EasyPeasy

Discussions about the use and operation of SAC (Software Audio Console)

Re: EasyPeasy

Postby jlepore » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:18 pm

You do multiple multiple operators on a Midas XL8 as well. That can solve any problem (as well as act as a backup air traffic control station)
Gigabyte H55-USB3 i5-650/4G/XP/SSD Profire 2626x3/ADAx2/MLA7x1 Motormix x2 AMP/SAC/SAWLite
User avatar
jlepore
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: EasyPeasy

Postby IraSeigel » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:13 pm

RBIngraham wrote:Clearly you're not thinking of the same "level" of "church" that Brent is probably working at. ;)

I thought the iLive would allow for multiple surfaces to talk to the same frame or network of frames as well. Or are we talking about something more slick than that when you say you can have 2 operators? I thought Digico could do that as well.

Of course I would point out that if you want to be technical about it, even an M7 can allow for that. I've had a board op at the console while I work on Studio Manager at the tech table for years now. Same idea really (again, unless I'm missing something). It's just that now days you can have actual surfaces at each workstation.

And of course you can do that same thing with AMP and/or SAC as well. You just get into the whole debate about what is an adequate control surfaces. While I would never mix a show (unless it was a very simple project) with just a mouse. I've always been faster at dialing in EQ, Dynamics and other stuff using Studio Manager and a mouse on the M7 than at the console itself. Even more so on the LS9. Some things worked better at the console and others are easier inside studio manager.


I guess I underestimated the "level" of "church" that Brent was talking about. I would have assumed the Qu Series or new Venice series would have been more budget-conscious, because I believe the Vi3K is much more expensive than either. But glad to hear they'll be using the Soundcraft.

And yes, I believe you're right that, using Studio Manager, 2 operators can work off of one desk and not get in each others' way. I hadn't thought of SM but I should - it provides a lot more usability for, say, an 01V, than the console's UI.
IraSeigel
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:58 pm
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA

Re: EasyPeasy

Postby RBIngraham » Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:10 pm

Well to be fair the 01V96 is probably going on close to 10 years old. So if you compare it to other consoles from it's vintage, it has actually held up pretty well I think.

An actual 01V doesn't allow for a software editor, just to be clear about it.

I just assumed if he was looking at Soundcraft Vi, budget is probably not the number one system design concern. The Qu is not even close to being in the same class of console really. By Venice do you mean an analog Midas? I don't know of too many folks specifying analog consoles at all :-)

Anyway, if you haven't been using Studio Manager when working on a Yamaha console, you're probably missing out. Particularly things like patching and channel naming are SO much faster with Studio Manager. And I think that is true of many digital consoles actually.
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: EasyPeasy

Postby IraSeigel » Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:02 pm

RBIngraham wrote:...
I just assumed if he was looking at Soundcraft Vi, budget is probably not the number one system design concern. The Qu is not even close to being in the same class of console really. By Venice do you mean an analog Midas? I don't know of too many folks specifying analog consoles at all :-)

...


I was speaking of the Midas Venice F or U, but I haven't seen too many reports from users yet. I'm afraid to find out if it's more Behringer than Midas. Please say it ain't so!
IraSeigel
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:58 pm
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA

Re: EasyPeasy

Postby lowdbrent » Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:07 pm

There is no separation between the two. The build quality of the current gen is different than the first. The first was not that great. It is a price point product. If you think you are going to buy a thick, dense, robust console for that kind of money, you be dreamin'.
lowdbrent
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: EasyPeasy

Postby IraSeigel » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:30 pm

lowdbrent wrote:There is no separation between the two. The build quality of the current gen is different than the first. The first was not that great. It is a price point product. If you think you are going to buy a thick, dense, robust console for that kind of money, you be dreamin'.


I'm not sure what you're referring to, or what you think I'm referring to. I think the quality of the original Midas Venice was very decent, especially for it's price. EQ, pres and build quality were all good (I don't say outstanding).

I've made mention of the Qu-series, the Prosonus StudioLive and the Midas Venice U or Venice F. All are in the same general price range.

When you say there's "no separation between the two", are you referring to the Venice F or U, and a Behringer of the same price range, let's say the X-32? I guess the bigger question is, "Who has benefitted more and who has benefitted less from the buyout by Behringer of Midas?
IraSeigel
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:58 pm
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA

Previous

Return to SAC Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests

cron