X32 Family

[azlan]

http://www.behringer.com/assets/Winter%202013%20BEHRINGER%20Catalog.pdf might make an interesting read

[Dave SA]

Anyone have any guess whether the core could be used with a midi fader wing? If so it'd be a really nifty piece of kit for small jobs.

[chelgrian]

So there seem to be several ways to get a full channel count system:

 

- Original X32

- X32 Compact + 1 x S16

- X32 Producer + 1 x S16

- X32 Core + 2 x S16

- X32 Rack + 1 x S16

 

I suppose what is missing from the range is a dumb control surface for the last two combinations. I wonder if there are any plans for an X64 that is to say keep an original X32 as is but double the amount of DSP so it can support its internal inputs and two S16s at the same time.

[S&L]

Don't forget that as I understand it from my playing this week - the aux in's can also be directed to channels so for the compact you have 16 mix inputs and another 6 jack in's before you add an s16

[Stuart91]

I wonder if there are any plans for an X64 that is to say keep an original X32 as is but double the amount of DSP so it can support its internal inputs and two S16s at the same time.

 

I have a client that could use something like that - at the moment they have an analogue desk and multi. They are wanting to go digital, and looking at the X32. But their channel count will go up in future, and since cable runs are difficult, the CAT5 approach appeals.

 

However, with 64 inputs available, I'd be looking for more aux outputs.

[S&L]

I wonder if there are any plans for an X64 that is to say keep an original X32 as is but double the amount of DSP so it can support its internal inputs and two S16s at the same time.

 

I have a client that could use something like that - at the moment they have an analogue desk and multi. They are wanting to go digital, and looking at the X32. But their channel count will go up in future, and since cable runs are difficult, the CAT5 approach appeals.

 

However, with 64 inputs available, I'd be looking for more aux outputs.

 

just curious and not from the theatre world but with 16 outs plus another 6 aux outs, all assignable what would you use more outputs for?

[chelgrian]

just curious and not from the theatre world but with 16 outs plus another 6 aux outs, all assignable what would you use more outputs for?

 

In the world of musical theatre if you are running front of house and monitor mixes from the same desk then you can easily run out of mixes. It depends what you are doing and what compromises you make. For example I frequently end up needing individual mixes for each stage fold back speaker due to needing them to do double duty for localised sound effect playback on stage. However I generally run out of mix buses within the desk before I run out of physical outputs as on many digital desks you end up needing to uses mix buses as audio groups in order to insert effects across them.

 

I think it comes down to hangups from emulating the way analogue desks worked in the digital realm and the cost of DSP. Ideally to be fully flexible you want to be able to apply everything to every channel independently in hardware then just gang control together at the software level but the processing power required means your desk design gets expensive...fast.

[S&L]

just curious and not from the theatre world but with 16 outs plus another 6 aux outs, all assignable what would you use more outputs for?

 

In the world of musical theatre if you are running front of house and monitor mixes from the same desk then you can easily run out of mixes. It depends what you are doing and what compromises you make. For example I frequently end up needing individual mixes for each stage fold back speaker due to needing them to do double duty for localised sound effect playback on stage. However I generally run out of mix buses within the desk before I run out of physical outputs as on many digital desks you end up needing to uses mix buses as audio groups in order to insert effects across them.

 

I think it comes down to hangups from emulating the way analogue desks worked in the digital realm and the cost of DSP. Ideally to be fully flexible you want to be able to apply everything to every channel independently in hardware then just gang control together at the software level but the processing power required means your desk design gets expensive...fast.

 

I'm being thick I think but I'm still not following where the 24 outs go to and how 24 outs is too little.

 

Separately it may be worth bearing in mind that when you run out of direct outs from the desk you have the digital outs - their network monitoring system P16, which also has direct network hook up to their forthcoming iq speaker range.

 

In my ignorance I would have thought the direct outs were sufficient for most theatre and the digital outs and ins were even more suited to a theatre situation than a live band/touring environment.

Again in my ignorance I would have thought that the 'in' count was more of a problem for theatre work.

[Stuart91]

Again in my ignorance I would have thought that the 'in' count was more of a problem for theatre work.

 

Thinking about the show I mixed last weekend, the band fitted into 16 inputs, but required ten auxes for their monitor mixes (six wedge mixes and two sets of stereo IEMs). I had L+R for the main FOH system, plus a stereo matrix to drive some infills. So we're at fourteen physical outputs. I could have talked the band down to less mixes had I needed to, but that is not the way to impress your clients.

 

I also used two auxes for a reverb and vocal delay sends, and whilst they're not physical outputs they still tie up an internal bus. I also had some recording to do, and whilst I was able to run all of these off the LR mono feed (one more physical output) I could easily have used a matrix or post-fade aux to get the balance a bit better. Ideally two, to get stereo.

 

I figure that if I was managing to get my inputs up towards 64, there would a lot more monitor sends required, perhaps some sidefills as well. Add a few other random feeds to video, dressing room relay, etc. possibly some more matrices for delays or balcony fills, and you can see how the outputs would get eaten up pretty quickly.

