X32 Discussion

[Dick Franks]

re: X32 Discussion

Well, I didn't see the website updated, but the link to 1.08 works!!! http://www.behringerdownload.de/X32/X32_Firmware_1.08.zipHave fun, X32-ers!!!

I installed the new update, and was bummed to see a bug I reported a couple of weeks ago wasn't fixed. If you assign non-home pages to assignable buttons, the first press of a button will work, but if you press another one, you have to press it twice, as the first press takes you to the page you were on before you pressed the first one. For example assign four buttons, each to a different channel eq page. Press the first assign button, and you'll go to that eq page. Press the next assign button, and you'll go back to the assign utility page. Press that same button again, and you'll go to the expected eq page.

 

[Clayton Fernandes]

re: X32 Discussion

Dear all,

Over the past few months, many people have been reaching out to us and requested an iPad/PC Control remote control version of the X32 digital mixer without any physical control elements.

This could be either a tabletop or rack-mount version where you just connect your I/O’s plus a wireless router and you’re ready to go.

What is your view and could you please also share your requirements such as configuration, front or back connectors, price, etc?

Many thanks

Uli

P.S. Thanks Eric for spotting the connector issue in the manual. We will correct it in our next documentation version as the units are assembled correctly.

follow my idea (draft image) :



16in/8out 96kHz 24bit on board

expandable 32in/16out 48kHz 24Bit with S-16

DSP mixer with FX (dinamic, gate, eq , reverb...)

control for Ipad, PC/Mac, BCF, ...

Thunderbolt compatible

 

[brian maddox]

re: X32 Discussion

follow my idea (draft image) :

View attachment 4721

16in/8out 96kHz 24bit on board

expandable 32in/16out 48kHz 24Bit with S-16

DSP mixer with FX (dinamic, gate, eq , reverb...)

control for Ipad, PC/Mac, BCF, ...

Thunderbolt compatible

+1!!!!!!

this is a cool implementation. pair it with an X32 for an IEM console or redundancy. use it for 96K recording, or small gigs standalone. nice.

i would big time love to see this work well with MIDI so that it could be paired with the excellent BCF2000 and/or BCR2000. or an updated version of either of those.... as someone who uses BCR2000's currently as remotes for Personal Monitor Mixing, i'd love to see an implementation that would take me from my kluge of 01v96s to something a little more elegant.

 

[Frank Pajak]

re: X32 Discussion

Just needs One more rack space in height for firewire/usb output card slot, a headphone jack and maybe like the Midas pro a few USB ports and a DVI so you could supply your own monitor, keyboard, and mouse.....throw the editor in the box too so you have one whole package and allow the ipad to use remote desktop protocol back into the box, nice job!

Sign me up for the beta test

 

[Jens Krämer]

re: X32 Discussion

Hello,
I got a prob with the Mono Bus Routing... I want to set up a Delayline, that is independent from the Master Volume. But the Routing is post Master Fader... is there any way to fix that?
And another thing, that I just mentioned is, that the USB Player makes a popping sound, when a playback track stops at it's end. Is this fixable???

Greetz from Ger
Jens

 

[Tobi Juergens]

re: X32 Discussion

Hey Jens!

I think the right option for you is setup -> global -> M/C depends on L/R level ->OFF,
you could also use a matrix pre fader from the stereo bus.

I Think the problem with the USB Player is fixed in the new firmware 1.08!

Greetz from NRW, too

 

[Jens Krämer]

re: X32 Discussion

I have allready 1.08 onboard... there is no fix

 

[Rodney Bates]

re: X32 Discussion

To my mind it seems rather redundant to buy stage boxes when you have 32 pre amps in the back of the desk.

I know I'm getting into Roland/GLD territory here but here goes...

Why not introduce a second console exactly the same, except only have 8 mic pres and 8 line ins and 8 line out.. Then increase the processing count to 48x24, connect 2 stage boxes and everybody wins.

The x16 could then have 16 pres with 4 line and 8 outs to save space and use a stage box for the other 16+8. Would replace many a mix wizard or studio live with that combo.

Being able to stereo assign a single fader would also be very handy!

Just my thoughts!

 

[Silas Pradetto]

re: X32 Discussion

To my mind it seems rather redundant to buy stage boxes when you have 32 pre amps in the back of the desk.

In reality, it actually seems redundant to have the preamps on the back of the desk. If a digital snake option is available, it should be expected to be the only way to hook up the console. The snake boxes could go on stage or at FOH if required.

Who'd rather run a giant copper snake over cat5? Not me...

 

[Eric Hill - USA]

re: X32 Discussion

In reality, it actually seems redundant to have the preamps on the back of the desk. If a digital snake option is available, it should be expected to be the only way to hook up the console. The snake boxes could go on stage or at FOH if required.

One more item that is lingering around from the analog world.

With the exception of the aux ins/outs, headphones, and talkback, the X32 could have included no other inputs/outputs on the board itself. Instead, ship it with one S16.

Although, that makes marketing a little more challenging. I can hear people now, “Why didn’t they put the outputs on the back? Where am I going to put that box? I have to buy another box to get 32 channels?”

What's done is done. I'm pleased with the board, thus far. Few tweaks here and there. The flow of the desk and UI overall is solid.

Eric H.

 

[Nimrod Webber]

re: X32 Discussion

To my mind it seems rather redundant to buy stage boxes when you have 32 pre amps in the back of the desk.

+1. This made me think… how about if say groups of 8 pres/ADCs were bundled into removable modules that could be individually inserted ether in the console or at the stage box as required.
By this line, a system would need an 'empty' stage frame/rack (containing only the PSU, control and communication circuitry) and only the four 8 ch movable input modules (in case of a 32ch. console) that could be placed at the stage or at the console as the setup dictaets. The same may also be applied to the console outputs.

~~:smile:

 

[Eric Hill - USA]

Mute Groups and DCA's

Wondering if I've missed something, or if there's a logical reason...

DCA's can be muted, but they can't be assigned to a Mute Group?

I've been mostly living on the DCA layer. I have a few DCA's that control Sub Groups.

Right now, I've setup the Mute Groups to mute the Sub Groups. Obviously, with the DCA layer active, I can't see the Sub Group mutes.

Since the DCA's can be muted, and since the DCA's can be setup to mute Sub Groups, it would seem logical there would be a method to assign DCA's to a Mute Group.

Eric H.

 

[Andrew Prince]

re: X32 Discussion

Who'd rather run a giant copper snake over cat5? Not me...

I hear what you're saying but if you're on a limited budget and you already have a 'giant copper snake' then it makes sense to buy an X32 for £2,000.00 rather than an X32 for £2,000.00 AND a digital snake for £1,000.00. That's what I'll be doing.

In fact, for the budget concious, why bother with the stage boxes anyway? They don't add £1,000.00 worth of value to the system. Sure they allow you to run the P16 gear from the stage but you could do that just as easily by running a CAT5 cable from FOH to the stage P16 distribution box. It's WAY cheaper than adding two S16s.

It seems pointless spending all that money just so you don't have to carry another box with the snake inside it or lay the snake out. Of course, if you're pro and working all the time then the setup and teardown times will add up over a year.

Kind regards, Andrew
Mama - The UKs 'all era' Genesis tribute band!
Carillon Video - Professional Wedding Videographer & Wedding Video Production Services in Bolton, Manchester & all over the UK

 

[Andrew Prince]

re: X32 Discussion

how about if say groups of 8 pres/ADCs were bundled into removable modules that could be individually inserted ether in the console or at the stage box as required.

By this line, a system would need an 'empty' stage frame/rack (containing only the PSU, control and communication circuitry) and only the four 8 ch movable input modules (in case of a 32ch. console) that could be placed at the stage or at the console as the setup dictaets.

If you were doing that, why bother with the console? Just have an empty rack with PSU in it. Then build an X16 and put it in an S16 box. You add as many X16s to the frame on stage as you want and they link up to share processing power. The control surface runs over WiFi or CAT5 and then you don't need fancy interfaces to get your audio from the stage to FOH and back. All audio work is done in the rack. The only thing the console does is act as a remote surface.

Therefore, people who want an X16 with laptop or iPad control only need buy a cheap rack. People who want the same but 32 channels need only buy TWO. People who need 64 channels could buy FOUR. People who require ANY number of channels with true FOH console just buy the required number of racks and the control surface.

 

[Eric Hill - USA]

re: X32 Discussion

In fact, for the budget concious, why bother with the stage boxes anyway? They don't add £1,000.00 worth of value to the system.

If the inputs/outputs weren't on the X32, the cost of the board itself would have been lower.

The overall cost of an X32 and S16 package might have been slightly higher, because there are manufacturing costs to assemble and test the S16. However, those costs might have been offset by the reduced development time and simpler X32 design.

This discussion is moot, at this point. The X32 is what it is: A well designed digital board, with 32 channels, and an optional digital snake, at a very reasonable price point. Game changed, for sure.

I don’t think Behringer has a set-in-stone “X32” plan for the next coming few years. That’s good, and bad. It’s good, because it means they can gauge and respond to the market faster. It’s bad, because it can lead to inconsistent product lines.

