M32R question

D

Don J Davis

Sophomore
Jan 17, 2011
203
23
18
Orange County, CA
I just purchased an X32 Compact for an install. I just found out that of the 16 faders, only 8 are avaialble for input channels, the other 8 are for Bus, Aux, Matrix. etc.
I didn't realize this and feel this will be problem for less than trained volunteers at the HOW it will be installed in.

I might be able to trade up to an M32R but was wondering if all its 16 faders are available for input channels or is it the same layout as the X32 Compact?

Edit, I stand corrected, fader spill is supposed to work on the Compact.
 
Last edited:
Re: M32R question

Don J Davis said:
I just purchased an X32 Compact for an install. I just found out that of the 16 faders, only 8 are avaialble for input channels, the other 8 are for Bus, Aux, Matrix. etc.
I didn't realize this and feel this will be problem for less than trained volunteers at the HOW it will be installed in.

I might be able to trade up to an M32R but was wondering if all its 16 faders are available for input channels or is it the same layout as the X32 Compact?

Edit, I stand corrected, fader spill is supposed to work on the Compact.
Click to expand...
http://forum.music-group.com/showthread.php?2989-Channel-Spill-X32&highlight=producer+spill
 
Re: M32R question

Don J Davis said:
I just purchased an X32 Compact for an install. I just found out that of the 16 faders, only 8 are avaialble for input channels, the other 8 are for Bus, Aux, Matrix. etc.
I didn't realize this and feel this will be problem for less than trained volunteers at the HOW it will be installed in.

I might be able to trade up to an M32R but was wondering if all its 16 faders are available for input channels or is it the same layout as the X32 Compact?

Edit, I stand corrected, fader spill is supposed to work on the Compact.
Click to expand...

FWIW the M32R is IDENTICAL in feature set to an X32 Compact, it's just smaller. I like it quite a bit actually. Not because it says Midas [i don't care and frankly, it still feels like a B* to me] but because it combines all the best things about the *32 range in the smallest, most efficient package. I use them regularly. I strongly prefer the QL1, but that's desk site at a VERY different price point.
 
Re: M32R question

brian maddox said:
FWIW the M32R is IDENTICAL in feature set to an X32 Compact, it's just smaller. I like it quite a bit actually. Not because it says Midas [i don't care and frankly, it still feels like a B* to me] but because it combines all the best things about the *32 range in the smallest, most efficient package. I use them regularly. I strongly prefer the QL1, but that's desk site at a VERY different price point.
Click to expand...

My first experience with the Compact. I have worked a little with an X32. I would love to spec a QL1 but as you said a very different price point.
 
Re: M32R question

So, if the Midas M series is digitally identical to the Behringer X series, and it IS possible to make them 96K, Does that mean there is more DSP available in the X32, or is there more computing power in the M32?
 
Re: M32R question

John Chiara said:
So, if the Midas M series is digitally identical to the Behringer X series, and it IS possible to make them 96K, Does that mean there is more DSP available in the X32, or is there more computing power in the M32?
Click to expand...

I have no particular insider knowledge, but I believe the answer is neither.

Since we still have not seen the M32-series 96K 'upgrade' come to fruition, i suspect that talk of that was mostly a marketing tool. I think BOTH the X32 and M32 are 'capable' of 96K in that there is no internal hardware that would preclude that ability, but that adding that capability would significantly compromise some other aspect of the console, be it channel count or what have you. Will they eventually release a firmware that enables 96K? I have no idea. All i've ever heard on the subject was that the console was 'capable' of 96K without any indication of when that capability might become reality.

p.s. i suppose it's possible that the A/D converters in the M-series are different enough from the X32 that perhaps that is where the X32 would perhaps NOT be capable of 96K. But i would be truly shocked to find out that ANYTHING about the internal processing hardware was i any way different between the two model lines.
 
Re: M32R question

John Chiara said:
So, if the Midas M series is digitally identical to the Behringer X series, and it IS possible to make them 96K, Does that mean there is more DSP available in the X32, or is there more computing power in the M32?
Click to expand...
The hardware is identical aside from the obvious different preamp/output sections and faders.

The hardware is capable of running 96k but according to a statement from Behringer way back the channel count and fx would need to be reduced to half of the channels due to available dsp power and they were not sure if this was the way to go. Given technical limitations of the platform I'd assume that the ultranet and aes50 would suffer as well.
 
Top Bottom