ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Peavey Digitool MX16  (Read 6539 times)

Derek Van Winkle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Peavey Digitool MX16
« on: April 09, 2012, 09:03:45 PM »

A church I volunteer with is about to install a 4th monitor mix, and convert from a passive 2 way to an active three way (bi-amp mains + subs) and instead of buying a crossover and another 31 band eq, I was looking at replacing all of our EQs with a system processor. Our install is from 1999 and we have all Sabine processing...Hybrid (Analog or Digital Control) 31 band EQs and digital delay units. Our console is still analog but an eventual transition to a digital one is inevitable. I would think that a digital link in between would be beneficial to reduce an additional A/D conversion.

We've had Christian artists come in like Chris Orr, Charlie Hall, and Selah. All of these people really haven't been too specific on processing. It's been more of a "FOH Engineer needs access to 31 band EQs, etc, etc...". None of the riders have specifically stated what type of processing must be used.

So I guess my question is...how acceptable is the MX16 and how rider-friendly would it be?
Logged

Clayton Ganzer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Peavey Digitool MX16
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2012, 03:09:42 PM »

A church I volunteer with is about to install a 4th monitor mix, and convert from a passive 2 way to an active three way (bi-amp mains + subs) and instead of buying a crossover and another 31 band eq, I was looking at replacing all of our EQs with a system processor. Our install is from 1999 and we have all Sabine processing...Hybrid (Analog or Digital Control) 31 band EQs and digital delay units. Our console is still analog but an eventual transition to a digital one is inevitable. I would think that a digital link in between would be beneficial to reduce an additional A/D conversion.

We've had Christian artists come in like Chris Orr, Charlie Hall, and Selah. All of these people really haven't been too specific on processing. It's been more of a "FOH Engineer needs access to 31 band EQs, etc, etc...". None of the riders have specifically stated what type of processing must be used.

So I guess my question is...how acceptable is the MX16 and how rider-friendly would it be?

I see plenty of riders that say "NO PEAVEY".
Logged

Riley Casey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2081
  • Wash DC
Re: Peavey Digitool MX16
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2012, 03:42:08 PM »

A third octave equalizer that is of any use in a 'grab it because something is feeding back' has real faders ideally and at least a physical control for every frequency band available ( ala Ashly Protea ).  A digital zone processor such as what you describe does not meet that requirement. 

Samuel Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1879
  • Washington, D.C.
Re: Peavey Digitool MX16
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2012, 04:12:26 PM »

A third octave equalizer that is of any use in a 'grab it because something is feeding back' has real faders ideally and at least a physical control for every frequency band available ( ala Ashly Protea ).  A digital zone processor such as what you describe does not meet that requirement.

If you truly expect the digital console to be down the line, all the big boys have integrated GEQs. Seems like the answer here would be to get a DSP for system tuning and crossover purposes that has digital inputs, and get another hardware graphic for the time being. You'll be selling some hardware graphics anyway when you go digital so that is no problem, and you'll be able to switch over to the digital input on the DSP from your digital console when you actually get it. As I recently asked on the forum, the medium budget DSP market doesn't seem to be flush with units with digital I/O, so you might need to spend a few bucks to make it happen but it should last you quite some time.
Logged

Tim Padrick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 927
  • Indianapolis
    • T.P. Audio
Re: Peavey Digitool MX16
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2012, 04:31:00 PM »

We are using Rane RPM88s.  I use strictly parametric, but you can have graphic as well.  And/or auto feedback suppression.  Limiters.  Crossovers.  etc.  You decide what you want.  The only thing I don't like is that for FOH, the only thing that can be stereo linked is comp/limiting - this is a bit of a nuisance.  (I also don't like the I/O being on Phoenix connectors, but I just made XLR tails.)  Computer connection is via Ethernet (the third octet of your network cannot be a 0, which is the Yamaha default).  They sell on eBay for under $1000.

The new Symetrix unit has a very nice GUI, but one cannot have assymetrical crossovers.
Logged

Marty McCann

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
  • Meridian, Mississippi USA
Re: Peavey Digitool MX16
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2012, 11:15:45 AM »

Even if a DSP/Loudspeaker Management System may have a 1/3 octave GEQ feature, it is still best to have an outboard physical GEQ.

If feedback occurs and you must page through a menu, then start the process of moving the cursor along on the 1/3 bands to get to say 6.3 K, you may very well have a PO'd band.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Peavey Digitool MX16
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2012, 11:15:45 AM »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 25 queries.