|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 6, 2021 23:56:22 GMT -6
Ok, this is a hard post because I actually really love the X4. This thing has given me everything I need and I've kind of grown attached to it. Just a really well designed piece of hardware.
However, it has some limitations and the 500ADAT that I picked up is simply incredible. Which has got me wondering, would it be the worst idea to add a 500r8 as my primary interface? I could get $1600 or so on Reverb (I think) for my mint X4 which would pay for the 500r8 with some spare change towards the needed modules. Here's my logic.
REASONS TO DO IT
- I'm using fewer UAD plugins now and I already have a Satellite Quad which I think will suffice for my needs.
- After doing some analog summing using the 500ADAT, I am totally on the analog summing train. I was a huge skeptic here but, no, this is a real phenomenon and I like it.
- It would be nice to be able to sum more than 8 channels. I'm a big bus-mix type of guy and my normal workflow would typically use 10 channels. (4 stereo and 2 mono) or more. Not the world's hugest deal as I can accomplish the same through printing but it sure would be nice to just mix it all right there.
- The limited outs on the x4 mean that I have to get a bit more creative than I'd like to patching rack gear. There are only six outs total (including monitors) so I'm often patching out my second set of monitors to get more analog outs. Pretty annoying when I need to do it.
- The CAST system is awesome. Having more of it would be awesome. I'm in a 15x11 room primarily but using the Cat 5 cable runs that CAST gives me it's been really easy to setup makeshift amp rooms and scratch vocal booths in various other parts of my house. Loving this.
- While I make use of the Unison pres and I like printing as I go with the Apollo, I would have no problem finding 500 series strips and pres to replace these. The only thing I think I'd miss is tracking with the VoxBox but I'm doing that less and less these days anyway. As I'm using fewer UAD plugs, I can get away with putting the VoxBox on later without crushing my DSP.
- Included MIDI is quite nice.
- Extra ADAT would get used. Currently I swap between my 500ADAT and my 4-710 since I only have one ADAT out/in. This would allow me to keep both setup all the time which is arguably the biggest "Pro" on this list.
REASONS TO STAY PUT
- First the emotional one (again)... I have grown really attached to this X4. There's enough change in life, shouldn't some things remain? Ok, dumb reason I know.
- Change is a PITA at times. My setup is working quite smoothly now. New setups always mean new troubleshooting even if I can't figure out what those troubles would be. They'll be there.
- When I just need to fire up a low priority track, there is nothing better/faster than just flipping on the Apollo, dialing through my Unison pres and getting that tambourine/shaker/scratch idea/etc down. There is something to be said for that.
- The monitor control knob is really great. Yes I know, there are similar knobs for less than $2k but still, it's fantastic.
- I've got tons of workflows in Console that I would have to replace in Studio One or Logic. Not a huge deal I guess but I actually am one of those who likes Console. Replacing these with hardware "templates" would be a fun process but is certainly not as convenient as pulling up the "acoustic/bass/vocal" template.
- The Apollo is quite compact of course. Now, my particular unit is a bit less flexible since I'm using literally every single input/output all the time (you'd be surprised how hard it can be to reposition a little box with 18 cables sticking out of it, or maybe you wouldn't) but the desk footprint is a real plus.
SUMMARY?
I don't know, writing this list out is making me lean towards staying put. But I'm still curious what you guys think and whether any of you have had similar thoughts. Also, is anyone else using the Cranborne 500ADAT? It's awesome, you should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Jun 7, 2021 0:49:33 GMT -6
Why not just get another 500adat and use the cat5 to slave to the original one? Can the X4 handle two Adat light pipe connections?
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 6:30:03 GMT -6
Why not just get another 500adat and use the cat5 to slave to the original one? Can the X4 handle two Adat light pipe connections? That’s the problem. X4 only has one ADAT in and one out. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 7, 2021 6:58:23 GMT -6
Uh, tough question.
Have you gathered enough information about the Cranborne drivers and stability. As you said, you have a rock solid rig, so any change should be for something that will not give you a headache.
