| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Tim S Kemp wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: See, I find the 02R really irritating. I haven't used any of the newer big Yamaha digital consoles, but the control overloading on the 02R just drives me up the wall. Also it is _very_ easy to screw yourself up with the signal routing functions. 02R was never intended as a live desk, it's control flow is similar to that of an inline 8 buss (even if its surface isn't). 01V / 01V96 / DM1000 / DM200 / PM5 / PM1 are all UI optimised for live use, everything falls to hand. Recently had another engineer using the setuo on a regular basis and only took a few hours to get proficient. Well, that's sort of the problem. In the truck, you don't want a live desk, but you also don't want a recording desk either. It's a weird mix of features. Thankfully there's still a market for broadcast desks like this, but it's not a huge one and there aren't too many out there any more that are specifically designed for the job. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim S Kemp wrote:
shannon wrote: SSL drool Having had to use the SSL5000 broadcast desks before.... there is nothing there to drool over. There is a lot more to bang your head on the desk over. Has SSL even made any broadcast consoles since then? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message Tim S Kemp wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: Digital desk maybe with the dumb**** 'virtual channels' ? Either that - proving that you should never *ever* use 'assignable' desks for demanding live use or that the engineer responsible is utterly clueless. If there is *one* fader you should have your finger on at the commencement of a new set....... Digital rocks. Engineers who are ignoring digital and are lost at the sight of a PM1, PM5 or a Digico are fooling themselves into history. It's the 'virtual channels' ! I presume you mean the layering of the controls. NO bloody damn good in a demanding live environment. There's no need to operate a digital console with either scenes or layers. I can operate my 02R96 as a straight-up 24 input mixer with 24 faders. Tim mentioned the Yamaha PM1 which Tim mentioned has 48 faders, and if all you want to do is mix 48 inputs, then there's no need for layers at all. You need to be able to access the right fader, knob, etc within 10s ? of milliseconds. I think you need a little time with a stop watch. If you have your hand on the right fader, you're still limited by human reaction time. Human reaction time is limited by the complexity of the actual function being tested with more complex tasks taking longer. However, about 0.3 seconds (300 milliseconds) is a common number for the simplist tasks. You can't do *anything* in tens of milliseconds. We're talking 100s of milliseconds at the minimum. Digital control surfaces stops that being possible. Not at all. For openers, you can just use your digital control surface as a 1:1 device. For every operational channel there is one fader and its on the active layer. Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer that controls all channels that will be in use for a given scene. Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim S Kemp" wrote :
Damn right she will have, as will Robbie, as will Floyd. Mariah Carey sounded worse than normal though... I would not be surprised if the 'big acts' roll in their own digico all preset and ready to go with their own engineer doing the finetuning on site, feeding maybe 16 subgroups to FOH where they 'just' paste it together.. I'm sure the madonna choir was pre-mixed.. -- Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows, how are you gonna guarantee my safety.. --John Crichton - Farscape pilot |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip Not at all. For openers, you can just use your digital control surface as a 1:1 device. For every operational channel there is one fader and its on the active layer. Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer that controls all channels that will be in use for a given scene. Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. I posted similar common sense earlier and Graham was afraid to respond to me as well. Everything he says about digital consoles was true up to several years ago. Sadly, his earlier experiences have left him tainted and he's elected to be been left behind. More room for us, I suppose. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. The PM1D has the advantage of being both of these if you want. 48 channels available in one layer, but split into 4 sets (or 96 channels split into 8 sets) At the flip of a button any of the sets of faders can be at hand, in the way you program it. So, for instance you could have a set of faders that are always at hand and never more, while the other four do, or the faders moving from the right side of the desk to the left, or the bottom layer to the top, or any combination you can think of. You can have 6 (IIRC) of these 'bank jumps' prgrammed in per show. If a smaller show you can have both left and right sides of the desk set the same, ie both having channels 1-24. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul van der Heu wrote:
