Re: Analog to Digital mixer recomendation
I can only speak to my experience - MixWiz to a Presonus SI 16.0.2 -
I found the transition to be very easy.
There are no layers to understand and navigate.
I found it to be very "analog like" - you do need to adjust your workflow - other than faders, everything else is done one channel at a time - can't quickly scan the board to see relative settings.
Lots and lots the Mixwiz did not have. Gates, Compressors, graphs, scene recall, etc. Still love my MixWiz btw.
Presonus includes a lot of instrument/vocal profiles which can get the show set up and close quite quickly, even for someone relatively new to the board. This cuts the learning curve down considerably. Most of the profiles sound pretty good. Some non-combat time on the mixer will actually be a "training tool" to introduce you to how their filters, gate, compressor, etc settings work together.
Custom profiles can be saved easily. Entire board "scenes" can be saved for quick use later.
Metering is very thorough. All the "normal" digital goodies right there on top.
Software and support has been at least adequate. I do get the feeling the original series of mixers are completely developed (read orphaned).
PITAs:
No automated faders. Really not necessary as everything is one one layer - but when using computer/IPad control, it sure would be a nice to have.
No recallable preamps. I'll treat it as fact here. Lots of value discussion on the QSC thread on the pros and cons of the need vs utility.
No offline editors - Presonus does not provide (nor appear to have in development) offline editors. To set up a show, one must be connected to the mixer. Major PITA. A third party has produced a minimal editor that supports the 16.4.2 and the 24.4.2, but not the 16.0.2 (he doesn't have one to test and keep current with). I'm sure Presonus could buy the guy out, license it, or at least give him a 16.0.2 to work with. I don't think that is something Presonus sees as necessary.
I've been using my purchased new 16.0.2 since August 2011 without incident. I've recently purchased a 24.4.2 and am spoiled by the additional things the mixer does. The 16.4.2 is more similar (function, size, weight) to the 24 channel than the baby 16.0.2.
Mine are the non-AI mixers. Can't comment on the new ones. I do get the feeling that the older mixers have seen all the firmware/software development they will ever see.
I can't complain about the sound - or really compare. Customers are happy. I guess we could get into bit-depth discussions, but that is beyond my level of concern.
Firewire interface. My Mac - pre thunderbolt - was plug and go. Bought it to replace my Dell...
My Dell with on-board firewire was an unmitigated disaster. Ricoh chipset does not work. Need a TI chipset via a PCMCIA (or whatever its replacement is...). XP is no longer supported. With Windows 7, I spent hours (days?) working trying to get priorities, drivers, interrupts, etc. so that the Universal Control program was "stable" - which is needed for IPad control. Capture, its multitrack recording software, has to run on the same computer at the same time as universal control. That goes back to tweaking the priorities, drivers, interrupts, etc. so the program will operate without dropouts or generalized barfing.
MY EXPERIENCE (YMMV) was that I could not get my Dell with Win 7 to work reliably with Universal Control. Capture was a lost cause. TO BE FAIR, Many folks run Windows 7 and 8 without any of the drama I experienced.
From a "future proofing" standpoint, I would not purchase the 16.0.2 again - many likes of the board, but there are so many new mixers coming out in the low price range, (A&H, Soundcraft) I'd have to think about something else. The new Presonus did not address some of the critic's concerns with the new ones. I do not think to second guess the manufacturing/marketing of the company. I see facts.
Size/features of the 16.0.2 is a good combo for what, in reality, is a 12 channel mixer. I do believe it is better (for me) than the micro-digital-mixers like the Mackie and the QSC, but again, weight of tradeoffs.
frank
