ProSoundWeb Community
Church and H.O.W. – Forums for HOW Sound and AV - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Church and HOW Forums => Church Sound => Topic started by: Dan Andrews on March 27, 2011, 04:09:59 AM
-
Hi All,
I was wondering if anyone has used the New Phonic Summit Digital Mixer?
I think it coast around $2000.00 U.S. For that kind of money is it the answer to control voice, without adding Compressors, EQ, Limiters, ect.?
All the Best, Dan
-
Hi All,
I was wondering if anyone has used the New Phonic Summit Digital Mixer?
I think it coast around $2000.00 U.S. For that kind of money is it the answer to control voice, without adding Compressors, EQ, Limiters, ect.?
All the Best, Dan
What do you mean by "control voice"? Are you having a particular problem or problems?
Phonic is generally regarded as a very low level line as far as equipment goes. If you're looking for a low-priced digital mixer the Presonus StudioLive is probably the minimum acceptable piece. More standard equipment lines such as Yamaha will be available to you in the used market. The very fact that they hold their value and are sought after as used gear should tell you something about the initial quality. I have never seen Phonic gear last long enough to make it to the used market which is a poor reflection on their build quality and usability.
-
Haven't heard it, but for the money I'd get an 01v96. I enjoy 2 dynamics processors on each input.
-
Hi All,
I was wondering if anyone has used the New Phonic Summit Digital Mixer?
I think it coast around $2000.00 U.S. For that kind of money is it the answer to control voice, without adding Compressors, EQ, Limiters, ect.?
All the Best, Dan
+1 for the presonus and the used Yamaha both. For the same Money you can get a new presonus studio live 16 $1850.00ish and I think you will find it is a much better unit even though I have admittedly never touched the phonic. However typically on par or lower quality than behringer (ouch that hurts). We have installed many and they have all been great. at a later date you can add a second sl16 for 32 channels I needed.
-
What do you mean by "control voice"? Are you having a particular problem or problems?
Phonic is generally regarded as a very low level line as far as equipment goes. If you're looking for a low-priced digital mixer the Presonus StudioLive is probably the minimum acceptable piece. More standard equipment lines such as Yamaha will be available to you in the used market. The very fact that they hold their value and are sought after as used gear should tell you something about the initial quality. I have never seen Phonic gear last long enough to make it to the used market which is a poor reflection on their build quality and usability.
I'll add to those who advise against buying unrealistically cheap products and especially digital processors and mixers. I don't need to name names. The price tells you what to expect.
Aside from holding their value (and none of the cheap products do), with digital processsors (as in system processors) and mixers there simply is too much at stake to risk you services to the greater likliehood for failure, noise issues and then, when you need help, lousy service.
In "pro audio" there seems to be more manufacturers pandering to those with no sense of what "good" costs. And there are more and more music stores, local pro audio shops and internet sellers who (along with these manufacturers) see churches as prime targets for selling this junk.
Presonus has a very good track record and thus I suspect (and have heard reports indicating that) their digital mixers are a good value. As others have said, a used Yamaha is very likely to be a good deal, although you should (like anything else you buy used) check it out to ensure it hasn't been beaten up and that you have some recourse if things immediatley go wrong.
FWIW
-
What do you mean by "control voice"? Are you having a particular problem or problems?
Our minister voice goes from a whisper to a shout, so I added a DBX 266 Compressor to try and control the extreme volume differences,
but found that it isn't enough, even with the compression turned up to infinity, which I have been told makes it a limiter. We also get feedback before I get the volume turned up to what I think we need. Looking at the coust of all the add-on equment, I thought haveing a digital mixer with everything built in should sound better and be chepper in the long run.
Phonic is generally regarded as a very low level line as far as equipment goes.
That's what I suppected, but wasn't sure.
If you're looking for a low-priced digital mixer the Presonus StudioLive is probably the minimum acceptable piece. More standard equipment lines such as Yamaha will be available to you in the used market.
Here in Australia I don't there is much in the used market.
The very fact that they hold their value and are sought after as used gear should tell you something about the initial quality. I have never seen Phonic gear last long enough to make it to the used market which is a poor reflection on their build quality and usability.
[/quote]
-
Our minister voice goes from a whisper to a shout, so I added a DBX 266 Compressor to try and control the extreme volume differences,
but found that it isn't enough, even with the compression turned up to infinity, which I have been told makes it a limiter. We also get feedback before I get the volume turned up to what I think we need. Looking at the coust of all the add-on equment, I thought haveing a digital mixer with everything built in should sound better and be chepper in the long run.
