Mixers/Consoles Allen and Heath iLive T-Series Vs. Yamaha M7CL-48ES

[BNEL]

Hello All

I have gone through several old threads and would like some current opinions.

Background
I am a theater manager for a school district where we have two high schools with two theaters. One space is one year old and the other is fifteen years old. My older facility has issues with the sound system and we are looking to upgrade. My new facility has a Yamaha M7CL-48 console with a AudiaFlex DSP.

Scope of the Project at the older space
Replace the head end of the sound system with a new board and DSP engine while replacing copper analog wire with a digital snake system.

Project Criteria
To meet or exceed current capibilities at the newer space.

I have received 3 bids on the project that are inside my budget.
Company A and B Bid similar solutions

• Allen and Heath T-Series with a 64 Channel mix Engine running Cat5 between the mix locations and amp rack where the mix engine will be housed.
• Electrovoice Netmax for DSP
• Along with a Dante Interface card between the DSP and Mix Engine.

Company C

• Yamaha M7CL-48ES mix console with 2 Yamaha Stage Boxes in the amp rack connected with cat5
• NexiaSP for DSP

All Three companies came in at similar bid. These are the questions that I am asking myself.

Do I want to stay with a similar console between both spaces?
My thinking is telling me that the system design from Company A/B is a better fit for my older space? Particularly for future expansion.

 

[avkid]

Keeping the two facilities as similar as possible would definitely make life less complicated.

 

[rwhealey]

[*]Electrovoice Netmax for DSP

Do you have an EV speaker system? I believe the NetMax has some FIR presets that really improve the quality of EV speakers and aren't available in other processors.

How big is your existing snake? Do you want more channels so you don't waste too many inputs on the digital console? Is there any physical room for expansion - is the conduit big enough to run a new copper snake in the future?

 

[museav]

There would definitely be advantages to having the same user interface at both locations. That being said:

1. Which work surface and rack are being offered for the iLive-T systems? In terms of I/O, the iLive-T80 and M7CL-48ES both have 8 analog in and 8 analog out at the console, so those would seem most directly comparable in that regards (although I personally much prefer the T112 over the T80 just to have the additional faders and processing controls). And if that is what is bid then an iDR-32 or two iDR-16 stage boxes seem most directly comparable to the two Yamaha stage boxes. However, if the iLive-T112 work surface and/or iDR-48 or iDR-64 rack is bid then that does not seem to be a real 'apples-to-apples' comparison and the question may become what was requested to be provided and what led some bidders to provide more capability than others?

2. The M7CL48-ES is expandable via the card slots and/or an additional stage boxes and could have more physical inputs than are initially being provided, however it is limited in operation to 48 mono inputs and 4 stereo inputs as well as to 16 mix buses and 8 matrix buses while the iLive-T system supports 64 inputs and 32 mix buses. The caveat here is to consider these differences if they matter to the actual use but to not get caught up in them if they don't. Whether it supports 16 or 32 mix buses matters if you may use 20 of them, but not if you'll never need more than 12 mix buses.

3. The M7CL and iLive-T work surfaces represent two rather different approaches. The M7CL does not use layers, there are faders for every input, and it relies greatly on the touchscreen for operation. The iLive-T work surfaces use layers but depend much less on the touchscreen for much of the normal operation. They also support capabilities such as color coding of fader function and electronic fader labeling or 'scribble strips', which may help with people learning to use it for basic use. You are in an interesting situation in that I would say that the iLive work surface may be easier for someone unfamiliar to walk up and use for an event, providing it is properly configured in advance, but you already have one M7CL so your users may already be familiar and comfortable with that interface.

4. The Nexia SP and NetMax are both 'open architecture' processors. The Biamp AudiaFlex that you have in the other facility is probably more direct comparable to the NetMax as both are modular systems while the Nexia SP has fixed I/O with 4 analog line inputs and 8 analog line outputs. In comparison, the NetMax N8000 has 4 slots that can be filled with any combination of 8 analog mic/line input, 8 analog line input, 8 AES/EBU input, 8 analog line output and 8 AES/EBU output cards as well as having a fifth slot for an optional CobraNet or Dante networked audio interface card. The NetMax may indeed have an advantage if the available presets support the existing speaker system, otherwise it may be that the critical factors would likely be in the coordination with the rest of the system and the programming. I should note that if the intent is to use the processor for not only the house speaker system but also for any monitor feeds, ALS feeds, recording feeds, overflow/ancillary audio feeds, etc. or if the system may be expanded in the future then a 4x8 device may be rather limiting.

5. I suggest also assessing the bids from the perspective of what is being offered outside of the hardware. For example, what documentation, training, warranty, etc. are included?

Since you mentioned these were bids, is this a typical "lowest qualified bidder" situation? Were there any bid documents or any defined basis for the bids?

 

[bishopthomas]

I cannot tell you what is best for your own use, but I will tell you what we decided on (we've had both the A&H T series and the M7CL-es). As far as sound quality the A&H wins hands down. Yamaha head amps sound like garbage, the compressors work for crap, and the effects are usable at best. Unfortunately, they are what show up on riders every day so therefore that is what we currently have (LS9's and an M7CL-es). I'm not a fan of layers, so the Yamahas win on that front. Although, the color coding on the iLive makes keeping track much easier.

If you are still in the bid process give Sound Productions in Texas a call. They always seem to give us the best deals on Yamaha consoles.

 

[BNEL]

Hello All

Thanks all for the response

Both company a/b qouted the T112 board along with the iDR-64 rack. I was working with one company as I have a good history with and this is what they recommended. From there Company b/c came into bid the project at the request of adminstrators. One copyied the first companies specs and the other to the system at my other space as the spec.

When Comparing the console I have been able to work on both consoles and I agree with your comment about the easy of use for a walk up with the t series.

The plan for the DSP is to run all aformentioned audio feeds. So the netmax seems to be a better fit.

The whole bidder situation is not binding by the lowest bid as it does not meet the minimum. All the companies have good reputations for training and customer relations.

Thanks all again.

 

[MNicolai]

....One copyied the first companies specs...

It's very inappropriate practice when coordinating a bid process to show one bidder another bidder's design. It is one thing for you to create the design yourself and distribute it to each bidder; it is another to have one company do all of the footwork in creating a design, investing time, attention, and money into preparing your project, only to take their design to one of their competitors and allow them to copy it.

I strongly suggest before continuing that you read this article on coordinating ethical bid processes.

 

[BNEL]

Thank you Mike for your comment but please do not lecture me about ethics. I was once a system designer and installer and I conduct my affairs with the highest ethical standards in my book. I withdraw my comment about copying specs. A better way of saying it is I dropped brand names to other companies. I did not disclose proposals or designs.

 

[DiscoBoxer]

I will second the point that keeping things similar between the two spaces is an advantage.....to management. Unless the local staff or students bounce between venues, they may not have the challenge of dealing with different setups....if they do, then it could be more educational on what they will face in the real world, with different configs at different venues. The Yamaha digital structure has had more penetration in the pro market so the benefit to the students as they grow, will be that they have learned a console structure that is very common. The A&H digitals are not as common but I would bet they are making some heads turn at Yamaha and some other competitors as they make their way into more venues.

Both consoles are great consoles. I am biased to the A&H T112 because that is what we just installed and my team is very pleased with the results. We recently did demos on both these consoles and a Digico, and between the two you listed, the A&H had a better sound and seemed to have more "headroom".

You have the Yamaha experience, did you get to demo an A&H in the space you intend to use it in so that you could see personally what the specs do not cover?

 

[museav]

Thank you Mike for your comment but please do not lecture me about ethics. I was once a system designer and installer and I conduct my affairs with the highest ethical standards in my book. I withdraw my comment about copying specs. A better way of saying it is I dropped brand names to other companies. I did not disclose proposals or designs.

The specifics of your situation may make this irrelevant in this case, so this is simply using your situation as an example to address a more general issue and potentially help others. A common issue I've run into over the years both as a Contractor bidding on work and as a Consultant helping review bids is having multiple firms tender bids with little common basis for the bids. Whether it is full bid documents, an itemized equipment list, a written summary defining the desired functionality, a narrative describing the system or whatever, there should be a single common basis of bid provided to all bidders including any subsequent additional information or revisions.

The potential problem I see with a situation such as apparently exists here is that while you may not have to go with the low bid, there seems to be limited ability to objectively assess the bids or identify them as specifically being compliant or non-compliant with the bid requirements, thus any decision to award the bid to anyone other than the low bidder is going to be purely subjective. If public funds are involved that leaves the door open for protests of award and lawsuits, I've seen both multiple times as well as some more devious approaches (e.g. off the record calls by the losing bidders to major donors or administrators suggesting that the party making that decision is doing so to their detriment or for personal gain).

Put yourself in the place of the company bidding the Yamaha system. They probably feel they bid what they were asked to provide and they very well may have done just that. And if so and they are the low bid (I don't know that they are in this case, again this is just being used as a theoretical example), then why shouldn't they be awarded the project? The only basis for not awarding it to them would seem to be that what was supposed to be bid was not adequately defined to them and that is not their fault. On the other hand, put yourself in position of a bidder that thought they were being responsive only to have a 'lesser' bid be accepted. It's basically a 'no win' situation for bidders without there being some clearly defined basis of what is and is not acceptable.

So in general, how much information you provide bidders is up to you but in a competitive bid situation, and especially where public funds may be involved, the more complete and equal the information provided to the bidders, the greater the basis for an objective assessment of the bids, and thus the less the chances of problems related to the eventual bid award.