Mixer suggestion...

[Panzzi]

Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:

1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console

It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.

Could someone please give me some suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

Panzzi

[Logan Shaw]

Panzzi wrote:

> Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:
>
> 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console
>
> It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.

I can't see how an automated digital mixer would be useful
for PA or live music. Especially in a church environment,
where often you have various people involved in running
the system and those various people have varying degrees
of skill. I would think digital would be too compliated
and would cause more problems than it would solve (especially
since I can't see how it would solve any problem at all).

So if you eliminate the DDX3216, between the other two,
the Behringer looks to have more features (8 subgroups
is nice -- IMHO if you only have 4, you might as well
have zero in many cases), but the way that the connectors
are situated at the back looks to be pretty annoying.
I've worked with a mixer that has the connectors on the
top like that instead of the back, and it just results in
the cables being messy and getting in the way. Other
than that, they look like they have a pretty comparable
set of features.

I don't know if you'll really need the four stereo channels
that each provides (I would probably do a mono mix at a church
anyway), but at least the stereo channels seem to have the same
EQ as the rest of the channels, which is nice (and not always
the case).

The description of the Behringer that I found doesn't seem to
indicate that it offers phantom power. Even for a church, I'd
say phantom power is pretty important, because you may want
to use a choir mic that requires phantom power, or if you
don't have a choir, you may have a podium mic or wired lavalier
mic that requires phantom power. And if you are a rock-n-roll
church, you may have instrument mics that require phantom
power (like drum overheads). So if it's true that the
Behringer doesn't supply phantom power, that'd be a definite
strike against it in my book.

Other than that, it's going to come down to sound quality
and reliability, and I haven't personally used either console
so I can't say much about that. But I will say that Yamaha
has been making consoles for quite some time, so that would
probably weigh in their favor.

- Logan

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:

Do you actually have these mixers available, or are you going ot buy
something and have narrowed your choices down to these?

> 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console

> Could someone please give me some suggestions?

> It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.

First is to eliminate the digital console. It's pretty cool for a
digital console but I just think these things are far too risky for
live sound applications.

What do YOU see as the differene between the Behringer and the Yamaha?
Does each one have enough inputs and outputs for your presetnt
requirements, and to allow for some expansion? You might at some point
be asked to provide an output to a speaker in some other room, or an
output for a hearing-assist system.

Forget about which one sounds best. Neither is an ace, neither is a
dog. But I'll bet you have some sense of which one feels nicer, and is
more likely to withstand the abuse of having different operators, and
maybe get set up and put away at least once a week. Those are the
things you should be looking at.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George]

In article >,
Panzzi > wrote:

> Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:
>
> 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console
>
> It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.
>
> Could someone please give me some suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Panzzi

the 3282 is very limited inEQ and aux sends
the 3216 is not for people who do not uderstand mixing
this leave the 3214, as your best choice amoung the options offered
get a LX7 from soundcraft
George

[Markus Gerg]

Panzzi > wrote in message >...
> Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:
>
> 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console
>
> It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.
>
> Could someone please give me some suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Panzzi


I would choose the DDX3216. Best sound and the best EQ - very important in churches!

Markus

[George]

In article >,
(Markus Gerg) wrote:

> Panzzi > wrote in message
> >...
> > Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:
> >
> > 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> > 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> > 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console
> >
> > It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.
> >
> > Could someone please give me some suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Panzzi
>
>
> I would choose the DDX3216. Best sound and the best EQ - very important in
> churches!
>
> Markus

only if they have a tech on hand
most churches are challenged enough to find some one that can run a
mackie 1402
I would not put the 3216 in the hands of people who can't grasp what the
trim is for
George

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I would choose the DDX3216. Best sound and the best EQ - very important in
> churches!

Surely you jest, both about your choice and what's very important in
churches.

Next time put a <g> after your post when you're trying to be cute.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

"Panzzi" > wrote in message
.93
> Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:
>
> 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console
>
> It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.
>
> Could someone please give me some suggestions?

In a gross sense, these are very similar consoles, with the MX3282A being
the most basic of the bunch. One approach is to weigh the perceived value of
the extra expense of the DDX3216 and the MG3214FX in terms of what that
extra money buys you. All of these consoles strike me as being stunningly
cheap. Where did the money go?

The extra features of the DDX3216 and the MG3214FX are going to require
some extra skill and practice to use. If this is a box that you lock in a
closet, then the extra money might be wasted. If you have ops who can fiddle
around profitably, then there might be some payback from the extra features.
If you have people who mistakenly twist knobs because they are there, then
the extra flexibility is a liability.

A digital console in a church setting has always attracted me because of the
ability to *save* the console settings and restore them the next time I use
the board. My Mackie SR32 has about 192 knobs and buttons on it and many of
them have the potential for introducing changes that I don't quite figure
out until I've ruined part of a session. That potential has been manifest
from time to time.

I see EFX as being less attractive in a church setting because I see more
emphasis on having a natural house sound as opposed to one that is
tricked-up. It is one thing that seems to me it is easy to retrofit.

I think that 6 aux sends are generally enough to run a church service and
AFAIK all 3 consoles provide that.

None of these consoles stun me with the flexibility of their per-channel
Eq which is a feature I would prefer to see expanded than is present on the
SR32 I use.

[George Gleason]

>
> I think that 6 aux sends are generally enough to run a church service and
> AFAIK all 3 consoles provide that.

while no familar with the yamahas aux section
I know the behringer has the 3/4 and 5/6 auxees on the same knob
it really only has 2 prefade auxes(correct me if I am wrong it has been a
yaer since I researched this)
>
> None of these consoles stun me with the flexibility of their per-channel
> Eq which is a feature I would prefer to see expanded than is present on
the
> SR32 I use.

the 3282 has a three band fixed EQ, I find this quite useless
where as the 3216 has great eq but you really need to understand using a eq
to work it
I do not know what the yama has
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.595 / Virus Database: 378 - Release Date: 2/25/2004

[Arny Krueger]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message

>> I think that 6 aux sends are generally enough to run a church
>> service and AFAIK all 3 consoles provide that.
>
> while no familar with the yamahas aux section
> I know the behringer has the 3/4 and 5/6 auxees on the same knob
> it really only has 2 prefade auxes(correct me if I am wrong it has
> been a yaer since I researched this)
>>
>> None of these consoles stun me with the flexibility of their
>> per-channel Eq which is a feature I would prefer to see expanded
>> than is present on the SR32 I use.
>
> the 3282 has a three band fixed EQ, I find this quite useless
> where as the 3216 has great eq but you really need to understand
> using a eq to work it
> I do not know what the yama has
> George

Thanks George, your comments made me look more closely at the 3216. Seems
like the one I'd probably pick of the bunch except for the lackof inputs.

[Panzzi]

Hey, thank you for all the feedback! Really appreciate that...

So, I believe I can trim down my selection to the MX3282A and the MG3214/fx

I read the spec. sheet for both of them, I see the main difference between
them is the Behringer has only 8 bus, but the Yamaha has 13 bus...

And of course, the name!

So, the question is: does that 8 bus and 13 bus difference worth that US
$400.00 difference?

BTW, what's up with the "bus"? How will it affect the performance?

Thank you again for you guys' feedback.

Panzzi

[Markus Gerg]

George > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Markus Gerg) wrote:
>
> > Panzzi > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:
> > >
> > > 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> > > 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> > > 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console
> > >
> > > It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.
> > >
> > > Could someone please give me some suggestions?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > Panzzi
> >
> >
> > I would choose the DDX3216. Best sound and the best EQ - very important in
> > churches!
> >
> > Markus
>
> only if they have a tech on hand
> most churches are challenged enough to find some one that can run a
> mackie 1402

In a reverbant room any simple EQ - like the 1402 - is useless!
So, if nobody can operate a mixer, it´s better not to buy one - IMO.

Greetings from Bavaria!

Markus


>

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> So, the question is: does that 8 bus and 13 bus difference worth that US
> $400.00 difference?
>
> BTW, what's up with the "bus"? How will it affect the performance?

Busses relate to the number of different outputs. The first thing you
need to do is learn to count them yourself since there are subgroup
busses, auxiliary busses, main program (left/right) busses, things
that look like subgroup busses but are really just outputs, and some
other busses too fierce to mention.

I'd suggest that you get a little better hands-on experience with
mixers before you make your choice. It will really help you to
understand what's important to you and what's superfluous.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Pooh Bear]

Markus Gerg wrote:

> Panzzi > wrote in message >...
> > Hi, I have three Mixers to choose from:
> >
> > 1. Behringer MX3282A Eurodesk Mixer
> > 2. Behringer DDX3216 Automated digital mixing console
> > 3. Yamaha MG3214FXMixing console
> >
> > It will serve on my church PA/musical purpose.
> >
> > Could someone please give me some suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Panzzi
>
> I would choose the DDX3216. Best sound and the best EQ - very important in churches!
>
> Markus

Unforunately you don't know what Panzzi's venue is likely to sound like !

Have you had any luck with the issue of acoustics ( i.e. - getting something done about it ) btw Panzzi ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article > writes:
>
> > So, the question is: does that 8 bus and 13 bus difference worth that US
> > $400.00 difference?
> >
> > BTW, what's up with the "bus"? How will it affect the performance?
>
> Busses relate to the number of different outputs. The first thing you
> need to do is learn to count them yourself since there are subgroup
> busses, auxiliary busses, main program (left/right) busses, things
> that look like subgroup busses but are really just outputs, and some
> other busses too fierce to mention.
>
> I'd suggest that you get a little better hands-on experience with
> mixers before you make your choice. It will really help you to
> understand what's important to you and what's superfluous.

I also rather suspect Panzzi is going to be on the butt end of load of kicking when the $7k of
gear he bought sounds crap in his echo chamber regardless of the number of busses !

Sadly the *holy* are unstoppable in their belief. Maybe he reckons God [1] will make it sound
better ?

Graham

[1] insert choice of God of your preference.

[Panzzi]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> I also rather suspect Panzzi is going to be on the butt end of load of
> kicking when the $7k of gear he bought sounds crap in his echo chamber
> regardless of the number of busses !

What is that to do with the "bus" question? I have question, so I post here
to seek for answer/suggestion, if you can't give one or unwilling to give
one, then don't waste your time here.

