How important is gear to you?

[MIXMASTERMACHOM]

I wanted to have a conversation about this and please don't go crazy and start picking on others for their comments on this thread.

Now I get that with most clients it's not a big deal or they simply just don't know what is real professional gear and what is crap. I had someone say to me that gear is not an investment. To me it is. It's an investment in giving a client and their guest a great show. Now I get that you need to know what you're doing. No matter how good the gear is that will not make up for the lack of a DJ that doesn't know what they are doing.

I myself learned what to buy and what not to buy sometimes through trial and error. I've learned I could save money in the short run but later on hate in the long run hate the purchase I made. Now I get that some DJ's here don't like double 15's when it comes to speakers. I bought the Yamaha S215's because I liked the sound and saw that they could handle the amp I have. Also at the time I had no subs or at least any I could take out with me to do gigs. I think I had the earthquakes but those are very big and a pain to get out of the basement. I regret I sold them now. So the S215's had some good bass to cover events we were doing.

Then I decided to get some powered speakers. All I knew when I went into Guitar Center I just didn't want any piece of junk just to say I had a pair of powered speakers. I wanted some really good ones that I would be proud to say I owned. When I walked in a salesman I know all too well tried to get me to buy some Alto powered speakers. I wouldn't even listen to that crap because I knew what it was without hearing them.

I wound up listening to 3 different models to decide on what I wanted. I listened to the JBL EON, the new Cerwin Vega and the Yamaha DSR 115. I totally dismissed the CV because it sounded like pure s*** for the money. It came down to either the JBL or Yamaha. I decided to go with the Yamaha's because I liked the highs better then the JBL. My partner tried to talk me into buying a pair of Mackie Thumps and there was no way in hell I would buy those speakers. I hate them! I didn't even listen to the Mackie SRM speaker because I knew how great they sound.

Yes It cost me $750.00 for 1 alone but I'm so happy with the choice I made. Later on I bought the matching subs and they work great together. I know there are those out here that have better but at least those speakers I bought aren't bottom of the barrel crap that I would want to quickly get rid of.

When at gigs I've gotten a ton of compliments on the sound including from other DJ's. Now to be fair the really good high quality professional gear can cost a lot and not everyone has that kind of money to spend. So sometimes just to get by a person will buy gear that is not the best quality. I've done it just for a temporary solution till I could afford what I really wanted. I just decided to not skimp on the powered speakers I bought. I wanted speakers that would not only sound good but look good and last a long time. So far so great!

I just love the choices I've made with the speakers, controller and other things I've bought. I like these things because they work very well for me and make my job a lot easier. Not to mention how great it sounds. Now they keep coming up with different controller all the time and speakers. I'll stick with what I have as even though some of the other stuff is tempting but what I have is still working very well. I have no complaints. Besides for me I don't see the need to buy something else just because it's the latest thing. For me it doesn't make sense to spend money on some newer gear when the stuff I already have is getting the job done and people rave over how good it sounds.

Your thoughts please and just remember like I said in the beginning please be kind to others on here with this thread.

 

[NickC]

Can't speak to the controller part too much...I use a Pioneer DDJ-WEGO just to have hardware control of my software. But I can tell you this: You in no way compromised on your Yamaha DSR115's. I would put them up against any other powered speaker out there, and they would be as good or better than any of them.

I tend to spend a lot of time researching before I buy, and I tend to buy the best quality stuff knowing that it will last. The one thing that i compromised on was a Behringer mixer for my ceremony system. Less than one year later, clicking noises started entering the system. It is now replaced with a Mackie ProFX12. Lesson learned.

I don't think your clients care what equipment you have...as long as it sounds good, and it doesn't crap out in the middle of their event. Just my .02 !

 

[steve149]

Dependable, usable, and decent sounding gear is the basis for what we do, so it has some importance.

I've had good experiences with both high end gear and low end gear. In general, I am a gear nut, so as I learn the nuances of something, I look for things that may be better. I have gone through my gear several times, moving it up the scale with each pass. There will always be something better for a certain situation and there may be something better for the general use .. I try to determine what benefits moving to either would give me.

I am lucky that I don't necessarily need to recover the costs of gear upgrades with activity, but I still always look for value.

 

[Scott Hanna]

To me, equipment is very important. I need equipment to do my job

I think everyone needs to find the equipment that works for them

I've seen some djs that it expensive equipment thinking it will impress the client.

