The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Digital v Analog Mixer
Old 5 days ago
  #31
Lives for gear
If he wanted to go back on tracks he should post some arguments, not being an ass and do as if there is no middle ground between a cheap digital mixer and a studer...or saying that anyone here recommends a studer or anything like that.

Thats just plain destroying a discussion.

To add to the discussion : i would always recommend a digital mixer over an analog one IF the user has any experience with mixers.

Especially when being a solo performer mixing from stage, someone (preferably a technician& can walk the room with an ipad and mox or soundcheck. Or the performer can do it himself while a friend plays the guitar for example.

Also, I don't think that small analog mixers sound better than small digital ones.
Old 5 days ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
If he wanted to go back on tracks he should post some arguments, not being an ass and do as if there is no middle ground between a cheap digital mixer and a studer...or saying that anyone here recommends a studer or anything like that.

Thats just plain destroying a discussion.

To add to the discussion : i would always recommend a digital mixer over an analog one IF the user has any experience with mixers.

Especially when being a solo performer mixing from stage, someone (preferably a technician& can walk the room with an ipad and mox or soundcheck. Or the performer can do it himself while a friend plays the guitar for example.

Also, I don't think that small analog mixers sound better than small digital ones.
imo there is not much 'middle ground' in digital desks except for price (which is one of the many reasons why i went with studer btw) but that's another discussion...

and you failed to provide reasons why to go digital at all: converters built into cheap digital desks are dirt cheap and that's hiw they sound: first and foremost, they degrade sound! - more features do not necessarily lead to better sound either, especially when digital desks get used by amateurs. remote control of is no substitute for knowledge and can't compensate for faulty designs/poor implementation of functions (or lack of usefull features) which plage so many digital toys.

i rather suggest using high quality gear which offers fewer functions, learn to adjust those and deliver solid signals to whatever pa there is... - should this gear no longer be needed/get used, it can still get sold for a reasonable amount of money (while all the cheaper digital desks pretty soon become irrelevant if not unusuable).
Old 5 days ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
If he wanted to go back on tracks he should post some arguments, not being an ass and do as if there is no middle ground between a cheap digital mixer and a studer...or saying that anyone here recommends a studer or anything like that.

Thats just plain destroying a discussion.

To add to the discussion : i would always recommend a digital mixer over an analog one IF the user has any experience with mixers.

Especially when being a solo performer mixing from stage, someone (preferably a technician& can walk the room with an ipad and mox or soundcheck. Or the performer can do it himself while a friend plays the guitar for example.

Also, I don't think that small analog mixers sound better than small digital ones.
Stop trying to tell others what and how to post a take care not to come here just to incite foolishness and make personal attacks....

NOBODY took the time to ask the OP what his experience is and if he wanted to spend time “mixing” his show rather then just playing. It seems that the first, and only consideration given is that a digital mixer has lots of stuff so it must be the better solution....which of course is absolute foolishness. The only argument given for using for getting a digital mixer thus far is that it has more stuff and therefore allows you to do more. Just because you can do more, does not mean you will actually achieve more, and in fact, the more control you have is the more experience and expertise you need to take advantage of, and really make good use of that power...or it will be just more rope to hang yourself with.

People who give advise should also seriously consider that “Sounds better than” is not the only reason to choose gear....see of setup, transport and use, reliability and overall appropriateness for the the intended task are all factors that are more important than a bunch of processing options that he will not need. If you can’t get a single guitar and voice to sound really good with a ZED, you’ve got other more important issues to deal with...variable HP filter and 64 channels of compression is not going to make things right.

The minute you have to start adding stuff (router and tablet for example), if you have to menu dive to the console to get it to work properly and operate it, it gets more complicated to setup and use, and less reliable than a simple analog mixer. As usual, there’s more to this than just the (limited) things we know and like.

