BillFitzmaurice.info

NukePooch wrote:Okay, I see the 'Custom' layer...

As long as you can have commonly used faders with the subgroups/DCA's, then I could figure it out. I often run, for instance, with one hand on the DCA's, and the other on the lead vocalist.

It's the one thing I don't like about my X32 Rack. Because there's not a lot of real estate on my Android tablet, I can't have DCA's and channel faders up at the same time...but the X32 Rack is so small and portable that, to me, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. However, talking full-sized consoles, it's a must... I like the split-design console.

It looks like you'd have to label everything with old-school board tape to keep it all straight. Another vote for LCD Scribble Strips!
Muting the FX sends are a nice option. I can mute group the FX sends, but personally I prefer to have the returns on a DCA, right next to the vocal DCA...

Well, to me, the Qu looks nice, but there's better options available with a whole lot more for a lot less money.

Look at the new Soundcraft sI Impact. It doesn't have a built in USB recorder, but everything else is there (including 32x32 USB interface to a PC) , and it's expandable to 40 channels with their stageboxes. It has fully customization layers, mute groups, etc. Its a very nice console

NukePooch wrote:Just looked at the A&H Qu24...Looks easy to navigate, I like the screen, and no 'fat channel' busyness...but am I missing something or are there no busses/DCA's? Maybe the two stereo-linked groups are all it's got?

Anyways, even if there were, you can't access them and individual channels at the same time. Personally, I'd pass. At least with the Presonus, you get 4 subgroups...If those were my only two options, it'd be the Presonus, no contest... The A&H seems to be a more flexible board, but without being able to have one hand on channels and the other on subgroups/DCA's, it's an absolute deal breaker for me.

(Of course, with the X32, you get all the connectivity, personal monitor mixes, digital snake capability, motorized faders, 32 channels, 8 DCA's, and it's cheaper...and you can mix your multitrack with it, no sweat.)

I have seen the Behringer X32 being used (once poorly and twice well) in the last couple of months and spoke with the operators on each occasion, and all of them have liked and recommended them. The price differences of these comparable digital boards is really proportionately insignificant as compared to the importance of good "workflow". Choosing a board is a very important and I find most difficult aspect of the system build, all of these boards are great, and any can be made to sound great, the question really comes to a sensible layout, and if the board allows you to easily work how you want to.

Re: " ... I can't have DCA's and channel faders up at the same time... "

I Use Mixing Station on the Android tablet for my X32 as it will let you put any combination of faders onto custom pages, and you can have as many custom pages as you like by saving them to Android Storage. You can even have more than 8 faders per page if you like. For custom layers you have to buy the full version but its well worth the few dollars. Android tablets are dirt cheap compared to iPads. I bought a hi-resolution (1920x1080) Dell tablet specifically for X32 mixing for a couple hundred bucks. Worth every penny. I regularly run vocals, lead instruments, and my effects DCA on one page. This keeps me from having to page around the console with my tablet.

dswpro wrote:Re: " ... I can't have DCA's and channel faders up at the same time... "

I Use Mixing Station on the Android tablet for my X32 as it will let you put any combination of faders onto custom pages, and you can have as many custom pages as you like by saving them to Android Storage. You can even have more than 8 faders per page if you like. For custom layers you have to buy the full version but its well worth the few dollars. Android tablets are dirt cheap compared to iPads. I bought a hi-resolution (1920x1080) Dell tablet specifically for X32 mixing for a couple hundred bucks. Worth every penny. I regularly run vocals, lead instruments, and my effects DCA on one page. This keeps me from having to page around the console with my tablet.

I didn't know that! I run Mixing Station as well (the freebie version), and had no clue (about anything at all, ever) that you could do custom pages! There went the one thing that I didn't like about my X32 Rack...now, it's perfect. I can die a happy man.

...I guess it really shows how much I've been paying attention. Thanks!

(Edit- Well, I can't die yet, not until I get my herd of T48's up and running...)

In addition to the custom levels Mixing Station now has a "feedback detector" feature I have yet to even try -- I suspect this is the RTA output on a single page for any input on the desk but I won't know until I get to a gig early enough to play around with it.

Dagonnit!!!! I just wrote an in depth article on why I want the Midas M32 digital board and before I got to submit I was logged out. All lost. Well I guess it took too long to write and probably too long to read. Have one? seen one? like it?
The M32 is likely my current pic and is in the lead. It appears to have all the functions that most of the aforementioned boards have in one board without compromise. Main thing is that I can read and understand the owner's manual without having a board at my disposal. This is most important to me when looking to buy something I don't already know how to operate.

short and sweet: Bill Shipman

It's an x32 in a tux. Lots of folks like them, but I think they're a bit difficult to use. Midas isn't the name it used to be.

You say it has no compromise, but it does.... Its behringer no matter how much it says Midas on the label...its hard to use, limited channel count, expensive... Etc.


Look closely at the si impact. Much better console, less money, and the only thingkttseems to be missing is thumb drive recording (it does have the 32x32 sub interface).

BrentEvans wrote:It's an x32 in a tux. Lots of folks like them, but I think they're a bit difficult to use. Midas isn't the name it used to be.

You say it has no compromise, but it does.... Its behringer no matter how much it says Midas on the label...its hard to use, limited channel count, expensive... Etc.


Look closely at the si impact. Much better console, less money, and the only thingkttseems to be missing is thumb drive recording (it does have the 32x32 sub interface).

Thanks for the input, I will do due diligence on the Soundcraft Si impulse by reading the owner's manual.
The fortunate thing is, for one you guy's input, and the fact that I don't have the $$$ yet, but is coming sometime this fall. So I don't have that $$ burning holes in my pockets ATM so plenty of time to fully research before leaping.
In fact I feel good knowing what I will do for every other aspect of this system except the exact board I will get.

Don't let your board investment outrun your other gear. If you don't already have 'em, you'll need mics, cables, stands, etc. Look towards cheaper board like the Soundcraft or Presonus and make sure you have the cash for decent mics, etc.

Bruce Weldy wrote:Don't let your board investment outrun your other gear. If you don't already have 'em, you'll need mics, cables, stands, etc. Look towards cheaper board like the Soundcraft or Presonus and make sure you have the cash for decent mics, etc.

Got ya, have at least a relatively full complement of all that cables, stands, mics stuff. Some more of each is certainly on the list. Heya I saw you in the video Rumor Town, you are famous now! I sure would like to see that video on CMT, it sure is worth it. GRats!!!

heavybdrums wrote:

BrentEvans wrote:It's an x32 in a tux. Lots of folks like them, but I think they're a bit difficult to use. Midas isn't the name it used to be.

You say it has no compromise, but it does.... Its behringer no matter how much it says Midas on the label...its hard to use, limited channel count, expensive... Etc.


Look closely at the si impact. Much better console, less money, and the only thingkttseems to be missing is thumb drive recording (it does have the 32x32 sub interface).

Thanks for the input, I will do due diligence on the Soundcraft Si impulse by reading the owner's manual.
The fortunate thing is, for one you guy's input, and the fact that I don't have the $$$ yet, but is coming sometime this fall. So I don't have that $$ burning holes in my pockets ATM so plenty of time to fully research before leaping.
In fact I feel good knowing what I will do for every other aspect of this system except the exact board I will get.

Manuals are great but they don't give you a good feel of how the board works. Youtube is loaded with videos on the various consoles. The Si Impact is fairly new, but it's the same OS as the Si Expression and Si Performer. In fact... it's basically a Si Performer 2 without the light controller and with the Madi/USB card included.

heavybdrums wrote:

Bruce Weldy wrote: Heya I saw you in the video Rumor Town, you are famous now! I sure would like to see that video on CMT, it sure is worth it. GRats!!!

Thanks, it was fun...trying to get the kid that did it some more video work.

I've used the M32 many times and own an x32. They are nearly identical. Personally I would just get the X unless the brand name is important to you or your clients. For the price of an M32 you can get an X32, road case, and an X32 Rack. I know some sound companies who run an X32 at the monitor desk position, and an ethernet cable to an X32 core, rack, or producer at FOH. No need for a digital snake head end.

BrentEvans wrote:It's an x32 in a tux. Lots of folks like them, but I think they're a bit difficult to use. Midas isn't the name it used to be.

You say it has no compromise, but it does.... Its behringer no matter how much it says Midas on the label...its hard to use, limited channel count, expensive... Etc.


Look closely at the si impact. Much better console, less money, and the only thingkttseems to be missing is thumb drive recording (it does have the 32x32 sub interface).

The Midas is supposed to have better sounding preamps. I haven't heard it, so I don't know.

I'm curious as to why you think the SI Impact is a "much better console". They look really similar to me with only slight differences...


SI has more knobs to twiddle...X32 seems to rely more on the screen.
SI gains a touchscreen, but the screen is smaller than the X32's.
SI has less accurate metering.
SI has 14 mix busses, 6 of which which can be stereo, X32 has 16 (can be linked to run stereo).
SI has 4 EQ bands, X32 has 4, but 6 on Mix Busses.
SI has four stereo Matrix busses, X32 has 6, but can link them to stereo.
SI has assignable fader layers, X32 has split in/out design.
SI has glowing faders (eye candy), X32 has better LCD Scribble Strips.
SI has 32 inputs onboard (the 40 channel count includes assignable effects returns), X32 has 38 inputs onboard (40 if you count USB).
X32 adds 6 TRS inputs and 6 TRS outputs onboard.
SI currently only runs on IPad (but will likely change), X32 runs on IPad, Android, Linux, Raspberry Pi, etc..
SI is slightly smaller than X32.
SI has optional card slot, 32 ch USB and 32 ch for digi snake (or no USB and 64ch digi), X32 has 32ch USB, 2x 48ch digi snake ins, plus 16ch out for personal monitoring.
X32 is $100 cheaper (thru NSL) and can be bought used for much less.

They're both really, really close. I've got an X32 Rack, and a full X32 @church and love em both, but I'd likely be just as happy with an SI.

I'll take this line by line...

NukePooch wrote: The Midas is supposed to have better sounding preamps. I haven't heard it, so I don't know.

Pres between Midas and Si Impact are probably comparable. Both better than X32. Tied.

SI has more knobs to twiddle...X32 seems to rely more on the screen.

The controls are easier to visualize. Less screen reliance is better. You can run the all of the Sis WITHOUT the screen if you have to. They feel more analog... they're much faster. The X32 screen is several layers deep and the interface is confusing. Si Wins.

SI gains a touchscreen, but the screen is smaller than the X32's.

You don't need the screen during mixing, though, only for setup, patching, save/recall, etc. Not a big deal. Tied (Being generous, I like the SI interface better).

SI has less accurate metering.

Ok... but who needs meters for anything more than seeing that a channel has signal and isn't clipping.. Si's meters are set up for just that. Less to look at... red is bad, green is good, yellow watch out. Easy. Tied.

SI has 14 mix busses, 6 of which which can be stereo, X32 has 16 (can be linked to run stereo).

SI also has a dedicated mono out on the FOH mix which is great for a sub feed (doesn't eat up an aux). On X32, linking mix busses takes up two busses. On Si, those six busses can be assigned to stereo outs, so you still have 14 busses. As soon as do 2 stereo busses on X32, you've got less mix busses than Si. Si Wins.

SI has 4 EQ bands, X32 has 4, but 6 on Mix Busses.

Si has a 30 band graphic on ALL outputs. The GEQs flip to fader in two banks that are always the same, and easily accessible from the main panel with two button presses. X32 has only the 6 band parametric, plus a few assignable GEQs (not enough to do mains and 6 monitor mixes IIRC). X32 GEQ fader flips suck. They're hard to access, and take a lot of time... more than to just use the screen. Si Wins.

SI has four stereo Matrix busses, X32 has 6, but can link them to stereo.

Depends on what you need... I've never needed more than 4 and having the option to do stereo or mono without eating up matricies seems to be a bit of a win to me... Tied

SI has assignable fader layers, X32 has split in/out design.

This is purely a matter of preference. X32 has more workflow options, Si has better layout capabilities. The one thing you can't do on SI is see one channel in every monitor mix at the same time. Some people like to work like that, I never have used it when I've had it. Again, I like the Si way better, but we'll still say tied.

SI has glowing faders (eye candy), X32 has better LCD Scribble Strips.

Si Impact has scribble strips... who cares if they have a picture on them or not. Glowing faders are WAY more than eye candy. They let you see Inputs vs Busses Vs FX vs GEQ very easily, and you can easily tell if a channel is pre or post in a mix. This feature reduces moving the wrong control without realizing it.

SI has 32 inputs onboard (the 40 channel count includes assignable effects returns), X32 has 38 inputs onboard (40 if you count USB). X32 adds 6 TRS inputs and 6 TRS outputs onboard.

Six of those X32 inputs are line level only.... limited usefulness. Si Expression/Perfomer has more inputs available by adding stageboxes. This is hard to call... X32 beats impact (by a hair) Si Perfomer beats M32 (by a long shot... 96 channels available IIRC)

SI currently only runs on IPad (but will likely change), X32 runs on IPad, Android, Linux, Raspberry Pi, etc..

Meh... it's a tool.. buy whichever one you need. Tied.
SI is slightly smaller than X32.
OK. Si wins.
SI has optional card slot, 32 ch USB and 32 ch for digi snake (or no USB and 64ch digi), X32 has 32ch USB, 2x 48ch digi snake ins, plus 16ch out for personal monitoring.
Si Impact comes with the 32/32 card. Expression and Perfomer come with no cards... Perfomer has 2 slots though. Behringer's personal monitoring system is a joke and a pain... have you ever used it? I have. You're better off just to run feeds to headphone amps and let people adjust mixes with their iThings. Much cheaper, more control. And Si can do that too.... Tied

X32 is $100 cheaper (thru NSL) and can be bought used for much less.

$100 is a small price to pay not to have Behringer stamped on your device. Si Wins.

They're both really, really close. I've got an X32 Rack, and a full X32 @church and love em both, but I'd likely be just as happy with an SI.

They're good at different things. Si is better in many ways... X32 does do a FEW things Si doesn't... but in doing so it tends to complicate things dramatically. I like Si WAY better than X32, and I've had enough time on both of them to evaluate them well.