The easiest way to solve a problem is you have unlimited resource.
Unfortunately, 9999 out of 10000 times that is not the case. So the best
way is to utilize the resource to get the best outcome. I can assume you
that even I can have a $700,000 budget, somebody can still walk in and
comment: "it sounds crap!"

> Sadly the *holy* are unstoppable in their belief. Maybe he reckons God
> [1] will make it sound better ?
>
> Graham
>
> [1] insert choice of God of your preference.

Mr. Graham, that is kind of an insult to a Christian (if not all), I am
sorry that you don't believe in Christ, but that didn't mean that you can
insult Christian. And you are right, our belief and our faith drive us,
everything, and yes, God CAN make it sound great if he wants to.

Somebody in this forum once called you a hatred of Christian, I didn't
believe it back then, but now...

God bless you, Graham.

Panzzi

[Panzzi]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1079037194k@trad:

>
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> So, the question is: does that 8 bus and 13 bus difference worth that
>> US $400.00 difference?
>>
>> BTW, what's up with the "bus"? How will it affect the performance?
>
> Busses relate to the number of different outputs. The first thing you
> need to do is learn to count them yourself since there are subgroup
> busses, auxiliary busses, main program (left/right) busses, things
> that look like subgroup busses but are really just outputs, and some
> other busses too fierce to mention.

Ummm... might be my understanding... you still didn't explain what is a
"bus" in the mixer, and secondary how it can affect the performance? Will a
8 bus better than 13 bus?

> I'd suggest that you get a little better hands-on experience with
> mixers before you make your choice. It will really help you to
> understand what's important to you and what's superfluous.

I know, but if I have half your knowledge, I wouldn't need to post a
suggestion request here. Right? :)

Panzzi

[TonyP]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks George, your comments made me look more closely at the 3216. Seems
> like the one I'd probably pick of the bunch except for the lackof inputs.

Add an ADA8000 and get 8 more, or add two and get a total of 28 balanced
inputs.

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"Panzzi" > wrote in message
9...
> (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1079037194k@trad:
> Ummm... might be my understanding... you still didn't explain what is a
> "bus" in the mixer, and secondary how it can affect the performance?

A bus is an assignable signal path through the mixer. The Main output busses
are obvious, usually 2. Then a number of Auxialliary busses for sub mixes,
effects, monitoring, control room, surround outputs etc.

>Will a 8 bus better than 13 bus?

If you need more than 8, then definitely 13 will be better. Otherwise no.

TonyP.

[Pooh Bear]

Panzzi wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > I also rather suspect Panzzi is going to be on the butt end of load of
> > kicking when the $7k of gear he bought sounds crap in his echo chamber
> > regardless of the number of busses !
>
> What is that to do with the "bus" question? I have question, so I post here
> to seek for answer/suggestion, if you can't give one or unwilling to give
> one, then don't waste your time here.

Actually - it's entirely to the point.

13 busses, regardless of cost, aren't going to save your sound. That is *very*
on-topic.

You came here asking for advice and got it.

*Every* single poster said that you needed to address the acoustic issues of
your venue as a priority.

You didn't like it and tried a.a.p.l-s. As warned in advance, you got totally
flamed. Live sound engineers have seen it all before. I can *personally* tell
you how bad a venue like yours will sound ! It's agonisingly bad. The only time
*ever* the band contracting me refused to pay - despite the obvious problems.
Now consider how you're going to look when you're on the end of that kind of
result !

Actually, of all the respondents, I am possibly the only one who thinks that
your $7k might just be stretchable to provide something 'workable'. I've had to
do low budget installs myself in the past - very careful selection of gear plus
cost-trimming in less critical areas can work - as long as you're aware of the
compromises.

Even so - no amount of gear will change the sound of your hall.

Until you actually admit that - you're essentially wasting your ( and our )
time.

This is for *YOUR* benefit not mine - you are getting for free the combined
experience of industry experts totaling probably millenia in the industry. We
want to help - but if you *DON'T WANT TO BE HELPED* you'll get very short
shrift.


> The easiest way to solve a problem is you have unlimited resource.

Even an unlimited resource won't make the acoustics of your building great if
it's built the way you said.

>
> Unfortunately, 9999 out of 10000 times that is not the case. So the best
> way is to utilize the resource to get the best outcome. I can assume you
> that even I can have a $700,000 budget, somebody can still walk in and
> comment: "it sounds crap!"

Some do that - they're called c***s. Some are Christian too. Maybe most ?


> > Sadly the *holy* are unstoppable in their belief. Maybe he reckons God
> > [1] will make it sound better ?
> >
> > Graham
> >
> > [1] insert choice of God of your preference.
>
> Mr. Graham, that is kind of an insult to a Christian (if not all),

Yup - it would be an insult to a Moslem too. I'm fair like that.

That's *kinda my point* !!!! You won't accept Allah is God and they won't
accept yours - and so on etc all over the rest of the world's religions.

You expect any sane person to think *any* of them are right ?

Seriously ?

> I am
> sorry that you don't believe in Christ,

Actually, I believe that Jesus lived and preached nice things and set some
great examples for us to follow. I don't happen to believe he's the 'Son of
God' however. A damn fine bloke to be very much admired - a saint in the
generic meaning of the word sure.


