ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: MyMix vs Aviom  (Read 57729 times)

lorenjones

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
MyMix vs Aviom
« on: January 14, 2011, 12:05:40 am »

So our pastor just told me the church has decided to invest in a musician mix their own monitoring system.  Currently we mix for the band (everyone on headphones) from a dedicated Soundcraft SM20 monitor desk.

Can anyone here compare the MyMix system vs Aviom?  I am currently favoring the MyMix as it will be quite a bit cheaper to configure a system that will carry all 48 channels to match the frame size of our mixing desk.  I realize either system only allows the musician to select 16 channels to include in their mix.  Any drawbacks with the MyMix system that any users here have noticed?  We are going to audition the MyMix in the next couple weeks but just wanted to see what opinions were on it vs Aviom.

A related question regarding IEM's.  Currently our band members use cheap (read iPod earbuds and other garbage earphones) as "IEM's".  I would like to include the purchase of some decent universal fit IEM's to go with our new monitor mixing system.  I have been looking at Westone UM1 or Etymotic ER6i.  Any opinions on these?  Suggestions for other good universal fit entry level IEM's?  I think durability, secure fit and easy availability of affordable replacement foam or silicone tips will be more important than absolute sound quality.  

Thanks for any thoughts,
Loren Jones
Logged
Loren Jones

Lee Buckalew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 491
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2011, 09:14:28 am »

Loren,
If you are still weighing budget vs. functionality.  Check out the Roland M-48 system.  It allows each musician to have a different set of 40 inputs applied to 16 stereo groups on his/her own mixer.
Very flexible.

I canot speak to MyMix having not used it but it does create the same issue that Aviom has and that is, all musicians must be sent the same sets of feeds even if they don't need them.

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Logged

Arnold B. Krueger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 850
    • http://www.pcavtech.com
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2011, 09:32:45 am »

lorenjones wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 05:05

So our pastor just told me the church has decided to invest in a musician mix their own monitoring system.  Currently we mix for the band (everyone on headphones) from a dedicated Soundcraft SM20 monitor desk.

Can anyone here compare the MyMix system vs Aviom?



We've had Aviom for about 6 months, and I can read spec sheets.

My first 2 concerns are:

(1) The controller seems to require thrashing through menus to get common operations completed. Learhing curve?

(2) No digital interface with digital consoles.

To give the devil its due, the Backbeat hardware looks like its about 10 years of development down the road from our Aviom system in just about every way. I chafe at the costs and limitations of the Aviom concentrators.


Quote:


 I am currently favoring the MyMix as it will be quite a bit cheaper to configure a system that will carry all 48 channels to match the frame size of our mixing desk.



IOW you want it to also be a digital snake?


Quote:


A related question regarding IEM's.  Currently our band members use cheap (read iPod earbuds and other garbage earphones) as "IEM's".  I would like to include the purchase of some decent universal fit IEM's to go with our new monitor mixing system.  I have been looking at Westone UM1 or Etymotic ER6i.  Any opinions on these?  Suggestions for other good universal fit entry level IEM's?  I think durability, secure fit and easy availability of affordable replacement foam or silicone tips will be more important than absolute sound quality.  



One word: Shure.

BTW I picked up a pair of Altec "Backbeat Pro" IEMs for about $30 off the web. Their physical and sonic resemblence to my Shure E-3 (AKA SE 210) IEMs (ca. $180) is pretty uncanny. A friend who dabbles in such stuff says things like "The same Knowles balanced armature driver". He used to be VP of R&D for you-konw-who and turned me onto this deal. I asked him about the need for multiway IEMs and he says not so much.

Logged

Arnold B. Krueger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 850
    • http://www.pcavtech.com
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2011, 09:34:57 am »

Lee Buckalew wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 14:14


I canot speak to MyMix having not used it but it does create the same issue that Aviom has and that is, all musicians must be sent the same sets of feeds even if they don't need them.



Doesn't that come with the territory if you run all the remotes over the same CAT5 media?
Logged

Lee Buckalew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 491
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2011, 12:09:30 pm »

Quote:

Lee Buckalew wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 14:14


I canot speak to MyMix having not used it but it does create the same issue that Aviom has and that is, all musicians must be sent the same sets of feeds even if they don't need them.


Arnold Krueger wrote:

Doesn't that come with the territory if you run all the remotes over the same CAT5 media?



No it doesn't.  With the REAC format (Roland) each mixer can be sent 16 stereo mixes made up of any combination of the 40 channels.
So one mixer may receive a different combination of channels than another.
It is a 40 x 32 matrix per personal mixer (well, actually 40 x 16 stereo).

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Logged

John M Gibby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2011, 06:18:07 pm »

Personally, I still think the Roland M-48 has everyone beat.  I do foresee touchscreen systems becoming popular, however, the one thing I have against them is the light produced from them when you want to be able to go black during a performance.  Plus there is something to be said for being able to put your fingers directly on the knob you need to turn and not having to page through touchscreen menus to get to it.

John
Logged

Frank DeWitt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2011, 07:35:50 pm »

Two unrelated responses. Behringer just announced it's own Aviom like this week.
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/P16-M.aspx

I know nothing about it. just a heads up.

