| Author |
Message |
Sammy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
| Quote: | - True LCR panning possible, as with ML3000?
There are 8 *omni* channels to pan around in. I see nothing
to keep one from working effectively in just 3 of them.
|
But we agreed the omnichannels are need for aux-send, no?
| Quote: | Again, I fail to see why one would think that the DM1K which
is overtly presented as a production console would be
considered to be a better SR console than the 02R96.
|
http://www.stockholmaudio.se/of/produkter/yamaha/assets/pdf/DM1000.pdf
(page 4)
And these kind of charts keep popping up. Admittedly I haven't done any
work on either a DM or an 02R, but people keep telling... anyway, for me
it's inconclusive so far.
ML3000 does 128 scenes (mute and vca-assignment :-) Oh, and: an 11x4
matrix (which only the DM2000 sports as well)
It's just a tough decision. The point of my reply to Phildo was to
indicate it isn't really that cut-n-clear between analog and digital as
he would seem to advertise.
Sander
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ralph Staub
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
| Quote: | Sounds like you haven't found out about scenes, yet. To get
scene memory on an analog board you have to spend a ton of
money.
He MAY not have need for them, depending on the type of events he's |
doing. Of course, I'm a digital lover through and through.
| Quote: | Yes, there's a learning curve to fully exploit all the
versitility of a digital board. And that's the true and
genuine rub
|
Agreed. Outside engineers can get very frustrated the first few trips
down digital lane. OTOH, once they've got it and spent a week or so
mixing digital, they won't go back to analog. Rupert here is the closest
thing I've ever seen to a digitally experienced eng. rejecting digital,
and all he's really doing is leaving a slot for analog.
| Quote: | Lastly, analog boards don't crash.
Which is not to say that they are free of failures.
I've had several crashes on digital boards whilst
shows were in progress, and it's a real drag to reboot
though the higher end desks will keep their current signal paths
active while the reboot takes place.
|
Over the last 5 years, we've run 01V's, 03D's, 01V96's, DM1000's,
DM2000's, and PM5D's (I think we're getting another one today) on a
consistent workload. The last 2 years or so, We've been about 50/50
digital/analog, and the last 6/8 months we've used primarily digital.
ZERO failures to date.
The analog mixers over the last two years have not fared so well. We've
had perhaps 1/2 dozen times where something has gone wrong, and at least
two complete console failures, luckily both during rehearsals.
When an analog board fails in the field, you can't do a 9 second reboot
and have the problem all fixed like it never happened. You've got to
replace the console, or worse, tear it open in front of God, the client,
and everybody, trying to resurrect it.
Sh*t happens. What separates the men from the boys is how you react. Get
the problem fixed with speed and confidence, and without panic and
distraction, the client will still think of you as "the man". Our
digital rigs help us to attain that status far more than the analogs
ever did.
Ralph |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Sammy wrote:
| Quote: | Arny Krueger wrote:
- True LCR panning possible, as with ML3000?
There are 8 *omni* channels to pan around in. I see
nothing
to keep one from working effectively in just 3 of them.
But we agreed the omnichannels are need for aux-send, no?
|
In 3.1 mode only 4 of the omnichannels are used.
I see this, and then I scratch my head. Looking at page 5 it
appears that the 02R96 is more favored for recording than
live sound because of the recording features it has that the
DM1000 lacks, as opposed to the live sound features that the
DM1000 has that the 02R96 lacks. With very few exceptions
the 02R96 is a superset of the DM1000.
| Quote: | And these kind of charts keep popping up.
|
Marketing guys like them, but they seem to lack respect for
important details.
| Quote: | Admittedly I haven't done
any work on either a DM or an 02R, but people keep
telling... anyway,
for me it's inconclusive so far.
One word: scenes.
ML3000 does 128 scenes (mute and vca-assignment :-)
|
Agreed that the ML3000 version of scenes is very limited
compared to the Yamaha digital console version of scenes.
There's a ton more to 02R96 scene support than just mutes
and a few VCAs.
OTOH mutes and a few VCAs beats *nothing* quite well. ;-)
| Quote: | Oh, and: an 11x4 matrix (which only the DM2000 sports as
well) |
It seems very dangerous to me to claim that any of the
Yamaha digital consoles totally lacks any kind of matrix
support.
| Quote: | It's just a tough decision. The point of my reply to
Phildo was to
indicate it isn't really that cut-n-clear between analog
and digital
as he would seem to advertise.
|
It seems to me that just about everybody who has been there
and done that with digital consoles admits that the learning
curve is there, but they don't want to go back if they can
avoid going back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rupert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
| Quote: | Rupert wrote:
Having worked on digital boards from the Behringer all the
way up to
the DigiCo and PM5D, I still prefer the sound and feel of
analog
desks, though the high end digital boards are nice to work
on. And I
agree the vesatility of having all the processing built in
is
phenominal and the low end boards give a ton of bang for
the buck.
