Print

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

[Tsun Gwing-Kai]

Newbie here and working with my first PA.

I realized I probably should’ve posted here instead of the Lab, as I’m a beginner and starting out.

Was recommended to pick up an X32/M32 and learn as the skills would port to another console easily.

I’ve had limited experience with digital mixers, and hope the M32R or M32Live (is the only difference fader count?) can be a good foundation to teach me mixing.

Current uses would be small bands (drum kit, keyboard, a few vocals, and maybe a backing track).  These are all friends with day jobs and none of us are professional musicians.

Also looking for some wireless mic recommendations.  If I go ULX-D, I can run Dante to a card on the mixer, but the cost to go QLX-D is much cheaper.

If I bypass the D/A and A/D conversion by going ULX-D, will the sound be much better, or is it a small (incremental) improvement?

Would I regret getting a few channels of SM58’s or B87A with the QLX-D (analog) receivers and then find as I grow, ULX-D was better long term?

PA would be QSC KW153 x2, likely a pair of Yorkville LS801p (or if I can swing it, 4x RCF SUB8004), and I’m using QSC K12.2 as monitors.

For someone that’s never mixed a live show on anything but cheap gear (Mackie ProFX, Yamaha MG, etc.) is the combo above too advanced and not “beginner friendly” enough?

I can use Dante Controller, set up a crossover, run an RTA, but my mixing skill is practically a fresh slate.

Also do want the PA to be able to grow as I do larger shows, bigger bands, and grow out of doing this for fun and actually getting real gigs.

Thank you,

Tsun Gwing-Kai

[Brian Jojade]

X32 is almost the standard platform for entry level rigs. Very suitable starting point.

The audible difference in going Dante vs analog is not going to be noticeable. Dante adds complexity and is harder to troubleshoot if things go wrong. If you don’t have strong networking skills, avoid it.

QLX-d is a great system, but still not as good as an old fashioned piece of cable. If going wired is an option, that’s always a better (and cheaper) choice.

[Dave Garoutte]

Dante adds complexity and is harder to troubleshoot if things go wrong. If you don’t have strong networking skills, avoid it.

Plus adds a grand or so to the cost.

[Helge A Bentsen]

The audible difference in going Dante vs analog is not going to be noticeable.

Depends on the number of wireless channels.
For one, not much difference.
With six you start to notice a drop in background noise level.
Beyond 20 it's a real difference in background noise with all the channels open.
I've done a few choir shows with 40+ channels of wireless on at the same time, the difference in background noise wasn't subtle.

[Brian Adams]

The build quality of the M32 is a step above the X32, so I'd recommend the Midas over the Behringer if you can afford it. There's an audible difference as well, but it's subtle. The M32R will do everything the full size will do, just with fewer onboard inputs and outputs. With a stagebox like a DL32 they're basically the same. The full size M32 has a few extra buttons that make life a little easier, as well as a lamp socket, so if you can deal with the larger size it's a better choice. About the only times I use my M32R are when I need to lift it myself.

I get a lot of use from my M32's, and they work really well. That said, the design is getting a little long in the tooth, and there's a lot more competition on the market for that size console. I started moving away from Midas/Music Group when their service department went way downhill a few years ago, and while they've bounced back a bit, I don't think they'll ever win me back. In any case, you'll benefit from learning and running an M32, because there are a million of them out there. They have a lot of routing options, which is great, but you can also get lost in the weeds and things can go bad quickly if you don't know the board inside and out. These days I often point people towards Allen & Heath. The SQ series is a great alternative to the M32, and the workflow is a lot better, but it doesn't have quite as many bus options as an M32 and can't support as many attached devices (like Ipads and stuff). The Avantis does everything an M32 can do, and a lot more, but it's pricing is in a slightly different league. It's a great console to work with though.

ULXD is great, and a nice step up from QLXD, especially with the quad receivers. The diversity on ULXD is a little better, the transmitters are 20mw instead of 10, and the transmitters boot up a bit faster, in my experience. The QLXD is a great system, and can use the same lithium batteries and chargers, so you can get a lot of the same performance for less cash. You'll definitely need more antenna distros though, compared to the quad receivers, and it'll take up quite a bit more rack space. I can't say whether you'll regret getting QLXD over ULXD, as it's still nice stuff, but depending on how many channels you need ULXD could easily be the better choice. 8 channels of ULXD will take up 2RU, while 8 channels of QLXD will take 6RU, including 2 4-channel antenna distros. If you just need 1 or 2 channels it might be hard to justify the cost of ULXD, but any more than that and I think it becomes a better choice.

Don't run Dante unless you need to. There's really no benefit to using Dante on an M32, although the Avantis and D-Live have some nice Dante integration that's pretty handy.

[Scott Bolt]

Newbie here and working with my first PA.

I realized I probably should’ve posted here instead of the Lab, as I’m a beginner and starting out.

Was recommended to pick up an X32/M32 and learn as the skills would port to another console easily.

I’ve had limited experience with digital mixers, and hope the M32R or M32Live (is the only difference fader count?) can be a good foundation to teach me mixing.

Current uses would be small bands (drum kit, keyboard, a few vocals, and maybe a backing track).  These are all friends with day jobs and none of us are professional musicians.

