What sound mixer should I choose

[aldenf]

Used to be true... not anymore. I have A/B the X32 against the LS9 and sound quality wise the X32 blows the LS9 out of the water. Going anything Yamaha would be a step back.

Agreed, completely.

 

[aldenf]

If you want to master songs laters, then one requirement of any mixer is that it should have the ability to work as a "control surface" for whatever program you're mixing in... [/url]

adonkle makes a good point. The X32 does just that by sending both HUI and Mackie Control data along with I/O. Though we might be getting a bit advanced for the OP. Heck, I don't have a control surface for my DAW. I certainly would if I was recording/mastering 60 hrs/week. But for the occasional project, why bother?

 

[museav]

As for the mixer, it has 2 main purposes: Live mixing, and mastering the recorded concerts or recording sessions and playing them back.
There is something that I may need which I assume is supported in any configuration. I may want to use this like a studio where I can record 1 track at a time and mixing/editing later. So the players will need to playback tracks and record, in a different track another musician, synchronously.
So, regarding your question if I need also playback, the answer is obviously yes.

Okay, so we now know that the purpose primarily recording, apparently to record the rough tracks in the field and then edit and mix down everything in a studio setting as well as for studio use. It also sounds as though you would like some form of virtual soundcheck (playing back a multichannel recording as though it was the group performing) while the live sound aspect actually appears limited to your daughter's folk group.

Regarding the output lines, is also something important, as you mention. 2 main output, around 6 AUX outputs, 4 subgroup output lines, It would be nice to have . I don't really need all, but if it could have 8, would be great. (4 for monitoring, 4 for send and receive (I have a Lexicom MX400), 2 for recording in a stereo device (CD)).

Regarding buses, there is no special requirements, but most of the mixer come with a few that are more than enough for what I will ever need. But since you requested, let's set for a minimum of 6 buses.

From the console I would need 16 input lines, that support independent phantom power per line.

Perhaps some confusion. Four monitor sends and four effects sends would usually require at least eight aux sends. Those eight aux sends plus four subgroups plus main left/right also seems to mean a minimum of fourteen mix buses are required, sixteen if you want separate mixes for live output and the two channel recording. And apparently along with the 16 mic inputs you would apparently need at least four effects returns plus you might want to account for some other music source(s) for live applications. So now knowing this and your budget that indeed does push you out of many of the ultra-compact mixers.

You might also get deeper into the details. For example, you might want the monitor sends to be before and channel EQ or compression. You may also want to be able to select the recording signals to be before any channel processing. That would require looking in detail at where the aux and FireWire/USB (for recording) signals can be derived in the signal chain. But it can often be such details that may make one product a better choice than another.


It initially sounded as though your daughter was the operator but some of the comments make it sound like she is performing rather than mixing. Who is going to be running the mixer and what is their experience? It's great to have nice tools but a decent sounding mixer used to its maximum may result in better recordings and live sound than a poorly applied great sounding mixer. This also gets into the "easy to use" factor as someone with limited experience with digital consoles and/or mixing in general may find some of the consoles like the DiGiCos a much steeper learning curve.

 

[sounddad]

Well Adonkle, you have to help me here, as it is the first time I hear about "Control Surface" what is the difference between Sound Mixer and "Control Surface"?

 

[sounddad]

Here is another great comment. Thanks for your contribution.

Okay, so we now know that the purpose primarily recording, apparently to record the rough tracks in the field and then edit and mix down everything in a studio setting as well as for studio use. It also sounds as though you would like some form of virtual soundcheck (playing back a multichannel recording as though it was the group performing) while the live sound aspect actually appears limited to your daughter's folk group.

This is correct.

You might also get deeper into the details. For example, you might want the monitor sends to be before and channel EQ or compression. You may also want to be able to select the recording signals to be before any channel processing. That would require looking in detail at where the aux and FireWire/USB (for recording) signals can be derived in the signal chain. But it can often be such details that may make one product a better choice than another.

I believe most sound mixers have the capability to route the sound to the firewire from dry or wet channels. So I didn't think this was an issue.

