iLive or GLD

Forums Forums GLD Forums GLD general discussions iLive or GLD

This topic contains 29 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of GSLC-Tech GSLC-Tech 7 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35794
    Profile photo of Jason
    Jason
    Participant

    I already posted this in the iLive forume (sorry for the double post), but I thought I might get a different perspective from this forum.

    Our church is building a new sanctuary along with a new PA. We have an AVL integrator that is spec’ing the system. As you might expect, we’re on a relatively tight budget. We had gotten word from the initial proposal that an A&H board had been spec’d, and were under the impression it was an iLive T112 system. Now it’s sounding like they’re spec’ing a GLD 112 system. In our current sanctuary we’ve got a 48 channel A&H GL3800, so 48 channels was kind of our minimum input count. We do relatively large productions at Christmas and Easter, and we’ve come close to maxing out our current board, so the GLD is just minimally meeting our channel count needs.

    Besides I/O counts, what other major differences are there between the iLive and GLD lines? It looks like the iLive has the dynamic EQ and multi-band compressors. Otherwise they seems pretty similarly spec’d. We’d be interested in being able to do virtual sound check and multi-track recording, and it seems like either system would handle that with the addition of a Dante card. We currently use the Aviom system, but we’re considering moving to the ME’s, along with a few wireless IEM’s mixed from FOH (potentially moving to all wireless IEMs direct out of the board without personal mixers down the road… so output counts could become a factor). It also looks like both lines have offline editors/computer interfacing capabilities, as well as multiple iPad apps.

    The A&H boards both seem to represent the best value in their respective market segments. It would appear that the price difference between a 48 channel GLD 112 and a 48 channel iLive T112 isn’t enormous (~$7500 from what I can tell). Trying to decide if it’s worth the fight for the iLive over the GLD?

    #35797
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    I waited to see if there were going to be any other responses. I am a new dealer and considered whether to go with an iLive in addition to the GLD for my own uses. I had worked on a iLive once and went to a training seminar last year. One thing I considered was portability. I wanted something I could move easily. But that aside I looked at all things. I asked on the old forum the differences and basically was told what I expected. If you have the need to ever go above 48 channels then you should consider iLive. Yes there is the dynamics(Dessers), Multiband Comps, larger meters. I do like the angled chassis. Better viewing angles which I DON’T like about GLD. I have asked for a contrast adjustment but that might be a problem if it IS a hardware thing. Almost impossible to read screen and strip LCDs sitting in a normal chair.

    Aside from all that I think the logical choice is the GLD. I recently got a 112 and and 80. Using them together next weekend for a 15hr live TV show to do the on air mix. The 112 in configured for 48input and the 80, 32. I fully feel they will be perfect for the need. Afterwards the 112 is going in a church TV broadcast booth on trial. The GLD’s sound great, love the EQ’s and FX. The verbs are much better than I expected. I have owned real plates, large studio Lexicon verbs and I feel these are about as good as anything I have ever heard. I have not mixed anything live yet so next weekend will be the real test. I plan to start pitching them harder. I have already had several churches over to see the test setup. Everyone is very impressed. It is just amazing how much is crammed into that chassis…I think you will be very happy with it and use that left over money to buy something else…

    George Cumbee
    Mid-America Communications Audio and Video
    Paducah, KY USA
    http://www.midcommav.com

    #35802
    Profile photo of eotsskleet
    eotsskleet
    Participant

    @gcumbee
    i wish you a lot of fun at your 15h event! That sounds like hard work! And i’m interested to hear how it worked!

    @jason
    Actually i would recommend you the GLD-112, i think it’s faster, easier to use and it sounds great! You just have to know that the channel count is fix, so if you ever need more than 48CH you have to use a sub-mixer! With the iLive T112 you have more flexibility! Please check as well the Scene options! I think you can set more options in a iLive System than in a GLD! That may be useful for your application!?

    After ca.50Jobs with my GLD-80 i’ve never experienced problems with the display-angle or the contrast.. maybe i have a better chair than GCumbee ;D However, i love to work with the GLD-80! It’s so fast to work with it in every situation!

    #35810
    Profile photo of BobWitte
    BobWitte
    Participant

    I think the channel count IS your main issue. Our church would have the same issue. While we personally own a GLD80 for our own business, 48 is just not enough too many times a year at our church to warrant renting another aux. mixer along with the complications to the setup. The Church/Integrator are also looking at Yamaha CL series….

