ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: yet another x32 question  (Read 12408 times)

Stan Shields

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2013, 10:46:15 am »

I can't tell you what to do, but I think the X32 sound quality is fantastic through my Meyer, Ramsa, Radian Microwedge, and Bag End systems. The consoles have issues and challenges, mostly minor IMO, but everything that exists in the real world has some issue or another. They also have some extraordinary and useful features.

The wild card is how well they will hold up over time, but, again IMO, they are cheap enough that if you have to buy a new one every few years you will be no worse off than if you bought a more expensive one that has the same or fewer features and replace it every few +1 or 2 years. And what's life without a gamble? Also, it's a computer, and subject to a computer's useful lifespan rather than an analog console's lifespan. There will always be a newer, cooler computer coming out, and we need to keep up.

IMHO.

YMMV.

Yeah, that's a good perspective. The lifecycle of computers is certainly much shorter than how we always looked at analog boards. And you're right, these are just computers with faders. It's a tough mind-shift though. Encouraging that you think the sound quality is high, everyone seems to accept that the trade-off between analog and digital is all about convenience and they live with lower quality sound to get the good stuff digital provides. Sort of like iPods and earbuds, convenience and portability trumps sound quality.
Logged

Rufus G. Crowder

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2013, 12:44:06 am »

I know this has been beaten to death so I apologize in advance, would you buy the x32 or a LS9? I'm as interested in sound quality as I am the interface.
X32 without a doubt...
Logged

James A. Griffin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 832
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2013, 01:55:21 am »

X32 sounds better than LS9 and has an incredible feature set at 1/3 the price.   Not to mention the inexpensive stage boxes and spin off products.


Encouraging that you think the sound quality is high, everyone seems to accept that the trade-off between analog and digital is all about convenience and they live with lower quality sound to get the good stuff digital provides.

What trade-offs are you talking about?
Logged
I need to determine where in this swamp of unbalanced formulas squatteth the Toad of Truth

Tim Padrick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
  • Indianapolis
    • T.P. Audio
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2013, 11:22:45 pm »

As a reasonably satisfied* LS9-32 user for several years, I can no longer see any reason to get one (and I'm very glad that the band I was nudging to get one a year ago  - or was it two? - did not do so).

*A lot could be improved via a firmware upgrade.  Been waiting on that for three years.
Logged

Stan Shields

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2013, 10:38:44 am »

X32 sounds better than LS9 and has an incredible feature set at 1/3 the price.   Not to mention the inexpensive stage boxes and spin off products.


What trade-offs are you talking about?

sound quality vs footprint, convenience, routing options, etc...
Logged

James A. Griffin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 832
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2013, 10:42:17 am »

sound quality vs footprint, convenience, routing options, etc...

Just because it's digital, the sound quality is lower?
Logged
I need to determine where in this swamp of unbalanced formulas squatteth the Toad of Truth

Stan Shields

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2013, 11:11:54 am »

Just because it's digital, the sound quality is lower?

Seems to be the consensus...
Logged

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21800
  • Wichita, Kansas USA
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2013, 11:29:36 am »

Seems to be the consensus...

No, it does not.  This whole "digital is inherently inferior" thing has been beaten to death several times over.  Unless you have some stunningly new *scientific* evidence of inherency, give up.

There are crap analog mixers and devices out there and there are examples of wonderful design; the same is true for digital devices as well... but to make a blanket statement about the superiority of analog is prima facie bullshit.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 11:47:19 am by Tim McCulloch »
Logged
"Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something."  - Kurt Vonnegut

Stan Shields

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2013, 11:49:10 am »

No, it does not.
Thanks for taking the time to respond in such a helpful, thoughtful manner, very kind of you to share your insights on the subject.
Logged

James A. Griffin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 832
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2013, 11:57:08 am »

Seems to be the consensus...

I'll give you benefit of doubt for a moment.   Be specific     Tell us which analog boards sounds so much better than which digital board. 
Logged
I need to determine where in this swamp of unbalanced formulas squatteth the Toad of Truth

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2013, 11:57:08 am »


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.045 seconds with 22 queries.