Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Russ Buck]

We have used this board for a few years with no problems and nice mic pre amps, you do get some added options with the matrix, but I guess it boils down to if you need eight aux sends.

[Dan Johnson]

they have the Soundcraft GB4-32 for $2,499 which is the same price that I was looking at the GL2400 for.

As others have already alluded to, if you're paying that much for either of those consoles, you're paying too much.  Check out northernsound.net for a pretty good price.  You'll have to acquire a login or call them to get the actual price but it will be worth your time.  I'm sure there may be other places that are competitive with their pricing but this is one I know of off-hand and have bought from before.  You can also call All Pro Sound and possibly get a lower price on the phone as has been my experience with them.

[Aaron Talley]

I have used both many times and I do prefer the GB series. And the stereo channels on the Soundcraft are in addition to the 32 mono channels.

Call Sound Productions in Dallas for a price.

Aaron

[Niels Hempel]

I have been looking at mixers for our church for about a year now, and I thought I was set on the Allen & Heath GL2400-32.  But then I was glancing on All Pro Sound's website and noticed that they have the Soundcraft GB4-32 for $2,499 which is the same price that I was looking at the GL2400 for.

http://www.allprosound.com/catalog/productdetails~fprodid~8259~item~Soundcraft-RW5692SM.htm

 At that price I am now considering the GB4, it seems to have more features on paper (8 aux's being the biggest one) but sometimes actual use makes the facts on paper irrelevant. 

I guess what I am trying to ask is if there would be any reason that the GL2400 is superior to the GB4 when prices are equal?

I know that there have been several posts in the old forum on this same topic, but it seems that the price difference is always the deciding factor.



Thanks for the input,

--Jake

Get the Allen Heath!  I love that board.  Plus they are giving cash rebates for GL series this month.  $300 rebate on Gl2400-32ch, $3000 rebate on GL4800's. 

If by chance you are in NC, come try one out!

[Andrew Makinson]

I guess what I am trying to ask is if there would be any reason that the GL2400 is superior to the GB4 when prices are equal?

Yes, depending an your specific needs for Aux routing and Aux pick point (such as pre EQ and pre insert). 

Most of the differences in these mixers has been mentioned.  The GB mixer has external pre/post buttons for the direct outs.  These can be useful or just something to bump on accident.  The GB preamp section doesn't have a pad, which I've needed a few times.  I bought some external ones to go with it.

With the auxes, it can be very useful to have them switchable pre/post on the channel strips like the A&H.  Then again you have to switch them in groups of 4 or 2.  If your church has a permanent setup then you can disable the switches with jumpers which can be a lifesaver.  Those same jumpers would allow you to do 5 pre and 1 post if needed.

[Don Sullivan]

In my experience the A&H desks sound brighter than the Soundcrafts. At this price point, however, you might also consider a Yamaha 01v96 with an external adat preamp. Things you gaiin are:
2x dynamics on each channel.
Digital delays on outputs
Parametric EQ and dynamics on outputs.


 

I have been looking at mixers for our church for about a year now, and I thought I was set on the Allen & Heath GL2400-32.  But then I was glancing on All Pro Sound's website and noticed that they have the Soundcraft GB4-32 for $2,499 which is the same price that I was looking at the GL2400 for.

http://www.allprosound.com/catalog/productdetails~fprodid~8259~item~Soundcraft-RW5692SM.htm

 At that price I am now considering the GB4, it seems to have more features on paper (8 aux's being the biggest one) but sometimes actual use makes the facts on paper irrelevant. 

I guess what I am trying to ask is if there would be any reason that the GL2400 is superior to the GB4 when prices are equal?

I know that there have been several posts in the old forum on this same topic, but it seems that the price difference is always the deciding factor.



Thanks for the input,

--Jake

[BobWitte]

The GL2400 pre-fade auxes are also pre-eq. That tends to be better for monitors and, really, that's how the GB4 should be set up, in my opinion. That could be make or break for you. As far as I know, that's not configurable on the GB. The GL is very easily configurable via jumpers.

WHY is pre-eq better for aux sends. IF you use the channel strip EQ to improve the tone/sound of the input, why would that not translate back as better sound into the monitor system? There are so many variables that good channel strip EQ can adjust/improve/compensate for not to mention when similar vocals or instruments share the same monitor feed to give each some "difference" in tone to help them identify themselves, I can't ever think of a time I did not want that in the monitor mix. Maybe I can think of one reason: if channel strip EQ is used to compensate for weak sound reproduction downstream (like no main speaker EQ (or incorrect EQ) so the overall system response does not reproduce sound faithfully), then I could understand this possibly.

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

WHY is pre-eq better for aux sends. IF you use the channel strip EQ to improve the tone/sound of the input, why would that not translate back as better sound into the monitor system? There are so many variables that good channel strip EQ can adjust/improve/compensate for not to mention when similar vocals or instruments share the same monitor feed to give each some "difference" in tone to help them identify themselves, I can't ever think of a time I did not want that in the monitor mix. Maybe I can think of one reason: if channel strip EQ is used to compensate for weak sound reproduction downstream (like no main speaker EQ (or incorrect EQ) so the overall system response does not reproduce sound faithfully), then I could understand this possibly.

Bob....

No man can serve two masters.........

[Josh Duke]

The GL2400 pre-fade auxes are also pre-eq. That tends to be better for monitors and, really, that's how the GB4 should be set up, in my opinion. That could be make or break for you. As far as I know, that's not configurable on the GB. The GL is very easily configurable via jumpers.

WHY is pre-eq better for aux sends. IF you use the channel strip EQ to improve the tone/sound of the input, why would that not translate back as better sound into the monitor system? There are so many variables that good channel strip EQ can adjust/improve/compensate for not to mention when similar vocals or instruments share the same monitor feed to give each some "difference" in tone to help them identify themselves, I can't ever think of a time I did not want that in the monitor mix. Maybe I can think of one reason: if channel strip EQ is used to compensate for weak sound reproduction downstream (like no main speaker EQ (or incorrect EQ) so the overall system response does not reproduce sound faithfully), then I could understand this possibly.

Assuming that the system DSP/EQ is properly set, the channel strip EQ is there to compensate for microphone frequency response, offensive frequencies from certain sources, to fit each source into the mix where it sounds best, etc. 

Since the monitor wedges or IEMs will require a different EQ than the mains/subs, the channel EQ that helps in the aforementioned ways in the context of the FOH mix may not translate well to the mix the performers have on stage.  When I say different EQ for the monitors, I don't mean simply because they are different speakers.  Monitors aren't EQd with the same goals in mind as the FOH.  You could get the wedges/IEMs to sound like the main mix, but then they would suck as monitors.

[Mike Spitzer]

What Josh said.

Also, politically, it's often easier for me. I get something that sounds right and FOH sounds great. But, the singer wants the bass on his voice dropped. If I do that, his voice sounds too thin in the house mix. I have to focus on FOH, so it's easier for me to be able to say (without lying) that I can't make that change. For people who are really picky about their monitor EQ, we'll set them up with an EQ between the board and the amp that they can tweak. That's pretty rare, though.

Some people will tell you that any change is solely for the purpose of fixing problems in the translation of sound into the mic and so the eq should equally affect the monitors and the FOH speakers, since the same change would be needed. Those people who can pull that off can do so because they always have the right equipment for the right job. In a church, you're usually working on a budget and have multiple worship teams, so customizing your equipment to the point where that's true is typically prohibitively expensive.

All of that said, though, many people don't care that much. I actually ended up picking the GB4 over the GL2400 pretty much solely on the number of aux sends. I needed 5 pre-fade and at least 1 (preferably 2) post-fade auxes. At that price, I couldn't beat the GB4, even though I do get occasional complaints from one of the singers.

-mS

[ProSoundWeb Community]