Live Sound & Production

[Art Flood]

---

OneEng wrote:

---

Art Flood wrote:

I love my 16.0.2 but I am starting to look longingly at its big brother mainly for more aux sends and input channels. Sounds like it would be perfect for your situation but be really sure the limited number of aux sends or even inputs won't quickly become an issue.

Once you start running stereo IEMs you'll find that four aux sends are not enough!

Cheers

---

Thanks Art,

The 16.4.2 only has 2 additional auxes ..... Stereo aux sends are nothing I have even thought of.  what is the advantage?

I think that I would be fine on the input channels, but as you say, it is real easy to simply leave a few channels sitting around empty .... not so hard to make channels up out of the ether

---

Once you've tried stereo IEMs its hard to go back to mono. The main advantage is being able to spread voices and instruments across a stereo sound stage. So much easier to hear everything than with a mono mix where everything is just stacked on top of each other. Downside is you need two aux sends per mix. And yeah the 16.4.2 is not much better in terms of aux sends and its physically much bigger - the 16.0.2 is such a compact unit.

With 20/20 hindsight, I should have saved up for the 16.4.2 but I really love using 16.0.2 and love that it is much smaller and less expensive than its big brother and mixing from and Ipad is just so cool!

Sure I'd love to have 4 band channel eq, a couple more aux sends and GEQs on the aux sends but at the time I simply couldn't afford for the extra money (almost double the price in Australia).

One thing that does bug me though is multi modes - basically the mute, solo, and firewire share a button/indicator on each channel. Its really easy to miss that something is on or off -  on the big brother they are all seperate - which is much safer! 

I think you'll love the 16.0.2 and even more so being able to control it from an I pad! 

Good luck!

Cheers

[dbMontana]

---

Art Flood wrote:

---

Once you've tried stereo IEMs its hard to go back to mono. The main advantage is being able to spread voices and instruments across a stereo sound stage. So much easier to hear everything than with a mono mix where everything is just stacked on top of each other.        

Even given my extremely limited experience (at least compared to most on this forum) I'd have to concur.  Last summer I took a 4-day SR class from the sound engineer for a national 5-piece "newgrass(?)" band who use a Yamaha LS9 at the back of the stage just to produce the 10 AUX feeds for the 5 stereo IEM signals.  Each band member can adjust their own stereo IEM signal and do so such that those who stand to one's right on stage are louder in the right ear and visa versa.  The engineer said is made a significant difference for mental imaging on stage.  I didn't get to try their mix that week but have since recorded my son's performances (no IEMs for the high-schoolers) on our SL 16.0.2 and sent various AUX mixes through headphones comparing mono vs. stereo.  Now with only three instruments and three vocals on a small stage the effect likely wasn't nearly as pronounced as with 5 members spread across a larger festival stage but still, the difference was immediately obvious.  That's not to say the difference is large enough to run out and buy a deck with 10+ AUXs but...

   ...dave

[OneEng]

---

dbMontana wrote:

---

Art Flood wrote:

---

Once you've tried stereo IEMs its hard to go back to mono. The main advantage is being able to spread voices and instruments across a stereo sound stage. So much easier to hear everything than with a mono mix where everything is just stacked on top of each other.        

Even given my extremely limited experience (at least compared to most on this forum) I'd have to concur.  Last summer I took a 4-day SR class from the sound engineer for a national 5-piece "newgrass(?)" band who use a Yamaha LS9 at the back of the stage just to produce the 10 AUX feeds for the 5 stereo IEM signals.  Each band member can adjust their own stereo IEM signal and do so such that those who stand to one's right on stage are louder in the right ear and visa versa.  The engineer said is made a significant difference for mental imaging on stage.  I didn't get to try their mix that week but have since recorded my son's performances (no IEMs for the high-schoolers) on our SL 16.0.2 and sent various AUX mixes through headphones comparing mono vs. stereo.  Now with only three instruments and three vocals on a small stage the effect likely wasn't nearly as pronounced as with 5 members spread across a larger festival stage but still, the difference was immediately obvious.  That's not to say the difference is large enough to run out and buy a deck with 10+ AUXs but...

   ...dave

---

First, if you know someone who is selling an LS9 for somewhere near the price of a 16.0.2, please pass that along to me

Second,

All of my channels are mono and the pan is centered.  I am confused as to how having stereo sends for mono signals will do anything at all :confused:

[Art Flood]

---

OneEng wrote:

All of my channels are mono and the pan is centered.  I am confused as to how having stereo sends for mono signals will do anything at all :confused:

On the 16.0.2 you can pan the mix to aux sends (set up in pairs) independently of the pan on the channel strips (took me a while to work out how). Not sure whether you can do this on your current mixer - but not much use doing stereo aux sends if you can't.

[dbMontana]

Yea OneEng, I hear ya on the price of the LS9. I couldn't find the facetious font so I hope that statement came through as such. As far as stereo, I'd think you could get some (much?) of the way there by simply having an AUX for each IEM and then panning individual channels as needed -- ie. suppose you we're the center person on a five person band and the fiddle and guitar were to your right and the dobro and banjo to your left. Panning those instruments that way would give you a more realistic image in your head. Now if you had ten AUXs you could send one to each ear and that would allow not only placing the instruments/voices left/right as needed but also independently EQ'ing each ear separately as well. Necessary? Probably not but for a national act that plays a different venue every other night and has the resources, keeping everything as realistic and consistent as possible is probably worth it. Now personally, the kids I'm helping are thrilled just having nice DXR12's as monitors so IEMs -- stereo or otherwise -- are still a pipe dream but it WAS real interesting learning how this one pro does it.
...dave

[BlueGreene]

"Big enough for our needs now" turns to "Oh crap, we don't have enough" pretty quick. I've had this happen to me after thinking it wouldn't.

[Art Flood]

---

BlueGreene wrote:

"Big enough for our needs now" turns to "Oh crap, we don't have enough" pretty quick. I've had this happen to me after thinking it wouldn't.

---

Yep, that's pretty good advice and its seems to be a common message in a lot of forums.

[OneEng]

You know, I could swing the 16.4.2 from a money stand point.  I am really just debating on size and features.

I really like the idea of using a MIDI pedal to change scenes, and this is only on the 16.0.2.  The 16.0.2 is also quite a bit smaller.

I do like the idea of having a 4 band eq on each channel strip, and the extra channels.  I guess I just have to think about if I like it enough to deal with the larger size and lack of MIDI scene changes.

[Art Flood]

OneEng - its a tough decision.

I am really pleased with the 16.0.2 and I'll keep it even if I end up getting one of its big brothers. I forgot to mention that its magic at home where its compact size is an advantage given my small studio space. Its a really great recording interface!

Good luck with it!

[StratGuy22]

What sort of scene changes do you have in mind?

[dbMontana]

+1 on the 16.0.2 for meeting my needs and expectations very well. I don't use MIDI but the thought of easily switching scenes does open up interesting possibilities. Of course the extra CPU power of the 16.4.2 allows other possibilities. Rest easy, I'd give you a 95+% chance of being happy with either model.
..dave

[ChiroVette]

Okay, this is going to likely earn me the forum version of a tongue-lashing, but here goes:

I have NEVER even so much as considered this path before, but I have two very knowledgeable people in my life whispering high praises about the X32. They are claiming that, among other things, it is "more mixer" for the money than the Preonus. Now I am with the majority of you, which is why I have, for the past months, rejected the idea of the X32 out of hand. But some people I deeply respect are talling me it would be a mistake not to at least seriously consider this mixer over the Presonus offerings.

Please feel free to flame away. I am a big boy and can take it.

But here is my serious question:

Am I one hundred percent, absolutely, unimpeachably, unequivocally, and steadfastly OUT OF MY MIND? Because I hate Behringer as much as anyone. Yet this mixer has been getting nothing but praise, and a few minor issues aside (which have supposedly been fixed) the reviews are raving about it.

[Miko Man]

CV, the good news/bad news is that the mixer isn't a transducer (like a mic or a speaker) that affects sound quality. However, because all the signals route through the mixer, it is a mission-critical part of the system. One of the considerations in getting a mixer (besides does it have enough features for the gig, and a usuable-enough interface) is basic reliabilty. What level of reliabilty Aged needs at his soft-seat concert venue, versus what level is needed at the bar band or dad-band level is obviously open to discussion. Since it's hard (for me, anyway) to accurately forecast the reliabilty of any given electronic device, then reputation for reliabilty is important.

I guess that it is the old cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost (in reputation, or future bookings) if your system crashes (and can't come back)? Do you carry back-up gear or have a work-around plan in the event of a failure? How big a percentage of your gear budget is the price of a mixer? Do you have something to use in the interim if your mixer craps out on you? Could you afford to get (be, borrow, rent, buy) something else if your gear dies? I guess it also makes a difference to think about the expected life-cycle of your gear.

Only you know what features on a mixer are critical to your band, which ones are important, which ones are nice, and which ones are unnecessary or useless to you. I think that it is reasonable to evaluate all your gear choices on this basis. So no, it isn't crazy to consider the X32, IMO.

