Comments on: Buying a New Mixer Pt. 2 http://www.churchtecharts.org/archives/558 sound | lights | video: technical arts in the church Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:17:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Church Tech Arts » Buying a New Mixer, Pt. 3 http://www.churchtecharts.org/archives/558/comment-page-1#comment-1247 Church Tech Arts » Buying a New Mixer, Pt. 3 Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:57:49 +0000 http://www.churchtecharts.org/Blog/?p=558#comment-1247 [...] can all learn from each other. All of us are smarter than one of us! If you missed Part 1 or Part 2, well, there they [...] [...] can all learn from each other. All of us are smarter than one of us! If you missed Part 1 or Part 2, well, there they [...]

]]> By: Church Tech Arts » Buying a New Mixer http://www.churchtecharts.org/archives/558/comment-page-1#comment-1238 Church Tech Arts » Buying a New Mixer Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:32:14 +0000 http://www.churchtecharts.org/Blog/?p=558#comment-1238 [...] Tomorrow we’ll consider a few other questions, and finally get to the greatest question of all–digital or analog. [...] [...] Tomorrow we’ll consider a few other questions, and finally get to the greatest question of all–digital or analog. [...]

]]> By: Mike http://www.churchtecharts.org/archives/558/comment-page-1#comment-1236 Mike Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:48:07 +0000 http://www.churchtecharts.org/Blog/?p=558#comment-1236 Justin--You raise an excellent point. I completely agree that often times, when you get to the end of the process there are often two options that would do the job now (in your case, a large analog and a digital). What decision you make has to be driven by your best guess at the future. In fact, this is such a good point that I'm going to write Pt. 3 about this... Thanks for reading! mike Justin–You raise an excellent point. I completely agree that often times, when you get to the end of the process there are often two options that would do the job now (in your case, a large analog and a digital). What decision you make has to be driven by your best guess at the future.

In fact, this is such a good point that I’m going to write Pt. 3 about this…

Thanks for reading!
mike

]]> By: Justin http://www.churchtecharts.org/archives/558/comment-page-1#comment-1233 Justin Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:14:29 +0000 http://www.churchtecharts.org/Blog/?p=558#comment-1233 The process for selecting a mixer as you describe basically follows the Systems Engineering process, as used in big business, particularly defense. First you look at your needs, from your needs you define very specific requirements. You then look at how those requirements can be met functionally, and only after all that, do you look at what piece of equipment performs your required functions. Having just gone through the whole mixer selection process, I wonder do you think there is a tipping point, so to speak, where the benefits of a digital desk more than account for the extra cost over a large analogue? For example, the absolute minimum requirements for us were 32+4 and 8-10 aux. In Oz this puts us in the 10k price range, where the Yamaha LS9 and Roland M400 come in at about 12k and 14k respectively. I couldn't justify 10k on a large analogue which hardly allows for future expansion and growth, when for a bit more you get more channels, double the aux sends, inbuilt FX and EQ, dynamics, scenes, better channel eq, VCA groups (roland), matrix mixing etc. I think in a few years I would have been cursing myself for not recommending a digital option. Justin. The process for selecting a mixer as you describe basically follows the Systems Engineering process, as used in big business, particularly defense. First you look at your needs, from your needs you define very specific requirements. You then look at how those requirements can be met functionally, and only after all that, do you look at what piece of equipment performs your required functions.

Having just gone through the whole mixer selection process, I wonder do you think there is a tipping point, so to speak, where the benefits of a digital desk more than account for the extra cost over a large analogue? For example, the absolute minimum requirements for us were 32+4 and 8-10 aux. In Oz this puts us in the 10k price range, where the Yamaha LS9 and Roland M400 come in at about 12k and 14k respectively.

I couldn’t justify 10k on a large analogue which hardly allows for future expansion and growth, when for a bit more you get more channels, double the aux sends, inbuilt FX and EQ, dynamics, scenes, better channel eq, VCA groups (roland), matrix mixing etc. I think in a few years I would have been cursing myself for not recommending a digital option.

Justin.

]]>