Jeff Wheeler wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 13:24 |
As it is currently being touted, I don't see it offering much that the O1V doesn't, except the possible digital snake, head amp recall, and presumably more on-board pre-amps and A/D/A. Those features are not enough to sell me on a product that costs a similar amount to an established product with a "better brand." $0.02. |
Craig Walsh wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 09:54 |
Yeah, it might be easy to dismiss based on its nameplate |
Bob Kenton wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 15:23 |
Would it be any different if the mixer had a "Designed by Midas" label on it? |
Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 09:08 | ||
Yes it is. |
Moby (Mike Diack) wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 16:16 | ||||
I find it quite extraordinary how quickly folk are ready to condemn equipment sight unseen on the basis of brand alone. I dont own a lot of Behringer (a couple of ADA8ks and a DEQ2496) but it all works 100% perfectly. Most of my Yammy gear is fine, but a 1974 TX500 bike bought new warped heads faster than electric kool-aid so I'm not about to show unquestioning faith in that brand. Let's wait and see. M |
Bob Kenton wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 14:23 |
Would it be any different if the mixer had a "Designed by Midas" label on it? |
Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 20:42 |
I don't condemn their equipment. I condemn the company. |
Bob Leonard wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 10:26 |
And when it fails who services this boat anchor. Gorton's of Glouchester? People who purchase expensive digital hardware usually have a larger and more demanding clientel, and failure is not usually an option. However, just like anything else, we'll see what happens. And +3 |
Craig Walsh wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 12:49 |
I agree the omni-outputs are low relative to an LS9-32 (and two fewer than on an LS916), but I would imagine there will be a simple work-around (e.g. via an ADA8K or the like). |
Adam Whetham wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 19:02 |
No MIDI... |
Steve Tarak wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 03:35 |
"The X32 represents BEHRINGER's domination strategy in the digital mixing tournament of champions and we're confident that a checkmate isn't far behind." I've owned Behringer gear. It has failed me, sounds like shit, and is a disappointment and waste of my money. If the strategy now is to dominate the digital market, well, it's about time they made some changes. As for me, I am, and will continue to be a huge skeptic of this inexpensive and unreliable copycat brand. That is a checkmate from my side of the board and it will take a hell of a rematch to convince me otherwise. Steve |
Carlos wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 15:41 |
My Church own a Behringer SL3242FX-PRO for 5 years and it´s working like the firts day. Behringer are not the most high quality products but they sound better that mackies and yamahas mixer. People who think that a very expensive mixer sounds better they are wrong. |
Bennett Prescott wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 14:49 | ||
|
Dick Rees wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 16:11 | ||||
OK, Bennett. What have you done with Carlos? |
Dick Rees wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 13:11 |
OK, Bennett. What have you done with Carlos? |
Lee Brenkman wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 01:11 | ||
I think Bennett fed Carlos to Jeremy Clarkson |
Carlos Jorge wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 06:19 |
My Church own a Behringer SL3242FX-PRO for 5 years and it´s working like the firts day. Behringer are not the most high quality products but they sound better that mackies and yamahas mixer. People who think that a very expensive mixer sounds better they are wrong. |
Carlos Jorge wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 07:19 |
People who think that a very expensive mixer sounds better they are wrong. |
Quote: |
I suppose then you might also say that the Jensen transformer in my Radial JDI's are useless and Behringer's passive DI sounds just as good. |
Steve Tarak wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 21:35 |
"The X32 represents BEHRINGER's domination strategy in the digital mixing tournament of champions and we're confident that a checkmate isn't far behind." I've owned Behringer gear. It has failed me, sounds like shit, and is a disappointment and waste of my money. If the strategy now is to dominate the digital market, well, it's about time they made some changes. As for me, I am, and will continue to be a huge skeptic of this inexpensive and unreliable copycat brand. That is a checkmate from my side of the board and it will take a hell of a rematch to convince me otherwise. Steve |
TJ (Tom) Cornish wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 08:36 | ||
Glad you're happy with it. Generally speaking, people who haven't used a "very expensive mixer" are pretty much the only people who think that a "very expensive mixer" doesn't sound better/work better/do more than a "reasonably priced mixer". It remains to be seen whether the new Behringer napkin idea ever gets turned into a product. If it does, it may be the perfect upgrade for you. |
Carlos Jorge wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 07:19 |
My Church own a Behringer SL3242FX-PRO for 5 years and it´s working like the firts day. Behringer are not the most high quality products but they sound better that mackies and yamahas mixer. People who think that a very expensive mixer sounds better they are wrong. |
Ken Barlow wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 16:21 | ||
Holy crap! We wasted 7.5 grand on a LS9 when The Behringer SL3242FX-PRO could have done the job better! I have buyers remorse now! |
Steve Sagerson wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 08:36 |
I'm just posing a question here, but since Behringer does apparently have the ability to make an ok sounding mic pre (ADA8000) and they now own Midas, wouldn't they theoretically have the capability to design a properly functioning digital mixer if they really wanted to? I'm mainly talking about the ability to create a properly functioning software. |
Caleb Dick wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 10:24 |
It depends on how much cross-pollenization is allowed between Midas and Behringer. So far I've been hearing that Midas brainpower will be designing Midas products, utilizing Behringer distribution efficiencies. I wouldn't be surprised to see a smaller, $25k Midas digital. I would be surprised, greatly, to see any $6k+ Behringer. Also not expecting much 'Midas inside' Behringer product, other than possibly on the marketing side. It seems to me that Uli is going to attempt to keep the Midas nameplate from being Behringerized too badly. |
Ken Barlow wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 07:36 |
But like I said in an earlier post, If Behringer comes out with a sub $10k digital, I don't care if aliens designed it, they will have a hard time selling to the pro market. It will still be manufactured in China. |
Caleb Dick wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 09:24 |
It seems to me that Uli is going to attempt to keep the Midas nameplate from being Behringerized too badly. |
Craig Walsh wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 10:38 |
However, I think it's already evident if the feature list comes to fruition that this desk will have some "Midas Inside." The AES50 choice is interesting because AFAIK only three companies use this protocol, including K/T and Midas. I would be very surprised that some of the Midas software doesn't end up in this. Why not? They've already paid for the talent and engineering work. |
Craig Walsh wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:38 |
It remains to be seen if they can command that sort of price for it. They didn't seem to be able to draw much attention to their first digital mixer (the DDX3216) until they had a fire sale on it. I would not have picked one up at the original price it was sold at (app. $1800). But when it was dropped to $600 in 2006, I found it hard to pass up a 32 channel 16 bus digital console with all the goodies (like 17 motorized faders) at that price, and it's served me well for garage band use since. (Though, I do admit that I cringe every time I flip the power switch that it will boot up!). Overall, that console sounds fine, but it's no XL8. |
Mac Kerr wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 13:42 |
[My only experience with the DDX3216 was for a live broadcast job I do every month. When the DDX came out the equipment vendor bought one since I had been arguing for a digital console (a DM1000). The console worked fine while we set everything up in the shop, and on the first day of load in. On day 2, 2 hours before a worldwide satellite test it fail to boot, the PS had gone bad. Good thing Dale Pro Audio was a 15 minute cab ride away and had a DM1000 in stock. I got the console, was able to program up our event, and went live on time. The gig now runs on 2 DM2000s and 1 DM1000. Mac |
Ken Barlow wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 11:22 |
Targeting the digital console market for the average weekend warrior bands and local/small regional Sound Co's makes no sense to me as Yamaha, Roland and now Presonus has that pretty much wrapped up. |
Jeff Wheeler wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 12:45 |
6 AUXes is probably fine for a lot of bar bands. It isn't competitive with other digital offerings in this price range. |
Craig Smith wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 19:22 |
Both the Yamaha and Presonus have definite limitations. Does Roland have something in that market? The M-300 is well above it, and the Edirol products are well below. I think there is plenty of room for more players, and am anxious to see some. In a few years I think (or at least hope) that market will be virtually entirely digital. |
Craig Smith wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 21:25 | ||
The StudioLive has 6, the Yamaha 8. Is there something else in that range with more? |
Steve Sagerson wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 06:36 |
I'm just posing a question here, but since Behringer does apparently have the ability to make an ok sounding mic pre (ADA8000) .... |
Tom Duffy wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 13:32 | ||
Behringer didn't really design the ADA8000 either, it uses the Wavefront ADC, DAC and ADAT chips designed by Keith Barr (RIP) using the recommended circuits from the datasheets. Any "good sound" is 99% Keith's. Tom. |
