Whew - looks like it's an old review
Invalid Link Removed
(I'm sure there's even more options today)
Invalid Link Removed
(I'm sure there's even more options today)
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Digital Mixers. Now adding NAMM 2015 entries
- Thread starter Tunaman
- Start date
Just read it, thats pretty awesome
What exactly do you mean by this? Like you cant pick Channel 2 4 6 & make a group to send to an out? I was hoping to make a few groupings & send to in ear monitors for personal mixes.
Been using a DL-806 in my band. My sound company has a pair of 16.4.2's. I'm pretty happy with both types of board. The Presonus 'work flow' took a little getting used to but it is a very capable board.
I'm adding in a 32 channel board over the winter and the new Mackie and a Presonus rack mounts looks pretty interesting. I am not generally high on Mackie but the 806 sounds really good and so far it's been great. Going to be a rough choice between keeping a hardware surface and going digital snake - or fully wireless. When the substance hits the fan, it sure is comforting to have a fader to slam down... Even going with an X32 and a pair of their stage boxes that fader just cost around $2300 or so... It also takes the question of moving faders out of the equation. Hopefully there is a panic button in the Mackie and/or Presonus software.
First of those outfits to add a networking between the rack mount boxes will probably get my vote. (Not sure if Uli B has that working or not.). The idea of being able to go 32 or 48 by owning a 16 and a 32 is very, very interesting to me. If you get to read sound company riders, you'll find 40 plus channel boards required - even when the band only requires 30 channels.
I am pretty sure the 40 plus requirement is in there to separate the small sound guys (like me) out from the full time 'pro' guys. There aren't any good 40 plus channel options in the 'pro-Sumer' end of the board market. The supposition is that if you made the jump to a 'pro' board, you must be a pro company I expect...
Anybody need a 16.4.2 in flight case plus a couple of 100 foot snakes ?
I didn't think so...
This thread is sorta focused on the lower end where $300 differences are factored in. For sound co use, sound quality and reliability, stability are more in my sites. I'd love to see an entry from Harman. The SI boards sound great. So far they seem to be a major step up from the other mentioned in this thread. They are also a significant step up financially...
I'm adding in a 32 channel board over the winter and the new Mackie and a Presonus rack mounts looks pretty interesting. I am not generally high on Mackie but the 806 sounds really good and so far it's been great. Going to be a rough choice between keeping a hardware surface and going digital snake - or fully wireless. When the substance hits the fan, it sure is comforting to have a fader to slam down... Even going with an X32 and a pair of their stage boxes that fader just cost around $2300 or so... It also takes the question of moving faders out of the equation. Hopefully there is a panic button in the Mackie and/or Presonus software.
First of those outfits to add a networking between the rack mount boxes will probably get my vote. (Not sure if Uli B has that working or not.). The idea of being able to go 32 or 48 by owning a 16 and a 32 is very, very interesting to me. If you get to read sound company riders, you'll find 40 plus channel boards required - even when the band only requires 30 channels.
I am pretty sure the 40 plus requirement is in there to separate the small sound guys (like me) out from the full time 'pro' guys. There aren't any good 40 plus channel options in the 'pro-Sumer' end of the board market. The supposition is that if you made the jump to a 'pro' board, you must be a pro company I expect...
Anybody need a 16.4.2 in flight case plus a couple of 100 foot snakes ?
I didn't think so...
This thread is sorta focused on the lower end where $300 differences are factored in. For sound co use, sound quality and reliability, stability are more in my sites. I'd love to see an entry from Harman. The SI boards sound great. So far they seem to be a major step up from the other mentioned in this thread. They are also a significant step up financially...
Last edited:
I'm looking for a full board so around 2k is cool. QU-16 looking like its got the edge now... just waiting on NAMM now
Well at the time the complaint was that you couldn't group arbitrary channels into a routed assignment, though you can route them into a one-of-10 mix group which would come out on a separate physical output. I think this was a complaint more about not being able to assign a group of channels to a separate sub mix, say all the drum channels which would then feed into the main output.
s0c9
Supporting Member
Haven't owned the QU16, but have seen/used it once. I own/have the Presonus 16 and X32 Producer. I have never been a B*ringer fan-boy, but they DO have some solid products at the price point. But the X32 is a different beast!
I DO prefer the Presonus workflow and the Fat Channel approach, but the X32 (based on Midas' M32) is REALLY hard to pass up at the price point.. given the variety of models available from full to Producer (we have) to Compact to Rack and now the new XR series coming out!
Decisions, decisions.
Yes you can but it isn't by assignment to a group, rather each channel is assigned to a particular output, of which there are, in addition to L/R masters, 4 mono (1-4) and 3 stereo (5/6, 7/8, 9/10). So you could send channels 3,4 and 5 to one of then mono output channels 1-4 for example. If you wanted to send them to only output 7 then you could assign them to the 7/8 stereo output and pan each one left (or so I imagine - haven't actually tried this).
I'd want to assign 4 outputs with various channels for monitor mixes. Put the kick drum to a certain out and not in the mains... so nothing too fancy
So you burn an aux out just to establish a sub group ? That sounds bizarre... I put drums on a sub group, voices on a sub group - I apply my compression and limiting on those groups. My verb and delay are on subgroups. A&H have to be deranged to take that approach. Surely there is some other approach.