If you're not able to control his voice with the compressor like that, it might be possible that when your minister shouts from the pulpit, what you're hearing is from his mouth and not your speakers, and all the technology in the world won't fix that. I'd bet the feedback is result of the system design and configuration that can't be completely fixed with technology either, though some could help.
-
Our minister voice goes from a whisper to a shout, so I added a DBX 266 Compressor to try and control the extreme volume differences, but found that it isn't enough, even with the compression turned up to infinity, which I have been told makes it a limiter. We also get feedback before I get the volume turned up to what I think we need. Looking at the coust of all the add-on equment, I thought haveing a digital mixer with everything built in should sound better and be chepper in the long run.
You can't get the voice loud enough because you are lowering the gain on that channel by over compressing. One of the side effects of this is feedback. Just because a sound source has a lot of dynamic range doesn't mean the proper response is to compress the shit out of it. The pastor uses his voice for dramatic effect, and the compression is working against his intent. I have run into very few instances where I wanted to use more than a 3:1 compression ratio, and a threshold that yields a gain reduction of about 6dB-8dB at maximum levels. The feedback is caused because you are turning the channel up to compensate for the gain reduction from compression, so when the level goes down, and the compressor releases, the channel gain goes up, and you get feedback.
Try 2.5:1 or 3:1 ratio and start with the threshold very high so there is no compression. Gradually turn down the threshold till you are getting at the most 6dB-8dB of gain reduction on his loudest voice, and let the dynamics exist beyond that. Even that much gain reduction may be too much if it reduces the dramatic impact of the pastor's words.
The soundman's job is not to make everything sound the same, it is to make everything sound right.
Mac
-
+1 to Mac's and Taylor's comments. When addressing dynamics and related feedback a compressor is not going to alleviate all acoustical, system or operational factors, it won't replace an operator and if applied improperly, it can make things worse.
-
+1 to Mac's and Taylor's comments. When addressing dynamics and related feedback a compressor is not going to alleviate all acoustical, system or operational factors, it won't replace an operator and if applied improperly, it can make things worse.
Thanks Guys,
If I reduce the compression will I need a limiter to keep the record volume from clipping?
Thanks for your help.
All the Best, Dan
-
The amount of compression and/or limiting you want for recording will likely be different than the amount you will use for the house PA. You should have a separate compressor for each.
-
The price tells you what to expect.
I wonder if that is still as true as it once was.
Have any of you read this review? What do you think?
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2764166-Phonic-Digital-Mixer-16
-
The price tells you what to expect.
I wonder if that is still as true as it once was.
Have any of you read this review? What do you think?
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2764166-Phonic-Digital-Mixer-16
I'm not particularly impressed with the near 0.01% THD of this device, not that its bad enough to necessarily cause a problem. Of course I haven't seen comparable tests run on competitive mixers so I don't know how it compares.
-
Thanks Guys,
If I reduce the compression will I need a limiter to keep the record volume from clipping?
Thanks for your help.
All the Best, Dan
Depends on how you set the input gain on the recorder.
I would think that if you are already applying compression you should be able to set the record gain and not overload the inputs.
However, if you do overload the recorder inputs (because you need the input gain where it is on the recorder) you can put a compressor/limiter on the inputs to the recorder. Feedback will not be an issue with recording.
-
Here's a used Yamaha 03D that will give you lots of control:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Yamaha-03D-/200614853634?pt=AU_Pro_Audio&hash=item2eb593bc02
-
Thanks Chuck,
That link was very interesting,
I would love to see a comparsion of that with the PreSonus 16.4.2 and the PreSonus 16.0.2.
Do yoy know of them?
All the Best, Dan
-
Hi Tom
Depends on how you set the input gain on the recorder.
I am using a Roland USB UA-1EX sound card, and have the input turned up all the way. the channel volume is set to 3/4's, to get enough volume to record.[/u][/size]
I would think that if you are already applying compression you should be able to set the record gain and not overload the inputs.
However, if you do overload the recorder inputs (because you need the input gain where it is on the recorder) you can put a compressor/limiter on the inputs to the recorder. Feedback will not be an issue with recording.
I have the JTS wireless receiver plugged into the DBX 266 compressor, then into the #1 channel of my Yamaha EMX 66 mixer amp, with the Roland UA-1EX coming out of the mixer's Rec Out.
