Print

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

[magnus söderman]

hi !

just out of pure curiosity i wonder if any of you has A/B tested the
StudioLive againt the LS-9.  Compared preamps etc etc .

/ Magnus

[Tim McCulloch]

hi !

just out of pure curiosity i wonder if any of you has A/B tested the
StudioLive againt the LS-9.  Compared preamps etc etc .

/ Magnus

You must have missed the dozens of threads on the old PSW forums....  While most were comparisons of features, there were a couple of posts that got into the reality of using these 2 mixers.

But I continue to take exception to folks that think they hear only a pre-amp, or a pre-amp's characteristics, when the signal is traveling through the rest of the console circuitry.  Add in all manner of user-introduced variables and I feel it's not possible to have an OBJECTIVE analysis of the pre-amps in situ.  When someone excises the preamps from the consoles we can then make both objective measurement and subjective listening tests.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Russel Murton]

You must have missed the dozens of threads on the old PSW forums....  While most were comparisons of features, there were a couple of posts that got into the reality of using these 2 mixers.

But I continue to take exception to folks that think they hear only a pre-amp, or a pre-amp's characteristics, when the signal is traveling through the rest of the console circuitry.  Add in all manner of user-introduced variables and I feel it's not possible to have an OBJECTIVE analysis of the pre-amps in situ.  When someone excises the preamps from the consoles we can then make both objective measurement and subjective listening tests.

Just my $0.02 worth.

The one way to compare the preamps would be to do pre HPF multitrack recordings of the same material split between the two consoles using only gain to get optimum signal on each channel.

And then to test the comps and EQ you'd have to return audio digitally and AB them.

The presonus might have more up to date components but it is still in a different price bracket than the LS9 which has much more features that go with Digital mixing like full recall and motorized faders. The presonus might have more up to date components but it very analogue minded, has limited recall features and no motorized faders.

[Tim McCulloch]

The one way to compare the preamps would be to do pre HPF multitrack recordings of the same material split between the two consoles using only gain to get optimum signal on each channel.

And then to test the comps and EQ you'd have to return audio digitally and AB them.

The presonus might have more up to date components but it is still in a different price bracket than the LS9 which has much more features that go with Digital mixing like full recall and motorized faders. The presonus might have more up to date components but it very analogue minded, has limited recall features and no motorized faders.

You still have whatever intervening circuitry between the pre and the physical output.  If one wants to discuss the pre-amp, REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSOLE and evaluate it that way.  Any conclusions reached in other ways will lead to erroneous speculation that the other components and circuits did either nothing or something to the output of the DUT.

The next question is, what makes a pre-amp "good?"  The linearity?  The way it crunches in a way the mixerperson likes?  The noise floor?

In my observation, 2 guys listening to the same thing will have at least 3 opinions....

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

[Loren Aguey]

You still have whatever intervening circuitry between the pre and the physical output.  If one wants to discuss the pre-amp, REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSOLE and evaluate it that way.  Any conclusions reached in other ways will lead to erroneous speculation that the other components and circuits did either nothing or something to the output of the DUT.

The next question is, what makes a pre-amp "good?"  The linearity?  The way it crunches in a way the mixerperson likes?  The noise floor?

In my observation, 2 guys listening to the same thing will have at least 3 opinions....

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

+1

I feel that I hear way too much talk about preamps especially in club land. I'm not saying that some consoles don't sound better but in general I think a lot of people put way too much emphasis on pre's especially considering all the other variables as Tim mentioned. I also feel a lot of people simply regurgitate statements they have heard about certain pre's without ever having had the chance to A/B two consoles or hear more than one mixer in a a shitty room with a shitty PA. Don't get me started on obscure terms to describe pre's such as "musical" or "glassy" 

I give free advice to the owner of a small/fairly low budget venue/restaurant. He offered the soundguy the choice of a used original 01v and something along the lines of a used mackie 1604 with very little outboard.

"Analog sounds much warmer I don't want to have to deal with the harsh digital sound"

Right....

On a regular basis I hear this guy constantly bitch about how "all yamaha digital boards sound like plastic"  I think they sound just fine.

As for the original question, that's a bit of an odd comparison given the price and feature difference. The 01v96 is a better comparison as its much closer in price and features.

I've never used the Studiolive and would certainly like to try it out but given the feature set alone I would not choose it over the 01v96 and DEFINITELY not over an LS9.

[John Moore]

hi !

just out of pure curiosity i wonder if any of you has A/B tested the
StudioLive againt the LS-9.  Compared preamps etc etc .

/ Magnus

Have 2 of the SL16.4.2 linked and using now, had an LS-9-32 two years ago...like the sound of the SL16.4.2 better, to my ears, just sounds cleaner....

[Bob Leonard]

You must have missed the dozens of threads on the old PSW forums....  While most were comparisons of features, there were a couple of posts that got into the reality of using these 2 mixers.

But I continue to take exception to folks that think they hear only a pre-amp, or a pre-amp's characteristics, when the signal is traveling through the rest of the console circuitry.  Add in all manner of user-introduced variables and I feel it's not possible to have an OBJECTIVE analysis of the pre-amps in situ.  When someone excises the preamps from the consoles we can then make both objective measurement and subjective listening tests.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Hello Mr. Tim,
I have to agree with you here. Why the fuss about the preamplifier unless the rest of the board has the feature set you need. You can't possibly say this pre is better than that pre without removing the preamp from the board as you stated. Another subject of note would be the EQ section of the channel adding to (or detracting from) the sound of the board. Boards are like musical instruments. As much as we would wish they were all linear they are not. Each has it's own tone, and no two are alike. And, for under $1000 you won't hear a difference anyway. For under $3000, maybe. It's all in the hands of the user.   

[Jerry Turnbow]

You still have whatever intervening circuitry between the pre and the physical output.  If one wants to discuss the pre-amp, REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSOLE and evaluate it that way.  Any conclusions reached in other ways will lead to erroneous speculation that the other components and circuits did either nothing or something to the output of the DUT.

The next question is, what makes a pre-amp "good?"  The linearity?  The way it crunches in a way the mixerperson likes?  The noise floor?

In my observation, 2 guys listening to the same thing will have at least 3 opinions....

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

Only three, Tim??   

[Collin Donohue]

Hello Mr. Tim,
I have to agree with you here. Why the fuss about the preamplifier unless the rest of the board has the feature set you need. You can't possibly say this pre is better than that pre without removing the preamp from the board as you stated. Another subject of note would be the EQ section of the channel adding to (or detracting from) the sound of the board. Boards are like musical instruments. As much as we would wish they were all linear they are not. Each has it's own tone, and no two are alike. And, for under $1000 you won't hear a difference anyway. For under $3000, maybe. It's all in the hands of the user. 

So much of it really does fall into the hands of the operator.  One simple ±3db adjustment of an EQ by an operator could make a seemingly "good" preamp-ed board sound worse than a "average" preamp-ed board.

In fact, someone pinning a lav on slightly incorrectly or someone not singing into their mic only slightly improperly trumps this "which pre is better" argument ten times over.

LS9 has been my bread and butter board for the past 3 years (along with the M7.. same pre's) and neither myself or my clients have had any complaints.  And when I do use digital boards with "better" pre's, the difference I hear is negligible, and the client couldn't care less.

[Bob Leonard]

So much of it really does fall into the hands of the operator.  One simple ±3db adjustment of an EQ by an operator could make a seemingly "good" preamp-ed board sound worse than a "average" preamp-ed board.

In fact, someone pinning a lav on slightly incorrectly or someone not singing into their mic only slightly improperly trumps this "which pre is better" argument ten times over.

LS9 has been my bread and butter board for the past 3 years (along with the M7.. same pre's) and neither myself or my clients have had any complaints.  And when I do use digital boards with "better" pre's, the difference I hear is negligible, and the client couldn't care less.

Collin,
You don't hear much difference because the boards you're using are all top quality boards. I have a need for a board on stage with my band and for some time it's been a Mackie 1640. Not a bad $1000 board, but not an LS9. My needs are specific concerning the board size and features. This board will be replaced soon and the replacement choices were narrowed to an LS9-16 or APB Pro House. Both boards are superior to almost anything in that frame size but are both different in the fact one is a digital board and the other analog. My choice at this level may well be the APB. Why? Because when tested side by side into the same sound system the APB had superior tone and that is the #1 criteria for the boards use. Had I needed a digital feature set the choice was clearly the LS9 in this frame size. My opinion of the Presonus is simple. A nice intro to the world of digital boards but not even close when compared to the sound of either the LS9 or APB.

[ProSoundWeb Community]