I don't think so. There was a Invalid Link Removed that addressed this:
So it is a workaround. According to the latest Invalid Link Removed, the Qu-16 has no groups, the Qu-24 two stereo, and Qu-32 four stereo. For us the lack of groups hasn't been a problem but I can see where someone ingrained in the use of groups would miss them, which could describe a lot of people I guess. Seems like they could do a software mod to add them to the custom layer. Maybe its a latency thing - dunno.
Some things I've been looking at is how expandable these are.
Sure more channels
And software updates
Better monitor mix
But one aspect is how well the integrate with third party solutions, like VST's effects or DAW software. I see many of these described on the Waves pages. http://www.waves.com/live-sound
I think that is pretty amazing.
When you buy plugins for the studio you can use them live also, or even the other way around. Virtual racks rule
Sure more channels
And software updates
Better monitor mix
But one aspect is how well the integrate with third party solutions, like VST's effects or DAW software. I see many of these described on the Waves pages. http://www.waves.com/live-sound
I think that is pretty amazing.
When you buy plugins for the studio you can use them live also, or even the other way around. Virtual racks rule
Hey guys, just joined the forum as this is the only thing I found mentioning the new Mackie DL32R that came out mid October. There's some great videos out there on what they do, but I called Mackie out for not posting anything regarding the sound quality. There's a great demo on youtube I found which 4 digital mixers have a completely different sound. IMHO The Presonus to me sounds like a high quality cassette tape, like it's compressed, the Roland sounds like an AM radio with Dolby NR on. The X32 in my one weekend experience at a casino, despite spending 90 hours learning it on youtube and going step by step beside the board to setting up channels and monitors. The X32 sounds like a mediocre cassette tape and bass starts dropping out at 200 Hz for definition, I had to gate every channel to keep the overall hiss to the system to a minimum. From half a dozen people they've all told me my exact scenario happened to them - the inputs and outputs reassign/unassign themselves (to the digital S16) during the performance to shutting down and losing our casino show. The first 3 mixers had no fidelity especially to the low end to hear a definite kick and the notes/punch to the bass. The Soundcraft board had amazing bass definition, but sadly does not come in a rack form... yet. I'd love to hear anyone's experience with the DL32R though, will the fidelity be comparable to the DL1608? I'm borrowing one next month to see if I'm happy with the sound in a live atmosphere before I fork out a months wages to get the DL32R.
Interesting comparison, so many variables though...
- I thought the best mix was on the Presonus. The Behringer and Roland sounded terrible to me.
- The vocals did not sound natural to me on any of the four. Maybe not the best mic choice on the male vocal?
Would have been nice if they had a room mic to hear the real results: room sound + PA.
And why does the Soundcraft have the low end fullness that the others are missing?
- I thought the best mix was on the Presonus. The Behringer and Roland sounded terrible to me.
- The vocals did not sound natural to me on any of the four. Maybe not the best mic choice on the male vocal?
Would have been nice if they had a room mic to hear the real results: room sound + PA.
And why does the Soundcraft have the low end fullness that the others are missing?
I kinda wish they'd thrown in an all analog console/processing rig, just for the sake of comparison. I wonder how well it would have fared in the "hands on comparison" test, specifically with respect to tone.
[BTW, this is a total thread hi-jack. This thread has drifted way off topic from the original wi-fi control discussion.]
[BTW, this is a total thread hi-jack. This thread has drifted way off topic from the original wi-fi control discussion.]
I love the discussion about all aspects. Stoked for NAMM. Hopefully something is coming down the pipe.
s0c9
Supporting Member
Yes.. W-A-Y too many variables.. the ONLY constants were the inputs.
Comparing + judging the "sound" of side-by-side products of anything on youtube vid is folly.
The audio is compressed and not much better than a 128k Mp3, which impacts how is is perceived.
Nothing was stated about in which order the mixes were recorded (a decent "engineer" should get progressively better with each mix) or HOW they were recorded (unless I missed that) - perhaps the SI was last and the "engineer" had a feel for the kick/low end by then. Were built-in console channel settings used for any of the instruments or vox? I know that both x32 and Presonus consoles have those. Again.. not detailed.
It's a comparison, but not something I would base a purchase decision on.
I OWN both the Presonus 16.4.2 and the X32 Producer and I can assure you that they are equally capable consoles - tho' workflow is VERY different between them. Analog guys will have an easier jump to the Presonus due to the no-layer Fat Channel approach, while the X32 (VERY flexible) can be a bear to configure if you want non-standard routing. Both can be controlled via iPad with the X32 being easier to setup for that purpose. Both let the musician run their own IEM mix.
I have not used the other 2..
PS: @adamchancey - if you had to gate channels to keep "hiss" to a minimum then you had a gain structure problem in the system. The 2 consoles I own are VERY quiet. The S16 resetting is an old X32 firmware issue IIRC.. from back in the 1.* era.. they just released 2.10 last week!
Last edited:
I do too... I guess I'm just being anal retentive. LOL... thinking perhaps this would a good place to start a new thread altogether.
My wish list: a wireless alternative to the Mackie digital mixers so that I'm not permanently married to an iPad controlling my DL1608. Otherwise I'll be making a switch, eventually.
s0c9
Supporting Member
That's why we (the band) went with an x32 Producer over the rack version. Can grab faders in a pinch and not totally rely on an iPad.
I've seen them (iPad) go into thermal shut down in hot weather (while mixing FOH with them). With an X32-Rack, that could be problematic!
