Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TJ Cornish" data-source="post: 58819" data-attributes="member: 162">Re: A&amp;H GLD as a monitor board - a gig review+1.Tha balance of our GEQ use was during initial wedge tuning.&nbsp; There were a few tiny tweaks during practices, but that was it.&nbsp; My normal layout for the UDKs is Mons 1-7, reverb send, delay send, tap tempo.With apologies to Brandon for picking on him a little, I really think it&#039;s funny that the comparison people tend to make between analog and digital is a little digital board like the GLD, vs a Heritage 3000, or at minimum a PM4K.&nbsp; This is truly silly - especially in the JV section.&nbsp; The analog boards that most potential GLD customers have are so far below this level - we&#039;re comparing Ford Rangers to semi tractor trailers.&nbsp; I paid $10K-ish for my GLD plus a $600 case for the surface, and a few hundred dollars for a tour-grade Cat5E cable on a reel.&nbsp; I have 36 XLR inputs, 20 XLR outputs, and could go up to 44X24 for less than another $1000.&nbsp; My surface IN THE CASE weighs 60lbs.&nbsp; My &quot;snake&quot; weighs about 7lbs plus another 25 for a 6U rack, and I can make it arbitrarily long or short by swapping out a cheap cable.&nbsp; I have great PEQ, dynamics processing, and GEQ on EVERYTHING.&nbsp; The GLD is cheap enough and small enough that should my gigs ever require it, I could afford to carry an entire redundant system in a tiny bit of space.To do even my relatively modest show on analog at the same level as what I actually USED on the GLD (avoiding the pie in the sky 200U of analog to replace everything that comes in the GLD) would have required 11 GEQs, 8 compressors, and a reverb unit.&nbsp; Total cost of the analog &quot;equivalent&quot; would be easily 5X what I have into my GLD, and as I mentioned earlier, would have turned my tiny monitor world into a huge eyesore.&nbsp; I&#039;ll re-answer the question asked and say that not only was the GLD easier than analog, the trucking requirements to bring the analog gear in, plus the stage space would have absolutely killed the entire idea of monitor world at this show - we would have skipped it entirely and ran from FOH.All of the small compromises that the GLD makes to fit in its form factor go away when you go up to a medium sized digital board (which pretty much boils down to fader count), which is really a much more fair comparison to large analog.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TJ Cornish, post: 58819, member: 162"] Re: A&H GLD as a monitor board - a gig review +1. Tha balance of our GEQ use was during initial wedge tuning. There were a few tiny tweaks during practices, but that was it. My normal layout for the UDKs is Mons 1-7, reverb send, delay send, tap tempo. With apologies to Brandon for picking on him a little, I really think it's funny that the comparison people tend to make between analog and digital is a little digital board like the GLD, vs a Heritage 3000, or at minimum a PM4K. This is truly silly - especially in the JV section. The analog boards that most potential GLD customers have are so far below this level - we're comparing Ford Rangers to semi tractor trailers. I paid $10K-ish for my GLD plus a $600 case for the surface, and a few hundred dollars for a tour-grade Cat5E cable on a reel. I have 36 XLR inputs, 20 XLR outputs, and could go up to 44X24 for less than another $1000. My surface IN THE CASE weighs 60lbs. My "snake" weighs about 7lbs plus another 25 for a 6U rack, and I can make it arbitrarily long or short by swapping out a cheap cable. I have great PEQ, dynamics processing, and GEQ on EVERYTHING. The GLD is cheap enough and small enough that should my gigs ever require it, I could afford to carry an entire redundant system in a tiny bit of space. To do even my relatively modest show on analog at the same level as what I actually USED on the GLD (avoiding the pie in the sky 200U of analog to replace everything that comes in the GLD) would have required 11 GEQs, 8 compressors, and a reverb unit. Total cost of the analog "equivalent" would be easily 5X what I have into my GLD, and as I mentioned earlier, would have turned my tiny monitor world into a huge eyesore. I'll re-answer the question asked and say that not only was the GLD easier than analog, the trucking requirements to bring the analog gear in, plus the stage space would have absolutely killed the entire idea of monitor world at this show - we would have skipped it entirely and ran from FOH. All of the small compromises that the GLD makes to fit in its form factor go away when you go up to a medium sized digital board (which pretty much boils down to fader count), which is really a much more fair comparison to large analog. [/QUOTE]

Verification