Print

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

[Arnold B. Krueger]

Karl P(eterson) wrote on Tue, 16 October 2007 15:41

These days with remote pre-amps and digital consoles, I find passive splits more and more compelling.

With remote preamps and digital consoles and digital snakes, it seems like it is getting to be the time to move the split point back past the mic preamp output to the digital converter. The new relatively inexpensive high quality converters with 130 dB dynamic range mean that there's really no longer any need for preamp gain to be adjusted to match the needs of the console. The remaining need to adjust preamp gain relates to the source.

Quote:

While I truly appreciate iso'ed splits when we are driving very long copper runs to separate systems sitting on there own "power islands" these days when we are looking at stage splits with all of 30 feet of tail on them to go in two or three remote preamp racks I find the need for a completely iso'ed system becoming more and more unnecessary.

There should be racks of preamps on stage whose gain is only adjusted to adapt to the source. They  should feed a mulitplexer that delivers the output of every source to as many consoles as is needed, via a digital link.

Quote:

In your guys console search have you guys looked at the Studer Vista 8?

I saw a 1 hour demo of it at a regional church tech exhibition. My first impression is that it is a gorgeous user interface attached to pretty much the same collection of digital functions that are part of even the most inexpensive digital consoles.

Oh, there are neat refinements, but here's my favorite question -How many souls are we going to save with that added bell or whistle? How many lives are we going to change, even inside the sound booth?

I admit it, I'm a bit of a minimalist when it comes to console UIs. I happily mix on an 02R96 which seems to be somewhat legendary for its lack of ease-of-use in the user interface department.

Quote:

Grainger just bought 3 (FOH,Mons,Broadcast) with the associated infrastructure and seem to think they are the best thing since sliced bread. Up to 1000 inputs by 700 outputs (or something crazy like that) as well.

Grainger has a very impressive ministry and very impressive infrastructure. The other day I was talking to our youth guy for the 70-11th time about *venuizing* our youth room with its first designed, integrated and installed sound, video, and lighting. I said to him "If Grainger did this, they'd do it first class and it would cost them $50,000. If we bought really good hardware and did it ourself it would cost us $20,000. If we cut every corner and still got something that was reasonably robust and worked well enough and installed it ourselves, it would still cost us $4,000."  He's still agonizing over spending the $4,000, it seems.

<another letter from Buried Talent Community Church ;-)>

[Brad Weber]

Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 07:01

Karl P(eterson) wrote on Tue, 16 October 2007 15:41 These days with remote pre-amps and digital consoles, I find passive splits more and more compelling. With remote preamps and digital consoles and digital snakes, it seems like it is getting to be the time to move the split point back past the mic preamp output to the digital converter. The new relatively inexpensive high quality converters with 130 dB dynamic range mean that there's really no longer any need for preamp gain to be adjusted to match the needs of the console. The remaining need to adjust preamp gain relates to the source. Quote: While I truly appreciate iso'ed splits when we are driving very long copper runs to separate systems sitting on there own "power islands" these days when we are looking at stage splits with all of 30 feet of tail on them to go in two or three remote preamp racks I find the need for a completely iso'ed system becoming more and more unnecessary. There should be racks of preamps on stage whose gain is only adjusted to adapt to the source. They  should feed a mulitplexer that delivers the output of every source to as many consoles as is needed, via a digital link.

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work in practice.  Assuming that all mixes would always want exactly the same gain settings and changes just isn't realistic.

Think of the situation where the FOH is given control of the preamps.  Maybe something is a little down in level and the monitor mixer caught it first and turned up their channel gain to compensate.  Now the FOH mixer sees it and turns up the preamp gain, sending the monitors into feedback.  Now imagine this in the one project I had where the Owner wanted the recording studio in another part of the building to have control of the preamps on stage.  And saying that you preset the preamp gain and leave it is the same as saying you never have to adjust the trim after sound check, which is not a situation I've encountered too often.  And then you still have differences in inputs between consoles, imagine if the console with +24dBu input capability is adjusting the preamp gain for a console that has a +18dBu max for the inputs.

[Arnold B. Krueger]

[quote title=Brad Weber wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 13:30]

Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 07:01

There should be racks of preamps on stage whose gain is only adjusted to adapt to the source. They  should feed a mulitplexer that delivers the output of every source to as many consoles as is needed, via a digital link.

Quote:

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work in practice.  Assuming that all mixes would always want exactly the same gain settings and changes just isn't realistic.

I'm sorry that I didn't express myself well. The idea is that the preamps and converters have enough dynamic range that their gain need only adjusted to suit the source. IOW mic preamps for a dynamic mic and a condensor mic would be initally be set up with different gains because the output of the mics can vary so much, but once the mic preamp's is set its gain would not be changed as we so commonly do now.

Quote:

Think of the situation where the FOH is given control of the preamps.  Maybe something is a little down in level and the monitor mixer caught it first and turned up their channel gain to compensate.

No doubt the scenario you described Brad, where people keep on tweeking the mic preamp gain after everybody has already done their own local settings and optimizations, raises a lot of valid concerns.

I'm used to my digital mixer where there is a channel gain control in addition to the usual preamp gain control. I do most of my channel gain changes with the digital channel gain control, so there I have no need to change preamp gains "a little".  

I rarely change mic preamp gains after setting up the source,  because the mic preamp gain controls all over the place (some onboard, some in 8 offboard mic preamps, and some in ADA8000s). They are not just in my console.

Furthermore, no preamp gain settings can be saved in a scene on my console. None! So, unless I carefully stabilize them, I can easily create something like your scenario, where pulling up a scene that used to work, now goes into feedback.

Sharing resources requires discipline. Moving a mic can change things a lot for the operators of different consoles, and that is hard to avoid. So, we're already struggling with discipline issues, even if we don't share mic preamp gain settings.

[Andy Peters]

Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 05:54

I'm sorry that I didn't express myself well. The idea is that the preamps and converters have enough dynamic range that their gain need only adjusted to suit the source. IOW mic preamps for a dynamic mic and a condensor mic would be initally be set up with different gains because the output of the mics can vary so much, but once the mic preamp's is set its gain would not be changed as we so commonly do now.

You set the gain based on whether the mic is a dynamic vs a condenser?

How about setting the gain based on the SPL of the source?

Question: would the gain of an AKG C414 inside a kick drum be the same as the gain of that mic in front of choir?

-a

[Arnold B. Krueger]

[quote title=Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 20:48]

Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 05:54

I'm sorry that I didn't express myself well. The idea is that the preamps and converters have enough dynamic range that their gain need only adjusted to suit the source. IOW mic preamps for a dynamic mic and a condensor mic would be initally be set up with different gains because the output of the mics can vary so much, but once the mic preamp's is set its gain would not be changed as we so commonly do now.

Quote:

You set the gain based on whether the mic is a dynamic vs a condenser?

I'm sorry that I didn't express myself well. My point that all other things being equal...

Quote:

How about setting the gain based on the SPL of the source?

How about setting the preamp gain based primarily on the:

SPL of the source
Postion and orientation of the microphone
Sensitivity of the microphone

Quote:

Question: would the gain of an AKG C414 inside a kick drum be the same as the gain of that mic in front of choir?

All other things being equal, yes. Just stiking a mic in front of a choir or inside a kick drum doesn't change its sensitivity.

[Karl P(eterson)]

Again, I agree with you in principal, but reality doesn't play out.

In reality I have multiple bands with dozens of members and just as many different events. 20 different video clips coming from who knows where, halve a dozen potential operators, a keyboard that for some reason is just _blasting_ me and an acoustic G that just can't seem to get loud enough today.

I realize that there are a lot of applications where the cost effectiveness of shared pres and the convenience of a digital split are great things - but the window of their usefulness is very small.

Go with split pres - while you may regret you didn't - you will never regret that you did.

Karl P

[Christopher Buehring]

Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 15:37

How about setting the preamp gain based primarily on the: SPL of the source Postion and orientation of the microphone Sensitivity of the microphone

Translated: Set the preamp gain according to the strength of the signal coming into it.

[ProSoundWeb Community]