X16 Preview
- Thread starter Uli Behringer
- Start date
Re: X16 Preview
It might not fit-in to the X16.
I totally agree with Eric, there is a very high possibility that the next iPad will be in a different physical dimensions.
It might not fit-in to the X16.
Re: X16 Preview
IMO both the DL1608 and the iX16 would have been better as 2U rackmount units with all the I/O on the front panel and no silly-arse iPad dock/tray/cupholder :?~:-?~:???:.
Re: X16 Preview
Hello
So they are coming up with X32R - though it will be 3 units....
Hello
So they are coming up with X32R - though it will be 3 units....
Re: X16 Preview
~:-(~:sad: - plus front panel control I'd rather not have and pay for. I'll probably end up with one though or a X32 Core + S16 that gets most of the I/O on the front but costs more for fewer channels :?~:-?~:???:.
A 2U X32 would fit in my 6U shallow rack along with a pair of NU4-6000
~:-D~:grin:.
The X32 Rack has most of the I/O on the back
~:-(~:sad: - plus front panel control I'd rather not have and pay for. I'll probably end up with one though or a X32 Core + S16 that gets most of the I/O on the front but costs more for fewer channels :?~:-?~:???:.A 2U X32 would fit in my 6U shallow rack along with a pair of NU4-6000
~:-D~:grin:.
Re: X16 Preview
Hello
Is it not funny/sad/wordofyourchoice that these things can not be made so they please everybody. I personally am happy that all connectors on X32R are on the back. I allways hated the mess that comes from cables hanging in front of equipment. I´ve been trying to figure out neatest way to handle this with S16. Perhaps I go and void the warranty - open the thing and punch a hole in the back panel for D25-connector, wire it parallel with outputs on the front and have neat snake-fan to connect with amp inputs, that are on the backside. By placing S16 on bottom of amprack the microphone cables in front will not obstruct wiew or airflow of amps.
If you add second rackrails to the back of your rack, then you can mount X32 backwards leaving power- and ethernet-connections hanging in the front.
Suo siellä - vetelä täällä - old finnish saying, that translates approximately : swamp there - loose ground here -
Wonder, if they are coming out with control-surface-only X32 - discarding all inputs and outputs - leaving perhaps aux-in-outs - would be wery usefull with a pair of S16 - actually that would only require new chassis....
The X32 Rack has most of the I/O on the back
A 2U X32 would fit in my 6U shallow rack along with a pair of NU4-6000
Hello
Is it not funny/sad/wordofyourchoice that these things can not be made so they please everybody. I personally am happy that all connectors on X32R are on the back. I allways hated the mess that comes from cables hanging in front of equipment. I´ve been trying to figure out neatest way to handle this with S16. Perhaps I go and void the warranty - open the thing and punch a hole in the back panel for D25-connector, wire it parallel with outputs on the front and have neat snake-fan to connect with amp inputs, that are on the backside. By placing S16 on bottom of amprack the microphone cables in front will not obstruct wiew or airflow of amps.
If you add second rackrails to the back of your rack, then you can mount X32 backwards leaving power- and ethernet-connections hanging in the front.
Suo siellä - vetelä täällä - old finnish saying, that translates approximately : swamp there - loose ground here -
Wonder, if they are coming out with control-surface-only X32 - discarding all inputs and outputs - leaving perhaps aux-in-outs - would be wery usefull with a pair of S16 - actually that would only require new chassis....
Last edited:
Re: X16 Preview
I completely disagree. For people who want a small footprint and don't need extra gear, why would I want a 2U rack just to force me to have a bulky rack?
In terms of Ipad dimension changes, I think we know the ipad won't be getting any Bigger right? Having a tray makes sense for people who will not be roaming much and lets also remember ipads are pretty cheap so even if a new ipad changes dimension it doesn't make old models obsolete.
I completely disagree. For people who want a small footprint and don't need extra gear, why would I want a 2U rack just to force me to have a bulky rack?
In terms of Ipad dimension changes, I think we know the ipad won't be getting any Bigger right? Having a tray makes sense for people who will not be roaming much and lets also remember ipads are pretty cheap so even if a new ipad changes dimension it doesn't make old models obsolete.
Re: X16 Preview
Here's one that is 15” (w) x 22.125” (d) x 7.25” (h) :
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221170317093
and here's a 2U rack case that's 21 5/16" x 18 3/4" x 6"
http://audiopile.net/products/Cases/RUE_Roadracks/RUE-10_rack_cases/R2UE-10/R2UE-10_cutsheet2.shtml
A 2U shallow rack isn't much bigger than a smallest possible ATA style case for a DL1608 would be.
Here's one that is 15” (w) x 22.125” (d) x 7.25” (h) :
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221170317093
and here's a 2U rack case that's 21 5/16" x 18 3/4" x 6"
http://audiopile.net/products/Cases/RUE_Roadracks/RUE-10_rack_cases/R2UE-10/R2UE-10_cutsheet2.shtml
Last edited:
Re: X16 Preview
So what's the diffference? you sit the ipad on top of the 2U rack case? for people who want to work from the desk how is having a loose ipad helpful? What if they want to keep it simple and have no wifi?
So what's the diffference? you sit the ipad on top of the 2U rack case? for people who want to work from the desk how is having a loose ipad helpful? What if they want to keep it simple and have no wifi?
Re: X16 Preview
For me, the X32 compact is a far better option. For people who are scared of their shadows (ipad changing dimensions or being inserted into the device like the DL1608) it has the physical faders and buttons, plus it can use the ipad.
I love the DL. It does everything I want, at a minimum. I'm excited to see what the iX16 can do, but it just seems to be a DL copy with more junk under the hood.
For me, the X32 compact is a far better option. For people who are scared of their shadows (ipad changing dimensions or being inserted into the device like the DL1608) it has the physical faders and buttons, plus it can use the ipad.
I love the DL. It does everything I want, at a minimum. I'm excited to see what the iX16 can do, but it just seems to be a DL copy with more junk under the hood.
Re: X16 Preview
But some may find that 'junk' very useful and argue that Mackie missed the mark with some aspects of the DL1608 such non-recallable/non-remote controllable preamp gain and all aux sends being post gate, comp and EQ.
Re: X16 Preview
Could someone tell me a few things about the iX16?
First,
The iX16 is listed as part of the X32 family and in the download section appears to share the same remote software as the X32, but the internals of the iX16 is not exactly like the X32 as it has only 8 buses. How can the same software be used? Are all the features of the X32 included with the iX16 (mute groups, DCA's, user parameters, etc)? If not then can we expect a slightly different software front end to appear (like an iX16 Control vs XControl)?
Second,
The iX16 clearly has less I/O capability than the X32, therefore you obviously can't have nearly as many outputs to control things with. I am fine with that as the iX16 does appear to have everything I would need to replace my MixWiz (and then some). What I am concerned about is the sound quality. Just having the same mic pres doesn't really mean that the iX16 will sound as good as the X32 (which everyone that has used universally agrees has quite good sound). My question is does the iX16 share the same processing power source as the X32 or is it a less powerful processor. I suppose that it may not need quite as much processing since it doesn't have as many potential FX units running at the same time as the X32 does, but nearly so since it is possible that all 16 channels and the main could have considerable processing per channel. Is it the same?
Third,
I have to admit, the entire bus thing is a bit confusing. Here is my use case and my reasoning on how resources would be used. Please correct or verify my thoughts for me.
I want 2 FX for 3 vocalists; reverb and delay. This would take up 2 buses?
I want a vocal group created so I can raise and lower vocals together. This takes another bus?
I want a GEQ on the main output on the insert. Another bus?
I have heard rumor of a pitch correction effect. I would want that on the insert of 3 vocal microphones 3 more buses?
4 IEM mixes going to 4 auxes. 4 more buses?
Fourth,
Will the efx for the X32 be available for the iX16, or are the efx different?
If someone (anyone) could help me out here, it would be greatly appreciated
Could someone tell me a few things about the iX16?
First,
The iX16 is listed as part of the X32 family and in the download section appears to share the same remote software as the X32, but the internals of the iX16 is not exactly like the X32 as it has only 8 buses. How can the same software be used? Are all the features of the X32 included with the iX16 (mute groups, DCA's, user parameters, etc)? If not then can we expect a slightly different software front end to appear (like an iX16 Control vs XControl)?
Second,
The iX16 clearly has less I/O capability than the X32, therefore you obviously can't have nearly as many outputs to control things with. I am fine with that as the iX16 does appear to have everything I would need to replace my MixWiz (and then some). What I am concerned about is the sound quality. Just having the same mic pres doesn't really mean that the iX16 will sound as good as the X32 (which everyone that has used universally agrees has quite good sound). My question is does the iX16 share the same processing power source as the X32 or is it a less powerful processor. I suppose that it may not need quite as much processing since it doesn't have as many potential FX units running at the same time as the X32 does, but nearly so since it is possible that all 16 channels and the main could have considerable processing per channel. Is it the same?
Third,
I have to admit, the entire bus thing is a bit confusing. Here is my use case and my reasoning on how resources would be used. Please correct or verify my thoughts for me.
I want 2 FX for 3 vocalists; reverb and delay. This would take up 2 buses?
I want a vocal group created so I can raise and lower vocals together. This takes another bus?
I want a GEQ on the main output on the insert. Another bus?
I have heard rumor of a pitch correction effect. I would want that on the insert of 3 vocal microphones 3 more buses?
4 IEM mixes going to 4 auxes. 4 more buses?
Fourth,
Will the efx for the X32 be available for the iX16, or are the efx different?
If someone (anyone) could help me out here, it would be greatly appreciated
Re: X16 Preview
^ I think it isn't going to have DCA's and you can't add on a S16 but otherwise a cut-down X32. I would assume it has fewer FX units too (4 instead of 8 ?).
^ I think it isn't going to have DCA's and you can't add on a S16 but otherwise a cut-down X32. I would assume it has fewer FX units too (4 instead of 8 ?).
Re: X16 Preview
Wow. 5 days and only a single reply
I did find the post where ULI B said that the DSP and 99% of the code base would be the same as the rest of the X32 line .... clearly making the iX16 capable of DCA's I would think.
Fewer FX units (4 vs 8 on the X32). This may become an issue for me. The rumor is that V2 of the X32 firmware will include a pitch correction processor. On the X32, you have 4 send/return type of fx and 4 insert fx. If you had 3 vocalist, you could easily put a pitch corrector on each one of them and still have one insert fx left over for the main L/R graphic eq insert (which is surely going to be the most popular use of the insert FX .... along with monitor eq's).
If the iX16 has only 4, the assumption would be that it would have 2 send/return efx and 2 insert efx.... in this case, I would still feel good about the send/return efx (where I would likely only use reverb and delay anyway ... ie 2), but there would not be enough inserts to do all vocals and provide my main mix with an equalizer.... not even close.
I am fine with missing the S16 interface .... and I am also fine with losing the XLR output jacks and only having TRS aux outs. I actually prefer the combination 1/4" / XLR connectors on the iX16 vs the X32.
Still not sure about the "8 bus" limitation and what that means exactly.
Hopefully I will eventually get answers to some of these questions
Wow. 5 days and only a single reply
I did find the post where ULI B said that the DSP and 99% of the code base would be the same as the rest of the X32 line .... clearly making the iX16 capable of DCA's I would think.
Fewer FX units (4 vs 8 on the X32). This may become an issue for me. The rumor is that V2 of the X32 firmware will include a pitch correction processor. On the X32, you have 4 send/return type of fx and 4 insert fx. If you had 3 vocalist, you could easily put a pitch corrector on each one of them and still have one insert fx left over for the main L/R graphic eq insert (which is surely going to be the most popular use of the insert FX .... along with monitor eq's).