    #35811
    Profile photo of Jason
    Jason
    Participant

    Yeah, channel count is the main hang-up for me. I’m pretty sure we could “get by” with 48 channels if we had to, but that would probably mean being a little more sparing with mic’ing the orchestra, or not double-mic’ing a guitar amp, or not returning as many effects back into full channels, etc. Normal week-to-week services we’d definitely be fine with 48 channels… it’s those couple of services each year that we’d be pushing things and not have any room for growth. There are a few other boards that were kind of being considered (including the CLs), but I’m not sure they’re in the budget. The iLive seems like the only one that will go over 48 channels in that kind of price range (maybe the Midas Pro2?).

    #35813
    Profile photo of BobWitte
    BobWitte
    Participant

    I hear you. The CL is only possible since we are doing a major sound upgrade to the entire system with a major fund raising effort, although I personally would rather stay in the A&H realm. We just completed the lighting/video segment of the upgrade.

    Too bad the 112 didn’t have the ability for a “third” AR84….. Now, that would have been sweet (56 channels plus another 4 outputs). But that would have been a major sw/hw issue probably.

    #35814
    Profile photo of Jason
    Jason
    Participant

    One other thing I’ll note is that we’re very interested in the ME personal mixers. We’re currently using the Aviom system, and while it works “OK”, for those bigger services, it would be nice to be able to hear more than 16 channels (without having to do major grouping). I also play on the worship team, and I have to say the blue boxes don’t really sound very good… and I’d love to have channels labelled right on the screen, rather than having to try to read the tiny print on the paper labels we have taped to the Aviom mixers. Do the ME’s work any better/different on the GLD vs the iLive?

    #35815
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    I think it comes down to your budget. In my 40 years I have constantly been up against “if I just had 1 more, 4 more, 8 more. Whether it is tracks in recording or inputs on a sound system. You are going to find a way to use what you have and want more. It will always be that way. So my point is learn to work with what you have. Sometimes less is more. In live orch you don’t always have to have everything mic’d. Especially loud things. Just plan things to work with what you have. I did big orchs and choirs for years with 24 or less. Just something to think about. If the money is there heck buy the biggest you can get :-).

    #35819
    Profile photo of BobWitte
    BobWitte
    Participant

    I agree with do more with less when that is what you have now. But when a Church in this case is making an investment that they will be using for years, that is the time to plan accordingly which is what Jason is doing so that the investment meets their needs for years.

    We are working with a church now that is limited to 32 channels of analog and they are submixing drums to one channel using a small preamp mixer that has no channel EQ. They have the channels available on the mixer for the weekly services, but any special service causes them to use the sub mixer – which finally put them in the mindset to just leave it that way. We will be working with them to get out of that mindset as the drums don’t sound very good, but that is one of the downsides of not enough channels. This also depends on the staff or volunteer folks you have at the Church and their level of expertise.

    Anyways Jason, let us all know what you end up doing and how it progresses and if we have to peak at the ilive forum in the future.

    #35822
    Profile photo of jcarter
    jcarter
    Participant

    Do the ME’s work any better/different on the GLD vs the iLive?

    My understanding is that channel labels are picked up only from a dSnake connection… so GLD channel labels will show up on the ME units but iLive channel labels won’t.

    If you can live with the input count and lack of multi-band compressor, the GLD is the better choice in all other respects. The off-line editor software is much nicer on the GLD in my opinion, and your existing Aviom boxes can go straight into the monitor output of the GLD.

    On the topic of input count–you should note that while a maxed-out GLD has 48 input sockets, there are only 44 mic preamps (the other four channels are a pair of stereo line-level inputs), a little *smaller* than your GL3800. On the other hand, FX returns don’t tie up inputs so depending on your typical deployment of FX you might actually have more usable mic preamps with a GLD.

    If you have something reasonably self-contained like a drama taking up a bunch of channels, it might also work to patch those in through Dante (some newer wireless mics have the option, or buy an analog/Dante converter) since you can change the I/O patching with scene changes. Just an idea if you find yourself needing over 48 channels occasionally but never more than 48 at any one time.

    #35823
    Profile photo of Detonator
    Detonator
    Participant

    Jason-

    To be as delicate as I know how, you need to read the information provided on the AH site that describes the elemental (and significant) differences, both technical and operational, between these models. They are basically different concepts: GLD=processing in the surface, iLive=processing in the mixrack. To make a fair comparison, T112/idr48 equals GLD112 plus 2x24channel stage boxes. I wouldn’t want to deprive you of the joy of discovery, so I leave you to ascertain the corresponding features of these two possibilities. Suffice it to say, you will not need to tie up input channels to return effects…

    Respectfully,
    Tim Tyler

    #35824
    Profile photo of Jason
    Jason
    Participant

    One of the things that annoys me a bit right now is that we have a 48 channel board, but because we don’t want to have to re-patch stuff all the time, we end up unnecessarily limiting ourselves. We leave a bunch of wireless mics and un-used vocal mics plugged in “in case we need them”, while at the same time limiting the number of drum mics we’re using (or not running keyboards in stereo, etc) because we don’t have room on the board. If nothing else, having 64+ inputs would allow us to leave everything plugged in, and just build appropriate shows/layers with what we’re actually using that week. Similarly, we only run one reverb and one delay unit, because we don’t have enough aux sends/returns (3 are wasted on stage monitor sends that never get used, others are used to sub mix stuff to send to the Avioms). So while we could “get by” with the GLD, I’m also fairly certain we’d find useful ways to put the extra inputs and outputs to use on an iLive.

    My main concern outside of the I/O was whether there were significant sound quality and usability differences between the GLD and iLive lines. Seems like the feature sets is very comparable. In my mind it seems like the GLD ought to have some other limitations, as it is built to a lower price point. However, I guess the iLive line is several years older, so maybe the price of technology has just come down in that time and fewer quality sacrifices had to be made to the GLD line to meet the price point. Speaking of which… are there any substantiated rumors that an updated iLive line may be coming out soon? Would kind of stink for a new system to come out right after we purchased the older one.

    #35825
    Profile photo of Jason
    Jason
    Participant

    @detonator – I have read all of the info on the A&H site and watched pretty much all of the training videos for both platforms. It’s pretty easy to see what the “features” are on paper – I wasn’t sure if out in the real world one was significantly better than the other. Sounds like the GLD *may* actually be nicer to work on – I gather faster boot times, maybe faster scene changes, faster navigation on screen, better feeling build quality, nicer offline editor, etc.

    Is it possible to have more than 48 inputs on a GLD system? I know some other companies will allow considerably more inputs, but you can only mix a subset of them. That might be a possibility for us – if we could have say 64 physical inputs but only mix 48, that could be a possibility (especially if the inputs being used could be swapped with scene changes). From what I remember, it seemed like the GLD architecture is very “fixed” – (1) AR2412 and (2) AR84. Are there any additional capabilities beyond that (aside from getting inputs from Dante elsewhere)?

    #35827
    Profile photo of BobWitte
    BobWitte
    Participant

    Just Dante or elsewhere. dSnake has “fixed” capability as far as what has been discussed in the forums. Otherwise the 112 would have leveraged any additional capability. Dante is very flexible though with various interfaces becoming available from many mfg. Shure for example has wireless units that work directly on the Dante network.

    The trick would be to manage all of the additional inputs as you switch scenes or “programs”? I am not well enough versed if in scenes you can reconfigure the IO – might not be able too.

    #35828
    Profile photo of Detonator
    Detonator
    Participant

    Jason –
    Do you need/want a digital snake or are you going to stick with copper? How many returns will you need? Will you be mixing monitors from FOH at any time? Will the system be moved occasionally? How many channels do you REALLY need? I’ve never needed more than 44 channels for a single event in the last 30+ years… If you need a high channel count, the idr64 will be “future-proofed” in that regard (the T112 is only a surface, any mixrack can be used).

    Things such as sound quality, ease of use, fx, eq, etc. can be highly subjective and vary depending on application, venue and so forth. I have only used the iLive-T systems, so I can’t speak to these attributes on the GLD, I doubt any difference would be significant enough to be a deal breaker. I’ve been fully pleased with the iLive-T performance. Either system is a large step up from the GL3800.

    Regards,
    -Tim Tyler

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.