I've found that the client will only be impressed with equipment if the dj is doing a good job with it.

I also know a dj that has never bought any new equipment in the 15 years I've known him. He buys cheap used gear., uses old CD players ,But he is booked all of the time because he's a great dj

I also don't put much stock into people's opinions about gear they don't use....like the "I heard the k 10's at a bar and they sounded terrible"

That's kind of like watching a grandmother test driving a Ferrari and then deciding that the car isn't fast enough for you

 

[soundinmotiondj]

I use to be more twitterpated with gear than I am now. I use the gear I have because (Top 3 reasons only):

1) It's paid for.
2) It's paid for.
3) It's paid for.

The Overwhelming Majority(tm) of people you meet...including "DJs" and other "sound professionals" do NOT know how to critically listen to a sound system. This means that the difference between "not obviously awful," "good," and "great" sound is lost on (almost) everyone who will hear your PA gear. "Obviously awful" is a sub-category of sound quality...and does happen (surprisingly often, in fact), but is (almost) never about the gear and is (almost) always about the setup.

Aside: My PA is "flat to 40Hz" (and goes to 20kHz on the high end). When I first used it, I got a TON of complaints about the sound "quality." I measured, listened, and measured some more...and I was just NOT getting what the complaints were about. Then I moved the low pass to 16kHz to be more like the "standard" 15" tops with a 1" compression driver...and all the complaints went away. My system was reproducing sounds that were in the music...but most people had never actually heard that part of the song before and apparently didn't like it.

With modest processing (digital PA managers are <$300), ANY gear can be made to have a "flat response" for some "medium" amount of output. If you follow the "enough rig for the gig" mantra...then the gear is secondary to the understanding of how to set it up. So, if you bring enough of them, place them properly, and don't turn them up past "7" or so....practically ANY "pro-audio" PA system can be made to sound "good."

That brings me to this: proper cabinet placement is MORE important than anything else in determining the sound in the room.

There are still good reasons to buy quality gear...reliability being the best reason. I may have backup gear on site...but I just don't need gear failing on me at a gig...it is embarrassing, disrupts the flow of the event, and raises my stress level. "Needing" to run the gear on "11" is another reason to buy quality (but...anytime you need to run higher than "8" consistently, you should double the pile of boxes anyway).

 

[steve149]

One problem is that most people are not used to listening to "flat" .. so either one would have to train a whole lot of listeners or one accommodates what they prefer listening to.

Also, since sound quality is relative, having perfect placement and perfect reproduction doesn't necessarily equate to "perfect sound" for all listeners. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I strive to get a baseline of good sound, adjust it to what my seasoned ears think is appropriate and don't worry too much beyond that.

 

[Proformance]

Gear is NOT an investment - it is a sunk cost.

A sunk cost is unrecoverable money spent on something that can not by itself produce any income. For a DJ - that is his sound system because, it can sit in the garage all year long and produce absolutely no income. What really produces income is the DJ's labor - and that can be accomplished without respect to a given quality. In fact, DJ labor can produce income without the DJ needing to buy ANY gear at all.

You should not spend any more on equipment than is necessary to complete the jobs ahead of you. For example, buying a $5,000 piece of gear to do one event that could have been handled with a $500 alternative is foolish if you have no real future use for the product. If on the other hand you have just booked 6 more gigs over the next 18 months that the better quality gear can service - then you have cause to spend more for the longevity of the better quality gear. If there is no low cost alternative then you are better advised to rent the gear than own it.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

Also, since sound quality is relative, having perfect placement and perfect reproduction doesn't necessarily equate to "perfect sound" for all listeners. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Taste is relative. Sound quality is much more objective. No one "prefers" an uneven sound field with power alleys. No one "prefers" slap back from the rear wall. No one "prefers" an audible dip in the sound level at the cross over frequencies. No one "prefers" listening positions where the sound from different cabinets is not integrated. No one "prefers" having their ears ring at the end of the night (well...maybe that one is a bit too far...but no one should prefer to have their ears ring).

Having a "flat" system give a neutral reproduction platform upon which to make adjustments. Given the Fletcher-Munson effect, most people will prefer a slight "smiley face" EQ...adjusted for the overall sound level in the room. Using that as a starting point is the professional standard for sound reproduction.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

Gear is NOT an investment - it is a sunk cost.

An investment is money put into an asset that will generate a return... appreciation, dividends, interest, etc. At least that is the "finance" definition.

