Print

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

[Jay Barracato]

I guess it surprises me that someone's pet hypothesis would be about how strangers choose to view a product when it doesn't even affect him...

It reminds me of when someone says the _______ powered speaker sounds like crap when pushed.

I end up thinking you push a line level input through the settings designed for a mic level input, end up engaging all the limiters, and wonder that it doesn't sound good.

[eric lenasbunt]

It reminds me of when someone says the _______ powered speaker sounds like crap when pushed.

I end up thinking you push a line level input through the settings designed for a mic level input, end up engaging all the limiters, and wonder that it doesn't sound good.

I was thinking of this concept when I had a soon to be visiting engineer tell me he would prefer a Mackie 1604 to an O1V because the O1V 'is the worst sounding board ever'. These type of Yamaha comments come through a lot, though somehow I am able to consistently get the board to perform and get compliments and what I feel is a clean, nice mix. I have heard many GREAT sounding shows on Yammy digital. I agree you can't clip the crap out of channels, but why would you do that anyway?
  There are some interesting very strong opinions out there. BTW, this is for a house show act with 3 inputs and tracks, not thinking the inputs will be pushed, but who knows...

[Geoff Doane]

Sorry to be curt, but I couldn't care less how people use these things unless they're employed by my business. 

The complete comprehension of the system a tech is driving will show in that technician's work, and that's what I judge by.

Kristian, you're correct that the end result is what should all be striving for, but I (along with Eric and Jay, it seems) am interested in why some users seem to have  such a negative opinion of the lower end Yamaha consoles.  If we are in the market of supplying gear that other people will be using, it certainly is important to have gear in inventory that those people want to use. 

I've been involved in this business in one way or another for well over 30 years, and as long as a console worked, I can't honestly say that I remember one that actually sounded bad.  Some certainly had more facilities than others, but they all had reasonably clean gain, and the speakers (and to a lesser extent, microphones) have always been the weaker link in any system I've used.  And that covers everything from 6-channel Tapco mixers, Peavey mixer-heads, several generations of Soundcraft consoles, various Yamaha analog and digital, and top-end digital and analog SSL desks.

Besides music, my education has been on the technical side of the business (Electronics  Engineering Technologist), so I tend to give more credence to the scientific process, and measuring things, rather than just listening to something and making some "wise" pronouncement about its quality.  Don't even get me started on the "myth" of external clocks improving the converters of Yamaha products. 

Sometime in the late 80s, at an AES convention, I participated in a controlled listening test, designed to determine if a broad sampling of listeners (AES attendees) could hear a difference between an audiophile tube amplifier and a run-of-the-mill Crown PSA-2, fairly typical of PA amplifiers of the day. It was a double blind test, and all listeners had to do was indicate if they heard a difference between the two samples of music.  We might have heard two samples from the same amplifier, or one from each.  In those pre-internet days it took a while to get the results out, but as I recall, the overall results were no better than random guessing, even with what should have been the best ears in the business taking the test.

Here's a link to an updated version, this time looking at the 44.1/16 "bottleneck" of the CD release format:

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/?fbc_channel=1

GTD

[eric lenasbunt]

And to be clear, someone saying they don't want to deal with the layout or format or functionality of the O1V is totally understood, but the sound quality? We are sending signal to K12s and Eons, I don't think the mixer is the weakest link.

[John Chiara]

I have this pet hypothesis about people's feeling about the LS9/M7CL preamps which AFAIK are identical (please correct if you know this to be wrong).

My hunch is that there could be a correlation between how satisfied people are with them and how hot they are running them.

The best way I can think of, off the top of my head, to gauge these things would be to rate the preamp on a scale like this:

1. Extremely poor. Bordering on unusable.
2. Noticably below average.
3. Good, decent preamp that neither takes away nor adds noticably to the signal.
4. Stellar preamp rivalling the best studio-preamps.

and the best "standard candle" (as an astronomer would say) for measuring how hot you run an LS9 might be what your typical gain on a Shure Beta58A mic is on pop/rock vocals (?)

I'll go first: I give the LS9 preamp a 3 and I'm almost always running Beta58 vocals at -26dB "Yamaha gain".

My beef with the LS9 preamp is the same as Yamaha analog boards. I have used the LS9, O1V962, M7, PM5D, O2R, MC series, PM 3500, 4000 as well as the old PM 1000/2000.
The old boards preamps came with 6db click stop attenuators on the preamps and seemed robust from my recollection.
All my recent experiences go like this. There seems to be a good useable range on the preamps that once exceeded... No reference #'s on this sorry... Results in a characteristic graininess and thinning of the sound. This is in relation to other consoles and normal live one off show gain structure setup. I did not notice this on the PM5D which I believe has the newer amps designed for the PM 5000.
One time I surprised myself recognizing Yami pres. A friends band switched from wedges to IEMs. That normally had a Midas Venice at FOH and I was used to hearing that. I walked into a show after the change to IEMs, and my FIRST thought was, wow, it sounds different in a weird, thin scratchy kind of way... And that it sounds like a Yamaha board rather than a Midas. I figured the sound man must be running something differently. I made my way to FOH and surprise!!!
MC series Yamaha because of the 10 aux sends for the IEMs. Double whammy, when running monitors from FOH it is harder to adjust input gains as it will change the IEMS mixes so I could actually hear certain channels "stressing" as singers sang louder than in sound check.

[Tim McCulloch]

Kristian, you're correct that the end result is what should all be striving for, but I (along with Eric and Jay, it seems) am interested in why some users seem to have  such a negative opinion of the lower end Yamaha consoles.  If we are in the market of supplying gear that other people will be using, it certainly is important to have gear in inventory that those people want to use. 

I've been involved in this business in one way or another for well over 30 years, and as long as a console worked, I can't honestly say that I remember one that actually sounded bad.  Some certainly had more facilities than others, but they all had reasonably clean gain, and the speakers (and to a lesser extent, microphones) have always been the weaker link in any system I've used.  And that covers everything from 6-channel Tapco mixers, Peavey mixer-heads, several generations of Soundcraft consoles, various Yamaha analog and digital, and top-end digital and analog SSL desks.

Besides music, my education has been on the technical side of the business (Electronics  Engineering Technologist), so I tend to give more credence to the scientific process, and measuring things, rather than just listening to something and making some "wise" pronouncement about its quality.  Don't even get me started on the "myth" of external clocks improving the converters of Yamaha products. 

Sometime in the late 80s, at an AES convention, I participated in a controlled listening test, designed to determine if a broad sampling of listeners (AES attendees) could hear a difference between an audiophile tube amplifier and a run-of-the-mill Crown PSA-2, fairly typical of PA amplifiers of the day. It was a double blind test, and all listeners had to do was indicate if they heard a difference between the two samples of music.  We might have heard two samples from the same amplifier, or one from each.  In those pre-internet days it took a while to get the results out, but as I recall, the overall results were no better than random guessing, even with what should have been the best ears in the business taking the test.

Here's a link to an updated version, this time looking at the 44.1/16 "bottleneck" of the CD release format:

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/?fbc_channel=1

GTD

+1

And to add to the complexity, in any mixer we hear the the result of the electronics between the input XLR and the output XLR.  In some cases it's been possible to use/hear/measure just the input strip without the summing buses, but mostly we listen to the whole signal chain within the console.  This is particularly true of digital mixers.

As Eric points out, the console is not weakest link in the system.

[Mike Christy]

I sometimes use an ARX (MY4AD) and 2626 (Fiber) pres for 01V96 additional channels, I can hear a distinct improvement, more so with the ARX. This seems to tell me that its the Yam ADs could be the culpret.

[ProSoundWeb Community]