It initially sounded as though your daughter was the operator but some of the comments make it sound like she is performing rather than mixing. Who is going to be running the mixer and what is their experience? It's great to have nice tools but a decent sounding mixer used to its maximum may result in better recordings and live sound than a poorly applied great sounding mixer.

My daughter is a performer, not a sound engineer. They will be using a sound engineer.

This also gets into the "easy to use" factor as someone with limited experience with digital consoles and/or mixing in general may find some of the consoles like the DiGiCos a much steeper learning curve.

Definitely the ease of use is important. For live concerts, if you need to access some function that is embedded in many menus and submenus, it will not work. That is something that Soundcraft Si and Presonus are very good.

Regarding DiGiCos I have no idea which model fits our needs.

Thanks

 

[AlexDonkle]

Well Adonkle, you have to help me here, as it is the first time I hear about "Control Surface" what is the difference between Sound Mixer and "Control Surface"?

If you've ever used Audacity, Pro Tools, or any other audio editing program you've likely seen "virtual faders" shown on the computer monitor. You can drag these up and down with a mouse to mix songs, and there are also play, pause, fast forward, buttons on the screen as well. A control surface is basically all of those same faders and controls, but built-into a physical sound board in front of you (looks nearly identical to live sound mixing board). The advantage is when you're mixing songs in a studio, riding real faders is commonly faster and easier than mixing with a mouse.

aldenf made a good point though, that since your primary focus is the live sound recording aspect, the control surface is definitely a secondary priority, and possible to exclude entirely (it's pretty easy to mix using just a mouse and keyboard if you're not on tight deadlines with 40+ tracks to mix on a regular basis.

 

[museav]

I believe most sound mixers have the capability to route the sound to the firewire from dry or wet channels. So I didn't think this was an issue.

If you look at the line diagrams for digital mixers you will note that there are often different, and in some cases multiple, options on where in the signal chain sends can be taken off or effects inserted. Some mixers are more flexible than others in this regard. But I was really trying to make the point that it is often preferences regarding such technical details or specifics of the mixer workflow that lead to people to prefer a specific mixer model.

My daughter is a performer, not a sound engineer. They will be using a sound engineer.

Sorry if I misunderstood the comments about the mixer being too heavy for your daughter to be indicating that she would be the primary user. If you know who would be mixing then it might be valuable to get their input. If you don't know or if that person may routinely change then you may want to consider sticking with a mixer that is more likely to be familiar.

Definitely the ease of use is important. For live concerts, if you need to access some function that is embedded in many menus and submenus, it will not work. That is something that Soundcraft Si and Presonus are very good.

But you also noted right from the start the Scenes were a requirement and Scenes on the PreSonus are more limited than with most other digital mixers, something that may or may not matter depending on how you use the Scene recall functionality. And while it is not generally a practical issue for live performances or recording, some people, often those used to working at 96kHz or 192kHz in a studio, do not like that the PreSonus StudioLive and Behringer X32 are limited to a 48kHz sample rate. It greatly comes down to what you feel are are the right tradeoffs and priorities in your applications.

I will offer that my personal view is that with three repeated by likely quite different uses I would see a mixer with full Scene recall, flexible routing and electronic scribble strips as an advantage. Being able to recall a Scene/Show with all the routing and patching assignments, channel labeling, gain/trim, channel processing, etc. would make it very easy to go from one use to the other.


I had the same general thought as others and wondered if you might be worth considering separating the recording and live mix functionality, putting together a dedicated recording rig and a simpler live sound system and perhaps splitting the mics when both would be used. The determining factor there may be how much of the site recording is to get clean tracks laid down for later production versus actually trying to create a live mix.

 

[sounddad]

Sorry if I misunderstood the comments about the mixer being too heavy for your daughter to be indicating that she would be the primary user. If you know who would be mixing then it might be valuable to get their input. If you don't know or if that person may routinely change then you may want to consider sticking with a mixer that is more likely to be familiar.

You didn't. When I first bought the Midas mixer, the idea was for my daughter to be the primarily user. And the moment we got it, she told me she couldn't use it unless she had help from someone to carry it. She tells me that most of the concerts she does, people already have all equipment, but occasionally they don't. And then, she has to carry it, and here is when the problem starts, and since the other member of her group live far and don't have a car, she will have to take it.

But you also noted right from the start the Scenes were a requirement and Scenes on the PreSonus are more limited than with most other digital mixers, something that may or may not matter depending on how you use the Scene recall functionality.

This is correct, and that's why I trying to get away from Presonus.

And while it is not generally a practical issue for live performances or recording, some people, often those used to working at 96kHz or 192kHz in a studio, do not like that the PreSonus StudioLive and Behringer X32 are limited to a 48kHz sample rate. It greatly comes down to what you feel are are the right tradeoffs and priorities in your applications.

But here is something for you. I have a Lexicon, that works at 48 kHz max. And it is a good effects equipment.

I had the same general thought as others and wondered if you might be worth considering separating the recording and live mix functionality, putting together a dedicated recording rig and a simpler live sound system and perhaps splitting the mics when both would be used. The determining factor there may be how much of the site recording is to get clean tracks laid down for later production versus actually trying to create a live mix.

You may be right on that, but, I don't want to spend money on 2 mixers. When or If she starts making real money from the concerts, perhaps she may be able to buy everything for herself. Right now I'm just trying to give her a starting push.

 

[FACTplayers]

Maybe this was answered already, but why/how do you have "good" mics and know nothing about soundboards? Just curious.

 

[museav]

You didn't. When I first bought the Midas mixer, the idea was for my daughter to be the primarily user. And the moment we got it, she told me she couldn't use it unless she had help from someone to carry it. She tells me that most of the concerts she does, people already have all equipment, but occasionally they don't. And then, she has to carry it, and here is when the problem starts, and since the other member of her group live far and don't have a car, she will have to take it.

Maybe use some of the budget for the mixer to purchase them a car!

If I understand correctly, two of the intended uses are recording live perfomances where no reinforcement is involved. A third use is potentially for recording and live sound reinforcement but apparently most of those performances have others providing the reinforcement systems. And a fourth use might apparently be in the 'studio' for production. Thus the majority of the use appears more related to recording and production than to live sound. Since it seems that the vast majority of the potential use relates to recording and production, which makes me wonder if you might be better served by a DAW based recording and production system than by a traditional live sound mixer.

Three other points:

1. It is not clear if the goal of the field recording is a live production or more to get the rough tracks down for later production.
   
2. It is not clear who would be operating the mixer in the various situations.
   
3. It is not clear how you envision this system integrating with any live reinforcement systems provided by others.

 

[deck]

Try the X32. It is compact, and features 32 channels and is expandable to more than 32. Motorized faders, and scene memory's like you asked. A nice feature is that you can hook up to the Berhinger axiom like system through a built in card out for another 2500$. The X32 is extremely portable, and has great MIDAS preamps with Klark Teknik processing. The X32 does sound great, and can record. It is reliable, and easy to navigate. It costs 2999, but in all honesty, is better than most 8,000-15,000 dollar consoles.it does have built in FX of course, and is a good concert board. I would advise pursaching this and the monitor system instead of buying an overprice MIDAS console that does not have better quality. I also think the SI is a pain to navigate, and not a good concert board overall with its 4 layers

 

[deck]

Also, a digico is not particularly well known, so the house engineer will have a problem figuring it out. Your daughter would love the monitor system, which allows the performer to mix their own monitors from a onstage small box. Really great for the price.

 

[chausman]

Try the X32. It is compact, and features 32 channels and is expandable to more than 32. Motorized faders, and scene memory's like you asked. A nice feature is that you can hook up to the Berhinger axiom like system through a built in card out for another 2500$. The X32 is extremely portable, and has great MIDAS preamps with Klark Teknik processing. The X32 does sound great, and can record. It is reliable, and easy to navigate. It costs 2999, but in all honesty, is better than most 8,000-15,000 dollar consoles.it does have built in FX of course, and is a good concert board. I would advise pursaching this and the monitor system instead of buying an overprice MIDAS console that does not have better quality. I also think the SI is a pain to navigate, and not a good concert board overall with its 4 layers

If you can wait, there are also two new versions of the X32 that have all the same features, but are smaller and lighter. They were just announced though, so I don't know how long you'd have to wait for them.

 

[Footer]

Try the X32. It is compact, and features 32 channels and is expandable to more than 32. Motorized faders, and scene memory's like you asked. A nice feature is that you can hook up to the Berhinger axiom like system through a built in card out for another 2500$. The X32 is extremely portable, and has great MIDAS preamps with Klark Teknik processing. The X32 does sound great, and can record. It is reliable, and easy to navigate. It costs 2999, but in all honesty, is better than most 8,000-15,000 dollar consoles.it does have built in FX of course, and is a good concert board. I would advise pursaching this and the monitor system instead of buying an overprice MIDAS console that does not have better quality. I also think the SI is a pain to navigate, and not a good concert board overall with its 4 layers

The card slot on the X32 is a USB interface, not the ultranet interface. The ultranet (axiom like system) is built into the console, no card needed. I'm not sure where this "2500" number comes from, the P16 remote costs about 250 a unit...

And for the sound quality, it does not have the sound quality of the Midas digital console. Its good, its better than most, but it does not sound as good as the Midas stuff.

Also, a digico is not particularly well known, so the house engineer will have a problem figuring it out. Your daughter would love the monitor system, which allows the performer to mix their own monitors from a onstage small box. Really great for the price.

Depends who your engineer is... and this is the main question. There are guys out there that have only touched digico for the last few years... there are guys out there who have never touched them.

Without having a clear view of who will be operating it we can't really go any further.

 

[museav]

If you can wait, there are also two new versions of the X32 that have all the same features, but are smaller and lighter. They were just announced though, so I don't know how long you'd have to wait for them.

They may all have the same underlying foundation and a lot in common but there are definitely differences between each model. However, the different versions of the X32 being introduced seems to reinforce the point of there potentially being different needs and priorities for different applications.

The X32 is extremely portable, and has great MIDAS preamps with Klark Teknik processing. The X32 does sound great, and can record. It is reliable, and easy to navigate. It costs 2999, but in all honesty, is better than most 8,000-15,000 dollar consoles.it does have built in FX of course, and is a good concert board. I would advise pursaching this and the monitor system instead of buying an overprice MIDAS console that does not have better quality.

Some obvious misunderstandings as the X32 does not have Midas preamps or Klark-Teknik processing. As they are now all part of The MUSIC Group, Behringer has taken advantage of some of the technology and technical resources available from Midas, K-T and Turbosound, who are in turn taking advantage of some of Behringer's financial and manufacturing resources. However, they are also being careful to maintain brand differentiation, thus the preamps in the X32 are apparently based on a Midas design and had input from Midas but they are not the same preamps used in any Midas products.

And to clarify, the X32 cannot record without external devices or media. You can record or playback two channels using the integrated USB port and a USB thumb drive. The X32 also has an integrated 32x32 USB 2.0/FireWire interface to connect to ASIO based external recorders or computer recording systems. And the X32 provides MIDI DAW remote control emulating HUI or Mackie Control but apparently currently allows only using the 8 DCA faders for the DAW.

Finally, $2,999 may be MAP for the X32 but many people seem to be getting them for well under that now that the initial rush is past. Being 'better' than consoles costing several times as much is open to debate as there are numerous objective and subjective factors that could enter into such an assessment.


Since it has been brought up, Solid State Logic | Music | AWS is an example of a higher end controller and audio interface for a computer based Digital Audio Workstation. Mackie - Mackie Control Universal Pro is a similar concept but just a controller and toward the other end of the price scale.

 

[sounddad]

Thanks all for you feedback.

I finally made the decision and ordered the new sound mixer. I hope it was a good choice.

