What features would you like to see in a mixer?

A discussion area for other Digital Audio Workstations, and other topics relating to audio.

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby shmick » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:27 pm

Razor wrote:
I like that SAC makes use of your computer for processing instead of relying on some proprietary expensive processing unit. That's probably the thing I like about it most of all.


Yep, we've reached an era where we have an insane amount of computing power at our disposal at commodity pricing. The days of dedicated DSPs and ASICs are coming to an end and this is happening across various industries. The secret sauce these days is in the software, not the hardware.
Host: ASUS P5Q SE/R, Intel E8400 O/C'd to 3.8ghz, 3 x RME HDSP 9652, XP Pro
Gear: 9 x ADA8K, 4 x Audiorails, 1 x BCF2000
Config: FOH + 12 stereo IEM mixes
Misc: Dual Linkwitz-Riley plugin, Studio Levelizer, Studio Reverb, Frequency Analyzer, SAWStudioLite
User avatar
shmick
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:55 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby Razor » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:52 pm

Andy Hamm wrote:I think that there are lots of options available to soundcos and installed venues, but there is very little quality gear aimed at techs that do walk in shows. We can't carry around a big mixer case, what we need is a 24 channel swiss army knife that we can pull out on an as needed case. It needs to be as small and compact as possible while still maintaining a reasonable level of usability.

If it would double as an aviom type system that could be used at every show, all the better. But for the most part, it will only get used when you walk into a gig and find out you are otherwise screwed.


Yeah, my target isn't really sound companies.

I know at churches like mine we actually don't have a ton of options. Spending thousands of dollars on a sound board is difficult for a small church. I don't know how it is at other installed venues but I imagine there's plenty out there that could really use a low cost, high quality system.
Razor
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:09 pm

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby gdougherty » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:03 pm

For sound quality and flexibility on a budget with an Aviom type interface I'd consider SAC for FOH and a few wedges plus the Behringer Powerplay mixer setup driven from a single monitor mixer. The Powerplay input module takes ADAT inputs.

I've done that patched around an LS-9 and into the aviom system with their analog AD input. Result was quite good and easy to setup for the aviom feeds once I had the output routing arranged. Far more flexible on the aviom mix than most other setups I've used without eating up potential FOH processing/routing.
http://softwareaudioconsole.wikidot.com The start of a wiki. It's slow going and there's a ton of info that should be in there yet.
Biggest item is the Command Reference on how to do most actions within SAC. It's 90% of what you need for UI proficiency.

g is for George
gdougherty
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:10 pm
Location: Westminster, CO

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby RBIngraham » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:40 am

Razor wrote:My ideal mixer would always have a control surface, with at least 24 faders (motorized). Also, I know some people like the fact that SAC has only faders and no knobs, but knobs just make sense to me.

I like that SAC makes use of your computer for processing instead of relying on some proprietary expensive processing unit. That's probably the thing I like about it most of all.



Knobs can make total sense on hardware. They work fine because we can grab them and twist them. It's when you put the emulation of the knob visuall on screen that I think it becomes stupid. Even with the best implementation of virtual on screen knobs (which I believe to be where you click on the knob and move your mouse up and down to spin the knob) you still end up with large mouse movements that take your mouse out of the area where the cursor is in relation to the screen and then you will inevitablly have to pick up the damn mouse and move it back onto the mouse pad or the desk area, etc... I know it's knitpicky but I sill see it as a serious design flaw. The only other implementation I felt worked was one where you could hover over the knobs and use the mouse wheel to move the knob. But then you end up wearing out your finger with all that scroll wheel spinning.

Sorry, to me they are just a pain in the ass.

As for DSP, yes there is a lot of number crunching power availalbe in an off the shelf computer. The catch of course is in the details. Want super low latency? Well no computer operating system is really designed for that very well. Doesn't mean things like SAC are not usable, but it will sitll be signifigantly slower than dedicated DSP. With hardware DSP the code is custom written from the ground up, and the A to D, D to A conversion process is what accounts for much of the latency in most hardware digital console, not the processing. SAC itself is pretty damn fast as well, it's the ASIO driver buffers and any buffers on the sound cards that cause most of the added latency when dealing with native software products.

Going the DSP route can also be a lot more stable as well. It's why things like nice Digidesign and Digico consoles can continue to pass audio when the surface/UI crashes.

There is still good reasons when the big boy consoles have a rack with lots of DSPs in them to do all the heavy lifting and I guess I would just disagree, that I don't see that changing anytime soon. Computer/Software control of DSP can be a very stable and effective prodcut and it can still be more affordable than the old analog days. Just think how much you would have to spend for an all analog system with the processing power of even some of the fairly modest digital consoles or software.
Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/
SAC details and goodies at: http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/SAC.html
RBIngraham
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH USA

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby RBIngraham » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:46 am

Andy Hamm wrote:I think that there are lots of options available to soundcos and installed venues, but there is very little quality gear aimed at techs that do walk in shows. We can't carry around a big mixer case, what we need is a 24 channel swiss army knife that we can pull out on an as needed case. It needs to be as small and compact as possible while still maintaining a reasonable level of usability.