Recommending a console based on the supposition that somebody might be able to walk the room and mix setup the mix for the OP, or that the OP can do it while someone else sings and plays his guitar is absolutely ridiculous.
Old 5 days ago
  #34
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
imo there is not much 'middle ground' in digital desks except for price (which is one of the many reasons why i went with studer btw) but that's another discussion...

and you failed to provide reasons why to go digital at all: more features do not necessarily lead to better sound, especially when digital desks get used by amateurs. remote control of is no substitute for knowledge either and can't compensate for faulty designs/poor implementation of functions or lack of features which plage so many digital toys.

i rather suggest using high quality gear which offers fewer functions, learn to adjust those and deliver solid signals to whatever pa there is... - should this gear no longer be needed/get used, it can still get sold for a reasonable amount of money (while all the cheaper digital desks pretty soon become irrelevant if not unusuable).
Remote control IS a reason for why to go digital. As are more bands of EQ, compression,...

In the hands of a someone with no knowledge, no tool is a substitute for no knowledge.
But thats no argument against digital, thats an argument against no knowledge.

If a room and an instrument sounds bad, a bass and a treble poti won't make it sound better if the mids suck or you have feedback at a certain frequency. If acoustics on a stage are terrible, and you can't hear yourself in the monitor because its so boomy you can either suck out all the bass on the channel EQ but then it sounds bad in the audience or you can do nothing because of no EQ on the monitorbus. Knowledge or no knowledge.
Or you may be able to do something if you have the tools.

Regarding sound: I never had problems with delivering a good sound with a digital board because the EQ doesn't sound super marvelous.
Yeah, on some boards compression sucks more than on others... but hardly a problem if used sparingly. Preamps? Never a problem. Not more than on most small affordable analog mixers.
Ad/DA conversion? Hard to hear differences on studio speakers... but on PAs? Come on. Especially on beginner to mid level speakers like yamaha DXRs or the like.
Old 5 days ago
  #35
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Stop trying to tell others what and how to post
Like you do just now. And a lotnof times.
Old 5 days ago
  #36
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
If you can’t get a single guitar and voice to sound really good with a ZED, you’ve got other more important issues to deal with...variable HP filter and 64 channels of compression is not going to make things right.


Recommending a console based on the supposition that somebody might be able to walk the room and mix setup the mix for the OP, or that the OP can do it while someone else sings and plays his guitar is absolutely ridiculous.
No, 64 channels won't make it better, but maybe a second fully parametric band of EQ.

Not in your world maybe. But in mine it happens quite a lot that a small band mixes themselves from stage and ask me (who provides the PA and stuff) to help them so that it sounds better for the audience.
The audio world does not only consist of big touring bands. There is a lot more.
Old 5 days ago
  #37
Lives for gear
 

I have absolutely zero interest in participating in a whizzing contest between advocates of cheap digital processing arguing with high end console jockeys pushing small analog devices with very few if any of the sonic shaping accoutrements used every day in pro SR.

I have been a guitar playing singer performing a solo act for many years and this is what I have learned. There are two types of solo gigs and the nomenclature of the differences will dictate to a large extent the type of gear you will need.

1) when a solo performer is retained to provide visual background (elevator) music the choice of gear is irrelevant. You are relegated to a subordinated role of less importance to other activities that are considered more important. I never have and never will agree to perform under those all to common circumstances.

2) If you perform in a listening environment the primary objective should be to "connect" with your audience. If you have the talent and skill to achieve this end then please remember the following: Audiences pay for what they can hear, not necessarily what or how well you can perform. Linear levels of performance skill (including SR processing), gear investment and remuneration should be in order or at least expected.

I use a single Flea 47next mic to capture both guitar and vocal with my A&H QUsb and KV2 EX 10 wedges. The Flea tube mic is a 3K deal and the KV2 wedges are 4K each however the stellar little QUsb now is street priced for less than $900. It has good, dependable sonic delivery with all of the shaping tools I need for a one man show. I have a mic stand clip that holds my old I-Pad that is also loaded with song lyrics that I sometimes forget. The truth is I seldom need to go back to the I-Pad to change the carefully established SR sound check set-up.
Hugh
Old 5 days ago
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
Remote control IS a reason for why to go digital. As are more bands of EQ, compression,...

In the hands of a someone with no knowledge, no tool is a substitute for no knowledge.
But thats no argument against digital, thats an argument against no knowledge.

If a room and an instrument sounds bad, a bass and a treble poti won't make it sound better if the mids suck or you have feedback at a certain frequency. If acoustics on a stage are terrible, and you can't hear yourself in the monitor because its so boomy you can either suck out all the bass on the channel EQ but then it sounds bad in the audience or you can do nothing because of no EQ on the monitorbus. Knowledge or no knowledge.
Or you may be able to do something if you have the tools.

Regarding sound: I never had problems with delivering a good sound with a digital board because the EQ doesn't sound super marvelous.
Yeah, on some boards compression sucks more than on others... but hardly a problem if used sparingly. Preamps? Never a problem. Not more than on most small affordable analog mixers.
Ad/DA conversion? Hard to hear differences on studio speakers... but on PAs? Come on. Especially on beginner to mid level speakers like yamaha DXRs or the like.
you keep stressing the importance of features...

i stress the importance of simplicity, reliability and high signal quality - especially 'cause most mi gear degrades sound a lot, i think it's mandatory not to compromise in the first place and hence i do not consider going through dirt cheap preamps and converters to be very wise!

if you didn't experience any 'problems' so far, you either didn't get to compare to highest quality pro gear or you don't care for finer details...
Old 5 days ago
  #39
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
you keep stressing the importance of features...

i stress the importance of simplicity, reliability and high signal quality - especially 'cause most mi gear degrades sound a lot, i think it's mandatory not to compromise in the first place and hence i do not consider going through dirt cheap preamps and converters to be very wise!

if you didn't experience any 'problems' so far, you either didn't get to compare to highest quality pro gear or you don't care for finer details...
I hear the difference between good and bad gear, but still I never thought "oh damn, I can't mix on a soundcraft impact (and boy doI hate those cheap digital soundcrafts, but mot because of sound but because of all else) because the EQ is **** or the preamps are subpar.

(Personally I own a midas pro 1 for my needs and when bands book me).

I don't care about features at all. But IF I think I need a certain feature, i like to have it.

IF i like to have a bit of reverb on the voice, I rather have the reverb of soundcraft UI16 than none at all because the Mackie Vlz 16 does not have it.

The finer details on Yamaha DXR? Haha.
The finer details in the **** clubs we have here?
Old 5 days ago
  #40
Gear Addict
 

Blimey, what a bear pit this place is - and such a shame, as it doesn't need to be that way. Pretty much all of the last two pages of noise are just a battleground that add very little to the first response to the original poster - but probably no-one bothered to read that...
Old 5 days ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
I hear the difference between good and bad gear, but still I never thought "oh damn, I can't mix on a soundcraft impact (and boy doI hate those cheap digital soundcrafts, but mot because of sound but because of all else) because the EQ is **** or the preamps are subpar.

(Personally I own a midas pro 1 for my needs and when bands book me).

I don't care about features at all. But IF I think I need a certain feature, i like to have it.

IF i like to have a bit of reverb on the voice, I rather have the reverb of soundcraft UI16 than none at all because the Mackie Vlz 16 does not have it.

The finer details on Yamaha DXR? Haha.
The finer details in the **** clubs we have here?
you can't mix on specific inexpensive gear yet recommend using other inexpensive gear?!
Old 5 days ago
  #42
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
you can't mix on specific inexpensive gear yet recommend using other inexpensive gear?!
Where did I say that!!?
Old 4 days ago
  #43
Lives for gear
 

you keep dissing specific gear but at the same time recommend getting some other kind of cheap gear (with its own set of quirks) in all of your previous posts in this thread...

not interessed in discussing various features of cheap digital gear: imo it will NOT serve the op well and i rather suggest getting high quality analog gear with a limited set of functions to control.
Old 4 days ago
  #44
Lives for gear
I don't diss specific gear (except of course the soundcraft si) at all. I just argue why I think digital will be better for the OP.

In your opinion (cheap) digital will not serve the OP well, in mine it does. Deal with it.