I need the compressor to work on both the recording and the room speakers, because with the small room size I don't need any amplificaton at all when the minister shouts, but still have trouble hearing him when he whispers.
One minister uses a JTS Omni lapel mic, I can't get enough volume before feedback, and the other uses a MyPro headset, and I am able to get just enough volume on that one.
Thanks for your help.
All the Best, Dan[/size][/u][/quote]
-
Thanks Chuck,
That link was very interesting,
I would love to see a comparsion of that with the PreSonus 16.4.2 and the PreSonus 16.0.2.
Do yoy know of them?
All the Best, Dan
I have never seen a report as thorough on any digital mixer as the one Craig performed! A comparison would be very interesting!
-
I need the compressor to work on both the recording and the room speakers, because with the small room size I don't need any amplificaton at all when the minister shouts, but still have trouble hearing him when he whispers.
One minister uses a JTS Omni lapel mic, I can't get enough volume before feedback, and the other uses a MyPro headset, and I am able to get just enough volume on that one.
Sounds like you may be looking for a compressor to fix problems best addressed in other ways. On the first, that sounds like a situation where using an aux send and perhaps even a pre-fade aux send for recording might help. The way you're set up now you are essentially recording the main feed and any changes you make to a channel affect both the house sound and recording. If you had a dedicated pre-fade mix for recording, like the Monitor out on your current console, you could then ride the faders for the room without affecting the recording mix.
On the feedback you might want to examine factors such as the omni lapel mic, mic placement, speaker locations and aiming, EQ, etc. first. If you can maximize the Potential Acoustic Gain of the system, basically how loud it can get without feeding back, then you may not need to limit the levels as much.
Perhaps most important, you may want to communicate more with the others involved. As Mac noted, the ministers may not want to have their dynamics limited but they also may not realize just how dynamic they are. Discussing the situation with them may help everyone, you might even make a recording with no compression just to let them hear how much their voices vary, they may say that is what hey want but they may also discover that they were not aware just how much they varied their level.
The review of the Phonic Summit was interesting but an April, 2011 review starting with "Digital mixers were supposed to be “the next big thing.” But while Yamaha made a pretty good go of it, they never quite took off as expected when the world went virtual." suggests either being rather out of touch with the live sound, and especially church sound, world or addressing some other applications where the O1V, TT28, O2R, StudioLive, LS9, SC48, DM1000/2000, iLive-T, M7CL, SD8, Si/Vi series, etc. have not been nearly so prevalent.
-
Sounds like you may be looking for a compressor to fix problems best addressed in other ways.
I am not a trained sound engineer, and bought the equipment I have on the advice of the music store.
I though they should have experience and knowledge to advise me properly.
They recommended the compressor, because the dynamic range of one of our ministers was to great for even the room speakers.
Sadly the DBX 266 doesn't have a limiter in it, and I have been using the compressor set on infinity to work more as a limiter, then a compressor.
On the first, that sounds like a situation where using an aux send and perhaps even a pre-fade aux send for recording might help. Hummm?
The way you're set up now you are essentially recording the main feed and any changes you make to a channel affect both the house sound and recording. Yes, that's right.
If you had a dedicated pre-fade mix for recording, like the Monitor out on your current console, you could then ride the faders for the room without affecting the recording mix.
The record out on my mixer comes before the amp. So--- how I set up the channel, is what I record. after that there is the built in 7 band EQ that is used to adj. the tone of the speakers, and then the master volume knob to set the speaker volume.
On the feedback you might want to examine factors such as the Omni lapel mic, mic placement, speaker locations and aiming, EQ, etc. first.
I have of course tried all of that for the past 5 years, and still cant get it right. Two weeks ago I had a guy come buy who sells the Kv2 Audio speakers, and after 3 1/2 hours of trying everything we could, he decided that the speakers I have weren't the problem, but that the wireless system might be the main problem. Also my mixer amp is to basic and doesn't allow for much correction.
I have been looking at the new PreSonus 16.0.2 digital mixer this week on the internet, sadly it's not available here yet, but that would give me a lot of control that I don't now have.
Next year, here in Australia we are probably going to loose the 800 MHz band, and that's what our wireless system is on. Our government isn't telling us what it's going to do, so I don't want to buy a new wireless just yet, until I know for sure.
