[RWP] New audio gear any thoughts?

Fri Nov 9 00:52:53 EST 2012

Cool Patrick.

So you have extra i-o and don't have to compromise like on the mackie when 
you use inputs to route effects or subs, you give up those inputs for direct 
routing.

I dig it.

For all your audio production needs and technology training, visit us at 
www.affordablestudioservices.com
Chris Belle cb1963 at sbcglobal.net
Stephie Belle sdb1961 at sbcglobal.net for customized web design
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick Perdue" <patrick at pdaudio.net>
To: "Reapers Without Peepers" <rwp at reaaccess.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [RWP] New audio gear any thoughts?

> Chris:
>
> The physical I/O on the StudioLive is pretty similar to that of the 1640I, 
> 16 mono channels with inserts and direct outs, 6 aux sends, four subs and 
> main. Where it's different is the audio interface of the SL is 32x18, not 
> sure about the 24 channel version. As far as outputs, 17/18 goes to a 
> dedicated two track return, while the first 16 are channel strip returns. 
> The first set of inputs are hard-wired to the first 16 mono channels, but 
> the last 16 are assignable to any of the subs, sends, effects returns, two 
> track input, or talkback mic. You can also use the two internal effects 
> sends as trackable inputs, which I find way more useful than the actual 
> internal effects processors themselves, so you get 8 aux sends rather than 
> 6, each of which can be used as a live input to the DAW, and the first six 
> can drive external hardware at the same time.
> So, if you really want to go crazy, you can track from all 16 channels, 
> while also tracking each of the 8 sends, and still have room for all four 
> subs, main mix, and one other stereo source, all without compromising the 
> use of channel inputs or outputs. It's a bit crazy. It's definitely not a 
> simple setup. And, if that's not enough, you can chain two of them 
> together.
>
> They did one really stupid thing though. Despite the fact that the 
> firewire and tape two-track inputs are very discrete, and can be routed 
> separately to either main, control room, both or neither, they share a 
> common volume control. Don't know why they did that. There's probably 
> enough room for one more pot. I use the RCA returns for my speech, so I 
> can send it to control without going to main and not have to worry about 
> using a channel strip. I could just as easily use my spare stereo effects 
> return and get the same result, only I'd then have a gate, compressor and 
> EQ on it if I wanted, which I don't, so yeah. I used to use a DEC express 
> for speech from my screen reader, but having switched full time to NVDA 
> and a 64-bit system, that doesn't work so well these days, so it's all 
> software. I think someone has written a not very stable DEC-Talk driver 
> for NVDA, and perhaps a doubletalk. I still have a LiteTalk somewhere, but 
> I'm OK using eSpeak for editing anyway. It cuts through without having to 
> be very loud. It also saves me from running an external synthesizer 
> through a DI box or similar to make a bunch of bad noises go away.
>
> On 11/8/2012 12:32 PM, Chris Belle wrote:
>> yeh patrick your right, you can route firewire to your aux sends and
>> also your sub mixes on the 1640i and some on the lesser units too but
>> you only get two comming back.
>>
>> I too use more than one sound card, I have a delta44 and the realtek all
>> tied to the mackie, and also a dedicated speech synth, the mackie has a
>> nice feature on one of it's returns for monitoring that doesn't get sent
>> to the main mix so it's great to run speech through the board, still
>> send 6 mixes to my guys in the studio feedinga headphone amp, and they
>> don't have to hear a thing without wasting an aux send.
>>
>> YOu can press the firewire button and use all 6 of your aux sends to
>> power effects inside the daw like you would external effect boxes, but
>> your inputs are all parse out how ever you set the board up, you have
>> 16, so if you use your subs on firewire you take up 5 through 9 and if
>> you use your firewire for powering effects you take up 9 through 14.
>>
>> So it depends on how you want to configure it, but this is all done with
>> a button press.
>>
>> Absolutely no menus.
>>
>> I might wish for the talk back to have a foot switch, and to be able to
>> descretely assign only a single aux send or sub mix to firewire at once
>> instead of athe whole group, but hey, compromises have to be made for
>> this price point, for 15 hundred, you get a hell of a lot of board.
>>
>> I wish I could get my hands on a presonus studio live like Patric has
>> and see the diferences in operation.
>>
>> Patrick, what do you mean the presonus has more i/o, do you mean the
>> onboard effects, or can you do more firewire routing with alternate does
>> it have more aux sends than 6 or more sub mixes than 4 because that's
>> what the mackie has?
>>
>>
>> For all your audio production needs and technology training, visit us at
>> www.affordablestudioservices.com
>> Chris Belle cb1963 at sbcglobal.net
>> Stephie Belle sdb1961 at sbcglobal.net for customized web design
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Perdue" <patrick at pdaudio.net>
>> To: "Reapers Without Peepers" <rwp at reaaccess.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: [RWP] New audio gear any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>> I have a Presonus StudioLive 16.4.2, which offers a little more in
>>> terms of I/O from and to firewire than does the Mackie Onyx 1640I, and
>>> still find myself using another dedicated audio interface for things,
>>> in my case, the Focusrite Saffire Pro14, mostly for it's clean
>>> playback and SP/dif input capability. I want to occasionally run
>>> things digitally, and my Presonus board has no such inputs.
>>>
>>> I think even if I had a 1640I, I'd still keep another interface
>>> around. Those Mackies are nice boards. The biggest difference between
>>> anything smaller than the 1640I is the number of channels and buses.
>>> None of the smaller boards have the fun channel returns found in the
>>> 1640I. I wish the 1220I did, at least. Oh well.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/8/2012 10:01 AM, Kerry Hoath wrote:
>>>> I'm considering one of the Mackie 8 or 12 channel mixers the 820i or 
>>>> the
>>>> 1220i.
>>>>
>>>> The 1640I is like $2000 and i'm not sure if I need something that
>>>> complex.
>>>> I want to record singing with a backing track, and change levels for
>>>> music and voice. I could apply affects but probably better to apply 
>>>> them
>>>> in software later the price jump from the 1220 to the 1640i is rather
>>>> large.
>>>> I'm also looking at getting an interface for the pc, probably the 
>>>> tascam
>>>> as it seems rather analog and behaves well.
>>>> The presonus audiobox seems cool but if Ihave a 8-12 channel mixer
>>>> there's no point having all that i/o on the audio box?
>>>>
>>>> Steff was always battling with volumes on ventrillo although that might
>>>> be Ventrillo's fault.
>>>>
>>>> regards, Kerry.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2012 10:41 PM, Chris Belle wrote:
>>>>> Carey, if you want the best experience with an accessible interface,
>>>>> then my recommendation is with any of the mackie onyx i series mixers.
>>>>>
>>>>> the little 820i clocks in at 4 hundred dollars, but there are no
>>>>> menus, and you get a lot of i-o and routing hands on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RWP mailing list
>>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RWP mailing list
>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RWP mailing list
>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RWP mailing list
> RWP at reaaccess.com
> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com 