> but that didn't mean that you can
> insult Christian.

Well, actually, I can do what I like. It's called self-determination.


> And you are right, our belief and our faith drive us,
> everything, and yes, God CAN make it sound great if he wants to.

In *your* eyes.


> Somebody in this forum once called you a hatred of Christian, I didn't
> believe it back then, but now...

I'm not a Christian hater but I really worry about so-called 'Christians'
sometimes. Don't worry, not exclusively Christians. Moslems worry me more and
Catholics are well..... just Catholics I guess. Not sure how their bishops are
capable of freely brushing child abuse under the carpet - nor how the African
ones are able to claim that condoms aren't effective in helping stop the spread
of Aids - but I digress.


Regds, Graham



p.s. also posted to aapl-s since this is really a live post. I reckon they'll
get the drift.

[Panzzi]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> You came here asking for advice and got it.
>
> *Every* single poster said that you needed to address the acoustic
> issues of your venue as a priority.
>
> You didn't like it and tried a.a.p.l-s. As warned in advance, you got
> totally flamed. Live sound engineers have seen it all before. I can
> *personally* tell you how bad a venue like yours will sound ! It's
> agonisingly bad. The only time *ever* the band contracting me refused
> to pay - despite the obvious problems. Now consider how you're going
> to look when you're on the end of that kind of result !

The reason that I post the same question on AAPLS was because one of the
guys here told me I should not post that kind of question in RAP, I
should go there, so I did. But obviously that is a bad suggestion. :(

The reason that I asked for suggestion for mixer is obvious, or might be
I didn't state it clear, it is not for the Family Life Center that I
posted before. It is for an upgrade in our sanctuary, so it got nothing
to do with "I ignore the previous suggestion and want to get around with
it". Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And, seriously, I don't know about you, but obviously, nobody in our
church know about acoustic enough, as a matter of fact, you can't find a
church that include one of each professional among the congegration! But
thing needs to be done, that's why I asked for suggestion. And yes, I
have already contact an acoustic consultant around town to give me a
quote.

Thank you for your feedback.

> Well, actually, I can do what I like. It's called self-determination.

I don't want to go deep into religion, what I would like to say is as a
Christian, even I cannot accept another religions, I still would not
insult anyone about their religions. That is some basic manner, oh yes,
we are in America, we have free speech (hang on, we don't), but the way
you comment(s) will reflect your personality! Who will look bad? Not the
church, not one Christian, but it is YOU, think about it.

Panzzi

[Pooh Bear]

Panzzi wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > You came here asking for advice and got it.
> >
> > *Every* single poster said that you needed to address the acoustic
> > issues of your venue as a priority.
> >
> > You didn't like it and tried a.a.p.l-s. As warned in advance, you got
> > totally flamed. Live sound engineers have seen it all before. I can
> > *personally* tell you how bad a venue like yours will sound ! It's
> > agonisingly bad. The only time *ever* the band contracting me refused
> > to pay - despite the obvious problems. Now consider how you're going
> > to look when you're on the end of that kind of result !
>
> The reason that I post the same question on AAPLS was because one of the
> guys here told me I should not post that kind of question in RAP, I
> should go there, so I did. But obviously that is a bad suggestion. :(
>
> The reason that I asked for suggestion for mixer is obvious, or might be
> I didn't state it clear, it is not for the Family Life Center that I
> posted before. It is for an upgrade in our sanctuary, so it got nothing
> to do with "I ignore the previous suggestion and want to get around with
> it". Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem.

In which case, I recommend stating the exact requirements you are looking
for as opposed to generalisations e.g. like type of usage basically, and you
will surely get advice regarding the related benefits of differing mixer
designs and features.

There is nothing *better* about the number of busses, unless you know how
many you will actually need. Here lies the rub. A 200 bus mixer is no better
than a 2 bus if you only *need* 2 !


> And, seriously, I don't know about you, but obviously, nobody in our
> church know about acoustic enough, as a matter of fact, you can't find a
> church that include one of each professional among the congegration! But
> thing needs to be done, that's why I asked for suggestion. And yes, I
> have already contact an acoustic consultant around town to give me a
> quote.

I'm genuinely *very* pleased to hear that. I hope it works out well.


> Thank you for your feedback.

YW.


> > Well, actually, I can do what I like. It's called self-determination.
>
> I don't want to go deep into religion, what I would like to say is as a
> Christian, even I cannot accept another religions, I still would not
> insult anyone about their religions.

Actually, I never hold anything against anyone for holding religious views.
That is admirable in some ways. I have more of a problem with what is
promulgated on the followers' behalf by those who choose to use religions
for their own ends.

For an excellent example see Usama bin Laden. And the way he twists religion
to suit his ends. Sadly, his methods aren't unique to him or his religion.


> That is some basic manner, oh yes,
> we are in America, we have free speech (hang on, we don't), but the way
> you comment(s) will reflect your personality! Who will look bad? Not the
> church, not one Christian, but it is YOU, think about it.

That's a matter of opinion, it would seem.

Best luck anyway.


Wishing you well, Graham

[Panzzi]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

> There is nothing *better* about the number of busses, unless you know
> how many you will actually need. Here lies the rub. A 200 bus mixer is
> no better than a 2 bus if you only *need* 2 !

So, my question is: what kind of "application" can I use to utilize these
bus? And/or how to count them... with example? Wow... that makes two
questions, doesn't it? :)

Thank you in advance.

Panzzi

[Kurt Albershardt]

Panzzi wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> There is nothing *better* about the number of busses, unless you know
>> how many you will actually need. Here lies the rub. A 200 bus mixer is
>> no better than a 2 bus if you only *need* 2 !
>
>
> So, my question is: what kind of "application" can I use to utilize these
> bus?

The more buses there are in the mixer (particularly subroups and other buses which lie between the inputs and whatever outputs you are using) the more potential gainstaging, noise, and grounding problems the designer has to overcome.

Buses and applications? Pre/post fader, pre/post EQ aux buses to start. Main outs, tape outs, matrix outs, subgroup outs and that's even before you start with VCA's...


Hint: At the low end of the market, the smaller Mackie boards (less inputs and less buses) are quieter and generally sound better.

[TonyP]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> The more buses there are in the mixer (particularly subroups and other
buses which lie between the inputs and whatever outputs you are using) the
more potential gainstaging, noise, and grounding problems the designer has
to overcome.

I'm not sure why unused buses should add problems, switch them out of the
main mix.
OTOH if you really need them ...........

TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

"TonyP" > wrote in message
u
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thanks George, your comments made me look more closely at the 3216.
>> Seems like the one I'd probably pick of the bunch except for the
>> lackof inputs.
>
> Add an ADA8000 and get 8 more, or add two and get a total of 28
> balanced inputs.

Good point! Thanks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message

> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> In article >
>> writes:
>>
>>> So, the question is: does that 8 bus and 13 bus difference worth
>>> that US $400.00 difference?
>>>
>>> BTW, what's up with the "bus"? How will it affect the performance?
>>
>> Busses relate to the number of different outputs. The first thing you
>> need to do is learn to count them yourself since there are subgroup
>> busses, auxiliary busses, main program (left/right) busses, things
>> that look like subgroup busses but are really just outputs, and some
>> other busses too fierce to mention.
>>
>> I'd suggest that you get a little better hands-on experience with
>> mixers before you make your choice. It will really help you to
>> understand what's important to you and what's superfluous.
>
> I also rather suspect Panzzi is going to be on the butt end of load
> of kicking when the $7k of gear he bought sounds crap in his echo
> chamber regardless of the number of busses !
>
> Sadly the *holy* are unstoppable in their belief. Maybe he reckons
> God [1] will make it sound better ?

Believe it or not, more busses can help bail some water when it comes to
fighting with a room that has bad acoustics. Been there, done that!

More busses give you the option to have more customized stage monitor
outputs, which can help in both good and bad rooms.

If you have to manage mics closely because of echoes or feedback, routing a
group of mics that are used together through its own bus can ease keeping
unused mics turned off.

For churches with tape or CD ministries, a bus for taping can help the
intelligibility of the tapes by providing a mix that is favors for the
spoken word parts of the program.

More creative or experienced folks than I can probably come up with more
ways to bail water in a bad room with busses. True you can't squeeze water
out of a rock, but you can try to sop up a little condensation...

[Scott Dorsey]

Panzzi > wrote:
(Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1079037194k@trad:
>
>>
>> In article >
>> writes:
>>
>>> So, the question is: does that 8 bus and 13 bus difference worth that
>>> US $400.00 difference?
>>>
>>> BTW, what's up with the "bus"? How will it affect the performance?
>>
>> Busses relate to the number of different outputs. The first thing you
>> need to do is learn to count them yourself since there are subgroup
>> busses, auxiliary busses, main program (left/right) busses, things
>> that look like subgroup busses but are really just outputs, and some
>> other busses too fierce to mention.
>
>Ummm... might be my understanding... you still didn't explain what is a
>"bus" in the mixer, and secondary how it can affect the performance? Will a
>8 bus better than 13 bus?

Go right now and buy the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook. Read it.
Your life will be greatly improved and you will be able to ask questions
here without being flamed. Right now you cannot ask questions without being
flamed because you do not have the background to ask questions that make
sense. The Yamaha book will help.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Panzzi > wrote:
>> (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1079037194k@trad:
>>
>>>
>>> In article >
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> So, the question is: does that 8 bus and 13 bus difference worth
>>>> that US $400.00 difference?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, what's up with the "bus"? How will it affect the performance?
>>>
>>> Busses relate to the number of different outputs. The first thing
>>> you need to do is learn to count them yourself since there are
>>> subgroup busses, auxiliary busses, main program (left/right)
>>> busses, things that look like subgroup busses but are really just
>>> outputs, and some other busses too fierce to mention.
>>
>> Ummm... might be my understanding... you still didn't explain what
>> is a "bus" in the mixer, and secondary how it can affect the
>> performance? Will a 8 bus better than 13 bus?
>
> Go right now and buy the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook. Read
> it. Your life will be greatly improved and you will be able to ask
> questions here without being flamed. Right now you cannot ask
> questions without being flamed because you do not have the background
> to ask questions that make sense. The Yamaha book will help.

IME, good advice. Since he's doing church SR , Yamaha's "Guide to Sound
Systems for Worship" would be a good companion, or if he's pressed for time,
alternative.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > Busses relate to the number of different outputs.

> Ummm... might be my understanding... you still didn't explain what is a
> "bus" in the mixer, and secondary how it can affect the performance? Will a
> 8 bus better than 13 bus?

The term has different meanings depending on whether you're talking
about the internal workings of the mixer or the way the mixer is used.
Inside the mixer, it's the place where all the inputs assigned to that
bus are summed (mixed). From there it goes to an output jack, maybe
thorugh a volume control.

Let's say you have a very simple mono mixer. All of the inputs go
through their individual level controls and are summed together to one
bus. That bus is connected to the mixer output. Bunch of inputs to one
bus to one output. A one-bus mixer.

Now let's expand that to a stereo mixer. Each input goes through its
individual level control, then the output of the level control goes
through a pan pot which directs the signal to one of two busses, the
"left" and the "right" bus. Anything that's panned all the way to the
left goes to the left bus only, anything panned all the way to the
right goes to the right bus only. Anything that's panned somewhere in
between goes partially to each bus, kind of like a secondary volume
control that sets the volume to the left and the volume to the right
bus. All the signals going to each bus get summed, and then they go to
two outputs - usually left and right channels. Two busses, two
outputs.

An 8-bus mixer lets you assign an input not only to two bussed, but to
eight, and split the signal up so that it can go to any, or all of the
eight busses. Sometimes those eight busses are used to send different
"submixes" to the tracks of a multitrack recorder. This lets you mix,
say, all the keyboards to one track, all the backup vocals to another
track, all the drums to a track or two, etc.

Another use of multiple busses is as "subgroups." In this application,
there's a button which assigns the bus output to yet another bus so
you can mix all the backup vocals to one bus, then control the level
of the backup vocals in the mix with a single control. But there's
gotta be that button - most multi-bus consoles have one, but some
don't, and some (none of the ones you're considering) use a "matrix"
rather than a simple assignment to left and right busses.

Then there are the busses that are used for auxiliary sends. This is
like a mixer within a mixer. If a company wants to brag about how many
busses their mixer has, they'll add those to the count (because
they're really busses internally). Other manufacturers will say
something like "4 busses plus left, right, and mono with six auxiliary
sends" which makes 13 busses. I would call this a "4-bus" console.

> I know, but if I have half your knowledge, I wouldn't need to post a
> suggestion request here. Right? :)

So get a little knowledge. Read a mixer instruction manual. Mackie has
several on line on their web site and they're decent tutorials which
will give you an idea of where you might apply those busses.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George]

>
> Then there are the busses that are used for auxiliary sends. This is
> like a mixer within a mixer. If a company wants to brag about how many
> busses their mixer has, they'll add those to the count (because
> they're really busses internally). Other manufacturers will say
> something like "4 busses plus left, right, and mono with six auxiliary
> sends" which makes 13 busses. I would call this a "4-bus" console.
>
> > I know, but if I have half your knowledge, I wouldn't need to post a
> > suggestion request here. Right? :)
>
> So get a little knowledge. Read a mixer instruction manual. Mackie has
> several on line on their web site and they're decent tutorials which
> will give you an idea of where you might apply those busses.
>
>
Pannzzi,
also be aware of the input name game
example behringer 3282 only has 24 mic inputs not 32
Mackie 1402, 14 input mixer only can take 6 mics on xlrs
the other input are next to useless for live sound as the do not have a
gain control on then, and they often has less eq
so do your reserch be sure your getting what you assumed you were getting
like a 6 aux desk
sure there are 6 aux buss but can they be assigned properly for your need
back to the 3282
you are only going to get 2 prefade monitor mixes out of this 6 aux desk
the others are post fade and ganged 4 auxes on two knobs
if you do not basically understand your goal then it will be hard to get
the right mixer
buy at least 4 more xlr inputs than you need
buy at least 2 more prefade aux(or switchable) send than you need
get the most versitile eq, a basic minimum should be two semi
parametric(sweep) mids with shelving High and lows
get a low cut filter
get at least 4 subgroups
a matrix is nice
buy from a local vendor who can come in and do set-up and training
from all you have posted you should not be buying lowest price , but
rather you should be shopping best service, you just are not experianced
enough to make a "box" purchase
DO NOT BUY OFF THE WEB, you need a local retailer in your corner
George

[Paul Pinyot]

Panzi,

I am also specifying a new board for our church. The current board has a
left and a right main output, A single monitor line and a single MONO
combined (Post left and right mains) line. Making up four master faders.
There is one separate effects send and return. And a built in reverb send.
So I guess there would be five busses (left, right, monitor, effects and
reverb). I am not counting the post mains MONO line.

For a new board I am sketching all the possible alter/stage configurations.
Noting where the monitors are and what is to come out of each monitor. Also
noting the mains speakers, assisted listening transmitter for the hard of
hearing, tape recording feeds (stereo), back rooms (nursery, cry room, two
class rooms, office and Fellowship hall) all on one feed.