 

Of course, it could be argued that you wouldn't necessarily want to mix a show that size on an X32, but if they provide the input count, many people will, and it seems sensible to raise the output count (and number of internal busses) to match.

 

One big advantage of digital desks is that additional outputs don't bulk up the physical package quite as much, and it can still be reasonably manageable to get around.

[indyld]

I'm being thick I think but I'm still not following where the 24 outs go to and how 24 outs is too little.

...

Again in my ignorance I would have thought that the 'in' count was more of a problem for theatre work.

 

I may be wrong but I read Chelgrian comments about "out" count as being as much about mix buses as physical ouputs. While things do add up in theatre (mons, backstage feeds, prog in cans, fills, balcony fills, rear fills, other fills, spot speakers etc.) the main issue I forsee with our X32 is the number of mixes (if you can call having a much more flexible system an issue). Depending on your preferred mix strategy, it doesn't take long to run out of buses even if you are using seemingly few actual outputs. Stereo sub-groups can eat into your bus count pretty quickly. Post fade mixes to feed other mixes (such as all lavs to the mons) use 'em up too. It's funny because to work with that number of mixes takes a pretty hefty analogue desk which is why a desk spec has always been very much based on Out count. Now we seemingly have a decent out (or internal mix) count and still we find ways of eating them up.

 

Inputs are just inputs, I guess. You either have enough or you don't.

 

However I generally run out of mix buses within the desk before I run out of physical outputs as on many digital desks you end up needing to uses mix buses as audio groups in order to insert effects across them.

[Wilflet]

 

 

I figure that if I was managing to get my inputs up towards 64, there would a lot more monitor sends required, perhaps some sidefills as well.

 

If the bands that complicated you really should have a monitor desk.

Iv gone over 64 inputs whilst running monitors off the same desk once (I think it was about 70-72 in, 8 mixes, front of house and stereo recording in total) it not an experiance I want to repeat- when your that busy with FoH you cant keep an eye on monitors, and when your properly involved with monitors you cant focus on FOH.

 

 

With lower digital desks theres always a situation where you can say if I want to do x and y and z I run out of somthing- but in many cases your trying to do more than you should expect from the budget end of the market.

[chelgrian]

I may be wrong but I read Chelgrian comments about "out" count as being as much about mix buses as physical ouputs.

 

Yes, as noted elsewhere stereo audio groups eat mix buses. For example an M7CL has 16 Mix buses and 8 matrix buses, Main L+R+M so 27 buses. However it only has 16 Omni outs unless you start adding cards to it.

[S&L]

thanks guys - I have learned something here today even if it took while 3am!

I couldn't get it and had no idea that pit monitoring took so many sends.

given that with the x32 all the raw data is available to another desk on the line - would this be where you would use their compact version as monitor desk?

does the use of the p16 personal mixers not solve your out's issue or does giving the pit a number of p16 elevate the cost of the system too high? as I read it you could allow 16 channels to be available to each mixer (pre mix of voices and pre mix of drums perhaps being one channel each) and daisy chain up to 48 of them.

So for the 10 send mix stated above I'm guessing you could use 8 personal mixers to achieve the same end - the cost of which would add maybe the same as another x32 desk but still bring it well below most other digital desks.

would this be reasonable or be seen as too much of a work around?

 

I ask both because it's always useful to know how another sector of the business works and thinks and because with the contacts I have in theatre, it's only a matter of time before I get a call one day to ask me to work a simple theatre show - and before this thread started I genuinely thought the problem with an x32 (my only digital experience) was going to be the 'in' count, not the 'out' count.

[chelgrian]

I ask both because it's always useful to know how another sector of the business works and thinks and because with the contacts I have in theatre, it's only a matter of time before I get a call one day to ask me to work a simple theatre show - and before this thread started I genuinely thought the problem with an x32 (my only digital experience) was going to be the 'in' count, not the 'out' count.

 

So the answer is 'whatever works' is a solution to the problem. Some thoughts:

 

-> A second desk dedicated to monitors is the traditional solution and much of the time, for band work at least, would come with another engineer. The easier split of inputs and the communication between desks that digital allows possible probably makes just using a second desk with a single engineer tractable for theatre. If I was going to do this for theatre I'd probably not even use a compact, I'd get the rack version locate it somewhere where the analogue IO was useful and remote control it using a computer. However I doubt that would give you fast enough control to be useful for bands.

 

-> Using a single desk with personal monitors doesn't solve running out of mix buses internally, it may be useful for some situations where you already have an FOH mix you can tap for example say a electric piano mixing himself pre-fade directly from an input with a post fade send from a radio mic mix for example. However the problem you run in to is when you need something *different* going to the FOH than is going monitors.

 

So the answer is plan it, hire the gear to try it and have a backup plan if you run into unexpected gotchas. Then if it works without problems you can buy the gear and ditch the backup plan.

[S&L]

. However the problem you run in to is when you need something *different* going to the FOH than is going monitors.

 

 

I'm not following this bit.

surely the point of the digital P16's is that you have as many mixes as you want from 16 digital signals completely independent of mix buses using the ultranet or eas system (because it takes the raw digital data rather than an analogue mix)

or am I still missing the point? or misunderstanding the capabilities?