Print

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

[Caleb Dueck]

Back in the old(er) days, DSP units for live production were great and had a purpose - they replaced the crossovers/EQ/etc at FOH with a single black box.  That box helped save rack space, more precise, and could save/recall settings. 

Today though - mid/high end live production - DSP is built into the amps (d&b, L'Acoustics, TW Audio, Danley, and many more), and the amps/processing/speakers are a single package. 
Some amps have processing and are used with non-locked-down speakers (Powersoft, Lab.Gruppen, etc).
In the install world, DSP is incredibly powerful as it encompasses auto mixing, external control (tablets, iPads, etc), control over external gear (projectors/screens, video conference, system sequencing, cameras, etc).
At the low end of the price spectrum - "good enough" speaker processing is built into the speakers - and Meyer. 
At mid level self-powered speakers, such as Martin CDD, EAW Radius, others - the processing can be accessed over the network via computer.

It seems like the application for a stand-alone DSP is shrinking rapidly.  Remember all the XTA, Dolby Lake, and that level DSP's?  How many are still out there?  Is the market for stand-alone DSP's essentially gone?  Does it make sense to invest in, say, XTA or Lake LM anymore?  Or does it only make sense to think of speakers/amps/processing as a cohesive unit, and only if part that unit is lacking - do we try to fill in the gap? 

How many speaker manufacturers today even sell speakers without amps and processing, other than the lowest price points?  Fulcrum?   

[Tim McCulloch]

Back in the old(er) days, DSP units for live production were great and had a purpose - they replaced the crossovers/EQ/etc at FOH with a single black box.  That box helped save rack space, more precise, and could save/recall settings. 

Today though - mid/high end live production - DSP is built into the amps (d&b, L'Acoustics, TW Audio, Danley, and many more), and the amps/processing/speakers are a single package. 
Some amps have processing and are used with non-locked-down speakers (Powersoft, Lab.Gruppen, etc).
In the install world, DSP is incredibly powerful as it encompasses auto mixing, external control (tablets, iPads, etc), control over external gear (projectors/screens, video conference, system sequencing, cameras, etc).
At the low end of the price spectrum - "good enough" speaker processing is built into the speakers - and Meyer. 
At mid level self-powered speakers, such as Martin CDD, EAW Radius, others - the processing can be accessed over the network via computer.

It seems like the application for a stand-alone DSP is shrinking rapidly.  Remember all the XTA, Dolby Lake, and that level DSP's?  How many are still out there?  Is the market for stand-alone DSP's essentially gone?  Does it make sense to invest in, say, XTA or Lake LM anymore?  Or does it only make sense to think of speakers/amps/processing as a cohesive unit, and only if part that unit is lacking - do we try to fill in the gap? 

How many speaker manufacturers today even sell speakers without amps and processing, other than the lowest price points?  Fulcrum?   

Well... yeah, the idea that the processing is more likely to used, and used correctly, if it's built into the loudspeaker enclosure is one of the better ideas that help make it a great time to be in audio.

There are requests for LM44 with tablet as it's the voicing and alignment tool most of the BEs are familiar with.  For how long?  It depends on how many BEs decide to do those things with console assets, or bring whatever DSP tool they choose.  I'm seeing more of both...

The live side of audio has always been a small slice of the commercial/professional market and you're right about the way DSP is being used in the bigger part of the market.  I was looking for a processor to 'hide' somewhere to handle multiple fill speaker needs and all the new DSP have many features I have no need for; it's been some time since I took a closer look at install DSP (lots) to compare to things we use live (few). 

[John P. Farrell]

I bring 8 channels of LM44 everywhere.  MOST of the system processing I run into is correct or built-in, so a crossover isn't something I have much need for.  But having my own quality control of system eq and alignment is a must at every show. Call me old fashioned but I don't want this in the desk.   I know many guys that feel the same way, not to mention the Lake eq is very hard to beat for accuracy and phase coherency. 

Can't wait to play with a Newton...

JF

[Frank Koenig]

It seems like the application for a stand-alone DSP is shrinking rapidly.

That sounds about right to me. The complex install market will continue to create demand for DSP boxes featuring high I/O count, flexible routing, automixers, and various methods of external control, usually over a network. Standalone speaker processors will fade away.

As for output EQ and delay in a portable setting, I find the digital mixer a very convenient place to do that. During a show my speaker processors are "locked down" from me and everyone else.

