ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: yet another x32 question  (Read 12443 times)

Stan Shields

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #50 on: August 09, 2013, 10:16:59 am »

Hi Stan,

First, thanks for the kind words.  Second, it seems like digital mixers are dividing into 2 camps. 

The first one is an analog like layout with fewer features.  These mixers are comfortable for anyone who has mixed on analog consoles right out the gate.  They tend to lack some of the more complex features that the other class of digital mixers have though.

The second class appears to be patterned after recording programs.  Lots of layers, many different uses for each encoder and fader, and more features than most could ever hope to use.

The X32 and LS9 are definitely in the later class of mixers.  More features, but less intuitive to setup.

I don't necessarily believe that the X32 is more difficult to operate than the other mixers.  Using DCA's and subgroups in concert with the fader layers (and the assignable controls as well) you can make a really easy to use mixer.  Now the routing and setup for the X32 is definitely not as easy as something like a StudioLive or Expression Si, but doing a good setup can result in a very easy to use interface once it is setup well.
Yup, the Expression is very much like an analog board, seems like a good approach to me. Does anybody incorporate a crossover into their entry-level mixers?
Logged

Jason Lucas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 806
  • Hillsboro, OR, USA
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #51 on: August 09, 2013, 10:59:06 am »

Yeah, I like the 8-input analog cards available for the LS9. The 32 input stagebox is a great approach to adding inputs to the Expression though, more expensive but much more elegant.

The Si has plenty of inputs for me, the problem is getting enough outputs. The stagebox has only 8 analog outputs (plus 4 AES/EBU on the 32 input box). I'd need something closer to 24 outputs on stage, preferably more. If there was a way to get 16 analog or ADAT outputs out of the 2nd MADI port, without spending $2500 on a converter, that would be nice.
Logged
There are three things I hate: Harsh highs, hollow mids, and woofy bass.

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6807
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #52 on: August 09, 2013, 11:10:06 am »

Stan,

Speaker processing is always best left to speaker processors. UNLESS, you have no processing to perform. Trick sentence? No. I run a dual PA and the upper cabinets are SRX725s. For the backline I use SRX718s under the 725s, and for vocals I run the 725s passive without subs.

My processor is a dbx 4800 and prior to moving to the Expression I ran the backline and the vocals through the 4800, running the vocals through the 4800 gave me the ability to use the digital EQ, etc.

Now that I have the expression in place the EQ, compressor, limiter features of the 4800 are redundant for vocals. However, as a device to insure unity gain and level matching between the backline and the vocals it is to me the proper tool.

IMO no board should be used to try and take the place of a good DSP. A DSP is purpose designed for the complexities of speaker processing, and even the best consoles are not.

Some day we may see a quality DSP as part of a board, but for too many reasons that really wouldn't be practical. A DSP usually sits near or with the amplifiers, powered cabinets don't always need a DSP, most amplifiers now offer a DSP as a function, and the cost would be prohibitive (a 4800 can cost between $4 and $9K depending on options.), etc.. To me the right thing has always been to use the right tools for the job. A good DSP makes a huge difference in sound and capabilities. Definitely the right tool to own and use.
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........
Proud Vietnam Veteran

I did a gig for Otis Elevator once. Like every job, it had it's ups and downs.

Stan Shields

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #53 on: August 09, 2013, 11:20:14 am »

Stan,

Speaker processing is always best left to speaker processors. UNLESS, you have no processing to perform. Trick sentence? No. I run a dual PA and the upper cabinets are SRX725s. For the backline I use SRX718s under the 725s, and for vocals I run the 725s passive without subs.

My processor is a dbx 4800 and prior to moving to the Expression I ran the backline and the vocals through the 4800, running the vocals through the 4800 gave me the ability to use the digital EQ, etc.

Now that I have the expression in place the EQ, compressor, limiter features of the 4800 are redundant for vocals. However, as a device to insure unity gain and level matching between the backline and the vocals it is to me the proper tool.

IMO no board should be used to try and take the place of a good DSP. A DSP is purpose designed for the complexities of speaker processing, and even the best consoles are not.

Some day we may see a quality DSP as part of a board, but for too many reasons that really wouldn't be practical. A DSP usually sits near or with the amplifiers, powered cabinets don't always need a DSP, most amplifiers now offer a DSP as a function, and the cost would be prohibitive (a 4800 can cost between $4 and $9K depending on options.), etc.. To me the right thing has always been to use the right tools for the job. A good DSP makes a huge difference in sound and capabilities. Definitely the right tool to own and use.
Yup, got it. Was thinking more about the entry level users, bands, small clubs etc. just subs and tops. I mix on house systems at a couple of local venues where an onboard simple crossover would eliminate the drive rack they currently under-utilize.
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6807
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #54 on: August 09, 2013, 11:29:39 am »

The Si has plenty of inputs for me, the problem is getting enough outputs. The stagebox has only 8 analog outputs (plus 4 AES/EBU on the 32 input box). I'd need something closer to 24 outputs on stage, preferably more. If there was a way to get 16 analog or ADAT outputs out of the 2nd MADI port, without spending $2500 on a converter, that would be nice.

Unfortunately Jason the MINI Stagebox was designed as low cost and reliable expansion for the SI line of consoles, and to fit the majority of users needs. I think they fit the bill for that market perfectly, and the no charge expansion card for the console is a bonus. I do wish there were two (2) expansion slots available in the Expression, that would be very nice indeed.
 
What you need is the COMPACT expansion box which can be customized for any number of inputs and outputs. Go to the Soundcraft site and check it out. I don't know the costs, which I'm sure is up there, but if it's really what you must have then it fills the bill.
 
And while we discuss the stage boxes you should know that Studer stage boxes work with all of the Soundcraft boards, and that the mini and compact boxes are all cut from the same cloth. I have yet to hear of or read about problems with these stage boxes. Good stuff.   
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 11:31:11 am by Bob Leonard »
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........
Proud Vietnam Veteran

I did a gig for Otis Elevator once. Like every job, it had it's ups and downs.

Jason Lucas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 806
  • Hillsboro, OR, USA
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2013, 11:42:22 am »


Unfortunately Jason the MINI Stagebox was designed as low cost and reliable expansion for the SI line of consoles, and to fit the majority of users needs. I think they fit the bill for that market perfectly, and the no charge expansion card for the console is a bonus. I do wish there were two (2) expansion slots available in the Expression, that would be very nice indeed.
 
What you need is the COMPACT expansion box which can be customized for any number of inputs and outputs. Go to the Soundcraft site and check it out. I don't know the costs, which I'm sure is up there, but if it's really what you must have then it fills the bill.
 
And while we discuss the stage boxes you should know that Studer stage boxes work with all of the Soundcraft boards, and that the mini and compact boxes are all cut from the same cloth. I have yet to hear of or read about problems with these stage boxes. Good stuff.

And all of that is why I'm having to settle for the X32. I'd rather get the Soundcraft, but getting the I/O I would need for it is just too expensive.
Logged
There are three things I hate: Harsh highs, hollow mids, and woofy bass.

Scott Bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #56 on: August 09, 2013, 08:34:58 pm »

Yup, the Expression is very much like an analog board, seems like a good approach to me. Does anybody incorporate a crossover into their entry-level mixers?

Yes.  The X32 has it built in.  You do it by using the matrix mix buses.  These buses have a list of different filters with different slops to pick from.  After you setup your matrix mixes, you hook them up to an output (6 would give you a 3 way stereo cross-over).  Neat trick if you ask me.

Now I have never done this outside of the X32 Edit program to actually see how well it works, but I am going to disagree with Bob on this one (I am sure he is shocked ;) ).

5 or 10 years ago, I would have been the first one to say that built in efx were not for serious applications (karaoke yes, performance ... not so much).  My MixWiz is great as a mixer, but as an efx processor, it is pretty poor (My M-OneXL is quite fantastic though).

I have read posts from people who have Eventide, PCM70's and PCM91's who compared them to the built in efx on the X32.  From their observations, the X32 is just as good (quite an endorsement IMHO).

I don't know if the X32 cross-over is that good today, but it seems like this kind of thing is an obvious addition to any club targeted digital mixer.  As you point out, if I am looking for something that does it all, this would be quite appealing.

Now, my other thought is that for most club PA's we are going to see powered speakers take over the market.  The speaker processing in most powered speakers is outstanding as is the cross-over points which are specifically designed for the speaker family.  This pretty much eliminates the need for any kind of cross-over at all.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: yet another x32 question
« Reply #56 on: August 09, 2013, 08:34:58 pm »


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.043 seconds with 22 queries.