Eric Simna wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 11:58 |
I know what Mark's sayin'. I am a lot alike. I'd rather have nothing than have to page through screens on a small LCD to set everything. And I do mostly musical theatre where the automation could help. We just like being able to look at a channel and know exactly whats going on, without having to turn a page. That being said, I haven't had the chance to mix on a digi yet, and like the idea of the feature sets. But I'd still rather racks of equipment than the small "next to nothing" footprint. |
Mike Christy wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 09:36 |
How would a digital board reduce event bidding/quote amounts, when 2% or 3% of $4000 digital equipment cost, is more than 2% to 3% of $2000 analog equiment cost? The dig/analog gear weights about the same, with the large gas-hogging gear being cabinets and power amps mostly... you always need them, dig or not. Mike |
Mike Christy wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 18:36 |
How would a digital board reduce event bidding/quote amounts, when 2% or 3% of $4000 digital equipment cost, is more than 2% to 3% of $2000 analog equiment cost? The dig/analog gear weights about the same, with the large gas-hogging gear being cabinets and power amps mostly... you always need them, dig or not. Mike |
Mark Hadman wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 08:35 |
If providers are going to insist on deploying these abominations I'm going to have to start saving for one of those APB pro-racks or something. Even the Midas XL8 looks like a big pile of expletive from where I'm sitting. |
Dave Dermont wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 17:24 |
Anyone who has been to Yamaha Digi Console School will tell ya... Select - Tweak - Store I hope the Yamaha people don't get pissed I have revealed their secret. |
Dave Dermont wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 17:24 |
Hey Mark, I respect your opinion and it's good to have favorites, but you need to get with the freakin' program. No, really. I understand the mixing with both hands and all that, but how hard is it to press a 'select' button? Do you EQ more than one channel at a time too? THAT I gotta see! |
Mark Hadman wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 19:26 |
Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of technology, But it was an absolutely ridiculous gig the other day - small festy, two minutes changeover, the last thing I needed was to see an O2R/96 at FOH, accompanied by an HE who couldn't (or wouldn't) set up a tap tempo delay on a soft key for me and, it turned out a few minutes in, hadn't actually got any FX returns routed anywhere anyway, and the vocals were distorted to hell because there weren't enough pres on the desk so they were using an overcooked B*******r A/D unit hidden away in a rack along with a couple of inexplicable B******r digiEQs ... ... |
bruce reiter wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 20:39 | ||
hi mark, it is your responsibility to know how to operate the equipment. read the manual and figure out for yourself how to use the soft key function or whatever. ignorance is no excuse. best, bruce |
Rick Stansby wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 08:19 | ||
No that is actually the job of the house engineer. It doesn't sound like Mark requested the 02R (which btw is not at all common in live sound). A true engineer should be able to mix a show on any digital board - as long as he has the support of a system engineer who knows all the details of the entire system. |
Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 08:09 |
I think with digital you have a much different mix of "can do it right now" vs. "have to set that up beforehand". For instance, with analog it's very easy and quick to suddenly grab a knob to send a source to the echo for one beat or grab two EQ or pan knobs at once. |
Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 08:09 |
On the other hand, with digital it's very easy and quick to add a compressor/gate/graphic to a random channel on the fly, because it's probably already there but not turned on yet. With analog if you suddenly decide you need a compressor you have to scramble around behind the board to insert it, probably having to also wait for a break in case there's something unplugged at the other end of the insert cable. |
Patrick Tracy wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 13:03 |
The ideal would be digital with analog style interface. And I can look at the rack and see all the gain reduction meters at a glance. What I mix on is a personal choice, like the guitars I play. My gear suits my needs and the kinds of jobs I do. It's analogous to the choice between using an electronic piano versus a real piano. Obviously, way more performances are done on electronic pianos compared to grand pianos because they are just more practical, easier to move, stay in tune, you can change its sound from a grand to a out of tune honky tonk to a tack piano with a button, but for a significant minority a real piano is the only real choice. |
David Karol wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 17:02 |
With a digital console, it would probably be obsolete, if not damaged by the heat, within a few years. Our location is in a semi-outdoor theater in Hancock, NY. In the summer, the temperature at the mix position gets over 120 degrees. In my opinion, that's a no-no for digital. |
David Karol wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 16:02 |
In the summer, the temperature at the mix position gets over 120 degrees. In my opinion, that's a no-no for digital. |
David Karol wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 14:02 |
Our location is in a semi-outdoor theater in Hancock, NY. In the summer, the temperature at the mix position gets over 120 degrees. In my opinion, that's a no-no for digital. |
Mac Kerr wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 17:31 |
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. What makes you think a console can be "obsolete"? Does it stop doing all things you bought if for in the first place? Or do you really mean that your needs will have changed, and what once worked for you is no longer enough? How is analog any less prone to your needs changing? Heat is the enemy of all electronics. Keeping things cool is going to matter whether the console is digital or analog. Mac |
RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 18:19 |
If you are getting to 120 degrees at mix position in New York then I must be 150 degrees at mix position here in Phoenix! Last year our hottest event was 116 drgees and the second hottest was 114. The latter had over 40 people drom from the heat and two different cities sent their fire departments to deal with the emergencies! I can tell you from experience that people drop from the heat long before any mixing console that I have been on so far. Out here there are some providers that do have to put big fans in front of their power supplies for their analog console to keep them cool. |
David A. Parker wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 18:09 |