While "rental gear" might be an investment....I totally agree that in the general sense "gear" is a cost not an investment.

You should not spend any more on equipment than is necessary to complete the jobs ahead of you. For example, buying a $5,000 piece of gear to do one event that could have been handled with a $500 alternative is foolish if you have no real future use for the product. If on the other hand you have just booked 6 more gigs over the next 18 months that the better quality gear can service - then you have cause to spend more for the longevity of the better quality gear. If there is no low cost alternative then you are better advised to rent the gear than own it.

For some definition of "...the jobs ahead of you..." I agree. I often spend a little more to get gear that will last "forever" (at least in terms of my 3 year business plan) in anticipation of future work that is not yet under contract. In real terms, the price differential has never been 10x for me...but differences of 2x are fairly common. I often spend extra for "one better" than what I perceive I "need" in order to ensure long(er) term satisfaction with the piece of gear....at least in terms of durable items. I also tend to buy in bulk amounts in excess of my "immediate" needs in order to reduce per-item costs to a reasonable level. In strict "game theory" that is not the "best" move...but it still seems to be a reasonable decision in the real world.

 

[steve149]

Taste is relative. Sound quality is much more objective. No one "prefers" an uneven sound field with power alleys. No one "prefers" slap back from the rear wall. No one "prefers" an audible dip in the sound level at the cross over frequencies. No one "prefers" listening positions where the sound from different cabinets is not integrated. No one "prefers" having their ears ring at the end of the night (well...maybe that one is a bit too far...but no one should prefer to have their ears ring).

Having a "flat" system give a neutral reproduction platform upon which to make adjustments. Given the Fletcher-Munson effect, most people will prefer a slight "smiley face" EQ...adjusted for the overall sound level in the room. Using that as a starting point is the professional standard for sound reproduction.

Measurable qualities are objective, but sound overall is normally subjective, since it relies on 2 subjective ears on each listener.

I agree there are conditions (those you laid out) that in the norm would not be desirable. And as I said, I start with a sound I think is appropriate and take all of that into consideration. I used to shoot rooms with my DriveRack, but found that "earing" it yielded similar and faster results .. plus my DRPA doesn't do multiple point measurements, so in the end my ear won anyway.

But certain folks like overt top end sizzle, some can't tolerate low end (older folks come to mind), and some like things too hot. I have worked with artists that want excessive volume or excessive reverb or some other thing that sounds good to them. I accommodate, but cringe.

We do what we can with we brought and what we're given.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

I agree there are conditions (those you laid out) that in the norm would not be desirable. And as I said, I start with a sound I think is appropriate and take all of that into consideration. I used to shoot rooms with my DriveRack, but found that "earing" it yielded similar and faster results .. plus my DRPA doesn't do multiple point measurements, so in the end my ear won anyway.

Absolutely.

While I was learning to listen, the auto-EQ with an RTA was a handy feature. I learned to use that to get "in the ballpark"...but I also observed how it would lose it's !@#$% from time to time and go off the deep end.

At this point, I have a "starting reference" that I load in the PA manager and tweak from there.

But certain folks like overt top end sizzle, some can't tolerate low end (older folks come to mind), and some like things too hot. I have worked with artists that want excessive volume or excessive reverb or some other thing that sounds good to them. I accommodate, but cringe.

We do what we can with we brought and what we're given.

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html

No (real) argument there. Part of why I cut out a lot of high frequency content was to be more like the common PAs that my customers heard. The mp3 player ear bud is certainly the most common listening environment for a LOT of my clients and their friends.

I will "object" in this way. I think that when people don't like "low end" that the PA reproduction of the sound is not the objection. I think the objection is to the song that has that content. Or, I don't think there is a high pass setting on the crossover that will get grand parents (or great-grandparents) to like dubstep.

The first time I put my "flat to 40" system into "war mode"....I kept getting comments like "the bass the spine melting" or "the bass is just stupid loud"....I kept saying "thank you", but as it turns out they wanted me to turn it down.

 

[steve149]

One limit most of us have is that even 360K MP3 files (and the over compressed, over worked files they originate from) don't have real clean data below say 45Hz and above about 15K (and that's probably generous). That means the ends of the spectrum that make better equipment shine, kind of gets lost on the inaccurate data that accompanies it.

 

[Scott Hanna]

Gear is NOT an investment - it is a sunk cost.

A sunk cost is unrecoverable money spent on something that can not by itself produce any income. For a DJ - that is his sound system because, it can sit in the garage all year long and produce absolutely no income.

I disagree with this definition of sunk cost. Sunk cost is unrecoverable money......but not sure where you got the "on something that can not by itself produce any income". All sunk cost is still an investment. Some good investments, some bad.

A dj's sound system would only be completely sunk cost if it couldn't be resold for anything.
If you bought speakers for $1000, but they are now worth $500, your sunk cost is technically $500. Wether you used them once or 100 times is irrelevant to the sunk cost. It is relevant as to wether that sunk cost was a good invement or not.

I've bought gear and then sold it for more than I paid for it. Sunk cost=0

The reason for identifying sunk cost is so that they can be eliminated from consideration in evaluating future action. So in actuality, even though equipment may not have a lot of value, it may be of value to the DJ, and may well impact his or her decision to purchase new equipment or not.

I believe the term originated in the oil business to help them make better decisions on continuing to drill or abandoning a well. The thinking is that it should be based on expected cash flows, and not on unrecoverable past investments.....or sunk costs

 

[Jeff Romard]

I just set up a gear room in my house for the first time ever and as I was stacking it in I looked around and thought of this thread. In that room I have 16 speakers 10 tops and 6 subs 6 Amps 4 EQs and various other electronic equipment. I have a couple of dozen lights at least 3 fog machines and a bubble machine.

The point to this is that's alot of gear and the only piece of equipment that I haven't made money on is the bubble machine. I've rented it out twice in 4 years and used it in my yard for the kids a half dozen times. I payed around $400 when I bought it and I've got $100 back on it so I see that as a sunk cost but everything else has paid me back many many times over that's an investment

 

[Proformance]

I just set up a gear room in my house for the first time ever and as I was stacking it in I looked around and thought of this thread. In that room I have 16 speakers 10 tops and 6 subs 6 Amps 4 EQs and various other electronic equipment. I have a couple of dozen lights at least 3 fog machines and a bubble machine.

The point to this is that's alot of gear and the only piece of equipment that I haven't made money on is the bubble machine. I've rented it out twice in 4 years and used it in my yard for the kids a half dozen times. I payed around $400 when I bought it and I've got $100 back on it so I see that as a sunk cost but everything else has paid me back many many times over that's an investment

Did the gear in that room make money just by sitting there - or did you actually have to go and DJ with it? If you had to DJ to get paid then it was not the gear that made that income - it was YOU. Outside of a rental business the gear is no more of an investment than a carpenter's square. You will never recover the cost of that gear - it's sole purpose is to make effect of your labor.

I disagree with this definition of sunk cost. Sunk cost is unrecoverable money......but not sure where you got the "on something that can not by itself produce any income". All sunk cost is still an investment. Some good investments, some bad.

A dj's sound system would only be completely sunk cost if it couldn't be resold for anything.
If you bought speakers for $1000, but they are now worth $500, your sunk cost is technically $500. Wether you used them once or 100 times is irrelevant to the sunk cost. It is relevant as to wether that sunk cost was a good invement or not.

I've bought gear and then sold it for more than I paid for it. Sunk cost=0

The reason for identifying sunk cost is so that they can be eliminated from consideration in evaluating future action. So in actuality, even though equipment may not have a lot of value, it may be of value to the DJ, and may well impact his or her decision to purchase new equipment or not.

I believe the term originated in the oil business to help them make better decisions on continuing to drill or abandoning a well. The thinking is that it should be based on expected cash flows, and not on unrecoverable past investments.....or sunk costs

You're gear produces no cash flow - that's why it is a sunk cost.

The future value of all your confirmed bookings represents the future value of your labor. What gear you ultimately use has no bearing on your income - you get paid for showing up and performing the prescribed labor.

The price at which you buy or sell gear has no effect on the value of your DJ service or it's price in the market place. The value or price of DJ services can fall precipitously or escalate quite dramatically. Changing gear won't change your income. To do that you have to change capabilities - advance your labor skills.

For example, if midi controllers are an investment - then one should see a gain in revenue every time they add a better performing product. That doesn't happen. Instead - income rises when you have a better performing DJ. So, an enhanced product is not an investment. Cash flow is generated by the enhanced or informed labor.

As for Oil drilling - the cost of drilling and the time required is relatively fixed, while the price of crude oil is not. The drilling is a sunk cost because the price of oil (your revenues) may change before you can get it out of the ground. The asset the oil - not the drill. Think of it as a gamble.

Unlike a machine that produces widgets - your DJ gear produces nothing of value. It's a gamble - because the asset is your labor and you still have to pull the bookings out the ground.

 

[Proformance]

One limit most of us have is that even 360K MP3 files (and the over compressed, over worked files they originate from) don't have real clean data below say 45Hz and above about 15K (and that's probably generous). That means the ends of the spectrum that make better equipment shine, kind of gets lost on the inaccurate data that accompanies it.

I definitely sense my fidelity was better when I was palying CDs.

 

[Scott Hanna]

Did the gear in that room make money just by sitting there - or did you actually have to go and DJ with it? If you had to DJ to get paid then it was not the gear that made that income - it was YOU. Outside of a rental business the gear is no more of an investment than a carpenter's square. You will never recover the cost of that gear - it's sole purpose is to make effect of your labor.



You're gear produces no cash flow - that's why it is a sunk cost.

The future value of all your confirmed bookings represents the future value of your labor. What gear you ultimately use has no bearing on your income - you get paid for showing up and performing the prescribed labor.

The price at which you buy or sell gear has no effect on the value of your DJ service or it's price in the market place. The value or price of DJ services can fall precipitously or escalate quite dramatically. Changing gear won't change your income. To do that you have to change capabilities - advance your labor skills.

For example, if midi controllers are an investment - then one should see a gain in revenue every time they add a better performing product. That doesn't happen. Instead - income rises when you have a better performing DJ. So, an enhanced product is not an investment. Cash flow is generated by the enhanced or informed labor.

As for Oil drilling - the cost of drilling and the time required is relatively fixed, while the price of crude oil is not. The drilling is a sunk cost because the price of oil (your revenues) may change before you can get it out of the ground. The asset the oil - not the drill. Think of it as a gamble.

Unlike a machine that produces widgets - your DJ gear produces nothing of value. It's a gamble - because the asset is your labor and you still have to pull the bookings out the ground.

I still disagree. If a midi controller is used to help you do your job, then it's an investment in your business. Even though that midi controller can't produce income by itself.

If the midi controller has some value....meaning it can be sold....then it's not a sunk cost.

In the oiil scenario, if a well isn't producing, you abandon the oil well but you take what ever equipment you can with you......a drill still has value and can be used again......therefore.....an asset.....and not a sunk cost

 

[Scott Hanna]

Did the gear in that room make money just by sitting there - or did you actually have to go and DJ with it? If you had to DJ to get paid then it was not the gear that made that income - it was YOU. Outside of a rental business the gear is no more of an investment than a carpenter's square. You will never recover the cost of that gear - it's sole purpose is to make effect of your labor.



You're gear produces no cash flow - that's why it is a sunk cost.

A corporation is renting a building for their HQ. They then decide to invest in a building and land of their own. They spend $1 million on land and building.

Since they are not renting any part of their building, the building produces no cash flow.

Are you suggesting that the million they spent is sunk cost......even though they could turn around and sell the building?

I do believe you are mistaken. I've always believed sunk cost is simply UNRECOVERABLE past investment. Usable necessary equipment does not fit into that category.

That 8 track player in the basement....I'll give you that.....sunk cost

There are many types of investments. Companies invest in new equipment all of the time

 

[Randy A]

Come on, Scott .... let it go.

For the record, I just love gear! I buy want I want; because it does the job that I want it to do, at the cost I want to pay for it.

 

[Jeff Romard]

Did the gear in that room make money just by sitting there - or did you actually have to go and DJ with it? If you had to DJ to get paid then it was not the gear that made that income - it was YOU. Outside of a rental business the gear is no more of an investment than a carpenter's square. You will never recover the cost of that gear - it's sole purpose is to make effect of your labor.



You're gear produces no cash flow - that's why it is a sunk cost.

Well actually 2 of those speakers and an amp were on rental on an install for 2 years for $500 per month without the original investment I wouldn't have been able to do that. That install returned me about 4X the original investment not to mention they were paid for many times over before the install.

Sure I could rent gear every weekend and avoid the investment in gear but it doesn't make financial sense. I buy gear for the long term. I will do about 50 bookings this year myself and another 25 through my other DJs. At $100 per rental (and that's being generous to myself) It would cost me $5000 to operate just this year alone not to mention what I wouldn't make of other DJs I have using my gear which to me makes it an investment not a sunk cost


Jeff