Print

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

[Douglas R. Allen]

So they basically went with the soft touch rubber buttons that the current X32 has. I kinda like the ones I have on the current model. It is easy enough to read.

The only thing I wish the M32R had would be to rearrange the layout so we could have the first 4 bus sends on knobs ( like the full-size M32 ) and eliminate the sends on fader button. You cannot use the sends on fader mode very well with the M32R and the screen is smaller, so going to the bus sends view to do all your levels is a pain. If they had the first 4 up there it would at least save you some energy.

If they don't get the 96khz thing done, they will be scoffed at soon enough. You can't say the term future proof, and 96khz capable, then not follow through before the series does a complete overhaul. They are now on Rev.02 for the M32 and likely Rev.03 for the X32 and no serious advances have been made in terms of function. In another 2-3 years, the X32/M32 will be in trouble if they don't figure out a way to give more with the same format. Presonus now has motorized faders and Mackie will not be too far behind with a real surface likely, and let's not negate A&H and Soundcraft coming up with an offering that is closer to to the same performance to price benchmark.

Right now the only thing the X32 has going for it is its price. The M32 is starting to lose its allure as it too as it is becoming too cheap for what it is. They should have kept it closer to the $5k point where it started at. You can get them now in the retail world for closer to $3k ( I have seen as low as $2,600!!!! ) and it has just drug the value of it down with it. 9 out of 10 engineers will say the Midas stuff is fine and great for what it is, but they will also all kinda shy away from saying that they would like to or do own one. When it was new and was less affordable the attitude was different. Engineers were more proud of it.

    I set up user define buttons 1-6 for my monitor sends. Makes it much easier than putting bus sends on the right , selecting a bus , then sends on faders , etc. I put 1-16 or 17-32 up. Hit User define button 1 and my Aux 1/Monitor 1 send comes up. User Define 2 for monitor 2 etc.  Fast enough.  My 01v96 was setup that way and I just got used to sends on faders. Not sure I'd want a knob to twist now but that's just me.

    I'm guessing 96k will be coming. Maybe not in the form the M/X32 desk are now.  As always a product comes out and sells well you do everything you can to keep it fresh and interesting so people will continue to buy it. Who would want to go out with that "old" looking M32r when their buddy has the "new" one...?  After awhile time (and 96k ) marches on and you'll end up with no more with fixes to sell what you have. Hopefully engineer and design has been working in the background to have the next Gee Wizz product waiting in the wings.  Maybe some Heritage D features will trickle down into this new line. 

   I agree somewhat that a low price to some means a less quality product. Even if it has everything a person needs to get the job done it does take the bragging rights out somewhat.  But a low price does get the consumer perhaps hooked on a product line that will have them want to move up the food chain as their business grows.
He or she started up in High School or local bar bands/small touring with the X/M32 line. It worked , sounded great , but hey look at that Pro1.... 

   Kindest Regards;
       Douglas R. Allen

[Alec Spence]

M32 as well.

Er no - Midas have been using those photos since the M32 was released - a little misleading really, as it wasn't what you'd get.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did do the same with the M32 - and I was a little surprised they didn't anounce both at the same time.

[Keith Broughton]

offering you a truly luxurious mixing experience.

At my age, this sounds nice 

[Caleb Dueck]

The whole 96kHz thing is marketing fluff only.  That was and is one of the "core" (pun intended) differences between real Midas (Pro 1 on up) and toy Midas (X/M32 and variants).  The various conversations I've had over the years never indicated X/M32 to ever be more than a bang-for-buck option. 

Unless something changes - Midas today is simply a way to charge for for a Behringer .  Sad, as they used to be great. 

Hopefully the Heritage D changes things, but it'll take a lot to change course now.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[Scott Bolt]

The whole 96kHz thing is marketing fluff only.  That was and is one of the "core" (pun intended) differences between real Midas (Pro 1 on up) and toy Midas (X/M32 and variants).  The various conversations I've had over the years never indicated X/M32 to ever be more than a bang-for-buck option. 

Unless something changes - Midas today is simply a way to charge for for a Behringer .  Sad, as they used to be great. 

Hopefully the Heritage D changes things, but it'll take a lot to change course now.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Hi Caleb,

96K has advantages.  Mostly it allows the same amount of processing at half the latency as 48Khz.  For post-processing, it allows more forgiving processing without loss of frequency resolution.

Now .... does that mean that a 48Khz console can't sound better than a 96Khz one?  Certainly not.

