Mixers/Consoles New console decision - advice sought

sdauditorium

Active Member
We are in the process of purchasing a new sound console and will be doing so within the next month or two. I've done ample reading and researching but would like input specific to our situation.

We primarily do musical theatre but have a number of one-offs, concerts, pageants and some touring events. We are looking to expand the number of touring events in the near future as well.

Currently, we have 17 wireless mic units, 2 CD player inputs, 1 computer input, 1 projection system input, 10 wired mic inputs on stage, and 10 mic inputs for an ambient recording system (2 SM81s in stereo config and 8 choral mics) that need to be accomodated. Output wise, we have 1 monitor feed, 1 (mono) to the mains.

Also, we're planning for a replacement of our existing sound system in the next 2 years (new speaker clusters, processing, and roughly 12-16 more wired mic inputs and 2-3 additional monitor feeds). I can also see purchasing 2-3 more wireless mic systems within the next 5 years. We don't have feeds going to the lobby or other spaces at this point (video system which reaches the band, choir and dressing rooms has audio from the camera). However, I would like the new console to easily accomodate feeds to these areas; we plan to do this in the near future. Also, we will be doing simple ambient recordings for concerts and other events. I honestly don't know how much more complicated recordings we'd want to do in the future but it could be a remote possibility.

The primary user of this system is myself, and secondary users (for simple events) would be my co-auditorium director, a few other adult staff members and student tech crew members.

My ideal (and first choice) was the LS9-32, but due to budget constraints we're a few thousand short and not quite sure if we'll be able to swing it yet. If we can't go digital, I'm debating between the Allen & Heath GL2800-40 channel version and the Soundcraft GB8-48. From the vendor we'll be going with on this purchase, the A&H is approximately $700 more than the Soundcraft. Apart from the differences in inputs and matrices, I've seen great things about both.

Are there any noticeable differences, personal experiences or recommendations for one or the other. What I'm specifically curious on is whether the $700 difference is worth it for the A&H while having 8 less inputs.
 
Out of curiosity what board are you running now? It will help people help ya out if they know what your upgrading from.
 
Between A&H and Soundcraft I prefer the former. The low mid's being able to sweep down to 35 Hz has been handy innumerable times (taking the place of the usually useless - at least for boosts - LF shelf that all affordable analog consoles have).

A pair of linked StudioLive 24 would be a lot less expensive than an LS9. However its scenes are useless for theater, as there's a loss of audio for a second or two during changes.

Look for a used LS9. I've seen them as low as $5500, Vs. $$8200 for a new one. For rock shows I sometimes prefer analog (unless I get to soundcheck each band), but for theater the LS9 is wonderful.
 
Check out the Roland M-300 V Mixer. Sells for about $6000 and is quite a great unit.
While less than the number of input channels possible with the other mixers noted, the M-300 does support 32 channels. However, the mixer itself physically has only four XLR mic/line inputs, four balanced 1/4" inputs and four unbalanced, line level RCA inputs along with four balanced XLR outputs and four balanced 1/4" outputs. To get to an actual 32 channel physical input count you would need to add a couple of stage boxes and the related cabling, which would probably bring total cost closer to $10,000.
 
I can get the GL2800 in the 40 input frame for $5700 with dust cover and lights while I can get the Soundcraft G8 in the 48 channel frame with lights and cover for $4800. Are there any differences I'm missing for the extra $1000 or is one potentially more rider friendly?
 
You changed the whole game with those two words.
What size is the venue, and what type of touring shows do you typically see?

The house seats 592-622 depending on configuration. At this point, we don't do many touring shows. I added it in there merely to reflect the fact we are planning to expand the number of shows we bring in (both in number and quality). To the best we can, I would like to make sure whichever board we go with will satisfy those future riders. If push comes to shove, the rider-friendly aspect to my question isn't the biggest factor at this point but did want to take it into consideration.
 
If I can't get the additional funding to purchase the LS9-32, would the A&H GL2800-40 channel at $5400 or the Soundcraft GB8-48 channel for $4800 be the *better/more preferred* option?
I won't try to enumerate the differences in some of the details but I think the auxes are a good example of the areas where you may have to decide what works best for you. Being able to swap auxes and groups to have auxes on faders is likely a potential advantage for the GB8 while being able to have 'pre' be pre-fader/post-EQ or pre fader/pre-EQ and insert seems to be a potential advantage for the GL2800. The pros and cons of assigning auxes pre/post on a global per aux bus basis versus on a per channel basis but for groups of 2 or four of the aux buses may depend on your use, in most cases you would probably want everything on an aux send either pre or post so the global approach makes sense since you aren't limited to groups of sends, however I can see some situations where being able to have some inputs pre-fader and others post-fader for an aux mix might be desirable.

The GL2800 is probably the more common of the two and thus perhaps a bit more 'rider friendly'.
 
I won't try to enumerate the differences in some of the details but I think the auxes are a good example of the areas where you may have to decide what works best for you. Being able to swap auxes and groups to have auxes on faders is likely a potential advantage for the GB8 while being able to have 'pre' be pre-fader/post-EQ or pre fader/pre-EQ and insert seems to be a potential advantage for the GL2800. The pros and cons of assigning auxes pre/post on a global per aux bus basis versus on a per channel basis but for groups of 2 or four of the aux buses may depend on your use, in most cases you would probably want everything on an aux send either pre or post so the global approach makes sense since you aren't limited to groups of sends, however I can see some situations where being able to have some inputs pre-fader and others post-fader for an aux mix might be desirable.

The GL2800 is probably the more common of the two and thus perhaps a bit more 'rider friendly'.

Thanks, Brad. That's exactly what I was looking for.
 
FWIW, I have a AH gl2400, 40 channel and love it. We use it for theater, concerts, recitals, and whatever else comes our way. Use about 20 wx mics, 2 stereo ins, a few DI for computers, dvd players, etc. 2 monitor feeds, 1 assistive listening, a cd-r feed, and a few empty outs. We've been super happy with the board since we've gotten it, and still don't really use it to its fullest. I don't think i miss the mute groups that are available on the 2800, but the extra busses would probably be nice. I've never really felt limited by our board.
Best wishes.
 
I won't try to enumerate the differences in some of the details but I think the auxes are a good example of the areas where you may have to decide what works best for you. Being able to swap auxes and groups to have auxes on faders is likely a potential advantage for the GB8 while being able to have 'pre' be pre-fader/post-EQ or pre fader/pre-EQ and insert seems to be a potential advantage for the GL2800. The pros and cons of assigning auxes pre/post on a global per aux bus basis versus on a per channel basis but for groups of 2 or four of the aux buses may depend on your use, in most cases you would probably want everything on an aux send either pre or post so the global approach makes sense since you aren't limited to groups of sends, however I can see some situations where being able to have some inputs pre-fader and others post-fader for an aux mix might be desirable.

The GL2800 is probably the more common of the two and thus perhaps a bit more 'rider friendly'.

The aux and group busses are swappable on the GL2800 in the same way they are on a GB8.

And while the GL2800 has inserts on the TRS outputs, the GB8 has inserts on the group outputs which is preferable IMO.
 
The aux and group busses are swappable on the GL2800 in the same way they are on a GB8.
You are correct, I missed that, however there does seem to be a difference in that when Group/Aux Reverse is engaged on the GL2800 that appears to also swap the assignment of the related physical connections (e.g. the XLR outputs become the Aux outs and the TRS outputs become the Group outs) while the GB8 apparently maintains the XLR Group outputs and TRS Aux outputs assignment regardless of whether the Groups and Auxes are reversed or not. That would definitely make the GB8 Group/Aux swap more practical for most 'on the fly' use.

And while the GL2800 has inserts on the TRS outputs, the GB8 has inserts on the group outputs which is preferable IMO.
Looking at the single lines it appears that both mixers have pre-fade inserts on the Group (or Aux when reversed) bus. The GL2800 also has a mute function for the Group bus that does not seem to appear on the GB8 while the GB8 has 12 segment level metering for the Groups versus the 4 segment metering of the GL2800.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back