ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons  (Read 20172 times)

Frank DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • LBP DI Box
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2011, 11:32:00 PM »



I agree the Berhinger X32 looks good, but who wants to be an early adopter of a first generation Berhinger product? Some of their stuff is excellent (DIs for example)
Cheers
Steve

Really  ?????  Excellent DI ?

Friends don't let friends buy Berhinger

Frank
Logged
Not to Code

Kent Thompson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2011, 12:36:56 PM »

I think most would say the opposite, that the fader and pot automation is more likely to be relevant to live sound uses than to studio applications.  The issue is really in how you use scenes.  If scenes are used to recall base configurations before an act or performance starts then not having fader, head amp, etc. automation may not be a big deal as you have time to set things manually (including aspects such as Aux masters that are set to the saved level while the controls are neither changed nor any indicators provided and thus have to be manually charted and manually set as with analog consoles). However, if scene recall is routinely used as part of the performance then not having that automation, was well as any drops in audio while recalling scenes, can be a major issue.  That is why while the StudioLives are a good option for some applications, I would never recommend them for theatrical use as they simply do not function well in that type of application.

The layers or not issue is pretty much addressed in your previous point, having one fader per channel eliminates layers but can also either limit the channel count and/or requires a physically larger device.  If you can patch physical inputs to channels in the mixer or create 'user defined' layers then you can always set up the layers in a manner that minimized having to flip through them in normal use.  And a potential benefit of layers is minimizing the channels on the work surface that are not being used or are infrequently used.  Simply another example of having to consider the intended use and users.

I love motorized faders. It is sooo much better than having to manually reset faders after every use. I also organize our board so most of the channels and DCAs I deal with are on top. Rarely do I have to go digging for a fader. I also will bury a linked fader in a lower level.
Logged

Steven Tye

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
    • Mackay Baptist Church
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2011, 12:46:18 AM »

Friends don't let friends buy Berhinger
LOL.  :D
The Ultra DI100 is pretty good. Their CT100 cable tester is pretty good too. That's 2 products out of a few hundred so ;)
Logged

TJ (Tom) Cornish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4284
  • St. Paul, MN
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2011, 09:48:39 AM »

LOL.  :D
The Ultra DI100 is pretty good. Their CT100 cable tester is pretty good too. That's 2 products out of a few hundred so ;)
The Ultra DI is a poor copy of a BSS DI that is not pretty good.  The RF shielding is inadequate, and they are unreliable.

The CT100 is a blatant ripoff of the Ebtech Swizz Army tester.  The Ebtech is a good product - I don't have experience with the Behringer version to know if they've copied it adequately or if it's the usual Chinese garbage in a pretty box.
Logged

Tim Padrick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 924
  • Indianapolis
    • T.P. Audio
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2011, 11:30:55 AM »

The Ultra DI100 is pretty good.

As a former owner of four I can say: No it isn't.  It seems so - until you try something else.
Logged

Brian Ehlers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • West Michigan
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2011, 12:55:27 PM »

The Ultra DI is a poor copy of a BSS DI that is not pretty good.  The RF shielding is inadequate, and they are unreliable.
Just to be clear about what you're saying:
The BSS DI (AR-133) is in fact much better than pretty good (in my experience).
Your comments about shielding and reliability are for the Behringer unit, correct?
Logged

TJ (Tom) Cornish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4284
  • St. Paul, MN
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2011, 12:12:19 AM »

Just to be clear about what you're saying:
The BSS DI (AR-133) is in fact much better than pretty good (in my experience).
Your comments about shielding and reliability are for the Behringer unit, correct?
Correct - I said that awkwardly.  The Behringer is a poor copy of a quality BSS product.
Logged

Frank DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • LBP DI Box
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2011, 09:14:14 AM »

We church sound guys have a tough balancing act WE don't have a lot of money and what we do have could go to other ministries,  but we have a important job.  Where is good quality sound reinforcement more important then at a church? 

I have tried cheep tools, do with out, used quality tools and new quality tools.  I think the worst of these is the cheep tool.  First you have a cheep tool,  Second, you can't bring your self to buy a good one because you already have a cheep one.

Gods worship deserves the good stuff, even if you need to buy it used.

Frank (A recovering buy the cheep stuff guy)
Logged
Not to Code

Randall Hyde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 597
Re: StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2011, 07:03:53 PM »


Frank (A recovering buy the cheep stuff guy)
Oh, I think that those of us who've paid for our sound systems out of our own pockets have all gone through this phase.

For the record, I still have 6 Ultra DIs bought many years ago. Perfect for the "B" rig (MI gear) where people don't want to pay too much. Sound isn't as good as the Radial units I'm replacing them with, but I *was* surprised that they sounded better than most other Barry gear I've made the mistake of purchasing in the past. My big problem with the Ultra DIs has been construction; they look bullet-proof but buttons fall off, LEDs have failed (!), screws have fallen off (leaving dangling internal connectors). Maybe I was just lucky with the six that I got, because they didn't sound terrible.

You really don't want Barry gear in the audio chain of a "pro" audio system that you put out for hire. It really doesn't matter what the device's quality is like, people don't want to pay to rent Behringer: that's the bottom line (then again, I've often found that the people who gripe the most about being unwilling to pay to rent Behringer gear are likely to be the same ones with Behringer gear in their personal equipment racks).

FWIW, I have a couple other Barry devices in my kit: a rack-mount headphone amp and a cable tester. The headphone amp is okay for what we're using it for (soloing channels) and I only trust the cable tester as a continuity checker -- not sure I'd trust the frequency analysis stuff that it claims to do.

About the only Barry device I'm moderately pleased with has been their BCF-2000 and BCR-2000 control surfaces. For what they provide, at under $200, they are reasonable devices. They aren't in the audio chain, so I don't care as much about the legend on the name plate and they aren't in a "mission critical" position in my SAC system (if they die during a show, I can mix on my video screen). That said, I've just upgraded my "A" rig to use Mackie MCU control surfaces -- the lack of a digital scribble strip on the Barry units severely limits their usefulness, even if the price is right.

A couple of years ago (as I'm sure I've griped in this forum before), I used to purchase a Behringer PMP-3000 portable powered mixer for (very) small "speakers on sticks" shows and then replace them every year to handle the expected mechanical failures. After having two of them blow up in the middle of a show, I largely gave up on Behringer gear even for the "nobody cares" type events. People *do* care if the unit stops working and the event stops as a result. I still have the last PMP-3000 (one that was fixed under warranty) and I'll often carry it around to a "speakers on sticks" event as a backup, but I don't trust it as a first responder device.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
 
Logged

Jason Adams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2011, 08:41:47 AM »

Yeah I agree. We are currently using a barry xynex 24ch that we bought to get us through until our new building is done. We got it used off of craigslist for what seemed like a good deal. Supposedly on 8months old or so. When we firs started using it the right main output would flake out in the middle of service. I took it all apart cleaned everything I could and resoldered some of the connections on the pcbs. That problem seemed to go away but now one of the monitors flakes out. I guess I would rather have that then one of the mains. Friends don't let friends buy cheap crap.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

StudioLive 24.4.2 Pros & Cons
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2011, 08:41:47 AM »


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 19 queries.