Budget is probably $2k - 3k.

24 channels and 4 monitor mixes seems like a good starting place, particularly if I can expand that later.

My priorities:
1. Sound quality
2. Well-designed / ergonomic (the EQs are easy to get to, the routing makes sense, etc)
3. Portability / ease of setup
4. Cost (can probably save / splurge for something nicer if it makes sense)

I play guitar and keys in a 6-piece folk rock band and we are building a PA rig for gigs without a house system. We typically have a draw of ~80 in our hometown, so we don't need anything crazy yet but it's nice to have room to grow.

We've already got some fairly beefy tops, subs and amps, plus a couple floor wedges and a 16/4 analog snake. We don't have a proper console though (got a Tascam Model 24 in our practice space, but we don't want to haul it around).

I have mixed 100+ shows and events of various kinds over the past 20 years and have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing (and there's always more to learn!) I have worked with digital systems before, but it's been a while (dating myself, but this was on Yamaha O1V & O2R and Soundcraft Vi6 consoles).

I'm curious about the iPad-based digital world. Being able to tweak the mix from the actual audience position seems awesome. What consoles / stageboxes would you recommend for an entry- to mid-level setup?

Thanks in advance for your help!!

I went down a similar path a few years back (keyboard player for a local band) and started off with the Behringer X32 Rack along with their digital snake(s) and personal mixers. Mixing on glass for shows is fine once you get used to it.

It is amazingly cost-effective yet powerful gear especially when purchased used. You could put together the X32 rack and S16 digital sname together for around $1400 on Reverb.com.

Behringer has since updated this product range with the Wing Rack ($1800) which is even more capable than its predecessor. Throw in a few of their digital snakes and you're still within range.

Our band has been doing well, so last season I upgraded our entire PA, and went with an Allen & Heath SQ5. It's a luxury, to be sure, but a nice one. I haven't tried the Wing, but the A&H was a nice upgrade from the X32 world.

Interestingly enough, most of our sound techs prefer to mix on glass -- the physical control is there mostly as a backup or a deep dive.

There are other good options, but that's a starting point.

I agree with cphollis, but since you're self-mixing I wouldn't bother going beyond the X32 Rack and an SD16 (the stage box that doesn't need a rack case). It still has the best tablet software out there.

I've been tablet mixing almost 15 years now, first time I've heard the term "mixing on glass". Me likey I also prefer it, only use faders once I'm just riding DCA's

Not to be repetitive, but I agree with the above posts.

More specifically, the X32 Rack by itself without any expansion has 16 XLR inputs and six 1/4" inputs for a total of 22 inputs. You can get a new one now below 1K and you would be done. If you need more inputs, you could always add the SD8 or SD16 and would still be easily in your budget stated.

The new Wing Rack has 24 XLR/Combo inputs and costs $1600 last time I looked.

The X32 is a more simple device to setup than the Wing Rack (I am a bit biased as I own an X32 Rack), but the Wing Rack has a ton more power and flexibility. The reason I am wanting one is because it contains the TC M3000 reverb engine in it as well as having pitch correction built into its processing engines. The M3000 alone was around 3-4K IIRC when it was popular.

The X32 Rack would be a big step up from your current rig. I have had mine since 2013 and can say it is a fine mixer with great sound and a ton of capabilities that are above and beyond your current rig.

Thanks all! I've looked into the X32 before but heard some smack talk about the quality of the preamps. I looked again and found this thread: Good or Bad idea? Buy pre amp to spice up warmth of the x32?

Which has changed my mind. Of course I will trust my ears over what other folks say, but it does seem like the X32 is the way to go.

I'm still wondering if it's the only game in town in this price range? Are there other options that people like better? What if I did want physical knobs and faders, is there an option to do that with the Behringer system?

Do I think the X32 the only game in town at that price/feature point? Yes.

It also comes in various versions with real faders if you want, also a great deal for what you get. The preamps are good but not great in my experience.

There are Midas branded versions of the Behringer products with (arguably) better preamps, but I'd skip all that .

Next rung on the price/performance ladder would be the Wing products which are said to have nicer preamps than the X32. Perhaps others could comment on this?

Well outside your price range: A&H gear -- I love the way their preamps sound. We get the most amazing recordings of performances. Buy once, cry once.

If you're typically playing to 80 people, the sound quality of the X32 is the least of your worries. This, the Wing, the Soundcraft UI24r are more than enough for your needs. Buy used, learn and grow your audience - and then look to upgrade. None of the 80 people in the audience are complaining about mic pre quality... or even a 200 person audience.

The preamp quality on nearly all modern digital mixers is outstanding. By this, I mean what goes into the preamp, comes back out of the preamp exactly as it went in, only amplified for the rest of the mixer to use. It does this adding little to no noise.

What people in the past meant by "good preamps" was that they liked the way the preamp colored the sound. Preamps were described as being "warm" as an example.

Today, it is well understood that it is NOT the purpose of the preamp to color your sound. The X32 has a TON of processing options to intentionally color the sound if that is what you want done.

Typically what I want done (and this is JUST my ear we are talking about here) is to eq the channels using the channel PEQ, apply light compression to the vocal channels (using either the channel compression or a fancier insert compressor from the fx rack), and if analog drums are present, to gate the drums to minimize the number of open mics and create a clean sounding drum mix. I also use the plate reverb and use the PEQ on the reverb FX return bus to eliminate the lows making the verb more airy and transparent and less muddy.

That's it. I generally get a damn good sounding mix with no more than that.

I have seen people that run vocals and drums and guitars into groups, then have efx and processing on both the channels AND the groups, but I find that LESS IS MORE. I do as little as I can to the signal to make it come out sounding good.

In a more condenced form, the preamps on the X32 Rack are outstanding. If you look around the web, you will find that they do exactly what they are meant to do. Yes, there are preamps out there that have an even lower noise floor than the X32, but I can guarantee you, your open mics and speaker amps will introduce more noise floor than the mixer. It is insignificant in the extreme in this regard.

If you can't get a good mix with the X32 rack ..... it isn't the mixer.

outstanding? not really...
...but then, any assessement depends on what you are comparing it with.

If you can live with mixing on glass an A&H SQrack with an additional DX168 would deliver 32 ins and 16 outs and be a significant up-grade in overall audio quality and processing. Floor noise is a cumulative progression that highly favors a low level initial orrigination. While it is true that speaker systems can be a large problem in this regard, the ability to generate high level detail and transparency at lower db levels with a deck that can deliver it from the "get go" is always better.
Hugh

The preamps are definitely outstanding as all modern digital mixers are using off the shelf SOC's for the preamps, A/D and D/A conversions.

The old days of analog preamp stages is long past.

The differences in sound quality between digital mixers lies almost entirely in the quality of the processing algorithms.

I have argued for years that the difference in sound quality between an X32 rack and the most expensive digital mixer money can buy is trivial compared to the difference in sound quality between cheap powered speakers and higher end powered speakers.

Since very few people have a 20K plus FOH speaker system, very few people benefit much from the differences in digital mixers.

This is just my experience though YMMV.

I would agree with most of this. A basic X32 can create an amazing soundstage with decent FOH PA and someone with a bit of experience at the helm. The level of sonic quality is way impressive -- all sorts of detail gets exposed if you're coming off older analog gear.

But a few of us do have that 20k plus sound system for our bands. There's are also a few of us who are performing musicians with annoyingly sensitive ears.

So, yeah, premium gear like A&H isn't usually warranted on a strictly technical basis, more of a qualitative "I really like how it sounds".

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a live setting, but some can and commented on the upgrade.

You might put it down to the preamps, the compressor algorithms, the filters, the output stages, etc -- same sound techs though -- so I think it's lots of little things that add up.

...except that this isn't true - what's true though is that with digital desks, for relatively little money you can get amazing features and okay-ish/decent quality which to achieve with analog means would cost you a fortune.

For the OP who is coming from a Tascam 24, 01v and 02R and a Soundcraft Vi6 and with his $2-3K budget,any of these mixers will be lightyears ahead of where his is now.

Well, it is true in the original complete context of my statement.

The difference in digital mixer sound quality pales compared to the difference in FOH speaker systems.

I can tell you that I have A/B'd directly the Soundcraft Ui24, X32 Rack and A&H Zed 10fx. If you are talking about how good you can get a mix to sound, then the Ui24 and X32 Rack are close with me giving the X32 Rack the nod because of a better reverb unit (I don't particularly care for the verbs in the Ui24). If you are talking about the default voicing on each of these mixers with NO tweaking, then the Zed wins. This makes little difference though since the Zed has such limited sculpting tools compared to the Ui24 and X32 and both of those are able to easily create a better sounding mix with their PEQ capabilities alone.

Compared to the tools the OP is used to having, an X32 Rack would be outstanding IMO. I always found the 01v and LS9 of the same age to be brittle and harsh with unforgiving preamps if you got a signal a bit hot. Menu diving aside, I thought it was difficult to get a decent sounding mix on them. YMMV.

Even today, the only REAL reason I would like to upgrade my X32 Rack is because of the TC M3000 verb engine included in the Wing Rack and the pitch correction FX engine (for those "pitchy" singers ). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the mix I am able to get from the X32 Rack.

DDY is absolutely correct: there is a significant performance and price difference between High End speaker systems and most MI speakers deployed today. My KV2 ES system has a MSRP of 40K and I guarantee the X32/UI24 desks will not sound as good with my KV2 ES gear as the Waves LV1 classic or my old DX32 with primes & SQ5. This is when 32bit 96K processing optimises plug-in algos performance: "Birds of a feather fly together"!

OneEng is also correct in asserting the basic utilitarian value in deploying entry level gear. However it is wrong to make broad assertions of marginal differences in overall performance. When matching up gear of the same quality level, there is a big difference.
Hugh

I would say that you don't see many KV2 systems in a bar band these days (or MEYER, etc). These high end systems are reserved for touring bands that spare no cost in their sound reinforcement and can easily afford the price of entry.

The highest end speakers I work with regularly is RCF NX. I can tell you without a doubt that despite the quality of these speakers, I have heard them sound great, and much less than great depending on the environment they are in. Outside they are glorious. In a noisy poorly setup bar with loud drums ..... even these great speakers can't make up for the poor acoustics.... and speakers are the most important part of the signal chain IMO.

The mixer would only make a difference with very good speakers in a very good acoustic environment with very good musicians. Then I agree, if this is what you regularly mix (and I am very envious of those that have this), it only makes sense to pair the 10's of thousands of dollar FOH system with the best mixer you can get.

But lets look at where most local bands are....

FOH speaker budget 1-3K. Higher end local bands 3-5K. With this budget, playing in a bar, an X32 or Ui24 are going to sound just as good as anything you could buy in that environment. Both of these mixers can be had under 1K which makes them easily the best value in town today.

As for the 96K, I am still not buying it Hugh. I agree that the SQ mixers have better algorithms than the X32, but not the Wing. I might even give the wing rack the nod in sound quality over the SQ simply because I prefer the M3000 VSS3 reverb engine for vocals over anything I have heard from the SQ.

I do agree that 96K results in lower latency when utilizing off-board digital effects. With that in mind, if you are using Waves as your external processing, I would give the nod to the SQ over the Wing. If I had to pick one for a stand alone setup, I might well pick the Wing (in my case the Wing Rack) for the following reasons:

1) Wing has a better reverb engine
2) Wing does not charge for "Premium efx processing" like SQ.
3) Wing is significantly less expensive than the SQ.

I might give the SQ the nod for routing simplicity though. I find the setup of the Wing to be confusing to get your head around (and I am a very senior electrical engineer).

At 48Khz, you can recreate an analog waveform perfectly up to 24Khz. My old ears don't even hear 16Khz very well through headphones.... rather on in a live sound environment.

Has anyone done an A/B with the Wing vs. SQ in a live FOH setup before?

one of the issues with cheapish digital desks is that they cannot provide enough phantom power if you hook up just a few condensers mics (which must get powered with a very specific voltage) - in fact, even using a single power-hungry condenser mic can result in audible distortion (that you can't get rid off)...

I haven't personally hooked up more than a couple drum overhead condensers before; however, I haven't heard of an X32 having issues powering condensers.

I do know that lots of people praise the X32 for use with theater due to its very powerful scene, snipit and cue capabilities. I had always assumed that these applications would have lots of condenser mics.

Once you've got enough I/O, the next question is workflow.

For me, the QSC TM30Pro wins here. IMO, it's by far the quickest/easiest digital desk (at this level) to operate.

Also, the remote (tablet/phone) control is done correctly: at the desk, you can set permissions on a per-device basis.

ie, lead singer's phone can only adjust the faders on Aux 2.
The bassist + percussionist are sharing an iPad, so that's locked to Aux3 & Aux 4.
Both of my iPads have full access. Etc etc etc.

There's probably a limit to how many devices can be connected, but I've gone up to 10 without issue.



My recommendation is to download the relevant app, and see how you get on with navigating the menus etc.

There's an SQ6 at one of my regular venues, and while I'm able to operate the thing, some of the simple/obvious stuff (like linking 2x channels to make stereo - takes 3x taps on the QSC) takes more work/menu-diving/time than I really have patience for.

I'm aware that the SQ6 is a superior piece of equipment to the TM30Pro from a technical point-of-view, but when it comes to live sound, my priority is workflow, which is why I always take my desk to that venue.


Chris

I ran into insufficient phantom power with both the X32 and the S16 snake. I think we had four condensers in our setup.

Not the sort of thing you want to debug during sound check. I bought a few external power supplies, and all was well from that point on.

I have noticed that the X32 gear has a certain sonic signature I can usually pick out at venue. Nothing wrong, just a very characteristic flavor.

Only four condensers?!

That's a really stupid limitation which IMO should have prevented the product from being released. Are you sure it wasn't faulty?


Chris

most stagboxes are designed for an assumed average phantom power voltage per channel which isn't an issue as long as you are using a couple of condenser mics which don't need a lot of voltage; unfortunately, you can easily exceed the limit with just a single microphone (such as the earthworks sr-314)!


that said, many much more expensive expensive stagboxes don't fare very well in this regard either...

Bar gigs will either be in a listening room or in a party room.

A listening room will benefit from 24/96K digital processing that can offer a high degree of detailed transparency that will deliver clear intelligibility at lower db levels. In a party room the ubiquitous 'hot back lines" need gear that will elevate vocals to match the amps behind the singers. Audio quality is not a high priority in a party room bar gig. Given the "Open spigot liability laws" these gigs have been greatly reduced over the past 20 years.

The best listening rooms will offer some version of a distributed SR system with small front fills. In this case a high quality desk is appropriate. Delivering hot R&R SR in a small venue of any type is an exersize in futility so the gear of choice really doesn't matter. If any operator intends to masage the performance from the console, he better have tactile controls with mixing on glass as a walk around option.
Hugh

Well, then two pieces of hardware had the exact same fault at the exact same time. Now that I'm recalling the event, I think we had a total of six phantom powered condensor mics.

But, pretty much uniquely amongst the competition, does not have recallable mic-pres - shudder...

On SQ: Settings -> Mixer Config -> [Click on the channel pair(s) you want to link] -> Apply. So, from anywhere in the desk, that's 4 clicks.

That's a subjective view, and not necessarily true - it all depends on what criteria you're assessing by.

Even six would IMO mean it's defective.

My typical stage might consist of 10-15x condensers and 2-5x active DI boxes.

It honestly hadn't occurred to me that a desk or stage box wouldn't be able to supply the maximum phantom power current on every channel simultaneously.
It's so obvious that it should be able to do this, without hitch or complaint, that I'm amazed that it can't.


Chris

It's true about the mic preamps. It tends not to be a problem for me, since I'm starting from scratch with a different set of musicians every night. I must admit that I rarely consider the touring point-of-view, where you're likely to be using the same channels, mics, etc night after night. I should be more mindful of that.


On the QSC, it's select Ch, Setup tab, Link. Seems like a more sensible place to put it IMO, but I suppose it depends what you're used to...
My experience watching touring engineers try to use the SQ desk tells me that I'm not an outlier, though - the SQs just aren't particularly intuitive to use.


I see your point about the tech specs, but IMO the SQ's option for digital expansion immediately makes it better than the QSC. It's not completely one-sided: the QSC has useful subgroup processing, but having used both, I can see that the SQ is the nicer piece of kit.
I just don't like it very much.


Chris

I still don't believe that 96K sounds better than 48K. I have a friend that owns a CQ 12 and in a head to head there wasn't much difference to my X32 Rack. In fact, I actually liked the verbs on the X32 better .... but that can be a taste thing.

The point is that there wasn't any noticeable difference just because of the processing clock. I have always thought it to be true since the math says any difference there was, humans couldn't hear (>24Khz).

Good room with acoustic tiles definitely make for a better listening experience. Some of the better Jazz clubs in Ann Arbor certainly convinced me of that.

Better speakers definitely make a difference.

I am just starting to think that modern digital mixers all sound the same. I think someone sent me a link to someone that did a detailed signal analysis showing how little difference there really was from one console to the next .... clear back to the ole LS9 and 01V. I was actually pretty surprised at the results.

The biggest difference I hear is the reverb. Some are really bad, and some are quite good.... but this might be subjective too.

I agree with OneEng pursuant to the quality differences in reverbs. A&H has a long way to go with their reverb algos! However I have found the Waves reverbs to be the most versitile and appropriate than any I have ever worked with. Unfortunately major brands legal and accounting departments have a strong voice in determining the actual emplementation of patented processes. 10 years ago the "smaart jr." was available for A&H desks but royality pmts apparently became a cost problem for A&H.
Several outstanding reverb plugins are available for less than $100. however a daw is necessary to facilitate any of them. In todays music world reverb is a big deal and OneEng is correct in pointing out the differences.
Hugh