely accessorizing an existing piece of gear. The defining trait (center) of a modular system has to be at least one significant
event type rather than a way to compensate for lack of capacity. Start with a
real event type (application) and a central piece of gear (controller) that can fully deliver that performance without needing ancillary attachments.
Example:
My DJ "module" is a Roland 707M because it's a modest unit capable of doing anything a DJ might be asked to do. It's mic inputs have digital processing similar to what's inside their Roland video switchers and negates the need for a more sophisticated audio mixer.
The "2 channel" mic limitation is imaginary because either channel can easily be used to process a "group" of mics - for example, the output of a Shure SM410 for karaoke or SCM410 for speech. Here - the application is Disc Jockey - and the add-on is karaoke mics, (There is no mention of the PA - because the size of the event is not relevant to the desired DJ/KJ desktop.
The point is: our 'modules' should be attachable/detachable precisely at the point where meaningful capacity changes, and they should be truly additive not redundant. To achieve that we have to know the true 'core' application and identify the correct centerpiece.
Example:
I don't use any DJ controller for a wedding ceremony because mixing isn't necessary or even desired. It's purely a playback application. The PC and software alone fills that need. So, the module in this instance is the PC (playback device) added to a appropriate PA system for multiple ceremony mics, external feeds, delays, and high quality audio processing. It's a
reverse scenario - the application is pro audio and the DJ PC (Serato) is what becomes the add-on.
These two examples serve up to 3 different scenarios that may be part of just 1 gig. In two scenarios (DJ and Karaoke) a DJ Controller is the ideal center and everything else is additive. For a wedding ceremony, Professional PA is the ideal center and a PC running a music application is the add-on. A controller in this 3rd scenario is redundant.
Also, redundancy and backup as language may have similar meaning and use, But for our purposes backup is having an alternative to failed gear or a changing condition. Redundancy on the other hand, can be viewed as gear that's duplicative without core purpose. Two active PCs ready to play content might be desirable if we don't want a computer glitch or crash to cause delay in a show flow or event. The word for that can be either, but "duplicative" is a word that typically implies something is unnecessary.
I never had to resort to using it at an event, but it would have worked out fine, had it been necessary.