At the same time, you sound much more atracted to the analog workflow, with 500 series and summing, and less atracted to the Apollo digital workflow. And if you have more DSP than you need, and you can keep the amount you need selling an Apollo, that's a big reason to not stay with the UA interface imo. Well, that's what got me to sell mine and change.
Also, the x4 seems small for your needs even now, so that'll just be a bigger problem going forward.
My recommendation would be to get a bigger interface from the usual suspects. Something with more analog ins and outs, and 2 pairs of ADAT connections. I would say that an Apollo x8, MOTU 828es, Lynx Aurora or Apogge Symphony would be a great fit for you. And then maybe get another 500adat for the sonic wuality you are after.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 7, 2021 8:12:08 GMT -6
I don't know how big of a player Cranborne is, but I don't think they've been around long. I'd personally go with something tried and true for longer term support.
|
|
|
|
Post by deaconblues on Jun 7, 2021 8:44:18 GMT -6
I love my 500ADAT and I love my Apollo x4, so in a similar boat as I may be expanding my studio capabilities over the next year.
I’ve been considering saving up and adding an R8 for more i/o, more summing/live mixing, and more 500 slots. So rather than ditching the Apollo and losing unison pre’s I can just make a large aggregate device using OSX’s audio midi setup. Seems like a similar setup might help out your adat situation as you could quit having to pick between where your apollo’s adat connection is plugged.
But I’ll be honest, I’m not very far into thinking about it myself and not sure what the limitations would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jun 7, 2021 8:44:32 GMT -6
I'd probably stay with a big name too. MOTU, RME, Apogee, Focusrite, so on, and etc.
If this thing's not moving around all the time, I see no reason to keep a desktop interface, get something big with lots of I/O.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 8:51:47 GMT -6
I don't know how big of a player Cranborne is, but I don't think they've been around long. I'd personally go with something tried and true for longer term support. Both you and phantom make a good point there. Is the question really that I want more I/O or is it more that I want more I/O and another 500 chassis? I think the answer is kind of the latter plus the ability to do analog summing on 16 channels instead of just the 8 I can do with the 500ADAT. But looking at the MOTU 828es there's a great case to be made there. It checks the I/O boxes very nicely in a relatively low risk way. But man, the versatility of the Cranbornes is so appealing. I feel like the knock on the MOTU's used to be that the accompanying routing software is a bit clunky. Anyone actually use the built in mixer? I find these things hard to judge without using them as 1) reviewers are typically glowing on everything 2) forum complainers typically don't take the time to learn how to use the stuff right before saying it sucks and 3) EVERY system's routing software is kind of clunky. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 8:53:17 GMT -6
I'd probably stay with a big name too. MOTU, RME, Apogee, Focusrite, so on, and etc. If this thing's not moving around all the time, I see no reason to keep a desktop interface, get something big with lots of I/O. Right, it's not. Classic case of what I "thought" I would be doing with my setup versus what I'm actually doing. I'm going to be swapping out my MBP for the Mini at some point for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 8:55:16 GMT -6
I love my 500ADAT and I love my Apollo x4, so in a similar boat as I may be expanding my studio capabilities over the next year. I’ve been considering saving up and adding an R8 for more i/o, more summing/live mixing, and more 500 slots. So rather than ditching the Apollo and losing unison pre’s I can just make a large aggregate device using OSX’s audio midi setup. Seems like a similar setup might help out your adat situation as you could quit having to pick between where your apollo’s adat connection is plugged. But I’ll be honest, I’m not very far into thinking about it myself and not sure what the limitations would be. Same setup, nice. So you kind of see what I'm saying, right? There's really something sort of, I don't know... elegant? about the combo. I like how each piece can be used in so many different ways. If only the stupid X4 had more ADAT capability. |
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Jun 7, 2021 9:15:24 GMT -6
Do you use UA’s Console to track with and/or do you use LUNA? That would be a deciding factor for me. I am leaving UA because they no longer support USB and I don’t really use that many of the plug ins other than the reverbs. . Since I would have had to buy a new computer AND a new interface to increase I/O on the Apollo platform, I decided to go with a MOTU 828es. You can use it as an interface only if you don’t like the routing.
|
|
|
|
Post by deaconblues on Jun 7, 2021 9:28:04 GMT -6
I think staying in both ecosystems (UA & Cranborne) is the best approach for myself. When it really comes down to it, the money spent on the interface/chassis is much lower ticket than a 8(!) more 500 units. So in that way getting something that handles interfacing AND (highly routable) 500 units (with inserts) AND summing AND the whole CAST system extendability is a much better bargain for someone wanting to stick with a hybrid setup whose analog gear continues to expand...my 500ADAT works flawlessly, as does my EC2 over CAST. It's really changed the quality and workflow of my projects. I'm putting my money on the guys with the new ideas, elegant executions, and good customer support. I also say: if something works for you and is keeping you productive, follow that wherever it leads and solve problems down the road as they appear. There's only so much planning you can do without it becoming paralysis. I've owned hardware that got end-of-life'd too early, and I still have found a way to use it for another 20 years. Shrug. I've also invested in decent patchbays and cabling as I've expanded my studio, and that's really multiplied the usefulness of the Cranborne & Apollo with my other hardware and software gear...something to keep in mind when budgeting. I wrote Cranborne a while back when I wanted to figure out how extendable my 500ADAT would be if my studio kept growing, and they sent this image showing how far you can take it...Kind of a brainf*!$ck, no?  |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 9:30:52 GMT -6
Do you use UA’s Console to track with and/or do you use LUNA? That would be a deciding factor for me. I am leaving UA because they no longer support USB and I don’t really use that many of the plug ins other than the reverbs. . Since I would have had to buy a new computer AND a new interface to increase I/O on the Apollo platform, I decided to go with a MOTU 828es. You can use it as an interface only if you don’t like the routing. I use Console. Haven't gotten into Luna. I love Studio One for its integration with Faderport 16 and the fact that it just seems to make 100 things like 1 minute faster. So yeah, Studio One and Logic for me. No Luna until they have Hardware support and Controller support. I wear out the faders on the FP16. Couldn't imagine mixing without it at this point. But I do like Console. |
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Jun 7, 2021 9:33:31 GMT -6
Studio One has a really good cue mix so you could track through it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 9:34:15 GMT -6
I think staying in both ecosystems (UA & Cranborne) is the best approach for myself. When it really comes down to it, the money spent on the interface/chassis is much lower ticket than a 8(!) more 500 units. So in that way getting something that handles interfacing AND (highly routable) 500 units (with inserts) AND summing AND the whole CAST system extendability is a much better bargain for someone wanting to stick with a hybrid setup whose analog gear continues to expand...my 500ADAT works flawlessly, as does my EC2 over CAST. It's really changed the quality and workflow of my projects. I'm putting my money on the guys with the new ideas, elegant executions, and good customer support. I also say: if something works for you and is keeping you productive, follow that wherever it leads and solve problems down the road as they appear. There's only so much planning you can do without it becoming paralysis. I've owned hardware that got end-of-life'd too early, and I still have found a way to use it for another 20 years. Shrug. I've also invested in decent patchbays and cabling as I've expanded my studio, and that's really multiplied the usefulness of the Cranborne & Apollo with my other hardware and software gear...something to keep in mind when budgeting. I wrote Cranborne a while back when I wanted to figure out how extendable my 500ADAT would be if my studio kept growing, and they sent this image showing how far you can take it...Kind of a brainf*!$ck, no? View Attachment You and I clearly the target market for Cranborne. I could have written most of this post. And so far, their support has been awesome. I just email them a question and they email me the answer, can't beat that. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 7, 2021 9:39:10 GMT -6
I don't know how big of a player Cranborne is, but I don't think they've been around long. I'd personally go with something tried and true for longer term support. Both you and phantom make a good point there. Is the question really that I want more I/O or is it more that I want more I/O and another 500 chassis? I think the answer is kind of the latter plus the ability to do analog summing on 16 channels instead of just the 8 I can do with the 500ADAT. But looking at the MOTU 828es there's a great case to be made there. It checks the I/O boxes very nicely in a relatively low risk way. But man, the versatility of the Cranbornes is so appealing. I feel like the knock on the MOTU's used to be that the accompanying routing software is a bit clunky. Anyone actually use the built in mixer? I find these things hard to judge without using them as 1) reviewers are typically glowing on everything 2) forum complainers typically don't take the time to learn how to use the stuff right before saying it sucks and 3) EVERY system's routing software is kind of clunky. The MOTU grid is very versatile specially for the kind of hybrid/analog workflow you are approaching. I have nothing bad to say about it. After the first day of using it and searching on google somethings, I think I can get it configured better than RME Totalmix and UAD Console. I really don't understand why that is a con for some people. In my opinion what you really need is an interface with more I/Os and a good amount of ADAT channels. The MOTU is a great option because you'll ended having a lot more money to invest in other equipments you already want, like another Cranborne. But at the same time, lots of other interfaces you'll get you the same result. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 9:44:09 GMT -6
Has anyone ever actually tried using an aggregate device on their Mac OS with any success? Maybe I'm just traumatized from the early days of digital but this seems like a recipe for disaster and I can't find many examples on the forums of people actually doing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by deaconblues on Jun 7, 2021 13:00:34 GMT -6
Yeah, it's been a while, but I've done it. Played a couple of shows with that setup and no hiccups.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 7, 2021 15:16:42 GMT -6
I wouldn't throw all my eggs in one basket. Seperate racks and converters would be my choice and only adat if it's a problem solver.
The jlm and radial racks have excellent routing options built in.
If using a desktop setup I'd go aes connection every day of the week and get as many channels in my main unit as needed.
For laptop while expensive it would be the lynx (n)
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107 
|
Post by ericn on Jun 7, 2021 15:44:30 GMT -6
If I were going to change interface I don’t think the 500 rack would be the way to go. Very small manufacturer and limited I/O would be the deal breakers for me. I want something I can count on for new drivers and as the centerpiece something I can grow with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 7, 2021 16:02:28 GMT -6
I don't know how big of a player Cranborne is, but I don't think they've been around long. I'd personally go with something tried and true for longer term support. Both you and phantom make a good point there. Is the question really that I want more I/O or is it more that I want more I/O and another 500 chassis? I think the answer is kind of the latter plus the ability to do analog summing on 16 channels instead of just the 8 I can do with the 500ADAT. But looking at the MOTU 828es there's a great case to be made there. It checks the I/O boxes very nicely in a relatively low risk way. But man, the versatility of the Cranbornes is so appealing. I feel like the knock on the MOTU's used to be that the accompanying routing software is a bit clunky. Anyone actually use the built in mixer? I find these things hard to judge without using them as 1) reviewers are typically glowing on everything 2) forum complainers typically don't take the time to learn how to use the stuff right before saying it sucks and 3) EVERY system's routing software is kind of clunky. I think the Cranbornes look awesome, almost pulled the trigger on one of their chassis my self. I think one Pro is that hardware tends to last a long time, even if it’s from a small company, and the people behind it have been in the business along time. I’m always reluctant to get into a proprietary eco system like UAD, Console and Luna. I own a UAD card with lots of plugins but haven’t bought any new plugs in years because I may have to ditch the UAD thing when I get a new computer (mine is the older pcie card). Obsolescence is the risk of lots of software systems like that. Whereas hardware tends to work for a long time. My VP28 will still sound awesome in 20 years, ya know? Regarding the Motu. I have a Motu Ultralite AVB and 16a. They’re great. The mixer works great but I do wish the built in reverb sounded nicer. The routing is incredibly powerful. But it’s confusing when you first use it. I think the reason so many of us have found it clunky is because it isn’t setup like a traditional audio mixer. Once I got that idea out of my head, and realized that the routing matrix is more a computer networking matrix it made way more sense. Basically you have to assign the hardware I/O to virtual I/O and from there you make virtual routing connections and busses. Once you wrap your head around it you can create a template, save it, and never really have to worry about it again. Also, with the analog flexibility of the Cranborne you could probably simplify the virtual Motu routing greatly. My vote is for Cranborne...but full disclosure, I say that because I’m trying to live vicariously through you right now lol. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jun 7, 2021 16:31:47 GMT -6
Both you and phantom make a good point there. Is the question really that I want more I/O or is it more that I want more I/O and another 500 chassis? I think the answer is kind of the latter plus the ability to do analog summing on 16 channels instead of just the 8 I can do with the 500ADAT. But looking at the MOTU 828es there's a great case to be made there. It checks the I/O boxes very nicely in a relatively low risk way. But man, the versatility of the Cranbornes is so appealing. I feel like the knock on the MOTU's used to be that the accompanying routing software is a bit clunky. Anyone actually use the built in mixer? I find these things hard to judge without using them as 1) reviewers are typically glowing on everything 2) forum complainers typically don't take the time to learn how to use the stuff right before saying it sucks and 3) EVERY system's routing software is kind of clunky. I think the Cranbornes look awesome, almost pulled the trigger on one of their chassis my self. I think one Pro is that hardware tends to last a long time, even if it’s from a small company, and the people behind it have been in the business along time. I’m always reluctant to get into a proprietary eco system like UAD, Console and Luna. I own a UAD card with lots of plugins but haven’t bought any new plugs in years because I may have to ditch the UAD thing when I get a new computer (mine is the older pcie card). Obsolescence is the risk of lots of software systems like that. Whereas hardware tends to work for a long time. My VP28 will still sound awesome in 20 years, ya know? Regarding the Motu. I have a Motu Ultralite AVB and 16a. They’re great. The mixer works great but I do wish the built in reverb sounded nicer. The routing is incredibly powerful. But it’s confusing when you first use it. I think the reason so many of us have found it clunky is because it isn’t setup like a traditional audio mixer. Once I got that idea out of my head, and realized that the routing matrix is more a computer networking matrix it made way more sense. Basically you have to assign the hardware I/O to virtual I/O and from there you make virtual routing connections and busses. Once you wrap your head around it you can create a template, save it, and never really have to worry about it again. Also, with the analog flexibility of the Cranborne you could probably simplify the virtual Motu routing greatly. My vote is for Cranborne...but full disclosure, I say that because I’m trying to live vicariously through you right now lol. Haha. I mean, it’s definitely the “fun” choice. Whether it’s the smart choice is debatable. Also Gouge, I’m on a laptop and next upgrade there will be Mac Mini m1x down the line, so I’m limited to TB or USB. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Jun 7, 2021 16:39:01 GMT -6
Both you and phantom make a good point there. Is the question really that I want more I/O or is it more that I want more I/O and another 500 chassis? I think the answer is kind of the latter plus the ability to do analog summing on 16 channels instead of just the 8 I can do with the 500ADAT. But looking at the MOTU 828es there's a great case to be made there. It checks the I/O boxes very nicely in a relatively low risk way. But man, the versatility of the Cranbornes is so appealing. I feel like the knock on the MOTU's used to be that the accompanying routing software is a bit clunky. Anyone actually use the built in mixer? I find these things hard to judge without using them as 1) reviewers are typically glowing on everything 2) forum complainers typically don't take the time to learn how to use the stuff right before saying it sucks and 3) EVERY system's routing software is kind of clunky. I think the Cranbornes look awesome, almost pulled the trigger on one of their chassis my self. I think one Pro is that hardware tends to last a long time, even if it’s from a small company, and the people behind it have been in the business along time. I’m always reluctant to get into a proprietary eco system like UAD, Console and Luna. I own a UAD card with lots of plugins but haven’t bought any new plugs in years because I may have to ditch the UAD thing when I get a new computer (mine is the older pcie card). Obsolescence is the risk of lots of software systems like that. Whereas hardware tends to work for a long time. My VP28 will still sound awesome in 20 years, ya know? Regarding the Motu. I have a Motu Ultralite AVB and 16a. They’re great. The mixer works great but I do wish the built in reverb sounded nicer. The routing is incredibly powerful. But it’s confusing when you first use it. I think the reason so many of us have found it clunky is because it isn’t setup like a traditional audio mixer. Once I got that idea out of my head, and realized that the routing matrix is more a computer networking matrix it made way more sense. Basically you have to assign the hardware I/O to virtual I/O and from there you make virtual routing connections and busses. Once you wrap your head around it you can create a template, save it, and never really have to worry about it again. Also, with the analog flexibility of the Cranborne you could probably simplify the virtual Motu routing greatly. My vote is for Cranborne...but full disclosure, I say that because I’m trying to live vicariously through you right now lol. But unlike most compressors, EQ, Mic pre ect an interface is software dependent. Small companies who do not derive the majority of their business via software dependent gear are notorious for poor support. What always scares me is when you start doing some deep digging you find that they either farmed out the software work and that company no longer exists, their was one guy who wrote code and left or they just abandon the product. Seen it way to many times and I would always try to be the nice guy and cut a deal for the guy who was abandoned by the manufacturer. For manufacturer it’s easy to abandon you, I mean how many times has Apple done it, wait I have a shelf in storage that has most of my macs going back to my 9600! |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 7, 2021 17:05:58 GMT -6
I think the Cranbornes look awesome, almost pulled the trigger on one of their chassis my self. I think one Pro is that hardware tends to last a long time, even if it’s from a small company, and the people behind it have been in the business along time. I’m always reluctant to get into a proprietary eco system like UAD, Console and Luna. I own a UAD card with lots of plugins but haven’t bought any new plugs in years because I may have to ditch the UAD thing when I get a new computer (mine is the older pcie card). Obsolescence is the risk of lots of software systems like that. Whereas hardware tends to work for a long time. My VP28 will still sound awesome in 20 years, ya know? Regarding the Motu. I have a Motu Ultralite AVB and 16a. They’re great. The mixer works great but I do wish the built in reverb sounded nicer. The routing is incredibly powerful. But it’s confusing when you first use it. I think the reason so many of us have found it clunky is because it isn’t setup like a traditional audio mixer. Once I got that idea out of my head, and realized that the routing matrix is more a computer networking matrix it made way more sense. Basically you have to assign the hardware I/O to virtual I/O and from there you make virtual routing connections and busses. Once you wrap your head around it you can create a template, save it, and never really have to worry about it again. Also, with the analog flexibility of the Cranborne you could probably simplify the virtual Motu routing greatly. My vote is for Cranborne...but full disclosure, I say that because I’m trying to live vicariously through you right now lol. But unlike most compressors, EQ, Mic pre ect an interface is software dependent. Small companies who do not derive the majority of their business via software dependent gear are notorious for poor support. What always scares me is when you start doing some deep digging you find that they either farmed out the software work and that company no longer exists, their was one guy who wrote code and left or they just abandon the product. Seen it way to many times and I would always try to be the nice guy and cut a deal for the guy who was abandoned by the manufacturer. For manufacturer it’s easy to abandon you, I mean how many times has Apple done it, wait I have a shelf in storage that has most of my macs going back to my 9600! yeah you make a good point but isn’t the Cranborne capable of the same I/o routing via adat as with USB? I don’t remember but thought so. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Jun 7, 2021 18:11:45 GMT -6
But unlike most compressors, EQ, Mic pre ect an interface is software dependent. Small companies who do not derive the majority of their business via software dependent gear are notorious for poor support. What always scares me is when you start doing some deep digging you find that they either farmed out the software work and that company no longer exists, their was one guy who wrote code and left or they just abandon the product. Seen it way to many times and I would always try to be the nice guy and cut a deal for the guy who was abandoned by the manufacturer. For manufacturer it’s easy to abandon you, I mean how many times has Apple done it, wait I have a shelf in storage that has most of my macs going back to my 9600! yeah you make a good point but isn’t the Cranborne capable of the same I/o routing via adat as with USB? I don’t remember but thought so. It probably is but here is the tough question, do I need to use software to switch the routing🤔! Reading back I’m not trying to sound like an a-hole. It’s just that in my gearpimp days you always had to go back to “the customer is always right”, now I can scream at the top of my lungs you don’t want to do that😁. It’s like the guy who bought a bunch of American DJ gear where I printed at the bottom of the invoice after explaining “you can only run this stuff for 15min then it needs to be cooled down.” Full Compass is in no way responsible for anything beyond the basic manufacturer’s warranty. No additional services or replacement shall be provided.” It all dies and the club owner expects us to provide a loaner rig because his DJ is a real “pro”. Your signature was your way of proving you agreed to the terms. God the only thing worse than DJ’s is DJ lighting. |
|
