Print

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

[Bob Leonard]

In my world where I generally work to crowds of 1000 or less people (getting old) we / the band, will usually mix ourselves from the stage with the help of a "spotter" out on the floor. This has worked well for us. Larger gigs where sound is provided are generally a no brainer, but still require the use of a mixer on stage as we supplement our backline, horns, etc. using Roland XV-3080 sound modules through the board to an SRX system designed just for that purpose.

My current on stage board is a Mackie 1640. Not because it was low priced, but because the sound quality and construction of the Onyx series is very good. In the almost 7 years I have had it racked it has never needed service, there have been no problems with any channel or feature, it's 6 aux send/receives are enough, the 4 BUS design is what I need, and demo recordings can be made quickly with little patching of the board. Not a bad recommendation for a $1400 board, but it's day is coming to an end.

My desire has been to go digital for quite some time now, and my choice if that is the case will be an LS9-16, which I feel might be a perfect stage mixer for my purposes. I would look forward to removing much of the outboard gear, the flexibility of the LS9 and the step up in sound quality.

My dilemma, and the reason for the post is simply this. I am anal when it comes to tonal quality regardless of the component. Now this may seem like an oxymoron considering I use the 1640 now, but the 1640 has great tone and when combined with the right outboard components, speakers and amps the sound is very warm and natural sounding.

A part of the equation is my ability to reach out with my left hand and correct the mix without pause or hesitation.

Having stated all the above I'll be making my move to a new board in the spring. I'm sure that the LS9 will serve me well, and have no concerns regarding tone or capability.

I have also read whatever is available about the APB Pro house board. I have listened to, and been very impressed with the sound quality of systems mixed through the APB board, and it has all of the features I need for an on stage mix.

So there would be the question. If my real quest is for better sound quality without the loss of features, does it make sense for me to purchase an LS9, or would I be just as well off with the APB Pro House. The difference in price is not a part of the equation.

Below is a picture of the mixer in it's rack to be replaced.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or advice.

[Dick Rees]

Bob....

IMHO the sound quality of the APB is well above the Yamaha digital. I'm pushing 70 and well appreciate not having to haul a lot of outboard, but the rack mounting of whichever console you  choose renders the savings somewhat moot.

Given the quality of the preamps and the channel EQ I'd go with APB for sure.

If you want to go digital I wouldn't bother with the (slow access/multi-meu) LS9.  The StudioLive 16:4:2 will do it in a more "analog" fashion as far as quick access goes, will save the outboard and sound as good or better than the Yamaha.

You guessed it......not a Yamaha fan.  

APB #1!!!

[Don McMeckan]

Bob Leonard wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 16:23

In my world where I generally work to crowds of 1000 or less people (getting old) we / the band, will usually mix ourselves from the stage with the help of a "spotter" out on the floor. This has worked well for us. Larger gigs where sound is provided are generally a no brainer, but still require the use of a mixer on stage as we supplement our backline, horns, etc. using Roland XV-3080 sound modules through the board to an SRX system designed just for that purpose. My current on stage board is a Mackie 1640. Not because it was low priced, but because the sound quality and construction of the Onyx series is very good. In the almost 7 years I have had it racked it has never needed service, there have been no problems with any channel or feature, it's 6 aux send/receives are enough, the 4 BUS design is what I need, and demo recordings can be made quickly with little patching of the board. Not a bad recommendation for a $1400 board, but it's day is coming to an end. My desire has been to go digital for quite some time now, and my choice if that is the case will be an LS9-16, which I feel might be a perfect stage mixer for my purposes. I would look forward to removing much of the outboard gear, the flexibility of the LS9 and the step up in sound quality. My dilemma, and the reason for the post is simply this. I am anal when it comes to tonal quality regardless of the component. Now this may seem like an oxymoron considering I use the 1640 now, but the 1640 has great tone and when combined with the right outboard components, speakers and amps the sound is very warm and natural sounding. A part of the equation is my ability to reach out with my left hand and correct the mix without pause or hesitation. Having stated all the above I'll be making my move to a new board in the spring. I'm sure that the LS9 will serve me well, and have no concerns regarding tone or capability. I have also read whatever is available about the APB Pro house board. I have listened to, and been very impressed with the sound quality of systems mixed through the APB board, and it has all of the features I need for an on stage mix. So there would be the question. If my real quest is for better sound quality without the loss of features, does it make sense for me to purchase an LS9, or would I be just as well off with the APB Pro House. The difference in price is not a part of the equation. Below is a picture of the mixer in it's rack to be replaced. Thanks in advance for any suggestions or advice.

