Recording console VS Live console?

[Jack Meov]

I was looking at an Allen & Heath GL 3000 console and wondering how it would compare to a Soundcraft Ghost for example in a recording situation?

I understand that the A & H GL3000 is marketed as a live console but what are the real differences between a live and studio console? Are the live ones noisier, or do they use cheaper components? Are the pre-amps not as good?

What's the true reason why live consoles are less expensive than recording consoles?

I know Fletcher from Merccenary uses a Yamaha PM2000 in the studio and that is also considered a live console, right? Yet he seems please as puch with the sound he gets from his console.

Fanx,
Jack

[jspartz]

Jack,

The sound is one thing, but how user friendly the board is for your work habits is another thing. Either will work. What features are you willing to give up (or not give up)? That is the question you have to ask yourself.

Jason

[DClarkson2004]

A couple of months ago, I was recording my drumtracks, but
I didn't have enough channels/pre-amps.
So a friend of mine said he had a Midas-Venice to compensate for the missing pre-amps.
I used them for overheads and the room-mics, and it worked
like a charm!!
Silky-smooth sounding cymbals is what I ended up with.
No eq was used on the mixer, just the pre's.
My point is, if the pre-amps of a live-mixer are good, why not use it?
I have also worked with Allen&Heath, but it was hell for me....and also for my clients:
Broken pot-meters, srewy faders,etc...

Hope this helps a bit!

[Drumsound]

If you are going to use a live console in the studio you need to consider a few things. Do you have enough outboard pres, or mixer channels to record and monitor all of your tracks? Is the routing flexible enough? Will there be enough channels at mixdown? How much re-patching do you want to do? Etc.

[Jim Williams]

I love my Soundcraft Delta 200 consoles for recording. Although designed for live sound, the design elements are from the top o line recording consoles like the active pan buffers, good preamp designs and that discrete balanced bussing giving 90 db crosstalk. Less is more to me so I enjoy feeding my mix through only 4 opamp stages per input compared to 20 or so stages in an SSL. Not as convenient, but if you think convenient helps sell records, put a picture of your convenient gear on the cover of your next release and report back how many copies it helped sell for you...

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[jspartz]

I think that convenient for a person today is to quickly recall faders and Eq settings from project to project. Once you get past convenient you start to give a different attention to sound quality.

I have a student worker who is researching which digital mixer to get. It might be the convenient route for him to go. I have a handful of outboard mic preamps and a PM-2000. I think it is a great setup for how I like to work. But that is me.

Jason

[Jim vanBergen]

If you're talking new and new (both in good condition) then I think you'll find the Ghost and the A&H G3000 very similar. Good basic preamps, useful EQ, clean S/N path. Enough auxes to do your effects and monitor/foldback mixes. This is not going to compare to a 100k desk, but as has been proven time and time again, it ain't the tools, is what you do with them. Either desk in decent shape is appropriate to mixing. I have mixed on every kind of desk and I promise you having the 100k console has never played a factor in whether the mix gets broadcast time. I've had just as many Mackie, Soundcraft, and Yamaha mixes as Neve, Euphonix, Trident, and SSL, plus many ITB ProTools mixes sans console.

Will you miss the abilty to double your inputs on mixdown? Maybe. You still need great outboard when you need great outboard. It ain't all discrete and there are LOTS of IC's to contend with but...it'll do the job, just FINE!

JvB