Outputs I would have:
2 - for mains left and right
1 - mono for the back rooms
1 - for listening assist transmitter
2 - recording mix
5 - monitors, choir, worship team vocals, worship team instrumentation, and
pastors pulpit.
2 - special effects

I figure 13 minimum. Or 2 mains and 11 sub send busses.

For inputs - Again sketching the locations or racking add up your input
needs like mics, instrumentation, video, CD player, etc. and figure your
input needs.

Just a sample. I hope this helps.
--
Paul Pinyot



"Panzzi" > wrote in message
21...

> So, my question is: what kind of "application" can I use to utilize these
> bus? And/or how to count them... with example? Wow... that makes two
> questions, doesn't it? :)
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Panzzi

[Pooh Bear]

Panzzi wrote:

> (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1079037194k@trad:

< snip >

> > Busses relate to the number of different outputs. The first thing you
> > need to do is learn to count them yourself since there are subgroup
> > busses, auxiliary busses, main program (left/right) busses, things
> > that look like subgroup busses but are really just outputs, and some
> > other busses too fierce to mention.
>
> Ummm... might be my understanding... you still didn't explain what is a
> "bus" in the mixer, and secondary how it can affect the performance? Will a
> 8 bus better than 13 bus?

The number of buses doesn't affect the sonic performance abilities as such.

It affects the flexibility of the desk to handle different mix situations.

In order to determine how many and which type of buses are useful to you - you
have to understand why you would need them - that means structuring your
requirements in a way that the group can relate to - rather than 'what is best'
- 'cos there is no 'best' without us knowing *clearly* precisely what you're
trying to achieve.


> > I'd suggest that you get a little better hands-on experience with
> > mixers before you make your choice. It will really help you to
> > understand what's important to you and what's superfluous.
>
> I know, but if I have half your knowledge, I wouldn't need to post a
> suggestion request here. Right? :)

That Yamaha sound book sounds to be recognised as a good guide.

Maybe I'll write a simple guide to accompany our new products - seems like
there may be a need now that mixer owners aren't always so tech savvy as once
used to be the norm.

Graham

[Panzzi]

First, as usual, thanks for your feedback! I'm really appreciate that! :)

So, if I'm going for the Yamaha with 14 buses, can I use them as follow:

2 x Front Main L/R
2 x Back Main L/R
1 x Other places in wall speakers
1 x Musical instructments (like piano, drum, bass, guitar)
1 x Stage monitor speakers
1 x Tape and future recording unit
1 x Equalizer
1 x Pulpit microphones
1 x Praise team microphones (about five of those)
1 x Choir condense microphones

Total of 12, still have 2 for spare.

How's that? :)

Thanks in advance.

Panzzi

[Roger W. Norman]

If you want line level inputs.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "TonyP" > wrote in message
> u
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Thanks George, your comments made me look more closely at the 3216.
> >> Seems like the one I'd probably pick of the bunch except for the
> >> lackof inputs.
> >
> > Add an ADA8000 and get 8 more, or add two and get a total of 28
> > balanced inputs.
>
> Good point! Thanks.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message


> If you want line level inputs.

ADA8000's have both mic and line inputs.

[Uberaudio.info]

Wasnt there always a little souncraft guide to mixing/digital mixing?

*tries to remember days of buying the worlds stock of notepads and
F1s!!

I think most of the guides ended up in schools as a basic reference.
Perhaps a CD rom version with handly little animations would be
useful, one of live and one for studio sound. I find that far too
often musicians with a little home studio experience come in thinking
that what they do in their home-studios aka bedrooms is how to mix a
bigish show to 300+ people. Spending ages EQing a dynamic vocal mic so
it "sounds nice" then hitting a wall of feedback as theyve slapped
6-10db on the top end!

[Tim Padrick]

The most flexible (most auxes) boards I'm aware of in the highly affordable
range are the Yamahas. I'm not a big fan (in part owing to the channel EQ,
in part owing to the look & feel), but they get the job done. If the budget
allows, the Crest HP8 is the best bang for the buck (8 groups, 10 auxes, two
Matrix mixes) and should be a very good console.



"Paul Pinyot" > wrote in
message ...
> Panzi,
>
> I am also specifying a new board for our church. The current board has a
> left and a right main output, A single monitor line and a single MONO
> combined (Post left and right mains) line. Making up four master faders.
> There is one separate effects send and return. And a built in reverb
send.
> So I guess there would be five busses (left, right, monitor, effects and
> reverb). I am not counting the post mains MONO line.
>
> For a new board I am sketching all the possible alter/stage
configurations.
> Noting where the monitors are and what is to come out of each monitor.
Also
> noting the mains speakers, assisted listening transmitter for the hard of
> hearing, tape recording feeds (stereo), back rooms (nursery, cry room, two
> class rooms, office and Fellowship hall) all on one feed.
>
> Outputs I would have:
> 2 - for mains left and right
> 1 - mono for the back rooms
> 1 - for listening assist transmitter
> 2 - recording mix
> 5 - monitors, choir, worship team vocals, worship team instrumentation,
and
> pastors pulpit.
> 2 - special effects
>
> I figure 13 minimum. Or 2 mains and 11 sub send busses.
>
> For inputs - Again sketching the locations or racking add up your input
> needs like mics, instrumentation, video, CD player, etc. and figure your
> input needs.
>
> Just a sample. I hope this helps.
> --
> Paul Pinyot
>
>
>
> "Panzzi" > wrote in message
> 21...
>
> > So, my question is: what kind of "application" can I use to utilize
these
> > bus? And/or how to count them... with example? Wow... that makes two
> > questions, doesn't it? :)
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Panzzi
>
>

[TonyP]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
>
>
> > If you want line level inputs.

> ADA8000's have both mic and line inputs.

Yes, and on every channel.

TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

"TonyP" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> If you want line level inputs.
>
>> ADA8000's have both mic and line inputs.
>
> Yes, and on every channel.

Did you have a chance to look at Garth's latest test results, taken at FS -3
dB?

http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_RMAA_test.zip

Interested in your thoughts...

[Roger W. Norman]

Ooo, the quality mark keeps slipping when the price is $200 and it has mic
pres too.

Let me ask you this, Arny. Would you put a rack of these on stage as your
mic pres for a paying customer?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
>
>
> > If you want line level inputs.
>
> ADA8000's have both mic and line inputs.
>
>
>

[George]

In article >,
"Roger W. Norman" > wrote:

> Ooo, the quality mark keeps slipping when the price is $200 and it has mic
> pres too.
>
> Let me ask you this, Arny. Would you put a rack of these on stage as your
> mic pres for a paying customer?

we have well respected posters(Gavin/Ralph) at aapls who are currently
using the 8000's with dm1K 's and reporting no audible diffrence from
the presonus units
they are doing high end coprorate presentations
I would have no problem using them, esp as I enter the learning curve or
full digital desks/snakes
perhaps I will learn they are ****, but the cost is so small to make
them valuable learning tools and back-up units if i upgrade
George

[Arny Krueger]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message


> Ooo, the quality mark keeps slipping when the price is $200 and it
> has mic pres too.

Given that I've confirmed that the line inputs do indded go through the mic
pres, and seeing how the line inputs perform, the mic pres can't be too
shabby, at least at modest gain settings.

> Let me ask you this, Arny. Would you put a rack of these on stage as
> your mic pres for a paying customer?

Right now I don't have any PAYING customers for SR or recording setups, so I
can't answer that question honestly.

Would I stake my rep in my church on them? Yep. I'm putting other Behr boxes
into the loop almost as I type.

[Roger W. Norman]

George" > wrote in message
...> we have
well respected posters(Gavin/Ralph) at aapls who are currently
> using the 8000's with dm1K 's and reporting no audible diffrence from
> the presonus units
> they are doing high end coprorate presentations
> I would have no problem using them, esp as I enter the learning curve or
> full digital desks/snakes
> perhaps I will learn they are ****, but the cost is so small to make
> them valuable learning tools and back-up units if i upgrade

Cool. Right now I can probably afford to drop $200 on a test unit. Never
hurts to have equipment that you can use. I'm still considering getting
some more Behringer compressors for live work. The six channels I've got
right now are acceptable. Nothing to write home about, but then that means
you aren't writing home and complaining either! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[Roger W. Norman]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Would I stake my rep in my church on them? Yep. I'm putting other Behr
boxes
> into the loop almost as I type.

Well, Arny, there ARE other churches! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[unitron]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1079008360k@trad>...
> In article > writes:
>
> > I would choose the DDX3216. Best sound and the best EQ - very important in
> > churches!
>
> Surely you jest, both about your choice and what's very important in
> churches.
>
> Next time put a <g> after your post when you're trying to be cute.


As I indicated elsewhere, in a church the message is the message (take
that MacLuhan!) so if the words of the songs, prayers, and sermons
aren't intelligible the message isn't getting through, so best sound
and best eq *are* very important in churches.

[Roger W. Norman]

"unitron" > wrote in message
om...
> As I indicated elsewhere, in a church the message is the message (take
> that MacLuhan!) so if the words of the songs, prayers, and sermons
> aren't intelligible the message isn't getting through, so best sound
> and best eq *are* very important in churches.

I'd have to say that you might want to look at speakers after having taken
the Servodrive speakers for a short test run. Intelligibility out the ying
yang. In live work EQ is for fixing problems, not creating intelligibility.
Good mic pres help, but think about it. If you run out of options with EQ
obviously you're screwed.

So what gives you the most options? First, site survey with some equipment
that let's you see how the room physically responds to a signal. Second,
acoustic modifications that let you know you have as close to a flat sound
as possible, which, in my experience, is pretty much impossible because
churches are made specifically to direct the unadorned sermon to the people,
so amplification is a virtual no-no. So how do you overcome serious dollars
in adjusting the environment to allow for amplification? Well, you take
speakers that present what you want to the audience without adverse or
over-the-top amplification. In a church, the sound should do what all good
sound engineers try to do anyway, which is supply the audience/congregation
with what is perceived as coming from the sound source, not jammin' on them
until the congregation no longer wants to be present. If someone in the
congregation can point to a speaker as the source, then you've already lost
the battle.

But, I've been to a number of churches that have minimal to overly booming
sound reinforcement, and all I can say is that the designer didn't spec the
sound right. If my first option is EQ for intelligibility, then I'm already
in deep ****.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio