X32 or PRO1?

[Kevin Hayes]

Re: X32 or PRO1?

The Midas is 96k only(aside from sample rate for standard AES i/o which is limited) and the Behringer can only do 48k. This means you can use a DL251 with an X32, but you can't use an S16 with a Pro1.


One thing about how the Midas "shares" a stage box. It's not two consoles patching into the same stage box. The first console is connected to the box and has analog gain control. The console then "relays" the inputs to the other console. You can do the same thing without a stage box if you have two Pro1s. It's pretty rad, and so long as your monitor guy knows how to set gain you'll do well with the digital trim at FOH.

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: X32 or PRO1?

I am with you Tim. I really miss having the real estate and a real fader or knob for everything but that is because that is where I came from. I am actually going with a X32 rack for now to force myself to mix on the iPad and tablet more for smaller shows. I am fighting the old dog and new tricks syndrome. If I do find myself in Mississippi with a band and am forced to mix on Brandon's rig I will just have to deal with enjoyment. Yes digital done well wins in every category except smiles per gallon and my chiropractor does not make as much money from me now.

I'm still not convinced that tablet mixing is all that and a bag of chips. It's getting better, though. I like having the tablet for an additional view or a dedicated "fast grab". The roving aspect is useful particularly at setup. At the UIs evolve I'll probably like it more, and if we can get bullet proof RF I'll probably be a convert.

 

[Eric Cagle]

Re: X32 or PRO1?

I'm still not convinced that tablet mixing is all that and a bag of chips. It's getting better, though. I like having the tablet for an additional view or a dedicated "fast grab". The roving aspect is useful particularly at setup. At the UIs evolve I'll probably like it more, and if we can get bullet proof RF I'll probably be a convert.

The roving aspect wins. I just won't ever practice with the pad if I have faders available so the X32 rack will make me do that. I had a full blown SAC rig with multiple remotes for several years and I always took one of my British analog consoles because that was the way I liked to work so I never really got used to it. It really should not be that big of a deal considering I used a mouse and monitor for Pro Tools for years but I know myself and it is kind of like you have a Corvette and a Dodge Neon, each full of gas parked in the driveway, which one are you going to drive off in? I really like big analog consoles with lots of faders and knobs.

 

[Scott Bolt]

Re: X32 or PRO1?

You're comparing mixers that cost $900-$10,000 with a mixer that sold new for almost $80,000. You should expect a difference.

There is no significant (I will say none at all) difference in sound between well-done digital and typical analog (without special sauces, mixing techniques or simply overdriving a gain stage because the operator has this concept that distortion is "warm") when operated within the parameters specified. You will find more differences in "sound" as you go up or down the price brackets than you will going back and forth between analog and digital.

Hi Tim,

So what makes the difference between a $3000.00 X32 and an $80,0000.00 mixer in sound? Is it the efx, or is the channel eq just easier to get a good sound out of? Maybe it is more forgiving with bad input levels?

I found that the largest increase in sound quality was the FOH speakers being used, followed by the microphones, and then the mixer.

Oh, and the largest factor of all was how well the act was mixed and equalized. Everything else was a distant second.

I don't know if I could do it, but could you tell an $80,000.00 mixer sound in a live situation from the $3000.00 X32 blind if both were very well mixed?

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: X32 or PRO1?

Hi Tim,

So what makes the difference between a $3000.00 X32 and an $80,0000.00 mixer in sound? Is it the efx, or is the channel eq just easier to get a good sound out of? Maybe it is more forgiving with bad input levels?

I found that the largest increase in sound quality was the FOH speakers being used, followed by the microphones, and then the mixer.

Oh, and the largest factor of all was how well the act was mixed and equalized. Everything else was a distant second.

I don't know if I could do it, but could you tell an $80,000.00 mixer sound in a live situation from the $3000.00 X32 blind if both were very well mixed?

This has already been discussed both here and at PSW.

 

[Randy Gartner]

Re: X32 or PRO1?

Our gigs and my personal work flow means that both an X32 compact and Midas Pro1 are too compact... Having mixed on a Pro2C, I found it the "shortest" acceptable for me personally, and I'd spring for the full Pro2 if I were spending my own money.

The comments about brand recognition and rider friendliness are spot on, though I'm seeing a fair number of acts on the 500-3000 seat circuit with X32 for IEM rigs while having a DiGiCo, AVID or Midas Pro series at FOH.



I'm still getting used to my personal X32 but like it more as I get more comfortable with navigating the UI. Nothing wrong with the way it sounds and so far it's been reliable.

Tim,
sure,more knobs are better,but I have 50 to 60 shows on my Pro1 and find no problem with the limitations of it's size because it's so fast to get around on. The Pop Groups are very helpful in putting everything at your finger tips.Typically,I am using 16 to 24 channels, depending on the act.