LS9/16 - not the desk for me
in [Live Sound]
|
From: George's Pro Sound Company on 18 Dec 2008 15:49 "Denny Strauser" <dsdennysound(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:giecle$gu7$1(a)news.motzarella.org... > Arny Krueger wrote: >> "Phildo" <Phil(a)phildo.net> wrote in message >> news:CRt2l.9377$AL7.629(a)newsfe14.ams2 >>> "Denny Strauser" <dsdennysound(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:gic59s$t65$2(a)news.motzarella.org... >> >>>> I mean no disrespect, but weren't you the one who began >>>> this thread hating the LS9? >> >>> I had a bad experience with it. >> >> Phildo's problem could have been solved with scenes, but I guess Phildo >> had yet to learn about those. >> >>> I've used on again since >>> and have a bit more respect for it now although I still >>> think it has been shrunk down to too small a footprint >>> and needs more knobs. >> >> Layers and virtual controls are apparently still over Phildo's head. If >> there isn't a knob dedicated to a function,he can't figure out how to >> operate it. >> >>> It still pisses over any analogue desk for the price. >> >> Well Phildo gets *that* right. > > Actually, I understood what Phildo was saying. I was just making light of > the conversation. I know how to set up custom fader layers, but might not > have time to do much walking into a gig as Phildo did. > > I run 6-8 monitor mixes from FOH & 4 FX for some theater shows. So' I can > have 14 layers of faders, before taking into account the graphic EQ layers > . More than once have I thought I was turning up one thing, when in fact I > was on the wrong page. For someone not used to an LS9, it would be > confusing & clumsy. > > He's right about it being better than an analog 'for the price.' Not only > does a 32 chan LS9 price compare to most mid-level analog boards, it can > eliminate the cost of a drive rack & an EQ rack. So, yes it's much better. > Then consider the footprint, which is extremely important for the theater > shows I do; it allow me to locate to a reasonable mixing position. > > If you, then, consider the fact that I can change all the monitor mixes & > FX with the push of one button, it's why I ask for an LS9. > > But ... when I have to use an analog board (a decent one), the sound is > much warmer & accurate. There's a trade-off, but it's a price I'm willing > to pay. > > -Denny well I have both the ls9 and a 852 along with a old school harrison sm4 andto compare the sounds IMO the ls9 is wondeful open and rich where the analouge dsks sound as if there is a heavy wet blanket over my mix so somepeople warm is another persons muddy that is the only wayI can explain it thechannel eq on the ls9 is lightyears ahead of any analoug desk the system graphics on the ls9 and not up to my standards,I perfer the behringer deq296 over any other graphic on the market, bar none george
From: Denny Strauser on 18 Dec 2008 17:58 George's Pro Sound Company wrote: > "Denny Strauser" <dsdennysound(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> Actually, I understood what Phildo was saying. I was just making light of >> the conversation. I know how to set up custom fader layers, but might not >> have time to do much walking into a gig as Phildo did. >> >> I run 6-8 monitor mixes from FOH & 4 FX for some theater shows. So' I can >> have 14 layers of faders, before taking into account the graphic EQ layers >> . More than once have I thought I was turning up one thing, when in fact I >> was on the wrong page. For someone not used to an LS9, it would be >> confusing & clumsy. >> >> He's right about it being better than an analog 'for the price.' Not only >> does a 32 chan LS9 price compare to most mid-level analog boards, it can >> eliminate the cost of a drive rack & an EQ rack. So, yes it's much better. >> Then consider the footprint, which is extremely important for the theater >> shows I do; it allow me to locate to a reasonable mixing position. >> >> If you, then, consider the fact that I can change all the monitor mixes & >> FX with the push of one button, it's why I ask for an LS9. >> >> But ... when I have to use an analog board (a decent one), the sound is >> much warmer & accurate. There's a trade-off, but it's a price I'm willing >> to pay. >> >> -Denny > > well I have both the ls9 and a 852 along with a old school harrison sm4 > andto compare the sounds IMO the ls9 is wondeful open and rich where the > analouge dsks sound as if there is a heavy wet blanket over my mix > so somepeople warm is another persons muddy > that is the only wayI can explain it > thechannel eq on the ls9 is lightyears ahead of any analoug desk > the system graphics on the ls9 and not up to my standards,I perfer the > behringer deq296 over any other graphic on the market, bar none > george I'm surely not complaining about the EQ capability of the LS9. One can be exact in choosing the center frequency, bandwidth & attenuation on a digital, something that is only relative with an analog board. Likely, the difference I hear is due to the analog to digital to analog conversions. Some information has to be lost in the process. That is why audiophiles prefer vinyl over CD. I don't think that digitals sound bad. But I can hear the difference. To the average listener, there would likely be no discernible difference. After mixing a number of shows on a digital, I am surprised that I can hear a noticeable difference when mixing on a decent analog. -Denny
From: Phildo on 18 Dec 2008 18:24 "Denny Strauser" <dsdennysound(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:giecle$gu7$1(a)news.motzarella.org... > Arny Krueger wrote: >> "Phildo" <Phil(a)phildo.net> wrote in message >> news:CRt2l.9377$AL7.629(a)newsfe14.ams2 >>> "Denny Strauser" <dsdennysound(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:gic59s$t65$2(a)news.motzarella.org... >> >>>> I mean no disrespect, but weren't you the one who began >>>> this thread hating the LS9? >> >>> I had a bad experience with it. >> >> Phildo's problem could have been solved with scenes, but I guess Phildo >> had yet to learn about those. As you well know Arny I have hundreds if not thousands of hours on digital desks so know all about scenes. Hell, I've programmed theatre shows to run completely automated to timecode. You are also aware that in this case I had walked up to the desk cold and didn't really get my hands on it until a few minutes before the show. You probably just thought I wouldn't see your post since you know I have you killfiled. Pretty cowardly way to take a dig methinks but then we all know you are nothing but a chickenshit snivelling little coward as well as a complete bullshit artist. >>> I've used on again since >>> and have a bit more respect for it now although I still >>> think it has been shrunk down to too small a footprint >>> and needs more knobs. >> >> Layers and virtual controls are apparently still over Phildo's head. If >> there isn't a knob dedicated to a function,he can't figure out how to >> operate it. Yet more Arny bullshit. For what I wanted to do it would be far easier to have a knob for every aux when you select a channel and the ability to keep control of the channel faders at the same time. >>> It still pisses over any analogue desk for the price. >> >> Well Phildo gets *that* right. I get pretty much everything right Arny unlike you. Still think you can hear voltages or that 95% of mixing desks do not have PFL? > Actually, I understood what Phildo was saying. I was just making light of > the conversation. I know how to set up custom fader layers, but might not > have time to do much walking into a gig as Phildo did. I walked in to the gig without having used before and got no help from the house guy. Gig was running late so he did the soundcheck and I had to spend the first bit putting right all the EQ as me and him had very different ideas how the band should sound. It was not intuitive to use so I had a few problems during the first couple of songs until I got my head round it. > I run 6-8 monitor mixes from FOH & 4 FX for some theater shows. So' I can > have 14 layers of faders, before taking into account the graphic EQ layers > . More than once have I thought I was turning up one thing, when in fact I > was on the wrong page. For someone not used to an LS9, it would be > confusing & clumsy. My point exactly. This band are very FX heavy with lots of tap-time vocal delays and level changes so the LS9 was certainly not ideal for what I wanted to do. Arny knows this but likes to take cheap gigs because I have helped him humiliate himself on here so many times in the past with his blowhard ways. He's nothing but a lowlife which is why you VERY rarely see anyone reply to his posts as a good 95% of people here have him killfiled. > He's right about it being better than an analog 'for the price.' Not only > does a 32 chan LS9 price compare to most mid-level analog boards, it can > eliminate the cost of a drive rack & an EQ rack. So, yes it's much better. > Then consider the footprint, which is extremely important for the theater > shows I do; it allow me to locate to a reasonable mixing position. Having got my head around the board and spent some time on it I realise how good a board it is but I would much rather use an M7, PM1/5, A& I-live or preferably a digico which is my weapon of choice. > If you, then, consider the fact that I can change all the monitor mixes & > FX with the push of one button, it's why I ask for an LS9. It's nice if you know your way round the board and have time to program it but to walk up to one cold is a bad idea. > But ... when I have to use an analog board (a decent one), the sound is > much warmer & accurate. There's a trade-off, but it's a price I'm willing > to pay. I find digital boards more accurate and can get it sounding more than warm enough, I just need enough knobs to hand to be able to do what I want it to do without having to step through layers all the time. Phildo
From: Phildo on 18 Dec 2008 18:26 "George's Pro Sound Company" <bmoas(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:VqudnUluN_fmKtfUnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >I prefer the behringer deq296 over any other graphic on the market, bar >none You and me both which is why I always carry at least one. My advice to anyone buying one though is to open it up and check for dry solder joints etc and generally make sure everything is OK and roadworthy. Still nothing on the market under �3k that comes close. Phildo
From: Eeyore on 18 Dec 2008 20:38
Ron Johnson wrote: > Denny Strauser wrote: > Does not the UK still measure Guinness by the pint? > > Of course! proper beer has to be drunk in imperial measures or it just > doesnt taste right ;) Make sure you avoid those American pints. They serve SHORT ! Graham |