Print

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

[Jay Marr]

Mine is more of an App ask:
Something at the top of the app that tells you that you are recording.
I often start tracking at the beginning of the set, and never remember to 'stop' it while on break.
Yes this is me not being mindful, but a flashing red dot at the top of the page would be nice.

[Mark Norgren]

Mine is more of an App ask:
Something at the top of the app that tells you that you are recording.
I often start tracking at the beginning of the set, and never remember to 'stop' it while on break.
Yes this is me not being mindful, but a flashing red dot at the top of the page would be nice.

Do yourself a favor and get the Mixing Station app.  I have made a couple of great custom layouts that include buttons for the X-Live card.  The app is fabulous, now available for IOS!  For the money, it's a no-brainer!

[Jay Marr]

Do yourself a favor and get the Mixing Station app.  I have made a couple of great custom layouts that include buttons for the X-Live card.  The app is fabulous, now available for IOS!  For the money, it's a no-brainer!

I have it on my LG Tablet.  I just prefer the original iOS app.

[Rufus Crowder]

For me, it's "only":
Custom layers on the board (Mixing Station is perfect for this when mixing from a tablet)
DCA spill (Mixing Station does this well, too)
Allow granular (no 8 channel) IO routing.

Bingo! +1  At the very least fix the remote app to have the capabilities of Mixing Station.  Mixing Station's graphics are not easy on the eyes but pleasing that that you can have custom layers.

[Branimir Bozak]

For real! I mixed many a band with 8 comps, 4 gates, and two multi FX. Usually had a pair of long-fader graphics for the mains and 4 short fader EQ's for monitors from FOH. And that would suffice for a 32 channel desk with the headliner taking up as many channels as they needed, and the opener would get whats left!

If you mixed the opener you considered it a gift if there was one comp left over for your main vocal!

Everybody keeps forgetting that the "cheap" consoles of yesterday, the AH GL's, Soundcraft GB"s they all sum much better then the X32/M32....

[Tim Weaver]

Everybody keeps forgetting that the "cheap" consoles of yesterday, the AH GL's, Soundcraft GB"s they all sum much better then the X32/M32....

I don't really buy that. The console is such a tiny percentage of the overall quality of a system, how could you tell that this console "sums" better than that one.

What even is summing anyway. What makes digital worse than analog?

[Scott Holtzman]

I don't really buy that. The console is such a tiny percentage of the overall quality of a system, how could you tell that this console "sums" better than that one.

What even is summing anyway. What makes digital worse than analog?

Summing,  the combining of all the inpits on a bus to the output is quite difficult in tje digital domain.  In the analog domain you just buffer and slam on a rail.

[Frank Koenig]

Summing,  the combining of all the inpits on a bus to the output is quite difficult in the digital domain.

Hey Scott, how so? It's a stateless (point) process and, so far as I know, only gets interesting if the numerical representation (number of bits, fixed, float, etc.) runs out of range. These days that's not likely to be a problem. There used to be a dilemma in summing a large number of digital or analog signals which was how to scale the output in the face of limited range. The most conservative approach is to assume full-scale on all inputs at the same instant, but this requires you to chop more off the bottom of the sum, raising the quantization (digital) or physical (analog) noise floor. In practice a large number of uncorrelated signals are unlikely to peak all at once. I remember having this discussion with one of Digidesign's engineers years ago. Like I said, not a problem anymore. If I'm wrong I'd like to know in what way. --Frank

[Russell Ault]

Summing,  the combining of all the inpits on a bus to the output is quite difficult in tje digital domain.  In the analog domain you just buffer and slam on a rail.

I was under the impression that floating point math made summing easier in the digital domain than the anogue one. In analogue when you reach maximum bus voltage you're done and you need to start pulling stuff down to prevent overdriving the summing amp. I had thought that with floating point math it was possible to design systems that can sum full-scale signals at maximum level from all inputs and still not exceed the available numerical headroom while also not using stupendously large numbers or increasing the noise floor. Is my math wrong?

-Russ

[Frank Koenig]

Is my math wrong?

Your math is right. Even with fixed-point you only need 7 bits of headroom to sum 128 signals worst case without clipping. In the old days we had other tricks, too, like block floating point. You sum until you detect overflow and then shift the whole kit and caboodle by one bit (divide by two) and keep a count of the shifts. That way you never re-scale more than you have to. I employed this technique in a school project I did ~35 years ago. 35 years -- ouch. -F

[ProSoundWeb Community]