And the OP won't get high quality analog gear with his budget of 350€.
He will get cheap analog or cheap digital.
Old 4 days ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlecSp View Post
Blimey, what a bear pit this place is - and such a shame, as it doesn't need to be that way. Pretty much all of the last two pages of noise are just a battleground that add very little to the first response to the original poster - but probably no-one bothered to read that...
I don’t get why it’s so important to tell everyone how bad the thread is...these are the posts that bring threads down in my opinion. People don’t have to agree for a thread to be useful and full of info. If you don’t want to contribute, you can stay away.

Last edited by Samc; 4 days ago at 04:52 PM..
Old 4 days ago
  #46
Lives for gear
 

This is the equivalent of bands with bloated riders...get the kitchen sink if you can even if you neither need or know how to use it.

Getting gear to cover every possible scenario is as inefficient as it is possible...needing processing was never a criteria in the first place, the OP was fine with his previous mixer until it broke, the mixers being suggested here will add a level of complexity to the setup, but will not make things “better”. More processing, especially when/if used badly will not automatically help you produce “better” sound....and yes, asking someone else to play his guitar and sing while he walks the bar and mix is absurd to say the least.
Old 4 days ago
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
I don't diss specific gear (except of course the soundcraft si) at all. I just argue why I think digital will be better for the OP.

In your opinion (cheap) digital will not serve the OP well, in mine it does. Deal with it.

And the OP won't get high quality analog gear with his budget of 350€.
He will get cheap analog or cheap digital.
It’s not about cheap or expensive anything...it’s about what’s appropriate for the task at hand in my opinion, horses for courses and all that sensible stuff.

The only argument given for going digital is that it offers more stuff...and of course, if you have all that stuff you’re going to have to use it...all of it. The OP is a solo act who performs in bars and carry’s his own PA for goodness sakes....
Old 4 days ago
  #48
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
... and of course, if you have all that stuff you’re going to have to use it...all of it.
No, you don't have to use it.
Old 4 days ago
  #49
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
More processing, especially when/if used badly will not automatically help you produce “better” sound....and yes, asking someone else to play his guitar and sing while he walks the bar and mix is absurd to say the least.
No one here said that having more processing will automatically help you produce better sound. Stop putting wrong statements in our mouths.

As regarding someone other playing guitar and sing while he walks the room.
I have had it happen. If it's absurd? I don't care as long as the artist feels better if he can hear a little better (or thinks so) how it sounds for the audience.

Also, I had national acts where the manager or the sound man did sing into the mics to establish a monitormix instead of the artists themselves (who didn't show up for soundcheck.
Yes, (absurd) stuff happens. Crazy world.

Right today I had a classical trio who brought mics and all that themselves, mixed themselves with their iwn mixer over my PA and asked me to finetune for them. Go figure.
Old 4 days ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
No one here said that having more processing will automatically help you produce better sound. Stop putting wrong statements in our mouths.

As regarding someone other playing guitar and sing while he walks the room.
I have had it happen. If it's absurd? I don't care as long as the artist feels better if he can hear a little better (or thinks so) how it sounds for the audience.

Also, I had national acts where the manager or the sound man did sing into the mics to establish a monitormix instead of the artists themselves (who didn't show up for soundcheck.
Yes, (absurd) stuff happens. Crazy world.

Right today I had a classical trio who brought mics and all that themselves, mixed themselves with their iwn mixer over my PA and asked me to finetune for them. Go figure.
None of the above scenarios are relevant to what’s being discussed...

I’m sure the singers manager has been to endless sound checks with the band and knows how he likes his monitor to sound...there is nothing strange or unique about that. Using someone who doesn’t sound or play like him to setup the mix/PA is unusual and absurd.

The same for the other scenario...setting up the mix and then asking the local guy to fine tune the mix (whatever that means) is also not unusual or unique either, especially if you were able to instill some confidence in them. You’re the local guy who knows the room better than they do. Plus, you will be listening from the same perspective as the audience while they’re on stage. They didn’t ask you to sing and play in their stead while setting up their mix did they?

