Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
Hi,
I am hesitating between two mixing console: Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro Soundcraft M12 I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic instruments). I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I live and more expensive. So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different configuration or the quality is really lower ? Thanks a lot for your help, didier. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"Didier Morel" wrote in message om... Hi, I am hesitating between two mixing console: Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro Soundcraft M12 I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic instruments). I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I live and more expensive. So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different configuration or the quality is really lower ? Thanks a lot for your help, The soundcraft has better headroom and a sweeter eq George |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
There's so much about mackie vs soundcraft vs allen and heath on a google
search , you'll be busy for days. Basically I thnink you'll find no real consensus. Each have trade offs in terms of routing and features. Last I looked, mackie and sound craft still were using 60mm faders or something, which bugs the hell out of me. P h i l i p ______________________________ "I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa" - Dorothy Parker |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"George Gleason" wrote in message ...
"Didier Morel" wrote in message om... Hi, I am hesitating between two mixing console: Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro Soundcraft M12 I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic instruments). I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I live and more expensive. So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different configuration or the quality is really lower ? Thanks a lot for your help, The soundcraft has better headroom and a sweeter eq George Having used both products I'd say the M12 has a bit better mic pre's(especially for loud mics or sources) and musical EQ, it's a bit more plasticy feeling but seemingly made OK. I never have had problems with Mackie products but lots of folks may argue with that. The Spdif conversion is pretty cool, although it may not be any better than external conversion...just handy for live to two-track. kelly |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
I think you'll finde the Allen & Heath MixWizard is a much better pick than
either of the two you are currently investigating. http://www.allen-heath.co.uk/wz162dx.asp Nice tight pots good pre-amps with direct out and inserts on every channel. (great if you want to multi-track). 4 band EQ with HPF and 100mm faders. "Didier Morel" wrote in message om... Hi, I am hesitating between two mixing console: Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro Soundcraft M12 I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic instruments). I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I live and more expensive. So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different configuration or the quality is really lower ? Thanks a lot for your help, didier. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"David Morley" wrote in message
In article znr1058963767k@trad, (Mike Rivers) wrote: The Mackie has adequate headroom if you understand gain staging. Agreed. Anything can run out of headroom if you're careless, and why use a console that lets you get careless about something this important? No console is invulnerable to abuse. The nature of abuse is that if you get away with abusing it a little, you'll try to get away with more in the future. This may be true, but itīs still a valid point that the soundcraft has more! It's also a valid point that if you run out of headroom on a Mackie or other halfways-decent console, you have only yourself to blame. The Mackie console spec sheets I've looked at all claim 22 dB or more headroom above 0 dBu. My personal experience with a SR32 is that it meets spec, therefore I have no reason to believe that other Mackies don't meet spec. If 22 dB isn't enough headroom to get the job done, what happens when the same operator starts working with equipment like analog tape and DAWs, that have only about half as much headroom? BTW, I'm no great fan of Mackie consoles - I inherited the one I use. I also fully agree that the equalization on Mackies is a lot less than many situations really need, but that is why there are such things as insert points, isn't it? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Morley" wrote in message In article znr1058963767k@trad, (Mike Rivers) wrote: The Mackie has adequate headroom if you understand gain staging. Agreed. Anything can run out of headroom if you're careless, and why use a console that lets you get careless about something this important? No console is invulnerable to abuse. The nature of abuse is that if you get away with abusing it a little, you'll try to get away with more in the future. This may be true, but itīs still a valid point that the soundcraft has more! It's also a valid point that if you run out of headroom on a Mackie or other halfways-decent console, you have only yourself to blame. The Mackie console spec sheets I've looked at all claim 22 dB or more headroom above 0 dBu. My personal experience with a SR32 is that it meets spec, therefore I have no reason to believe that other Mackies don't meet spec. If 22 dB isn't enough headroom to get the job done, what happens when the same operator starts working with equipment like analog tape and DAWs, that have only about half as much headroom? BTW, I'm no great fan of Mackie consoles - I inherited the one