The M32 is a more physically robust X32.  The preamps are better; however, I think the effect in a live setting is pretty small in most situations.  I have heard people who swear by the MIDAS pres though.  I suspect that they have come to rely on the soft limiting inherent in those preamps.  IMO they shouldn't be pushing the channels so hard anyway

Is the processing in the Pro series better than the M32?  I would think so.

[William Schnake]

Is the processing in the Pro series better than the M32?  I would think so.

Scott, we have both and if I have the choice, you think I would since I own the company and everything that goes with it, I always take the Midas Pro 1 or 2.  I love the screen in daylight, I love the effects and the workflow.

Bill

[Scott Bolt]

Scott, we have both and if I have the choice, you think I would since I own the company and everything that goes with it, I always take the Midas Pro 1 or 2.  I love the screen in daylight, I love the effects and the workflow.

Bill

Hi Bill,

Great feedback. 

I think there is a misconception that certain technical specifications make a mixer better than another.  The fact is that the quality of the algorithms and the work-flow are the biggest factors.

MIDAS Pro firmware and DSP algorithms have always been top notch.  The mixer is a staple for people like you and has been for many years.  It should not be surprising to anyone that a mixer at the price point of the Pro 1,2 sounds better than a mixer at the price point of the M32.

Don't get me wrong, I think the M32/X32 is an incredible mixer for the market it plays in.  It would be astounding indeed if a $2500.00 mixer sounded as good as a $10,000.00 mixer.

A 96K back end can do 2 times the processing with the same amount of time (latency).  Given this basic engineering fact, a mixer designed for 96KHz operation would be expected to sound better than a mixer designed for 48Khz.  No one would expect a car with 1/2 the horse power of another car to beat it in a race.  Is it possible?  Sure.  Likely?  Not so much.

This discussion also assumes that both the 48Khz and 96Khz systems have similar hardware performance.  This is not usually the case.  The 96Khz hardware is usually much more powerful.

[Tim McCulloch]

Hi Bill,

Great feedback. 

I think there is a misconception that certain technical specifications make a mixer better than another.  The fact is that the quality of the algorithms and the work-flow are the biggest factors.

MIDAS Pro firmware and DSP algorithms have always been top notch.  The mixer is a staple for people like you and has been for many years.  It should not be surprising to anyone that a mixer at the price point of the Pro 1,2 sounds better than a mixer at the price point of the M32.

Don't get me wrong, I think the M32/X32 is an incredible mixer for the market it plays in.  It would be astounding indeed if a $2500.00 mixer sounded as good as a $10,000.00 mixer.

A 96K back end can do 2 times the processing with the same amount of time (latency).  Given this basic engineering fact, a mixer designed for 96KHz operation would be expected to sound better than a mixer designed for 48Khz.  No one would expect a car with 1/2 the horse power of another car to beat it in a race.  Is it possible?  Sure.  Likely?  Not so much.

This discussion also assumes that both the 48Khz and 96Khz systems have similar hardware performance.  This is not usually the case.  The 96Khz hardware is usually much more powerful.

I call bullshit.  Explain the exact engineering principles involved and verify with empirical evidence.  Extra points for a double blind listening session in which the outcome is greater that 50%.

That more work can be done does not mean a sonically superior outcome.  There is no inherency involved here.

[Nathan Riddle]

I call bullshit.  Explain the exact engineering principles involved and verify with empirical evidence.  Extra points for a double blind listening session in which the outcome is greater that 50%.

That more work can be done does not mean a sonically superior outcome.  There is no inherency involved here.

Scott, correct me if I'm wrong.

Tim, I don't think Scott is saying that 96kHz sounds better than 48kHz I think he's saying a board designed for 96kHz would have better algorithms/build as a result of the 96k focus and thus would sound better.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

Scott, correct me if I'm wrong.

Tim, I don't think Scott is saying that 96kHz sounds better than 48kHz I think he's saying a board designed for 96kHz would have better algorithms/build as a result of the 96k focus and thus would sound better.

I'm with Tim - I think this is a false equivalency.  96KHz is a faster sample rate.  If you do the same math you get a higher Nyquist frequency and probably less latency, but other than that, I'm unconvinced. 

On a related note, I have two Yamaha 01v96 mixers - the "96" meaning 96KHz capable that I would happily sell for a premium price to anyone who highly values the sample rate, which to my ears sounds significantly worse than my almost 10 year newer lame-o 48KHz-only A&H GLD desks. 

[ProSoundWeb Community]