[--D-y]

I went to a friend's outdoors gig the other night. Trio, G/B/D, "power
pop" and some oldies, "Funk 49" for one. His new board is a Presonus
24.4.2 (I believe that's the right model number). Impressive
"functionality" as far as just looking at the features goes, so that
once I had the "Fat Channel" explained, I felt like I could actually
run the thing, unlike his old one, which was very confusing to at
first look.

Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that could be used to
good use in a studio, with no sound quality issues that would rate it
as a "you need better than that" item? Including the gate, limiter,
effects functions?

Thank you.
--D-y

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/31/2010 3:09 PM, --D-y wrote:

Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that could be used to
good use in a studio, with no sound quality issues that would rate it
as a "you need better than that" item? Including the gate, limiter,
effects functions?

It depends on your level of professionalism. Sometimes you
can always use a better mic preamp or compressor, and you
can always use better A/D and D/A converters, but I don't
see why you can't get a lot of mileage out of it in the
studio. For me, it's missing one really important thing for
studio use, a real meter bridge that I can see without
looking down on the console and which displays what's coming
back from the recorder. Another thing that I'd miss, given
that it's obviously designed to work in conjunction with a
computer, is transport control buttons. So you can't get rid
of the monitor and keyboard even for tracking.

One thing to consider is that since you're almost certainly
going to be using it with a computer and DAW software of
your choice, you can always use software plug-ins to get
some variety in dynamics and EQ. You don't need to depend on
what's in the mixer. How do you intend to use it? Were you
hoping to use the computer just as a recorder and editor
(that's my preference) and do all your mixing on the
StudioLive? (there's no provision for automation, and no
moving faders) Or were you thinking of using the mixer
during tracking and doing all your mixing on the computer?

I've only seen the 24-channel StudioLive at the NAMM show,
but I had a 16-channel one in here for a review last year
(the review is posted on my web site - see the link at the
bottom of this post) and there are several things different
about the 24 besides more channels that make it more useful
all around. There are a couple of more controls on the
dynamics processing, the EQ has a Q control rather than just
a narrow/wide button, they made the solo function work like
it's supposed to, and you can route the Aux outputs through
graphic equalizers (the live guys were screaming for this)
among other things.

It's a pretty flexible console, but I couldn't shake the
feeling that it was a live sound console at hear that would
work in the studio rather than the other way around. And
indeed, at least if you take PreSonus' own StudioLive forum
as a reasonable sample of users, the majority are using it
live.

The StudioLive has a lot of features for the price, and for
live work, I think that it would be a pretty fussy band that
couldn't work with it and very little extra outboard
equipment, assuming it has enough channels for the job. But
we tend to be more fussy, or at least want more options, in
the studio.

While it doesn't have the built-in dynamics processing, in
the studio, I think I'd rather use the Allen & Heath ZED-R16
(I'm comparing it to the StudioLive 16 now), and for 24
channels, the new A&H GS-R24 looks very promising, though
it's more expensive than the StudioLive 24.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

--D-y wrote:
I went to a friend's outdoors gig the other night. Trio, G/B/D, "power
pop" and some oldies, "Funk 49" for one. His new board is a Presonus
24.4.2 (I believe that's the right model number). Impressive
"functionality" as far as just looking at the features goes, so that
once I had the "Fat Channel" explained, I felt like I could actually
run the thing, unlike his old one, which was very confusing to at
first look.

It's very much a PA console, but it's a pretty good one.

Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that could be used to
good use in a studio, with no sound quality issues that would rate it
as a "you need better than that" item? Including the gate, limiter,
effects functions?

Well, the topology is all wrong for use in a studio. Not enough sends,
no way to mix the tape returns. But it's not a bad sounding console.

I find the whole "fat channel" thing really annoying, but I think it's
much more of a problem in a PA situation than in a recording situation...
unless you're doing lots of EQ moves manually which I have occasionally
done.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/31/2010 5:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Well, the topology is all wrong for use in a studio. Not enough sends,
no way to mix the tape returns. But it's not a bad sounding console.

It has a lot of auxiliary sends, 10 I think. 4 subgroups and
direct analog an digital (Firewire) outputs from each
channel to the computer. The "tape" returns come back into
the channels on a 1-to-1 basis so you can pretend that the
computer is a 24-track recorder and monitor and mix through
the console. What it doesn't have is enough knobs, but
people who are used to mixing with a mouse will be happy
with what's there.