Eric H.

 

[Andrew Prince]

re: X32 Discussion

This discussion is moot, at this point.

It's hardly moot if Uli himself is asking the forum for suggestions so that Behringer can offer the products that the users want.

Game changed, for sure.

Wholeheartedly agree. ~~:smile:

I don’t think Behringer has a set-in-stone “X32” plan for the next coming few years. That’s good, and bad. It’s good, because it means they can gauge and respond to the market faster. It’s bad, because it can lead to inconsistent product lines.

If they'd gone with the modular system from the start, they wouldn't even have had to gauge the market or try to predict future product lines. Users would simply have bought the modules they required to get the job done. What's more, the control board would last a lifetime because the audio hardware upgrades and software upgrades would be in the rack. The board would never change.

My shopping list:

1 x empty stage rack
2 x X16 racks
1 x X32 control board
1 x 50m CAT5 cable

No digital snake required. No audio leaving the stage. No earth loops. No risk to expensive gear in a rowdy crowd. No mains requirement at FOH. My shopping list would arguably cost the same as a single X32, plus the price of the CAT5 cable.

 

[Jaap Geurts van Kessel]

re: X32 Discussion

Hello everyone. I'm following this thread for a while now and I purchased a x32 and p16 monitor system last week.

I'm test running it now but I ran into a problem and I hope you guys could help me a bit solving it.

First thing is: I'm not getting any output from analog outputs 9-16 although my in/out meter window says it should. I hope I didn't get a defective mixer. I did a full factory reset then routed the main L/R mix to output 7-8 (and 15-16 which is standard) If I connect my speakers to 7-8 I get sound of I connect my speakers to output 15-16 I don't get anything.

I also routed input channel 1 (with a microphone attached) directly to ouput channel 16 and that also doesn't work although my meters screen says it should. The same goes for the other ouput channels ranging from 9-16.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I'm not an experienced user.

View attachment 4744

 

[Andrew Prince]

re: X32 Discussion

Hi all!

Remember how we used to classify consoles with numbers, like this?

16:4:2 or 32:8:2

Anyone care to have a go at classifying the X32 in the same way? Here's my attempt for what it's worth:

32:16:2:32:32

~~:smile:

Kind regards, Andrew
Mama - The UKs 'all era' Genesis tribute band!
Carillon Video - Professional Wedding Videographer & Wedding Video Production Services in Bolton, Manchester & all over the UK

 

[Brian jojade]

re: X32 Discussion

In reality, it actually seems redundant to have the preamps on the back of the desk. If a digital snake option is available, it should be expected to be the only way to hook up the console. The snake boxes could go on stage or at FOH if required.

Who'd rather run a giant copper snake over cat5? Not me...

The huge advantage I see is you can simply buy TWO consoles and use one as the monitor console, and then send the signal digitally to FOH. If one console craps out, you still have a second there to do the show.

I'm guessing that the actual cost of putting the connectors inside the console is fairly minimal. You might shave a couple hundred bucks off the console at most. And then you lose the convenience of being able to use the console without a stage box for your smaller shows. I see it as a win over something like the GLD system where you essentially MUST buy a stage box at the same time as the console, thus increasing the cost of entry.

 

[Jon Pusey]

re: X32 Discussion

I hear what you're saying but if you're on a limited budget and you already have a 'giant copper snake' then it makes sense to buy an X32 for £2,000.00 rather than an X32 for £2,000.00 AND a digital snake for £1,000.00. That's what I'll be doing.

In fact, for the budget concious, why bother with the stage boxes anyway? They don't add £1,000.00 worth of value to the system. Sure they allow you to run the P16 gear from the stage but you could do that just as easily by running a CAT5 cable from FOH to the stage P16 distribution box. It's WAY cheaper than adding two S16s.

It seems pointless spending all that money just so you don't have to carry another box with the snake inside it or lay the snake out. Of course, if you're pro and working all the time then the setup and teardown times will add up over a year.

Kind regards, Andrew
Mama - The UKs 'all era' Genesis tribute band!
Carillon Video - Professional Wedding Videographer & Wedding Video Production Services in Bolton, Manchester & all over the UK

If you already own an analogue snake, sure. Assuming you've got multipin connectors at your desk (and possibly stage end), all you need to do is tape 2 cat 5 lines (1 spare) to your snake and away you go, won't take noticably more time. The attraction of the digital snake to me would be that for a 32/16 snake it is almost certainly cheaper. The actual cable bundle itself would be lighter and smaller (mains, 1 cat5 for the desk, possibly 1 for control and 1 spare) which if you are transporting kit in vans makes a difference.