"Tim S Kemp" wrote : Damn right she will have, as will Robbie, as will Floyd. Mariah Carey sounded worse than normal though... I would not be surprised if the 'big acts' roll in their own digico all preset and ready to go with their own engineer doing the finetuning on site, feeding maybe 16 subgroups to FOH where they 'just' paste it together.. I'm sure the madonna choir was pre-mixed.. Depends on the available time between setups. Everybody _wants_ to do that, but often there isn't the time and ability to do the handover effectively. It gets crazy when you have ten acts on the same stage in a day.... not everyone can have their own FOB position, if only because the power requirements and grounding issues would drive everyone insane. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Paul van der Heu wrote: "Tim S Kemp" wrote : Damn right she will have, as will Robbie, as will Floyd. Mariah Carey sounded worse than normal though... I would not be surprised if the 'big acts' roll in their own digico all preset and ready to go with their own engineer doing the finetuning on site, feeding maybe 16 subgroups to FOH where they 'just' paste it together.. I'm sure the madonna choir was pre-mixed.. Depends on the available time between setups. Everybody _wants_ to do that, but often there isn't the time and ability to do the handover effectively. It gets crazy when you have ten acts on the same stage in a day.... not everyone can have their own FOB position, if only because the power requirements and grounding issues would drive everyone insane. --scott Though if the FOH desk is digital, then the band theoretically show up with their show on disc, and just load it in. assuming they could get access to the kind of desk they can do their rehearsal at 'home' and save everything to disc and bring it along - all they would then have to do is repatch the show to match the set up at the actual event - which can be done on the engineers laptop back stage before the on site line check. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
shannon wrote:
Perhaps it was the confusion of this classic analogue interface :-) More details on Sound One at http://www.bbcradioresources.com/ob/...sic/index.html -- Ian Gregory Replace "groups" with my first name to email Simple Feedback Trainer: http://sft.sourceforge.net/ |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jason Lavoie" wrote in message
... .... the live tv feed is probably handled by whoever was left Even more likely it was handled by whoever mixed each artist's last album which is a pretty common train wreck. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why does every single discussion on this newsgroup become a bash fest?
Pathetic. (..) |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
...snip.. Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer that controls all channels that will be in use for a given scene. Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. But you will need to have a map of the various layers in your head so you instantly know which layer to to call. Ergonomics of the user interface are still being worked out for these digital control surfaces. If those 48 faders are "scattered all over" that monster desk have you mapped the desk well? Are there any folks out there doing ergonomic studies of sound boards in various live situations? I do that all the time when designing GUI interfaces for software. I'll make a prototype, watch someone use it, then make adjustments. So, what knob(s), button(s), fader(s) are tweaked the most/least? How much does it depend on the engineer's background? How different is the [tweak] pattern for monitor, FOH, broadcast applications, etc. ? How about low end "pro-sumer) vs high end (real professional) applications? I would say digital control surfaces are still a work in progress. Umm, are there any good books/chapters/articles on logical mapping of control surfaces? Later... Ron Capik -- |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I'd like to know is where were the rec.audio.pro folks who are high tech in real life? Why wasn't one of us sitting at a concert, computer in lap, wirelessly connected to the Internet, giving us a blow-by-blow commentary on the house mix and what was really happening on stage? Maybe even recording some audio from the house with a pair of decent mics and posting clips? Instead, we're sitting at our computers in the comfort of our air conditioned homes, with no crowds and no bugs, blaming digital consoles for human errors. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joe Sensor" wrote in message ... Why does every single discussion on this newsgroup become a bash fest? Pathetic. (..) Dunno, it certainly didn't used to be this way. Used to be fairly friendlu here. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message news  "Jason Lavoie" wrote in message ... ... the live tv feed is probably handled by whoever was left Even more likely it was handled by whoever mixed each artist's last album which is a pretty common train wreck. The live tv feed would have been handled by a different company from the live mixes, and so there shouldn't have been any problems with the live sound getting all of one companies best guys, as the company doing the broadcast feed will have different staff. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Scott wrote:
Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. The PM1D has the advantage of being both of these if you want. 48 channels available in one layer, but split into 4 sets (or 96 channels split into 8 sets) At the flip of a button any of the sets of faders can be at hand, in the way you program it. I find this really irritating. BUT, it doesn't do any harm because you don't have to use it. You can just use only the first layer and be done with it. But what I find REALLY irritating is having to select the channel in order to change the aux send levels or EQ. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1120403663k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
What I'd like to know is where were the rec.audio.pro folks who are high tech in real life? Why wasn't one of us sitting at a concert, computer in lap, wirelessly connected to the Internet, giving us a blow-by-blow commentary on the house mix and what was really happening on stage? Maybe even recording some audio from the house with a pair of decent mics and posting clips? Hey, I do that every Tuesday night at the symphony. And since we broadcast with two-hour tape delay, I can give you blow-by-blow commentary before the fact. The band isn't bad either. Instead, we're sitting at our computers in the comfort of our air conditioned homes, with no crowds and no bugs, blaming digital consoles for human errors. Nahh, just trying to figure out what the error was and where it was. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Scott wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Depends on the available time between setups. Everybody _wants_ to do that, but often there isn't the time and ability to do the handover effectively. It gets crazy when you have ten acts on the same stage in a day.... not everyone can have their own FOB position, if only because the power requirements and grounding issues would drive everyone insane. Though if the FOH desk is digital, then the band theoretically show up with their show on disc, and just load it in. assuming they could get access to the kind of desk they can do their rehearsal at 'home' and save everything to disc and bring it along - all they would then have to do is repatch the show to match the set up at the actual event - which can be done on the engineers laptop back stage before the on site line check. And that does happen, although of course the actual mix at the live event turns out to be very different than the mix in rehearsal because the hall is so different. That's less of an issue at a stadium concert where there isn't so much spill from the main stage and all the sound is coming from the PA, but it's still a little one. The problem, though, is that you've got three mixes being made at the monitor, FOB, and remote truck locations. Sometimes multiple remote broadcast mixes are being cut, too. And there are only a limited number of people that really know the band and the music to mix it. And there is no time. And nobody ever tells the guy in the truck ANYTHING. It's better than it was back in the days of expensive analogue tape, when the guy in the truck would also be making a bunch of submixes to go to tape. These days folks usually have enough tracks in the truck just to record everything and straighten the record mixes out later, which leaves them free to deal with the live broadcast mixes. Although I'll say I did a festival gig to 1" 8-track not too long ago. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
shannon wrote:
...snip.. [ ... ] and light years faster to control dynamics and assign reverbs and delays. Nit pick of the moment: light years are a unit of distance not time... Later... Ron Capik cynic in training -- |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron Capik" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: ...snip.. Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer that controls all channels that will be in use for a given scene. Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. But you will need to have a map of the various layers in your head so you instantly know which layer to to call. Ergonomics of the user interface are still being worked out for these digital control surfaces. If those 48 faders are "scattered all over" that monster desk have you mapped the desk well? Certainly on the PM1D, the users has the decision as to what feed are mapped to which channel, all of the patching is software based, so channel one on stage can be patched to any of the 96 channels. So if the input feeds are indeed scattered all over then the engineer can only blame himself. You only have two layers, 1-48 and 49-96. The desk itself is split left and right and bottom and top, so you have four banks of faders. At the touch of the "flip" button you can switch or cycle through different configurations of how these are arranged, to bring the desired set of 12 faders to your fingers instantly, whether that set of channels be to your right, or underneath. You can have up to 8 of these patterns programmed, and the "flip"will cycle through them. If you only have two programmed then it will just flip between the two. If you have some channels you want all the time, whatever page you are on, then you can have, say channels 1-12 in the same position on each of these patterns. These desks are highly versitile, and to someone experienced, and who knows what they are doing they are much more useful for a show. It is all down to how thought through the programming and set up of the features are. If the useful and important channels are scattered all over, or the important channel is buried in the bottom layer, then it is down to bad programming and not bad control surface design. Once you have gotten your head into the idea of the soft patch, and having faders anywhere, and sets of channels flying around, it is so much more useable than an analog desk. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
But what I find REALLY irritating is having to select the channel in order to change the aux send levels or EQ. You'd get used to it, Scott, I promise. I have made that mistake before, as well as no switching layers and moving the fader for the wrong channel. But I have also made some stupid mistakes on analog consoles too, and have learned from it all. |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Tim Scott wrote: Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. The PM1D has the advantage of being both of these if you want. 48 channels available in one layer, but split into 4 sets (or 96 channels split into 8 sets) At the flip of a button any of the sets of faders can be at hand, in the way you program it. I find this really irritating. What is even more irritating is using an analog console where what you get is rigidly limited to what you see. BUT, it doesn't do any harm because you don't have to use it. You can just use only the first layer and be done with it. Agreed. But what I find REALLY irritating is having to select the channel in order to change the aux send levels or EQ. I don't know how *every* digital console handles this, but for the 02r96, a channel becomes selected whenever you touch any of the exposed controls for it, including the fader knob, the the mute button, the select button, etc. So selecting a channel is as simple as tapping the top of its fader knob - quite painless and intuitive. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron Capik" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: ...snip.. Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer that controls all channels that will be in use for a given scene. Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. But you will need to have a map of the various layers in your head so you instantly know which layer to to call. There aren't *that* many layers. Ergonomics of the user interface are still being worked out for these digital control surfaces. Ideally, the entire surface would be a display, and the nomenclature for everying visible would reflect all important parameters of its current state. I'd be happier if the channel strips would display the friendly name of the channel. If those 48 faders are "scattered all over" that monster desk have you mapped the desk well? The same applies to digital desks. If the available faders are hard to remember, have you organized the desk well? Are there any folks out there doing ergonomic studies of sound boards in various live situations? Searching google suggests that most such *reasearch* is being done by marketing types. ;-) I do that all the time when designing GUI interfaces for software. I'll make a prototype, watch someone use it, then make adjustments. So, what knob(s), button(s), fader(s) are tweaked the most/least? How much does it depend on the engineer's background? Most ergonomic studies seem to show that the most-used part of a mixing desks is the faders. How different is the [tweak] pattern for monitor, FOH, broadcast applications, etc. ? How about low end "pro-sumer) vs high end (real professional) applications? I would say digital control surfaces are still a work in progress. As is everything in a healthy technology. Umm, are there any good books/chapters/articles on logical mapping of control surfaces? Let me get back with your after I get a few more weeks experience with my first mapping design for my new 02R96. ;-) The two layers are called praise and worship, and spoken word and special music. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
I don't know how *every* digital console handles this, but for the 02r96, a channel becomes selected whenever you touch any of the exposed controls for it, including the fader knob, the the mute button, the select button, etc. So selecting a channel is as simple as tapping the top of its fader knob - quite painless and intuitive. I don't much care the touch faders or the auto channel selection, so I just turn it off. that way the selected channel is always the last channel I selected... And there enlies another beauty of digital; Flexibility. You like it one way, I like it the other. We BOTH get our choice with the same console. Ralph |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... I'll never be able to mention Brit Row in future without caveats, if they are indeed the contractor, Same goes for Clair Bros. Those two companies were responsible for two of the three worst sounding gigs I have heard. I used to work at Brit Row and had a lot of respect for them but it seems they have been going downhill rapidly in the last few years. Phildo |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thomas Bishop wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message But what I find REALLY irritating is having to select the channel in order to change the aux send levels or EQ. You'd get used to it, Scott, I promise. I have made that mistake before, as well as no switching layers and moving the fader for the wrong channel. But I have also made some stupid mistakes on analog consoles too, and have learned from it all. Yeah, I would get used to it. But the way I look at this stuff, people are supposed to adapt machines to do what they want, rather than adapt themselves to the machines. Neve did a pretty good job of this with the Capricorn, not such a good job with their digital mastering desk. I basically wound up building a custom console to do exactly what I wanted, exactly the way I wanted it, because there aren't too many good broadcast consoles out there today. The great thing about digital systems is that it _should_ be possible to build your own custom systems based on standard control surfaces and router modules, with a lot less effort than building analogue gear custom. There are some folks like Klotz and Graham-Patten systems who have been doing this in the broadcast console world, basically providing a kit to build yourself a console. Much the way modular analogue consoles used to be. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim S Kemp wrote:
Anyone got a kit list for this gig? I notice Turbo monitors in the stage front but not had clear view of stacks and FOH... Some more info on the Blue Room (a theatre tech forum) from Mark Isbister - see http://www.blue-room.org.uk/index.ph...ndpost&p=68878 To quote: "Hello All I'm fresh back from Hyde Park where I was working for Brit Row. I can therefore supply some concrete facts regarding the Sound side of the event. The band sound was run from 4 digico D5 desks 2 on monitors and 2 at FOH. Some of the bands had rehearsed in around london during the week running up-to the event using TFM450 wedges and a pair of digico desks. The sessions from these rehearsals where then brought to site on a digico USB watch (nice swag). At each end of the multicore there was also a spare D5 desk which was used for checking these session files and building new ones for the engineers who hadn't had any pre programing time. As for the feedback the many of the bands came with their own monitor and foh engineers many of whom had very little time on the boards before there artists took to the stage. The monitor system sounded great and it was quite possible to get a very in your face vocal sound on stage. Quite a few of the enginners didn't go out on stage to have a listen during the turnaround those who did had a feedback feed show. The line system was based on a A/B idea with 56 channels of bss splits for each system. As one band was performing the next act was being set-up on the back of the revole. A large back stage area (nicknamed stage 2) was used to prep the following bands gear on rolling risers. Sennheiser sponsored the event with serveral hundred microphones from there catalogue available as well as the standard fare from Brit Rows hire stock.The TV and radio sound was mixed in two BBC SSL Equiped mobile trucks one for each line system. These are the same trucks that did the broadcast mix at glasto with the same team opeating them so the earlier comments regarding the glasto mix are a little hard to justify maybe something to do with the mud done there. Anyway Live8 has been the most intense 48 hours in my life to-date lets hope that the G8 sit-up and take notice of public pressure and Make Poverty History. If anyone has any questions regarding the gig please post and I will try to answer the best I can. Mark" http://www.blue-room.org.uk/index.ph...ndpost&p=68878 -- Ian Gregory Replace "groups" with my first name to email Simple Feedback Trainer: http://sft.sourceforge.net/ |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I have been involved with an event that the BBC or other broadcaster
covered they normally take a mike split and have their own people mix, sometime their mixes are awful and their attitude can be awfully high handed. "Tim Scott" wrote in message ... "Bob Olhsson" wrote in message news "Jason Lavoie" wrote in message ... ... the live tv feed is probably handled by whoever was left Even more likely it was handled by whoever mixed each artist's last album which is a pretty common train wreck. The live tv feed would have been handled by a different company from the live mixes, and so there shouldn't have been any problems with the live sound getting all of one companies best guys, as the company doing the broadcast feed will have different staff. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anyway Live8 has been the most intense 48 hours in my life to-date lets hope that the G8 sit-up and take notice of public pressure and Make Poverty History. They can throw as much money as they want at Africa and nothing will get done until they sort out the corruption in the government there. The west has given $5,000 aid PER PERSON to Africa since the 50s. Nice sentiment but until people realise nothing will change in Africa unless the politics change there then the powerful rich will simply take the money for themselves while the poor people starve and die. Phildo |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
 |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:57:34 -0500, Joe Sensor
