ProSoundWeb Community
Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: magnus söderman on March 29, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
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. ;)
-
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?? ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
I used both quite a few times on the club tour I just got done with. (Co Headliner had the studiolive and enough clubs had the LS9) I think it all falls into what feature set works better for your application. Personally I would take the LS9 because I want 4 effects, the motorized faders are nice but not required, sends on faders, and recall for the head amps.
Now if I was the only guy using the console and I wanted multitrack recording I would consider the presonus and then drag around at least a D-Two with it.
No comment on preamps :D
-
I used both quite a few times on the club tour I just got done with. (Co Headliner had the studiolive and enough clubs had the LS9) I think it all falls into what feature set works better for your application. Personally I would take the LS9 because I want 4 effects, the motorized faders are nice but not required, sends on faders, and recall for the head amps.
Now if I was the only guy using the console and I wanted multitrack recording I would consider the presonus and then drag around at least a D-Two with it.
No comment on preamps :D
The thing with the LS9, there's nothing really bad about it per say. It fits it's price range quite nicely, Yamaha recently did a big price decrease of the LS9 range to compete with the StudioLive more. I see the presonus as a different tiered product and more inline with bands operating their own IEM mixes with them and simple 3 way systems in clubs. Once you start beyond that into the range of bigger 4 way systems, need more recall features and more demanding needs the LS9 tier starts to become a better option. Being able to save EQ and compressor settings, save entire scenes, big options with the rack options (31, dual 31 and four FX) make the LS9 range a perfect fit.
So it all comes down to your needs for your level of production. The StudioLive is much more analogue friendly and easier to operate and is priced in a position that it will be a much better buy compared to similar analogue setups. The LS9 represents the first step into serious digital that requires more features than the digital options below it.
I see the LS9 being the top board for low-mid level PA operators with the M7CL being the level of serious business operators which cater for shows over the few hundred punters that LS9's typically control PA systems for. I see the StudioLive as catering for PA's covering up to about 500 punters, the LS9 from 200-1000 punters and 'real' consoles after that. The features required out of a desk seem to increase as the punter size increases as the channel count and requirements increase inline with the crowd size.
-
My only real gripe about the LS9 is those idiotic stereo returns, I always have to burn up 4 faders because the encoders are slow and pretty much just plain suck (for me).
By the way, the Presonus does recall EQ, dynamics, etc. The way it gives you fader positions of the last save point is interesting too.
For the little guy with a bar rig it is great but even after using one on the last tour at some places I doubt I'll ever add it to the wish list.
-
My only real gripe about the LS9 is those idiotic stereo returns, I always have to burn up 4 faders because the encoders are slow and pretty much just plain suck (for me).
By the way, the Presonus does recall EQ, dynamics, etc. The way it gives you fader positions of the last save point is interesting too.
For the little guy with a bar rig it is great but even after using one on the last tour at some places I doubt I'll ever add it to the wish list.
Yeah, those encoders are really annoying. I wish their response was linear like the other encoders like HA and EQ. I wish they put the fader layer buttons down at the UDK section and got rid of those encoders and just made another layer made up of the matrix's, mono and stereo buses and the stereo returns making a total of 5 layers. That way you could use the Custom Layer as it was intended. I end up putting my matrix faders and stereo channels on that page and use it as an FX return and output master layer.
-
I just added a fader for each stereo return to the custom level to control them. Works like a charm for me!
Good luck.
-
I just added a fader for each stereo return to the custom level to control them. Works like a charm for me!
Good luck.
Great idea! I'll do it too!
Anyway, I like the presonus and almost got one, but I went with the Ls9 because of Yamaha's name, the presonus dealer in Brazil is so lame that we still don't have the SL24 here. So I thought if I ever had an issue with the SL, how long Would I have to wait for a solution? On the other hand, the Yamaha dealer is terrific, I can find dozens of yamaha mixers at any given store.
Plus, I read the presonus forum and back in November there were many problems with the SL, that's why I got the LS9.
Finally, motorized faders are not the most important feature a mixer can have, but the idea of moving 30 faders at each scene recall is nuts!
-
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
with regards to mic preamps, I would think the analog to digital converters would have more impact on the audio quality than the preamps. Most preamps these days are all of very high quality. Shop for stand alone A-D convertors. You can pay $2 for an A-D converter, or you can pay $2000. Every mic pre in a digital board has an A-D converter next in line. After that, it's all processed in the digital realm, so circuitry would have nothing to do with it. Then, when it gets ready to exit the mixer, you have D-A converters.
-
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....
Yeah, I've heard quite a few people who have mixed on the SL16.4.2, SL 24.4.2, O1V96, and the LS9 say that very thing. I've never mixed on an LS9 but I have mixed on an SL16.4.2 and an O1V96 and I totally think the Presonus console sounded cleaner.