If it would double as an aviom type system that could be used at every show, all the better. But for the most part, it will only get used when you walk into a gig and find out you are otherwise screwed.



I think if you took a close look there are several options that are an easy one person lift. Yamaha, Soundcraft both make stuff and proobably some others as well.

I still say for swiss army knife type digital mixing tools, it's hard to beat a 01V96. A good balance between size, I/O, price, and mixing power.

And unless you're buying fairly cheap stuff or deal hunting to build your SAC rig, It won't cost anymore than a decent channel count SAC system. Probably less.

Anyway there are options and they are growing every time you turn around...
Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/
SAC details and goodies at: http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/SAC.html
RBIngraham
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH USA

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby Andy Hamm » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:21 am

I used to use 2 (in some cases only 1) Promix 01 as my cart around FOH mixer, and later I grabbed an o1v (not the 96 though). They worked ok for what they were, but they didn't get around one of the biggest issues that I run into which is a less than desirable FOH mix position so I would need to carry a snake as well.

I mix in a wide variety of venues, some are events with an event planner that had no foresight or wishes to see a FOH setup in the room which would put me mixing side stage, which I really hate. Another common scenario is in theaters, where some genius puts the FOH in a booth that is in the back of the room, upstairs with a little slider Window that you are expected to stick your head out of every now and then to see what it sounds like in the room for all of those 12 meter tall people.

A mix rack with a separate wireless FOH mix device solves these types of issues for me.
When I came home late last night.....
The wife left a note on the fridge:
"It's not working, I can't take it anymore!!
Gone to stay with my Mother."
I opened the fridge, the light came on, and the beer was cold.........
What the hell is she talking about??????
User avatar
Andy Hamm
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:24 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby Razor » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:09 pm

RBIngraham wrote:
Andy Hamm wrote:I think that there are lots of options available to soundcos and installed venues, but there is very little quality gear aimed at techs that do walk in shows. We can't carry around a big mixer case, what we need is a 24 channel swiss army knife that we can pull out on an as needed case. It needs to be as small and compact as possible while still maintaining a reasonable level of usability.

If it would double as an aviom type system that could be used at every show, all the better. But for the most part, it will only get used when you walk into a gig and find out you are otherwise screwed.



I think if you took a close look there are several options that are an easy one person lift. Yamaha, Soundcraft both make stuff and proobably some others as well.

I still say for swiss army knife type digital mixing tools, it's hard to beat a 01V96. A good balance between size, I/O, price, and mixing power.

And unless you're buying fairly cheap stuff or deal hunting to build your SAC rig, It won't cost anymore than a decent channel count SAC system. Probably less.

Anyway there are options and they are growing every time you turn around...


There's this too: Image
Razor
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:09 pm

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby RBIngraham » Sat Aug 04, 2012 7:56 pm

Andy Hamm wrote:I used to use 2 (in some cases only 1) Promix 01 as my cart around FOH mixer, and later I grabbed an o1v (not the 96 though). They worked ok for what they were, but they didn't get around one of the biggest issues that I run into which is a less than desirable FOH mix position so I would need to carry a snake as well.

I mix in a wide variety of venues, some are events with an event planner that had no foresight or wishes to see a FOH setup in the room which would put me mixing side stage, which I really hate. Another common scenario is in theaters, where some genius puts the FOH in a booth that is in the back of the room, upstairs with a little slider Window that you are expected to stick your head out of every now and then to see what it sounds like in the room for all of those 12 meter tall people.

A mix rack with a separate wireless FOH mix device solves these types of issues for me.



Yeah, with all due repect you're basing what is "out there" and available on the market on 15 year old digital console technology. I still use my 01v every once in a while, but mostly as a control surface. Same with the ProMix 01.

True you can not go directly to an iPad or the like with a 01V96. But you can with a computer plugged into and some flavor of a VNC remote to the computer. The 01V96 is a HUGE step up from the 01v, especially the latest 01V96i, which has a USB audio interface built in. Or you can install a Dante card in the console as well if you like, although that jacks the price up quite a bit.

And there are several options from Roland, Presonus, Soundcraft and the new Allen and Heath and I think even Midas has a small one now, but I might be wrong..... Anyway, the days of the options in compact digital mixing being either Yamaha or a crappy Behringer are gone and there will only be more options as time moves on. All of this means that there is some real competition in that less than 24 channel market for something like SAC. Unless you just must have the seperate monitor consoles, but most little bar bands really don't need that. Yeah it's cool to have, but you can do just as well with some aux sends or better yet throw in an Aviom card or the like.
Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/
SAC details and goodies at: http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/SAC.html
RBIngraham
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH USA

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby Razor » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:19 pm

RBIngraham wrote:
Razor wrote:My ideal mixer would always have a control surface, with at least 24 faders (motorized). Also, I know some people like the fact that SAC has only faders and no knobs, but knobs just make sense to me.

I like that SAC makes use of your computer for processing instead of relying on some proprietary expensive processing unit. That's probably the thing I like about it most of all.



