ProSoundWeb Community
Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: Derrick McDonald on February 14, 2013, 07:31:47 PM
-
But don't have one. >:(
What are your alternatives in the digital realm? Obviously ducking, but what if you have more than two channels?
I end up riding each fader as best I can, eyes nervously twitching, desperately scanning the stage trying to anticipate who will talk next. Clearly not the best choice.
How are y'all working without a Dugan on Yamaha/Digico/Avid etc. and what works best for you?
-
http://www.yamahacommercialaudiosystems.com/product_detail.php?prodID=1128
-
How are y'all working without a Dugan on Yamaha/Digico/Avid etc. and what works best for you?
I tried without much luck, I had a Shure system from the Board of trustees that I used a couple of times, not the best for my application and was only good for table top, I could not make it work with my wireless. I was lucky enough to meet and talk with Dan Dugan over the summer and ended up buying a MY-Dugan for my Yamaha consoles. Best investment I've made in a long time. Bottom line - IT WORKS.
-
http://www.yamahacommercialaudiosystems.com/product_detail.php?prodID=1128
Well... yes. But, I was including that under the "don't have one" umbrella. Looking for solutions when you don't have access to the Dugan, period.
-
But don't have one. >:(
You rent one.
Mac
-
You rent one.
Mac
Or beg and plead Sends-on-faders-Andrew to finish writing his gain-sharing MIDI Studio Manager software for Yamaha mixers. :-/
-
It seems like a pretty obvious feature to build into digital consoles, but what would I know.
JR
-
I have had some modest results by activating a gate with 6-8 db of "range" a fast attack and 2 second hold and .5 second release.
It's tough to get the threshold set right but does help a little with multiple mic panel discussions.
-
But don't have one. >:(
What are your alternatives in the digital realm? Obviously ducking, but what if you have more than two channels?
I end up riding each fader as best I can, eyes nervously twitching, desperately scanning the stage trying to anticipate who will talk next. Clearly not the best choice.
How are y'all working without a Dugan on Yamaha/Digico/Avid etc. and what works best for you?
I use the Shure SCM810 with excellent results. I would prefer to use the Dugan but the SCM810 does one thing the Dugan doesn’t. It has a comparator circuit in it and rather then just gain sharing between 2 close mics it will only turn one on for a sound source.
Do a search on my name and SCM810 and you will find a lot of information on here. And if you still have questions let me know.
-
Or beg and plead Sends-on-faders-Andrew to finish writing his gain-sharing MIDI Studio Manager software for Yamaha mixers. :-/
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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,
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.
-
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. :D
-Ray
-
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?
-
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?
I don't know anyone who uses the Dugan "Music System". For many years Dugan automixers were used on the Tony Awards live sound. Each show had its own Dugan and the cast mics were routed through it. It was a great help to the FOH mixer who had to mix a half a dozen shows he was largely unfamiliar with. He did a great job with the help of the Dugan automixers.
I have not personally used them for music.
Mac
-
I am sorry for the delay in answering your question I haven’t been back on here for a little while.
That's alright…we're all busy people.
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.
That's good to know - I haven't had the chance to try mine out with a digital console yet; I'm sure the opportunity will pop up in the near future, though…
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 don't blame you. One of the big things I noticed lacking in both the LS9 and the M7CL was channel input delay…only "outport" delay was available - which is good for delay the rig, but not helpful on sources - in my world, I deal with lip sync issues sometimes (video playback). It's essential that the audio and video line up, and that's something I need to be able to fix if necessary.
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.
I think that the many people in our industry that work corporate and theatre settings would be very interested in seeing versions of the Dugan automixing suited to other brands of consoles (such as those from Avid). The Yamaha card seems nice (still haven't had the chance to use one yet), but unless Yamaha has an exclusive license to Dan's products in the digital console realm, I see no reason why it couldn't be realized.
-
I think that the many people in our industry that work corporate and theatre settings would be very interested in seeing versions of the Dugan automixing suited to other brands of consoles (such as those from Avid). The Yamaha card seems nice (still haven't had the chance to use one yet), but unless Yamaha has an exclusive license to Dan's products in the digital console realm, I see no reason why it couldn't be realized.
I can't speak for Mr. Dugan but from where I sit there is a problem for him in that the basic technology, the namesake "Dugan" algorithm, is public domain, so free for anybody to use. His primary patent expired back in the '90s. Modern digital consoles have all the hardware needed, and should have adequate computing overhead to handle the automatic mixing with a simple software change (my speculation but probably accurate).
So the issue becomes what is in it for the digital console maker to pay him? There is certainly some value in a named "approved" version that can use his name, and he could save them some time dialing one in with his decades of experience, but it isn't rocket science after you know the secret sauce, that is published in his old patent.
Many who copy his basic algorithm avoid calling it "Dugan" ( at least in print- There are several out there. I used the algorithm in a product I designed back in the late '90s.). I suspect the market for this may not be as widespread as we assume, and general awareness of the benefit of AM is not widely known.
I consider it inevitable but my crystal ball doesn't provide firm availability dates. 8)
JR
-
I use the Shure SCM810 with excellent results. I would prefer to use the Dugan but the SCM810 does one thing the Dugan doesn’t. It has a comparator circuit in it and rather then just gain sharing between 2 close mics it will only turn one on for a sound source.
Do a search on my name and SCM810 and you will find a lot of information on here. And if you still have questions let me know.
I have found the IRP 4080 or 4083 units to be a better compromise than the Shure. The IRP units do not have the comparator or JR's priority circuit improvement but for the theater/drama/panel discussions I use them for it is usually either all wireless or all goosenecks so a single speaker is rarely violating 3:1 for any two mics. I like to go mics/receivers directly into the IRP then out its pass throughs to channels on the console and out its main to a dialog channel on the console. The IRP units can have a slightly audible upcut from silence to a loud single mic so I usually switch to manual control for solos or monologues but if automatic operation is desired directly following a solo then by using last mic hold the circuit can be fooled into holding the desired mic open by the solo performer or stage staff exciting the mic, a cough, clap, hand through the hair with a wig mic, or a simple single tap. The IRPs do a very good job with ensemble singing provided the internal AGC is switched out. Call and response style singing with duets, trios, quartets is probably their weakest point but for just a couple mics manual control is simple enough.
-
I think that the many people in our industry that work corporate and theatre settings would be very interested in seeing versions of the Dugan automixing suited to other brands of consoles (such as those from Avid). The Yamaha card seems nice (still haven't had the chance to use one yet), but unless Yamaha has an exclusive license to Dan's products in the digital console realm, I see no reason why it couldn't be realized.
If there is demand from the users of those consoles, as there was with the Yamaha consoles I'm sure Dan would be willing to design and build mixers to other interface standards. Yamaha does not build or sell the cards, only markets them. They are a product of Dan Dugan Sound Design (http://www.dandugan.com/products/).
Building the interface and manufacturing the cards costs money. There has to be at least a hope of a big enough market to justify the cost of building for a different console. The ubiquity of MY slots on a wide range of Yamaha consoles makes it a very attractive interface option to develop for. There are Dugan E series mixers available with analog, ADAT, and AES I/O options, it may be easier and more cost effective to use an external mixer via the insert options of the console instead of hoping for an internal solution that may or may not be a good business case.
As I mentioned earlier, Studer has developed an automixer inside the Studer Vista 5 that uses the gain sharing scheme that is central to the Dugan mixers.
Mac
-
If there is demand from the users of those consoles, as there was with the Yamaha consoles I'm sure Dan would be willing to design and build mixers to other interface standards. Yamaha does not build or sell the cards, only markets them. They are a product of Dan Dugan Sound Design (http://www.dandugan.com/products/).
Building the interface and manufacturing the cards costs money. There has to be at least a hope of a big enough market to justify the cost of building for a different console. The ubiquity of MY slots on a wide range of Yamaha consoles makes it a very attractive interface option to develop for. There are Dugan E series mixers available with analog, ADAT, and AES I/O options, it may be easier and more cost effective to use an external mixer via the insert options of the console instead of hoping for an internal solution that may or may not be a good business case.
As I mentioned earlier, Studer has developed an automixer inside the Studer Vista 5 that uses the gain sharing scheme that is central to the Dugan mixers.
Mac
My hope is Dan will design plug-ins for Avid. While this has other up-front costs, there is no hardware to design, integrate, fabricate or support.
-
hey
I have to admit that primarily being a live music engineer and not being heavily involved in either talking head/corporate work or theatre shows I had never heard of a Dugan. But having a quick flick at his site and the shure mixer it makes perfect sense.
I'd have thought that with DIGICO being the theatre favourite (at least here in the UK) thanks to its amazing scene automation that this kind of feature would have been perfect for them, at the very least with their "theatre" packages if not through the whole line.
k
-
My hope is Dan will design plug-ins for Avid. While this has other up-front costs, there is no hardware to design, integrate, fabricate or support.
+1 my hope too, Dan should do plug-ins or whatever, before someone else does. Even if he had to pay somebody to code it up, putting his name on it would be merchantable, and he could make sure it doesn't suck.
The problem with software only products is the difficulty to prevent piracy, but the problem with selling a hardware product to fill a software solution is extra cost that makes the solution uncompetitive, should true competition ever rise up.
Better to consume your own market share before somebody else does. IMO
JR
-
I have had some modest results by activating a gate with 6-8 db of "range" a fast attack and 2 second hold and .5 second release. It's tough to get the threshold set right but does help a little with multiple mic panel discussions.
Exactly what I was going to suggest, right down to the settings!
SSL consoles have automixing (http://www.solidstatelogic.com/Video/video_852x480.asp?file_name=http://sslwebcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/Video/C10/C10_HD_Dialogue_Automix.mp4&vid_title=C10%20HD%20'Dialogue%20Automix') built in.
-
Exactly what I was going to suggest, right down to the settings!
I'm not sure what gating is expected to accomplish... It will do nothing for NOM management, especially if some loud noise in the room opens up enough mics, the screaming feedback will keep them all open. Also the background noise will track up and down with multiple mics being opening simultaneously.
---
I actually designed a crude NOM mixer using gated mic input modules in an inexpensive install mixer/amp. I rigged the channels to load down the common summed output signal node a fixed amount every time another mic opened up, creating a crude, stepped NOM correction. Cheap and dirty but it worked adequately for that cheap and dirty market.
SSL consoles have automixing (http://www.solidstatelogic.com/Video/video_852x480.asp?file_name=http://sslwebcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/Video/C10/C10_HD_Dialogue_Automix.mp4&vid_title=C10%20HD%20'Dialogue%20Automix') built in.
Yup, that looks (sounds) like Dugan style auto-mixing... You guys stop whining and pony up for an SSL.
JR
-
I tried the gating method once. Long story but it doesn’t work very well. The screaming feedback thing, well that’s what happens.
Let me put it this way does anyone know someone who can program plugins? I have considered trying to learn, but I don’t even know what the initial cost of entry is.
-
I think there's a web forum where guys who can do all different kinds of programming hang out. Don't know the name of the place off hand..
JR
-
My hope is Dan will design plug-ins for Avid. While this has other up-front costs, there is no hardware to design, integrate, fabricate or support.
There are different DSP and software standards to meet. There is a big market for Avid plug ins because there is also the DAW market to sell to. An automixer will likely also eat up a lot of DSP power.
Mac
-
There are different DSP and software standards to meet. There is a big market for Avid plug ins because there is also the DAW market to sell to. An automixer will likely also eat up a lot of DSP power.
Mac
Also, an automixer is probably less attractive to the Pro Tools market than to the much smaller live sound market. But I'm not a post or recording guy, so there might be uses I'm not aware of.
-
How long would you need the LS9 for? I'm down for trading usage for the final product. :D
-Ray
A very kind offer, but probably not feasible. Contact me on my website.
-
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
Interesting, Tom.
I had gotten the impression that the delay issue and the MIDI message speed made the program unusable. You actually have used it with some success?
-
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.
Guessing that you may have a control path bandwidth limitation, I would preferentially service
1-largest gain increase error
2-largest gain decrease error
3-all channels with gain more than -6dB gain (will only be 1 or 2 typically. )
For channels that are down 6 dB or more, exactly how far down they are is not important.
JR
-
Slight topic veer... to install/contractor stuff.
The patent expired early 90's... does anyone know what products use the same tech/algorithms or whatever they are?
There's a myriad of "configurable" devices out there (Rane, Symetrix, Media Matrix, BiAmp) as well as standalone items like the Rane AM series. Just wondering which uses what tech. Guessing they can't mention "Dugan" without paying him, but can use the expired patent tech.
-
Slight topic veer... to install/contractor stuff.
The patent expired early 90's... does anyone know what products use the same tech/algorithms or whatever they are?
There's a myriad of "configurable" devices out there (Rane, Symetrix, Media Matrix, BiAmp) as well as standalone items like the Rane AM series. Just wondering which uses what tech. Guessing they can't mention "Dugan" without paying him, but can use the expired patent tech.
For the record the patent expired mid-late '90s IIRC. My AM improvement patent issued in '97 and that was a couple years after Dan's original one expired. Dan had other later AM patents too.
Any products designed or redesigned after that date "should" have used it, but most of the players who were already in the market competing with their alternate approaches were invested in continuing down their own road. Some on your short list entered the AM market after the '90s so could use the public domain technology. I used it in Peavey products and recall meeting with the guy coding up Media Matrix to tell him how it worked. He may have added some extra bells and whistles, i never checked out the final result myself but recall hearing good reports from some people who used it. I don't know for a fact but would be surprised if the Rane unit doesn't use it.
You can usually read between the lines when product literature talks about "industry standard" NOM or gain sharing algorithms. IMO there is no good reason not to use it. It is elegant and simple, and works great.
JR
-
tidbit....
In 1991, Dugan's patent expired. Competing manufacturers began to bring the Dugan algorithm directly to their product designs. In 1993, Travis M. Sims, Jr. of Lectrosonics (Rio Rancho, New Mexico) was granted a patent for a sound system with rate controlled, variable attenuation of microphone inputs, including the Dugan algorithm as well as loudspeaker zone attenuation when in close proximity to an active microphone.[28] The loudspeaker zone part of the patent cited a 1985 patent for proportional amplification by Eugene R. Griffith, Jr. of LVW Systems of Colorado Springs, a commercial audio contractor.[29] In 1995, Sims and Lectrosonics gained another patent for an "Adaptive proportional gain audio mixing system" which incorporated a number of ideas including the Dugan algorithm for maintaining a constant total gain of all the inputs.[30]
In 1996, Dugan came out with the Model D-1, a speech-only economy model that did not offer the music system of the Model D.[15]
In 1997, John H. Roberts (our hero) of Peavey Electronics was granted a patent for an automatic mixer priority circuit, enabling a hierarchy of logic weighting that allowed selected signals to push forward in the mix when they are in use, while still maintaining the useful constant unity, gain-sharing relationship first described by Dugan. The hierarchy enabled a host, moderator or chairperson to speak over other participants and retain control of the discussion.[31] Peavey's Architectural Acoustics division used three levels of hierarchy in their 1998 "Automix 2" product, placing the first- and second-most influentially weighted sources at inputs 1 and 2, respectively.[32]
-
tidbit....
In 1991, Dugan's patent expired. Competing manufacturers began to bring the Dugan algorithm directly to their product designs. In 1993, Travis M. Sims, Jr. of Lectrosonics (Rio Rancho, New Mexico) was granted a patent for a sound system with rate controlled, variable attenuation of microphone inputs, including the Dugan algorithm as well as loudspeaker zone attenuation when in close proximity to an active microphone.[28] The loudspeaker zone part of the patent cited a 1985 patent for proportional amplification by Eugene R. Griffith, Jr. of LVW Systems of Colorado Springs, a commercial audio contractor.[29] In 1995, Sims and Lectrosonics gained another patent for an "Adaptive proportional gain audio mixing system" which incorporated a number of ideas including the Dugan algorithm for maintaining a constant total gain of all the inputs.[30]
In 1996, Dugan came out with the Model D-1, a speech-only economy model that did not offer the music system of the Model D.[15]
In 1997, John H. Roberts (our hero) of Peavey Electronics was granted a patent for an automatic mixer priority circuit, enabling a hierarchy of logic weighting that allowed selected signals to push forward in the mix when they are in use, while still maintaining the useful constant unity, gain-sharing relationship first described by Dugan. The hierarchy enabled a host, moderator or chairperson to speak over other participants and retain control of the discussion.[31] Peavey's Architectural Acoustics division used three levels of hierarchy in their 1998 "Automix 2" product, placing the first- and second-most influentially weighted sources at inputs 1 and 2, respectively.[32]
I am left wondering why somebody hasn't/didn't combine Shure's comparator circuit that seems to be the best part of the SCM810 with Dugan style gain sharing it seems like that would be better way to ensure a single signal never opens more than one mic.
-
not sure what a tidbit means, looks like it was cut and pasted from somewhere (wiki?).
According to the USPTO database Dan's original patent #3,992,584 issued in Nov 1976 (filed May 1975). Back then patent duration was 17 years from issue, or 20 years from filing date, so late '93/mid '95 as I count. In '95 the law was changed to 20 years from filing date for all new patents.
I recall timing the introduction of Peavey's first automatic mixer such that it was not infringing with Dugan's '584 patent.
Regarding my improvement patent in '97, while I came up with the concept independently I have discovered since then that there may have been prior art. Also kind of academic since it was never challenged in court, and I assigned it to Peavey in '97, so I don't really have much say about it one way or the other.
----
Ironically perhaps my FLS patent that should be rock solid, was not strong enough to shut down an IMO blatant imitator in court. Life is not as clear cut as we think, and sometime "my lawyer's better than your lawyer" wins.
JR
PS: I am not a role model.
-
I am left wondering why somebody hasn't/didn't combine Shure's comparator circuit that seems to be the best part of the SCM810 with Dugan style gain sharing it seems like that would be better way to ensure a single signal never opens more than one mic.
In the sundry digital implementations you certainly could, but IMO there is no real benefit from that. The standard Dugan gain proportioning algorithm expands small level differences between mics by multiplying the level difference by a similar gain difference, so a second mic that is picking up signal down 4 dB gets doubled down 8dB and so on.
I even designed a small dedicated unit with only 4 inputs for the specific (church) application when a wireless mic wearer walks up to a podium mic. The algorithm expanding the natural level differences pretty much insures you will never get the same level from both mics that would cause deep comb filtering.
I don't recall the details but I think MediaMatrix may have included the hold last mic on feature, the parsing for first mic on, is mainly a work around for systems that couldn't use the Dugan approach and I could imagine an issue if two different talkers start at almost the same time. While maybe it's OK to step on the second talker(?), Dugan doesn't). I don't know if Shure tests for coherence between signals to discriminate between same source or different. The Dugan algorithm by the nature of how it works ducks coherent sources more than incoherent sources (I said it was elegant).
Of course in the digital domain you could do almost anything you want.
JR
-
sure you are... as well as a lot of folks on here.. I look up to folks I can learn from... it's called respect... something severely lacking in today's world, sorry to say..
-
sure you are... as well as a lot of folks on here.. I look up to folks I can learn from... it's called respect... something severely lacking in today's world, sorry to say..
I appreciate the respect. 8)
I was making word play on something Charles Barkley said when he was criticisized for not setting a good example, for young fans back when he was a professional basketball player. ;D
JR
-
I appreciate the respect. 8)
I was making word play on something Charles Barkley said when he was criticisized for not setting a good example, for young fans back when he was a professional basketball player. ;D
JR
My neighbor's kid was so disappointed by that statement that he had to rename his dog, until then known as Barkley.
-
I appreciate the respect. 8)
I was making word play on something Charles Barkley said when he was criticisized for not setting a good example, for young fans back when he was a professional basketball player. ;D
JR
I got that... it's turruble... ;)
-
But don't have one. >:(
What are your alternatives in the digital realm? Obviously ducking, but what if you have more than two channels?
I end up riding each fader as best I can, eyes nervously twitching, desperately scanning the stage trying to anticipate who will talk next. Clearly not the best choice.
How are y'all working without a Dugan on Yamaha/Digico/Avid etc. and what works best for you?
This new product should be the next alternative:
http://www.shure.com/americas/news-events/coming-soon/scm820-digital-intellimix-automatic-mixer
-
This new product should be the next alternative:
http://www.shure.com/americas/news-events/coming-soon/scm820-digital-intellimix-automatic-mixer
You mean the next Shure.
I have been following the technology for a long time and these days you can perform A/D and D/A at near price parity to using a decent performance VCA (not many choices there) and surrounding glue circuitry.
When you consider that the AM gain crunching calculations can be performed very inexpensively in the digital domain, this could cost less total to manufacture than using analog technology.
I consider this a natural evolution driven by technology and price. While i must repeat the obvious, software running on existing (already there) hardware is even cheaper than adding redundant hardware. Dedicated AM (IMO) will still make sense for permanent fixed install applications.
JR
PS: Who knows maybe Shure will finally offer Dugan algorithm as one of their modes. 8)
-
This new product should be the next alternative:
http://www.shure.com/americas/news-events/coming-soon/scm820-digital-intellimix-automatic-mixer
Very similar feature set to the Lectrosonics units. It will be interesting to see how it sounds in use. The SCM810 was getting beyond long in the tooth and losing market share left and right to digital solutions, I am surprised Shure waited so long to update it.
-
If Shure is happy with their approach then this has them in the door to competing directly with Dan on the Yamaha market: "Models available with Dante™ digital networked audio for multi-channel audio networking over Ethernet"
You mean the next Shure.
...snipped...
JR
PS: Who knows maybe Shure will finally offer Dugan algorithm as one of their modes. 8)
-
Resurrecting an old thread..
Just purchased a Yamaha QL1 which includes the Dugan system. Have not played with it yet but was just curious. Say you had a five piece band (rock for argument sake) and put three vocals on the Dugan. Would there be any benefit? Would having the music background have an effect?
Every demo I have seen of it has been simple voice, no singing..
Just curious what to expect and if there would be any reason to use it.
-
Resurrecting an old thread..
Just purchased a Yamaha QL1 which includes the Dugan system. Have not played with it yet but was just curious. Say you had a five piece band (rock for argument sake) and put three vocals on the Dugan. Would there be any benefit? Would having the music background have an effect?
Every demo I have seen of it has been simple voice, no singing..
Just curious what to expect and if there would be any reason to use it.
The basic Dugan gain sharing algorithm is optimal for dealing with a number of similar talking heads in a conference room, with one person talking at a time. For mixing multiple singers performing music on stage there may be some specific applications (like between a group of backing singers) but generally sharing gain between different lead singers is a different task.
JR
-
Resurrecting an old thread..
Just purchased a Yamaha QL1 which includes the Dugan system. Have not played with it yet but was just curious. Say you had a five piece band (rock for argument sake) and put three vocals on the Dugan. Would there be any benefit? Would having the music background have an effect?
Every demo I have seen of it has been simple voice, no singing..
Just curious what to expect and if there would be any reason to use it.
Dan's original design was for speaking - panel discussions, conferencing/congressing use. He never intended it to be used for music mixing. He later developed an algorithm that was more suited to singers (think: Broadway/West End musicals), but it's not the panacea one might hope it to be).
If you do corporate stuff you'll treasure the Dugan style automixing. That's what it was designed for and what it does best.
-
That is what I though but it gives me something to play with. Most of our corporate includes bands so it may not be as valuable as talking heads.
-
The Dugan automixer that had the music mode used a separate mic input that was for the stage ambiance. Automixers generally get confused with music and will usually make some pretty weird decisions.
I do use automixers for musical theater but just for the dialog parts.
-
That is what I though but it gives me something to play with. Most of our corporate includes bands so it may not be as valuable as talking heads.
Steve,
+1 to Tim's comments. Here's a couple of tips on using the Dugan auto mixer. Use a post-fader insert, and don't play with the weighting adjustments unless you are confident that the results are what you need. In general, for 95% of the applications for which it was designed adjustments aren't necessary. It just works.
-John Penkala
-
In general, for 95% of the applications for which it was designed adjustments aren't necessary. It just works.
I can see the advertising campaign now: "Our Stuff Just Works." heh.
-Ray
-
I can see the advertising campaign now: "Our Stuff Just Works." heh.
-Ray
While it probably doesn't need repeating the "Dugan" gain sharing algorithm is elegant. It does "just work" (brilliantly) with a minimum of operator input for appropriate applications.
JR
-
While it probably doesn't need repeating the "Dugan" gain sharing algorithm is elegant. It does "just work" (brilliantly) with a minimum of operator input for appropriate applications.
JR
Yes, it does. I have had some situations recently where i was dealing with some bi-directional web feeds where i needed to introduce some delays to make things behave correctly since there was some significant latencies being introduced. I would have liked to have some attack and decay settings to adjust in those circumstances, but i was able to work around that. Otherwise yeah, the stock settings work in a surprisingly large number of instances just fine. One of the few things i've ever used in audio that i could say that about.
-
Steve,
I wouldn't use that function in that way - stick with DCAs, some more-exaggerated mic technique (if necessary) and your fingers; I think you'll have a better end result.
HOWEVER: try it with and without during a rehearsal sometime...you'll know if it's helping or not. At least that way you can know for sure. :-)