Presonus 32.4.2Al
- Thread starter Brian jojade
- Start date
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
@Tim,
I own a MixWiz and have mixed on the SL (not the 01v though). I have been seriously considering selling off my instrument rack full of stuff including my MixWiz and getting a 16.4.2 mostly for reasons of moving a much smaller and lighter piece of gear. I also thought it would be nice to have a full meter bridge since I mix from stage.
Why didn't you like the SL?
@Tim,
I own a MixWiz and have mixed on the SL (not the 01v though). I have been seriously considering selling off my instrument rack full of stuff including my MixWiz and getting a 16.4.2 mostly for reasons of moving a much smaller and lighter piece of gear. I also thought it would be nice to have a full meter bridge since I mix from stage.
Why didn't you like the SL?
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
I'm going to jump back in ahead of Tim and comment.
1. The "meter bridge" function of the Fat Channel is brilliant for on-stage mixing. I discovered this the hard way, having to record a live performance directly to stereo when the only place to set up the mixer was on the postage-stamp sized stage. I put the 16:4:2 against the wall and sat on the bass amp to mix. With the meter bridge and a pair of GK Ultraphones, it was do-able. Both the headphone isolation and the visual feedback from the LED's were necessary for the task.
2. I'm not going to pretend to speak for Tim.......but I have my lingering suspicions that most if not all the disappointments with the desk stem from it simply being the wrong tool for the job it was on. It has its place, but it is not everyone's cup of tea. Sonically, it does just fine.
I'm going to jump back in ahead of Tim and comment.
1. The "meter bridge" function of the Fat Channel is brilliant for on-stage mixing. I discovered this the hard way, having to record a live performance directly to stereo when the only place to set up the mixer was on the postage-stamp sized stage. I put the 16:4:2 against the wall and sat on the bass amp to mix. With the meter bridge and a pair of GK Ultraphones, it was do-able. Both the headphone isolation and the visual feedback from the LED's were necessary for the task.
2. I'm not going to pretend to speak for Tim.......but I have my lingering suspicions that most if not all the disappointments with the desk stem from it simply being the wrong tool for the job it was on. It has its place, but it is not everyone's cup of tea. Sonically, it does just fine.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
Thanks Dick,
... and would one of the jobs it would be a good tool for be a band providing their own PA and mixing from on-stage?
Thanks Dick,
... and would one of the jobs it would be a good tool for be a band providing their own PA and mixing from on-stage?
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
I agree. The meter bridge input mode makes it easy to see onstage.
Thanks Dick,
... and would one of the jobs it would be a good tool for be a band providing their own PA and mixing from on-stage?
I agree. The meter bridge input mode makes it easy to see onstage.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
Right...well that may be the case, but it doesn't negate my point that you're paying more and getting less when comparing the 32 channel SL and the X32.
Right...well that may be the case, but it doesn't negate my point that you're paying more and getting less when comparing the 32 channel SL and the X32.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
I have been doing some research on both of these consoles. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Everyone immediately points out that the SL does not have motorized faders. True; however, for live sound, it doesn't really need them either. The SL has 32 independent faders for 32 input channels while the X32 has only 16 faders used for 2 layers of 16 inputs for a total of 32 inputs..... so it really HAS to have motorized faders or the entire layer thing would not work at all. The SL ..... doesn't really need this feature IMHO.
The SL is easier to setup and navigate. I was new on both having come from a MixWiz and was very quickly able to figure out the SL (minutes) while I had to do some pretty deep research to figure out how to do several things on the X32. Keep in mind that I am not a veteran in digital consoles. I understand that for those who are, the X32 topology is pretty familiar .... but for an old analog guy like me, the SL was easier to master.
Sadly for the SL, here ends the good news and begins a real battle for it.
The X32 is a better sounding mixer to my ears. The efx and preamps on the X32 just sound better (or are easier to make sound better).
The X32 wireless interface is MUCH better by eliminating the need for a computer hooked up with a finiky firewire port.
The X32 is more expandable for those that need more than 32 channels.
The remote control software is more flexible (or will be soon) on the X32 which will support iOS, Windows and Android.
The X32 bus matrix interface is much more advanced than the SL (to my untrained hands anyway).
The X32 is less expensive. This is really the final kick IMHO.