Knobs can make total sense on hardware. They work fine because we can grab them and twist them. It's when you put the emulation of the knob visuall on screen that I think it becomes stupid. Even with the best implementation of virtual on screen knobs (which I believe to be where you click on the knob and move your mouse up and down to spin the knob) you still end up with large mouse movements that take your mouse out of the area where the cursor is in relation to the screen and then you will inevitablly have to pick up the damn mouse and move it back onto the mouse pad or the desk area, etc... I know it's knitpicky but I sill see it as a serious design flaw. The only other implementation I felt worked was one where you could hover over the knobs and use the mouse wheel to move the knob. But then you end up wearing out your finger with all that scroll wheel spinning.

Sorry, to me they are just a pain in the ass.


I completely agree. I hate trying to turn a knob with a mouse. But I wouldn't even try mixing with a mouse. I will only ever use a dedicated control surface with faders and knobs. No mouse and keyboard for me.

RBIngraham wrote:As for DSP, yes there is a lot of number crunching power availalbe in an off the shelf computer. The catch of course is in the details. Want super low latency? Well no computer operating system is really designed for that very well. Doesn't mean things like SAC are not usable, but it will sitll be signifigantly slower than dedicated DSP. With hardware DSP the code is custom written from the ground up, and the A to D, D to A conversion process is what accounts for much of the latency in most hardware digital console, not the processing. SAC itself is pretty damn fast as well, it's the ASIO driver buffers and any buffers on the sound cards that cause most of the added latency when dealing with native software products.

Going the DSP route can also be a lot more stable as well. It's why things like nice Digidesign and Digico consoles can continue to pass audio when the surface/UI crashes.

There is still good reasons when the big boy consoles have a rack with lots of DSPs in them to do all the heavy lifting and I guess I would just disagree, that I don't see that changing anytime soon. Computer/Software control of DSP can be a very stable and effective prodcut and it can still be more affordable than the old analog days. Just think how much you would have to spend for an all analog system with the processing power of even some of the fairly modest digital consoles or software.


Are you saying that applies to SAC? I wasn't aware of any external DSP with it.
Razor
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:09 pm

Re: What features would you like to see in a mixer?

Postby RBIngraham » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:24 pm

Razor wrote:
I completely agree. I hate trying to turn a knob with a mouse. But I wouldn't even try mixing with a mouse. I will only ever use a dedicated control surface with faders and knobs. No mouse and keyboard for me.



Same here. While I don't have a real need for knobs myself I can see why some might want them. I guess it depends on the layout of the console. I know that I can accomplish many times faster what I want to get done in Yamaha Studio Manager faster than I can on the console for many thing, short of actual mixing as in bring faders up and down. But even if I'm sitting right at the console, I almost always want to have Studio Manager running and I do all my channel setting (EQ, Dynamics, etc..) with the mouse. Maybe it's just because as a sound designer I've spent many hours with Studio Manger in front of me and someone else is at the console, but I am always faster with SM over the console for most functions. The only console they have made the I feel differently about is the DM2K where you can touch the fader and the settings pop up on the display and it has dedicated controls for the entire channel strip. I know the 5d has that as well, but for some reason I never got fast on that surface, not sure why...

Razor wrote:
RBIngraham wrote:As for DSP, yes there is a lot of number crunching power availalbe in an off the shelf computer. The catch of course is in the details. Want super low latency? Well no computer operating system is really designed for that very well. Doesn't mean things like SAC are not usable, but it will sitll be signifigantly slower than dedicated DSP. With hardware DSP the code is custom written from the ground up, and the A to D, D to A conversion process is what accounts for much of the latency in most hardware digital console, not the processing. SAC itself is pretty damn fast as well, it's the ASIO driver buffers and any buffers on the sound cards that cause most of the added latency when dealing with native software products.

Going the DSP route can also be a lot more stable as well. It's why things like nice Digidesign and Digico consoles can continue to pass audio when the surface/UI crashes.

There is still good reasons when the big boy consoles have a rack with lots of DSPs in them to do all the heavy lifting and I guess I would just disagree, that I don't see that changing anytime soon. Computer/Software control of DSP can be a very stable and effective prodcut and it can still be more affordable than the old analog days. Just think how much you would have to spend for an all analog system with the processing power of even some of the fairly modest digital consoles or software.


Are you saying that applies to SAC? I wasn't aware of any external DSP with it.


No, I'm saying that not having any DSP means SAC systems in general will always have higher latency just by the very nature of using a sound card and the native CPU for everything. Unless of course someone were to write a totally custom OS for the computer and rewirte SAC, but at that point then it becomes essentially the same as any other hardware digital console, many of which run some form of linux or unix for the system processing rack.

Anyway all the hardware digital mix consoles use some form of DSP to do the heavy lifting and there is good reasons for that, not just becuase they want an excuse to charge you a lot of money.
Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/
SAC details and goodies at: http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/SAC.html
RBIngraham
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH USA

PreviousNext

Return to Other DAW Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron