Members 1960LesPaul Posted February 1, 2010 Members Share Posted February 1, 2010 Wanted a mixer that will be used almost excusively for live sound. Which one of these offers the best bang for the buck for live applications? I like that they both have efx, comps and gates and 6 monitor sends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dedmeet Posted February 1, 2010 Members Share Posted February 1, 2010 Heya! Do a quick search and you will find a few recent threads on the FX series mixers. I recently acquired one and love it. That said, both mixers have some serious plusses and minuses. I am kind of old school and went for the FX because: 1. It was cheaper2. I learned my chops on analog gear3. It was cheaper Mind you, my dream system would be a SL with a monumental stack of powered cabs, but my 16FX and Yammie mains seem to be doing all right. My biggest con of the FX series is the lack of EQs on the aux sends and the so-so factory effects pre-sets. With some tweaking, you can create some very good effects, but you will need an EQ or two for your Auxes. Otherwise, they have a great bang/buck ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoeDirt Posted February 1, 2010 Members Share Posted February 1, 2010 Isn't the 16FX more similar to a MixWiz 16:2? The SL seems a step above both of those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted February 1, 2010 Members Share Posted February 1, 2010 I'll just cut to the chase on this one. the SL is "better", but then it should be at 2X the price. Bang for the buck wise, it depends how important those extra $900 bucks are to other aspects of your life, musical or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members allexcosta Posted February 1, 2010 Members Share Posted February 1, 2010 Ya'll know that you can hava a SL for 1500 bucks any day, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted February 1, 2010 Members Share Posted February 1, 2010 Ya'll know that you can hava a SL for 1500 bucks any day, right? And I've seen the Peavey in the $700's What's your point? $1 versus $2 or $1000 versus $2000 it's still essentially a 2:1 difference in price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members allexcosta Posted February 1, 2010 Members Share Posted February 1, 2010 And I've seen the Peavey in the $700's What's your point? Not related to any of your previous posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1960LesPaul Posted February 2, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2010 Heya! Do a quick search and you will find a few recent threads on the FX series mixers. I recently acquired one and love it.That said, both mixers have some serious plusses and minuses. I am kind of old school and went for the FX because:1. It was cheaper2. I learned my chops on analog gear3. It was cheaperMind you, my dream system would be a SL with a monumental stack of powered cabs, but my 16FX and Yammie mains seem to be doing all right. My biggest con of the FX series is the lack of EQs on the aux sends and the so-so factory effects pre-sets. With some tweaking, you can create some very good effects, but you will need an EQ or two for your Auxes. Otherwise, they have a great bang/buck ratio. The search feature isn't working plus I wanted a comparison opinion. It seems they have mostly the same features when speaking of live use so I would think at almost half the price the better deal would be the Peavey and should be much better than my Carvin 2442DX. I did think of the MixWiz as that may be a closer comparison but it doesn't have the gates and comps if I am not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 6Imzadi Posted February 2, 2010 Members Share Posted February 2, 2010 You are comparing apples to 1960's LesPauls. There is nothing to compare to. One is analog, and the other is digital. They both have 16 faders, though. There's something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 6Imzadi Posted February 2, 2010 Members Share Posted February 2, 2010 So you don't think 24 preamps + 43 noise gates with Frequency Filter and Key listen + 43 compressors + 43 limiters + 43 fully parametric EQs + 2 stereo fx units + 8 mono graphic EQs + a 32x26 FireWire interface + converters with 118 dB of dynamic range + 26 channel dedicated tracking application + a full DAW w/ 4GB of content + an editor librarian that allows you to remotely control your mixer = $3300? Huh. Sorry, I couldn't resist showing this post. This one was about the new 24 channel mixer, but is applicable to the 16 channel also. Just that the 16 is going for $1500-$1600 street now or $2000 msrp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1960LesPaul Posted February 2, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2010 You are comparing apples to 1960's LesPauls. There is nothing to compare to. One is analog, and the other is digital.They both have 16 faders, though. There's something similar. I get that they are different. If they were the same I would just get the Peavey. In the guitar world alot of people still like analog as they feel it is warmer and not sterile like Digital can be. But being a novice in the PA world does that have any merit? Digital as I understand it has come along way. But since they both have 16 channels as you say and they do share more. As in internal efx, gates and comps does the higher price tag warrant the better deal when you factor in the features that are likely shared in a bar band setting. Ease of use on a live setting. The ability to navigate quickly. You know, user friendly stuff. Will there be a huge differnce between the two or would you have to have them side by side to hear any difference? I was set on the Presonus but saw the Peavey and was wanting to know if my 1st choice was worth paying double for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted February 2, 2010 Members Share Posted February 2, 2010 IMO, worth it. - Peavey doesn't have as many"real" channels. - As I recall, the Peavey has processing limitations that don't let you do "everything" it's capable of all at once. You have to choose a bit between "this and that". - The Peavey isn't capable of multitrack recording. - Fewer auxes - Does the Peavey have a full 16 channel meter bridge? This is the key to the Studiolive for a band that runs sound from stage. I can "see" the entire mix and that's way cool. - Many more features in the SL. Just do a little comparison for yourself and decide if they are worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 2, 2010 Members Share Posted February 2, 2010 The Peavey has a much shallower learning curve... this may be the most important feature for many folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dedmeet Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 To follow up on what I said earlier, I will agree that the SL has quite a bit more features and capability than the SL console. However, those features come with a price tag that is about 2X the Peavey. For my use, budget, skill, and needs, the cheaper 16FX was the most cost-effective option. If money were no object, a shiny new 24ch SL would probably find a new home with my rig. The Peavey isn't capable of multitrack recording. Hmm, my 16FX has 4 sub groups. Would not this work for basic recording? Peavey doesn't have as many"real" channels. Yeah, many makers do this and I wish they would not. The '16' channel board has 12 real usable XLR ins. My 12-channel Yammie board has only 8 xlr ins. Does the Peavey have a full 16 channel meter bridge? This is the key to the Studiolive for a band that runs sound from stage. I can "see" the entire mix and that's way cool. Nope, but I cannot think of a mixer in the FX price range that does. To the OP, let us know what you decide and post pics and your personal experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Hmm, my 16FX has 4 sub groups. Would not this work for basic recording? Not really. Pretty much any mixer you can get something into a recording. True multi-tracking is ability to capture every track by itself so it can be manipulated later. Not knocking the Peavey, just pointing out the many more features, and thus the "double the price" difference. I considered the peavey, but it was short look once I realized 16 didn't really mean 16. The 24 wasn't 24, but "enough". Problem there is rack mount was a requirement as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1960LesPaul Posted February 4, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 If 16 doesn't mean 16 than that changes things and I would probably look to the 24FX but now I am getting closer to the SL but as agedhorse pointed out the FX has a shallower learning curve. The recording features have no value to me. This is strictly for live FOH use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 If 16 doesn't mean 16 than that changes things and I would probably look to the 24FX but now I am getting closer to the SL but as agedhorse pointed out the FX has a shallower learning curve. The recording features have no value to me. This is strictly for live FOH use. For most practical purposes it's a 12 channel board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1960LesPaul Posted February 4, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 For most practical purposes it's a 12 channel board. Thats not going to cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rottdoggie Posted February 5, 2010 Members Share Posted February 5, 2010 The Peavey has a much shallower learning curve... this may be the most important feature for many folks. Thanks for nodding to this, Andy. For some of us, hooking up at 6:00, playing sets starting at 8:00 (while running sound from stage AND sounding good), tearing down at 12:00 and going home is the objective. Routing a half-dozen inserts and auxes through a 100lb rack of processors is not in the picture for everyone. Sure, it's great to have options, but not when they get in the way of pushing a good performance through the speakers - reliably - night after night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 Thanks for nodding to this, Andy. For some of us, hooking up at 6:00, playing sets starting at 8:00 (while running sound from stage AND sounding good), tearing down at 12:00 and going home is the objective. Routing a half-dozen inserts and auxes through a 100lb rack of processors is not in the picture for everyone. Sure, it's great to have options, but not when they get in the way of pushing a good performance through the speakers - reliably - night after night. SL learning curve is shallow as well. We show up 90 minutes prior, plop the 20 ft snake , that's already pre-wired to the mixer, out of the back of the SKB mighty Gigrack, and hook it up. That's pretty much it. We too run sound form stage. We also have basic, but decent lighting. When we're done, we're out the door in about and hour and that's not really breaking a sweat. HERE IS A PHOTO ALBUM from when I first got the mixer. I have it side by side with a Mixwiz as well as in the SKB rack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 Different people have different impressions of learning curves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 Different people have different impressions of learning curves. Indeed I will say this though. Running sound from stage with the SL is so much easier than the Mixwiz, it's not even funny. This is mainly attributable to the meter bridge. Once you have the ability to "See" your mix, you'll realize what you've been missing. Frankly, during the show, which is 3 hours longer than sound check, the ability to see the mix is more important than hearing it, since you can only hear it a few times during the set when you go out in front of the speakers. I know that sounds odd, but given the choice of only hearing the PA from stage and having to mix the band all night or only seeing it, I'd choose sight every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members basschaplain Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 Can't speak for the Peavey 16FX, except to say my experience with Peavey gear has been positive; good sound, reliable, and affordable.The SL is the first Presonus gear I've used (that I'm aware of). Easy to learn and I'm very happy with the sound and layout. I haven't dropped it or banged it around yet and I've only had it four months or so. Still, I don't have any reason to doubt it's realibility or sturdiness. For all the features on the board, I think it a very good bang-for-the-buck piece of gear.I don't think you'll go wrong with either one of the boards. Just depends on your wants/needs and how much you're planning on spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phoniclab Posted February 7, 2010 Members Share Posted February 7, 2010 Ya'll know that you can hava a SL for 1500 bucks any day, right? Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.