There’s a few good threads here about Xone 96 being used for synths/Ableton/studio use,etc.
3 Likes
Seems like the PX5 takes the place of the DB4. Indeed, the DB4 looks phenomenal.
1 Like
What are you using for performance nowadays? The Bix Six?
The PX5 is a bit more limited than the 96 correct?
Also for anyone reading this that knows.
If I buy a xone96, is there anything specific to be aware of?
Is a certain particular version better or worse?
Older one vs newer one?
96 vs PX5 (correct me if I’m wrong):
2 stereo sends vs 1
2 filters vs 1
2 usb vs 1
No fx vs built in fx
2 Likes
^^ that plus
8 stereo tracks vs 5
4 band eq vs 3
2 headphone outs vs 1
I’m probably forgetting something.
1 Like
So the PX 5 has half the stuff, or the 96?
I was under the impression the 96 had more to offer as far as sends, filters etc
What are the main differences between the 92 & 96?
96 has much more than the PX5, except it doesn’t have built-in FX.
Mr. Mech did a great comparison of the 92 vs 96 on his YT channel 
2 Likes
Excellent. That’s what I thought.
My Octatrack is my main FX box.
I’m personally just looking for a nice way to send stuff to it easily, post eq.
The 96 is basically the new(upgraded) version of the 92
1 Like
Tried to switch to the 96 last year but recently decided to go back to the db4. The only downside is I have to take it with me. And I came to realize that it’s worth it 
Also have this deep dive vid on 96.
Yeah imho 96 is a better version of the 92 in pretty much every way.
2 Likes
Definitely watching this tonight
1 Like
Using a combination of Xone:96 and DB4 here. 96 taking signals from Akai Force and Maschine+ over USB, add. synths and send effects. Headphone cues acting as “group outs/inserts” into DB4 which is then the final performance mixer/looper/fx.
Tried all kind of mixers in the past, as mentioned the Korg Zero 8 and Xone:464 were pretty close to being perfect mixers but the combination now gives me all I need. Only downside – it’s not really compact anymore.
2 Likes
I like that attempt tho.
Sometimes you gotta push things really far to feel out what you actually need, then dial it back down to streamline it
The only downside is - its heavy, and its getting hot over time. But i think with analog signal path, there was no alternative to that. (hot /heavy)
I personally wouldnt mind a digital mixer half of its size with a quarter of its weight. Not sure if that is possible anyway, the QuPac is also 11 Kg.
1 Like
Absolutely agree with this.
Had one and changed it for a MODEL1 due to the lack of stable drivers. The on-board fx on the DB4 as well as the looper per channel and the matrix routing were stellar but it was unusable as a sound card. Also had a bad experience with the MODEL1.
Then went on with a MIDAS Venice 160.
I am now recording everything L/R stereo.
Will reconsider a physical mixer when needed
3 Likes
Allen & Heath WZ20S?
doesn’t meet a lot of your other needs though, and they’re not made anymore/difficult to find.
5 Likes
I use the SSL Six with a VLZ as a Submixer. Routing is very flexible. Thought about the BigSix a minute but hesitated because of size and flexibility going forward. The little Six is perfect for my desk space I send stuff to my Octatrack and record the Bus B to my DAW.
1 Like
Soundcraft Spirit FX16 / FX16 II also came to my mind, I happen to also have one and it is really great, though there is only one sub group and all 3 AUX channels are only mono…
But the biggest issue with these fellas is their immense size and weight