I saw a multi-band country music event in Houston recently(national level bands), and it appeared that several of the bands brought their own digital mixer. Each band used a different mixer, and most packed theirs and left after they played. Digital mixers offer a total package, everything you need in one package, and a package of a size that you can take with you. That would save a lot on setup time and give the mix guy the same setup every gig. You couldn't do that with analog, all the outboard gear makes the package too large. |
Toby Mills wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 23:10 |
So are you saying that the only digital desk that sounds better than all analog desks is an XL8. I would take a digital A&H I-Live over most analog desks purely on how good it sounds. Does a PM5d not sound as good as a Mackie or Behringer analog? |
John Stoffel wrote on Tue, 10 June 2008 23:35 |
BTW when I was at namm I did see the I-Live. unfortunately, I was not able to hear it. The interface did seem to make sense. For my gig right now I will stay analog, however I am keeping up with the technology. That was one reason I did the Yammie training. But oh my, the XL8..somehow I have to convince the boss that he needs one! |
Quote: |
As far as what is so great about an XL8, it still sounds good when it is overdriven. |
Toby Mills wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 00:31 |
Minor point, but its physically impossible to overdrive a digital signal. No matter what digital system you use, if you go over peak it will sound BAD. However, its very easy to make the peak lights come on 6 clicks below digital peak to give the impression something is being overdriven, but its absolutely impossible to apply the same overdriving techniques often used in analog and still get a good sound. If the bit depth is deep enough then digital peak may well be higher than the point where the preamps start sounding bad and the metered level appears to be peaking. So in that case it can give the impression that you are overdriving the channel and it doesn't sound bad. Practically speaking there is little point in this though as it just wastes headroom. Most engineers now know that you keep the gain well below the red line on a digital console. I don't see many engineers these days that overdrive channels just to get the 'sound'. DSP and plugins can now achieve equally good results without any risk of killing anything. |
Art Welter wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 00:06 |
As far as what is so great about an XL8, it still sounds good when it is overdriven. There may be other alternatives that would save 200K, but dang, it’s the real thang. |
Mark Hadman wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 17:36 |
OKAY, so which manufacturer is going to step up a give me (& the world) a small-medium format DIGITAL console with every knob, fader and button that we expect to see on our small-medium format ANALOGUE consoles? Take a look at the APB Dynasonics ProRack House, or, if you prefer, the Midas Venice. What if the insides were digital? Would that lower the cost? And presumably some of the savings can go into a little screen poking out the top where we can set up the internal comps/gates/FX/channel delay/etc etc... I'm sure it's not quite that straightforward, I haven't thought it through, maybe it IS the knobs and faders that cost all that money... do we lose total recall by using 'proper' knobs instead of soft knobs with rings of LEDs?... let's see... |
Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 02:54 |
Obviously, not having every single control available to the operator at all times can greatly inhibit some mixing styles. |
David A. Parker wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 10:37 |
My LS9 has digitally controlled head amps (input gain). They have plenty of headroom, but if something gets away and it goes over, ugh! it's nasty. Had a drummer get crazy all of a sudden on his floor tom. It sounded like every speaker I had came apart at the same time. No damage, but it sounded like a train wreck. |
Mark Hadman wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 07:49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have a vision of the future.... modularity! If a universal protocol could be developed, then the 3 main components of a digital console (surface, engine and AD/DA) could be separated. Some of you have already written about controlling your digital consoles via laptop over ethernet, and of course we already have ADAT lightpipes and larger digital multicores, so we're not that far off. The DJ world is already there to a certain extent, with control surfaces ('decks') available for PC software like TraktorDJ. Engineer X is happy to set up a mix and pretty much leave it with the odd mute/unmute/FX tweak here and there, so he turns up with nothing but a USB memory stick, quite happy to use the cheap USB mouse & 7" SVGA interface provided by the sound company. He adjusts the house EQ, assigns the correct channel numbers and all he has to do is hit the mouse button between songs (the band have no idea that he spends most of the gig on the phone to his accountant). Engineer Y wants a heavily customised control layout with instant access to DCA groups, the 31 band FOH EQ and a spectrum analyzer, and also wants to mix whilst wandering the room, so she bring a Post by: Henry Cohen on June 12, 2008, 10:59:31 AM
Hmmm, I wonder. With lower frequency, propagation friendly and relatively limited channel bandwidth RF spectrum being reallocated for many co-located services, and higher frequency (>3GHz), very wide channel bandwidth spectrum, which I believe is what would be necessary to handle JR's communications needs, suffering from limited propagation characteristics, there's going to have to be a trade off between latency and the amount of data transfer (bandwidth). Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 12, 2008, 11:18:18 AM
Current wireless radio would choke if there are too many unique sources and destinations. Control information would require reasonable bandwidth. I suspect bandwidth is a little like energy... we may not have as much as we want right now, but a lot of folks are working on it, because so many more want it. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a free market to deliver if there is enough demand and people willing to pay. I see wireless bandwidth driven by the consumer market. JR Note: doesn't have to be RF but that seems to be current direction. Post by: Mark Hadman on June 12, 2008, 12:37:51 PM
Yes, the engine and AD/DA will always be wired if not collocated, at least in our lifetimes. In fact what you're describing is pretty much like the A&H iLive system that I got to use when Joe Bonamassa last came here - collocated stagebox and engine, the 'multicore' being a couple of XLR cables running to the desk. (I only got four channels to play with for the support - gtr, vox, rvb, dly - but the BE who brought it in was friendly and helpful and I was reasonably comfortable with the desk by the time doors opened. Nice logical layout, most of the control surface is a giant channel strip running from left to right, more impressive than most I've used. Still wouldn't ever be entirely happy to be thrown on one of them cold without a S/C!) Post by: Andy Peters on June 12, 2008, 04:45:08 PM
