Print

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

[Russell Ault]

I really dislike mixing on any X/M32 physical desk. The platform is OK, but the user interface is horrible.

The Midas M32 [...] has a very nice WYSIWYG in the physical layout that corresponds with the menu tabs for each channel strip.

This is why I find threads like this so fascinating (and why UI design is so hard).

(And that's to say nothing of the divide between people who extol the virtues of a console UI that "feels like analogue", and those who are happy that the days of analogue are basically over.)

-Russ

[Dave Garoutte]

This is why I find threads like this so fascinating (and why UI design is so hard).

(And that's to say nothing of the divide between people who extol the virtues of a console UI that "feels like analogue", and those who are happy that the days of analogue are basically over.)

-Russ

I think the people who like the feel of analog are happy to see it gone also.

[Matthew Knischewsky]

The big pitfall I see with the QL is that almost all of the navigation is done via the touchscreen. That is fine and all, but in order to get back to the main view, you have to click the icon for the view you're currently on. No home button per se <Snip>

Program a User Define Key to be the home button. It could change your life.

[Roland Clarke]

At the price point, the X32 is a no brainer.  I don’t like many things about it, but it has the features relevant to running a live gig we all need.  I think the Qu isn’t bad, but aux mixes are a pain and I don’t like the fx.  Sq series looks better.  The X32 needs library presets that you use asstarting points, the eq is otherwise cumbersome.

[Robert Lofgren]

If you are used to the flexibility of ins and outs on the LS9 then the fixed architecture of the X/M32 will really throw you.

This I don’t understand?! If anything I’ve heard users complain about it being too flexible so it’s hard to grasp...

[Luke Geis]

The X/M32 isn't fixed architecture, at least not in the sense of digital mixers. Everything the LS9, M7 and QL stuff does, the X/M32 can do with a couple of exceptions. The only differences I really know of is no direct to matrix routing and output blocks being only configurable in blocks of 8 to a stage box.

A fixed architecture mixer to the best of my knowledge are ones like the A&H QU and the Presonus Studiolive. These are mixers that you cannot change the digital patch of the inputs and or the outputs. The FX and auxiliary sends are also fixed.

[John Schalk]

The X/M32 isn't fixed architecture, at least not in the sense of digital mixers. Everything the LS9, M7 and QL stuff does, the X/M32 can do with a couple of exceptions. The only differences I really know of is no direct to matrix routing and output blocks being only configurable in blocks of 8 to a stage box.

The aux sends can only be assigned Pre/Post fader in pairs.  Not a big deal, but like the block of 8 issue, it is another small way to differentiate the X/M32 from other digital platforms.

[Samuel Rees]

The X/M32 isn't fixed architecture, at least not in the sense of digital mixers. Everything the LS9, M7 and QL stuff does, the X/M32 can do with a couple of exceptions. The only differences I really know of is no direct to matrix routing and output blocks being only configurable in blocks of 8 to a stage box.

A fixed architecture mixer to the best of my knowledge are ones like the A&H QU and the Presonus Studiolive. These are mixers that you cannot change the digital patch of the inputs and or the outputs. The FX and auxiliary sends are also fixed.

QL5 has 2-3x more processing racks than M32, 2x the channel count, 2x more automix channels, way more flexible routing and IO (no groups of 8, no pre/post in pairs, inputs can be sent to matrixes, true flexible inserts, auto-mixing freely patchable). This isn’t to complain about the M32, it cost half as much and does way less, which makes sense.

Unrelated - Luke, check out programming the home button to a UDK. Can’t imagine using a QL/CL without it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dave briar]

At the price point, the X32 is a no brainer.  I don’t like many things about it, but it has the features relevant to running a live gig we all need.  I think the Qu isn’t bad, but aux mixes are a pain and I don’t like the fx.  Sq series looks better.  The X32 needs library presets that you use asstarting points, the eq is otherwise cumbersome.

I own a pair of X32 Racks and think the architecture bang-for-the-buck is excellent but I sold my X32 Compact console years ago as [begin_broken_record] I can’t see owning a console that does not have a user-definable (custom) fader layer[/end_broken_record].  My normal venue has a QU24 and I totally agree on its above stated limitations (no scribble strips, fixed routing, etc) but it does allow one custom fader layer which, coupled with a tablet running MixingStation, has allowed me to make my peace with it.  Besides, using a Sharpie on board tape lets me connect with the analog days that predate my experience base.  Looking forward to a SQ upgrade some day.  Just my amateur 2 scents.

[Dave Garoutte]

SC Performer has 80 channels to mix, PEQ and dynamics on every input, PEQ and GEQ on every output.
All layers are customizeable, duplicate faders, VCA, FX masters, whatever you want, wherever you want.
8 VCAs, 8 mute groups, head amp knobs, etc.
If only they would support it! 
Dev-Core is working on a Mixing Station app for it, thugh.
 

[ProSoundWeb Community]