Print

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

[John Sulek]

You wouldn't have to. It's controlled from outside.
Besides, when I'm mixing, I generally want to know when someone's adjusting the system, thank you very much.

There are many instances where parts of the pa cannot be seen let alone heard from the mix position. The system tech's job is to look after these zones so that the mix engineer can concentrate on mixing.
It is a collaborative process, but sometimes you need to make an adjustment and tell the mix engineer when there is a break in the action.

I realize that the Lake card would be externally controlled by a tablet.
I'm just a fan of having the sytem control and the mix surface being separate.

[Dan Richardson]

When I am working with a system tech that I know and trust,

You live in a nicer world than a lot of us, Jason.

[Dan Richardson]

can see the potential advantage of a console with a dedicated system processing capability, especially if you can limit access to it, and powered speakers forming a complete portable system without any racks.

My other application is not system control, but simply vastly more powerful console EQ.

[kristianjohnsen]

can't come up with a good reason why you would want it there...

Let's say you put one in your LS9, you're the system tech AND the mixerperson at the same time.  I suspect many of your gigs are like that.  It would just be one less thing to worry about, the card is right there from the moment you turn on the mixer, no extra boxes or cables or connections.  Sure, the mixer could fail.  So could an external speaker processor...

Other advantages might be that you can use an already existing analog multicore to get the processed signals to stage with no extra AD-DA conversions.  Or, if you already own a ethersound based digital cat5 multicore system, you can easily add the new processing when you buy a new speaker system, and still use the multicore as is with no extra conversions either AD/DA or between digital formats.

Soundcraft and Lawo already offer monitoring and control of wireless mics from the mixing surface.  We'll just have to see if this trend escalates, or if it's as bad an idea as most seem to think here on PSW...

[Rasmus Rosenberg]

Let's say you put one in your LS9, you're the system tech AND the mixerperson at the same time.  I suspect many of your gigs are like that.  It would just be one less thing to worry about, the card is right there from the moment you turn on the mixer, no extra boxes or cables or connections.  Sure, the mixer could fail.  So could an external speaker processor...

Other advantages might be that you can use an already existing analog multicore to get the processed signals to stage with no extra AD-DA conversions.  Or, if you already own a ethersound based digital cat5 multicore system, you can easily add the new processing when you buy a new speaker system, and still use the multicore as is with no extra conversions either AD/DA or between digital formats.

Soundcraft and Lawo already offer monitoring and control of wireless mics from the mixing surface.  We'll just have to see if this trend escalates, or if it's as bad an idea as most seem to think here on PSW...

Hey Kristian,
I hear you, and I will admit its hard to comment on a product i haven't used or seen yet. As you say I do a lot of gigs like that and i can see some benefit to having the speaker processor build in, but strongly disagree that its a good solution. As I said i embrace the possibility and think its cool, but to say its easier is wrong. Or let me rephrase that, when its working its easier, but when things go wrong I can only see it will do more bad than if the speaker processor was separated from the mix console.

My fear towards this is, to go on from your example (and yes I'm going bit over the top here to prove a point) , is that people providing an Ls9 with a card like that, wouldn't provide a spare console loaded like it (or even have an extra at the warehouse). If there was a monitor console like it, it would properly use its card to process the monitors. So whats the backup plan if the FOH console goes down? Swap the cards from the monitor console (if there is one?) That would stop both FOH and MON and the event. You can't use the system or the desks. With a separate speaker processor, if the FOH console fails. The system still works, so announcements can be made and music can still be played e.g. the event don't stop (but of cause is stalled or delayed). A line/sound check in the monitor end (if one) can still procide and as a backup the band could be mixed from stage. If the stand a lone speaker processor failed, you could still do line/sound check FOH (on headphones) and MON, being ready (being on schedule) when a spare was delivered. Im sure Lake/yamaha have made a rock solid cool solution that works every time. And where you can restart the card with out the console,or the console with out the card, but i will remain skeptical. Just thinking about how may times I or others have had to restart a console (or for that matter a speaker processor or control software for one) after doors is scary, being able to do it sections at a time have saved my a.. many times. I think it will be ashame to loose that option, because of being lazy and not wanting to draw cat5/and power cables, or caring a 1->12 unit rack extra.

The hole multicore and interconnection, AD/DA thing you write about is tricky, but just shows how lame (no offense) the manufactures are, why does every one have to have there own protocol and interconnection etc? Things are build to make money not being the best, I get it and rest my case.


I think there are a huge difference between monitoring and control than to build in. Im totally pro mon/control, from the console (interface) and think we will see much more of that. And i do think its clever to build things together, but IMO there a also a huge difference in what we build together. The speaker system parameters are IMO too sensitive not to be build into a very rugged, easy to swap out, case (or module), and IMO a MY card fails at both.

Any way hope that Lake sells a lot so they can get money to produce a two unit stand alone with the power of 4 MY cards and a solid i/O connection...

[Jim McKeveny]

"Soundcraft and Lawo already offer monitoring and control of wireless mics from the mixing surface."

Soundcraft and Lawo have embraced multiple screens for their consoles. This is a big difference v. 5D/M7/LS9.

[Matt Tudor]

My knee-jerk reaction was similar to many others here, if you lose the board, you lose the speaker processing, and that's bad. Upon further consideration though, I (and a lot of other people that I know) had a similar concern about powered speakers when they came out. No one wanted to lose a speaker because the amp section died. I don't have those concerns any more because I've become comfortable with the technology, and fully expect this new idea will eventually follow suit.
I suppose the deal breaker for me right now is that I have an A and a B rig and 3 consoles, two of which are analog. Because we have to balance show needs and schedules my digital mixer doesn't always go out with the A rig so to take advantage of this I would have to have both the Lake card in the LS9 and still keep a separate processor for the times I use one of the analog boards. I'd essentially be buying the same gear twice.
I wonder if the settings are going to be recallable with the scene memories? For providers with multiple rigs it would be nice to store the settings for each rig, especially if you have a couple venues you work regularly.

I know EAW went there a few years ago (did anyone buy those mixers, btw)?

Beginning of next year you can get Lake cards for Yamaga YGDAI card slots:

http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global/en/news_events/pressrelease/2011/nr20111114_my8_lake.jsp

Looks very interesting to me.

[ProSoundWeb Community]