Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Brian jojade said:
The issue is that every other board in the world seems to be grouped by 8, so that's what people are comfortable with. It's got 16 inputs, but you can't mix all 16 on one layer. The 32 input unit has 30 faders, so again, you can't work on a single layer. It's just a convenience thing. Showstopper? No. 2 more faders to match the way everyone thinks though, would have eliminated the argument and confusion.
Click to expand...

It seems a bit silly, doesn't it? Kind of like assigning input processing in blocks of 8 channels on the M/X32.

I've mixed on the Performer and wasn't impressed but didn't have enough time on it to hate it or love it but found part of it intuitive and part of it confusing. I'm used to the M/X32 and it can be maddening to figure out where or how a little used parameter can be found - like the work like dimmer - so that's not exactly new to me. ;)

For Matt - I think the nod goes to the M32 mostly based on the tablet control and support for multiple simultaneous devices. Up thread someone made the comment that the Soundcraft would be fine if mixing the same act all the time and I agree with that.... but.... the ViSi App is duff.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Matt Vivlamore said:
Yes I know the GLD is a nice console... I wish they had a smaller control surface. I'm leaning towards the Rack Mount width to allow one person to pick the console up without any issues (main downfall of my LS9-32).
Click to expand...

The GLD is slightly smaller and lighter than the standard format M32 / X32 ... it has a much nicer UI and is more powerful.

If you are looking for a small mixer I would also check out Allen & Heath Qu series including the Q-pac especially if you are using an iPad 85% of the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgiafRgv3YU

M32 - 891mm x 612mm x 256mm - 25kgs

M32R - 478mm x 617mm x 208mm - 14.3kgs

GLD - 730mm x 577mm x 159mm - 21kgs

LS9/32 - 884mm x 500mm x 220mm - 19.2kgs

Si Performer 1 - 483mm x 523mm x 193mm - 15kgs
 
Last edited:
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Brian jojade said:
The issue is that every other board in the world seems to be grouped by 8, so that's what people are comfortable with. It's got 16 inputs, but you can't mix all 16 on one layer. The 32 input unit has 30 faders, so again, you can't work on a single layer. It's just a convenience thing. Showstopper? No. 2 more faders to match the way everyone thinks though, would have eliminated the argument and confusion.
Click to expand...

1 more fader even, they have two faders on the output side.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Matt Vivlamore said:
Which console would you look more in-depth of and possibly buy?
85% of the time FOH is done by iPad
Click to expand...

If I was in need of or desired 80 channels to mix capability, GEQ on all mix buss outs, 2 expansion card slots, stereo AES in/out, Wordclock, DMX out, FaderGlow, touchscreen, or a user/owner heralded sound, then the SI would be the obvious choice.
However, if remote mixing 85%, 50%, 25% or even 10% on any Soundcraft VISI platform mixer would be arduous at best, imo. In that case the clear choice is the M32.
The speed of access to the comprehensive facilities available on the MG iOS M32 Mix & Android MixingStation apps, and the MG PC M32 Edit program, along with the prerequisite of a properly implemented WLAN, provide a reliable, stable, and combat ready solution for real world FOH/MON remote mix/editing, something that the current SI VISI platform cannot provide, IME.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

I agree, the ipad app for the Soundcraft is its weak link. I do 75% mixing via the ipad on my m32r. The m32r (and x32) ipad app is great, the mixing station android app is even better. Download the demo versions and make an informed decision.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Tim McCulloch said:
It seems a bit silly, doesn't it? Kind of like assigning input processing in blocks of 8 channels on the M/X32.

I've mixed on the Performer and wasn't impressed but didn't have enough time on it to hate it or love it but found part of it intuitive and part of it confusing. I'm used to the M/X32 and it can be maddening to figure out where or how a little used parameter can be found - like the work like dimmer - so that's not exactly new to me. ;)

For Matt - I think the nod goes to the M32 mostly based on the tablet control and support for multiple simultaneous devices. Up thread someone made the comment that the Soundcraft would be fine if mixing the same act all the time and I agree with that.... but.... the ViSi App is duff.
Click to expand...

Hey Tim, I might be misreading your first line... but on the X/M32 platforms the Mic Pre's are set-up in Banks of 8 (Outputs in banks of 4). But then on the channel you can pull which ever input you want to that specific slider. Example, you put a stage box in the RF Rack and plug Handheld Mics 1-4 are plugged into (SB1)Ch's 1-4, and then you go onto the Console Ch 18 and choose the SB1ch1 as that source.