Lee Brenkman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 16:46 | ||||
I never, for a moment, doubted that the ADA8000 was developed using Behringer's 'copying machine' R&D methods. |
TJ (Tom) Cornish wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 11:54 |
I looked at the Roland VM-7200 years ago. I think one of the major problems was the lack of processing power. I remember it having only 4 "effects processors" (which you had to install expansion modules to get), and dynamics counted as an "effect". In other words, you could get verb, delay, and only two comps. Very cool idea though, and not indordinately expensive. I've really tried to like the Tascam stuff - it truly sucks for live use compared to Yamaha's offerings. |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 15:07 | ||||||
Tom, I thinkyour post is VERY misleading. While the ADA8000 does use Alesis Semiconductor coverters and ADAT chips, they certianly did not steal the design from anyone. The purchased some bulk parts and used them in their design just like any other electronics corporation would. In many instances Behringer's practices have been dubious, but I think the ADA8000 stands out as one of there more respectable products. |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 14:07 | ||||||
Tom, I thinkyour post is VERY misleading. While the ADA8000 does use Alesis Semiconductor coverters and ADAT chips, they certianly did not steal the design from anyone. The purchased some bulk parts and used them in their design just like any other electronics corporation would. In many instances Behringer's practices have been dubious, but I think the ADA8000 stands out as one of there more respectable products. |
Tom Duffy wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 16:13 |
Maybe I left too much space between those lines, I didn't mean to imply there was anything else to read in between them; just wanted to credit the real innovator. Tom. |
Andy Peters wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 16:03 |
WHOA, both Ryan and Lee -- -a |
Craig Walsh wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 10:32 |
Roland had an interesting idea with their VM series of mixers several years back. All of the I/O was handled in a special box that could sit at the stage, and the desk could be situated at the FOH position, all connected by a VM-LINK cable. |
Quote: |
Tascam also has current offerings that can be used for live work. The DM-3200 has a 32 channel 16 bus configuration that includes 16 pres and 16 aux returns, plus 8 aux sends. The street price on this is comparable to the O1V96, but the O1V96 seems to be much more favored in a live setting. |
Andy Peters wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 18:03 |
If you look at products that are all based on a particular chip or chipset, you'll see that they will tend to be very similar, for obvious reasons. -a |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 11:13 |
The now discontinued Behringer DDX3216 had 8 aux busses. Four were dedicated to internal FX but nothing stopped you from routing them to an output. |
Lee Brenkman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 14:46 |
It is however frustrating that no other manufacturer has produced a unit that includes both input and output ADAT connections with XLRs for the outputs. My dream version of this, for O1v expansion would have both the input and output XLRs on the back panel and the input level LEDs and a trim pot that wasn't as flimsy on the front. It could be two rack spaces per 8 input/outputs, especially if it could be few inches less deep than the '8000'. And yes, I WOULD pay more than $189 for it |
Tom Duffy wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 19:13 | ||
Maybe I left too much space between those lines, I didn't mean to imply there was anything else to read in between them; just wanted to credit the real innovator. Unfortunately, no other company would dare to spec a converter box that only does 1x FS rates now, because all the reviews would come out and say "but it doesn't do 96kHz". Tom. |
Craig Walsh wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 17:26 | ||
Tom - I had the same issues with the VM series. Plus, they were just starting to blow their stock on it when I started looking into it. Cool idea though. What was your beef about the Tascam DM-3200? Based on specs, it looks like it could compete well with the O1V96. But, I've not had a chance to mix on one, so I'd appreciate your thoughts since at some point, I'll be in the market for another small format digital mixer. (Hopefully later rather than sooner!) |
David Buckley wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 21:45 |
The really interesting question is what DSPs these new B* mixers have. Or more succinctly, are they of the same range as used in the Midas stuff? Once it's written, software is free, and if B* can reuse some of the software from the $$$$$$$$$ mixers in the $$ mixer, then the $$ mixer may, within ten times its price point, be absolutely the best game in town by a country mile. Maybe the pictures we have so far don't show the little badge, "Powered by Midas"... |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 19:54 |
If Behringer is delivering a feature set, that works, for a price that nobody else is or can, they deserve credit for that. It won't change my long term opinion about the company. We need to take a step back and not confuse what we are really being critical of. JR |
Craig Walsh wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 10:21 |
Heck, I remember a time when Yamaha gear was considered cheap foreign junk. Clearly, that was a while ago. |
Mac Kerr wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 09:43 | ||
I'm curious when this was. I first started using Yamaha mixers about 32 years ago. At that time they were considered to be both high quality and fairly advanced technology. I don't remember them ever being disparaged for being made in Japan. Like all companies that try to be everything to everybody they made some crap, the EM series of powered mixers comes to mind, but that crap was filling out a line of already respected innovative products. Behringer is trying to move up from their budget oriented products into more advanced pro level gear. When details about the new digital mixer are available we will see how successful they have been. To be successful in the marketplace it will have to be able to leave behind the baggage of bad feelings in regard to the company's apparent disregard for intellectual property in the past. Mac |
Tim McCulloch wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 10:37 |
Personally, I'm amazed that a piece of VAPORWARE has gotten almost 100 replies. This unit does not exist, it can't be auditioned or purchased or even viewed. Bah fucking humbug... |
Mac Kerr wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 09:43 |
I'm curious when this was. I first started using Yamaha mixers about 32 years ago. At that time they were considered to be both high quality and fairly advanced technology. I don't remember them ever being disparaged for being made in Japan. Like all companies that try to be everything to everybody they made some crap, the EM series of powered mixers comes to mind, but that crap was filling out a line of already respected innovative products. Behringer is trying to move up from their budget oriented products into more advanced pro level gear. When details about the new digital mixer are available we will see how successful they have been. To be successful in the marketplace it will have to be able to leave behind the baggage of bad feelings in regard to the company's apparent disregard for intellectual property in the past. Mac |
Craig Walsh wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 10:18 |
And what's the point of Behringer putting up a web page to discuss this new offering if it's just "vaporware?" |
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 12:33 |
It's a standard marketing trick -- a pre-emptive strike. They want to keep potential customers from buying the Presonus or other low-end digital mixer because of the promise that a less-expensive product will be released Real Soon Now. -a |
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 11:33 | ||
It's a standard marketing trick -- a pre-emptive strike. They want to keep potential customers from buying the Presonus or other low-end digital mixer because of the promise that a less-expensive product will be released Real Soon Now. -a PS: Of course Tim McC is correct. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 12:55 |
I have been involved in many premature product ejaculations over the decades. JR |
Craig Walsh wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 09:21 |
John, truth be told, I remember a time when Peavy gear was looked at with considerable disdain. Their products were seen to be on the low end of the MI grade. Actually, my bass amp way back in high school was a Peavy (until it was stolen), and it worked out fine. But, there were plenty of other musicians and sound techs that were happy to tell me it was junk. Obviously, Peavy has gained some street cred since those days. Clearly, talented engineers such as yourself were brought in to raise the perception of the brand, and now the company sells quality products. I'm not saying this will be the case for the Behringer brand, but to use your eyeglass analogy, the lenses change with time. Heck, I remember a time when Yamaha gear was considered cheap foreign junk. Clearly, that was a while ago. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 04:01 |
Just to be clear, I ASSume you are talking about behringer being free to use software that they wrote for their more expensive brands in their cheaper brands. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 04:01 |
This may somewhat help the classic problem with line extension where extra models tend to cannibalize sales of their other line siblings. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 04:01 |
I can't think of another company that has successfully pulled that off with a digital console platform. It will be interesting to watch. |
Craig Walsh wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 16:21 | ||
John, truth be told, I remember a time when Peavy gear was looked at with considerable disdain. Their products were seen to be on the low end of the MI grade. Actually, my bass amp way back in high school was a Peavy (until it was stolen), and it worked out fine. But, there were plenty of other musicians and sound techs that were happy to tell me it was junk. Obviously, Peavy has gained some street cred since those days. Clearly, talented engineers such as yourself were brought in to raise the perception of the brand, and now the company sells quality products. I'm not saying this will be the case for the Behringer brand, but to use your eyeglass analogy, the lenses change with time. Heck, I remember a time when Yamaha gear was considered cheap foreign junk. Clearly, that was a while ago. |
Kristian Johnsen wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 16:40 |
Speaking of Peavey... I'm waiting for their first digital mixer: They were early in the game with digital EQs and loudspeaker processing. They have the Media Matrix line of products, and they were including USB ports and firewire outs as well as digital sections in relatively inexpensive analog boards pretty early. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 17:00 |
You Kristian, are part of the slender group actually waiting for a digital console with Peavey written on it. The vast majority would run the other way. |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 12:00 |
I also predict digital consoles will disappear being absorbed into other hardware that can't be eliminated so easily. Coming soon an IPhone control surface that talks to mediamatrix built into your powered speakers ..just kidding folks). |
Bob Leonard wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 20:31 |
Are you really under the impression Behringer copies the hardware but doesn't copy or use large portions of other manufacturers firmware? |
Bob Leonard wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 21:31 |
Are you really under the impression Behringer copies the hardware but doesn't copy or use large portions of other manufacturers firmware? |
Craig Walsh wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 21:19 |
BTW, the list price on that page has now jumped from $2500 to $3000. Interesting.... |
Lee Brenkman wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 23:39 | ||
With all the "interest" in the product on this forum they may think they have a potential hot seller |
Craig Smith wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 20:19 |
As I think about it, there are two components to this gear -- hardware and software. It seems that Behringer has cut corners on the hardware side, but perhaps they are better on the software side. |
Josh Billings wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 07:53 |
Behringer threads normally go like this If you have a low post count "Behringer sucks, sounds horrible and always fails" Medium-Large Post Count "I'm skeptical, because it's Bringer but i'm not discounting it entirely. Would like to hear more." Josh Billings |
Craig Walsh wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 23:19 |
I think this all the more suggests some "Midas Inside" the new mixer. It will be interesting to see. BTW, the list price on that page has now jumped from $2500 to $3000. Interesting.... |
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 20:01 | ||
Cloning firmware is possible, assuming that the hardware platform on which it runs is also cloned. Making changes to the cloned firmware, without access to the source, is damned near impossible. The engineering time is better spent actually developing your own firmware. -a |
Craig Walsh wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 11:46 |
They mention something about interfacing with the Behringer P16 personal monitoring system, so maybe there is more to it than meets the eye. Right now the "P16" is also vapor-ware, but could be some sort of multi-channel monitoring system (or it could be an IEM system). |
David Buckley wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 16:43 |
The P16 goes from vapourware to vapourware with a brochure... |
brian maddox wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 16:07 |
now this little bugger is truly interesting. they are going head to head with aviom for the HOW market... |
David Buckley wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 22:33 | ||
Not only that, but it is strongly implied that it can be connected directly to the mixer like the Roland M48 does to the M300 et al. If this is the case, and Uli's boys have built the same sort of patching flexibility and control options that the Roland chaps have, then this will be a very useful setup indeed, assuming its priced competitively, which is pretty much a given... |
Craig Walsh wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 00:22 |
Based on the X32 spec sheet, I thought they would be coming out with a personal monitor system. This appears to confirm that. I'm curious regarding the Aviom system (which I've not used)... is there a way to interface to other digital desks and if so, is this done in the digital domain via CobraNet or something? Does this require an extra card to be added to the O1V or LS9? |
brian maddox wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 21:37 | ||
aviom is a '16-channels one direction over cat5' proprietary protocol. there is also a larger aviom 'Pro64' protocol that runs 64 channels on one cat5, but it hasn't gained widespread acceptance. i know there is an aviom output card for yamaha digital mixers. there may be cards for other desks as well. they also make a variety of other input modules for analog line level, mic level, and aes digital inputs, as well as various signal distribution boxes. it's a pretty comprehensive system. but it's a bit klugey. and, imho, a bit pricey for what it does... brian |
