![]() ![]() ![]() It has been solid EXCEPT when using it’s internal wifi access point. I have an XR18 and have used it extensively in both recording and live gigs. On entry-level tablets with less processing muscle, both the app-based solutions AND the web interface are sluggish. I’ve used Behringer and Mackie apps, and the UI24R web interface - on tablets with sufficient performance, I’ve got good responsiveness out of all of them. In my experience, you can get decent low-lag performance from both - and you can screw things up on both… JavaScript is pretty mature, but native programming on Android or iOS can actually be more efficient, especially for graphical interfaces. It’s pretty impressive what the Soundcraft team have achieved with browser scripting. That’s pretty nice - but it also means that you’re stuck with what the common denominator offers you in terms of functionality. As long as there is a browser available that comforms to the specifications needed for the interface, you can use pretty much any device to control the mixer - Android, iOS, Windows, Mac, Linux, whatever. The main advantage of the HTML-based interface to me is that it is pretty much device-agnostic. There’s tons of JavaScript code in the Soundcraft GUI as well (that gets loaded and executed inside the browser), so you could call this an app as well - just a platform-agnostic one. Using an app or a browser to do the user event capturing, rendering and communication is a design choice - using a browser-based solution still means that there is a lot of code that needs to be executed on the tablet. I’m not entirely convinced that having an HTML based interface is necessarily superior from a “lag” perspective - in both cases, there is control information (moving faders, pushing buttons) that needs to be captured on the device (tablet, phone) and communicated to the mixer, and status information (levels, configuration) that needs to be communicated to the device from the mixer and rendered there. Just to clarify: I was talking about the audio latency when using the mixer as an audio interface, not about any latency in reacting to user input (“lag”). Nevertheless, I am not sure if I am diverting from the topic of this thread.įurther, the UI24R is not app based, but HTML user interface, so there is no latency. I know that it is app-based, so there is lag, but it has MIDAS preamps, and a stereo delay. I am not sure if the XR18 is multiclient. My primary complaint about the UI24R is that the delay is NOT stereo. I have used the UI24R since 2017, and it is rugged, sturdy and consistent. Finally, the UI24R has dbx and lexicon processors in it with extremely clean preamps. The reason for this is so that there is zero cutout or signal pause when switching cues (cues contain effects mixes, fader settings, eq etc.). Additionally, the UI24R has snapshots with cues (snapshots within a snapshot). Further, the UI24R is not app based, but HTML user interface, so there is no latency. This is because the audio interface is not restricted to servicing only one program at a time. This means that you can run Cantabile, and, for example, Ableton backing tracks from the same computer to the UI24R. Mono IEM mixes would be much simpler, admittedly, but I suspect the OP already knows this.The driver for the UI24R is a multiclient driver. IEM monitoring is nothing about hearing what the punters hear, but everything about making the performer comfortable. It's all about the performer being able to focus on and identify the key sources to them. It shows the power of the huge customisability of a cheap DSP mixer.Īnd, of course, there's nothing wrong with wanting a stereo IEM mix with a mono PA. This send won't be line level, of course.Īll this is quite a cludge, and will need some care to be usable, but will achieve *almost* what the OP is after. The 5th *mono* send is more flaky, but workable, configure FX1 (or another FX send) as input/pre-fade and ensure that the bus send is solo'd, then the headphone socket is your 5th send. The master LR mix becomes the 4th stereo send. ![]() Link the 6 aux pairs to provide 3 stereo sends - this is obvious. The reality is that, assuming the XR18 is not being used for FOH (implied but not confirmed, needing a hardware split between monitors & FOH) and that no additional hardware is desired, you can wangle up to 4 (not 5) stereo IEM mixes, with a 5th mono mix. It's great, isn't it, how many of the responses here appear not even to have paid attention to the OP's requirements! ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |