ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)  (Read 17144 times)

anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2013, 04:47:04 pm »

If you use in ear monitoring or headphones, the latency inherent in the digital console will make your own voice sound "weird" and unnatural.
I didn't even think that could be a factor. I tested a lot of the time with different studio headphones! Only a few times in the rehearsal room.
Do you have personal experience with this effect? Do you know why it doesn't happen (or count) when using a floor monitor? According to Soundcraft the SiEx1 has a input-to-output latency of less than 0.8ms. That's not much compared to the time that sound needs to travel from a floor monitor to your ears. But I haven't noticed such an effect anywhere else. Also not when recording with headphones through an Avid Rack 003 (in low latency mode). But I have never expected it to sound like live gear anyway, so maybe I just didn't care until now. In case you have a source for an explanation of why this effect isn't noticeable using a wedge, it would be nice if you share it.

I found this comparison on a german page:
Original recording
Original overlapped with itself with a delay of 0.5ms
Original overlapped with itself with a delay of 1ms
I'm not sure if that's the kind of unnaturality I heard. The impression I remember is "this thing sounds plain dead". Unfortunately the SiEx1 is back at the vendor, so I can't compare again. But I think that could be one explanation. Why the others in the band heard it the same? They could have been already biased by myself since they knew what I think about the console before I took it to the rehearsal. Hmm.

As far as "color", the Venice has a better sound when clipping than the Mix Wiz, which may be an advantage mixing from stage.
I have not heard the APB, but I wouldn't pay double the cost of a Venice for it even if it sounded a little bit better.
Thank you!
« Last Edit: October 07, 2013, 05:07:13 pm by Luis Tinoco »
Logged

anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2013, 05:00:02 pm »

I don't mean to be rude but I can't help but wonder how your expectations played into what you heard. We've all been victim to that before.
Well, that is of course possible. I was actually already sold to this unit, even before I had it. Just because my prof said it was good enough for live work. I told him what I'm planning, he recommended me the SiEx1 and the QU16 as well as two Kv2 EX10 loudspeakers that I already have and sound fantastic. I started testing other consoles only because of the higher price of these both. Then the SiEx1 came...
But who knows. The unit felt also unreal to me. Plenty of room to think I heard how the unit felt.
We would need a double blind test to know the truth. But as I already wrote, I tested it for almost one month. I tested it side by side with a Dynacord CMS for example. The latter has only three EQ bands, so the SiEx1 easily won in EQing. But the sound had a completely different... hmm... let's say flavor or... character. It just meant something different. I'm sorry, it's very difficult for me to put that in words. If it was something measurable it would be easier to say. But you know what Einstein said about things that count but can't be counted :)
Anyway, you could be of course right.
Logged

anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2013, 05:03:10 pm »

Lots of folks think the Venice sounds great, but it is a fairly limited board functionally, and makes a number of compromises that I find a poor value...

Would you mind elaborating those compromises?
Logged

Dustin Campbell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2013, 06:49:56 pm »

I recently picked up an allen & heath gl2400 for less than a grand - and for an analogue budget mixer I think it is pretty decent- just my 2 cents - I just thought that it might be a good board to be included in your analogue desk list    FWIW
Logged
Banning CA,

Chuck Simon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1139
  • Pittsburgh, Pa.
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2013, 07:13:33 pm »

I recently picked up an allen & heath gl2400 for less than a grand - and for an analogue budget mixer I think it is pretty decent- just my 2 cents - I just thought that it might be a good board to be included in your analogue desk list    FWIW

I agree.  That is a great choice for someone who wants to go analog.
Logged

anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2013, 08:12:23 pm »

I recently picked up an allen & heath gl2400 for less than a grand - and for an analogue budget mixer I think it is pretty decent- just my 2 cents - I just thought that it might be a good board to be included in your analogue desk list    FWIW
Thank you for that. I just rechecked its features and it looks nice. As far as I could see, it doesn't offer anything really different from the venice (apart from the HPF freq). It has rather more of the same, but it's also a bit bigger, a bit heavier and a bit more expensive. But other than that it is sure also a good board! Or did I miss something?
Logged

Samuel Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1879
  • Washington, D.C.
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2013, 08:44:39 pm »

Latency is not an issue because we expect latency from floor monitors, and they are not inside of our head.

On the floor monitors already have 5-15+ ms of latency because they are that far from your face! Scoot them a foot farther or closer and you are increasing or decreasing the latency 15% more than the Si Ex does. It's in IEMs where it's summing with you hearing yourself through your head and bones much closer to the signal inside your head. It bothers some people, not others. It's more of an issue on higher latency desks. I've run IEMs on my Si Compact, no complaints. I can understand how for a huge act, why not have an analog rig if there are 1000 crew members to carry it?

If you have these kind of preferences for console sound, you have to listen to every single one. Not much we can do to help.
Logged

TJ (Tom) Cornish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4284
  • St. Paul, MN
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2013, 09:53:52 pm »

Would you mind elaborating those compromises?
Short faders, limited aux sends, limited routing, etc.  Many fewer features compared to the digital choices in the same price range.  Most consider sound quality to be at parity, but YMMV.
Logged

Chuck Simon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1139
  • Pittsburgh, Pa.
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2013, 10:16:54 pm »

Thank you for that. I just rechecked its features and it looks nice. As far as I could see, it doesn't offer anything really different from the venice (apart from the HPF freq). It has rather more of the same, but it's also a bit bigger, a bit heavier and a bit more expensive. But other than that it is sure also a good board! Or did I miss something?

More expensive, are you sure?  There are some great deals out there on GL Series boards .  If you decide to get an analog board, I think the A&H GL series offer the most bang for the buck!
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6807
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2013, 02:05:10 am »

Short faders, limited aux sends, limited routing, etc.  Many fewer features compared to the digital choices in the same price range.  Most consider sound quality to be at parity, but YMMV.

All the reasons I tossed the Venice off of my short list when they first came out, even though people were climbing all over them like dogs on a meat wagon.
 
Luis,
We've shared a few PMs and I'm very surprised to read you dislike the Soundcraft Expression. I can't judge for you but if you've heard bad sound from an Expression there has to be something very wrong with the rig or configuration. Of all the digital and analog boards I tested from Yamaha, APB, Toft, Soundcraft, Roland, Behringer, and anyone else in the $2K - $10K class only the APB and Soundcraft boards had the pristine sound I was looking for. The exception being the Midas Pro series. However, I've posted many times that at this stage of my game a $10-20K board didn't make good sense to me at the time.
 
I also mix from stage when not supporting another band, hence the reason for a quality rack mount board. That search led me to APB, and now that I'm a recovering analogolic, to the Expression 1. The sound is on a par with the APB, the format is perfect, and it's a very easy to use full featured digital board. Construction is outstanding, quality very high, and they use the same proven chipset as is used in the rest of the Soundcraft line.
 
As stated above mixing from the stage presents it's own unique set of challenges that need to be overcome. What you hear is not often what the audience will hear, and in my world (old guy world) resolving issues requires thinking outside the box. If I send a mix to a larger board and another engineer when working a large venue, I place my trust in that engineers hands and expect that they give the audience what I have given to them. For smaller gigs of up to 1000 people I run my own system, a dual PA, and will often place the entire backline and FOH BEHIND the band. However, it's a technique that requires some pretty precise sound skills, cabinet placement, etc.. I'm anal about the sound of my overall presentation knowing full well that it is the system as a whole that will make or break the performance quality. I relied on APB, and now I rely on an expression to give me the quality sound from the board that I demand. It's been a pleasure working with either the APB or the expression, but now it's time to move on from the APB and utilize the features and enjoy the benefits of a great entry level digital board.
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........
Proud Vietnam Veteran

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

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Midas Venice U16 vs APB ProRack (APB-blasphemy inside)
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2013, 02:05:10 am »


Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.059 seconds with 22 queries.