If you can maximize the Potential Acoustic Gain of the system, basically how loud it can get without feeding back, then you may not need to limit the levels as much. Yes
Perhaps most important, you may want to communicate more with the others involved. As Mac noted, the ministers may not want to have their dynamics limited but they also may not realize just how dynamic they are. Discussing the situation with them may help everyone, you might even make a recording with no compression just to let them hear how much their voices vary, they may say that is what hey want but they may also discover that they were not aware just how much they varied their level. Yes, I have tried that-----
The review of the Phonic Summit was interesting but an April, 2011 review starting with "Digital mixers were supposed to be “the next big thing.” But while Yamaha made a pretty good go of it, they never quite took off as expected when the world went virtual." suggests either being rather out of touch with the live sound, and especially church sound, world or addressing some other applications where the O1V, TT28, OR, StudioLive, LESS, SC48, DM1000/2000, iLive-T, MAC, SAD, Si/Vi series, etc. have not been nearly so prevalent.
You may like to watch these videos on the PreSonus digital mixers. http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/presonus-studolive-mixers-church-live-sound
They seem to building them with church's in mind, and the price is very good if they are the real deal.
Thanks for your help Brad.
All the Best, Dan
-
Hey Dan
Sounds like it may be time to get in some help to sort our your systems and maybe get some training? Have you thought about getting in a sound consultant/contractor to help you sort things out? Where is Australia are you?
Sucks a bit with the Wirless Mics in Aus, but is has been coming - just have to look at what has happened in the US. We have one channel which we will have to replace it when we lose that bandwidth. It is sad to see so many less reputible dealers still selling gear in that band over here despite it being pretty clear we will lose the 700-Low 800 MHz Band.
Before you look at getting any new mixer (digital or analog) I would be doing a review of you sound system and working out where the church wants to go with it. Going from a Box Mixer to a digital desk is a big step especially if you don't have a dedicated sound person.
Edit: Typos
-
Thanks Chris,
Hey Dan
Sounds like it may be time to get in some help to sort our your systems and maybe get some training? Yes I have tried, but it's hard to find anyone that's any good, and inexpensive.
Have you thought about getting in a sound consultant/contractor to help you sort things out? Where is Australia are you? Sydney area.
Sucks a bit with the Wirless Mics in Aus, but is has been coming - just have to look at what has happened in the US. We have one channel which we will have to replace it when we lose that bandwidth. It is sad to see so many less reputible dealers still selling gear in that band over here despite it being pretty clear we will lose the 700-Low 800 MHz Band. Ouch!
Before you look at getting any new mixer (digital or analog) I would be doing a review of you sound system and working out where the church wants to go with it. Going from a Box Mixer to a digital desk is a big step especially if you don't have a dedicated sound person. Yeah, but that's me and I seem to need a lot more control, and clarity.
Thanks again for your input.
All the Best, Dan
Edit: Typos
-
Yes I have tried, but it's hard to find anyone that's any good, and inexpensive.
Is that any different than for anything else? And isn't it a bit ironic to say that you can't find and good, inexpensive consulting after you said that you trust the free advice from a music store that makes their living by selling you gear?
Maybe you could find someone at another area church that would be willing to help. Also, don't underestimate the potential value of a 'third party' in dealing with situations like the ministers dynamics, whether deserved or not, people often listen more to the opinion of an outside party for whose services they are paying and especially someone who is not trying to pay for their time by getting you to purchase equipment from them.
Can you post any pictures of the existing system and provide further descriptions of the existing installation and equipment components? Maybe it will help others undertsand the situation better and jusy maybe someone will see something that others have overlooked.
Back to the original topic, I don't believe that PreSonus and Phonic manufacturer on a chip/component level, have manufacturing or technical resources or sell in quantities that would give them some distinct advantage over Yamaha and others. So when someone offers a product at a fraction of the price of other offerings it seems reasonable to wonder how they are doing that. In the case of the StudioLive, PreSonus clearly made the decision to eliminate or limit a number of capabilities that they felt were not critical in many of the intended applications, such as moving faders. That is simply something one has to assess in terms of how it potentially relates to a particular application. In the case of the Phonic mixer, I have yet to see any reference to breakthough technology or approaches, so how do they offer it for such a low cost? It seems they have to cut somewhere and while the small touch screen, single wheel to adjust any/all parameters, limited internal routing options and the USB/FireWire card being an option are obvious examples, most of the reviews and comments I can find seem to be home studio type applications and I'm curious to hear some reports from 'in the field' regarding the user friendliness and reliability/durability to see if any of the compromises made impact those aspects that can be more relevant in live sound applications.
-
Hi Brad
Is that any different than for anything else? And isn't it a bit ironic to say that you can't find and good, inexpensive consulting after you said that you trust the free advice from a music store that makes their living by selling you gear?
Well as I said, I took that advice 5 years ago when I frist bought the gear, hopefully I have learned a few things since then.
As to inexpensive, I have to pay for things myself, and I don't make Huge Dollars.
Maybe you could find someone at another area church that would be willing to help. Also, don't underestimate the potential value of a 'third party' in dealing with situations like the ministers dynamics, whether deserved or not, people often listen more to the opinion of an outside party for whose services they are paying and especially someone who is not trying to pay for their time by getting you to purchase equipment from them.
Yes, point taken.
Can you post any pictures of the existing system and provide further descriptions of the existing installation and equipment components? Maybe it will help others understand the situation better and just maybe someone will see something that others have overlooked.
I haven't worked out how to post pictures.
Back to the original topic, I don't believe that PreSonus and Phonic manufacturer on a chip/component level, have manufacturing or technical resources or sell in quantities that would give them some distinct advantage over Yamaha and others. So when someone offers a product at a fraction of the price of other offerings it seems reasonable to wonder how they are doing that. In the case of the Studio Live, PreSonus clearly made the decision to eliminate or limit a number of capabilities that they felt were not critical in many of the intended applications, such as moving faders. That is simply something one has to assess in terms of how it potentially relates to a particular application. In the case of the Phonic mixer, I have yet to see any reference to breakthrough technology or approaches, so how do they offer it for such a low cost? It seems they have to cut somewhere and while the small touch screen, single wheel to adjust any/all parameters, limited internal routing options and the USB/FireWire card being an option are obvious examples, most of the reviews and comments I can find seem to be home studio type applications and I'm curious to hear some reports from 'in the field' regarding the user friendliness and reliability/durability to see if any of the compromises made impact those aspects that can be more relevant in live sound applications.
Check out this web site http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2764166-Phonic-Digital-Mixer-16 For their review.
Thanks Brad for your interest.
All the Best, Dan
-
Check out this web site http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2764166-Phonic-Digital-Mixer-16 (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2764166-Phonic-Digital-Mixer-16) For their review.
Dan, look back at my earlier comments, I read the review but...
- It seems to be a new product test bench review. Lots of objective information and opinion but I can't see where it addresses actual use 'in the field', much less after some time.
- The audio samples have limited value without the dry signal for comparison. I did not like what I heard in the chorus, phaser, tremolo and flanger samples but don't know if that is a factor of the clip used or the processing applied.
- For me the review lost all credibility in the first couple of sentences. Stating that digital consoles never really took off does not reflect the reality that digital consoles from Yamaha, Digidesign/Avid, Soundcraft, Allen & Heath, PreSonus, DiGiCo, Innovason, SSL, Midas and others have indeed 'taken off' in recording and especially live sound applications. And noting only the Mackie D8B and Panasonic DA7 as examples of digital console not only reflects a focus on studio applications but also seems to overlook what has happened in the 13 years or so since those two consoles were introduced. I actually found myself double checking the review date to make sure it was not somehow a very old review and was quite surprised to find it was just a couple of months old.
Craig Anderton is a very accomplished individual in the recording arena, but the referenced review seems to have limited relevance to live sound. Based on this review and some of Mr. Anderton's past reviews on Harmony Central, as well as what seems conspicuous in not being reviewed, I also get the sense that the manufacturer has a hand in the reviews, at least in initiating them and perhaps indirectly in the content.
I also noted your question and the response regarding the JBL MSC device and the response you received seems to reflect serious misunderstandings regarding room acoustics, the differences between studio and large room acoustics and the differences between studio and live sound applications. In short no, it will not work for your church unless your church is like a studio in terms of the size, layout and acoustics, if you use the related JBL studio monitors and if you only care how it sounds at one location regardless of whether that may be to the detriment of other listener locations.
-
Cheep or free training is tough, but it is possible. One approach, attend some small Christian concerts in your area until you find one with great sound. I say small concerts because you want ones that are using a local sound guy. When you find one, after the concert strike up a conversation with the sound guy. Ask if you could help him load in his next concert and then watch and learn during rehearsal (Disappear during the concert) then reappear for the load out.