Hi Bob, my situation is somewhat like yours, in that I mix from stage while playing guitar. Three different bands, a four piece 70's rock band, a contemporary country band, and a Steely Dan tribute. The tribute and the country band also has in-ear monitors.

I use either a LS9 32, or a DM 1000, depending on how much room on stage or if either one of those is at another gig.

The LS9 takes a bit of time to get set up before playing, but is extremely easy to mix while playing. Note that in the country band, 4 out of the 5 members are sound techs, they take care of their own monitor mix with 2 minutes of training!

With the tribute band, three years ago I decided that handling 3 horns, keys, bass, drums, 2 elect. guitars, 2 acoustic guitars, 5 vocals, 3 stereo in-ears, 4 wedge mixes and FOH duties, all while being the lead singer and playing guitar was just too much, so I hire a FOH and mon. tech for every gig now.

I just sold my MixWiz a month ago, and no longer own an analog mixer. The Yamaha's have never even hiccuped in 3 years ( LS9 ) or 5 years ( DM 1000 ).

As far as sound goes, I believe you should not hear a difference in sound between Yamaha, APB or Presonus as long as your gain structure is sorted. Judging by your posts and the gear you operate, I'd say you are well sorted in that area.

My vote goes to the LS9 16, but you should try them all before buying.

I have a small sound company and do some small festivals, and a bit of corporate work and haven't had any issues with digital there either.

Thanks,       Don

[Rick Stansby]

Bob Leonard wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 08:23

... Not a bad recommendation for a $1400 board, but it's day is coming to an end.

When you say the board is "coming to an end."  Is it not functioning correctly, or do you want to add more channels, fx, dynamics or outputs?

I'm not sure you'll get a huge advantage from the APB, as compared to the Onyx.  Sure the APB will sound better, and have better controls and more routing, but not enough to justify the upgrade (assuming the mackie still works.)

Quote:

My desire has been to go digital for quite some time now...

An LS9 will give you dynamics, more fx, graphic EQs for the wedges, and so much more.  If you want those things, than it is probably worth it to upgrade.

[Tim Tyler]

Bob -

Why not just replace the Mackie with a new one?  Whether or not one of your candidate mixers sounds better can be highly subjective, and you run the risk of any new mixer not sounding "right" to you or a band member.  1640 - new on eBay for under $1k, firewire versions a little more.

If I were going to invest in ANY analog mixer, it would have to be at seriously low money, new or used.

-Tim T

LS932, iLiveT112, 01v96vcm...

[Bob Leonard]

All,
Thanks for the replies. When I say the boards day is at an end it's because I want to take a step up in tonal quality and versatility. The 1640 itself is in perfect condition, as is the firewire option. Reading the replies has me second guessing again. Dick has sent the only reply stating the audio quality of the APB is superior to the LS9, and others state I'll hear no difference in the sound at all.

Are there any APB owners out there ??

[rick earl]

I know this was not part of your original post, but have you considered the Roland M300 V mixer? I find easier to navigate than the LS9, sonically it is great. And would work with your monitor system.  It would be one of my top choices for a stand alone system and comes in at a good price point.  It also is easy to configure for recording.  I have specified a few in church and school systems with some great success.  Not rider friendly, but I don't think that matters in your situation.

As per your original post, I use LS9s and APBs a few times a year.  I am happy with both.  APB is quicker to navigate but the extras you get with the LS9 make it the right choice for some of my applications.  The reason for the LS9 spec over the Roland had to do with other inventory from Yamaha and the ability to use and swap MY cards.

[Tim Tyler]

Bob -

Steve Payne, Soundworks (Richmond, Va), has a good supply of APB mixers, and much experience with them.  

Re:  the Roland M300... The cost of the surface plus the stage box system will be in the over $7k range for 16x8 channels (plus the 10 or so inputs on the surface).  This is LS9-32 realm.

Unless you do a direct A/B with your mixer & one you're considering, it's a tough call as far as sound quality.  As far as versatility, any new digital mixer will provide more in that area, IMO.

Happy hunting!

-Tim T

[Andrew (A.J.) McGlynn]

Bob, I have mixed on both and love both. I just bought an LS9 for one of our new campuses and it meets our needs. I have also used a Pro Rack House. I never had the chance to A/B them so I cannot comment too much on the sound quality between the two. However I know I was super impressed by the APB. For an analog mixer you cannot beat the feature set for the size. I love the variable HPF.

My vote would be for the APB for your situation. I think it would be way easier to just grab what you need on the APB. The LS9 will take a couple steps to do anything. I am not a digital hater, I love the LS9. But based on your needs I think the APB would make for an awesome rig. If you had a FOH engineer I would change my vote.

A.J.

[Guy Johnson]

I have both the 1640 and APB ProRack House.

I prefer the APB over the Mackie:

~ Good solid sound, better than the Mackie.
~ Mic amps are great, used them for recording as well as live, and very pleased with the result.
~ Channel metering
~ 20 mic amps rather than 16.
~ Adjustable steep HP filters are fantastic, as is the rest of the EQ.
~ Eq can be pre aux or not.
~ The rear connector panel can be swivelled easily
~ loads of line inputs
~ Small size ... not too many Units used.

Best bet is to hire one, and see how it flies, then you can decide between that and the Mackie. One thing I like about the Mackie is you can change your solo bus to PFL or AFL.

As for the digi option, I hardly ever use them, and only the big Yammies you meet at festivals.
But, as you are already racked up, you will have your outboard patched, so not much of a problem. And with the APB you'll have some more units spare for more comp/gates and EQ.

Hope that helps ...

G

[Steve Payne]

      Well, I guess I need to weigh in here.  I have real world experience with the tools and situations you describe.  Digital has a lot to offer, most of which can be measured in terms of  convenience.  If you are looking for exceptional sound quality and intuitive, quick interface you have to spend a LOT of money on a digital product to come close to what you will get from APB.  A Yamaha LS-9 is not a high end digital product.  It is a dumbed down M7CL.  I have owned an M7CL.  The difference in sound between an M7 and an APB Spectra, ProDesk or ProRack console (I own them all) is night and day.  In fact, I have just bought a pair of Soundcraft Vi4 consoles.  A big (but not only) reason I decided on these consoles was because they sound really good.  Guess what, they are very powerful, cost a small fortune, but don't SOUND and better than my APBs.

    I don't think I saw where you said if you were doing IEMs or not.  If you are, the sound quality will really be appreciated.  In my opinion, the lack of signal latency in analog is also a plus in monitor applications.
    It seems you already have a rack of quality outboard that would plug right into an analog replacement?

    IMNSHO, if you are looking to improve sound quality over your Mackie, you will be moving in the wrong direction with an LS-9.  In your situation, given the tools you already have and given your specific goals of improved sound quality and ease of use in a monitor application;  the APB ProRack House or Monitor would knock the ball out of the park - center field.

    I am sure this is not the only valid argument in this situation - but it's mine.

[Mark Sexton]

The ProRack sounds a lot better than the LS-9. Since you already have the outboard and it's just for one band I would go with the APB.

[Mark Lonow]

i think a digital desk in time could refine  the mixes more due to all the added perks like comps, gates, efex, more eq, remote control,its only going to get better with each update

that said im not a huge fan of ls-9 interface

id look at the i-live/soundcraft

or give it a year or 2 see what pops up

tho u could buy a ls-9 now and it will retain its value rather well for the next few years

[Bob Leonard]

Thanks to all for the responses. Being that the rig pictured is specific to the needs of my band alone I've read some pretty convincing arguments for staying in the analog world, although digital control via MIDI might still sway me in the other direction. But that's based on another need altogether.

As I had said, I'm very surprised with the performance of my 7 year old Onyx in that the sound has always been very good, and never a minute of down time. But, that was almost 7 years ago and there weren't many choices in that class mixer. The LS9 tugs at me, but I feel as if the Pro House is tugging just a bit more based on the above. I own good quality outboard hardware so the features of a digital board just may be moot in this particular case. I think I'll have to rent an APB the next time I do a job where it matters. Actually that was a stupid statement. They all matter, so I'll rent one the next time the difference in tone can be appreciated.

[Guy Johnson]

Oops, I forgot that I also like on the APB
~ the insertable outputs and auxes.

Small digi desks don't quite do it for me at the moment: I like instant access to the knobs!

A mention was made of the fact that one can use so many more processes on each channel of a digital mixer ... but, will it improve a mix? Often lots of gating, comp, fx and eq can damage a mix; suck some life from a band... I'd rather spend on mics & clip-on's, and some absorbing panels on stage if needed!

[Brian Bolly]

Bob Leonard wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 11:23

In my world where I generally work to crowds of 1000 or less people (getting old) we / the band, will usually mix ourselves from the stage with the help of a "spotter" out on the floor. This has worked well for us. Larger gigs where sound is provided are generally a no brainer, but still require the use of a mixer on stage as we supplement our backline, horns, etc. using Roland XV-3080 sound modules through the board to an SRX system designed just for that purpose. <snip> My desire has been to go digital for quite some time now, and my choice if that is the case will be an LS9-16, which I feel might be a perfect stage mixer for my purposes. I would look forward to removing much of the outboard gear, the flexibility of the LS9 and the step up in sound quality. My dilemma, and the reason for the post is simply this. I am anal when it comes to tonal quality regardless of the component. Now this may seem like an oxymoron considering I use the 1640 now, but the 1640 has great tone and when combined with the right outboard components, speakers and amps the sound is very warm and natural sounding. A part of the equation is my ability to reach out with my left hand and correct the mix without pause or hesitation. Having stated all the above I'll be making my move to a new board in the spring. I'm sure that the LS9 will serve me well, and have no concerns regarding tone or capability. I have also read whatever is available about the APB Pro house board. I have listened to, and been very impressed with the sound quality of systems mixed through the APB board, and it has all of the features I need for an on stage mix. So there would be the question. If my real quest is for better sound quality without the loss of features, does it make sense for me to purchase an LS9, or would I be just as well off with the APB Pro House. The difference in price is not a part of the equation. Thanks in advance for any suggestions or advice.

Bob,

As an LS-9 16 owner, I'll throw in a vote for that console - but not without some caveats.  Of the briefcase gigs I do, I'd say 75% of them are on my LS-9.  When I do get my console choice, it's either an Avid Venue, Pro6 or PM5D.

First, plain and simple - the APB sounds better to my ears*.  I don't like making statements I can't quantify with data to back them up, but it just does.  The LS-9 doesn't sound *bad*, it just doesn't sound as good as the APB.  That said, there's a few things I like about the LS-9 that it would be difficult to give up.

The list of things I like:

• 16 channels with full insert, full 4-band parametric + HPF, 16 auxes, and 4 FX engines in a 27 lb package (The convenience factor alone should be mentioned)
• With an I/O card and a 1RU preamp, I now have a 24 channel desk
• 4 FX engines approximately equivalent to an SPX2000 (the REV-X presets do sound good)
• The ability to go digital out directly into my DSP of choice (with S/PDIF to AES converter)
• Custom fader layer.
• Software package/software control
• USB stick recording, with fully assignable inputs. Recording a monitor mix or a pair of channels for a set has come in handy.
• The "Flex 15" graphics that can be patched to every output.  I don't use them, but it's nice to know they're there.

I've found that using the digital output into a and eliminating a D/A->A/D stage does seem to clean things up a bit, as it should on any desk.  Since the digital output is assignable, I did try it on monitors at one point but the performers didn't seem to notice a difference.

You mention the use of a "spotter" in the audience.  With the LS9 and the addition of a router and a tablet or laptop, your spotter can easily become your FOH engineer.