Caleb Dick wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 18:10 | ||
I believe most digital consoles have option for Aviom output cards now. It's pretty universal. I think it needs some updating for sure and competition, but I don't know about calling it pricey (or klugey for that matter). The fact that cheaper brands are making cheaper versions of something that has been out for a while doesn't exactly prove that it's pricey. |
Craig Walsh wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 18:22 |
We should know a bit more about this "vaporware" desk in a little over a week where it will be introduced at NAMM. From the looks of it, it could be the perfect setup for small churches, etc, especially now with this personal monitoring system added to up the ante. Behringer is clearly taking what appears to be a calculated risk to move beyond their garage band market. |
brian maddox wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 18:55 |
...i recently replaced my aviom system with a system of 01v96s and behringer midi remotes. i ended up with 15 32-input stereo mixes with extensive processing capability for about what 7 or 8 aviom mixes would have cost. i know it's an apples and donkeys comparison since my system is far more complicated and wouldn't suit most other churches. but it still seems like a big price jump to me... brian |
Grant Conklin wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 02:23 | ||
Do tell more! Sounds like it deserves it's own thread. |
Rob Spence wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 12:49 |
It looks good for the personal mixing part but how do you handle the connections to the IEM transmitters? I can't imagine setting up an individual transmitter at each mix station along with the hassle of where to put it, power, etc. Lot of work to set up. I would think you would still want a rack of transmitters with combiner. I guess you would not use the pass through ethernet and do a star with an ethernet switch in the transmitter rack and bundle a pair of audio cables with each ethernet cable? Maybe they need to offer a combo cable with ethernet and 2 audio pairs? Edit: add suggestion |
Rick Stansby wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 16:31 | ||
Maybe they will come up with a way to feed the output of the p-16 back into the x32 via the ultrA-net, then you could route that to outputs of the x32 to feed IEMs. Or they could copy aviom a little bit more and have a split unit with rack mount "mixer" module and P-16 remote control. |
brian maddox wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 05:17 | ||||
i actually had this same concern when i saw that they had line outs on the mixers. 'uh, that's great if the iem transmitter is mounted on the mic stand. otherwise, not so much.' but i always thought aviom's solution left something to be desired as well. i always wished that they had a 'stupid' rack mount mixer with no controls that was controlled via their remote. if that was only a bit more than a regular mixer, that'd be cool. as it was, every wireless rig i had needed an aviom mixer system that was at least twice as much money as the others. piling that on top of the cost of the wireless made me seriously consider firing some singers. or at least making them sit on stools and go hardwired... brian |
Craig Walsh wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 21:19 |
BTW, the list price on that page has now jumped from $2500 to $3000. Interesting.... |
Joe Gislason wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 18:23 |
Here it is as seen on the NAMM 2011 facebook page Behringer has. Its under glass! |
Rick Stansby wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 01:25 |
The B*hringer site now shows a picture of the mixer: |
Douglas R. Allen wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 13:47 |
I may have asked this earlier in the thread but its up to 7 pages,... Does anyone know if it has 32 XLR mic inputs or is it 16 mic pre with adat extras? Douglas R. Allen Edit: 32 mic pre's. Digital snake. Records direct to external hard drive to export to DAW or mix down on the board. $2500? Not to bad. http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2011/01/14/behringer-announce -the-x32/ |
Per Sovik wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 08:12 |
Just some thoughts: - The 40 channel limit on processing likely indicates that the processor is fairly limited in power, and that all features are crammed into a single prosessor design to keep the price down. - Buying digital stage boxes for the mixer will be a bit of a waste since the investment won't expand the system, just make the on-board inputs redundant. - A 7" display is too small for old guys like me that needs glasses to read the fine print, and that a vga/hdmi output would be fairly welcome - I still think I want one, but would be prepared to spend a few dollars extra if all boxes on my wish list was ticked. |
Craig Walsh wrote on Thu, 03 March 2011 09:29 |
From what has been said, it will come with remote control software and can hook up to a laptop via either the ethernet or USB port on the rear of the unit. Since it provides an ethernet port, it should be possible to connect up a wireless router and connect wirelessly to a laptop. Thus, it should be able to be controlled from a laptop similar to what can be done with Yamaha digital mixers. It remains to be seen how well this is implemented, of course. |