wrote: Who cares? It wasn't a musical event, was it? :-) |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Ron Capik" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: ...snip.. Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer that controls all channels that will be in use for a given scene. Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24 faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48 faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a layer button in about the same amount of time as it would take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some faders that are some distance away. But you will need to have a map of the various layers in your head so you instantly know which layer to to call. There aren't *that* many layers. Ergonomics of the user interface are still being worked out for these digital control surfaces. Ideally, the entire surface would be a display, and the nomenclature for everying visible would reflect all important parameters of its current state. I'd be happier if the channel strips would display the friendly name of the channel. Certainly the PM1D displays the name of the channel, as to what you, the operator named at (albiet confined to 4 charaters of ascii) but it does away with whit LX tape! |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Phildo" wrote in message ... "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... I'll never be able to mention Brit Row in future without caveats, if they are indeed the contractor, Same goes for Clair Bros. Those two companies were responsible for two of the three worst sounding gigs I have heard. I used to work at Brit Row and had a lot of respect for them but it seems they have been going downhill rapidly in the last few years. There was a time years ago, that Wig were in a position and certainly considered buying Brit, but as Wig has a Christian/Church background/ethos they decided against it, as they didn't see what Brit was doing, whee it was going to be inline with that. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pooh Bear" wrote:
And it's been such a piece of wank that I forget the addy of the site I'm suppossed to log into to add my name. http://www.live8live.com -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim S Kemp" wrote:
I would expect there to be the usual split for the broadcast I think the broadcast guys got bitten by mic splits with Shakira. The chorus of her big tune has some kind of vocoder/pitch manager effect on it, which was not there in the broadcast mix. At first her voice just kind of dropped out during the effect parts, then we got more of the ambient mics (apparently the FOH mix had the effect intact), and by the end of the song we just got the unprocessed vocal. Note to self: always check if any special effects/processing are part of the signature sound when taking mic splits rather than board feed. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pooh Bear" wrote:
Give me an 'unknown' concert scenario and I'll use a classic analogue desk any day, simply for it's lovely simple control surface. "Thomas Bishop" wrote: And your "old fart" ways of thinking. Oh come ON Thomas, you can't really be serious, are you? Suggesting that current digital consoles are anywhere CLOSE to mature enough to compete with a decent analog desk for impromptu live mixes? That's absurd. When the control surface is a-knob-for-every-function like an analog desk, the comparisons can begin. If there's even ONE menu between me and the adjustment, it's too late by the time the change is made. Admittedly some of the better units now have the I/O managed better thanks to decent resampling on the inputs, but anything less than top-of-the line desks still present I/O challenges that could be ulcer makers in an emergency. Then there's the issue of throughput delay. 9ms from input to output can really mess up a cue mix. I'm not yet an old fart and I really love the advantages of digital, but in the case of live, seat-of-the-pants mixing, I don't see digital as HAVING many advantages yet. Maybe someday, but not today. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim Scott" wrote:
Certainly on the PM1D, the users has the decision as to what feed are mapped to which channel, all of the patching is software based, so channel one on stage can be patched to any of the 96 channels. "I can't hear the kick mic! What's going on?" "It's going into input nine on the snake." "Great, where the **** does that show up on the board? For that matter, where the **** are the inputs? Whaddaya mean 'in the other rack?!'" I don't begrudge anyone else their preferred working method, but *at this point in the development of digital consoles* I'll stick with peering over the edge of the board and looking for the XLR with a 9 on it, seeing which channel it's plugged into on a clearly labelled panel, then going to the strip that I *know* is associated with that connector, and that I *know* is showing me all the parameters for that channel. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
Most ergonomic studies seem to show that the most-used part of a mixing desks is the faders. Is that why designers ****ing BURY everything else? g We have some Yomama digital desk in our supersuite. Someone screwed around with it and messed up the output routing. I spent half-an-hour trying to figure out how to get input "A" to output "B" and finally gave up. I called one of the other audio guys to have a look, and he couldn't figure it out either. He eventually got it after an hour with the manual. Sure, neither one of us had either so much as touched that mixer before, but we're not exactly newbies to either audio or digital (ours was the first all-digital station in Canada). The point is that problem solving is easy with an analog mixer, and unnecessarily difficult with many (most?) digital desks. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
Linear Mode
