ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: March 26, 2024, 02:06:31 PM 
Started by Rolando Saenz - Last post by JohnReeve
I haven't had a chance to A/B them, but I've worked with x/m32, S16, DL16, DL32 pretty often.

I personally have not noticed a difference in the sound.  I still bought the Midas-branded stuff.

I currently have an m32c, and m32r, 2 DL16- the DL16 are easy to daisy chain and it seems good to have some redundancy/ backup.  In the big scheme of things it doesn't seem massively more expensive to go with the pair of DL16 than either a DL32 or the Behringer-branded stuff, and I feel like it's more acceptable on the "next-up-the-foodchain" gigs I am trying to get.

My thought was that even if it's not that much better than the behringer stuff, it's slightly nicer and so I gave up on doing the math about if it's worth it. 

It is certainly not like going to the DL251 and a pro2 or something- as you note the logistics change when the equipment gets larger- I can't flip a pro2 by myself, but I can pull my m32r out of its pelican just fine.  I also have a trailer and no lift gate- I've moved my buddy's pro2s around enough to not want to do it without a flat surface and/or some help.

I also have the m32c in a case with one of the dl16, and I built a rack panel to put powercons, AES50, network, and the recording USB on the front panel so I can leave the back on. 

That's nerdy, but I am using it with bands where I am in bars and don't have a lot of space, so it's nice to set the rack on its back and plug everything into one side.  Also I do plenty of gigs where I just need 16 ch, so it's nice to leave the other DL16 in the trailer.

 92 
 on: March 26, 2024, 01:57:28 PM 
Started by Rolando Saenz - Last post by doug johnson2
The big difference between the Behringer and the Midas X/M boxes is supposed to be the M boxes have Pro series pre-amps.  Whether or not one can hear the difference between the two in a live situation is debatable.  It is my understanding that the M boxes are built with better quality and more robust components.  Not only does this make them more roadworthy, but it may also account for a sonic difference.  The same would go for the Pro Series boxes.  I would expect them to contain better components as well as be much more robust.

 93 
 on: March 26, 2024, 01:44:36 PM 
Started by Ron Roberts - Last post by Scott Bolt
I mostly agree, except that when it comes to speakers (where >10% THD traditionally isn't uncommon) I think the differences between "good" and "great" can still be readily heard in a lot of situations and environments.

But preamps? Not so much. (And don't get me started on 96k...)

-Russ
Oh I can hear it ;).... and I agree that 96K arguments are similar to preamp arguments in mixers today with respect to live sound.

I will say that the quality of processing in a digital mixer does make a difference (vs preamps).  A mixer with more DSP power will be able to provide better compression, higher quality reverb, more accurate and complete eq, etc.  I believe that these aspects of a board are now what actually makes one mixer sound "better" than another one ..... or that a soundman would say it is "easier to get a good mix" on.

I can hear the difference between a PRX 812 and a Yamaha DZR12 (but would argue many in the audience can't).  It is much harder to hear the difference between a DZR12 and an RCF932, but I believe it is still there, but if it is, it isn't that big.  RCF NX932 and Meyer UPA1P?  I can certainly feel the difference when you carry them :).

The difference between a band in a medium size indoor venue with IEM's vs floor wedges?  I can hear that every time.

 94 
 on: March 26, 2024, 01:32:53 PM 
Started by Rolando Saenz - Last post by doug johnson2
For input and output patch panels, I usually just make them myself from off the shelf pre-punched rack panels.  For power, I generally mount a quad box with a Edison plug tail in the back of the rack.  I have in the past used both powercon and bulkhead/panel-mount inlets but, have found for smaller racks, it is easier, cheaper, and more convent to just use a box with a tail.  Also, if there is space, I will do line-in/outs on a panel in the front and speaker outs on a panel in the back.

 95 
 on: March 26, 2024, 01:15:37 PM 
Started by Gordon Brinton - Last post by Stephen Swaffer
I don't have the experience a lot of you do-but one thing I learned after mixing the services at my church for around 20 years, then turning it over to someone else is that a lot of times it's easier to hear what is wrong when you're not under pressure to get everything right.  In my role now, I am somewhat expected to back him up-but I sometimes fail at that because I intentionally avoid critiquing his mix.

 96 
 on: March 26, 2024, 12:52:06 PM 
Started by Rolando Saenz - Last post by Dave Garoutte
Google 1ru patch panels and you'll get many options.

 97 
 on: March 26, 2024, 12:14:59 PM 
Started by Denny Griffin - Last post by Scott Holtzman
Hi Scott! Thank you for the response.   We are going to stick with an analog board for now, for several reasons.  Not the least of which is, we're a very small church, and there's no real need to transition to digital now.  I came from a much larger church using an SQ-6, and it would just be wasted where we are.  Cost is also an issue.  Not to mention the training involved in switching from analog to digital. While in sure there will be a day in the future when it is needed,  right now analog is the best bet for our particular application.

I appreciate the response,  thansk again!
I am thinking a headless would be perfect for you.  It doesn’t have to be more cold complicated it’s actually easier I hate to see you waste good money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 98 
 on: March 26, 2024, 12:10:05 PM 
Started by Denny Griffin - Last post by Denny Griffin
Hi Tim, and thank you for the response!  I will definitely look into these! I whole heartedly agree with everything you said about floor boxes. However this a a pretty small stage, and at absolute best, we have a 5 person worship band, consisting of acoustic guitar, bass, Cajon, and vocals.  No real electric instruments; were kinda bluegrass! 😁  I think the size of stage would allow for floor boxes to be better utilized,  that is, until I saw your thought!  I'm going to run it by our worship team and leaders and see what they think.

Thanks again!

 99 
 on: March 26, 2024, 12:04:48 PM 
Started by Denny Griffin - Last post by Denny Griffin
Hi Weogo, and thanks for responding! We're actually looking at the ProFX30v3.  It's very similar to what we currently have, just a newer version.

 100 
 on: March 26, 2024, 11:56:22 AM 
Started by Denny Griffin - Last post by Denny Griffin
Hi Scott! Thank you for the response.   We are going to stick with an analog board for now, for several reasons.  Not the least of which is, we're a very small church, and there's no real need to transition to digital now.  I came from a much larger church using an SQ-6, and it would just be wasted where we are.  Cost is also an issue.  Not to mention the training involved in switching from analog to digital. While in sure there will be a day in the future when it is needed,  right now analog is the best bet for our particular application.

I appreciate the response,  thansk again!

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]


Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 16 queries.