For you guys, let me explain why I chose this:
- Has 16+ channels
- It is expandable (you buy modules as you grow that extend your basic channels)
- Has Scenes and motorized faders
- Can record 16+ channels simultaneously (must use an option card)
- Has good quality (I hope)

The option was the Allen & Heath GLD-80.
I already ordered it and expecting to get it next week.

Thanks all

 

[museav]

The GLD-80 is a very nice console but to get the minimum sixteen inputs you apparently wanted would require at least one expansion box and you are apparently also getting one of the multichannel audio cards as well which seems to make it more than the $10k budget. It would also be at least as large and heavy as the Venice that was supposedly too large and heavy, especially once you add a rack for the expansion/stage box and a road case for the console. And while you will likely find it fairly easy to operate in typical use, the initial setup and configuration can be a steep learning curve. So a nice console, but also a seemingly curious choice given some of the previous comments.

 

[TimmyP1955]

GLD-80 is a good unit. Another choice would be the upcoming X32 Compact or Rack.

 

[sounddad]

The GLD-80 is a very nice console but to get the minimum sixteen inputs you apparently wanted would require at least one expansion box and you are apparently also getting one of the multichannel audio cards as well which seems to make it more than the $10k budget. It would also be at least as large and heavy as the Venice that was supposedly too large and heavy, especially once you add a rack for the expansion/stage box and a road case for the console. And while you will likely find it fairly easy to operate in typical use, the initial setup and configuration can be a steep learning curve. So a nice console, but also a seemingly curious choice given some of the previous comments.

Well, the total amount was under $8000, and included, Console, 24 Input Stage Box AR2412, Heavy duty Carrying case, and Snake, so, it was under $10k.

Regarding the weight, it weighs 35 lbs (mixer). the Audio Rack, weighs 7 lbs. So, even with everything included, we are talking 42 lbs.

I was fancying Soundcraft, but, comparing with Allen & Heath, it is more limited in the number of channels. In Si Compact, you only have the options of 16, 24 ch. If you want to expand later on, you can't. If you want to record the sound in a multi-channel recorder, you will need to use MADI expansion card, + converter from MADI to USB or Firewire. For this, you have to pay 2x the price of the MADI card. With Allen & Heath, you buy DANTE Card, and nothing more. The Dante Card, will allow you to record up to 64 Channels, (I won't use so many channels though). But if the music ensemble expands, I'll have a console that will fit their needs.

Regarding the simplicity for operating, it is more complex that the Si Compact (I think) or the Presonus, but still easy enough.

It was never the first choice for me, I thought also on waiting for the X32, but the supplier told me, they didn't know when it would become available. I also asked him if I could buy in the next few months, and his reply was no. If that happened, they would now. The supplier is a large one, and I'm sure they would now this.

 

[museav]

Well, the total amount was under $8000, and included, Console, 24 Input Stage Box AR2412, Heavy duty Carrying case, and Snake, so, it was under $10k.

Sounds like a good deal since MAP on just a GLD-80 console and GLD-AR2412 expansion box is more than $11k.

With Allen & Heath, you buy DANTE Card, and nothing more. The Dante Card, will allow you to record up to 64 Channels, (I won't use so many channels though). But if the music ensemble expands, I'll have a console that will fit their needs.

There are other devices required in order to record via Dante. The Dante card will come with one license of Audinate's Dante Virtual Soundcard that can be run on a computer with a network port and you can then use an ASIO based recording software such as Nuendo, Reaper, ProTools, Cubase, etc. to record on that computer. So a computer and software required for a computer based recording approach. If you want to record to something other than a computer that device will have to have a Dante input or you will need to use Dante compatible interfaces such as RedNet | Focusrite.

It was never the first choice for me, I thought also on waiting for the X32, but the supplier told me, they didn't know when it would become available. I also asked him if I could buy in the next few months, and his reply was no. If that happened, they would now. The supplier is a large one, and I'm sure they would now this.

If you are addressing the new Producer, Compact, Rack or Core versions of the X32 then those are not yet available and may not be for some months but the original 'standard' X32 seems to be readily available.