I find the whole "fat channel" thing really annoying, but I think it's
much more of a problem in a PA situation than in a recording situation...
unless you're doing lots of EQ moves manually which I have occasionally
done.

What's annoying? The fact that you don't have every knob for
every channel? Yeah, I agree with that, but again, at least
you have a full set of knobs for the whole channel strip.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[--D-y]

On Oct 31, 3:37*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

(a good response snipped for faster reading)

I don't know nuthin', this was a "what am I looking at here" question
from the peanut gallery, for sure.
Thanks for sharing knowledge/experience, appreciated.

Let's put it this way: this Presonus unit seems (to a lay person) to
have lots of nice, functional shiny bells & whistles, serving the
ability to control what's going on to a pretty fine degree, with that
Fat button giving a thorough, fast look at settings. I was wondering
how it compared "sonically" with high-end studio gear and figured,
after I posted, that I'd hear how it stacked up against other "PA"
gear IRT sound quality and ease of use, as part of comment/discussion.

My friend was recording onto an Apple laptop and said he wasn't sure
he'd captured the entire gig, because "the software is buggy" and
that's all the comment I heard. I believe he was connecting the Mac to
the console via Firewire. I saw some comments on the wwweb that
agreed. Guessing, there's enough "push" that this will get fixed
pretty quickly, one way or another.

The world sure has changed since I was playing out with my Tapco 6100
and a Crown 150 g.

Long story, fairly short: I was pressed into "guard duty" when someone
had to leave to attend to a sick child. There were two sound men, both
well regarded, present at one time or another (this was a somewhat
informal grade school carnival gig); both seemed happy, as did the
bass player, with the bass sound, which I found rumbly and unfocused.
"My instrument", and after looking over the controls and catching at
least some of what was going on, I really got the itch to "adjust
something". Having successfully owned/operated ancient "band PA" gear,
and filled in on primitive "touring" equipment (EQ sliders and rotary
knobs) for vocals and bluegrass/string band in outdoor concert, the
control options on this Presonus, both for logical presentation and
function, were, um, "intriguing". Hubris? Certainly, although, I
think, not beyond hope g, and "curiosity well piqued".

Again, I appreciate your detailed response.

"It might be a dumb question, but you'll never know unless you ask".
--D-y

[PStamler]

Presonus stuff, except for the starved-plate "toob" nonsense in some
of their preamps, tends to be a bit better-sounding than many of its
price-point competitors.

One thing to watch out for is that they've occasionally had issues
with the quality of their switches. (I've seen this on several of
their compressors, both the little half-rack ones and the big multi-
channel ones.) Make sure you get a good warranty.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/31/2010 6:39 PM, --D-y wrote:

Let's put it this way: this Presonus unit seems (to a lay person) to
have lots of nice, functional shiny bells& whistles, serving the
ability to control what's going on to a pretty fine degree, with that
Fat button giving a thorough, fast look at settings. I was wondering
how it compared "sonically" with high-end studio gear and figured,
after I posted, that I'd hear how it stacked up against other "PA"
gear IRT sound quality and ease of use, as part of comment/discussion.

There's no simple answer to this, for several reasons.
Probably the most important thing is that it's really hard
to make a bad sounding console today. It's possible to get
bad sound out of just about any console, but easier on some
than others because of problems like internal headroom, but
in general if you get a console that's sized properly for
your job, it'll sound OK.

There are a few distinct groups of users, and they don't
usually cross over. So someone who works with large Yamaha
and Digico consoles probably won't know anything about
PreSonus consoles. I've read many comments on the PreSonus
forum from people who say that when they changed out
whatever mixer they were using before (usually this is a
band or a church) "everybody" complimented on how much
better the sound was.

This is a bit hard for me to understand what they mean. It
could be that there's just one feature of the PreSounus that
made one thing sound better. Hard to tell. When I had one
here, I was using a Mackie Onyx 1640 for comparison and
tried to compare it in my mind to the Allen & Heath ZED-R16
that I had in for review a few months before I got the
PreSonus. The issue of one sounding better than the other
never really came up for me. I did notice that the EQs
worked differently (I found the A&H easier to get an
improved sound quickest) but if you don't need EQ it doesn't
matter what it sounds like.

My friend was recording onto an Apple laptop and said he wasn't sure
he'd captured the entire gig, because "the software is buggy" and
that's all the comment I heard. I believe he was connecting the Mac to
the console via Firewire.

All software is buggy. Firewire is a buggy way to get audio
data between a computer and an audio I/O device. There are
people who plug it in and it works fine and they never know
there's a problem. But there are others that always seem to
have problems. Macs seem to be a little more problematic,
but one of the biggest problems is that there aren't things
in the Firewire standard that assure that all devices will
work with all Firewire ports. The Firewire interfacing
hardware and firmware in the mixer is OK. What's in your
computer may not be OK. And there's nothing you can do to
prepare for it not working.

PreSounus has issued several software (the part that loads
on the computer) updates for the StudioLive 16. I don't know
about the 24 but I suppose it's the way they work. They've
also issued several firmware (the console program) updates.
These usually go together - if you update the firmware you
have to update the driver software and vice versa. You don't
have to install every update, but it's easy to get mixed up.

The world sure has changed since I was playing out with my Tapco 6100
and a Crown 150g.

Why aren't you still using them? I'll bet they both still
work.

Having successfully owned/operated ancient "band PA" gear,
and filled in on primitive "touring" equipment (EQ sliders and rotary
knobs) for vocals and bluegrass/string band in outdoor concert, the
control options on this Presonus, both for logical presentation and
function, were, um, "intriguing".

It's a matter of preference, and you can get used to
anything (so they tell me). I'm old, and I'm slow, and I
really don't want to have to learn how to think differently
about how to operate a console. I wouldn't be happy with a
car that I had to use a mouse to roll the windows down
either. But people who grew up with computers and video
games take to a user interface like this immediately and
can't understand why anyone would want all those confusing
knobs and buttons on a mixing console.

Are you actually thinking of getting one? Or are you just
looking for opinions?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 2:36 AM, PStamler wrote:

One thing to watch out for is that they've occasionally had issues
with the quality of their switches. (I've seen this on several of
their compressors, both the little half-rack ones and the big multi-
channel ones.) Make sure you get a good warranty.

Better to get a good mixer that doesn't need a warranty. The
trouble with a warranty on a device like this is that
there's practically nothing that a user can fix himself. The
manufacturer doesn't want you inside the box (and there are
good reasons for this). What it means is that just about
every problem means shipping it back to Baton Rouge in the
US or the distributor in your country. I believe that the
standard warranty is one year. In the US, there's a standard
charge of $175 for any out-of-warranty repair, though I
expect they might not honor that if you ran over it with the
band's van.

There are dealers who double the warranty, and credit cards
that do the same. It's probably worth looking for a deal
like that and hoping that you don't need it. But it's not
like you can bring it in to your local repair shop on
Tuesday and have it back in time for Friday's gig.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger]

"--D-y" wrote in message


Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that
could be used to good use in a studio, with no sound
quality issues that would rate it as a "you need better
than that" item? Including the gate, limiter, effects
functions?

Nobody has ever explained to me why I should be excited about the two little
Presonus digital consoles when the well-seasoned Yamaha 01v96 seems to
outperform it and out-function it in virtually every area of operation for a
similar amount of money, whether for live sound or in the studio.

I also don't know why anybody who was actually doing work for themself would
even want a console in their stuidio when DAWs work so well, and cost so
much less and often take up much less space.

[Scott Dorsey]

On 10/31/2010 6:39 PM, --D-y wrote:

Let's put it this way: this Presonus unit seems (to a lay person) to
have lots of nice, functional shiny bells& whistles, serving the
ability to control what's going on to a pretty fine degree, with that
Fat button giving a thorough, fast look at settings. I was wondering
how it compared "sonically" with high-end studio gear and figured,
after I posted, that I'd hear how it stacked up against other "PA"
gear IRT sound quality and ease of use, as part of comment/discussion.

The thing is, in the digital world, you can build very transparent stuff
very easily.

The hard part is the converter and the preamp. That stuff is needed in
order to get your signal into the digital world in the first place.

The Presonus converters and preamps are better than the usual range of
cheap junk, not as good as high end outboard stuff. But of course, you
can plug that high end outboard stuff into the front of the Presonus and
go.

Digital changed everything. Some stuff changed for the better, other stuff
changed for the worse.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/31/2010 5:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I find the whole "fat channel" thing really annoying, but I think it's
much more of a problem in a PA situation than in a recording situation...
unless you're doing lots of EQ moves manually which I have occasionally
done.

What's annoying? The fact that you don't have every knob for
every channel? Yeah, I agree with that, but again, at least
you have a full set of knobs for the whole channel strip.

Yes, precisely that. Presonus does a better job of it than Tascam or Yamaha,
but they still double-up a lot of controls.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/31/2010 5:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I find the whole "fat channel" thing really annoying,
but I think it's much more of a problem in a PA
situation than in a recording situation... unless
you're doing lots of EQ moves manually which I have
occasionally done.

One point being that for recording it is very common to record the channels
clean and add the EFX during mix-down. For recording, you don't need much
but a preamp gain control and some kind of channel assignment. Virtual
patching is nice, but cables have worked well for a gosh-awful long time.

What's annoying? The fact that you don't have every knob
for every channel? Yeah, I agree with that, but again,
at least you have a full set of knobs for the whole
channel strip.

Particularly on the 16 channel Presonus mixer, I don't see what I recognize
as being a full-function channel strip.

Yes, precisely that. Presonus does a better job of it
than Tascam or Yamaha, but they still double-up a lot of
controls. --scott

On balance, the Presonus channel strips (particularly the 16 channel) simply
do that much less than the competitive Yamaha.

If I have to make the choice between a multipurpose control and no control
at all for fairly common functions...

[--D-y]

On Nov 1, 5:49*am, Mike Rivers wrote:

I've read many comments on the PreSonus
forum from people who say that when they changed out
whatever mixer they were using before (usually this is a
band or a church) "everybody" complimented on how much
better the sound was.

Stating the obvious, it could simply be the glow of spending a chunk
of money on a shiny new Presonus.

This is a bit hard for me to understand what they mean. It
could be that there's just one feature of the PreSounus that
made one thing sound better. Hard to tell. When I had one
here, I was using a Mackie Onyx 1640 for comparison and
tried to compare it in my mind to the Allen & Heath ZED-R16
that I had in for review a few months before I got the
PreSonus. The issue of one sounding better than the other
never really came up for me. I did notice that the EQs
worked differently (I found the A&H easier to get an
improved sound quickest) but if you don't need EQ it doesn't
matter what it sounds like.

"See below IRT "glow".

The world sure has changed since I was playing out with my Tapco 6100
and a Crown 150g.

Why aren't you still using them? I'll bet they both still
work. *

Well, I got out of show biz a long time ago... but no, I wouldn't be
surprised to find they're still working. They weren't expensive,
"scrounged" used in good shape, and they sounded loads better than the
ready-made PA outfits available at the time.

It's a matter of preference, and you can get used to
anything (so they tell me). I'm old, and I'm slow, and I
really don't want to have to learn how to think differently
about how to operate a console. I wouldn't be happy with a
car that I had to use a mouse to roll the windows down
either. But people who grew up with computers and video
games take to a user interface like this immediately and
can't understand why anyone would want all those confusing
knobs and buttons on a mixing console.

My wife bought herself a BMW "program car", an '07 3-series wagon with
iDrive. 3-series iDrive from that era, from what I read, is much less
difficult to use than 5-series and up from that time period. "Thanks
for small favors", but I'm too old even for 3-series iDrive,
especially when all I want to do is turn on the radio or pop in a CD,
and I already know where the f*ck I am on Planet Earth, thank you very
much. And me, run an iPod with that tiny little screen while on the
move, driving? iPod = texting = DWI, especially when you have to wear
glasses to run the iPod. Old, slow, can't see good, either.

However, I liked that new-fangled Presonus g.
(repeating) It only took a few moments of looking at the layout, and
it made sense-- as in "I could take some time to learn the
complexities and actually run this thing" (again, a far cry from the
board that went before). I'd guess this might well be part of "the
glow"; and, come to think of it, the Presonus also has (IMHO) an
attractive appearance, which could easily help make it "sound better",
thinking of a band or church social setting where appearance, along
with the purchase price, "new factor", and ease of operation, also
figures in the perceived sonic experience.

Are you actually thinking of getting one? Or are you just
looking for opinions?

