Members Kosko Posted October 19, 2011 Members Share Posted October 19, 2011 I also noticed that it looks like you were using two HP4's with the band. For a band about double the size, would I definitely need another device like the HP4's, or an HP60 just run the necessary headphones? The only other solution I've thought of is hooking up the aux outs to a single stereo and feed the phone line into that. Or using a snake that's built for that sort of thing.... Thanks for the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted October 19, 2011 Author Members Share Posted October 19, 2011 One concern I have about the mixer is lack of gain metering.The 16.0.2 has gain metering. Read through the previous posts carefully to see the discussions regarding this. ... but similar to a Firepod, would I have to monitor the gain in the actual DAW in order to make sure I'm not going into the red, and also not too quiet (except with no clip light)?No, you'd use the metering on the mixer, in the normal way. In a live situation, would you set the main volume for a channel with the gain knob, and then make quick adjustments with the sliders? Yes, just as you would with any mixer. When recording into Capture, is the volume/gain of the track take the master volume into accord, or is it separate from the track being recorded? The Master is "separate," to use your term. Because the FireWire send is pre-master, moving the master doesn't affect the track level going to the DAW. Only the trim and channel fader can do that. For instance, could you turn up the volume in the venue, but keep recording at the same volume? (As long as it's the main adjusted, rather than a tracks individual gain). Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted October 20, 2011 Author Members Share Posted October 20, 2011 I also noticed that it looks like you were using two HP4's with the band. For a band about double the size, would I definitely need another device like the HP4's, or an HP60 just run the necessary headphones? The only other solution I've thought of is hooking up the aux outs to a single stereo and feed the phone line into that. Or using a snake that's built for that sort of thing.... Thanks for the help. Yes, I like the HP4's because they're modular; I can add more as needed (I'm usually in the room, so I don't need a talkback mic). You have four aux sends on the 16.0.2, so you could have four HP4's if you wanted four separate mixes. (Each HP4 has four outputs with individual level controls.) In a four- to eight-piece band, you typically only need two separate mixers--one for vocals and another for instruments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ricknaqvi Posted October 24, 2011 Members Share Posted October 24, 2011 One concern I have about the mixer is lack of gain metering. Like Jon says, there are several different meter modes (input, output, gain reduction) that allow you to see a lot more resolution than the Firepod, which only had clip. However, one thing that I think is really cool about the StudioLive mixers is this: The 'Clip' LED indicator always works, no matter what you are viewing in the Fat Channel section. For instance, if I'm eq'ing a kick drum on channel 1 and a vocal on channel 8 starts clipping, the clip indicator on that channel supersedes anything I'm doing and lets me know that I need to turn channel 8 down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wolfereeno2 Posted November 11, 2011 Members Share Posted November 11, 2011 Great review. Thanks! I love the idea of this unit as it would let me consolidate so many things in my home studio: my Mackie 1202, Delta 1010 interface, and 3 outboard effects boxes... The problem is that the 16.0.2 is still just too large and takes up valuable desk space. And like most people with home studios that's also my home office! I would love to see a smaller version of this that's similar to the Mackie 1202: rotary knobs, a few less channels or combine a few into stereo ins, ... _This_ would be a killer product. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted November 13, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 13, 2011 Great review. Thanks! I love the idea of this unit as it would let me consolidate so many things in my home studio: my Mackie 1202, Delta 1010 interface, and 3 outboard effects boxes... That's right. It's really a compact mixer, an interface (16x16), and an effects processor. And that's not even mentioning the software integration: iPad remote control, Universal Control via computer, and Capture (a handy, no-brainer 16-track recorder). The problem is that the 16.0.2 is still just too large and takes up valuable desk space. And like most people with home studios that's also my home office! I would love to see a smaller version of this that's similar to the Mackie 1202: rotary knobs, a few less channels or combine a few into stereo ins, ... Sounds like you've talked yourself into a basic line or truly compact mixer, like the Mackie offers, or the smaller units by Allen & Heath. Because they have rotary controllers and not faders, they're not that suited for hands-on mixing. Plus, I really don't think the 16.0.2 is that large. Look again at my post that compares the 16.0.2 to PreSonus's other 16-channel mixer, the 16.4.2. Quite a difference. Here are the two images: _ If you want rotary knobs instead of faders, you're talking about another animal. And keep in mind, the 16.0.2 did devote the last four faders to stereo channels. That's quite a convenience to have a stereo input (keyboards, drum machines, inputs from a drumkit submixer, etc.) ganged onto a single channel strip (yet still have a pan control, stereo FX, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wolfereeno2 Posted November 14, 2011 Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 If you want rotary knobs instead of faders, you're talking about another animal. And keep in mind, the 16.0.2 did devote the last four faders to stereo channels. That's quite a convenience to have a stereo input (keyboards, drum machines, inputs from a drumkit submixer, etc.) ganged onto a single channel strip (yet still have a pan control, stereo FX, etc.). I didn't realize it already had some stereo faders. Cool. But I disagree regarding size and think it would be to presonus' advantage to provide an option. There's a reason one size doesn't fit all! I can't tell you how many friends have project studios in tiny NYC apartments, like me. For the average desk, 16x16 is just too large. Not everyone has racks or custom studio furniture. Not to mention having to share their computers with family or wanting room to put the work laptop next to the home PC from time to time. Something about the size of a laptop would be ideal. As for where to get that size? The faders aren't automated anyway so knobs are just as functional and would save approx 2.5" depth. Take two channels away and that saves 2.5" width. The 1604's foot print is 250 sq inches. Take away 2.5" from width and depth and that's 175sq inches which is a 42% difference! That is a huge difference, with minimal functional compromise. Might not be for everyone but I'd buy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wolfereeno2 Posted November 14, 2011 Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 One more question to add to your great review. Are there any facilities/advantages for connecting a 16.0.2 with one of the Presonus AudioBox interfaces? There are some situations where a tiny 44VSL would be perfect for me. Just wondering if it would have any use if I then added a 16.0.2 down the road. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted November 14, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 As for where to get that size? The faders aren't automated anyway so knobs are just as functional and would save approx 2.5" depth. Take two channels away and that saves 2.5" width. The 1604's foot print is 250 sq inches. Take away 2.5" from width and depth and that's 175sq inches which is a 42% difference! That is a huge difference, with minimal functional compromise. Might not be for everyone but I'd buy one. I disagree with your numbers and your math. First, the math. Let's assume your numbers are correct (which I don't, as you'll see later on). You say 175 sq in. is a "42% difference" from 250 sq. inches. That means you think 175 is 58% of 252. It is not. 175 is 70% of 250. So the difference is 30% (not 42%). Now let's look at your numbers. You say the 16.0.2 is 250 square inches. It measures 16" x 15.75", which is 252 sq. inches. So that's correct. But you say that shaving two channels off will save 2.5" in width. The actual measured value of two adjacent channels is 1-5/8", or 1.625". The length saved by swapping knobs for faders is not a whole 2.5", but closer to 2". So the new values of this smaller hypothetical mixer are 14.375" and 13.75", for a total of 197.65 sq in. That's 78.4% of the original (252sq-in), or a savings of 21.6%. ___ Okay, for those of you whose eyes were glazing over, the math lesson is over. wolfereeno2, I too traffic in small NYC apartments, so I know space is a premium. But the 16.0.2 is a live/studio hybrid board (it's in the title), so it really needs to have those faders onboard. It's not going for the "world's smallest recording mixer" award. Also, many people would disagree that "knobs are just as functional" as faders if you disregard automation. Faders are plenty more functional, and frankly more fun to use, than rotary controls. If your idea is to get the smallest mixer possible, one with rotary knobs for a desktop in a small apartment, then perhaps you'll need to wait for PreSonus to come out with, say, the 12.0.2. (You heard it here first, folks! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wolfereeno2 Posted November 14, 2011 Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 Sorry for my math error and thanks for the correction. 21% is still a big difference for a theoretically smaller version. But in practice neither you or I are qualified to know whether presonus could squeeze things down and still have a viable, cost effective, profitable model. This is my humble suggestion considering someone from Presonus seems to be reading this thread. Anyway not sure why you're trying to talk me out of wanting something like this. It's like me telling you to wear a different size pair of pants ;-) If your idea is to get the smallest mixer possible, one with rotary knobs for a desktop in a small apartment, then perhaps you'll need to wait for PreSonus to come out with, say, the 12.0.2. (You heard it here first, folks! ) YES - I would buy one! Unless someone else comes up with a comparable unit such as Mackie. The studiolive product line seems to have raised the bar which will no doubt inspire competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted November 14, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 One more question to add to your great review. Are there any facilities/advantages for connecting a 16.0.2 with one of the Presonus AudioBox interfaces? There are some situations where a tiny 44VSL would be perfect for me. Just wondering if it would have any use if I then added a 16.0.2 down the road. The only way to connect any of the AudioBox interfaces with the 16.0.2 would be to use the audio connections, as the AB's are USB and the 16.0.2 is FireWire. So in that sense, there's no particular advantage in using a PreSonus box (as you could do that with any manufacturer's smaller interface). However, you could connect another FireWire device to the 16.0.2. So if you wanted to start small and add on later, you could opt for the FireStudio Project (which, at $400 [b&h photo price], is only $100 more than the AB44) and later daisy-chain it to the 16.0.2 via FireWire for an additional 8 channels (over FireWire). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted November 15, 2011 Members Share Posted November 15, 2011 As for where to get that size? The faders aren't automated anyway so knobs are just as functional and would save approx 2.5" depth. Take two channels away and that saves 2.5" width. As someone who has designed and constructed mixers, knobs vs. sliders depends on the application. Line mixers often use knobs because they're more for "set and forget" adjustments. The advantage of faders is for situations where you "play" the mixer, as you can vary multiple faders at a time. It's almost impossible to move, for example, five or six knobs simultaneously but you can do that with faders. So for some people, knobs would be a deal-breaker, but others wouldn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 I just checked out the iPad/iPhone/iPod app called QMix, and it's awesome. Not only does it put control of the VSL 16.0.2 mix onto your iDevice (which I keep on my person, even in a rehearsal), but it's incredibly easy to set up. Takes no time at all. Following is a walk-through of the setup. 1. Download QMix from the App Store. It's free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 Now you have to go to your computer (the App doesn't control the 16.0.2 directly; it controls your computer), and link to your iPad/Phone/Pod wirelessly. 2. Pull down your AirPort menu to view and access your wireless connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 3. Ignore all the networks that spring up (including your current one, if you're connected), and select Create Network... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 4. Create a Computer-to-Computer network. It doesn't matter what you name it. I'm calling mine "PreSonus UC" for Universal Control. Leave the Require Password box unchecked. Click OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 5. Check to make sure it's visible and selected in the AirPort menu (showing a check mark). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 6. Go back to your iDevice, and in the Setttings/Wi-Fi Networks menu, choose PreSonus UC. Note that there's no padlock icon, as we've elected not to password-protect this network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 7. Launch QMix from your iDevice and any connected Universal Control-enabled PreSonus gear will show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 8. Select it and connect to it. You now can control your own monitor mix from your iThing. I control my level ("ME") with the gigantic knurled knob in the center. (The band's level appears to the right.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 9. You can see, and adjust, all the channel levels in Aux 1 on this screen. Here, my iPod is in landscape mode--and I'm almost out of battery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Chappell Posted February 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 16, 2012 10. The process is complete. Once I downloaded the QMix app from the App Store, the setup process took less than 5 mintues. The Mac makes it easy to create an ad hoc network for remote access, and the ability for an iPad/iPhone/iPod touch app to control it. Of course, PreSonus created the app and the interface itself, which works flawlessly and brilliantly. In this system, you don't even have to set it up in advance. You could, for example, wait until you get to the gig, and even have a substitute who shows up that night get in on the wirelesss control. It's that fast and simple. Here's a photo of My iPod shown with my other gear: PreSonus 16.0.2, MacBook Pro (running Universal Control), and Digidesign Eleven Rack on the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tado921 Posted February 28, 2012 Members Share Posted February 28, 2012 I just purchased this unit based on this thread and recommendations in the LS&P forum, and all I can say is...WOW! I consider myself an amateur and barely know the difference between a compressor and a speakon connector, but I have found this board to be very intuitive and easy to operate. So far, I have just used the preset effects and settings, but our sound has improved quite a bit. I can only see it getting better as I learn more about how to use the various functions. I have not had a chance to play with the remote functions yet because my laptop has the mini 4-pin Firewire connector, and I need to find an adapter for it. The mixer comes with FW cables, but they are not the mini type that I need, and (I'm finding out) the adapter can be tricky to locate. If there are no objections, I will continue to report in with my results from a novice user standpoint. Tad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 28, 2012 Members Share Posted February 28, 2012 I have not had a chance to play with the remote functions yet because my laptop has the mini 4-pin Firewire connector, and I need to find an adapter for it. The mixer comes with FW cables, but they are not the mini type that I need, and (I'm finding out) the adapter can be tricky to locate. Here's a 4-pin to 6-pin adapter. You can also find cables with 4-pin on one end, and 6-pin on the other. And of course, any and all comments are welcome in pro reviews! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tado921 Posted February 29, 2012 Members Share Posted February 29, 2012 Thanks Craig, I found a cable at a local computer shop, but I'm out of town for a few days so it will have to wait. Question: I normally run FOH mono since we don't have a need for stereo. Would it make any difference if I use the mono out jack, instead of the left out jack with everything panned left? It doesn't seem that there would be any, but I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.