Rotary encoders don't need motors, as they're typically continous (no end point, they keep spinnin'). That's what the whole "V-pot" thing is all about, with the ring of LEDs around the knob to give you an indication of where it's actually "pointing." -a Post by: Andy Peters on June 12, 2008, 04:54:09 PM While it'd need some fairly hefty logic to handle scanning 2,000 knobs, switches and faders, it seems to me that the communication channel between the surface and the "brain" can be fairly low tech. The MIDI model makes a lot of sense here. First, you only send control changes, and only when those control changes occur. Again we assume human operators (two hands, two feet, ten fingers) and even if there are four people behind the surface mixing, that's not a lot of bandwidth required for control changes. Then you need a handful of digitized audio channels for talkback, cuing, whatnot. The control changes and the audio can be muxed onto the same fibre. The only thing really missing is the will of the various vendors to do what MIDI did for the synth people. -a Post by: Jim Trust on June 12, 2008, 05:15:53 PM Post by: Toby Mills on June 12, 2008, 05:36:34 PM
Many of the major console manufacturers outsource their effects to external companies that specialise in effects. I believe yamaha do it in house but they already have an established effects knowlege. Soundcraft of course use Lexicon etc. I pretty much exclusively use an I-Live now and the effects in that are as good if not better than most of the external units money can buy with the added advantage of a huge touch screen to edit parameters if you want to. Effects quality is a big selling point and because these consoles usually have gobs of processing power its easy for the manufacturers to add new features and patches. The ability to easily load new FX with scene changes etc is the final nail in the coffin for outboard. I was in the same situation as you looking at the prospect of spending a major chunk of money on upgraded comps and FX and decided to hold off and go down the digi console path. Its paid off big time and I have no regrets at all. Post by: Joe Breher on June 12, 2008, 07:30:52 PM
As someone who has for over a decade co-authored international standards for data storage and transmission as a means of feeding my family, this is an area where I have some specialized knowledge. I am not convinced about any need for unrealizable amounts of bandwitdh between the AD/DA IO and the processing. Let's break this down. Currently, the vanguard of digital audio is running at 24 bit word depth, and 192Ksamples/sec. Accordingly, each channel requires 4.608 Mb/s of bandwidth. A fairly sizable (though certainly not huge) system might have 64 inputs and 32 outputs - or a total of 96. That is a total *aggregate* bandwidth of less than 442 Mb/s. There are numerous current technologies that can provide this bandwidth today, with acceptable latency. Even lowly Gigabit Ethernet does 1.25 Gb/s in each direction simultaneously (minus a couple % for framing). Strip off the clumsy TCP/IP layers, and it is pretty low latency besides. This could comfortably yield 200 channels upstream and 200 channels downstream, simultaneously. This should accommodate any but the largest live sound scenarious. Not only that, 10 GbE is going mainstream in IT as we speak. While I have not done any studies of audio on 10 GbE, it should be capable of supporting perhaps over 2000 channels of 24/192K in each direction simultaneously. Not that I necessarily believe Ethernet is the logical best coice for such transmission. However, as an unbiquitous technology, it provides a useful baseline. I agree that it is logical to keep the processing and the IO co-located. However, I think it has more to do with the cost of sheet metal than the cost of data transmission links. Post by: Toby Mills on June 12, 2008, 07:45:49 PM
Joe, this is all feasible and currently in use with several of the commercial remote audio consoles available today. Ethersound currently handles 64 bi-directional channels at 24bit 28Khz (more than enough for live audio) down a single CAT5 100Mbit link with less than 2ms latency. Cobrasound offers similar specs. I think the first and most exciting step is the introduction of standards around the audio transmission side (control can come later). You can presently plug Digiram stage boxes or output boxes into an I-Live or other ethersound device. This is the first step towards seamless integration of digital components. Lets not run before we can walk. Once the audio transmission battle has been won by either ethersound or cobrasound, then the battle for a control protocol can commence. Personally I think there is probably room for both, conbrasound seems to be becoming the defacto standard for installations, while ethersound seems to be gaining wider adoption in the livesound community. Once amps start shipping as standard with ethersound inputs and ethersound stage boxes become more common then we are almost there. The great thing is that when you have one computer talking to another computer, its relatively easy to change the language they speak to each other on. If its an IP based protocol that is adopted as a standard, its feasible that manufacturers could provide updates to their products that will allow cross compatibility. How cool it would be to plug an I-Live surface into a PM5 rack or use an I-Live rack as an extension of a VI6 based system. Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 12, 2008, 09:11:46 PM
What is trivial for fiber and easy for wire, may not be easy lifting for IR or RF links. I only see difficulty (using off the shelf rat shack technology) for the traffic between I/O and processing. There are already plenty of people sending low bandwidth control info via existing wireless paths. Sorry if I wasn't clear. The future hasn't happened yet so nobody can win an argument about it... JR Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 12, 2008, 09:14:27 PM I didn't say that... JR Post by: David A. Parker on June 12, 2008, 10:36:43 PM Post by: Jack Arnott on June 14, 2008, 01:11:36 AM
Hello Bruce, I gotta disagree with you here. If Mark requests a PM5D, then he should know how to use it. If the company shows up with a digital and he is to use it, they should be helpful in showing him how it works. I agree that he needs to get to embrace digital, but for dude that provides it to sit idly by, or not know how to use it himself is wrong. Regards, Jack Post by: Jake Scudder on June 14, 2008, 05:36:02 AM
Or they could just hire me or any other number of posters in this thread that have already done our homework and aren't going to be surprised or unprepared regardless of what console or surface we are dealt. I'm sorry, and I don't mean this directly to you Jack, but it just isn't that difficult. It's not like the wheel is being reinvented. There are certainly differences between manufacturers and every once in a while you will see something that makes you scratch your head. The bottom line remains that regardless of how many A/D or D/A conversions happen along the way, it is still just signal flow. Post by: bruce reiter on June 15, 2008, 12:21:45 AM