Also looking for some wireless mic recommendations.  If I go ULX-D, I can run Dante to a card on the mixer, but the cost to go QLX-D is much cheaper.

If I bypass the D/A and A/D conversion by going ULX-D, will the sound be much better, or is it a small (incremental) improvement?

Would I regret getting a few channels of SM58’s or B87A with the QLX-D (analog) receivers and then find as I grow, ULX-D was better long term?

PA would be QSC KW153 x2, likely a pair of Yorkville LS801p (or if I can swing it, 4x RCF SUB8004), and I’m using QSC K12.2 as monitors.

For someone that’s never mixed a live show on anything but cheap gear (Mackie ProFX, Yamaha MG, etc.) is the combo above too advanced and not “beginner friendly” enough?

I can use Dante Controller, set up a crossover, run an RTA, but my mixing skill is practically a fresh slate.

Also do want the PA to be able to grow as I do larger shows, bigger bands, and grow out of doing this for fun and actually getting real gigs.

Thank you,

Tsun Gwing-Kai

If you have never mixed a show, I would keep things as simple as possible.  The M32R is much more portable than the M32 Live, and yes, the difference is largely the number of faders (but also more physical inputs and outputs).  The M32R has 16 XLR inputs and six 1/4" inputs for a total of 22 inputs.  That is generally enough to handle a full 5 piece band with micing up the drum kit.

Note:  A stage box is a nice add; however, you don't need Dante to have a stage box.  You can use a MIDAS DL16 or DL32.  These are connected to the mixer through the AES50 ports (they use Ethernet cable).  This makes getting the signals from the stage to the mixer WAY easier (than a huge bundle cables).  If you will not have a dedicated mix position out front of the band, and will need to have the mixer side stage, then it doesn't matter so much as you will likely spend the night mixing the band from a tablet anyway and all the cables stay on-stage where the mixer is.

FYI, there is very little difference between an M32 and an X32 other than price; however, the M32R has scribble strips while the equivalent X32 Performer does not.  I would NOT recommend any digital mixer that does not have LCD scribble strips.

Finally, while the M/X32 platform is a very affordable digital mix platform for the comprehensive (big mixer) features it offers, it is not a beginners mixer IMO.  It is easy to get lost on for someone that isn't used to mixing at all.  You might be better off starting with something a bit easier to handle like the XR18 or the Soundcraft Ui24 (both are rack mixers that rely on a PC/Tablet to mix on).

For microphones, I would recommend starting with wired mics.

You didn't mention monitoring options.  What was your plan for monitors?  Wedges?  IEMs?

As for speakers, what kinds of venues do you plan on playing at?

It is my opinion that a full X/M32 system with stage boxes, monitoring system, and wireless microphones is a fairly pro level setup (albeit a more channel limited setup at 38 than high end consoles that can handle 48, 64 or even more). 

The litany of things that can go wrong with setting such a system up is dizzying. 

Having said that, if you have a background in electrical or engineering, and are highly technical and computer savvy, it might be something you would enjoy.

[Alec Spence]

Nothing wrong with X/M32.  Take a close look at M32R and M32, the screen is smaller and there are various controls missing as well as faders on M32R.  The trade-off with a smaller platform.

While higher cost, consider A&H SQ, which can support greater growth if you need it, and is the other viable contender at this end of the market.  But either X/M32 or SQ would be just fine.

Don't forget stagebox and the right Cat5e cables.  For X/M32, an S32 or D32 is a great partner.

Your other option is to get a lunchbox mixer like XR18 or CQ20 and mix remotely.  Eliminates the need for snake/stagebox/cost, and much quicker to set up.

For what you describe, Dante would be pointless, add nothing other than cost and complexity (the last thing you need in the pressure of live work).

Why buy wireless for this level of work? If people really need wireless, they provide it.  For you, it would be another source of cost and complexity.

[Brian Jojade]

If people really need wireless, they provide it. 

Yeah, no to that!!  People dropping in random wireless stuff is the source of nightmares!!

[Alec Spence]

Yeah, no to that!!  People dropping in random wireless stuff is the source of nightmares!!

At the small, low/un-paid bands the OPs working with, wireless is rarely likely to be required or sophisticated. 

[Scott Bolt]

Nothing wrong with X/M32.  Take a close look at M32R and M32, the screen is smaller and there are various controls missing as well as faders on M32R.  The trade-off with a smaller platform.

While higher cost, consider A&H SQ, which can support greater growth if you need it, and is the other viable contender at this end of the market.  But either X/M32 or SQ would be just fine.

Don't forget stagebox and the right Cat5e cables.  For X/M32, an S32 or D32 is a great partner.

Your other option is to get a lunchbox mixer like XR18 or CQ20 and mix remotely.  Eliminates the need for snake/stagebox/cost, and much quicker to set up.

For what you describe, Dante would be pointless, add nothing other than cost and complexity (the last thing you need in the pressure of live work).

Why buy wireless for this level of work? If people really need wireless, they provide it.  For you, it would be another source of cost and complexity.

In fact, the CQ20 might well be the best starting digital mixer of the bunch as it also has quite a few built in helper features that are great for people that have never mixed before while allowing them to also see the details of what the helper features do at a lower level.

Add in that it is getting pretty good sound quality reviews and it might be just the ticket.

[ProSoundWeb Community]