Digital Desks LS9, 01V, 01V96

[SamAU]

Hey guys,

Just curious as to the differences between the LS9, 01V, 01V96, my understanding is the blue 01V96 is the upgrade or "version 2" of the original white 01V. Just trying to track down the main differences between the three, if anyone knows of any comparison sites or something, like bullet points on each?

Cheers, Sam.

 

[jkowtko]

There's so much info here -- it will be easier if you tell us specifically what you're planning on doing with the board ....

Some high level tidbits --

The 01v96 is a newer model replacement for the 01v ... both are similar in the nature but the 01v96 has a much more complete set of features. These were conceived as recording studio boards but work well in live performance.

The LS9 is a big step up pricewise, and has some very useful additional features for live performance, but is geared towards live performance rather than recording and so lacks some things that the 01v96 has. In some situations it would be better to buy two 01v96's and daisy-chain them together, than one LS9.

I would suggest downloading Studio Manager and installing the 01v96 and LS9 editors ... spend some time poking around on the screens, and also browse through the user guides for each.

Then, after you've become familiar with the boards, if you ask more specific questions to this forum you'll get some good responses.

 

[bishopthomas]

You know that saying "comparing apples to oranges." Well, this is more like bicycles and space shuttles. Sure, they're both modes of transportation, but do you really want to peddle to the moon?

 

[Eboy87]

Ok, first things that come to mind.

LS9
Recallable Gain
4x 31 band graphic equalizers (can be increased using flex 15 GEQ, but you only get 15 filters on each)
no groups
16 mix buses
100mm faders
more intuitive interface (I feel)
16 or 32 faders
custom fader layer that you can fill with any channel or output
expandable to 32 or 64, depending on which model you buy
individual channel phantom power controls
networkable, meaning easy wireless control from a laptop or tablet

01V
60mm faders
12 mono channels w/ preamps, the other 4 are two stereo inputs
expandable to 24 channels
has groups (4 or 8, i forget)
8 aux sends
a little clunkier interface (small monochrome screen)
phantom power is in banks of six
no recallable gain
no studio manager interface

01V96
100mm faders
16 faders
has groups
no recallable gain
works with studio manager, but is USB, which means hoops to jump through for wireless control

I've never used the 01v96, this is just what I recall from people talking about them. Most of my time is spent on an LS9-32 or M7. We have an LS9-16 and 01V sidecar. I'd have to sit down at the boards to give a more comprehensible comparison. Download the editors for the 01V96 and LS9, and read the manuals for all three. That's the best advice I can give.

 

[NUSound]

It's really tough to saying anything substantial without knowing what you're going to be using the board for. Each has it's own pros/cons.

 

[SamAU]

Thanks Eboy87 and jkowtko for those points, the use will be mainly live but I would like to fiddle with recording at home, but yeah the main function is live.

Cheers, Sam.

 

[jkowtko]

Okay, some things to check out then (a mixture of pros/cons for each):

* Bus structure: 01v96 has surround panning, but at the expense of using up your group buses. The LS9 has true LCR, but no surround panning.

* Mix routing: LS9 has more flexible bus usage (i.e. groups and aux are all the same type of bus.) On the 01v96, aux buses are traditional auxes and can only go to output

* DCA: The 01v96 has "fader group master" to give you the equipment of VCA/DCA functionality, and although it's not easy to set up and can only be done on the board (not in SM), you can still do it. The LS9 does not have this functionality.

* The 01v96 can be set up to be the fader control bank for your DAW software.

* LS9 has meters above each channel, for easy viewing.

* LS9 has better recall/safe granularity.

* 01v96 has more physical I/O jacks ... inserts, RCA I/O

* LS9 has cleaner physical I/O ... all XLR

* 01v96 has one inboard ADAT pair, so if you add a MY16-AT card you can get a total of 40 analog inputs and 30 analog outputs. The LS9 does not have onboard ADAT, so the max for the LS9-16 is 32 analog inputs and 24 analog outputs. You can get more I/O with the LS9-32, but for double the cost again ....

* The LS9 looks "cooler"

* The LS9-16 also costs twice as much :| The LS9-32 costs 4x

 

[MNicolai]

Mind you that the LS9 has two expansion slots that can had some serious functionality. You'll spend a lot more on the console, and then a bit more on expansion cards, but it'd make a pretty kick butt 64ch. digital mixer given its size and price, especially in comparison to the price tags on the MC7L and PM5D. The 01v96 has one expansion slot, which gives you some flexibility, but not as much.

I haven't used an 01v96, but I do regularly use a LS9-32 in a roadhouse format. We are planning on using the expansion slots to give us more inputs and outputs over CAT5. I'm certain there are many people that never use the slots, but when you find yourself using your console in a way you didn't expect to, those slots make a world of difference. It's a lot easier and cheaper to add an expansion card when you need more channels than it is to buy a bigger console.

 

[NUSound]

If you want to break into the digital market, the LS9-32 is really hard to beat in terms of functionality, name-brand reputation, and ease-of use. It really is a great board.

The 01v96 is, IMO, ideal when space is a primary concern, but once you start needing to expand beyond the internal preamps, it starts to lose some of its convenience.

The LS9-16 is a nice board, don't get me wrong, but given that it's best selling point IMO is it's compact nature, it is beaten out by the 01v96 due to price concerns.

Mike Nicolai
Oconomowoc, WI, USA

Hey Mike... shout out from Madison.

-Nick

 

[Chris15]

From an engineering standpoint, the 01V will do 96k, the LS9 won't.

In the same form factor is also the DM1000.

Consensus amongst my colleagues is that the LS9 is not a console. I reserve judgement having not actually used one...

 

[museav]

Mind you that the LS9 has two expansion slots that can had some serious functionality. You'll spend a lot more on the console, and then a bit more on expansion cards, but it'd make a pretty kick butt 64ch. digital mixer given its size and price, especially in comparison to the price tags on the MC7L and PM5D. The 01v96 has one expansion slot, which gives you some flexibility, but not as much.

Referring to simply the "LS9" when discussing I/O can be confusing, while the internal architecture is the same for both versions, for some aspects of the LS9 which version is being addressed is critical. In this case, the LS9-32 has two expansion slots but the LS9-16 has only one and the LS9-32 is capable of 64 channels, the LS9-16 only 32, so you seem to be referring specifically to the LS9-32. The LS9-32 also has sixteen 'omni' outputs while the LS9-16 has eight.

The 96kHz sampling capability of the O1V96 may be nice in the studio but is probably of limited benefit in most live applications especially as running the O1V96 at 96kHz reduces the effects processors available from four to two.

There are numerous small differences between the O1V96 and the LS9 that reflect the original intended applications. Things like the O1V96 channel inserts being pre the input patching, which means that physical inserts are always available for the 12 mic/line internal inputs without using any other I/O but also means that there is no method to provide inserts for expansion card inputs. The O1V96 has input delays while the LS9 does not, however the LS9 has more comprehensive EQ available for inputs or outputs. The LS9 gates are after the channel high pass filter, trim and EQ, the O1V96 channel gates are before the trim and EQ. The O1V96 direct scene memory access buttons can be beneficial for theatre applications but the LS9's custom fader layer is also very useful for many applications. And so on. For some applications these differences may be negligible but in some cases they may be something to consider, for example I find the variable high pass filters on the inputs of the LS9 a significant benefit for many live sound applications that is missing with the O1V96.

 

[TimmyP1955]

The biggest drawback to the original O1V (for some prospective users) is that the second layer of channels can be routed to only the first two auxes.

The LS9's Flex 15 EQs are 30 band/1/3 octave EQs. The limitation is that you can use only 15 of the bands. (If you use that many, you have big troubles.)

I find the LS9's color screen to be easier to read than the others, but for younger folks it may be a toss up. I don't know why they didn't offer a version of the LS9 with a touch screen - I'm sure plenty of folks would pay the extra money.

The LS9 lacks the O1V96's ability to save and recall full channel settings to a library. (Hopefully this will be fixed in a future OS upgrade.)

 

[SamAU]

Looks like the 01v96 is more suited for me, thanks heaps guys!

 

[bishopthomas]

. I don't know why they didn't offer a version of the LS9 with a touch screen - I'm sure plenty of folks would pay the extra money.

They did. They called it the M7CL...

 

[TimmyP1955]

They did. They called it the M7CL...

But I would rather have 32 faders in a row than 32 or 48 strung out all over the place as on the M7. A touch screen LS9-32 should still be a lot cheaper than an M7.

 

[bishopthomas]

But I would rather have 32 faders in a row than 32 or 48 strung out all over the place as on the M7. A touch screen LS9-32 should still be a lot cheaper than an M7.

The reason the faders are "strung out all over the place" is to make a compact footprint without fader layers. Yes, they could probably set a price point for a touch screen LS9 lower than an M7, but that would destroy M7 sales. Companies don't always approach product development with a "Let's see how many features we can pack into this budget oriented product" mentality. I would LOVE to see a touchscreen LS9 (I HATE the navigation on them), but it's just not a smart business move on Yamaha's part.