Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Junior Varsity
X32 Discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eric Hill - USA" data-source="post: 60444" data-attributes="member: 2100"><p>re: X32 Discussion</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As an aside, I have yet to use an active speaker system. My installed system is passive, as is the VRX932 system we use for larger events.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not just that, but with the ability to save "shows," multiple pieces of equipment don't have to be loaded. Workflow is improved, because there is only one work surface. In addition, rack space and cabling is reduced.</p><p></p><p>It's very likely, at this point, I'm going to need to re-introduce our processor for a relatively simple crossover.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, that means I'm going to have 3 cables between (1 AES/EBU and 2 XLR's) the doghouse and a rack. I also lose 2U. Worse, I’m going to go through another A/D and D/A on the sub.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In this case, digital speaker processing is mainstream. What's a digital processor? EQ, delay, phase reversal, and routing. The X32 has those abilities in bunches.</p><p></p><p>Aux (bus) fed subs might be less mainstream. But, people have been doing it for years, and anybody who actually needs 32-inputs of anything should be familiar with the concept.</p><p></p><p>I think there needs to be a line <em>somewhere.</em> I hadn't looked at the processing spec's for the VRX932 rig we rent. But, looking at them now quickly, doing this with the X32 might be difficult.</p><p></p><p>Doing the VRX932's passively, with a sub... Need: a BW18, LR48, two Bells, another LR48, and a BW6.</p><p></p><p>I'm ok with needing processing for that type of rig. If I was mixing on a $20k VRX932 rig all the time, I could probably justify the cost of a different board. Even with the X32, I can justify the cost of processing.</p><p></p><p>But, looking at our installed system (Renkus-Heinz tops, and EAW sub), I could do that with the X32, if the firmware would allow for BW12 and BW24's on the buses.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a lot of things I'd like to see tweaked. But, only one that I think is worth the development time:</p><p></p><p>Changes to allow for a crossover configuration, using the L/R and M/C buses. (Filter type selection on the buses, more precision on the output delays, and polarity reversal on the outputs.)</p><p></p><p>Eric H.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eric Hill - USA, post: 60444, member: 2100"] re: X32 Discussion As an aside, I have yet to use an active speaker system. My installed system is passive, as is the VRX932 system we use for larger events. Not just that, but with the ability to save "shows," multiple pieces of equipment don't have to be loaded. Workflow is improved, because there is only one work surface. In addition, rack space and cabling is reduced. It's very likely, at this point, I'm going to need to re-introduce our processor for a relatively simple crossover. Unfortunately, that means I'm going to have 3 cables between (1 AES/EBU and 2 XLR's) the doghouse and a rack. I also lose 2U. Worse, I’m going to go through another A/D and D/A on the sub. In this case, digital speaker processing is mainstream. What's a digital processor? EQ, delay, phase reversal, and routing. The X32 has those abilities in bunches. Aux (bus) fed subs might be less mainstream. But, people have been doing it for years, and anybody who actually needs 32-inputs of anything should be familiar with the concept. I think there needs to be a line [I]somewhere.[/I] I hadn't looked at the processing spec's for the VRX932 rig we rent. But, looking at them now quickly, doing this with the X32 might be difficult. Doing the VRX932's passively, with a sub... Need: a BW18, LR48, two Bells, another LR48, and a BW6. I'm ok with needing processing for that type of rig. If I was mixing on a $20k VRX932 rig all the time, I could probably justify the cost of a different board. Even with the X32, I can justify the cost of processing. But, looking at our installed system (Renkus-Heinz tops, and EAW sub), I could do that with the X32, if the firmware would allow for BW12 and BW24's on the buses. I have a lot of things I'd like to see tweaked. But, only one that I think is worth the development time: Changes to allow for a crossover configuration, using the L/R and M/C buses. (Filter type selection on the buses, more precision on the output delays, and polarity reversal on the outputs.) Eric H. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Junior Varsity
X32 Discussion
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!