Sounds like you haven't found out about scenes, yet. To get
scene memory on an analog board you have to spend a ton of
money.
But the summing of mulitple channels still doesn't sound
as good as
many of the analog desks out there, especially when
comparing lower
end digital boards to mid-grade analog desks.
An old wive's tale.
The smaller boards are
also slower to negotiate due to layers of the control
surface,
That's arguable. See comment about scenes.
especially for guest ME's that aren't use to them.
Yes, there's a learning curve to fully exploit all the
versitility of a digital board. And that's the true and
genuine rub
Lastly, analog boards don't crash.
Which is not to say that they are free of failures.
I've had several crashes on digital boards whilst
shows were in progress, and it's a real drag to reboot
though the
higher end desks will keep their current signal paths
active while
the reboot takes place.
One can come amazingly close to similar catastrophies with
analog boards that are failing with problems like the
incredible-edible Mackie ribbon cable problem.
With the lower end desks you're SOL. There is
still a need for analog boards, and I am not a stupid
person.
Maybe a bit hide-bound?
|
I'm well aware of scenes, and they're useless when doing festival style
shows with no input lists with constantly changing inputs. And they
really don't do much for your on the fly style gigs either. For a night
after night tour with the same set of bands, sure they can come in
quite handy. I don't do theater so scratch that as an advantage. Don't
get me wrong, I think there are some great advantages to digital
boards. It's just not what I want to work on if given the choice when
dealing with certain levels of shows. I'd rather have the higher end
analog desks, though I'm comfortable operating either type. My point of
my original post is that I do not need to "have my head examined."
There is still a place for analog. I'd rather mix on an XL4 or an H3000
then a PM5D, though I won't complain if one is put in front of me. And
I like having outboard processing. Having the knobs and displays right
there without having to navigate around a control surface is simply
what I prefer. There's nothing wrong with it. Sure, it's not as
convenient to lug around. But so what? Life is about choices and this
is an educated choice. I understand what the differences are and what I
may or may not be giving up. Having someone calling you stupid or
needing your head examined because of a preference that has nothing to
do with them is just plain silly and presumptive. To each there own.
Rupert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
"Sammy" <samNOSPAM!@solcon.nl> wrote in message
news:11a0hd071l4bfc3@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | Phildo wrote:
If people are stupid enough to waste their money on an analogue board
when they can get all the benefits of digital, probably because they are
too scared to try something new, that's their loss.
So tell me. We are looking into getting a new maindesk for our big hire
rig. Needs: 40 channel, 8 to 12 aux, 8 VCA (or similar feature). Are we
stupid for considering the AH ML3000 (which is around 6.5k euro nowadays)?
What digital alternative would you advise, for about the same amount of
money? DM1000? Don't think so. Small-format, not a lot of micpre's, yes,
can be augmented by spending another few 1000's for interface-cards and
micpre's (no ADA8000, please.), still stuck with 16 faders... DM2000?
Certainly, but... at 20k euro it *should* compete and win, in other words:
not an option. Any other rider-friendly, usable medium-format digital
desks I've missed?
I was referring to small format consoles against the DDX3216. Please read |
the thread again and don't take my comments out of context.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:20 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
"Rupert" <foodsteaks@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:1117816678.602405.316050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Having someone calling you stupid or
needing your head examined because of a preference that has nothing to
do with them is just plain silly and presumptive.
|
Not when it comes to small format mixers (16 channel like the mackies,
mixwizards etc) which was the whole point of my statement. When you can get
a DDX3216 for the price it has been available at recently there is no
competition.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceedub
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
"Rupert" <foodsteaks@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:1117740572.381964.151650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Having worked on digital boards from the Behringer all the way up to
the DigiCo and PM5D, I still prefer the sound and feel of analog desks,
though the high end digital boards are nice to work on. And I agree the
vesatility of having all the processing built in is phenominal and the
low end boards give a ton of bang for the buck. But the summing of
mulitple channels still doesn't sound as good as many of the analog
desks out there, especially when comparing lower end digital boards to
mid-grade analog desks. The smaller boards are also slower to
negotiate due to layers of the control surface, especially for guest
ME's that aren't use to them. Lastly, analog boards don't crash. I've
had several crashes on digital boards whilst shows were in progress,
and it's a real drag to reboot though the higher end desks will keep
their current signal paths active while the reboot takes place. With
the lower end desks you're SOL. There is still a need for analog
boards, and I am not a stupid person.
Rupert
|
I dunno about summing. I work with an A&H 48 channel GL4000 and I think that
board is pretty sweet. But, I can navigate much more quickly over my DDX3216
than the GL4000. For example, I don't have to swing 4 feet over to grab a
slider or aux pot on the DDX like I do on the GL4000. Just a press on the
fader page button, and I'm all set. The more I get used to the small digital
format, the more I like it.
Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceedub
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:00 am Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
"Sammy" <samNOSPAM!@solcon.nl> wrote in message
news:11a0j6mpd92rg13@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | Arny Krueger wrote:
02R96 - 24 mappable faders, two layers (essentially 48
faders), 99 scenes - about half the price of a DM2000.
I know. Few gripes:
- still have to spend considerable extra money to get it up to par (say 32
micpre's, let's be modest), and then we're already at twice the ML3000.
- 02R96 seems to be marketed as a media-production console more than a
live SR-console
- a lot of techs I spoke with seem to confirm this, saying de DM1k and
DM2k are a charm to work with from a SR point-of-view, and the 02R96,
being designed by a whole other team not really so.
- True LCR panning possible, as with ML3000?
Ofcourse I see the extra's of such a desk as well: dynamics, fx built-in.
But I haven't missed this thusfar so that's not really a big selling
point.
|
You can pick up a Tascam DM-3200 with 16 mic pres, and 16 channels of
additional pres (using whatever preamp vendor you desire or can justify), 16
aux returns, etc. All for $3K (USD). This is considerably cheaper than the
02R96. It has 32 channel capability with dynamics and EQ on all channels,
built in FX, and with those 16 aux returns, you could have all of the
outboard FX your heart could desire. In addition, there is a Firewire option
card which allows you to direct 16 channels (per card) down a Firewire pipe
for recording purposes. Not a bad deal. I'd think this would still be quite
a bit cheaper than the A&H plus outboard FX when all is said and done.
Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Matthews
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Ralph Staub wrote:
| Quote: |
Agreed. Outside engineers can get very frustrated the first few trips
down digital lane. OTOH, once they've got it and spent a week or so
mixing digital, they won't go back to analog.
|
I am very new to digital and REALLY like it.
I have just bought an 01v96 and am impressed with the sound, the onboard
processing and the way it works.
I do live but have not used it in anger yet, just run some tapes through.
I really like that I can see easily what I am giving the drummer in his
monitors by just hitting the aux2 button for example. That I can clear the
settings and get it back to my preferred state quickly. That I can soundcheck a
band, and just store it so that I can then do the support and my changeover
time between bands can be measured with a stopwatch rather than the wall clock,
If I have a gripe it is that the gain settings for the channel are on a
standard pot rather than stored.
P.
--
Paul Matthews
paul@cattytown.me.uk
http://www.hepcats.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ralph Staub
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Paul Matthews wrote:
| Quote: | If I have a gripe it is that the gain settings for the channel are on a
standard pot rather than stored.
|
PM5D-RH has Recallable Head amps... adds about 10,000 usd to the PM5D.
Sure is a nice feature though.
Ralph |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul van der Heu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Paul Matthews <paul@cattytown.me.uk> wrote :
| Quote: | If I have a gripe it is that the gain settings for the channel are on a
standard pot rather than stored.
|
Logic dictates the gain has to be in the analogue oart of the mixer.. might
be possible to use motorised pots, but they require quite a bot of space
and are pretty expensive (the good ones that is..)
But at least now you only have to keep 1 row of pots on a sheet of paper..
:)
--
Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Matthews
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Paul van der Heu wrote:
| Quote: | Logic dictates the gain has to be in the analogue oart of the mixer.. might
be possible to use motorised pots, but they require quite a bot of space
and are pretty expensive (the good ones that is..)
|
I was more wondering if it could be voltage controlled.
A compromise may be to have had some indicator of the stored setting to match
it?
| Quote: |
But at least now you only have to keep 1 row of pots on a sheet of paper..
:)
|
True.
Anyone got a cue sheet for the 01V96<G>?
--
Paul Matthews
paul@cattytown.me.uk
http://www.hepcats.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Gleason
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Behringer ddx 3216 |
|
|
Rupert wrote:
| Quote: | Having worked on digital boards from the Behringer all the way up to
the DigiCo and PM5D, I still prefer the sound and feel of analog desks,
|
And there are still those that prefer horse and buggy to that new
fangled motor car
in fact I provide sound support for one of their cult gatherings
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rwaters
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 2
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:15 am Post subject:
behringer ddx3216 monitor mixes with effects |
|
|
My band is using the ddx3216 for our live sound. The thing that we are having trouble with is getting signals (with processing) to our monitors.
We use 8 chanels for our main mix and we have those set up just like we want them, however, we need to have 4 seperate monitor mixes and can't understand how to route them with effects to the multi outs. I mixed the 8 main chanels to the 4 aux sends and routed the aux sends to multi outs 1-4 and I get a good mix - level wise - to the monitors, but doing it that way we can't use effects or compression for that mix.
Is there a way to get 4 seperate mon mixes with effects and if so could you give me detailed set up? Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