Second thought.  Is there a new mixer in your future?  if so, you may want to coordinate the two. It could save you some money, and might give a better solution.  Two boards I know of that work closely with IEM are  Roland, and SAC.  I am sure there are others.

BTW The SAC will allow the musician to have as many ch as you have (up to 72) (I am not sure that is a good idea)  You can give them as many or as few as you like.

Frank

lorenjones

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2011, 09:31:36 pm »

Thanks Lee,

I may understand MyMix incorrectly but I think it is capable of sending all 48 channels from the direct outs of our FOH desk back to the stage via Cat5 cable then each mix station can pick any 16 of those 48 to create their mix.  Am I wrong in my understanding of the MyMix system?

I know the Roland system has remote control mic pres in their digital snake etc and better EQ in the mix stations and the ability to interface digitally with Roland digital mixing desks.  But the cost looks like it would be a lot higher.  I don't anticipate us going digital at FOH in the near future though and even if we did I would like to have the flexibility to not be tied to one manufacturer's desk because we already owned their digital snake.  I kind of like the look of i-Live.

I think Aviom can do the same thing but you have to get into the Pro-64 system to be able to do it.  Is that right?

thanks,
Loren Jones

Logged
Loren Jones

lorenjones

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2011, 09:49:47 pm »

Quote:

We've had Aviom for about 6 months, and I can read spec sheets.

My first 2 concerns are:

(1) The controller seems to require thrashing through menus to get common operations completed. Learhing curve?

(2) No digital interface with digital consoles.

To give the devil its due, the Backbeat hardware looks like its about 10 years of development down the road from our Aviom system in just about every way. I chafe at the costs and limitations of the Aviom concentrators.


I'm not sure I know what you mean by Backbeat hardware.  Is that a reference to MyMix or something else I am not aware of.  I know nothing about the functionality of the user interface on MyMix but we are going to let our worship team put hands on an installed system at another local church to see what they think before making any decisions.  What are your main frustrations with the Aviom system?  As far as no digital interface with digital consoles that is certainly true.  It may change in the future.  We have a good quality analog desk now and I doubt we'll be switching to digital anytime soon.

Quote:


IOW you want it to also be a digital snake?



I don't really need a digital snake.  We already have copper snake installed to FOH and transformer isolated splits to the monitor desk location.  Adding any of these systems to an otherwise analog install is going to require some point where all the inputs are collected, converted to digital and sent out to the distrubutor and mix stations on Cat5.  I would probably locate that interface at FOH in our situation because we can just use the direct outs on our main desk as inputs into the analog to digital interface thus avoiding the need to buy more expensive analog to digital interfaces with built in mic preamps.  If I located the interface on stage or near it I would have to have mic preamps.

Thanks for the tip on the BackBeat Pros but it looks like they may not be easily available anymore.  One reason I have looked at the Etymotic and Westone is the availability of triple flange or dual flange silicone earpieces which I think are more secure and isolate better than the single flange while being easier to clean and maintain without need for frequent replacement that you would run into using foam earpieces.  I am concerned about secure fit.  I don't want them complaining that the things slide out and then they have no bass and no isolation from the noise on stage.

Thanks,
Loren Jones
Logged
Loren Jones

Lee Buckalew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 491
Re: MyMix vs Aviom
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2011, 10:13:36 am »

As far as MyMix goes, again, I have not used it.  
It appears that the basic system, connected by utilizing standard 100MBps network switches, is limited to 16 total channels on the network.
If you want more channels you can do that.  The limitation of channel count is not listed in the manual.  The requirements for networked channel counts above 16 are the need to use a managed switch that also has IGMP snooping.  If the system has to use more than 1 switch then the switch's have to have Gigabit uplink ports.  
All use also requires a dedicated network until AVB switches become available.
It also appears that the inputs to the system, and what monitor channel they appear on, are determined by the physical patch of the input and are then left up to programming each mixer to establish which 16 channels will be utilized by which mixer.
There is an 1/8" input for a local source such as a metronome.

As far as Aviom goes each system is limited to 16 channels since the mixers each only see the data connection as 16 inputs on one RJ45.  You could run more than one Aviom system in order to access additional channels but, each system would only have access to 16 channels.  Only one of the mixer types, the A16R, has a local input capability.  It requires a rack mounted main unit and a different wiring topology than the A16II.

With either MyMix or AVIOM each system only allows a single input to the system to feed a single monitor channel.  In order to achieve a sub mix you have to submix externally and feed this into the system as a single channel.

With the Roland system you can take 40 inputs and create 16 stereo (32 channel) inputs available at each mixer.  You can create sub groups and send different sources to different mixers.  A much more flexible system.
If you are not using Roland consoles far creating the matrix feeds (or even if you are) you utilize a connected computer to control audio assignments and store the system settings.  It is not required after set up until you need to make a change.

Both the MyMix and the Roland also offer a local mic, built into each mixer, so that each user can mix a local mic into their headphones or ear buds in order to hear ambient sound without adding a mic that then takes up one of your input channels.

That's probably enough of my ramblings on this for now.

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 16 queries.