Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Christian Boche" data-source="post: 83453" data-attributes="member: 1698">Re: Fist impression of the X32 Compact...The Compact is easier to move around, especially when you are on your own. Mixingwise it is quite similar to the X32 Console, but you have to embrace the four layers for the 32 mic inputs on the Compact.I always put the most dynamic/important signals on the first layer and use lot&#039;s of DCAs for the rest. So the drawback is the 8 vs 16 channels for each layer. The other cuts (like the bus send encoders)... I don&#039;t miss them, I rarely use them on the X32 console anyway.One nice detail on the Compact. The low cut and the frequencyy encoder of the EQ have now an printed frequency read out, so that you don&#039;t have to necessarily look at EQ display when doing fast/rough EQ settings.And I&#039;m really not sure on this, but it seems, that the motorfader seems to be a bit faster and more precise in comparison to my desk. But I may be wrong on this.Christian</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Christian Boche, post: 83453, member: 1698"] Re: Fist impression of the X32 Compact... The Compact is easier to move around, especially when you are on your own. Mixingwise it is quite similar to the X32 Console, but you have to embrace the four layers for the 32 mic inputs on the Compact. I always put the most dynamic/important signals on the first layer and use lot's of DCAs for the rest. So the drawback is the 8 vs 16 channels for each layer. The other cuts (like the bus send encoders)... I don't miss them, I rarely use them on the X32 console anyway. One nice detail on the Compact. The low cut and the frequencyy encoder of the EQ have now an printed frequency read out, so that you don't have to necessarily look at EQ display when doing fast/rough EQ settings. And I'm really not sure on this, but it seems, that the motorfader seems to be a bit faster and more precise in comparison to my desk. But I may be wrong on this. Christian [/QUOTE]

Verification