--Frank

Edit to add: The line between install DSPs and surfaceless mixers is blurring. A&H would be very happy to have you use a dLive mixrack as the audio brain for your big restaurant, etc.

[Dave Pluke]

It seems like the application for a stand-alone DSP is shrinking rapidly.   

And, yet, XTA is advertising a big release at NAMM.  Will be interesting to see how they've refreshed their (mature) product line.

I still like having a stand-alone DSP and straight power amps because it provides me more flexibility as to which speakers I bring to a gig.  I do have a few powered speakers for Corporate events but my venues for musical events vary greatly.

Dave

[Matthew Knischewsky]

It seems like the application for a stand-alone DSP is shrinking rapidly.

As a system tech I'm using a DSP increasingly more as a Distribution Amplifier. I'm relying on a dedicated DSP less to do tasks like processing a speaker cabinet and more to process a zone of loudspeakers. As always though, it depends. Small gigs where there's only one engineer or only one console and a limited number of loudspeakers it's easy enough to do everything within the console. Larger events with different expectations this is less appropriate.

Plenty of times though it's desirable to keep those duties outside of the console for a number of reasons- Keep mix engineers from altering system tuning, a venue or festival expects touring consoles, etc. Often it's a matter of convenience, in the real world we're often mixing and matching amps and loudspeakers from different manufacturers or different generations of tech so even if everything is able to live on the same control network making system adjustments from multiple applications can be tedious. A single DSP with an intuitive interface makes this task easier.

If I'm tasked with providing a system for a BE with their own console my goal is for all of the heavy lifting to be done outside of their desk, in the DSP.

[Scott Holtzman]

Well... yeah, the idea that the processing is more likely to used, and used correctly, if it's built into the loudspeaker enclosure is one of the better ideas that help make it a great time to be in audio.

There are requests for LM44 with tablet as it's the voicing and alignment tool most of the BEs are familiar with.  For how long?  It depends on how many BEs decide to do those things with console assets, or bring whatever DSP tool they choose.  I'm seeing more of both...

The live side of audio has always been a small slice of the commercial/professional market and you're right about the way DSP is being used in the bigger part of the market.  I was looking for a processor to 'hide' somewhere to handle multiple fill speaker needs and all the new DSP have many features I have no need for; it's been some time since I took a closer look at install DSP (lots) to compare to things we use live (few).

Didn't lake make a processor that took up a slot on Yamaha consoles?  I have never seen one in the wild, have you?  If so how did you access the interface and was the interface different than the standalone processor?

[brian maddox]

Didn't lake make a processor that took up a slot on Yamaha consoles?  I have never seen one in the wild, have you?  If so how did you access the interface and was the interface different than the standalone processor?

Yamaha MY8-LAKE

There's still info on it out in the googles.  It's controlled via LAN just like their other processors and has AES/EBU I/O on it for interfacing to the outside world. 

[John P. Farrell]

Didn't lake make a processor that took up a slot on Yamaha consoles?  I have never seen one in the wild, have you?  If so how did you access the interface and was the interface different than the standalone processor?

Yes, I have one of them in inventory and it's great.  8 CH of Lake in either format that sits in a MY slot.  Interface/software/access is the same as an LM44 or 26.  Thousands less if you're in the Yamaha environment.  I was shocked they never took off.

JF

[Brian Bolly]

Yes, I have one of them in inventory and it's great.  8 CH of Lake in either format that sits in a MY slot.  Interface/software/access is the same as an LM44 or 26.  Thousands less if you're in the Yamaha environment.  I was shocked they never took off.

Pretty sure it's the exact reason you stated in your earlier post - putting the system DSP in the console gives a lot of people the heebie jeebies.  It was a good idea though.

I'm with most folks - although systems, and primarily speakers (whether amps in the box or next to the box) themselves have all the processing on board to make them "as good as they can be", there's still the need for another box to do all the distribution, zone alignment, console switching, etc., as well as being able to hand a tablet to the FOH mixerperson for their artistic swath of "voicing" at the front end of it all.  I don't think the Lake/Galileo/Newton market is going to go away any time soon because of this.

[Kevin Maxwell]

Back in the old(er) days, DSP units for live production were great and had a purpose - they replaced the crossovers/EQ/etc at FOH with a single black box.  That box helped save rack space, more precise, and could save/recall settings. 

Today though - mid/high end live production - DSP is built into the amps (d&b, L'Acoustics, TW Audio, Danley, and many more), and the amps/processing/speakers are a single package. 
Some amps have processing and are used with non-locked-down speakers (Powersoft, Lab.Gruppen, etc).
In the install world, DSP is incredibly powerful as it encompasses auto mixing, external control (tablets, iPads, etc), control over external gear (projectors/screens, video conference, system sequencing, cameras, etc).
At the low end of the price spectrum - "good enough" speaker processing is built into the speakers - and Meyer. 
At mid level self-powered speakers, such as Martin CDD, EAW Radius, others - the processing can be accessed over the network via computer.

It seems like the application for a stand-alone DSP is shrinking rapidly.  Remember all the XTA, Dolby Lake, and that level DSP's?  How many are still out there?  Is the market for stand-alone DSP's essentially gone?  Does it make sense to invest in, say, XTA or Lake LM anymore?  Or does it only make sense to think of speakers/amps/processing as a cohesive unit, and only if part that unit is lacking - do we try to fill in the gap? 

How many speaker manufacturers today even sell speakers without amps and processing, other than the lowest price points?  Fulcrum?   

I would strongly suggest that if you get a chance listen to a demo of Fulcrum Acoustic speakers. 

I was involved in 2019 with an install in a church that seats about 2000 of 21 Fulcrum Acoustics FA CCX 1295 speakers. The ceiling wasn’t high enough to do it any other way then a distributed layout. We used 3 4-channel power amps with all of the DSP built in. The room is wider then it is deep so the speakers are mirrored from one side to the other. Fulcrum supplied the speaker settings to load into the amps and I used the additional DSP capability in the amps to handle the delay and the routing and also the extremely minor EQ tweak for the room. The client really likes the new speaker system the way it is all setup. I didn’t specifically lock them out of the amps but they wouldn’t know how to get into them to mess with things that they shouldn’t.

The subs are a different brand with built in power amps. That part of the install I didn’t spec, they are under the stage and at the moment I have an output EQ on the mixer (Avid SC48) doing a little bit of out of band EQ. I said at the moment because I am going to be using DSPs that the church used to use on their old system to do a few things to the subs so someone can’t accidently change something in the SC48 and mess up these settings. This is one of the minor things that still needs to get done to finish this install. When you are trying to do a major sound system upgrade without interrupting their ability to still have the Sunday service in the room you sometimes have to do things to just make it work and deal with the finer things after the dust settles.

We also upgraded there IEM system (to eliminate the need for wedges) and now the only monitors in regular use are a couple of 8” coax monitors for speech monitoring on stage. Anyone speaking gets a little bit of themselves back in those monitors. These are EQed and limited with one of their existing DSPs so again they don’t mess with it. There existing RH bi-amped monitors (external power amps) are still able to be pulled out of a closet and used if they need to for special events. And they are processed by another external DPS.

Now how I deal with concert and theatrical work is another whole different subject.

[Scott Helmke]

We still use DSP on a systems level. As soon as you have a line array, subs, front fills, delays, it's best to have all that managed by a dedicated box with a lot of outputs and DSP on every output.

[John P. Farrell]

Pretty sure it's the exact reason you stated in your earlier post - putting the system DSP in the console gives a lot of people the heebie jeebies.  It was a good idea though.

I'm with most folks - although systems, and primarily speakers (whether amps in the box or next to the box) themselves have all the processing on board to make them "as good as they can be", there's still the need for another box to do all the distribution, zone alignment, console switching, etc., as well as being able to hand a tablet to the FOH mixerperson for their artistic swath of "voicing" at the front end of it all.  I don't think the Lake/Galileo/Newton market is going to go away any time soon because of this.

You got me!  I should have specified that I don't want to rely on the CONSOLE to process those items.  The Lake card would never work for a festival or club, for a tour it can be a space saver. 

I wholeheartedly agree with your above points. 

JF

[Jeff Bankston]

i dont use dsp. i use ashly xr1001 and xr4001 and custom built marchand crossovers and once set never adjust

[Tim McCulloch]

I think it's time to Split the Hare (sorry, Bugs Bunny).

What most of *US* are using stand-alone DSP for these days is as a *system controller*, not loudspeaker processing.  The market for external loudspeaker processing is dropping to nil, but the market for system controllers as we use them is not expanding rapidly.  DSP for conference rooms, or for full campus/facility distribution is a growing and continuous market.  We get the crumbs and left overs.

[ProSoundWeb Community]