The OP plays his guitar and sings in bars...if he put the speakers on stands behind him, (like I’ve seen others do at several festivals this past summer alone) he can mix to his hearts content without needing monitors etc. I saw a couple of singers performing exactly like this at a UK festival with and acoustic guitar in front of about 200-300 this summer. They had a U67 clone for the acoustic guitar and two SM 58s for vocals going through a little mixer on a stool between them...good sound and they kept people rocking during the set changes at one stage. It’s been (well) done before, without all kinds of gymnastics and more everything. And no problems with there tablet not connecting to the mixer etc in a festival of tens of thousands of people all trying to use their phones, but can’t get connected.
Old 4 days ago
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
(...) As regarding someone other playing guitar and sing while he walks the room.
I have had it happen. If it's absurd? I don't care as long as the artist feels better if he can hear a little better (or thinks so) how it sounds for the audience.

Also, I had national acts where the manager or the sound man did sing into the mics to establish a monitormix instead of the artists themselves (who didn't show up for soundcheck.
Yes, (absurd) stuff happens. Crazy world.

Right today I had a classical trio who brought mics and all that themselves, mixed themselves with their iwn mixer over my PA and asked me to finetune for them. Go figure.
you have a talent of missing the mark... - didn't we just talk about finer details?

of course once in a while you might find someone to strum a guitar but not every artists wants to hand his/her instrunent to someone else! plus it's of very limited use as no two people play/sound alike...

most of us every once in a while have to deal with lazy (or very old and week) artists who don't want (or cannot) perform soundcheck so someone else will step in - which undermines the purpose of a soundcheck though.

not the world is crazy, it's people who let this happen!

how long did it take you to 'fine tune'? wouldn't a mix that you built from the ground up sound better and be faster to establish? - imo it's absurd to dig up other folks mixer settings...
Old 4 days ago
  #52
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
And no problems with there tablet not connecting to the mixer etc in a festival of tens of thousands of people all trying to use their phones, but can’t get connected.
Oh, finally a (good) argument!
Although with my Soundcraft UI16 I often only use it with a laptop via catcable.

And if you want to talk about finer deta, then nust bring on meassurements of say a midas mr18 and a Yamaha MG12 or the like.

Otherwise its just anecdotes and preferances and has nothing to do with the OPs question.
Old 4 days ago
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
I’ve changed my mind, why settle for less than the absolute, most exceptional tool... I now suggest he buys a Studer Vista 5, better dynamics mor better EQ and everything else for that matter, he won’t need a tablet to operate it and it will look sexy on stage to boot.

Yes, I too argue that having the most powerful everything is always the best solution.....
Again, your lack of English comprehension gets in the way. What I said was:
Quote:
Less does not mean better either. The best solution is the one that best fits the situation within the budget.
Clearly your suggestion of a Studer Vista 5 is NOT in the budget, and does NOT fit the situation. You simply want to piss into the wind so your buddies can hail your successful shower.

I think if you go to a few hundred clubs, you will find quite a number of solo and duo acts using the XR12.

While I still adore my little ZED 10Fx, and still use it for simple DJ and announcer type stuff where the features really don't matter that much, I would never use it for a solo or duo for all the reasons I listed to the OP earlier.

In fact, I doubt anyone will be able to buy a small (under 8 XLR input) analog mixer at all in 10 years since no one will make them. That market is going to go all digital. In fact, MOST local bands who don't have a dedicated sound person (that would be most of them btw) will all be on digital mixers with tablet control in that time frame as well (I would say that 50% already are).

So while it is true that national acts are not going to be mixing on a tablet (at least not primarily on a tablet), the lions share of everyone else will be.

Just out of curiosity Sam, have you ever even used an X-Air mixer?
Old 4 days ago
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
Oh, finally a (good) argument!
Although with my Soundcraft UI16 I often only use it with a laptop via catcable.

And if you want to talk about finer deta, then nust bring on meassurements of say a midas mr18 and a Yamaha MG12 or the like.

Otherwise its just anecdotes and preferances and has nothing to do with the OPs question.
Oh, I don't know tenderboy. I think you are just trying to throw him a bone. It isn't much of an argument for a solo or duo act mixing from stage. In all likelihood very few adjustments will be made through the night, and all will be made within 10 feet of the mixer.

