ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: what Digital Mixers to recommend  (Read 14696 times)

Cailen Waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1428
Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2016, 07:07:01 pm »

IMHO the hardest desk to set up and operate is the Midas Pro series, followed by DigiCo SD; I haven't used an S21 so can't offer any insight.  Once you're up and going they aren't particularly difficult but the challenge is getting to that point.

If you're spending someone else's money (arts centre, public auditorium, university) I suggest Yamaha CL5/Rio.

If you're spending your own funds I suggest either the M32 or S21.

Ditto

Our municipal theaters are all Yamaha CL, most of audio guys have their own personal M/X 32 variants for their own small shows...

We are really happy with the CL series consoles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

Scott Holtzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6067
  • Ghost AV - Avon Lake, OH
    • Ghost Audio Visual Systems, LLC
Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2016, 03:02:37 am »

As everyone has already mentioned, there are some real questions that need to be answered to direct you more accurately.

content?  budget? guest engineers?  riders?  input size?.........

However, I have become a huge fan of the new Allen & Heath d-live and think that it ticks the best part of all or most boxes.

* Easiest console to use by a huge margin.
* Sounds as good, if not better than almost anything currently on the market. (I know, bring the hate, but use one first for a few shows and then get back to me)
* 96k operation (I believe that this hales with the sound not just because the sample rate being higher should sound better, but the higher sample rate lowers the latencies, which is one of the current issues with digital boards)
* Great implementation of scene management that is easily up to theatre spec.
* Most engineers could easily operate one without ever seeing one before.
* Offline editor looks and feels almost exactly like the surface and can also be an online controller for the system
* I am beginning to see it on riders
* It is as easily at home in a theatre install as on a touring rock show.
* It is built tough and can take a serious knock
* It is super affordable
* It has a huge I/O count

...it sounds incredible. Sonically I would put it head to head with a Digico or a Midas.




Quick swerve Scott, do most of the statements also hold true for the GLD?  I like the Digico Sx1 but I think it is too big a step for tech's that spend most of their time behind x/m32's. 

The GLD looks more approachable and I hope the ease of use and quality travel downward in the line though IIRC the GLD is 48Khz only.

Logged
Scott AKA "Skyking" Holtzman

Ghost Audio Visual Solutions, LLC
Cleveland OH
www.ghostav.rocks

Speed Daemon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: what Digial Mixers to recommend
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2016, 10:52:48 pm »

And while there may only be a minimal audio difference between 48k and 96k, running at 96k also has the advantage that it significantly reduces latency through the desk, which is an important consideration especially when used for monitors or in-ears.
Hi Kevin, could you expound on the latency thing for me?  It seems counterintuitive, in my mind more bits means more latency. What am I missing?

At my age, I'm not going to hear any difference in HF content that a 96kHz sample rate provides, so that's moot for me anyway. I was told that sound reinforcement consoles don't use the highest sample rates and bit width because it's easier to move less data. I surmise that the more costly boards with microprocessor controlled FPGA logic are more immune to this, but at a greater cost.

One of the reasons I went with Midas was that the AES50 interface used point-to-point topology and layer 2 Ethernet signaling. While less flexible, it looked like a simple way to eliminate and latency with store and forward switching that the layer 3 and 4 protocols must contend with. I can still buy a card to interoperate with MADI and Dante IIRC.

I looked at the S21, but couldn't find much technical detail about communication with the stage boxes. Can anyone point me to a good reference on this? I may be using DiGiCo mixers in the future, and want to come prepared.  Thanks!
Logged

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21570
  • Wichita, Kansas USA
Re: what Digial Mixers to recommend
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2016, 11:12:44 pm »

Hi Kevin, could you expound on the latency thing for me?  It seems counterintuitive, in my mind more bits means more latency. What am I missing?

At my age, I'm not going to hear any difference in HF content that a 96kHz sample rate provides, so that's moot for me anyway. I was told that sound reinforcement consoles don't use the highest sample rates and bit width because it's easier to move less data. I surmise that the more costly boards with microprocessor controlled FPGA logic are more immune to this, but at a greater cost.

One of the reasons I went with Midas was that the AES50 interface used point-to-point topology and layer 2 Ethernet signaling. While less flexible, it looked like a simple way to eliminate and latency with store and forward switching that the layer 3 and 4 protocols must contend with. I can still buy a card to interoperate with MADI and Dante IIRC.

I looked at the S21, but couldn't find much technical detail about communication with the stage boxes. Can anyone point me to a good reference on this? I may be using DiGiCo mixers in the future, and want to come prepared.  Thanks!

Faster processing, Bill.  A clock cycle at 96kHz is half the time of a 48kHz clock cycle.  Since nothing i/o related can happen faster than the clock speed (bit in, bit out) a higher sampling rate means less latency.
Logged
"Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something."  - Kurt Vonnegut

George Dougherty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2016, 11:13:26 pm »

Hi Kevin, could you expound on the latency thing for me?  It seems counterintuitive, in my mind more bits means more latency. What am I missing?
Sample-rate, not bits.  You're talking slices of time with sample rate.  Bit-rate is how many bits make up one of those slices of time.  48,000 slices vs 96,000 slices = half the time accorded to an individual sample though they're typically addressed in sample buffers that give the actual minimum latency through a system.  Handoffs and additional processing steps in a system will also add their own latency.
Logged

Doug.Jane

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2016, 11:21:51 pm »

Sample-rate, not bits.  You're talking slices of time with sample rate.  Bit-rate is how many bits make up one of those slices of time.  48,000 slices vs 96,000 slices = half the time accorded to an individual sample though they're typically addressed in sample buffers that give the actual minimum latency through a system.  Handoffs and additional processing steps in a system will also add their own latency.
Latency is not really related to sampling rate. Latency is the time taken for the signal to be processed by the DSP. The DSP takes a number of sample rate cycles to do its processing, but its speed is determined by its clock, which is running much faster than the sample rate, typically 10s of MHz.
Logged

Speed Daemon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: what Digial Mixers to recommend
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2016, 11:53:07 pm »

Faster processing, Bill.  A clock cycle at 96kHz is half the time of a 48kHz clock cycle.  Since nothing i/o related can happen faster than the clock speed (bit in, bit out) a higher sampling rate means less latency.
Isn't the #1 producer of latency the CPU and other logic that processes the signal?  I mean, sure you can have a device that gives a 1 channel output that's synchronous with one input.  But once you start summing multiple inputs, add effects etc., the time it takes to do the calculations is going to make the output a lot later than the input.  That's the nature of the beast.
Logged

Speed Daemon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2016, 12:08:28 am »

Sample-rate, not bits.  You're talking slices of time with sample rate.  Bit-rate is how many bits make up one of those slices of time.  48,000 slices vs 96,000 slices = half the time accorded to an individual sample though they're typically addressed in sample buffers that give the actual minimum latency through a system.  Handoffs and additional processing steps in a system will also add their own latency.
That's my understanding, that the processing is what drives latency.  We can put garbage in and out at any given rate as long as it's not processed.  But start doing math on it, and that's where latency happens, is it not?
Logged

Scott Holtzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6067
  • Ghost AV - Avon Lake, OH
    • Ghost Audio Visual Systems, LLC
Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2016, 12:09:20 am »

Isn't the #1 producer of latency the CPU and other logic that processes the signal?  I mean, sure you can have a device that gives a 1 channel output that's synchronous with one input.  But once you start summing multiple inputs, add effects etc., the time it takes to do the calculations is going to make the output a lot later than the input.  That's the nature of the beast.


I can't imagine anything is done in a floating point CPU.  The CPU coordinates activity between the DSP's. 

Digital summing is mathematically very low overhead.  I have not looked at a DSP chip in years but just looking at what you can do with a mini-dsp project box I can imagine that any type of filter or dynamic processing is all a matter of accessing libraries.

I would not be surprised if some day you see console software abstracted from the I/O later.  Imagine picking out your dynamics from Waves or another vendor, your favorite I/O box and a human interface of your choice.  To me this is the future.

The interesting thing about the Digico is some folks have written about it's interface being a little latent. Perhaps the presentation layer is underpowered even though it has some awesome DSP horsepower.

The there is the Rivage, looking at it online is like porn for sound guys, it is simply elegant, Yamaha really knocked it out of the park.

I want to again restate that the first vendor who makes the input board some type of removable box so the console can be traditional or use it with a digital connection will have a huge win.  Behringer/Midas, Digico...you listening?

Logged
Scott AKA "Skyking" Holtzman

Ghost Audio Visual Solutions, LLC
Cleveland OH
www.ghostav.rocks

Speed Daemon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2016, 12:12:41 am »

Latency is not really related to sampling rate. Latency is the time taken for the signal to be processed by the DSP. The DSP takes a number of sample rate cycles to do its processing, but its speed is determined by its clock, which is running much faster than the sample rate, typically 10s of MHz.
That's my understanding too.  So it only follows that if you give a DSP more samples per second, that increases the load on the DSP, not decreases. Thanks!
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: what Digital Mixers to recommend
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2016, 12:12:41 am »


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.053 seconds with 22 queries.