Mark C.

[dedmeet]

As for the X32, I am personally in a 'wait and see' mode.  My 01v96 is serving my needs just fine at the moment, but in time, if the X32 proves a winner, it may prove that B---inger is turning over a new leaf.

Much discussion here:

http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/4393-x32-discussion.html

[Miko Man]

I'm in the "wait and see" camp, too. I'm not much of an early adopter of technology. (But I bought a Prius in 2005, and still have it....) Mark C.

[agedhorse]

Rather  than anything else, you might see if the work flow on the X-32 meets your needs and doesn't get in the way of the task at hand. I've seen enough folks working with digital consoles spend a lot of time getting things set up, labeled and routed... far longer than with many analog console workflows.

The answer really is "it depends".

[ChiroVette]

---

agedhorse wrote:

Rather  than anything else, you might see if the work flow on the X-32 meets your needs and doesn't get in the way of the task at hand. I've seen enough folks working with digital consoles spend a lot of time getting things set up, labeled and routed... far longer than with many analog console workflows.

The answer really is "it depends".

---

Its really a tough decision the more I look into this, Andy, it really is, and I am getting more confused than anything else at this point. The problem here is that there are no "deal breakers" for either console, but I have come to the conclusion that I have threshed out at least some advantages and disadantages to both the SL and the X32. Hell, maybe this "thinking out loud" will help the OP in addition to you guys being able to comment.

Advantages of the StudioLive:

-Comes bundled with Studio One, a pretty intensive musical suite. The X32 has no such software, and I would probably have to buy, say Pro Tools or some other suite if I wanted the same PC functionality.

-For me, the SL has a far more intuitive layout and the architecture of the SL seems easier to navigate. Plus, as you hinted at, Andy, I believe that the X32 has a steeper learning curve and is more difficult to "get it to do what you want it to do" than the SL. For you, this would be no issue, but for me, I have no experience and thus this could be a huge factor in favor of the SL.

-Has a ton of built in pre-sets. This is another selling point for me only, because I don't know the first thing about limiting, compression, and gating. Calling up pre-sets has helped some buddies of mine until such time as they were able to learn how to use these tools. You guys may not like or approve of pre-sets, but for a guy of my skill, or lack thereof, I know they will be a blessing. The X32 has NO pre sets at all.

-No layering of channels. All faders for all channels are on the mixer and no need to switch between the two "channel banks."

- Built-in limiter in the Fat Channel, though the X32 does have limiting in the effects section, so this may or may not be a wash.

 -Not to put too fine a point on it, I trust the Presonus name and reputation far more than I do Behringer! However, this may be mitigated by the fact that technically, the X32 is a Midas mixer with the Behringer label. So, I am not sure what to think of this.

Advantages of the X32:

-Less money "per channel" than any of the SL mixers. Though this is actually mitigated by the lack of a software suite like Studio One

-The X32, at some point, will allow for mixing with an Android Tablet or an iPad, where the SL only plays nice with an iPad. Stupidly limiting.

-The X32 has USB to PC interface as well as firewire, and thus is better for PC users like myself.

-Ability to recall pre-amp settings, something the Presonus mixers do not have.

-Motorized faders

-Built in PC so all you need is a router to connect your iPad with wifi. This is somewhat mitigated by the 32.4.2, which is the first SL that also has a built-in PC.

-Much more power in the digital screen on board than the SL mixers.

-Lexicon effects

-8 Sub Groups versus 4 for the SL.

Well, that's all I can think of for now. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[RoadRanger]

---

ChiroVette wrote:

Advantages of the StudioLive:

-Comes bundled with Studio One, a pretty intensive musical suite. The X32 has no such software, and I would probably have to buy, say Pro Tools or some other suite if I wanted the same PC functionality.

ProTools sucks - get Reaper: http://www.reaper.fm/

Free to try, $60 after 60 days if you like it and aren't a douce (there are no limits in the "demo" version so it's "honor system").

[ChiroVette]

RR, first I disagree and a lot of people love ProTools, but um...who cares? Seriously, that is what you responded to, some meaningless part of my post?

Unhelpful, to be honest.

If I decided to go with the X32, then this would matter.

[RoadRanger]

---

ChiroVette wrote:

RR, first I disagree and a lot of people love ProTools, but um...who cares? Seriously, that is what you responded to, some meaningless part of my post?

---

A lot of people own Protools, but use Reaper when nobody is looking .

As far as the rest, either you are used to flying faders (like me on my last three mixers) or you're not. On the SL the aux sends are still "layered".