Print

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

[Taylor Phillips]

Mac Kerr wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 20:16

Taylor Phillips wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 18:45 The media director at my church says he'd rather have the LS9-32 consoles from the youth and childrens' areas in the sanctuary rather than the M7CL-48. With the LS9-32 you have a a total of 64 inputs and on the M7CL-48 your limited to 48. Do the events in your youth and children's areas use more than 48 mono input channels? If so, the additional 16 possible on an LS9 may be important, but the loss of the ease of use from an M7 is a giant step backward. I'd love to know why your media director thinks the LS9 is better. Mac

Hey, Mac.  Events in our youth and childrens areas don't even use 32 inputs.  They're in a new addition built sometime after the sactuary was renovated and the M7 was purchased, so the LS9's are newer consoles.  So supposedly our M7 doesn't have as many features as our LS9's, but since I've worked in the sanctuary, I can't say for sure what.

[Mac Kerr]

Taylor Phillips wrote on Fri, 12 February 2010 16:43

Mac Kerr wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 20:16 Taylor Phillips wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 18:45 The media director at my church says he'd rather have the LS9-32 consoles from the youth and childrens' areas in the sanctuary rather than the M7CL-48. With the LS9-32 you have a a total of 64 inputs and on the M7CL-48 your limited to 48. Do the events in your youth and children's areas use more than 48 mono input channels? If so, the additional 16 possible on an LS9 may be important, but the loss of the ease of use from an M7 is a giant step backward. I'd love to know why your media director thinks the LS9 is better. Mac Hey, Mac.  Events in our youth and childrens areas don't even use 32 inputs.  They're in a new addition built sometime after the sactuary was renovated and the M7 was purchased, so the LS9's are newer consoles.  So supposedly our M7 doesn't have as many features as our LS9's, but since I've worked in the sanctuary, I can't say for sure what.

The fact that the LS9 was released after the M7-CL does not mean there are more or better features. They are in different categories and are intended for different users.

The small size of the LS9 may be an important aspect for some, but I would far prefer an M7 over an LS9 in any other instance.

Mac

[George S Dougherty]

The the choice between the two, I'll second the M7 hands down.  The LS9 is a decent board but retains too much of the arrow around interface I disliked on the O1v.  That said, I'd take either over an analog console and no available outboard gear.

Also, don't be afraid to look at other options even if you have to dig around for a distributor.  IMO, there are newer better options in the M7 price range available.  The Digidesign Venue SC48 is a great board with wireless software control plugin support and even an iPhone app.  A&H makes a nice board in the same price range, as does Soundcraft in the Vi line.  The M7CL and LS9 are noted for having subpar preamps that sound best when the gain is cranked up.  They also benefit greatly from external clocking, more cost to get a comparable board.

I've noted in other threads that I'd suggest people look at SAC as a viable digital console.  I'll make the same suggestion here.  I'll skip rehashing the conversations and just provide a few links.  We had a good and decently fair discussion of SAC vs the M7CL over the the SAC forums

FOH online did a writeup

There's a brief blurb at Harmony about Steve Cochran using SAC on tour.

It's not just budget minded cheapskates that are finding it a great mix solution.  For somewhere between an M7CL and LS9 you could build a great SAC system with remote controllable preamps if desired.  As noted in the Harmony review, the sound quality is superb and is on-par with the best options out there.

[Gary Creely]

Kent Thompson wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 18:33

To get the ls9-32 to 16 expansion channels I would need 2 of those AD8HRs then. So that adds $4.5k or so to the price just to have the same channel count. I am assuming that puts the board at somewhere around $15k total? That's getting pretty close to the mc7. So does the ls9 have any advantages except for the obvious entry price?

The LS9 actually has a couple little features the m7 does not. One is the ability to record direct to a usb flash drive, and the other is to have a graphic eq controlled by the faders. Admittedly very minor, but just a couple things.

The other observation that I have made is the price difference is really under stated. Particularly these days when cost is king. If you want recallable pre amps on the expansion channels it would cost 4.5k more, but you probably don't need recallable pres on at least 8 channels, and those cards are like $500.

Even at 14k for the ls9 it is still 7k less, and for a lot of ministries that is a deal breaker. The cost difference is pretty major. I could install an ls9 and new speakers potentially for the same price as just the m7.

If you have the resources the m7 is a no brainier choice, it is much more user friendly. Is the m7 worth the extra money?, well I suppose that depends whether you have the extra money, which most often guides these types of decisions.

[Mac Kerr]

Gary Creely wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 09:41

Even at 14k for the ls9 it is still 7k less, and for a lot of ministries that is a deal breaker. The cost difference is pretty major. I could install an ls9 and new speakers potentially for the same price as just the m7.

While money is tight for everyone these days, don't forget, the wrong piece of gear at the right price is still the wrong piece of gear.

Mac

[Lee Buckalew]

The user interface of the LS9, for many but not all features, is based upon moving a cursor around a screen to access controls and then clicking on those controls to make changes.
The M7CL on the other hand has an integrated touch screen and more access built into the console surface.
From a mixing standpoint the M7CL is a far easier system to use.

My $0.02.

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

[Gary Creely]

Mac Kerr wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 13:31

the wrong piece of gear at the right price is still the wrong piece of gear.

While such a clich

[Mac Kerr]

Gary Creely wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 18:58

Mac Kerr wrote on Sat, 13 February 2010 13:31  the wrong piece of gear at the right price is still the wrong piece of gear. While such a clich Arnold B. Krueger Hero Member Offline Posts: 850 Re: MC7L-48 vrs ls9-32 with 16 channel expansion. Kent Thompson wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 22:46 We will hopefully be going digital on our mixer in the next few months. There are many choices of course but, we seem to be centering in on the 2 above consoles due to supplier availability. The obvious difference between the LS9 and the M7 is the degree to which the console is virtual. With the K7 there is always a visible fader for every channel, but with the M7 faders for channel 16 and up, or 32 and up (depending on model)is in another layer. I come from the perspective of an 02R96 where the magic number is 24 - exactly half way between 16 and 32. When I work on a M7, I'm always a little irritated at having to actually reach so far to find a fader. It's automatic for me to keep track of what the current layer is and hit the button to flip to the proper layer if the channel I'm interested in is off the current layer. Getting to the automatic stage with this didn't happen overnight. Layer flipping doesn't happen much because most of the scenes I do don't have more than 24 unique channels. I just patch the active channels to fit on one layer wherever possible. The other issues are that our media booth is so tight (it was designed for a 12 channel Yamaha console in 1982 and now does lighting, video, and sound) that I'd be in trouble if I wanted to have a wider console. I'd be in double trouble if I wanted a M7 because we pretty well ruptured ourselves from a budget perspective to get our B-stock 02R96. Bottom line is that a more virtual console is going to have a longer learning curve. I'm pretty sure I've seen situations where some good, highly experienced mixers simply never get working efficiently in a highly virtualized environment. Kent Thompson Sr. Member Offline Posts: 439 Re: MC7L-48 vrs ls9-32 with 16 channel expansion. These posts more than answered the questions. Thank you. Price is not the main consideration here but, it is never irrelevant. After talking about it we struck the ls9 from the list. The vendor also has the ilive-T system available so that one might be thrown into the discussion as well. ProSoundWeb Community Re: MC7L-48 vrs ls9-32 with 16 channel expansion. Print Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up « previous next » ProSoundWeb Community > Church and H.O.W. – Forums for HOW Sound and AV - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Church and HOW Forums > Church Sound Archive > MC7L-48 vrs ls9-32 with 16 channel expansion.

• Forums © ProSoundWeb
• SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies
• XHTML
• RSS
• WAP2

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 25 queries.

[Arnold B. Krueger]

Kent Thompson wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 22:46

We will hopefully be going digital on our mixer in the next few months. There are many choices of course but, we seem to be centering in on the 2 above consoles due to supplier availability.

The obvious difference between the LS9 and the M7 is the degree to which the console is virtual. With the K7 there is always a visible fader for every channel, but with the M7 faders for channel 16 and up, or 32 and up (depending on model)is in another layer.

I come from the perspective of an 02R96 where the magic number is 24 - exactly half way between 16 and 32.

When I work on a M7, I'm always a little irritated at having to actually reach so far to find a fader. It's automatic for me to keep track of what the current layer is and hit the button to flip to the proper layer if the channel I'm interested in is off the current layer. Getting to the automatic stage with this didn't happen overnight.

Layer flipping doesn't happen much because most of the scenes I do don't have more than 24 unique channels. I just patch the active channels to fit on one layer wherever possible.

The other issues are that our media booth is so tight (it was designed for a 12 channel Yamaha console in 1982 and now does lighting, video, and sound) that I'd be in trouble if I wanted to have a wider console. I'd be in double trouble if I wanted a M7 because we pretty well ruptured ourselves from a budget perspective to get our B-stock 02R96.

Bottom line is that a more virtual console is going to have a longer learning curve. I'm pretty sure I've seen situations where some good, highly experienced mixers simply never get working efficiently in a highly virtualized environment.

[Kent Thompson]

These posts more than answered the questions. Thank you. Price is not the main consideration here but, it is never irrelevant. After talking about it we struck the ls9 from the list.

The vendor also has the ilive-T system available so that one might be thrown into the discussion as well.

[ProSoundWeb Community]