Print

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

[Art Welter]

Evan,

I don’t think you will find a better sounding board than the Venice new for under 6K.

That said, there are plenty of good sounding large format consoles going used that have more features than the Venice, but you will need help lugging them around, and they take up a lot of real estate.  

As far as lack of features, the missing polarity reverse can be accomplished with a couple adapters.

Are there any other features you are looking for that the Venice lacks?

The layout is a bit odd, and the faders are short, but sonicly the board is great.


Art

[Mark Jastrzebski]

There have been a lot of replies to this thread that mention the "strange layout" of the Midas Venice.

What makes the layout "strange"?

I own both the Venice and an GL2400, I don't see any real layout differences between the layouts of these consoles.

OK, I'll admit I wished the Venice had 100mm faders.

By the way, I love the way the Venice sounds.

[Dick Rees]

Mark Jastrzebski wrote on Fri, 28 November 2008 23:24

What makes the layout "strange"? By the way, I love the way the Venice sounds.

1.  The sweep and the boost/cut in the EQ are reversed compared to almost all other boards.

2.  The auxes are set up as monitor, EFX and other.  Not really positionally different like the EQ's, but just a tad odd instead of just laying them out as a section and letting you decide which way you want them to function by assigning them pre/post.

3.  Some people find the color coding scheme to be distracting.  At least those who aren't color-blind.  Doesn't bother me, though.

[Aaron Kovacik]

To tell you the truth, I would avoid the Venice due to the fact that routing options are few and far between. It does have a good "sound" to it, but so does the APB stuff...and they have much more flexibility when it comes to routing...if you can hold off and wait for the Prodesk to come out, I think you will be very happy. Truthfully, the Venice sounds good, but for the money you can do better overall (if the Venice sounded like an H3000, it might be a step closer to be worth whats being asked for it)

[Mark Jastrzebski]

Thanks.

After 4 years of using the Venice almost exclusively, the layout of the Venice became the standard.

[Evan F. Hunter]

Dick Rees wrote on Fri, 28 November 2008 23:16

Evan Hunter wrote on Fri, 28 November 2008 22:54 it sounds like you guys are saying that the Midas's sound quality does not make up for the features it lacks No.  If you read carefully you'll find that the Midas is recommended for highest-quality analog sound.  The feature set for live sound is critiqued for: 1.  Layout.  It differs from other boards, but everything is there....somewhere.  More a drawback for live sound if you're used to other boards and have to do something fast.  Same objection can be made for digital boards. 2.  Limited auxes/sub-groups.  You just have to decide what's enough for you.  More is better, but if you want more Midas, you're gonna spend more $$$$.....seriously more. 3.  Lack of polarity flip.  The only really serious objection.  I bought some in-line polarity switches for use on critical channels. Bottom line is they are dynamite for recording.  They do have some things you have to get used to for live sound, but if you want the best pre-amps, go Midas.

Thanks Dick, I see what you mean. Agreed.

[Steve Milner]

Mark Jastrzebski wrote on Sat, 29 November 2008 00:24

There have been a lot of replies to this thread that mention the "strange layout" of the Midas Venice. What makes the layout "strange"?

I said it in my first post that I will admit to being spoiled by digital mixers... so when I get behind the Midas 320 the EQ feels very limited to me. Going from the Yamaha digital EQ offerings to a fixed High and Low feels super limited. Going from Yamaha's information and data rich channel interface (I run studio manager & use a Tablet PC to mix often) to a set of two sweepable mids which in my opinion are poorly labeled feels limited also.  

I also prefer to have 8 auxiliary outs when possible, and I really do prefer that they are all switchable (pre/post) independently.

All of that being said, none of my feelings about the console are in any way show-stoppers or reasons not to enjoy using the Venice line. Like I said before, they do sound fantastic and even with the limitations, I can always get the job done and have fun.

I think Dick Rees hit the nail on the head with "but if you want more Midas, you're gonna spend more $$$$.....seriously more."

On a side note.... I thought it was funny to see the comment about it being faster to dial in a band with an analog console and outboard gear... If someone asked me which I was faster on, I would say Digital... Hands Down!

Just last week I had a super time crunched load-in for a corporate event.... we set and patched everything quickly and I got the band onstage. I took my Tablet PC and walked across the stage ONCE. Worked with each musician for a moment or two at their position dialing in wedges very quickly. (It is WAY easier when you can actually hear them ). In just a few minutes I had set all the wedges and walked the room while building my house mix. In just over 10 minutes I was able to hand the room back to the other sound company who were having a tough time dialing in the podium system. The other FOH crew stopped by my mix position later to thank me for giving them more time with the difficult room, and to give the Tablet mixing a quick test drive! We all had a fun time.

[Dick Rees]

Steve....

If I had the luxury of taking time to actually sound check a band I'd consider digital.  In the world of instant audio I'll stick to analog.  If I get more than a 5 minute line check I'm amazed.

And the first # on everyone's program has the same title:

"SOUND CHECK"

[dave stojan]

Steve Milner wrote on Sat, 29 November 2008 06:31

On a side note.... I thought it was funny to see the comment about it being faster to dial in a band with an analog console and outboard gear... If someone asked me which I was faster on, I would say Digital... Hands Down!

(∆ Strokes)/(∆ Folks)

While much of it lies in the realm of familiarity, when it comes to some digital consoles (01V96 in this particular example) the console's interface is slower and more cumbersome than a complete surface. I can see where using a tablet interface improves things somewhat. In the end personal preferences are just that; subjective, not objective.

[Dick Rees]

dave stojan wrote on Sat, 29 November 2008 09:37

(∆ Strokes)/(∆ Folks)

Dave.....

Love your formula.  Here's one of mine, developed in collaboration with Labster Tom Tschantz:

ear > gear



DR

Edit:

attribution