That sound guy has a new best friend and he will tell you all he knows. Grin I did this when I wanted to find out about a new board and it worked out well. When I needed lighting for our church I called up a larger church and asked for the lighting guy and invited my self over. He ended up coming to my church to check it out and made suggestions. (People love being asked for advice.)
I do try to give back when I actually know the answer. I hosted a geek get together at my church this spring and invited this forum and churchsoundcheck.com. I just said bring something you like with you. this started all sorts of conversations and I learned a lot.
Frank
-
[
Back to the original topic, I don't believe that PreSonus and Phonic manufacturer on a chip/component level, have manufacturing or technical resources or sell in quantities that would give them some distinct advantage over Yamaha and others. So when someone offers a product at a fraction of the price of other offerings it seems reasonable to wonder how they are doing that. In the case of the StudioLive, PreSonus clearly made the decision to eliminate or limit a number of capabilities that they felt were not critical in many of the intended applications, such as moving faders. That is simply something one has to assess in terms of how it potentially relates to a particular application. In the case of the Phonic mixer, I have yet to see any reference to breakthough technology or approaches, so how do they offer it for such a low cost? It seems they have to cut somewhere and while the small touch screen, single wheel to adjust any/all parameters, limited internal routing options and the USB/FireWire card being an option are obvious examples, most of the reviews and comments I can find seem to be home studio type applications and I'm curious to hear some reports from 'in the field' regarding the user friendliness and reliability/durability to see if any of the compromises made impact those aspects that can be more relevant in live sound applications.
While I don't disagree with the general thrust of your comments, there are other important costs that go into product pricing that need to be considered.
AFAIK Phonic started out as a contract manufacturer building gear for yamaha so they surely know how to build stuff inexpensively. Kind of like an ice berg there are lots of product costs that aren't in plain view. Phonic surely isn't carrying the sales and support overhead of a Yamaha. Probably don't advertise as much or as expensively. Smaller trade show footprint, etc.
I believe Yamaha has the capability to roll their own dedicated ICs, but AFAIK they also sell some of the special ICs to the broader market to recoup some of those development costs. Phonic surely isn't investing in dedicated ICs
I would expect less comprehensive (friendly) human factors in the cheaper product software, but the hardware may generally be OK. Of course it is hard to separate the software from hardware in embedded applications like that.
Listen to what other users say, not self appointed experts (like me), or reviewers from other market categories who don't actually use it in a real application.
I know that I don't know, but can't dismiss it purely on price, while you should appreciate that is always a gamble, vs the more expensive established product.
JR
-
Hi Brad,
Dan, look back at my earlier comments, I read the review but...
- It seems to be a new product test bench review. Lots of objective information and opinion but I can't see where it addresses actual use 'in the field', much less after some time.
- The audio samples have limited value without the dry signal for comparison. I did not like what I heard in the chorus, phaser, tremolo and flanger samples but don't know if that is a factor of the clip used or the processing applied.
- For me the review lost all credibility in the first couple of sentences. Stating that digital consoles never really took off does not reflect the reality that digital consoles from Yamaha, Digidesign/Avid, Soundcraft, Allen & Heath, PreSonus, DiGiCo, Innovason, SSL, Midas and others have indeed 'taken off' in recording and especially live sound applications. And noting only the Mackie D8B and Panasonic DA7 as examples of digital console not only reflects a focus on studio applications but also seems to overlook what has happened in the 13 years or so since those two consoles were introduced. I actually found myself double checking the review date to make sure it was not somehow a very old review and was quite surprised to find it was just a couple of months old.
Craig Anderton is a very accomplished individual in the recording arena, but the referenced review seems to have limited relevance to live sound. Based on this review and some of Mr. Anderton's past reviews on Harmony Central, as well as what seems conspicuous in not being reviewed, I also get the sense that the manufacturer has a hand in the reviews, at least in initiating them and perhaps indirectly in the content.
Thanks for that, very interesting.
I also noted your question and the response regarding the JBL MSC device and the response you received seems to reflect serious misunderstandings regarding room acoustics, the differences between studio and large room acoustics and the differences between studio and live sound applications. In short no, it will not work for your church unless your church is like a studio in terms of the size, layout and acoustics, if you use the related JBL studio monitors and if you only care how it sounds at one location regardless of whether that may be to the detriment of other listener locations.
Yes, my frist thought was that the idea of the "JBL MSC" sounds fantastic, but that was in a recording studing setting, Hence my question would it work in our small church. Of course using the speakers we already have.
-
Hi Frank,
Cheep or free training is tough, but it is possible. One approach, attend some small Christian concerts in your area until you find one with great sound. I say small concerts because you want ones that are using a local sound guy. When you find one, after the concert strike up a conversation with the sound guy. Ask if you could help him load in his next concert and then watch and learn during rehearsal (Disappear during the concert) then reappear for the load out.
That sound guy has a new best friend and he will tell you all he knows. Grin I did this when I wanted to find out about a new board and it worked out well. When I needed lighting for our church I called up a larger church and asked for the lighting guy and invited my self over. He ended up coming to my church to check it out and made suggestions. (People love being asked for advice.)
That's a very interesting idea, and one I haven't considered before.
I do try to give back when I actually know the answer. I hosted a geek get together at my church this spring and invited this forum and churchsoundcheck.com. I just said bring something you like with you. this started all sorts of conversations and I learned a lot.
Another good idea, thanks for your suggestions.
All the best. Dan
Frank
-
Back to the original topic, I don't believe that PreSonus and Phonic manufacturer on a chip/component level, have manufacturing or technical resources or sell in quantities that would give them some distinct advantage over Yamaha and others.
I don't know that anyone would need to manufacture or develop new chips to produce a competitive digital console.
So when someone offers a product at a fraction of the price of other offerings it seems reasonable to wonder how they are doing that.
Digital consoles are basically a computer whose peripherals include a control surface, analog<-> digital converters, and analog buffer/amplifiers. There is no lack of off-the-shelf parts to perform these functions. Many of these parts are continually improving in terms of price/performance.
The functionality of products such as SAC demonstrate these facts. The remaining component is software. The cost of developing software is also improving.
Therefore, all that is required to offer a new digital console product at a fraction of the cost of a legacy product whose price has reamined stable is to simply wait a while and develop it.
The big hole in my story to this point is patent protection. I believe that there are a number of patents that are currently protecting IP related to digital consoles. According to my estimates, many patents relating to digital consoles are about to expire. Until that happens, the owner of the patents can *tax* any competitive product pretty heavily.
After the basic patents relating to digital consoles expire, anybody who is sufficiently skilled and so inclined should be able to cut digital console prices very agressively. I suspect that many are entering this market now in order to stake out a position in this future market.
-
Back to the original topic, I don't believe that PreSonus and Phonic manufacturer on a chip/component level, have manufacturing or technical resources or sell in quantities that would give them some distinct advantage over Yamaha and others.
I don't know that anyone would need to manufacture or develop new chips to produce a competitive digital console.
It's not uncommon for different manufacturers to use the same key components. For example, both Behringer and Presonus rely on Analog Devices' SHARC digital signal processing chips (maybe even the same chip, for that matter). The cheap manufacturers have no qualms about bragging that they "use the same chip" (or architecture) as in more expensive product lines in order to convince you that their product is just as good as something costing twice as much or more.
The difference comes down to the supporting hardware: the quality and design of the discrete components and circuitry interfacing with the DSP chip can make a huge difference in both audio quality and system reliability. With an "expensive" brand you aren't necessarily paying for different technology or capability; the cost is in the more meticulous engineering and manufacture of better supporting components.
The used market is a good means test for the quality of a product. The more of a well-used (well-loved?) but fully-functional item you see on Craigslist and Ebay, the better the new product is likely to be.
-
Back to the original topic, I don't believe that PreSonus and Phonic manufacturer on a chip/component level, have manufacturing or technical resources or sell in quantities that would give them some distinct advantage over Yamaha and others.
I don't know that anyone would need to manufacture or develop new chips to produce a competitive digital console.
It's not uncommon for different manufacturers to use the same key components. For example, both Behringer and Presonus rely on Analog Devices' SHARC digital signal processing chips (maybe even the same chip, for that matter). The cheap manufacturers have no qualms about bragging that they "use the same chip" (or architecture) as in more expensive product lines in order to convince you that their product is just as good as something costing twice as much or more.
Since I was the one who mentioned custom silicon, i guess I will expand upon that. Yes, today in 2011 you can design a serviceable digital mixer using off the shelf parts. I am even aware of one digital console development program (no not Peavey) that developed their own custom silicon (it was one of their "strengths"), but unfortunately they didn't know dip squat about consoles, and never made it to market.