I use. I also fully agree that the equalization on Mackies is a lot less than many situations really need, but that is why there are such things as insert points, isn't it? Arny it isn't the channel headroom that causes problems on the Mackie , It is the mix buss and this is especially bad on the larger one you can run all the inputs at -3 and still overload the mix buss on the mackie you will not do this on the soundcraft this is much more a problem with larger desks as you have more singnals to pass through the mix buss A&H gl3 suffered the same problem George |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"George Gleason" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Morley" wrote in message Arny it isn't the channel headroom that causes problems on the Mackie. It is the mix buss and this is especially bad on the larger one. As in SR32? you can run all the inputs at -3 and still overload the mix buss on the mackie So you are saying that if I run all the inputs on my SR32 with -3 (as observed at the insert points), and then put all the sliders at 0, then I'm right at the clipping point for the main mix buss? Well, I know why I never get bothered this way - I never use more than about half the inputs at a time, if that. you will not do this on the Soundcraft I guess I'd not have that problem with a Mackie under the same conditions, if I knocked the trims down a tad, right? this is much more a problem with larger desks as you have more signals to pass through the mix buss Or someone set up the gain staging presuming that nobody would ever use all the inputs concurrently, and/or that the odds of all inputs peaking at the same time are pretty slim. A&H gl3 suffered the same problem I see the concern, but I'm not sure its a problem that would bother me very long, given that I know where the trim knobs are... Not trying to be *smart* but this is a much more manageable situation than the one with the channel eqs, and that one is not exactly what I'd call a stopper. Aside A neighboring church had a roof leak that flooded their SR32 and they replaced it with a SR32. My first reaction was "lucky roof leak". So, I'm still open to reasons why I'd like to punch a hole in my own church's roof! ;-) |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "George Gleason" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "David Morley" wrote in message Arny it isn't the channel headroom that causes problems on the Mackie. It is the mix buss and this is especially bad on the larger one. As in SR32? you can run all the inputs at -3 and still overload the mix buss on the mackie So you are saying that if I run all the inputs on my SR32 with -3 (as observed at the insert points), and then put all the sliders at 0, then I'm right at the clipping point for the main mix buss? Well, I know why I never get bothered this way - I never use more than about half the inputs at a time, if that. you will not do this on the Soundcraft I guess I'd not have that problem with a Mackie under the same conditions, if I knocked the trims down a tad, right? this is much more a problem with larger desks as you have more signals to pass through the mix buss Or someone set up the gain staging presuming that nobody would ever use all the inputs concurrently, and/or that the odds of all inputs peaking at the same time are pretty slim. A&H gl3 suffered the same problem I see the concern, but I'm not sure its a problem that would bother me very long, given that I know where the trim knobs are... Not trying to be *smart* but this is a much more manageable situation than the one with the channel eqs, and that one is not exactly what I'd call a stopper. Aside A neighboring church had a roof leak that flooded their SR32 and they replaced it with a SR32. My first reaction was "lucky roof leak". So, I'm still open to reasons why I'd like to punch a hole in my own church's roof! much more a problem for live sound than recording The problem is , there is no way to see it(the buss overload) coming and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig) I hated my GL3 for this and I hate the mackie for this as well On my K2 / Lx7 I can run all trims(pfl) to zero all the faders to zero and main out to zero make setting up a mix under pressure of a 5 minute change over much simplier one does not HAVE to put up with quirky desks, there are decent units available for basically the same money George |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"George Gleason" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I see the concern, but I'm not sure its a problem that would bother me very long, given that I know where the trim knobs are... Not trying to be *smart* but this is a much more manageable situation than the one with the channel eqs, and that one is not exactly what I'd call a stopper. Aside A neighboring church had a roof leak that flooded their SR32 and they replaced it with a SR32. My first reaction was "lucky roof leak". So, I'm still open to reasons why I'd like to punch a hole in my own church's roof! much more a problem for live sound than recording Hmmm. The problem is , there is no way to see it(the buss overload) coming True enough. Clipping indicators are IME nonexistent on Mackie consoles. and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig) Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor mixes. I guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on the aux send masters. I hated my GL3 for this and I hate the mackie for this as well On my K2 / Lx7 I can run all trims(pfl) to zero all the faders to zero and main out to zero make setting up a mix under pressure of a 5 minute change over much simplier one does not HAVE to put up with quirky desks, there are decent units available for basically the same money I'm not sure that the gain structure of Mackie consoles is a quirk. It could be a consequence of optimizing the console for situations where only a subset of the inputs are used at any one time. However, while most of the people who I've seen with SR32s overbought, that might not be true for the majority. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your
monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig) Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor mixes. I guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on the aux send masters. Musicians do not appreciate the volume swinging up and down on thier monitors this would not be a issue with a seperate monitor desk but your board tape still gets f*cked George |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
George Gleason wrote:
the soundcraft is the better product IMO I told one of my fellow musos to get a Spirit Folio, arguably a board from Soundcraft. It had a wallwart power supply and felt like it was made out of painted tinfoil. Within days he returned it for a Mackie 1202 which has now served him reliably for several years. He plays for a living, a dozen gigs or so each week. Now, I like lots of things about Soundcraft boards, but they're not all created equal and sometimes I might rather have an A & H or even, blaspemers helmet mounted, a Mackie. I think we should take these things unit by unit, and not brand by brand, because lots of times my expectations turn out to be based on erroneous assumptions. -- hank alrich * secret mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message ... George Gleason wrote: the soundcraft is the better product IMO I told one of my fellow musos to get a Spirit Folio, arguably a board from Soundcraft. It had a wallwart power supply and felt like it was made out of painted tinfoil. Within days he returned it for a Mackie 1202 which has now served him reliably for several years. He plays for a living, a dozen gigs or so each week. Now, I like lots of things about Soundcraft boards, but they're not all created equal and sometimes I might rather have an A & H or even, blaspemers helmet mounted, a Mackie. I think we should take these things unit by unit, and not brand by brand, because lots of times my expectations turn out to be based on erroneous assumptions. Understood I had great dislike for the spirit line until it was rebadged as the soundcraft LX/7 My passion for A&H is limited to the ICON IMO mackie made the market for small affordable desks, but others have since trumped thier jack IMO behringer is offering 110% of anything mackie is doing (for the products I use) at 1/3 the cost every product has strong points one of the best mixes I ever did was on a 24 ch mackie supplied by MSI but given the choice I still would choose SC over Mackie for every and any application but in small desks I would choose mackie over yamaha the only agenda I have is to see things told and sold honestly Mackie's advertizing has been , lets say, a bit optimistic as to the markets they are built to serve I guess I do hold a bit of a grude though as I bought into mackies quality claims to the tune of 6(all bought at once) 1402's and was burned bad It takes years and years to get to know gear and ever now I get suckered HellI just bought a Alesis DEQ830 FS, Alesis DEQ830, like new George |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
But I always wondered this - if you have gobs of headroom in the busses, what happens after that point? You have more level going to the power amplifiers, and it's too loud, so you bring down the masters, and that's not really the right thing to do. gain structure 101, starts here you set proper gain structure for the electroincs then only turn up the amps to the smallest gain that will give you the needed volume George |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
George Gleason wrote:
IMO mackie made the market for small affordable desks Mackie simultaneously made the market and ruined it, sort of. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"George Gleason" wrote in message
and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig) Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor mixes. I guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on the aux send masters. Musicians do not appreciate the volume swinging up and down on their monitors this would not be a issue with a separate monitor desk but your board tape still gets f*cked It strikes me that in most applications you'd reset the trims a very small number of times, and if you read this thread and anticipated the problem, you'd set them appropriately from the onset. As far as board tapes getting screwed up, it would be corrected systematically when I upped the aux send masters, or dynamically when I monitored record levels during the show. If the *tape* was digital I'd just end up with a little more headroom. ;-) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "George Gleason" wrote in message and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig) Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor mixes. I guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on the aux send masters. Musicians do not appreciate the volume swinging up and down on their monitors this would not be a issue with a separate monitor desk but your board tape still gets f*cked It strikes me that in most applications you'd reset the trims a very small number of times, and if you read this thread and anticipated the problem, you'd set them appropriately from the onset. As far as board tapes getting screwed up, it would be corrected systematically when I upped the aux send masters, or dynamically when I monitored record levels during the show. If the *tape* was digital I'd just end up with a little more headroom. ;-) Itwould be so much better to have the desk designed correctly to begin with a very simple thing, but Mackie insists on making everyone learn the mackie way complete arrogence on thier part and a big reason why I can not support thier products why does everyone insist on making excuses for a poorly designed overhyped product that requires special "understanding" to get basic utility out of? I just don't see where this is something that should be But I guess if your buying and using half asses tools you need to assume you will have to use then with some sort of ' halfassed, well we do it this way beacuse we have to" mentality but please do not try to make it sound like this should be acceptable, it just isn't George |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
A good engineer will have a sense of what will be going into
the mix and start pretty much at the right place. Also, there's the rub with consoles with line trims designed to work with a range of operating levels. It seems that some people start to mix and goof around with the line trim and the fader level with each input. To me that's a recipe for disaster if the engineer doesn't understand what 32 channels of modern processed audio can do to the stereo bus in a low priced console. Heck, any console. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1059141895k@trad In article writes: why does everyone insist on making excuses for a poorly designed overhyped product that requires special "understanding" to get basic utility out of? Why do some people insist on applying what they know about one product to another product and then say it doesn't work for them? You continually suggest that there's a standard for console design to which Mackie doesn't adhere. What is this standard? I know of none, and I've looked for it. Maybe there's one buried in the SMPTE or EBU someplace. One might be able to derive something from the AES standards. http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/a....cfm#standards http://www.ebu.ch http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/sta...=smpte&scope=0 It would indeed be nice if one design criterion for a console is that all channels operating at their 0 VU level could be summed without overload, however look at how you'd have to design it. If you take the simple route and say that each operating channel added to the bus increases the summed level by 3 dB, and that sometimes you'll only be needing one or two or six channels, you need about 90 dB of dynamic range in the summing bus. It's not impossible, but it's not cheap. This issue relates to something as basic as the assumption of how much the bus output increases as operating channels are added. If you presume uncorrelated signals then its 3 dB for the first channel added. If you presume correlated signals then its 6 dB for the first channel added and proportionately more per successive channel that is added. It's the difference between a geometric sum (square root of sum of squares) versus and sum in regular linear arithmetic. Reading George's post, he seems to be saying that he judges how a console works with a correlated signal applied to every input. In that case, the bus output increases in accordance with regular arithmetic. IOW he appears to be judging a console by what happens if you take a signal generator and apply it's output to every input, and setting every fader to zero dB. Of course this is not how consoles are used in the real world. Consoles are almost always used with uncorrelated signals that sum up geometrically. Levels build up slower with geometric summing than with regular arithmetic. We (as engineers) deal with this by simply reducing the level going into the summing bus by trimming all the channels by an appropriate amount. Well, I think it depends on what kind of engineers we are. I can definitely see someone testing a console with a signal generator, and applying the same input to every input to see what happens. On the face of it, this might seem like a reasonable thing to do. Some may even find it surprising to hear that this is NOT a reasonable thing to do. Coming up with 32 uncorrelated signals is not trivial, and analyzing the performance of a console that is processing 32 uncorrelated signals is an interesting technical challenge. I don't think there are a lot of people who have tested consoles with 32 uncorrelated signals. OTOH, I don't think there are a lot of people who have operated consoles in practical use, with 32 correlated signals. Using a console with 32 correlated signals makes no sense at all in the real world. Most audio signals in a studio are statistically speaking, uncorrelated. OK, they may get loud and soft together, but their relative phases and amplitudes vary greatly at any instant in time. A good engineer will have a sense of what will be going into the mix and start pretty much at the right place. It works on any console, even a Mackie. I can see someone who is very thorough and methodological testing consoles with a signal generator and being dismayed with a console that clips in that kind of a test. If they've been making decisions based on this kind of test for years, I think it might come as a shock to hear that this is an invalid test. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
Arny
this is not a test, this is a real wiorld problem and it does not take 32 signals to cause it there are console in the price range of the mackie that actually work well it would be a simple thing for makcie to rescreen thier desks so that the indicated zero levels would not cause this problem it does not take a re-engineering of the signal path just a little adjustment in the printing of the marking on the desk I have no Idea what a written standard is but the real world standard is zero on the fader and zero at the pfl is considered a nominal signal that a desk should be able to pass at every channel with out clipping at any point in the desk regardless of how many are being used and of course everyone is correct that you will not start a show passing this level through a mix buss in fact it only happens during the very intense parts of a program and to assume that a desk can pass nominal level at all channels active is not a excessive expectation in fact it is a basic requirment to know that you have the headroom to get you through unanticipated events in a program, remember we are talking LIVE sound here , not studio where there is no luxury of knowing what will be sent your way also if you are reading carefuuly I do not single mackie out for this fault I find it unacceptable in the A& H and Yamaha products as well this does not happen on the midas or soundcraft so perhaps I hacve been spoiled by being able to have many desks and actually evaluating them in real world situations and choosing to like the ones that work best as the "standard" by which I judge all products presented for a given application as far a a live mixing desk in th under 5,000$ range Midas and Soundcraft IMO just work better beacuse the companies took a few moments to be sure that thier desks could do what thier layout suggests IMO the fact you can not send a complex hot mix through the mix buss is the equlivalent of buying a one ton truck but after you get it finding out it can only carry one ton , 500 lbs at a time it the buss can not pass 16 channels at zero do not put 16 channels on the desk make it a 12 channel desk or remake the zero point so that there is one logic to the gain stageing that always applies not one logic you can use if your using 6 channels and another that is required if using all 16 why bother marking the desk at all if the markings can not be used as a guide? George |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
Arny Krueger wrote: This issue relates to something as basic as the assumption of how much the bus output increases as operating channels are added. If you presume uncorrelated signals then its 3 dB for the first channel added. If you presume correlated signals then its 6 dB for the first channel added and proportionately more per successive channel that is added. It's the difference between a geometric sum (square root of sum of squares) versus and sum in regular linear arithmetic. Arny, doesn't this apply to RMS levels rather than peak levels? If one is concerned about peak levels then it would seem to me that the 6 dB criterion would apply independantly of correlation considerations. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"Bob Cain" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: This issue relates to something as basic as the assumption of how much the bus output increases as operating channels are added. If you presume uncorrelated signals then its 3 dB for the first channel added. If you presume correlated signals then its 6 dB for the first channel added and proportionately more per successive channel that is added. It's the difference between a geometric sum (square root of sum of squares) versus and sum in regular linear arithmetic. Arny, doesn't this apply to RMS levels rather than peak levels? Good point. I just did a simulation with 60 seconds of 44/32 high density white noise in CEP, and two independent waves summed to a wave whose average was 3 dB higher, but the peak was 5.4 dB higher. I obtained the same results for 10 seconds of noise except that the peak was 5 dB higher. Note, both numbers are less than theory, but show results that are probably asymptotic to theory or 6 dB. I guess that means that if you wait long enough, sooner or later you'll get all the peaks to come together. If one is concerned about peak levels then it would seem to me that the 6 dB criterion would apply independently of correlation considerations. simpler." That appears to be the case. Thanks for the memory jog/correction. Hey, I knew all this stuff cold 30 years ago... ;-) However, the simulation seems to show you might wait a while for that one big peak. I think this explains while most recordings have infrequent peaks that are pretty wild compared to the rest of the file. Everything lines up at those rare instants. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: I think this explains while most recordings have infrequent peaks that are pretty wild compared to the rest of the file. Everything lines up at those rare instants. Like when everyone happens to be exactly on the beat. :-) I guess that's why the peaks are so infrequent! With the "We don't start practicing until a half hour before the service starts whether we've ever sung it before or not" musicians at my church, I'd settle for everyone to even START anywhere near close to the beat. All singers singing all the verses would be nice, too. Hey, if you can't read the words as fast as the music is playing (after you had it slowed down twice), why bother singing? Whoops, just venting. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing console
.. But you're crying gloom and doom over a band's own PA system that you haven't even heard yet. Give it a chance. And don't make it too loud, please. Mike I just want to repeat one of the BEST mixes I ever did was on a 24.4 mackie But the Cuban /Latin music is in a league of its ownfor being all that all the time and more like some one said It can't be too loud , all the red lights arn't on yet LOL I have several latino shows under my belt and LOUD does not begin to describe what the bands demand I make them sign waiver of responsibility for hearing damage there is no dynamic range it is just full on all night and your gear better be ready George |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
API 2448 Console For Sale | Pro Audio | |||
FA: MCI JH-636 Console Extender Board | General | |||
Console control room out's into RCA's? | Pro Audio | |||
English recording console | Pro Audio | |||
Help with my Ghidra console/ NEVE/API/Trident etc | Pro Audio |