The list of things I don't like:

• Lack of individual channel delay
• Lack of sub groups (I see in your photo that you do use them)
• Inability to use any input as a key input.  Key inputs are in groups of 8, so when I want to use a ducker on channel 6, I can't use channel 10 as my key.
• No AES/EBU output without a S/PDIF to AES converter

My biggest gripe is the fader issue they first had.  I have one of the earlier generations of desks with the old faders, and at this point all 17 faders are bad. They still work, but physical 0 does not equal software 0.  I (and a few others I know) had dialogues with Yamaha in attempt to get them to replace the faders.  I talked to them in 1/2009, about 2 months after my desk was out of warranty, when I first realized there was an issue.  I told them that after owning several original 01Vs for 10+ years with no issues, the fact that the faders were going bad a year of use concerned me.  After about a week of back and forth, they stopped communicating with me, especially after they found out the desk was used "outside" (yes, wedding gigs do happen in a tent!).  However, since they now manufacture the desk with the new faders with dust covers, I understand this is a non-issue.

I don't know if any of the above items would sway your decision, but they are worth mentioning.  

* - My only mixing experience with APB is on the Spectra T series, but I have no doubt that the ProRack is of similar quality in a smaller package.  I had a demo Spectra T desk in May of '06, not long after they were introduced, and the first show on it was truly eye-opening.

[Mac Kerr]

Brian Bolly wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 11:29

The list of things I don't like: Lack of individual channel delay Lack of sub groups (I see in your photo that you do use them) Inability to use any input as a key input.  Key inputs are in groups of 8, so when I want to use a ducker on channel 6, I can't use channel 10 as my key. No AES/EBU output without a S/PDIF to AES converter

There are subgroups. They are part of the 16 available mixes. You can make any of those 16 mixes wither variable (aux send) or fixed (subgroup) in pairs of mixes.

To use another input as a key input it must be in the same block of 8 faders, but you can use the last couple of mixes as a key input for any channel.

If you are not using and ADAT preamp you can have an MY16-AE card which gives you 16x16 audio channels in AES format. Use what you need for your preamps, the rest for regular AES I/O.

Mac

[Hasse Queisser]

Bob,

If you decide on going digital, you might want to take a look at the new Soundcraft Si Compact series. Should be in the same price bracket as LS9, but a lot more of the controls are available without going through menues and stuff, and I would guess they sound a bit better too.

[John Horvath]

Mac Kerr wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 10:43

There are subgroups. They are part of the 16 available mixes. You can make any of those 16 mixes wither variable (aux send) or fixed (subgroup) in pairs of mixes.

Just don't forget to UNassign your input channel from the ST if you're assigning the subgroup to ST.

[Mitch Grant]

Steve Payne wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 09:19

Well, I guess I need to weigh in here.  I have real world experience with the tools and situations you describe.  Digital has a lot to offer, most of which can be measured in terms of  convenience.  If you are looking for exceptional sound quality and intuitive, quick interface you have to spend a LOT of money on a digital product to come close to what you will get from APB.  A Yamaha LS-9 is not a high end digital product.  It is a dumbed down M7CL.  I have owned an M7CL.  The difference in sound between an M7 and an APB Spectra, ProDesk or ProRack console (I own them all) is night and day.  In fact, I have just bought a pair of Soundcraft Vi4 consoles.  A big (but not only) reason I decided on these consoles was because they sound really good.  Guess what, they are very powerful, cost a small fortune, but don't SOUND and better than my APBs.     I don't think I saw where you said if you were doing IEMs or not.  If you are, the sound quality will really be appreciated.  In my opinion, the lack of signal latency in analog is also a plus in monitor applications.     It seems you already have a rack of quality outboard that would plug right into an analog replacement?     IMNSHO, if you are looking to improve sound quality over your Mackie, you will be moving in the wrong direction with an LS-9.  In your situation, given the tools you already have and given your specific goals of improved sound quality and ease of use in a monitor application;  the APB ProRack House or Monitor would knock the ball out of the park - center field.     I am sure this is not the only valid argument in this situation - but it's mine.