Yamaha is one of the few majors in pro audio with the chops and muscle to roll their own silicon, but that muscle comes from the consumer side, pro audio has always been forced to piggyback on consumer funded technology, like digital audio itself, for one obvious example (think CD players).
The difference comes down to the supporting hardware: the quality and design of the discrete components and circuitry interfacing with the DSP chip can make a huge difference in both audio quality and system reliability. With an "expensive" brand you aren't necessarily paying for different technology or capability; the cost is in the more meticulous engineering and manufacture of better supporting components.
Execution, execution, execution... Analog consoles are not rocket science so why are there so few successful console companies? Think about it. 8)
The used market is a good means test for the quality of a product. The more of a well-used (well-loved?) but fully-functional item you see on Craigslist and Ebay, the better the new product is likely to be.
Long time to wait to vet cutting edge new technology... Kind of an impossible catch-22 for the new guy.
=====
Like I said before, we need to hear from a few folks who have used the new mixer in real world situations.. I am not smart enough to predict if they did a good job or not, with so little real data.
JR
-
Back to the original topic, I don't believe that PreSonus and Phonic manufacturer on a chip/component level, have manufacturing or technical resources or sell in quantities that would give them some distinct advantage over Yamaha and others.
I don't know that anyone would need to manufacture or develop new chips to produce a competitive digital console.
But I didn't say anything about new chips, I was simply saying that it seems unlikely that Phonic is using components that aren't available to others or paying significantly less than others for the components thus that is probably not that much of a significant factor in the cost.
Digital consoles are basically a computer whose peripherals include a control surface, analog<-> digital converters, and analog buffer/amplifiers. There is no lack of off-the-shelf parts to perform these functions. Many of these parts are continually improving in terms of price/performance.
As has already been pointed out, there is much more to the costs associated with a product than just the components and production. Unless you cut costs in those other areas it takes a relatively large difference in the physical product cost to make any significant difference in the overall product cost, so it may be in some of those other areas that some of the reductions occur. Who knows, maybe Phonic was working with someone else who was paying for most or all of the development costs for a new product and it got dropped or that partner went under, leaving Phonic with much of the development costs already covered. My point was simply that the reason for the significantly lower price does not seem to be obvious and thus while their may be reviews addressing the specs and sound of the console, I'm also interested in comments on the reliability, support, etc. from people that have used it in live sound applications.
-
The #1 driver of the cost of a console is the quantity and quality of the controls of its user interface (faders, pots, knobs, switches, and LEDs).
-
I have no idea if the Phonic is a good mixer. What I do know from sad experience is that buying inexpensive gear for myself and finding out it was not a bargain feels bad, but buying inexpensive gear with church money and finding out it was no bargain feels awful. I won't do it again.
I will buy quality used gear at a bargain price, I'l buy undervalued gear that has been proven, but never again will I gamble on low end gear with the churches money.
Just one opinion.
-
+1 to Mac's and Taylor's comments. When addressing dynamics and related feedback a compressor is not going to alleviate all acoustical, system or operational factors, it won't replace an operator and if applied improperly, it can make things worse.
Thanks Guys,
If I reduce the compression will I need a limiter to keep the record volume from clipping?
Thanks for your help.
All the Best, Dan
If it is clipping then reduce the gain on the input till it stops clipping. It sounds like your gain structure is out of whack and you are trying to fix it with a compressor. Set your input gain first.
-
Thanks Kent,
[/size]16732#msg16732 date=1307858043]
Thanks Guys,
If I reduce the compression will I need a limiter to keep the record volume from clipping?
Thanks for your help.
All the Best, Dan
If it is clipping then reduce the gain on the input till it stops clipping.
If I reduce the gain, when the minister talks quietly I don't have enough volume. I am trying to over come a very wide dynamic range.
It sounds like your gain structure is out of whack and you are trying to fix it with a compressor. Set your input gain first.
All the Best, Dan
-
Ok I miss read the post. You were talking about the recording not the input to the mixer my bad...that's what I get for posting in the middle of the night...
Thanks Kent,Thanks Guys,
If I reduce the compression will I need a limiter to keep the record volume from clipping?
Thanks for your help.
All the Best, Dan
If it is clipping then reduce the gain on the input till it stops clipping.
If I reduce the gain, when the minister talks quietly I don't have enough volume. I am trying to over come a very wide dynamic range.
It sounds like your gain structure is out of whack and you are trying to fix it with a compressor. Set your input gain first.
All the Best, Dan