Author Topic: DL1608 vs. DL16S  (Read 803 times)

WK154

  • Door #3
  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: Valencia CA
  • Posts: 2141
DL1608 vs. DL16S
« on: September 15, 2018, 07:05:46 PM »
I should have compared the DL1608 to the "New" DL16S instead of the XR18, my bad. Let's see what is new and exciting with the DL16S that's not on the DL1608. The clear and obvious difference of course is the form factor. The DL16S is a stage box not a desktop. Then the preamps are totally digitally controlled. For me that was never a problem since I don't mix adjusting preamp levels once setup along with the recall ability (mics seem to keep moving position). The small digital adjustment was more than sufficient. The universal phantom power 48V is finally gone. So  there is also the recording/playback of individual channels, instead of just stereo, with a external computer via USB. Then there is the addition of internal WiFi for  practice, certainly not for serious work. The internal power supply is a welcome change except for those running off batteries like me  :(. The biggest change however is the multi-platform MF additions. Although they are the same for both units except for new hardware controls not available on the DL1608 (Preamps, Phantom Power, Recording, form factor). If any of these tickle your fancy then by all means upgrade but don't throw your router away. Don't forget to upgrade your iPad (three or lower won't work) or trade it in for two new Android tabs.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2018, 04:24:00 AM by WK154 »
When in doubt KISS

ToH2002

  • Padawan
  • ***
  • Location:
  • Posts: 56
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2018, 09:21:23 PM »
Personally, I really welcome the fully digital preamps - always found it a nuisance to have to run back and forth between stage and my mixing position during sound check when adapting gain levels. With the DL32R, I can do everything from one spot.

Once I had the preamps set on my DL1608, I usually took a photo and stored it along the channel list in my notes for any repeat exercise with that band. But usually, for any next gig, there were new microphones or another change of equipment that required re-doing the gain setting procedure...


ToH2002

  • Padawan
  • ***
  • Location:
  • Posts: 56
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2018, 09:25:49 PM »
Then there is the addition of internal WiFi for  practice, certainly not for serious work.
ī

Do you have any further data on the internal WiFi to add to this cautionary note? Certainly for large locations it makes sense to have specialized WiFi setups that are optimized to do the job no matter what, but for the average club gig, a run-of-the-mill WiFi card should be able to do the job, no?

Cheers,

Torsten

WK154

  • Door #3
  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: Valencia CA
  • Posts: 2141
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2018, 12:11:00 AM »
First you may want to update your location on this site.
It would always depend on your clients. I would say that an older crowd would not be a problem but the new generation leaves you with a crap shoot.
Cheers
When in doubt KISS

ToH2002

  • Padawan
  • ***
  • Location:
  • Posts: 56
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2018, 02:32:52 PM »
Not sure what sharing my location has to do with this topic - maybe I don't want to? Should be my choice, right?

Still don't understand your answer: "a new generation leaves you with a crap shoot" - do you mean that younger people will try to break into the WiFi? Are there any security weaknesses in Mackie's WiFi implementation that you know of? Or is it more sensitive to a high number of smartphones trying to connect to it?

I'd really like to understand your comment, but at the moment it's just a vague statement promoting FUD...

Cheers,

Torsten

WK154

  • Door #3
  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: Valencia CA
  • Posts: 2141
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2018, 08:02:46 PM »
The key word is "may" (your choice). Demographics helps understand viewpoints nothing more. Do you have something to hide? As to "FUD" and IBM incarnation I would consider it more "experience"on my part. Yes the younger crowd will find it more challenging to affect your performance (also experience). I think the word would be "RESPECT" or lack thereof.

P.O.S I have no Mackie insight other than what they advertise or I can determine from the product that I own. So NO I have no security or other info until they publish it.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 10:50:36 PM by WK154 »
When in doubt KISS

ToH2002

  • Padawan
  • ***
  • Location:
  • Posts: 56
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2018, 10:33:07 PM »
Do you have something to hide? [...]

As to "FUD" and IBM incarnation I would consider it more "experience"on my part. Yes the younger crowd will find it more challenging to affect your performance (also experience). I think the word would be "RESPECT" or lack thereof.

Gaaah - always that same argument towards people who value a certain bit of data privacy: "do you have something to hide"? I'm not going to dignify this with an answer...

Now to the younger crowd "who will find it more challenging to affect your performance". Just to understand your statement: are you advocating to not use wifi-controlled mixers when there are young crowds around? Or are you advocating to use more hardened dedicated Wifi solutions that will not be as easily affected than the built-in cards of some of the current mixing solutions?

Still want to understand why you consider Mackie's  built-in Wifi solution only applicable to rehearsals - you remain vague about this...

robbocurry

  • Optimist Prime
  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: United Kingdom
  • Posts: 649
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2018, 06:26:31 AM »
Different regions use different WiFi setups, perhaps that has some bearing here as to your location request?
Iíve a notion that EU countries have regulations enforcing lower output WiFi signals.
Your own external router may be better than the one installed in the unit - if only for the ability to place it in a more favourable position to enhance coverage. Third party router easily changed to new standards or your preferences. Built in one probably ok if youíre not mixing from big distances. Havenít used it so canít be sure.
The demographic of the audience?
Younger crowd perhaps = more smartphones which perhaps = more WiFi interference or login attempts?
Easily dealt with using basic WiFi security and setup.
Been running on WiFi since the dl first came out. Been using it plus A&H and B*****ger all via WiFi. Literally 100s of gigs and never had a WiFi hack. I wouldnít worry about it.
The older I get, the better I was!

WK154

  • Door #3
  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: Valencia CA
  • Posts: 2141
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2018, 06:54:48 PM »
It's been a while welcome back. It' been my experience as well on security, not even an attempt. Traffic however is another story. WiFi unlike Bluetooth was never really meant for high traffic rates.
When in doubt KISS

Wynnd

  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: Denver Co.
  • Posts: 1248
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2018, 05:25:47 AM »
This page left blank intentionally.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 05:34:39 AM by Wynnd »

WK154

  • Door #3
  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: Valencia CA
  • Posts: 2141
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2018, 05:34:45 PM »
As I looked at the DL32R disk record function which is rather crippled (no delete of song via MF) I realized that the DL16S/DL32s also dropped the 44.1k selection that's in the DL1608 to just 48k. Need their manual to see if the delete is also dropped. Nothing like having to convert your CD library to 48k  :( for DL16S/DL32S playback. One step forward (DL1608) and two steps back (DL16S/DL32S). ::)
When in doubt KISS

James91104

  • Knight
  • ****
  • Location:
  • Posts: 142
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2018, 07:52:37 AM »
Hi ya all. Been a bit since i have last chimed in. Excuse me if I may have missed the obvious, but is there no built-in USB Wav. stereo Record/Playback facilities on these two new products, 16/32S ?

WK154

  • Door #3
  • Master
  • *****
  • Location: Valencia CA
  • Posts: 2141
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2018, 02:02:50 PM »
Not sure what you consider "build in" but there is a USB B connector which requires a computer to provide record/playback up to the max channel count.
When in doubt KISS

ToH2002

  • Padawan
  • ***
  • Location:
  • Posts: 56
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2018, 06:47:17 PM »
Excuse me if I may have missed the obvious, but is there no built-in USB Wav. stereo Record/Playback facilities on these two new products, 16/32S ?

No, the new mixers only provide 16/32 track USB output and input (like an audio interface). You'll need a DAW like Cubase / Logic / Reaper or a dedicated recording app like Tracks Live or Nuendo Live to record your performances.

Cheers,

Torsten

James91104

  • Knight
  • ****
  • Location:
  • Posts: 142
Re: DL1608 vs. DL16S
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2018, 11:17:05 PM »
No on board stereo record/playback facility, as per what would be the adopted industry method via USB A port ? Pity.
To be fair, i have the same sentiment about the similarly equipped MG XR/MR18 products lacking a record/playback USB A port.
I currently and have made regular use of the stereo wave recording feature via a docked gen1/2 iPad DL1608 mixer, and admittedly as clumsy an import/export method as it is, ultimately proves effective for the intended purpose that one just comes to adjust to and live with, IME.
Pity the lack of channel 17/18 stereo ins as well. At least stereo playback tracks are currently available with a docked ipad on the DL1608.
Overall specs add up to be an unlikely contender for any current or possible deployment in my world and orbit. The additions are eclipsed by the omissions, IMO.