ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Don't mix rock'n'roll with digital desks  (Read 33590 times)

Jim Trust

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: Don't mix rock'n'roll with digital desks
« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2008, 05:15:53 pm »

So do all you digital users use the on-board effects and dynamics? Do they sound as good as the ones many of you have offered opinions on in these forums over the years? I ask because I really can't afford a digital console yet but am looking to upgrade my comps and add another reverb channel or two. Maybe I should save my money for an entire console upgrade later on? That is really a rhetorical question so to keep this thread on topic, what is the difference between the digital on-board effects and the good outboard stuff.
Logged
Jim
"Be excellent to each other and party on dudes!" ...Bill and Ted

Toby Mills

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
    • http://www.np.co.nz
Re: Don't mix rock'n'roll with digital desks
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2008, 05:36:34 pm »

Quote:

So do all you digital users use the on-board effects and dynamics? Do they sound as good as the ones many of you have offered opinions on in these forums over the years?


Many of the major console manufacturers outsource their effects to external companies that specialise in effects. I believe yamaha do it in house but they already have an established effects knowlege. Soundcraft of course use Lexicon etc.

I pretty much exclusively use an I-Live now and the effects in that are as good if not better than most of the external units money can buy with the added advantage of a huge touch screen to edit parameters if you want to. Effects quality is a big selling point and because these consoles usually have gobs of processing power its easy for the manufacturers to add new features and patches.

The ability to easily load new FX with scene changes etc is the final nail in the coffin for outboard.

I was in the same situation as you looking at the prospect of spending a major chunk of money on upgraded comps and FX and decided to hold off and go down the digi console path. Its paid off big time and I have no regrets at all.
Logged
noise productions ltd
www.np.co.nz
"can you please turn down the shit knob"

Joe Breher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
    • http://q-music.com
Re: modular rock'n'roll/digital interface
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2008, 07:30:52 pm »

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 08:40


The missing piece is effective appropriate bandwidth communication between the parts. Control input and indicator feedback is reasonably low bandwidth. Engine to I/O A/D/A will require gobs of bandwidth.

Logically the I/O and engine should be collocated to simplify this communication. The processing engine will be modest in size compared to other parts so it likely will be rolled into the mic preamps and converter box.


As someone who has for over a decade co-authored international standards for data storage and transmission as a means of feeding my family, this is an area where I have some specialized knowledge. I am not convinced about any need for unrealizable amounts of bandwitdh between the AD/DA IO and the processing.

Let's break this down. Currently, the vanguard of digital audio is running at 24 bit word depth, and 192Ksamples/sec. Accordingly, each channel requires 4.608 Mb/s of bandwidth.

A fairly sizable (though certainly not huge) system might have 64 inputs and 32 outputs - or a total of 96. That is a total *aggregate* bandwidth of less than 442 Mb/s.

There are numerous current technologies that can provide this bandwidth today, with acceptable latency.

Even lowly Gigabit Ethernet does 1.25 Gb/s in each direction simultaneously (minus a couple % for framing). Strip off the clumsy TCP/IP layers, and it is pretty low latency besides. This could comfortably yield 200 channels upstream and 200 channels downstream, simultaneously. This should accommodate any but the largest live sound scenarious.

Not only that, 10 GbE is going mainstream in IT as we speak. While I have not done any studies of audio on 10 GbE, it should be capable of supporting perhaps over 2000 channels of 24/192K in each direction simultaneously.

Not that I necessarily believe Ethernet is the logical best coice for such transmission. However, as an unbiquitous technology, it provides a useful baseline.

I agree that it is logical to keep the processing and the IO co-located. However, I think it has more to do with the cost of sheet metal than the cost of data transmission links.
Logged
Joe Breher
Liberty in my Lifetime!

http://q-music.com

Toby Mills

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
    • http://www.np.co.nz
Re: modular rock'n'roll/digital interface
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2008, 07:45:49 pm »

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 08:40


The missing piece is effective appropriate bandwidth communication between the parts.

Let's break this down. Currently, the vanguard of digital audio is running at 24 bit word depth, and 192Ksamples/sec. Accordingly, each channel requires 4.608 Mb/s of bandwidth.

A fairly sizable (though certainly not huge) system might have 64 inputs and 32 outputs - or a total of 96. That is a total *aggregate* bandwidth of less than 442 Mb/s.



Joe, this is all feasible and currently in use with several of the commercial remote audio consoles available today.

Ethersound currently handles 64 bi-directional channels at 24bit 28Khz (more than enough for live audio) down a single CAT5 100Mbit link with less than 2ms latency. Cobrasound offers similar specs.

I think the first and most exciting step is the introduction of standards around the audio transmission side (control can come later). You can presently plug Digiram stage boxes or output boxes into an I-Live or other ethersound device. This is the first step towards seamless integration of digital components.

Lets not run before we can walk. Once the audio transmission battle has been won by either ethersound or cobrasound, then the battle for a control protocol can commence.

Personally I think there is probably room for both, conbrasound seems to be becoming the defacto standard for installations, while ethersound seems to be gaining wider adoption in the livesound community.

Once amps start shipping as standard with ethersound inputs and ethersound stage boxes become more common then we are almost there.

The great thing is that when you have one computer talking to another computer, its relatively easy to change the language they speak to each other on. If its an IP based protocol that is adopted as a standard, its feasible that manufacturers could provide updates to their products that will allow cross compatibility. How cool it would be to plug an I-Live surface into a PM5 rack or use an I-Live rack as an extension of a VI6 based system.






Logged
noise productions ltd
www.np.co.nz
"can you please turn down the shit knob"

John Roberts {JR}

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
Re: modular rock'n'roll/digital interface
« Reply #84 on: June 12, 2008, 09:11:46 pm »

Joe Breher wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 18:30



As someone who has for over a decade co-authored international standards for data storage and transmission as a means of feeding my family, this is an area where I have some specialized knowledge. I am not convinced about any need for unrealizable amounts of bandwitdh between the AD/DA IO and the processing.

Let's break this down. Currently, the vanguard of digital audio is running at 24 bit word depth, and 192Ksamples/sec. Accordingly, each channel requires 4.608 Mb/s of bandwidth.

A fairly sizable (though certainly not huge) system might have 64 inputs and 32 outputs - or a total of 96. That is a total *aggregate* bandwidth of less than 442 Mb/s.

There are numerous current technologies that can provide this bandwidth today, with acceptable latency.

Even lowly Gigabit Ethernet does 1.25 Gb/s in each direction simultaneously (minus a couple % for framing). Strip off the clumsy TCP/IP layers, and it is pretty low latency besides. This could comfortably yield 200 channels upstream and 200 channels downstream, simultaneously. This should accommodate any but the largest live sound scenarious.

Not only that, 10 GbE is going mainstream in IT as we speak. While I have not done any studies of audio on 10 GbE, it should be capable of supporting perhaps over 2000 channels of 24/192K in each direction simultaneously.

Not that I necessarily believe Ethernet is the logical best coice for such transmission. However, as an unbiquitous technology, it provides a useful baseline.

I agree that it is logical to keep the processing and the IO co-located. However, I think it has more to do with the cost of sheet metal than the cost of data transmission links.


What is trivial for fiber and easy for wire, may not be easy lifting for IR or RF links. I only see difficulty (using off the shelf rat shack technology)  for the traffic between I/O and processing. There are already plenty of people sending low bandwidth control info via existing wireless paths.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The future hasn't happened yet so nobody can win an argument about it...  Cool

JR
Logged
 https://www.resotune.com/


Tune it, or don't play it...
-----

John Roberts {JR}

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
Re: modular rock'n'roll/digital interface
« Reply #85 on: June 12, 2008, 09:14:27 pm »

work on your quoting skills

I didn't say that...

JR
Logged
 https://www.resotune.com/


Tune it, or don't play it...
-----

David A. Parker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1358
    • http://www.lostandfoundsoundco.com/
Re: You Don't mix rock'n'roll at trade shows
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2008, 10:36:43 pm »

yes, I saw those on the Mackie TT24. I dont think those are inexpensive either. The Amek Recall had rotary pots and the recall feature spoke to the operator and told him when he had the knob where it was supposed to be. Or you could see it on a monitor. It wouldn't put it where it was supposed to be for the stored scene, but it would tell you when you got it there.
Logged
David Parker
Lost and Found Sound
http://www.lostandfoundsoundco.com/

Jack Arnott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
    • http://assistanceaudio.com
Re: Don't mix rock'n'roll with digital desks
« Reply #87 on: June 14, 2008, 01:11:36 am »

bruce reiter wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 21:39


hi mark,

it is your responsibility to know how to operate the equipment. read the manual and figure out for yourself how to use the soft key function or whatever.
ignorance is no excuse.

best, bruce


Hello Bruce,
I gotta disagree with you here.
If Mark requests a PM5D, then he should know how to use it.
If the company shows up with a digital and he is to use it, they should be helpful in showing him how it works.
I agree that he needs to get to embrace digital,
but for dude that provides it to sit idly by, or not know how to use it himself is wrong.

Regards, Jack
Logged
The Buffalo's already dead,
What was going through your head?
Why did you choose the color Re-ed?
Joss Whedon

www.assistanceaudio.com

Jake Scudder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1395
    • http://www.jakescudder.com
Re: Don't mix rock'n'roll with digital desks
« Reply #88 on: June 14, 2008, 05:36:02 am »

[quote title=Jack Arnott wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 23:11]
bruce reiter wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 21:39
hi mark,

it is your responsibility to know how to operate the equipment. read the manual and figure out for yourself how to use the soft key function or whatever.
ignorance is no excuse.

best, bruce[/quote



Hello Bruce,
I gotta disagree with you here.
If Mark requests a PM5D, then he should know how to use it.
If the company shows up with a digital and he is to use it, they should be helpful in showing him how it works.
I agree that he needs to get to embrace digital,
but for dude that provides it to sit idly by, or not know how to use it himself is wrong.

Regards, Jack



Or they could just hire me or any other number of posters in this thread that have already done our homework and aren't going to be surprised or unprepared regardless of what console or surface we are dealt.  I'm sorry, and I don't mean this directly to you Jack, but it just isn't that difficult.  It's not like the wheel is being reinvented.  There are certainly differences between manufacturers and every once in a while you will see something that makes you scratch your head.  The bottom line remains that regardless of how many A/D or D/A conversions happen along the way, it is still just signal flow.
Logged
Website: http://www.jakescudder.com

480.262.7742

bruce reiter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: Don't mix rock'n'roll with digital desks
« Reply #89 on: June 15, 2008, 12:21:45 am »

Jack Arnott wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 00:11

bruce reiter wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 21:39


hi mark,

it is your responsibility to know how to operate the equipment. read the manual and figure out for yourself how to use the soft key function or whatever.
ignorance is no excuse.

best, bruce


Hello Bruce,
I gotta disagree with you here.
If Mark requests a PM5D, then he should know how to use it.
If the company shows up with a digital and he is to use it, they should be helpful in showing him how it works.
I agree that he needs to get to embrace digital,
but for dude that provides it to sit idly by, or not know how to use it himself is wrong.

Regards, Jack


hi jack,

if you are working as a foh mixer in my opinion it is your responsibility to be able to operate any gear that is put in front of you. things do not always go as planned.
i have had a wonderful xl4 fail on me once and i smiled said f*ck a few times and prepared my mix on the old beat up soundcraft 500 with crappy fx and inserts. i know not the same as digital vs analog but the point is things do not always go your way. you must rise to the occasion.

in a perfect world the system tech will know all of the gear but many times they do not know very much. it is up to you.

a few yours ago i was on a tour that charlie hernandez was the pm on (pm on massive tours ...) charlie gave me some great advice, he said :bruce, they will always let you down, plan for that"

best,

bruce

these are just my opinions take em for what they are:-)
Logged
best,

bruce reiter
brucefoh@aol.com
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.106 seconds with 19 queries.