Hi
   Like Steve, I have owned a Yamaha M7CL, currently own a couple of LS9-32s, and a APB Spectra 24 channel (which I think is sonically the same as the Pro Rack).
   I agree with everything Steve said. Digital (Yamaha inexpensive digital boards, that is) sounds just "OK", or "pretty good" but is wonderfully convenient and compact. Now, my DigiCo SD8 is a great sounding console, but costs much more than the LS9 series, and is a newer design. Like most things, you get what you pay for, and newer is often better when it comes to digital. I definitely don't agree with someone who said that the Mackie, the Presonus, the APB, and the Yamaha probably all sound about the same. If that is true in your situation, your system is not revealing the differences that are there to be revealed with the right gear. Sonic differences in consoles don't always slap you in the face, but they are there and can be appreciated....it just may take a few minutes for you to "acclimate" to it. Take some time when you compare...it will become more apparent the longer you listen.
    APB sounds much better than the LS9, and if sound quality is your top priority, then the APB will most likely satisfy you. You may even reevaluate your opinion of the Mackie sound!
    I also agree with the response that suggested that you possibly rent the consoles in question to determine which one is right for you. A couple of extra dollars to help you make the right decision is probably money well spent. After all, you will probably live with it for several years, right?
Hope that helps! Good luck!
Mitch

[danfowler]

Mitch is correct. Better speakers will show the diff quick.
Fat sounding pre's=magic.

Given a GOOD, revealing FOH speaker system, the APB will sound great. I frequently use my H1020 with QSC 181 subs pole'ing up some KV2 audio EX-12's and it just sounds great. Actually sounds amazing. Beautiful detail in those boxes.

I've put some PS.15's on those subs and thought the EX.12's sounded better.
Those PS.15's ain't no slouch.
Sometimes I'll throw some Mackie 1232's up there for more "oomph and throw" if the crowd is thick (500 plus) and the act needs that .

The APB really shines with some good outboard thru a D&B rig......................

"I am as well" not a small console Yamaha fan. Too brittle sounding. No solid lo-mid punch. Kinda hard to get around in an LS-9 in "combat audio" situations.

I Luv Midas.
There. I said it.

I am presently addicted to a Presonus 24.4.2 and a MacBook Pro/iPad. I'm not selling my 1020 just yet nor my Midas 320. For shows in a ballroom (where running a snake to FOH sux) or they have me mixing under a theatre balcony (where
I can hear...........you guessed it, nothing)  I reach for the StudioLive.

I get some funny comments from the gallery like, "you got the internet on that thing" or "let me check my email" but the show results are quite stunningly good.
The mix is dead-on.

Now, it's not as easy as all that, easier said than done alright. The console channel has to be set up correctly and the speakers have to be tweeked out, but that's why I'm not going anywhere any time soon.

I'm too old and have been doing this way-too-long to be room compromised anymore with this new technology. I don't know how many corporate clients have come up to me and said it's never sounded better.

I just have an iPad in one hand and a CD remote in the other..........

What speaker system are you using and what do you guys play?

Later,
Dan 0;)

[Scott Helmke (Scodiddly)]

danfowler wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 19:38

What speaker system are you using and what do you guys play?

For me it's often either Meyer or KV2 speakers, sometimes Danley.  And yes, I like the LS9.  No sound quality complaints.

[Steve Hurt]

You mix yourself from the stage don't you?  
If so, I'd go with the LS-9.
Sends on faders alone is enough for the decision.
The EQ (channel, monitor and FOH) takes the ball and knocks it out of the park.

The APB may be better sounding, but it's not the difference between a 1960's Tapco and a 2011 large format Midas, it's the difference between 2 good modern boards and 98% or more of the people in your audience will not be able to hear a sonic difference between the boards.

However, people will hear the difference made when you are able to notch something offensive out with the LS9's more flexible EQ, or notice that the band is really kicking, because the band is really happy with their monitor mixes that you keep updated quickly with sends on faders while you're playing.

If you've got someone mixing from FOH who can focus on the details and is out where his ears can actually hear what is happening, a slightly better sounding board might shine through.

I'd still pick the LS-9 personally.  I've been spoiled with what it can do and don't want to go backwards in functionality.

[Bob Leonard]

I've been attempting to stay with the new forum so I haven't kept up here. I was able to get my hands on an APB a week ago. I was honestly impressed with the overall natural sound from the board. Not that the sound is colored in some way, but the sound seemed much more full. I heard things from my SRX I've not heard before. Plus one for the APB, at least for now.

[ProSoundWeb Community]