Live Console Vs. Recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter borntoplease
  • Start date Start date
B

borntoplease

New member
I have been looking at the midas venice boards and the website refers to them as live sound boards. can anyone clarify for me. obviously they can be used for both, but it seems a live board would be made differently than a recording console. if anyone has ANY information that would be great.
thanks in advance.
 
A recording console will have recording outputs in addition to direct outs.
With an 8 bus live console, you would only have 8 bus outs that you could route to the recorder, any other additional tracks would have to be patched into the direct channel outputs. That means that you would have to repatch the recorder every time your situation changes.
A recording board has recorder outs (one for each channel) that you can leave hooked to the recorder and just route channels to. A recording board would have a section for headphone mixes, control room volume, talkback mic, a switch to go back and forth between 2 sets of monitors, etc...

There is a work around for all of this, but if you are going to buy something, you might as well buy the right tool for the job.
 
I *think* the Venice and Verona consoles actually have recording outs on them.

I wasn't too crazy about the Venice in live use... Certainly not a "dog" or anything, but certainly not a Midas, either.
 
Are you nuts??? Not a Midas. LOL Ok Non Live FOH Engineer here 9Dont take this personally)

The Venice HAS Midas EQ, Midas Pre's

The only thing non Midas about the board is.......NOTHING.

The Venice is excellent for the price point.

And it IS a Midas....

Back to the normal thread. :)

Matter of fact I could be wrong but the Pre's are from an XL4.
 
I have mixed on Midas XL4's, Heritage 3000's, XL250's, XL200's, Verona's and Venices. The Venice most definately has that Midas sound. It certainly isn't a heritage or XL, but you most definately know you are on a Midas. It has that special Midas high gain preamp (based on but not identical to the XL4 preamp), but most of all it has that Midas EQ. All it really lacks is features and modularity.

As far as being a studio console, it will certainly have a couple of strikes against it there.

First: No pad
Second: No phase reverse
Third: No sweepable high pass filter
Fourth: 60 mm faders
Fifth: only 4 bus outs

Other than those limitations (which are very easily worked around) it would sound GREAT in a studio. There are direct outs on every channel, there are also 4 bus outputs. What it is really missing is a good way of returning a bunch of tape returns. If it were me and I wanted a Venice in the studio, I might also invest in a behringer mixer purely for tape returns and then if mixing on the console, re-route the tape returns to the Venice channels. If however you will not be tracking or playing back more than 12 channels at a time through the venice, then none of that is an issue.

The way the Venice preamp is works, the pad really isn't necessary. Phase reverse can be done through other means, and if you are using a DAW, it can be done there as well. I can't think of 24 better EQ's and preamps that could be purchased for $4000.
 
Just look at the Soundcraft Ghost. You don't have to employ any silly work-arounds, and you still get great EQ, polarity reverse, tape returns, tape outs, 8 sub outs, mix b for headphone mixes, 8 aux busses (2 of them being stereo) 100mm faders, control room monitor a/b switch and volume control. There won't be any playing around.
 
Hey Static, I had a Midas rep tell me that the Pre's either were XL4 pres or based on that design. Although I have been unable to verify the exact fact.

I think the only Midas I have not used is the 1000. Even the Verona Is Midas Heaven.

So yeah old boy will be fine with the Midas Venice as a front end and for less money than a ghost :)
 
giles117 said:
So yeah old boy will be fine with the Midas Venice as a front end and for less money than a ghost :)
Click to expand...

It still won't be a recording console.
 
I agree with Farview, it still won't be a recording console. It will need workarounds, but can be done without too much effort depending on what the users needs are. I also agree with giles. The Midas will be a great front end.

Just two weeks ago I did a long ass two day session on a Soundcraft Ghost. It was not a bad thing, but I have to say, the sound quality isn't even close to that of ANY Midas. The ghost's preamps had a little bit of a warm, but dull sound. The Midas will make your ears perk up. I remember the first time I brought one of my midas's over to my studio. The gain on the pre's is awesome (something the Ghosts lack a bit of). I remember after cuing up the overhead mics (KSM 32's) going back into the drum room. I wondered how that particular drummer got his kit to sound so good. It didn't. It sounded WAY better in the monitors and headphones than in the room itself. Then there is the Ghost EQ, it is not nearly as responsive as the EQ on the venice, and once again, the Midas makes it sound kind of dull and lifeless.

I don't really mean to try and make the Ghost sound like a "bad" console, but when compared to a Midas (of course this is all just my opinion), the Midas makes the Ghost sound like a toy. Personally, I think the Ghost is priced right. For all the features it offers as well as the sound quality, I think the cost is about spot on. The Midas however I feel is worth WAY more than what they charge for it. Sure it doesn't have bells and whistles, but to me 24 channels of Midas EQ and preamp (limited EQ of course when compared to a heritage or XL), plus 4 more stereo channels, is worth WAY more than $4000.

There is a speaker out on the Midas which can be used as a control room output also. And how do tape outs differ from direct outs? The Venice doesn't have 8 busses, but it does have 4, the Venice has 6 instead of 8 aux sends. All in all the only really big thing I see that the Ghost offers that the Venice doesn't is tape returns, and maybe the splittable EQ (which can also be a pain in the ass if you aren't careful).

The Ghost however is still leaps and bounds (in my opinion) above something like a Mackie, Behringer, or yamaha m series console.

In the end, if it were my money, it comes down to deciding between which of two things is more important.....

First..... Sound Quality (Midas)
Second..... More inouts/routing (Ghost)

And actually, for me there really is no decision. I will take sound quality 99% of the time over ease....
 
thanks for all the imput, it has been very helpful. ive been looking at some ghosts, though i have heard many say the pres are less than par. i have also been hearing some people talk about Creation Audio Labs "hot rodding" the pres. they use burr brown something or others... does anyone know about these. the website is www.creationaudiolabs.com there you can find info on the upgraded mic pre chips.
 
Yes, I have heard of Creation Audio labs. I also am familiar with Burr Brown op amps. This is a cool mod, but I wouldn't say it would "radically" change the console. It should add a little speed, clarity, and high end extension to the Ghost preamps. This is a great thing, but the EQ would still remain unchanged. Also, you may be lokking at $100 or more a channel. For your final cost you could get into a used MCI or even maybe a used Trident console. Also, you could probably do 2 Midas consoles for the same price is your total Ghost cost now. In the end this would give you your "tape returns" for tracking, and allow you 48 full channels for mixdown. I reccomend at least trying out the ghost for a while before you pay to have the whole thing modded. The money it takes to get modded may be better spent on other things (i.e. preamps, mics etc...).

Anyhow, I know what I have said about the Ghosts may sound negative, but i don't really think the pre's are "less than par". I just don't think they hold up compared to a Midas. However, I think they do sound better than all the other new consoles in their price range. Good luck:)
 
I have the Mod on my console. It does change the eq. Every op-amp in the board is swapped for a better one, including the ones that run the EQ. Over all, there is a better low and high end extention and better depth of field.
Creation Audio Labs will replace them with a couple of different chips. I have some of both. The Burr Brown channels are thick, kind of like an Amek 9098 pre. (no it Doesn't sound exactly like a 9098, but it reacts in the same manor) The other chip (early morning brain fade keeps me from remembering what it is) has more of a slick, clean SSL-ish quality to it (same disclaimer as above)

The difference between tape outs and direct outs is that you can route channel 24 to tape out 17. Channel 24's direct out will always be channel 24.
That way you can hook the multi track up to the board and leave it. You can send any channel to any output.
Let's not forget about the mix-b. That gives you 48 inputs at mixdown, not to mention you can monitor what is coming back into the mixer instead of what is being recorded. That way you are not at the mercy of the recording levels when monitoring.
 
Does the Ghost actually have tape outs that work in that fashion though? Thats good that the upgrade changes the EQ, thats the part of the Ghost that I was least impressed with. My point about the two Midas consoles though was that 2 Venices actually offers 48 REAL channels. The mix B thing is definately cool. That is why earlier I mentioned that the Midas would work IF it fit requirements. If the end user is only going to track 12 channels at a time, than splitting the venice is actually far nicer than using mix B. The bottom line for me is that out of the box, the Venice sounds better to me than any other new mixer costing less than $30,000. In my opinion the only that sounds better in that price range is a Midas Verona. The Ghost is definately feature rich when compared to the Venice though. I am still a firm believer though that the Venice knocks the pants off of a Ghost if you are looking purely at preamp and EQ quality.
 
The ghost tape outs do work that way. I've got 32 channels of tape going to the 32 tape outs (well, the other way around) There is no patch bay in the middle and I have never had to physically re-patch the tape decks. I can't get to them (easily) anyway because of the Argosy.
I do like midas consoles for live use (the only times I've used them) where having things a little hyped is cool. I just could never see dealing with the pain-in-the-ass factor of not having the right tool for the job. All that repatching and reconfiguring every time you move on to a different phase of the project. Having to jury-rigg together 2 different headphone mixes from the aux sends. Yea, having a split console approach would be cool, but 12 tracks is a little lean, 16 I could see.
 
So how on a ghost would you patch the output of channel 1 to say the input on your recorder for channel 13? What I mean is how would you do that without using a buss....

I completely agree with you about having the right tool for the job. I think the problem for me is that my taste and expectations has changed over the years. 5 years ago I would have been really happy to mix on a ghost. 2 years ago though I bought a D&R console. It really opened my eyes (and ears) to what I had been missing. When I did this last session on the Ghost, it wasn't bad at all. I really don't mean to sound negative about them because I think that Soundcraft has done a good job. You get what you pay for. The difference is that with the Midas, at least as far as pure sound quality goes, you get way more than what you pay for. Basically, running that session on the Ghost really made me miss my D&R and renewed my awe for what it really sounds like. I once had my power supply go down on the D&R though. It was right at the beginning of an important session and it was going to take 48 hours to get it repaired, so I grabbed my Venice. The venice was great. For some things I liked it better than the D&R even, and in general it held up really nicely next to it. Based on my recent experience with the Ghost, it would not hold up nearly as well next to my other gear. Of course this is all just my opinion.

In the end though, you are right about having the right tool for the job. My clients expect the best sound I can give them. If that means doing some repatching and using my skills to find an amenable workaround, than thats OK. Thats one of the things they like about working with me. They like the fact that regardless of what happens I find a way to get it done and get it done to the best of my ability. In the end, quality outweighs simplicity. What that means for me is that if I were faced with a decision between the two consoles that I have to choose the Venice. We just have different ways of deciding what the right tool for the job is, and that's OK. Thats the wonderful thing about this industry. We all do things in different ways and in the end the only thing that matters is that it was done well, not what path we took to get there.

I think if I ran a more commercial studio where I did a lot of walkup type traffic and worked with a ton of clients that I didn't know, I might actually choose the Ghost over the Midas. My studio is a little bit different though. In 8 years I have never advertised more than just handing out a business card. When bands come in to record, we hang out. We have preproduction meetings, we take meal breaks together, I go to their shows, and even help book their shows. In a way I become an honorary member of the band. I also tend to cut breaks on hours so we don't have to worry about things like smoke breaks, or experimenting with new arrangements or new sounds or new techniques. Its that kind of environment that also gives me the freedom to do things like repatch a console without the band stressing over the hourly rate. Although with my D&R I don't have to do that:D
 
Well most of use use DAW's these days anyways, so the Midas Still is a very viable option :)
 
That is true. However I use a hybrid system. I use a DAW and a console. This eliminates all latency issues. So in the end, I do love my tape returns (which are on faders :D ) My argument is purely concerning sound quality. I love my Midas's:D
 
You would use the busses to get chan. 1 to come out of chan. 13.
Last month when Tack>>Head was here (Doug Wimbish, Bernard Fowler, Skip McDonald, Adrian Sherwood, Keith LeBlanc)
They wanted to lay a drum line down,
do a drum over-dubb (adding to, not fixing) ,
lay down the bass,
add another drum track,
add a guitar track,
then add a loop.
Just that fast, in that order. They were writing the song on the spot so every time something was added, another idea would emerge and another instrument would have to be recorded (or re-recorded).
I would have been sunk if I had to repatch for every take. Or keep setting up different headphone mixes every 3 1/2 minutes.

I'm not saying the ghost is a better console than the midas, I'm saying that the work flow will be much improved with a recording board rather than a live board.
 
Two things.

First, I can do whatever repatching is necessary in a matter of seconds (so long as all of the cabling is laid out properly and labeled, or in my case just bump it on the patchbay). Also, how does this mean you would keep having to set up headphone mixes?

Second, Given you r response of using the busses to get achannel to a different track, how would that make a "tape" out any different than a "Direct Out" . Since the ghost is an 8 buss board, wouldn't that mean you would have to "repatch" whatever buss output you were using to the input on your converters or recorder? The Midas does have 4 busses and 4 buss outputs. Just not 8 like the Ghost. Also, with unlimited tracking abilities in DAWS now, I can not remember the last time I used a buss while tracking. I just put each thing on its own track. With the way digital inputs matrix in Nuendo, I never have to repatch anything. I just open a new track, and tell the new track which inout to record and off we go.
 
Buss 1 shows up at tape out 1, 9, 17, and 25, buss 2 shows up at tape out 2, 10...etc. or if you flip the direct/group switch for the channel then that channel goes directly to that tape out. No repatching, just flip a switch and re-route. It is exactly like a direct out until you flip the switch that routes the busses to the tape outs.

Everyone wanted different headphone mixes, not normally a big deal when you do everything in order, (drums & scratch, then overdub one instrument at a time) but no one was playing at the same time so they all expected their own mix (rock stars). Every 5 minutes someone else was playing.

I was using 16 channels and some outboard preamps on the way in and the other 16 channels to monitor Nuendo. All the signal chains were set up for all the instruments all the time, just in case anyone got an idea. 3 headphone mixes, control room mix, levels to tape all independent or each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top