I am moving towards the X/M32 platforms; the other agency band I work with has an X32(full) as the primary console and it was one of the first to hit the USA and *knock on wood*, there hasn't been any issues.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Peter Morris said:
The GLD is slightly smaller and lighter than the standard format M32 / X32 ... it has a much nicer UI and is more powerful.

If you are looking for a small mixer I would also check out Allen & Heath Qu series including the Q-pac especially if you are using an iPad 85% of the time.
Click to expand...

I looked at the Qu series... But the Qu Platform doesn't met the needs. Yes it has enough Inputs, but the Outputs are limited (4 mono + 3 stereo). The band varies in size (from 7-10pc) with each member on its own mix.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Alright, I've settled on a set-up. As much as a pushed and shied away from it... I am going to build a X/M32 rig to run the Wedding Band.

Over the last 5-6 shows I've ran both the Soundcraft Expression and Behringer X32's in different set-ups. I didn't like the Expression, what's the point of that 3x4" screen??? The X32's that I was one ranged in age from one of the first units to hit the USA to a brand new one. I even drove one X32 hard because the Supplied Rig wasn't enough. Once I learned the software interface and iPad app, I didn't have any complaints about the system. Also another reason I choose the X/M32 route because the other Wedding band that I work with, is based around the X32 set-up and I send to work a handful of gigs with them each year and I'm also going to out on fly dates and they've been Spec'ing X/M32's for the rig.

I'm not going to go with the M32R + S16 route at first because of a few reasons: Budget; its a $4.3k set-up (X32-Compact + DL32 is $3.8K, if I want 32 Midas Inputs; but starting with a the X32-Compact & S16 is $2.7k). Also the Case for the M32R, I don't think there is any out there yet (that is reasonable priced) and IF I went the and custom route, it can get expensive.


But here is what I am starting out with, I've paid less than $2k for this set-up (demo & lightly used items):
- X32-Compact (with case)
- S16

In the future, I plan on adding a X32-Core to the rig and then I'll have a digital split; the Compact will be used for Monitors and the Core for FOH. I may plan on buying an DL32 or 2 DL16's in the future.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Another option would be to get an X32 rack instead of a separate S16 and X32 core. It can be set up to work just like the S-16 to pass inputs and outputs, plus you gain the 6 aux in and outs as well. You also get yourself the digital split, ready to go.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

My experience recently has been, that I can drive the x32 inputs hard and by using one of the compressor model plug-ins like an LA2A really make it sound like an old-school hard driven analog console. I think the plug in models are extremely useful. The Pultec Eq actually works pretty much as it should. I have hardware versions and the plug ins don't bum me out.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Brian jojade said:
Another option would be to get an X32 rack instead of a separate S16 and X32 core. It can be set up to work just like the S-16 to pass inputs and outputs, plus you gain the 6 aux in and outs as well. You also get yourself the digital split, ready to go.
Click to expand...

This is the rig I've been touring for almost 2 years now.

X32 rack plus S16 receive the inputs. They pass the inputs up to a full size X32 desk that runs monitors. I run FOH off of the rack.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Brian jojade said:
Another option would be to get an X32 rack instead of a separate S16 and X32 core. It can be set up to work just like the S-16 to pass inputs and outputs, plus you gain the 6 aux in and outs as well. You also get yourself the digital split, ready to go.
Click to expand...

I have thought about the Rack; but I picked up an S16 for next to nothing to start the rig build. IF I come across a Rack when I buy the Core at a good price, I will make that move. But I am leaning to the S16's because I am thinking about moving to the S32 stage box.
 
Re: Soundcraft Performer or Midas M32??

Matt Vivlamore said:
Hey Tim, I might be misreading your first line... but on the X/M32 platforms the Mic Pre's are set-up in Banks of 8 (Outputs in banks of 4). But then on the channel you can pull which ever input you want to that specific slider. Example, you put a stage box in the RF Rack and plug Handheld Mics 1-4 are plugged into (SB1)Ch's 1-4, and then you go onto the Console Ch 18 and choose the SB1ch1 as that source.

I am moving towards the X/M32 platforms; the other agency band I work with has an X32(full) as the primary console and it was one of the first to hit the USA and *knock on wood*, there hasn't been any issues.
Click to expand...

It was my response to Brian J's post (look in threaded mode) about consoles that have a couple more inputs than faders. Not a whole layer, just a couple...
 
Top Bottom