If you run all analog from
stage you can patch as needed at the
console for say (24) in booth, and (8) from
stage. I believe if you go partial digital/analog is where you'd run into problems/expense with this
console. Digitally it would require a 32 digital box in your booth , and you can only even then patch in in groups of 8 if what i've read from the X32 thread is correct.
Yes, although
channel assignments are done on an indvidual
channel basis, much of the X32 physical input patching is in blocks of 8 inputs. Not generally a problem until you start dealing with situations like a
stage wall plate with eight
microphone inputs tied to eight
stage box inputs that would have to be assigned as a
block and you want to use just some of those eight inputs but have to assign all eight to the
mixer. Or twelve local wireless mics that would require patching that as sixteen local inputs. In those cases you canb find yourself with few usable inputs than you expected, so you may have to do a
bit more preplanning and deciding what physical inputs to use in order to maximize the erffectiveness of the
mixer physical I/O patching.
With an existing
venue the available
conduit and cabling paths can often be a major factor in any
system input changes or expansion and/or the use of digital snakes. A digital
snake can grealy reduce the cabling from the
stage to the
mixer, however you may also have to consider where you locate the digital
snake stage box(es), how you get signals to and from those,
etc. as the infrastructure that may be existing for an analog
system is often quite different than that you might want for a digital
snake based
system. I bring this up as I have seen situations where a digital
snake can provide a significant savings in the audio cable cost but can entail additional
conduit/
raceway costs, which may or may not be part of the audio
system budget.
If they were thinking that a digital
console could eliminate some of the
speaker system processing then you may also want to look at that in more detail. I tend to avoid that approach but if they do plan on reducing costs by using any of the
console processing for the 'fixed'
house processing then you might want to look at what processing the
mixer supports for the related outputs.
Since the dealer is suggesting the M200i then maybe they can help arrange a demo or get you in touch with the local manufacturer rep who might do so, at least my local RSS rep is always offering that kind of support. And that's one place where the X32 differs from most of the competition, I could probably get a Client a M200i, a PreSonus StudioLive, a Soundcraft Expression, an A&H Qu-16 or GLD or any of a number of mixers to demo but due to how it is distributed and supported, for the X32 I pretty much have to tell them to go to Guitar Center and look at a demo
unit there on the floor.
I have read one 'comparison' of the M200i, X32 and StudioLive but it was from someone who had a rather obvious
bias, which they admitted, and that was comparing specs and info rather than actual experience with the mixers, so it seems likely to be of rather limited value.