hi jack, if you are working as a foh mixer in my opinion it is your responsibility to be able to operate any gear that is put in front of you. things do not always go as planned. i have had a wonderful xl4 fail on me once and i smiled said f*ck a few times and prepared my mix on the old beat up soundcraft 500 with crappy fx and inserts. i know not the same as digital vs analog but the point is things do not always go your way. you must rise to the occasion. in a perfect world the system tech will know all of the gear but many times they do not know very much. it is up to you. a few yours ago i was on a tour that charlie hernandez was the pm on (pm on massive tours ...) charlie gave me some great advice, he said :bruce, they will always let you down, plan for that" best, bruce these are just my opinions take em for what they are:-) Post by: Charlotte Evans on June 15, 2008, 06:36:09 AM
Quite. Take things in your stride. Sometimes this can be a little hard: I did a typical "line-check" only festival, we were headlining. Got to FOH well before my time slot and saw that the PA co. had changed the board from an agreed Midas 3k to a Digico D5. Why? Because the festival organisers wanted to multitrack the show via DigiTracks so that they could produce a festival album. Well not with my band they wern't, no arrangement had been brokered with our agant/management so that was disabled. After having given them a bit of a mouthful that a courtesy phonecall or email might have been appropriate after me signing off the agreed equipment I got busy. Unfortunately I had no previous settings for a Digico on a USB key so I had to start right from scratch; it would have been nice if the PA co. had done a bit of prepping like loading in my channel names to save some time,but no As luck would have it there was a torrential downpour during changeover and half the stage got completely soaked due to lack of suitable tarping. By the time the band and crew had made a decision as to whether it was safe to play or not I had a mix dialled in but I wasn't a very happy bunny with it all! Post by: Henry Cohen on June 15, 2008, 10:13:30 AM
Curious as to why your RF networking reference is to consumer level RS products and not enterprise/commercial caliber offerings? I presume you don't buy your mics, speakers and amps from them. There are in fact gigabit RF links out there with relatively low latencies, but as I indicated before, there are compromises: They are only point to point, require lots of RF bandwidth and since they operate in the 11GHz, 30GHz and 60GHz bands, require direct unobstructed line of sight. Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 15, 2008, 10:51:17 AM
$$$ Because consumer scale demand drives cost effective technology. We need high production volume to get prices down. You know more than I about how bandwidth gets allocated but again I suspect mass market consumer demand to trump business needs. I would expect boys and girls wanting HD movies on their cell phones to be more of a driver than Cisco meeting some IT requirement (while they do own Linksys). There's a reason digital snake technology was around for decades without being embraced. The communication channel needs to robust and not crazy expensive compared to wire. The beauty of arguing about the future is you can't be right or wrong. JR Post by: Henry Cohen on June 15, 2008, 12:26:23 PM
Granted, the high volumes needed to bring professional level gear prices down will be driven by the consumer market, but I was making a far more immediate point: We as professionals should not be using consumer level equipment (i.e. access points) in professional applications when enterprise/commercial level gear is readily available at reasonable price points. As for today's esoteric gigabit RF links, no doubt they'll be tomorrow's ho hum (yawn) RS monthly special. Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 15, 2008, 12:40:31 PM
I guess I'm still locked into a mass market mentality. The cost to develop specialized ICs is huge so needs to be amortized over large customer bases. Even the modern codecs and high power DSP we are benefiting from were developed for mass markets. I don't look at a problem as can it be solved, but can it be solved for a price low enough that enough people are willing to pay for, to justify the engineering investment. Quite a different mentality from the show must go on.. no matter what it takes or cost. There will generally be enough military, space, or high end applications to pioneer technology. YMMV JR Post by: Mac Kerr on June 15, 2008, 12:51:33 PM
Mac Post by: Henry Cohen on June 15, 2008, 05:35:06 PM
Give that man a cheroot. Post by: Tim Padrick on June 16, 2008, 02:11:16 AM
I hate it when you smart guys use these fancy technical terms, and I have to look them up Post by: Steve Syfuhs on June 16, 2008, 03:07:36 AM Point being: If we use WiFi to control the systems, any schmuck with a laptop could do some damage, even if encryption was used. My thinking is that if more and more people hop onto the wireless bandwagon a major change is going to have to take place for security. Perhaps a modified version of WiFi specfically designed for show control is in order? Post by: Henry Cohen on June 16, 2008, 09:53:28 AM
Why is this type of random maliciousness a greater concern than someone putting a pin through your copper snake or crushing/cutting the fiber as it runs through the audience area? A pin or small pair of wire cutters are a lot smaller, lighter and less expensive to carry around than a laptop . . . and doesn't require a more advanced level of computer and WiFi knowledge. Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 16, 2008, 09:57:43 AM
This is no less a concern for consumers and I expect that marketplace to deliver a solution, perhaps something along the lines of secure websites. JR Post by: Robert "Void" Caprio on June 16, 2008, 11:11:02 AM Post by: Steve Syfuhs on June 16, 2008, 12:57:57 PM As John said it is up to the marketplace to deliver a solution. Unfortunately, I don't think the same principle of encrypting web traffic is going to work. Thats the point of WEP/WPA-2, except websites use much larger encryption keys on a higher level in the stack...performance issues are immediate. To OP's comments: it sounds as if you haven't truly worked with a digital board in a manner becoming of a digital board. If you tour with any of the band(s) you mix, as an experiment, try and borrow a PM5D or an LS9, or even a Digidesign if your lucky for a week or two...or maybe the entire tour. It's very eye opening to go from an all analog system to digitally controlled, even if you don't actually like the feel of it. I went from working with sh*t Mackies, to working with my first digi...a DiGiCo D5, and wow...what a difference. A year later I worked with a Digidesign Venue. Even though the D5 is 6x the cost of the Venue, I prefered the layout of the Venue. Now my analog desk of choice is from APB, but because of the modularity and flexibility associated with digital, I would trade up and go with a Venue any day. When it comes to the major fundamental differences, my perception is of when the work is done. With analog it takes some time to set up, but its a simple step of logical wiring and patching. With digital, its more than wiring...you have to program the board properly per channel, set up cues, set up FX, set of EQs etc before show time which is 10x more time consuming. Once the show starts with analog you are ready to go manually moving faders, tweaking pots for EQs, panning, switching auxes, etc. With digital, you all ready have the show programmed, so you have the option of just hitting "GO" and switching between cues, or you can manually control fader groups, and do really cool things like use macros to increase the lead vocals IEM 10% by the touch of a button, etc. When it comes down to it, prep for digital is huge. Less than analog. My opinion is, if digital prep is done improperly, it compounds the intial complexity tenfold. But, get it right and its smooth sailing for the rest of the tour. Give 'er a go. But make sure you have enough lead time to do proper prep. </rant> Post by: Toby Mills on June 16, 2008, 05:31:26 PM Firstly, if someone was going to cause a problem, hacking a WiFi access point and breaking into the stream would be about the most complicated way of causing chaos there is. Seeing as most of us broadcast radio mics on unencrypted channels that would be a much easier point of entry. Do you use a special "Pro Audio Grade" sharpie for writing on tape. Do you use a special "Pro Audio Grade" cap for keeping the sun off you. Perhaps we need special "Pro Audio Grade" cars for driving to the gig. My point is that you should use the right tool for the job and if the right tool happens to be consumer grade equipment then I say go for it. Its cheaper, much more readily field replaceable and realistically is probably much more secure than a less common proprietary system because its flaws are a known quantity. I think sometimes we take ourselves a little too seriously. Sure, you wouldn't mix the grammy awards over a WiFi link, but for most situations I'm sure it would be fine. Post by: Toby Mills on June 16, 2008, 05:35:23 PM
Robert, can you tell me which digital consoles you have used that do not sound smooth and clear and that do sound harsh or brittle. I think the fact the XL8 does sound great has little to do with whether its digital or analog and more to do with the fact that it costs several hundred thousand dollars. Post by: Mac Kerr on June 16, 2008, 05:43:43 PM
Mac Post by: Toby Mills on June 16, 2008, 06:06:00 PM
Just like in pro audio the most expensive isn't always the most reliable (think BOSE). I personally find Cisco far from the most reliable supplier of IT gear and I have a pile of broken Cisco routers to back that up. They are one of the largest suppliers and have an established reputation and probably more importantly they offer service contracts so they are therefore seen as a safe bet by people with IT budgets. However a service contact is not much good when your AP blows up in the middle of a gig and doesn't actually ensure the gear is any more reliable in the field. Nobody in IT ever got fired for buying Cisco gear so they are able to charge a premium for what is essentially the same equipment. Mac I respect you as one of the most knowlegable people on this forum, but seriously don't be fooled into thinking a Cisco wireless access point is any more reliable than anything else, it is largely marketing hype. 5 years ago maybe they were a little bit more reliable, but these days there is nothing in it. Now that Cisco owns Linksys there are fewer and fewer differences between the product lines (sometimes the similarities are uncanny), it has merely given Cisco additional market share in the consumer market without devaluing the Cisco brand down to consumer prices. A friend of mine works for Linksys as a Software engineer and Cisco have actually been using some of the Linksys base firmware in their more recent products because it is more stable than the original Cisco code. If I want a reliable wireless connection then I use two cheap consumer grade wireless access points with the same wireless SID but on different channels and from different manufacturers. If one goes down it flicks across to the other in a matter of seconds. Not that I've ever had one go down. Two cheap wireless AP's are infinitely more reliable than 1 expensive Cisco AP. Seriously, spending $700 on a Cisco Access point thinking that it is any more reliable than a $100 one is a waste of money and is providing a false sense of security that isn't there. I remember reading this last year, it is a PC World poll that asked 60,000 IT professionals which were the most reliable brands based on their experience over the last year. Linksys and Cisco came first equal in the router section. http://pcworld.about.com/od/pcreliabilityservice/Technology- s-Most-and-Least.htm Take a look at these Linksys and Cisco products, they offer practically identical features and have the same processor and internal architecture... http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Product_C2& childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1139435695017&pagename =Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper&lid=9501747814B09 http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/voicesw/ps6788/phones/ps379/ ps6513/prod_large_photo0900aecd80311bbd.jpg The only siginficant difference is the huge price difference and the fact that Cisco offers a $8 a year service contract in order to get firmware updates. Linksys offers free firmware updates. All is not what it always seems, Cisco are well know for fear based marketing in order to justify their excessive prices. Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 16, 2008, 06:31:43 PM Linksys can probably afford to tool up some custom or semi custom parts that Cisco couldn't due to a larger customer base. That said, Cisco can put that technology inside a more robust package, with a more reliable PS, etc. These are features, not technology, and Mac is absolutely correct that you need professional duty gear (a feature) for professional applications. The Cisco/Linksys may be a conflicted example due to ownership changes etc. JR Post by: Toby Mills on June 16, 2008, 06:53:03 PM However one of my biggest beefs with Cisco is that their power supplies are always non standard and certainly can't be bought on the street very easily. Power supplies are the most likely component to fail and are the components that have failed on all my previous Cisco routers. If a Cisco power supply goes down in the field, the only thing you can replace it with is another Cisco power supply. All the consumer grade IT gear runs on standard 12v wall warts which can be found in just about any techs tool case, I find these more reliable than the Cisco power supplies which have been designed to run off highly conditioned UPS power supplies in server rooms. In general I've found the Cisco power supplies are very intollerant of power spikes and power anomolies. I'm not trying to argue for or against Cisco or Linksys here or any other consumer brand, all I'm suggesting is that the most expensive tool isn't always the best, most reliable or right tool for a job, you need to weigh up every situation and use tools that are going to deliver the results in that situation. In some cases, professional grade equipment is not the best tool for the job and the mass consumer market actually delivers a better tool and we need to look beyond the brand label or the asthetics and really understand what is under the hood in the engine room where it really matters. Post by: Andy Peters on June 16, 2008, 07:39:08 PM
And it costs several hundred thousand dollars not because it sounds good, but because it's got several hundred thousand dollars worth of encoders, switches, displays, interconnects and processing. -a Post by: Henry Cohen on June 16, 2008, 08:22:10 PM Be it Cisco, Alvarion, 3Com, Symbol or enterprise level offerings from D-Link, I've found that these products typically have better RF sensitivity, traffic management and access control via their configuration utilities than the consumer level Linksys APs. So, when I hear someone clamoring for high security (why?), and better QoS, the pro products come to mind simply because the consumer products did not offer that functionality/performance. Today's Linksys products maybe more inline with enterprise level feature sets; I've not looked at them recently. Post by: Steve Syfuhs on June 17, 2008, 02:22:23 AM For the security question, I have a wild imagination...don't wanna see anything similar in real life happen . The suggestion of a clustered AP node is brilliant though. Post by: not you, me on June 17, 2008, 02:02:44 PM Back when word processing on computers was first being developed, there were those people who said, "what in tarnations is this comp-u-tar thing-a-ma-bob? my typewriter can do the same thing and i don't need to plug it in or buy some stinkin' printer!". and at the time, maybe these guys were right; the first word processors couldn't do a whole lot of stuff beyond type a bunch of words in a sequence and it was big and clunky and ugly and needed a printer. so at the time i'm sure people were having their own analog vs. digital debate. but computers have gotten so ridiculously good that using a typewriter these days would garner laughs from all your writer friends. technology evolves and you either adapt or you become extinct. another thought: the youngest generation of sound people (myself included) can not remember a time when there were not computers, so when i first started using digital desks, there was nothing to fear. it was just another operating system. if i can operate XP or OSX then I can learn an M7 in a fraction of the time (and i did). the 02R i find a lot more confusing than the newer Yamaha's, which is probably a testament to the evolution and usability of digital consoles. Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on June 17, 2008, 02:55:41 PM
The ageism angle is nonsense. Remember that "we" (older folks) are the generation that invented, or first applied all of this technology. There has never been any fear of, or lack of understanding about anything digital. I built an Altair - before you were born. I still have a working Apple II from the 70s. And Uncle Sam was nice enough to have me working on (ferrite-core memory) computers, even before that. The problem is accepting devices with work flows that are less than well thought out. (And I am not saying that digital consoles have not caught up - or surpassed analog boards). Us old guys tend to want devices with logical UIs and controls that are designed by people who actually know what the end result should be. Innovation, new work flows? No problem. But not some obviously slapped together digital-for-the-sake-of-digital. But - It's finally getting great for audio. Post by: Patrick Tracy on June 17, 2008, 03:09:08 PM That being said it is time for me to learn how to operate an 01V as an introduction to digital mixers. And in the studio I mix exclusively on a computer and I don't see any need for faux mixing surfaces and the like. Point and click works just fine. Post by: Kyle O'Connor on June 17, 2008, 06:38:13 PM Trying to think of 2 things I would absolutely have to do at the same time while mixing a show??? Something that had to be done immediately, not 2 to 3 seconds a part. The only thing i can think of is say like bringing up a DDL at the same time as pullling the gain on a clippin vocal or something similar?? Which can be done at the same time on any dig desk i've been on. Anybody think of any other immediate withing one second needs? Just curious Post by: Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) on June 17, 2008, 10:11:50 PM
Well, you are not "we". You are 0.001% of the population as far as long-term digital literacy goes. I'm maybe 0.1%, though I do like doing email with older relatives, once they've gotten used to it. Email from somebody who grew up writing real letters is usually much better formatted and thought out than what I get from most other people. There's a lot of resistance in many industries to computerization, which to some extent reflects poor implementations (I didn't quote that bit of your response, but you did mention it) but which also shows somewhat of a fear of learning new systems. A lot of learning computer-based systems is just learning the mindset and approach, and a surprising number of people don't really want to have to do that. And it's not that it's that difficult - most people are plenty smart enough. It's that it's strange and weird and different, and there are a lot of new (or worse, repurposed) words to learn just to understand how it works. Small wonder that a noticeable number of people will fall back on bluster when confronted with a major fork in the career path.
Yup. Just about any recent digital mixer is plenty good enough from the sound quality side. What you get in the way of problem solving tools in your shiny new digital console is amazing. Post by: Micky Basiliere on June 17, 2008, 10:53:32 PM Post by: Tim McCulloch on June 17, 2008, 11:18:04 PM
Yeah, I'm sure that as soon as gasoline reaches US$6 or so, we should all invest in buggy whip and surrey manufacturers. Tim Mc Post by: Jamie Taylor on June 17, 2008, 11:25:50 PM
Agreed. The younger part of generation Y has had computers around them (us) since preschool. It's natural that we're going to be more comfortable around them because they were involved in our formative years. Post by: Dave Bigelow on June 18, 2008, 12:13:36 AM I'd kill to have Oregon Trail on a console! I mean come on, you cam play Frogger on a FatFrog and all. Why let the lampies have all the fun? Post by: Joe Breher on June 18, 2008, 02:45:36 AM
20 years ago, I had Missile Command on the HP 16500A Logic Analyzer with a touch screen interface - does that count? Oh, wait - that was my *day* gig ... (edit: fixed model number - necessitated due to Alzheimer's, apparently) Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 18, 2008, 09:57:30 AM Resisting technology has been around as long as technology. Perhaps google "Luddites". Every generation thinks they're different or special, change is constant. JR Post by: Alex Schultz on June 18, 2008, 11:59:34 AM Post by: Too Tall (Curtis H. List) on June 18, 2008, 12:30:51 PM