I don't need 32 channels for my band. I am seriously considering the X32 rack and a tablet mounted to my mic stand as my new FOH "mix from stage" setup. I think that for the "mix from stage" crowd, X32 models are really going to shine. For "out front" duty, the X32 is tough to beat. I am not as sure about the X32 Performer and X32 compact as they are still in heavy competition from the SL 16.4.2 and 16.0.2. It is really only the 32.4.2AI that the X32 competes with IMHO.
I have been doing some research on both of these consoles. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Everyone immediately points out that the SL does not have motorized faders. True; however, for live sound, it doesn't really need them either. The SL has 32 independent faders for 32 input channels while the X32 has only 16 faders used for 2 layers of 16 inputs for a total of 32 inputs..... so it really HAS to have motorized faders or the entire layer thing would not work at all. The SL ..... doesn't really need this feature IMHO.
The SL is easier to setup and navigate. I was new on both having come from a MixWiz and was very quickly able to figure out the SL (minutes) while I had to do some pretty deep research to figure out how to do several things on the X32. Keep in mind that I am not a veteran in digital consoles. I understand that for those who are, the X32 topology is pretty familiar .... but for an old analog guy like me, the SL was easier to master.
Sadly for the SL, here ends the good news and begins a real battle for it.
The X32 is a better sounding mixer to my ears. The efx and preamps on the X32 just sound better (or are easier to make sound better).
The X32 wireless interface is MUCH better by eliminating the need for a computer hooked up with a finiky firewire port.
The X32 is more expandable for those that need more than 32 channels.
The remote control software is more flexible (or will be soon) on the X32 which will support iOS, Windows and Android.
The X32 bus matrix interface is much more advanced than the SL (to my untrained hands anyway).
The X32 is less expensive. This is really the final kick IMHO.
I don't need 32 channels for my band. I am seriously considering the X32 rack and a tablet mounted to my mic stand as my new FOH "mix from stage" setup. I think that for the "mix from stage" crowd, X32 models are really going to shine. For "out front" duty, the X32 is tough to beat. I am not as sure about the X32 Performer and X32 compact as they are still in heavy competition from the SL 16.4.2 and 16.0.2. It is really only the 32.4.2AI that the X32 competes with IMHO.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
Those two points are not entirely accurate, the new SL is supposed to address the first point (I believe that is what the AI part of the model number refers to). AFAIK the adding S16s doesn't increase the channel count that the mixer can handle at one time, it just offers more options in where you can derive those channels.
Disclaimer: Not at all a fan of the SL. Just trying to keep it real.
Those two points are not entirely accurate, the new SL is supposed to address the first point (I believe that is what the AI part of the model number refers to). AFAIK the adding S16s doesn't increase the channel count that the mixer can handle at one time, it just offers more options in where you can derive those channels.
Disclaimer: Not at all a fan of the SL. Just trying to keep it real.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
First, most arguments pro SL are something like 'coming from analog desks its easier'. In fact this argument is not a real one because normally it needs a few hours to get familiar with the concepts of a digital console. Imho it is more complex to deal with all the routing and usabilty issues of analog consoles and the needed outboard gear then using a digital desk.
Second, a big disadvantage of the SL series is the fact, that the less input channels the less processing parameters and features you get. Other vendors, e.g. Yamaha or Soundcraft, are providing the same features except the number of inputs and outputs.
Behringer goes even one step further and allows you to have the same engine and IO capabilities for the whole range. (Except the
IX16). Only the control surface and local io differs. But the eq, dynamics , busses and so on are the same for the whole range.
First, most arguments pro SL are something like 'coming from analog desks its easier'. In fact this argument is not a real one because normally it needs a few hours to get familiar with the concepts of a digital console. Imho it is more complex to deal with all the routing and usabilty issues of analog consoles and the needed outboard gear then using a digital desk.
Second, a big disadvantage of the SL series is the fact, that the less input channels the less processing parameters and features you get. Other vendors, e.g. Yamaha or Soundcraft, are providing the same features except the number of inputs and outputs.