Also, about the monitoring.... yes, I have seen lots of solo and duo acts put the speakers behind them for monitoring purposes. I think that is a great way to get some feedback.

I would always prefer to have the mix set by playing back a recording through the PA and standing out front with a tablet to set the appropriate volume and room eq (which I didn't mention as a great feature that you can do with digital mixers .... storing a room eq preset so next time you are there, you can just pull it back up). For monitoring, wired IEM's would be best. Then you can keep the speakers in front of the microphones where they belong.
Old 4 days ago
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
Again, your lack of English comprehension gets in the way. What I said was:

Clearly your suggestion of a Studer Vista 5 is NOT in the budget, and does NOT fit the situation. You simply want to piss into the wind so your buddies can hail your successful shower.
Don’t forget that I said that originally... and I thought that if we were going to get ridiculous we should go all the way.

Quote:
I think if you go to a few hundred clubs, you will find quite a number of solo and duo acts using the XR12.
So that automatically makes it good for this situation...a lot of other people are using it so it must be perfect for every situation....really?

Quote:
While I still adore my little ZED 10Fx, and still use it for simple DJ and announcer type stuff where the features really don't matter that much, I would never use it for a solo or duo for all the reasons I listed to the OP earlier.
Yes, you guys are suggesting what you like...which is Exactly why I suggested he choose what suites his needs. Not yours.

Quote:
In fact, I doubt anyone will be able to buy a small (under 8 XLR input) analog mixer at all in 10 years since no one will make them. That market is going to go all digital. In fact, MOST local bands who don't have a dedicated sound person (that would be most of them btw) will all be on digital mixers with tablet control in that time frame as well (I would say that 50% already are).

So while it is true that national acts are not going to be mixing on a tablet (at least not primarily on a tablet), the lions share of everyone else will be.
Let’s assume your prediction is right, know what, that is irrelevant and useless to this discussion.

Quote:
Just out of curiosity Sam, have you ever even used an X-Air mixer?
Yes, I have, I have used every single mixer mentioned here...my argument is not against any particular mixer, it’s about getting the right mixer for the situation.
Old 4 days ago
  #56
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
. I saw a couple of singers performing exactly like this at a UK festival with and acoustic guitar in front of about 200-300 this summer. They had a U67 clone for the acoustic guitar and two SM 58s for vocals going through a little mixer on a stool between them...good sound and they kept people rocking during the set changes at one stage. .
So that automatically makes it good for this situation...a lot of other people are using it so it must be perfect for every situation....really?
Old 4 days ago
  #57
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
So that automatically makes it good for this situation...a lot of other people are using it so it must be perfect for every situation....really?
LOL. Touche

Sam would have us believe that the only difference between the two is that the national acts are smart enough to know a better way of doing things. In fact, that is the pretense behind nearly every one of his less thought out lines of argument.
Old 4 days ago
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderboy View Post
So that automatically makes it good for this situation...a lot of other people are using it so it must be perfect for every situation....really?
Please stop trying So hard to win...that was never even implied, I saw it done so I know it can be done successfully.
Old 4 days ago
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
LOL. Touche

Sam would have us believe that the only difference between the two is that the national acts are smart enough to know a better way of doing things. In fact, that is the pretense behind nearly every one of his less thought out lines of argument.
What I know for sure is that bands with a lot of gig experience tend to do things in a more professional and efficient manner than bands that play a few bar gigs a year...it’s logical and I certainly can’t understand someone arguing against that.

My less than well thought out lines of arguments are backed up by a lot of serious experience and knowledge. This is the **** I do everyday, with a lot of different types of bands, genres in a lot of different places and with a lot of different types of gear....
Old 4 days ago
  #60
Lives for gear
The Op said he has a budget of about $400 and specifically asked about the XR12. I have one. Pretty amazing what Behringer built into it for the price point.

I use a $20-25 external router. Works without issues.

My advice to the OP is to set the rig up at home and give yourself time to become comfortable with the control app. Then enjoy.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump