Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jordan Wolf]

I use the Shure SCM810 with excellent results...

Kevin,

Have you found acceptable results when using the SCM810s with digital consoles?  I use them often for multi-same-mic panels/busy stages, etc., and use the same method you do (post-fader DO from each channel into the SCM810, etc.).  My concern would be the added latency due to multiple A/D/A conversions...

Any insight?

[Andrew Broughton]

Oh I really wish he would!

Andrew's "automoxer" program for the LS9 actually works pretty well, HOWEVER there are a few bugs and the program occationally crashes.  The good news is, once set up and running, I've never had the program crash PROVIDED I did not make any parameter changes within the program during an event.  So, the key is, set it up the program how you want it, and don't touch a thing during the show!  You can do whatever you want on the LS9, but leave the computer alone.

Tom

If someone were willing to loan me an LS9 for a while AND I were able to find the time, I'd be happy to work on it some more.
It seemed though that the limitation of MIDI message speed made it impractical for more than a few channels.

[John Roberts {JR}]

If someone were willing to loan me an LS9 for a while AND I were able to find the time, I'd be happy to work on it some more.
It seemed though that the limitation of MIDI message speed made it impractical for more than a few channels.

I can't help you with a loaner but I can make an observation about automatic mixing that might be helpful. You only need to worry about the one or two loudest channels for rapid gain change updates. The quieter channels, will already be attenuated, so slower updates to them will be much less consequential. Preferentially open up, new louder inputs quickly. Primary concern about ignoring lower volume channels is that they eventually get attenuated before cumulative gain builds up high enough to affect feedback stability or background noise.

JR

[Andrew Broughton]

Interesting, JR. That, coupled with the idea of using an aux for the "summed" level instead of calculating the sum of each channel level might make for a better mousetrap.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Interesting, JR. That, coupled with the idea of using an aux for the "summed" level instead of calculating the sum of each channel level might make for a better mousetrap.

It still boggles my mind that this isn't already in at least a few of these... any? 


JR

[Mac Kerr]

It still boggles my mind that this isn't already in at least a few of these... any? 


JR

Studer Vista 5 has that type of automixing built in. I expect it will trickle down to Soundcraft eventually. Consoles that already use up most of the available DSP without automixing will probably have to wait for different models with more DSP.

The real thing is available for rent all over the country, and if not in your locale, only a FedEx delivery away. Pass on the cost plus your markup.

Mac

[kristianjohnsen]

Studer Vista 5 has that type of automixing built in. I expect it will trickle down to Soundcraft eventually. Consoles that already use up most of the available DSP without automixing will probably have to wait for different models with more DSP.



Mac

As well as the card that will fit into the back of most Yamaha mixers, as you know.

[Kevin Maxwell]

Kevin,

Have you found acceptable results when using the SCM810s with digital consoles?  I use them often for multi-same-mic panels/busy stages, etc., and use the same method you do (post-fader DO from each channel into the SCM810, etc.).  My concern would be the added latency due to multiple A/D/A conversions...

Any insight?

I am sorry for the delay in answering your question I haven’t been back on here for a little while.

I use the SCM810s a lot with digital consoles. I haven’t used an analog console on a musical in years. I always delay the speaker system to the stage so I just don’t need as much delay when the mics on the automixer are taken into consideration. I use a dialog sub group and a singing subgroup. As I have said the automixers don’t work well for singing. I then add delay to the singing subgroup so the cross fades between the 2 subgroups line up in time. 

The amount of delay has never been enough to cause a problem anywhere for me yet. Even the feed I send to video has never been a problem with the video people.

I won’t do a play/musical without a digital console and I also won't do a panel discussion without an automixer. I have never used an LS9 mostly because it won’t do what I want in a digital console. I have used and don’t like the M7 due to some limitations with it. I have used a PM5DRH and I liked that. The last musical I did I used an Avid /Digidesign profile surface with the mixrack and I have another one of those lined up for a Musical in March. 

I really wish there were automixer plug ins for some of the digital consoles, like the Avid. I have talked to Mr. Dugan about that when we were on a panel together about automixing a few years ago.

[Ray Aberle]

If someone were willing to loan me an LS9 for a while AND I were able to find the time, I'd be happy to work on it some more.
It seemed though that the limitation of MIDI message speed made it impractical for more than a few channels.

How long would you need the LS9 for? I'm down for trading usage for the final product.

-Ray

[Steve Anderson]

the automixers don’t work well for singing.

I know you are referring to the Shure automixers, but what is the general consensus on the singing algorithms/settings in the Dugan products so equipped?

[ProSoundWeb Community]