Behringer goes even one step further and allows you to have the same engine and IO capabilities for the whole range. (Except the
IX16). Only the control surface and local io differs. But the eq, dynamics , busses and so on are the same for the whole range.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
Ditto on all counts. If you can't get the hang of a new interface then buy what you like, but the whole "less is more" perspective is just laziness or no passion about improving your mixing skills. The 24.4.2 is fine if you are setting a static mix and don't need to change things on the fly, as long as you can live with the FX and no recallable preamps. Babysat a show last week and guy mixing on iPad from out front with 24.4.2 backstage. I asked about the dull sounding kick. He showed me the kick channel with about 10db of boost at 8K, along with the fact that the input was set about 30 Db too low for any real gain structure...and he couldn't change it until the break....which he didn't!
Ditto on all counts. If you can't get the hang of a new interface then buy what you like, but the whole "less is more" perspective is just laziness or no passion about improving your mixing skills. The 24.4.2 is fine if you are setting a static mix and don't need to change things on the fly, as long as you can live with the FX and no recallable preamps. Babysat a show last week and guy mixing on iPad from out front with 24.4.2 backstage. I asked about the dull sounding kick. He showed me the kick channel with about 10db of boost at 8K, along with the fact that the input was set about 30 Db too low for any real gain structure...and he couldn't change it until the break....which he didn't!
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
So why do you care that someone chooses a different tool for the job than you? Why are you so obsessed with the subject that you will use such a ridiculous example that has nothing to do with the 32.4.2 to try and make a point. What is that point any way - That a crappy soundman should use a Berhinger instead of a Studiolive? The choice of board is not a refection of one's ability, passion or laziness. Maybe someone can have an opinion different than yours!
So why do you care that someone chooses a different tool for the job than you? Why are you so obsessed with the subject that you will use such a ridiculous example that has nothing to do with the 32.4.2 to try and make a point. What is that point any way - That a crappy soundman should use a Berhinger instead of a Studiolive? The choice of board is not a refection of one's ability, passion or laziness. Maybe someone can have an opinion different than yours!
Last edited:
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
I guess my recent realization that very few "sound persons" are actually mixers... Meaning someone who mixes music as a primary occupation. I accept that begrudgingly as many of my lower end jobs get gobbled up by guys With 24.4.2's who consider "mix" to be a noun. It pains me to see bands together for years, with the same crew and ever updated gear and the quality never changes. lI understand everyone has their own passion and their own hobbies. I just get frustrated when local guys are mixing styles of music that need "verb" (dynamic)...meaning actually moving faders and changing settings... mixing to reproduce excitement and impact and it just lays there. If you are mixing rock or metal bands, the X 32 is a better choice for a bunch of reasons.
I can produce a mix on the X32 that I couldn't on the 24.4.2, so for me that makes it a better choice. The X32 does more and for me, more is better. No one gets a better live mix ...that impresses listeners and makes them remember the performance...by doing less. Still looking for an example in any discipline where knowing or doing less is considered better.
I guess my recent realization that very few "sound persons" are actually mixers... Meaning someone who mixes music as a primary occupation. I accept that begrudgingly as many of my lower end jobs get gobbled up by guys With 24.4.2's who consider "mix" to be a noun. It pains me to see bands together for years, with the same crew and ever updated gear and the quality never changes. lI understand everyone has their own passion and their own hobbies. I just get frustrated when local guys are mixing styles of music that need "verb" (dynamic)...meaning actually moving faders and changing settings... mixing to reproduce excitement and impact and it just lays there. If you are mixing rock or metal bands, the X 32 is a better choice for a bunch of reasons.
I can produce a mix on the X32 that I couldn't on the 24.4.2, so for me that makes it a better choice. The X32 does more and for me, more is better. No one gets a better live mix ...that impresses listeners and makes them remember the performance...by doing less. Still looking for an example in any discipline where knowing or doing less is considered better.
Last edited:
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
On point one, you are correct. I missed that. Thanks for the correction.
On point two, I still think that the X32 is more easily (and less expensively) able to expand to more channels. I am thinking that you could expand the X32 from a 32 channel by connecting up to 6 S16 I/O expanders..... although I am not sure how you would control that many using only 16 faders
On point one, you are correct. I missed that. Thanks for the correction.
On point two, I still think that the X32 is more easily (and less expensively) able to expand to more channels. I am thinking that you could expand the X32 from a 32 channel by connecting up to 6 S16 I/O expanders..... although I am not sure how you would control that many using only 16 faders
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
My understanding is that it is possible to connect more i/o, but you can only have 32 physical inputs patched to "virtual inputs" at a time. The patch and channel assignment can be changed using the console's scene memory.
My understanding is that it is possible to connect more i/o, but you can only have 32 physical inputs patched to "virtual inputs" at a time. The patch and channel assignment can be changed using the console's scene memory.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
Well, I don't exactly know how to put this .... but if I am purchasing something and I can't get it to do what I need it to do, then it doesn't do me much good does it?
I notice that many here assume that the only reason anyone would purchase one of these mixers is to hire out sound. For the majority of people who will purchase the 32 channel board, that may be true. I personally can't justify 3K for a mixer for my hobby band, and I am sure that most other bands I know locally can't either. So with this in mind, you may have a valid point. The target market for the X32 32 channel is likely squarely aimed at sound professionals, not bands.
I guess I was thinking about the lower end models. The X32 Rack, X32 Producer, and X32 Compact appear to be squarely aimed at bands. They are smaller, less expensive, and lower channel count.... with the same processing engine and bus work as in the full sized X32. I will certainly figure out all of the X32 functionality and be able to take advantage of it should I purchase it .... but I am an electrical engineer and generally a world class geek who happens to front a band and own the PA. I know plenty of guys who do local bands that wouldn't be as comfortable on the X32 as they are on the SL. Right now, there are LOTS of bands using the 16.4.2 out there. Most of them came from analog boards .... and it was important for them to understand the board ...... and the SL made it easy to do.
Me, I am thinking about the X32 rack with a Laptop for recording, and an iPad for remote mixing and control from stage at the gig. The Laptop can also be used for the control interface for the more sophisticated setup needed to setup the dynamic processing and channel eq.
Actually, the biggest thing which is swaying me toward an X32 vs a SL 16.4.2 is that I am hearing quite a few reports that the X32 efx and processing sound better. That makes a big difference to me. If I have to spend a few hours figuring out how you guys operate digital consoles in order to get a better mix and better overall sound .... I am completely up for that.
I have a guy in another band that said that one of the most valuable feature he used on his SL16.4.2 was using a recording of their live gig and modifying the dynamic processing, gates, eq and mix after the fact to get their sound optimized. This is VERY interesting to me. While I can't do this kind of work live (I lead sing and play rhythm guitar), I could absolutely tweak scenes after the fact to get our show sounding better.
Can you do this with the X32 as well?
Well, I don't exactly know how to put this .... but if I am purchasing something and I can't get it to do what I need it to do, then it doesn't do me much good does it?
I notice that many here assume that the only reason anyone would purchase one of these mixers is to hire out sound. For the majority of people who will purchase the 32 channel board, that may be true. I personally can't justify 3K for a mixer for my hobby band, and I am sure that most other bands I know locally can't either. So with this in mind, you may have a valid point. The target market for the X32 32 channel is likely squarely aimed at sound professionals, not bands.
I guess I was thinking about the lower end models. The X32 Rack, X32 Producer, and X32 Compact appear to be squarely aimed at bands. They are smaller, less expensive, and lower channel count.... with the same processing engine and bus work as in the full sized X32. I will certainly figure out all of the X32 functionality and be able to take advantage of it should I purchase it .... but I am an electrical engineer and generally a world class geek who happens to front a band and own the PA. I know plenty of guys who do local bands that wouldn't be as comfortable on the X32 as they are on the SL. Right now, there are LOTS of bands using the 16.4.2 out there. Most of them came from analog boards .... and it was important for them to understand the board ...... and the SL made it easy to do.
Me, I am thinking about the X32 rack with a Laptop for recording, and an iPad for remote mixing and control from stage at the gig. The Laptop can also be used for the control interface for the more sophisticated setup needed to setup the dynamic processing and channel eq.
Actually, the biggest thing which is swaying me toward an X32 vs a SL 16.4.2 is that I am hearing quite a few reports that the X32 efx and processing sound better. That makes a big difference to me. If I have to spend a few hours figuring out how you guys operate digital consoles in order to get a better mix and better overall sound .... I am completely up for that.
I have a guy in another band that said that one of the most valuable feature he used on his SL16.4.2 was using a recording of their live gig and modifying the dynamic processing, gates, eq and mix after the fact to get their sound optimized. This is VERY interesting to me. While I can't do this kind of work live (I lead sing and play rhythm guitar), I could absolutely tweak scenes after the fact to get our show sounding better.
Can you do this with the X32 as well?
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
This is correct. You can have up to 6 of the S16 stage boxes (6 x 16 = 96 total available mic inputs) + 32 local mic inputs + 6 aux inputs
134 total inputs to choose from. Keep in mind that with using the S16's that the configuration is in blocks of 8 and therefore could prove limiting if you do not plan your i/o efficiently.
This is correct. You can have up to 6 of the S16 stage boxes (6 x 16 = 96 total available mic inputs) + 32 local mic inputs + 6 aux inputs
134 total inputs to choose from. Keep in mind that with using the S16's that the configuration is in blocks of 8 and therefore could prove limiting if you do not plan your i/o efficiently.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
If I am reading this correctly I believe you are talking about virtual sound check? If so yes, the X32 is fully capable of this feature. Setup your computer to record via FiWi/USB into software such as Reaper.
Then when you want to playback that recording keeping all tracks aligned with the original channels on the mixer, go into your routing tab and change the inputs to "card 1-32". You can adjust gains, comps, gates, eq, setup scenes etc all you want to.
If I am reading this correctly I believe you are talking about virtual sound check? If so yes, the X32 is fully capable of this feature. Setup your computer to record via FiWi/USB into software such as Reaper.
Then when you want to playback that recording keeping all tracks aligned with the original channels on the mixer, go into your routing tab and change the inputs to "card 1-32". You can adjust gains, comps, gates, eq, setup scenes etc all you want to.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
Thanks Jared!
I think that for those of us that mix from the stage, this feature alone will improve our sound more than anything else. It will be like I can mix my own gig.
Incidentally, I use reaper already. Nice program
Others I know do this with their SL and find it to be an invaluable tool.
Back to the original topic ....
I think the SL32.4.2AI is a tough sell considering the X32 competition it faces (price and features). The one advantage that it does have is that many (including myself) associate the word "Behringer" with cheap crap while the SL is much more respected for its quality.
Thanks Jared!
I think that for those of us that mix from the stage, this feature alone will improve our sound more than anything else. It will be like I can mix my own gig.
Incidentally, I use reaper already. Nice program
Others I know do this with their SL and find it to be an invaluable tool.
Back to the original topic ....
I think the SL32.4.2AI is a tough sell considering the X32 competition it faces (price and features). The one advantage that it does have is that many (including myself) associate the word "Behringer" with cheap crap while the SL is much more respected for its quality.
Re: Presonus 32.4.2Al
Behringer has always been a low cost alternative.
Behringer DI: $80
Radial DI: $175
I DO have both. The B-DI's gave me some DI's at a decent price but they are now being replaced. To be honest I've never had a problem with them, but had enough to swap one out if I did. I also have a Behringer FCB1010 to offer foot control of lights. Again, $160 vs the $400 for a similar Roland product. If it were to die during a gig, there's always the iPad or I can run them automatically from the computer.
A repair facility in Vegas means nothing while the crowd is watching, waiting if it were to go down. As with anything a backup will save the day. I'm just not convinced yet. In a year or two that opinion could change. But for now my SL has served me well. (To be fair, I carry a backup SL16.0.2 which will get me by as a spare if anything happens) in over 2 years it hasn't been needed.
-knock on wood-
I DO definitely see the value of recallable gains, and moving faders could be handy with scenes but I get by fine without them.
Behringer has always been a low cost alternative.
Behringer DI: $80
Radial DI: $175
I DO have both. The B-DI's gave me some DI's at a decent price but they are now being replaced. To be honest I've never had a problem with them, but had enough to swap one out if I did. I also have a Behringer FCB1010 to offer foot control of lights. Again, $160 vs the $400 for a similar Roland product. If it were to die during a gig, there's always the iPad or I can run them automatically from the computer.
A repair facility in Vegas means nothing while the crowd is watching, waiting if it were to go down. As with anything a backup will save the day. I'm just not convinced yet. In a year or two that opinion could change. But for now my SL has served me well. (To be fair, I carry a backup SL16.0.2 which will get me by as a spare if anything happens) in over 2 years it hasn't been needed.
-knock on wood-
I DO definitely see the value of recallable gains, and moving faders could be handy with scenes but I get by fine without them.
Last edited: