Print

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

[Stan Shields]

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.

[Rufus G. Crowder]

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...

[James A. Griffin]

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?

[Tim Padrick]

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.

[Stan Shields]

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...

[James A. Griffin]

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

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

[Stan Shields]

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

Seems to be the consensus...

[Tim McCulloch]

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.

[Stan Shields]

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.

[James A. Griffin]

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. 

[ProSoundWeb Community]