If the iX16 has only 4, the assumption would be that it would have 2 send/return efx and 2 insert efx.... in this case, I would still feel good about the send/return efx (where I would likely only use reverb and delay anyway ... ie 2), but there would not be enough inserts to do all vocals and provide my main mix with an equalizer.... not even close.
I am fine with missing the S16 interface .... and I am also fine with losing the XLR output jacks and only having TRS aux outs. I actually prefer the combination 1/4" / XLR connectors on the iX16 vs the X32.
Still not sure about the "8 bus" limitation and what that means exactly.
Hopefully I will eventually get answers to some of these questions
Re: X16 Preview
I have been looking at the XControl software. I have more speculation
Having 8 buses and 4 efx would mean the following:
Only 4 efx possible, although it may be possible for there to be 4 inserts or 4 send / return used or any mix of them that add up to 4.
Each EFX takes up 1 of the 8 buses available on the iX16 for a maximum of 4 of the 8 buses being used.
The remaining 4 buses could then be used for subgroups or aux sends (assuming that all 4 of the FX were used).
Still, the iX16 is a powerful competitor. It can do everything my MixWiz can do and much more. It can do nearly everything the StudioLive 16.4.2 can do .... and then some things the SL can't. I think that the great vocal efx alone make it more than a match for the Mackie DL1608, but the remote gains really put it over the edge.
All things being equal ..... I think I would rather spend the additional $500.00 and get the X32 Rack. I think I could put plenty of use to all those additional buses the X32 has
I have been looking at the XControl software. I have more speculation
Having 8 buses and 4 efx would mean the following:
Only 4 efx possible, although it may be possible for there to be 4 inserts or 4 send / return used or any mix of them that add up to 4.
Each EFX takes up 1 of the 8 buses available on the iX16 for a maximum of 4 of the 8 buses being used.
The remaining 4 buses could then be used for subgroups or aux sends (assuming that all 4 of the FX were used).
Still, the iX16 is a powerful competitor. It can do everything my MixWiz can do and much more. It can do nearly everything the StudioLive 16.4.2 can do .... and then some things the SL can't. I think that the great vocal efx alone make it more than a match for the Mackie DL1608, but the remote gains really put it over the edge.
All things being equal ..... I think I would rather spend the additional $500.00 and get the X32 Rack. I think I could put plenty of use to all those additional buses the X32 has
Re: X16 Preview
There are really 8 insertable effects on the X32. The first 4 are able to be used as a bus or as an insert. And if you have good monitors, little EQ is needed, so the parametric EQ (available on all 16 outs) should be enough to tame feedback and create nice tone. I have only used the graphic EQ once, and it was at the request of the performer. So by not needing any graphic EQ I have access to 8 effects on 16 different inputs. I would imagine that the Xi16 would be set up similar.
Wow. 5 days and only a single reply
Fewer FX units (4 vs 8 on the X32). This may become an issue for me. The rumor is that V2 of the X32 firmware will include a pitch correction processor. On the X32, you have 4 send/return type of fx and 4 insert fx. If you had 3 vocalist, you could easily put a pitch corrector on each one of them and still have one insert fx left over for the main L/R graphic eq insert (which is surely going to be the most popular use of the insert FX .... along with monitor eq's).
Hopefully I will eventually get answers to some of these questions
There are really 8 insertable effects on the X32. The first 4 are able to be used as a bus or as an insert. And if you have good monitors, little EQ is needed, so the parametric EQ (available on all 16 outs) should be enough to tame feedback and create nice tone. I have only used the graphic EQ once, and it was at the request of the performer. So by not needing any graphic EQ I have access to 8 effects on 16 different inputs. I would imagine that the Xi16 would be set up similar.
Re: X16 Preview
Thanks Bill. This clears things up for me. I think I got it now.
So as I understand it on the X32, you have 8 efx engines. All 8 could be used as an insert, but that would leave you without any "bus" efx like reverb for the various channels to use.
I do indeed have a very well balanced FOH system (DSR112's over PRX618S-XLF's) and I use IEM's.
All I am currently doing is setting low shelf and high shelf with my GEQ I have on main insert on my MixWiz. I could do this with the parametric eq on the L/R channel I think then.
If the iX16 could split as flexibly (which it should) the FX channels, then 3 pitch corrections could be put on inserts for 3 vocals (using 3 efx engines and no mix buses). A good reverb could be put on 1 bus (which is all I do anyway). This would then leave 7 buses.
4 IEM mixes (one bus each).
leaves 3 buses which can be used for groups.
So I guess 8 buses would work for me just fine. The only real question would be if I would want the X32 rack anyway just for the added abilities it provides (which I might actually use):
My IEM transmitter is rack mountable, so that part at least will need a small rack. I also will want my power conditioner in the rack for use to power the mixer, IEM and my computer.
Thanks Bill. This clears things up for me. I think I got it now.
So as I understand it on the X32, you have 8 efx engines. All 8 could be used as an insert, but that would leave you without any "bus" efx like reverb for the various channels to use.
I do indeed have a very well balanced FOH system (DSR112's over PRX618S-XLF's) and I use IEM's.
All I am currently doing is setting low shelf and high shelf with my GEQ I have on main insert on my MixWiz. I could do this with the parametric eq on the L/R channel I think then.
If the iX16 could split as flexibly (which it should) the FX channels, then 3 pitch corrections could be put on inserts for 3 vocals (using 3 efx engines and no mix buses). A good reverb could be put on 1 bus (which is all I do anyway). This would then leave 7 buses.
4 IEM mixes (one bus each).
leaves 3 buses which can be used for groups.
So I guess 8 buses would work for me just fine. The only real question would be if I would want the X32 rack anyway just for the added abilities it provides (which I might actually use):
- Rack mountable
- 8 efx engines vs 4
My IEM transmitter is rack mountable, so that part at least will need a small rack. I also will want my power conditioner in the rack for use to power the mixer, IEM and my computer.
Re: X16 Preview
The only thing to remember is you have to use the "effects" as pairs. You noted above that you would have 3 inserts on vocals. Well the fourth one would be 1/2 of effect 3. Not a problem as long as you plan ahead.
The only thing to remember is you have to use the "effects" as pairs. You noted above that you would have 3 inserts on vocals. Well the fourth one would be 1/2 of effect 3. Not a problem as long as you plan ahead.
Re: X16 Preview
Just as an aside - if I was mixing bands that required 3 pitch correctors I'd rather pile my stuff out back and burn it x(~:dead: . Just sayin'~;-)~:wink: .
Just as an aside - if I was mixing bands that required 3 pitch correctors I'd rather pile my stuff out back and burn it x(~:dead: . Just sayin'
~;-)~:wink: .Re: X16 Preview
I hear plenty of bands with lead singers that have issues hitting notes cleanly. Sometimes this isn't the singers fault entirely because he/she can't hear the vocals well. Other times the singer may be doing something difficult on the instrument while singing and their attention to detail on the vocal slips here and there.
It is just another tool to make things sound better IMHO.
Of course, if you just can't sing, a pitch corrector isn't going to help you
Just as an aside - if I was mixing bands that required 3 pitch correctors I'd rather pile my stuff out back and burn it x(~:dead: . Just sayin'
I hear plenty of bands with lead singers that have issues hitting notes cleanly. Sometimes this isn't the singers fault entirely because he/she can't hear the vocals well. Other times the singer may be doing something difficult on the instrument while singing and their attention to detail on the vocal slips here and there.
It is just another tool to make things sound better IMHO.
Of course, if you just can't sing, a pitch corrector isn't going to help you