Midas M32 Upgrade? Yay, Nay?

[tsaldana3]

Would it be worth waiting to upgrade to the Midas M32, when it comes out? Or would it just be a wash or sidestep between the M32 and say, the Allen Heath Qu24?

 

I feel it's time for me to upgrade from my Studiolive 16.4.2 into something I can use a digital snake with.

 

BTW, for those interested, (I've go the studiolive up for grabs on ebay.

[OneEng]

The MIDAS M32 is a Behringer X32 with full MIDAS preamps (vs MIDAS "designed" preamps in the X32), MIDAS faders (rated at 1,000,000 operations vs X32's 300,000 operations), a comprehensive 3 year warranty (vs X32's 1 year for everything and 3 years for things that don't move), and a MIDAS console housing. The M32 will be selling for $5000.00 while the X32 sells for $2700.00 and the Qu-24 sells for $2800.00.

 

All 3 of these consoles will sound great (better by far than your 16.4.2).

 

The X32/M32 has more channels, more buses, better app support (android, iPad, PC, Mac and Linux), and generally more of everything than the Qu-24.

 

The Qu-24 is more analog like (as is the SL16.4.2), and has the ability to record up to 18 multi-track directly to a USB drive (no computer or DAW software needed).... or 32 with a DAW. The M32/X32 can record 32 tracks to a DAW through USB as well, but not without it.

 

The Qu-24 has a pittiful channel strip VU meter (3 LED's), but aside from this is a very easy to use physical interface.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on the M32 if I were you. It may be up to a year before Behringer releases it out into the wild. They have been notorious for being behind schedule lately.

 

Another console to consider would be the Soundcraft Expression Si 3 ($3499.00). The multi-track recording card is an additional $400.00 though and unlike the others is not included. This mixer has the distinction of being able to expand to 66 channels through stage boxes.

 

 

[Audiopyle Sound]

Allen & Heath is offering a pretty good bundle on the GLD models right now. Buy the mixer and they throw in an AR2412 and other freebies.

[agedhorse]

From what I understand, there are some significant (technical) differences between the X32 and M32, namely the 96kHz operation which requires different processor architecture. It's hard to know what is truth and what is marketing when it comes to vaporware though so YMMV.

 

I had a FOH engineer through recently that chided me for not having an M32 instead of an X32 available and tod me I was a cheap-ass. This was after a couple of other not so nice remarks so I lowered the hammer hard. Told him that instead of being a dick, he should try being right for a change as they are not shipping yet (and likely not for a while) and his other comments were not appreciated as well. I think I surprised him when he realized that the marketing blitz was not accurate and that he was really just acting like a pompous ass. He was much nicer from then on.

[OneEng]

Andy, Behringer are saying that the M32 will ship at 44/48Khz and that it will be upgradeable later to 96Khz. My current theory on this is that they have upgraded their SHARK from the 3 series to the 4 series ( thus keeping backwards code compatibility). If I was a betting man, I would say that the M32 will not ship until the end of this year...... And that 96 KHz May be as far off as 2 years from that. I have heard some reports of people using MIDAS DL stage boxes with their X32 ( and thus getting true MIDAS preamps) stating that they liked the sound much better than the stock X32 pres.

[Craig Vecchione]

Upgradeable to 96kHz? Something sounds fishy there.

[sibyrnes]

"All 3 of these consoles will sound great (better by far than your 16.4.2)."

 

Better by far? How do you know that? Have you even heard the four boards you are commenting on?(I doubt it, all of them haven't even shipped yet). I would have to see the results of a blind test to convince me of the truth in your statement!

[agedhorse]

Andy' date=' Behringer are saying that the M32 will ship at 44/48Khz and that it will be upgradeable later to 96Khz. My current theory on this is that they have upgraded their SHARK from the 3 series to the 4 series ( thus keeping backwards code compatibility). If I was a betting man, I would say that the M32 will not ship until the end of this year...... And that 96 KHz May be as far off as 2 years from that. I have heard some reports of people using MIDAS DL stage boxes with their X32 ( and thus getting true MIDAS preamps) stating that they liked the sound much better than the stock X32 pres.[/quote']

That's my guess as well, the backwards compatability of code architecture will be close but there will be some significant differences in actual code due to the latency correction routines, the reading and writing of the new data stream, the word size, memory management, stack control, etc. Maybe that's where the 2 years comes in?

[dbMontana]

Andy, not throwing stones here -- especially at you (or OneEng) but... Don't I recall the general consensus being that preamp technology had reached the commodity level such that their sound quality on most all MI level consoles was essentially indistinguishable between manufacturers -- the difference being many places to the right of the decimal point? Of course Midas has been primarily a pro vs. MI level company but could there really be that much difference in sound quality between the "Midas designed" preamps in the X32 and the "Midas" preamps in the DL stage box? No doubt that the overall sound quality of a console depends on all the components and not just the preamp but, well, just wondering.

[OneEng]

"All 3 of these consoles will sound great (better by far than your 16.4.2)."

 

Better by far? How do you know that? Have you even heard the four boards you are commenting on?(I doubt it, all of them haven't even shipped yet). I would have to see the results of a blind test to convince me of the truth in your statement!

 

I have heard all of them except of course the M32. Let me stipulate.

 

The vocal efx are not in the same class on the 16.4.2 as the other consoles (all of which have outstanding internal efx). Additionally, it is easier to get a good sounding channel eq with the other consoles than the 16.4.2 (at least it is for me). Furthermore, the sound is just better to my ears even straight up without any processing. Your ears may vary.

 

The M32 is obviously an unknown .... but only by a few respects.... and only one of them can have any effect on sound quality. The faders will be better, but no effect on sound. The warranty is better (again no effect on sound), only the preamps will effect the sound as the entire mixer is built on the X32 platform.

 

I have heard a couple reports that using the X32 with a MIDAS DL stage box sounds better than the X32's native preamps. The conclusion I am guessing is that the M32 will sound at least as good as the X32.

 

To my ear, the efx on the 16.4.2 are "OK". The built in efx on my old MixWiz were one step down at "passable in a pinch". All of the other digital consoles I discussed have outstanding vocal efx. They are simply in a different class than the 16.4.2. I know of two sound providers in another forum who put the X32 verbs on par with their Eventide and PCM96 units (which they are selling along with their analog rigs). That is pretty high praise and explains why my ears were so impressed with the efx in these units as well.

 

Have you heard them? If you have a different opinion, I would be interested in hearing it.

 

[OneEng]

Andy' date=' not throwing stones here -- especially at you (or OneEng) but... Don't I recall the general consensus being that preamp technology had reached the commodity level such that their sound quality on most all MI level consoles was essentially indistinguishable between manufacturers -- the difference being many places to the right of the decimal point? Of course Midas has been primarily a pro vs. MI level company but could there really be that much difference in sound quality between the "Midas designed" preamps in the X32 and the "Midas" preamps in the DL stage box? No doubt that the overall sound quality of a console depends on all the components and not just the preamp but, well, just wondering.[/quote']

 

Dave,

 

You have a very valid point.

 

I am guessing that the MIDAS preamps are not really linear, but rather provide a generally pleasing color to the inputs. I am not sure that you couldn't make the X32 preamps sound just as good as the MIDAS preamps on a different channel simply by equalizing the channel differently. I also remember someone telling me that the MIDAS preamps also compress the input when it approaches clip so as to make them more forgiving to being run hot. Again, this may result in a better sound with less work, but I don't think it means you can't get that sound without those preamps.

 

This is all just my guess on how this perception is being created.

[OneEng]

Upgradeable to 96kHz? Something sounds fishy there.

Craig, to be more specific, from here: http://www.midasconsoles.com/Products/M32.aspx

Open architecture allows for future 96 kHz operation

 

​They are not even coming close to saying that it will have 96Khz operation at release. They way I read it is that it may never have it.

 

I don't think this is necessarily a nail in the coffin for the M32 or anything. I think that there are plenty of world class digital consoles that operate at 44/48Khz for live applications. After all, at 44Khz, a digital console can accurately reproduce 22Khz frequencies without any aliasing at all. Most speakers and microphones can't do better than this.

 

I think the real alure of 96Khz is that the entire processing chain can have latency that is 1/2 that (and even a little less) of 44Khz. That really opens up the possibilities on your internal processing capabilities ..... which can and do effect the sound quality.

 

..... at least that is my take. I would be delighted to hear from someone else if this is incorrect

[agedhorse]

I don't think the issue is sound quality either, but for folks who already have inventory of Midas stage boxes, it would allow for melding of 96kHz native stage boxes with a more entry level console. It's functionality rather than any specific preamp lovey dovey thing.

[Craig Vecchione]

Craig, to be more specific, from here: http://www.midasconsoles.com/Products/M32.aspx

"Open architecture allows for future 96 kHz operation"

 

​They are not even coming close to saying that it will have 96Khz operation at release. They way I read it is that it may never have it.

 

I don't think this is necessarily a nail in the coffin for the M32 or anything. I think that there are plenty of world class digital consoles that operate at 44/48Khz for live applications. After all, at 44Khz, a digital console can accurately reproduce 22Khz frequencies without any aliasing at all. Most speakers and microphones can't do better than this.

 

I think the real alure of 96Khz is that the entire processing chain can have latency that is 1/2 that (and even a little less) of 44Khz. That really opens up the possibilities on your internal processing capabilities ..... which can and do effect the sound quality.

 

..... at least that is my take. I would be delighted to hear from someone else if this is incorrect

 

Open architecture? So they're sharing their design and allowing users to choose components to plug in? That's the most common definition of "open architecture".

 

I get the impression the marketing folks over there are playing madlibs.

[sibyrnes]

 

If you have a different opinion, I would be interested in hearing it.

 

My opinion is that in a blind test you could not identify the differences in sound between digital boards and you make too many broad sweeping, generalizations based on hear-say evidence. Not really the way a engineer functions, actually more like a marketing person. Again - my opinion.

 

[Pro Sound Guy]

Midas reputation speaks for itself all the way around.

 

Good job on spanking that guy AH

 

Anyone have the experience of Musicians saying...do you know who I am?

My reply is no do you know who I am?

 

[OneEng]

 

My opinion is that in a blind test you could not identify the differences in sound between digital boards and you make too many broad sweeping, generalizations based on hear-say evidence. Not really the way a engineer functions, actually more like a marketing person. Again - my opinion.

First, hear-say would imply that I have not heard or used these boards myself. If you simply don't believe that I have heard and/or used them, I don't know what to tell you. I could see where you would doubt my assessment if I am simply some guy in a basement typing wildly away about topics that I know nothing about.

 

Some of them I have used personally (X32, Expression Si, and SL16.4.2) to mix bands (either my own or someone elses band). The Qu-16 I have only played with at Guitar Center sending a microphone feed and DJ music through it.

 

Second, I don't think a blind listening test is the best way to evaluate a digital board. There are simply too many ways to mix something differently on one board vs. another and get a completely different sound as a result.

 

I believe that vocal efx can be evaluated best with a vocal only track and by listening to the efx applied at various levels to see how it sounds. It is also important how easy it is to get a pleasing sound, not just that you are able to eventually get a pleasing sound.

 

The overall mix is subjective (all sound quality is subjective). You have to get a pretty significant difference in quality before most people are going to agree that A sounds better than B. Most people that have run sound before have a better ear for what sounds good and what sounds .... not so good.

 

In my opinion, it is easier to get a good sounding mix and make vocals sound great on all the digital mixers except the 16.4.2. It isn't that you can't get a good mix on a 16.4.2, it is just harder to do, and it never gets to the same level of "good" as the other mixers do.

 

Do you have a different experience than this which you would like to share, or do you simply think I am lying about everything I have stated and therefore are fundamentally opposed to this opinion?

 

Just out of curiosity, you don't happen to own a bunch of SL16.4.2's do you? If so, it wasn't my intention of calling your baby "ugly". It isn't a bad mixer at all. It is simply not as good as the newer digital consoles ..... which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I have never heard the new AI versions, but those who have say they sound much better than the old version. What do you suppose they mean since according to your assertion, it is impossible to hear the difference between two digital consoles?

 

Oh, and PS, since I am an engineer, this is evidently exactly how "an engineer functions" ... unless of course, you don't believe I am an engineer either

[Pro Sound Guy]

Lets look forward to very high sampling rates and resolution as digital makes progression.

Way beyond what is available now.

 

 

[OneEng]

Lets look forward to very high sampling rates and resolution as digital makes progression.

Way beyond what is available now.

 

For sure! A few years ago I didn't even know what a digital stage box was. Now it is on my wish list for a future expansion of my digital rig

 

I suspect that usability features will be what evolves from digital mixers. The entire new crop sound very .... very good. I believe that it is going to come down to how easy you can make them sound good and get your system to do what you want.

 

I was asked tonight by a sound guy in Georgia how to setup a wet mix for an IEM with the X32 within the confines of just the X32 internal processing and routing. It is surprisingly difficult to do (requires the use of a dedicated efx engine, a bunch of buses, and a matrix mix of those buses along with a routing of the matrix to an output). While it is possible to do, surely not everyone is going to be asked to be able to come up with such a convoluted puzzle just to get a wet monitor mix?

 

[dbMontana]

For sure! A few years ago I didn't even know what a digital stage box was. Now it is on my wish list for a future expansion of my digital rig

Agreed. It just seems to make a lot of sense to put remote-gain-controlled preamps on stage and then a simple cat5 connection to the console. Even when I'm setting the deck stageside with the intent of mixing from iPad I'd welcome a "cat5 stage snake" rather than cables stretching all the way across the stage and cluttering the area. Granted that would mean two pieces of equipment rather than just one as well as running power to the stage box but... I've also been thinking about this in regards to whether I can live with a X32 Compact or should go with the full X32. The S16 stagebox allows expansion past 16 channels which is key but then, as Andy says, once you get one S16 you might as well just get two (and not even run a traditional snake I assume) which leads me to "Why not just make the S16 the default connection in the first place"? I wonder how much cheaper/lighter/smaller a Compact variant would be with no preamps at all?

 

I suspect that usability features will be what evolves from digital mixers. The entire new crop sound very .... very good. I believe that it is going to come down to how easy you can make them sound good and get your system to do what you want.

 

I was asked tonight by a sound guy in Georgia how to setup a wet mix for an IEM with the X32 within the confines of just the X32 internal processing and routing. It is surprisingly difficult to do (requires the use of a dedicated efx engine, a bunch of buses, and a matrix mix of those buses along with a routing of the matrix to an output). While it is possible to do, surely not everyone is going to be asked to be able to come up with such a convoluted puzzle just to get a wet monitor mix?

Indeed, the eternal tradeoff between flexibility (complexibility?) and ease of use. As someone who still works and believes in the open-source UNIX command-line big-hardware world but has become quite accustomed to and appreciative of my iThings I find the evolution very interesting.