Print

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

[Tommy Peel]

So I've got the annual Youth Fundraiser coming up again at the end of the month. Last year I mixed it on the youth department's LS9 with much success, but I've acquired an XR18 since then and am thinking about using it instead of or with the LS9. The production tends to consist of a number of skits mixed with some of the kids singing. The skits usually end up being 1-6 open mics on stage either wireless headsets or handhelds; I'm wondering if the automixer on the XR18 will be useful in this situation. Thoughts/experiences?


Thanks,
Tommy

[Tim McCulloch]

So I've got the annual Youth Fundraiser coming up again at the end of the month. Last year I mixed it on the youth department's LS9 with much success, but I've acquired an XR18 since then and am thinking about using it instead of or with the LS9. The production tends to consist of a number of skits mixed with some of the kids singing. The skits usually end up being 1-6 open mics on stage either wireless headsets or handhelds; I'm wondering if the automixer on the XR18 will be useful in this situation. Thoughts/experiences?


Thanks,
Tommy

No.

[Tommy Peel]

No.

Thanks!

[George Dougherty]

No.

I'm curious as to the reasoning Tim.  You can use the faders still to set relative levels but the automixer might help to keep the other channels down while an individual is talking.  Of course it wouldn't be a set and forget and I'd still rather have a physical control surface for mixing levels, but my first thought is that it might be doable.

Looking forward to the wisdom and experience behind that simple "No".

[Milt Hathaway]

I'm curious as to the reasoning Tim.  You can use the faders still to set relative levels but the automixer might help to keep the other channels down while an individual is talking.  Of course it wouldn't be a set and forget and I'd still rather have a physical control surface for mixing levels, but my first thought is that it might be doable.

Automixers don't mix. Yes, they keep the gain down on unused mics, but they are no substitute for riding levels. I've used them on many a panel discussion and they work wonders, but the minute you get a singer or two going all balance goes to hell.

You have to think of them as a group of channels each with their own individual soft ducker, with the key inputs all intelligently interconnected. And nothing more than that.

[Tim McCulloch]

I'm curious as to the reasoning Tim.  You can use the faders still to set relative levels but the automixer might help to keep the other channels down while an individual is talking.  Of course it wouldn't be a set and forget and I'd still rather have a physical control surface for mixing levels, but my first thought is that it might be doable.

Looking forward to the wisdom and experience behind that simple "No".

My simple response is based on how the "automix" in Behringer/M32 consoles work, and it's NOT like the Dan Dugan algorithm (which can use useful for dialog in plays and musicals, just like in the panel discussions that Dan originally conceived it for).

The Behringer scheme is very much a kludge and I don't recommend it for much of anything, so far.  I had high hopes for it but there's a reason it's free for the Behringer mixers and is a $400 plug in from Waves, or a $1500 MY card for Yamaha mixers or as a stand-alone box.

And even the Dugan algorithm would not be much help in dealing with school children doing a skit...

Milt describes it nicely, I think.

[Robert Lofgren]

My simple response is based on how the "automix" in Behringer/M32 consoles work, and it's NOT like the Dan Dugan algorithm (which can use useful for dialog in plays and musicals, just like in the panel discussions that Dan originally conceived it for).

To quote Jan Duwe,

All I am saying is that our automixer is working the exact same way as the Dugan automatic mixing and gain sharing systems.

In what way do you feel that the automix does not work compared to dugan?

I understand that the Last Gate function (that is implemented in X AIR Automix but not the x/m32) is a detail actually derived from Shure’s Intellimix SCM820 system “LastMicLockOn” and it uses interactive gating logic (NAT) rather than sharing gains. Their NOMA function is working reminiscent of Dugan’s gain sharing.

According to “LastMicLockOn”, the “Last Gate” option in X AIR mixers just keeps the last channel’s Gate open once the last speaker has stopped speaking. This prevents chopping the background noise completely off after the speaker ended, and sounds more natural. This obviously only works, when Automix is on, Last Gate is on, and all assigned channels’ Gates are on.
 
It is important to understand, however, that Gates can be used in addition to, and independent from the Dugan-style gain sharing function, for further attenuating any remaining noise floor. Channels with signals below the Gate threshold cannot contribute to the automix, obviously, just like when the channel fader is down. But other than that there is no connection between both processes, and specifically the gain sharing is happening way above the gate threshold, while the gating happens below.

[Keith Broughton]

Automixers don't mix. I've used them on many a panel discussion and they work wonders, but the minute you get a singer or two going all balance goes to hell.

This has been my experience as well.
Now as for a straight dialogue play performance, I have not tried it.
Also, I have listened to the record feed when using an "auto mixer" and you can hear the artifacts created by the fast shifting gains.
For the OP's purposes, I'm in the No camp.

[Tommy Peel]

Lots of interesting discussion up there; nice to hear how these things actually work.

Just to clarify things a bit, the show is a series of separate performances; some of them just singing and some of them just acting. There will probably be a few that have both acting and singing, but most will be one or the other.

Still not sure which mixer I'll end up using; I like having real faders and controls but the XR does offer some advantages such as multitracking, good deessers, and better scene recall. I also just bought a BCF2000 for the XR, but it needs some repair(bad caps in the power supply I believe).

[John Roberts {JR}]

The Dugan gain sharing algorithm is most useful for talking head panels where a number of people using (near) identical microphones take turns (mostly) talking.

The gain sharing apportions gain to the loudest inputs, so one person laking gets all the gain, with other non-talking channels dimmed. Two talking share the gain equally (-3dB), etc.

Depending upon the production there may be some improvement over no human mixer at all, but I would trust the opinions of posters who tried and dismissed it for this application. 

Scene recall, and/or mix level automation could be useful if you have timecode available. For seat of your pants mixing, humans are good for now.

JR

[ProSoundWeb Community]