I am "Pro" digital. Ignorance may be his problem, but who controls the time you have to check that FOH is properly patched? In the end you can have exactly the same problems and it has nothing to do with analog or digital. He has no choice but to jump in and learn the different desks he will see on his tour or ask the system tech to mix the show because he is not capable. Harsh situation, but that is it in a nutshell. For nine months of the year I had enough work to stay home and work theater and anything else that MSU needed along with some convention work. In the summer I would go out with an 18' straight truck and do small to medium fairs and festivals out doors. One of the reasons I did it was because the sound company I worked for was always up grading gear, while the theaters, arenas and convention center ballrooms almost never did. By going on those gigs I got to learn the new gear. First time I saw a PM3500 and a BSS Varicurve I learned how to use it from the manual in the time between setup and when the band got there for sound check. This happened at the beginning of every summer. Where it helped was when I went back to doing theater in the fall I knew how to run the new gear the Broadway shows would come in with. Otherwise if I looked at the money I should have been doing something else with my IA card. Actually I did about half the summer with the sound company and the rest doing other IA gigs, that might not even use my audio experience, but paid twice as much. Hanging screens and stapling pleated cloth on the walls of a 4plex theater may not be as much fun as mixing the old Rock&Roll I grew up with, but it sure pays better. To make a long story short, learning how to run new gear is part of your job and will ALWAYS make you money in the end. Post by: Ian Hunt on June 18, 2008, 12:36:02 PM
Yup, I'm still very suspicious of that trombone thing! Post by: Too Tall (Curtis H. List) on June 18, 2008, 12:44:51 PM
I disagree. You may have been ahead of the curve, but the majority of people our age WERE NOT! I saw it with my friend AL Limburg’s son. Al has been using the Yamaha Pro 1 (Did I get the model right Al ?) since it came out more then a decade ago. As a rule most people back then were much more comfortable with a 1/3 octave graphic then an 8 channel parametric EQ. They would use it, but it was uncomfortable to say the least. In fact many people had trouble with the old White EQs that used rotary knobs. Al’s oldest son Grant learned how to mix on that digital board and can’t imagine having any trouble using parametric EQs anywhere. Post by: Patrick Tracy on June 18, 2008, 03:10:59 PM
Working an aux send for a triggered effect on a vocal channel while actively panning a guitar channel for a Hendrix-style around the room effect. Readjusting eq and level on a keyboard with uneven patches while riding a monitor send on a vocalist who has just decided to take his mic off the stand triggering feedback despite having said he never does that. Responding to a "more me" gesture by the rhythm player while riding the guitar solo. Post by: Andy Peters on June 18, 2008, 04:10:01 PM
Hey, I have a 16500. Do you want it? Can I get that Missile Command load? -a Post by: Joe Breher on June 18, 2008, 04:27:01 PM
Umm, not really. IIRC, the state analysis cards stopped their upgrade lifecycle at somewhere south of 100 MHz or so. As such, it wouldn't be fast enough for the types of work I might want to perform.
If I still had a copy, I'd clone a floppy for ya. FWIW, this was a boot floppy that booted the machine straight into MC. I don't know whether or not it ran atop the 16500 OS, or was some other OS unto itself. (Trivia question - anyone know what the 16500 OS was based upon?) It was a gift from the local HP sales team. Then again, HP's T&M Development team was located near us (CO), so we may have had a closer relationship than would have customers in other geographic areas. However, I haven't had it for more than a decade (if not two?). I'm sure someone, somewhere has a copy. Perhaps a google search? Post by: Mark Hadman on June 18, 2008, 05:07:32 PM
There are an massive number of combinations of things that I've found it convenient to do simultaneously or in very quick succession, and your examples brilliantly illustrate the point, Patrick (see page 2 for my own example). Often one hand will stay as a 'marker' for a particularly edgy channel (one finger on a monitor aux knob, with my thumb on the fader) while the other hand goes wandering around the desk adjusting less crucial things. I've sometimes found myself stuck with crossed hands! The Luddite comparison is very interesting. To quote from our friend wikipedia "In recent years, the terms Luddism and Luddite or Neo-Luddism and Neo-Luddite have become synonymous with anyone who opposes the advance of technology due to the cultural and socioeconomic changes that are associated with it.". The savings in time and space (= money) made by digis are paralleled with those made by replacing skilled labour with drone-operated machines, the common drawback presumably being that the artisan becomes a low paid drudge who loses some/all of their ability to create something unique and full of flair. The comparison holds some water, and we would do well to think hard before seeing the word Luddite as an insult. It's hard to interpret the tone of the written word, but it almost seems as if some on here are gloating at (rather than commiserating with) those of us who in certain situations feel hamstrung by the very real loss of control forced on us by current digis, even when we have RTFM'd AND used them before. -------- I got to use an absolutely brand new and lovely Audient 328 at a festival the other day! On the other hand... someone pulled the plug as the band were trying to persuade the crowd that there wasn't time for a second encore. 30 seconds later the system guy started unpatching and I headed off towards backstage. Halfway through the crowd, I noticed the band were back on stage and gearing up for another song. You've never seen me run so fast! If it had been a digi, all my processors might still have been patched in for that last song... But at least he hadn't been able to unhook a single optical multicore cable, throw the desk in a rucksack and start folding up the table -------- "But you can do everything that you do on a normal guitar! Just turn the knob to the 'string' that you want and press the button, and if you really want to play chords, let me show you a little trick: hold down the button and quickly sweep the knob through all six positions, see? You'd better get used to it, cos it saves money on strings, and it doesn't need all those untidy leads and pedal things that you've been carting around!" Post by: Tim McCulloch on June 18, 2008, 06:12:06 PM I think the real issue here is mostly one of work flow. If you're working with the same artist(s) most of the time, you already know where the cues are and what kinds of things make the performers ask for changes. Analog is a fairly standard and consistent user interface, and once you've found the minor variations in control placement you're good to go. The digital surface/user interface dictates what you can do simultaneously, and some are much more flexible than others. Some require very intimate knowledge of a mixer's control structure to make these things happen. Not all are created equal and there is limited uniformity even within a manufacturer's product lines. In most of the examples that have been cited, I've come up with a way to do them on a Yammy M7cl. We provided a rig for an a Capella act that insisted on an analog console. It's not that I couldn't make an M7 do what the BE needed, but rather that using an M7 would require he re-think or re-order his way of doing something. Having to do that at show time isn't a good idea. Having to figure out how to do this on every conceivable digital mixer could be daunting for him and the SE du jour. That's why as a provider, we offer analog and digital choices to our clients, most of whom are rockers BTW. Have fun, good luck. Tim Mc ps. In this case, Luddite applies to folks who fear changes to their thinking. The "machines" vis a vis digital mixers require the same ear-to-hand inspiration from a human as do analog mixers. Post by: Kyle O'Connor on June 19, 2008, 07:38:43 PM
All easily done on a 5D as long as it's setup corrrectly. Post by: Toby Mills on June 19, 2008, 08:14:49 PM
I agree, I reckon I could do everything listed there in about 3 seconds on just about any digi console. First of all.. I'd split the vocal mic across two channels so that one was feeding monitors and one FOH, then gate the monitor send with a low threshold and make sure there was no compression so if he plays silly buggers and points that mic at the monitors it doesn't need my intervention as the mic will basically be off in the monitors. If its EQ'd properly it shouldn't need adjusting anyway because I would have walked the stage with the mic to make sure it didn't feed back and used the extensive graphic and parametric EQ to kill any nasty frequencies. Then I'd have the aux send for the effect on one fader with the guitar panning on the fader next to it so I could do both with one hand or even better I'd split the guitar channel into two strips and have one panned left and the other right. That gives me the Aux send and the panning effect on three faders all under three fingers without needing to move my hand an inch. The bass player can can wait 2 seconds while I press his mix button and bring up his fader with the other hand and then give him the thumbs up. I'd find this scenario easier on a digi console because I could save it as a scene if the FX were one off for a single song and then return the guitar to a single channel for the next song (you can't do that on analog). In analog, you also don't have the option of setting the Aux send on a fader which means there is a greater distance to move if you are doing the panning and aux send with one hand (especially if they are not side by side on the console). Having three faders side by side is a lot easier in my books than two knobs in amongst a sea of other knobs in a dim lit environment. This is much easier on a console that allows dynamic assignment of strips in a non channel order. Each to their own though, I can see how someone who has always done this on an analog console would find my method a little tricky to setup, once you have learnt how though, its really stupid easy. Post by: Tony Ferrello on June 20, 2008, 02:14:36 AM Post by: Patrick Tracy on June 20, 2008, 02:16:00 PM
And easily done on most digital consoles as long as it's set up correctly, which presupposes you will know ahead of time what will be needed. If you can know that then digital is the clear winner. If not then it depends on the situation. Perhaps the couple or three seconds of getting to what you need is okay, or perhaps the half second of reaching for the knob is better. Since I often deal with the unexpected I prefer to be able to have a control surface that supports spontaneous response. When digital provides what I need in my price range I'll have no reason not to buy in. While I suspect that will be fairly soon it isn't there today. Post by: Too Tall (Curtis H. List) on June 21, 2008, 11:13:13 AM He had a very thin hard cover book with him on the subject of digital mixers. It was written by one of the people involved with the digital board that was developed at the Skywalker Ranch for Star Wars series. One of the things I remember in the book was a discussion on control surfaces. While trying to figure out the control surface they tried many different types and combinations of knobs and switches while trying to figure out the most ergonomic layout. To do this they tried to determine what was the maximum number of things your two hands could accomplish. The idea being that at some point having every possible control would not help since you still have only two hands. Also they had to be in reach or they were not very useful. I also remember they made a prediction on how long before we would see digital boards in wide use. I do not remember what they guessed, but they were decades off. On the analog front something else I just remembered was a Jefferson Starship gig at Pine Knob, Michigan. Interested in what the big boys were doing I walked down to the mix position (before the show, ThankYou) to see what they were using. The board was a Gamble and the guy mixing the band was very young and very small. The board was so wide the guy mixing could have used Roller Blades. (Actually my memory is he DID use Roller Blades, but I will chalk that up to age and dying brain cells.) This beomoth and other massive boards such as the Europa were so big that you could only run a small portion of the board at any one time. As we demand even more channels something had to give. Post by: Brad Weber on June 22, 2008, 12:02:40 PM Believing that something is inherently better because it is newer or digital technology may be just as much a fear of the unknown as is accepting something new or digital. I think that many people who have only used digital consoles are actually just as uncomfortable with the idea of learning to use an analog console as they accuse others who have only used analog of being with using a digital console. Post by: Tim McCulloch on June 22, 2008, 01:41:16 PM
Hi Brad- Yes, I'm waiting for the "deer in the headlights" look from a BE when he confronts his first PM-4000 on a festival... watching him scramble in the outboard rack to find his comps and gates and exclaim "what? Only 12 compressors? Uh.. how do you assign them?" This will happen. I can see it coming. Have fun, good luck. Tim Mc Post by: Kyle O'Connor on June 22, 2008, 02:05:04 PM
Whether it's mixing a festival on the fly or a full show with soundcheck, I've never done something on a dig console and then said "man i wish I could have done that quicker" I find it more time consuming (for example yesterday) on a ext frame 56 channel heritage having to run to the end of the console to get to my effect returns on a festival. For me, the way I set up my 5d, no action is more then one button /knob twist away that I can think of. Post by: Mark Hadman on June 23, 2008, 09:29:08 PM I can see a few potential problems though - access to auxes is going to be a pain because the aux masters / solos share with the VCAs, and the 'user' setting for aux access on the vistonics rows seems to be stuck on auxes 3&4. So accessing multiple auxes quickly whilst mixing with VCAs might be fiddly - not good because mons are gonna be from FOH on this gig. And the idea of having virtual VCA layers for every bus is just beyond scary. I must take steps to avoid activating that one. If any of you have used the vi6, I'd love to hear what you think. I'm much happier about the other gigs (MH3 & Venice), but we'll see how my attitude to digital is after this weekend. I've got the nasty feeling that I'll be too busy executing strange movements to get between layers and double checking that I'm in the right place to spend much time hearing the music... Post by: Joe Lepore on June 23, 2008, 11:54:15 PM
Simple .. he's probably running an opener .. what comps and gates .. headliner has them all |