Not getting one anytime soon, as far as I know. Looking for opinions
and knowledge from experts and doing very well so far. I thought it
was a mighty cool piece of audio gear, and wondered where it fit in,
so to speak, and this seemed to be the best place to ask.
"Discussion appreciated". Thanks!
--D-y

[Scott Dorsey]

--D-y wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:49=A0am, Mike Rivers wrote:

My wife bought herself a BMW "program car", an '07 3-series wagon with
iDrive. 3-series iDrive from that era, from what I read, is much less
difficult to use than 5-series and up from that time period. "Thanks
for small favors", but I'm too old even for 3-series iDrive,
especially when all I want to do is turn on the radio or pop in a CD,
and I already know where the f*ck I am on Planet Earth, thank you very
much. And me, run an iPod with that tiny little screen while on the
move, driving? iPod =3D texting =3D DWI, especially when you have to wear
glasses to run the iPod. Old, slow, can't see good, either.

I'm perfectly happy with the BMW 2002. Sometimes I have to fiddle with
the choke in cold weather and the carbs need pretty regular attention,
but it doesn't have a lot of useless gewgaws that break, and the general
system behaviour is predictable.

The modern digital consoles are to some extent trying to replicate the
user interface off of traditional consoles. Some of them do it well,
some do not. The problem is that a lot of them are trying to replicate
the functionality while at the same time trying to add a lot of new features.
The combination does not go well together.

iDrive, on the other hand, is an attempt at creating a brand new user
interface from whole cloth. That's a good thing to do if you're building
something that has new functionality that has never existed before. It's
a bad thing to do if you are repackaging existing functions for a user who
has existing expectations about how appliances work.

However, I liked that new-fangled Presonus g.
(repeating) It only took a few moments of looking at the layout, and
it made sense-- as in "I could take some time to learn the
complexities and actually run this thing" (again, a far cry from the
board that went before). I'd guess this might well be part of "the
glow"; and, come to think of it, the Presonus also has (IMHO) an
attractive appearance, which could easily help make it "sound better",
thinking of a band or church social setting where appearance, along
with the purchase price, "new factor", and ease of operation, also
figures in the perceived sonic experience.

The folks at Presonus, and Yamaha, and Tascam, have spent a lot of time
working on the user interfaces because they understand that they have users
who have certain expectations about how a console will behave, and they need
to try and meet those as well as possible at their price point.

We're now at the point in technology where it is possible to make some pretty
good sounding devices very cheaply. It's _also_ possible to make similar
devices that sound just awful, with only minor software differences. Because
of this, the solidity and design quality of the hardware has now become only
a small part of the total equation and that is kind of alarming for all of
us.

Not getting one anytime soon, as far as I know. Looking for opinions
and knowledge from experts and doing very well so far. I thought it
was a mighty cool piece of audio gear, and wondered where it fit in,
so to speak, and this seemed to be the best place to ask.
"Discussion appreciated". Thanks!

Go try one. Also try the Tascams and the Yamaha. Then go try one of the
nicer analogue consoles now being made, something like an API or Midas.
They're all different, with all of them most of the actual money goes into
the user interface hardware, and which one you like will depend on how you
like to work. If everyone worked the same way they wouldn't need to make
so many different kinds.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 10:21 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Particularly on the 16 channel Presonus mixer, I don't see what I recognize
as being a full-function channel strip.

You have to stand on one side. The things that look like
meters become the "scale" for the knobs below them. Or think
of the channel strip as horizontal rather than vertical.
Soundcraft had a digital console like that about ten years
ago. I rather liked it.

I didn't count noses, but I think the 01v96 has fewer
gozintas and gozoutas than the StudioLive 16. But the
question was asked about the 24-channel version. I think the
24-channel similar Yamaha is quite a bit more expensive than
the 24-channel PreSonus, if they even still make it.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[--D-y]

On Nov 1, 10:32*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I'm perfectly happy with the BMW 2002. *Sometimes I have to fiddle with
the choke in cold weather and the carbs need pretty regular attention,
but it doesn't have a lot of useless gewgaws that break, and the general
system behaviour is predictable.

Heard that. Back when, I had a new '89 Dodge Omni. A crude device but
it was a first-year car with fuel injection that worked from sea level
to 12,000' and never gave any trouble whatsoever, for years and
years.
Just sayin', there can be actual progress in this world g. I had a
friend who owned a 2002 back in the day, very nice, a "best" of the
time. Modern safety equipment? Good, but we've lost something along
the way.

iDrive, on the other hand, is an attempt at creating a brand new user
interface from whole cloth. *That's a good thing to do if you're building
something that has new functionality that has never existed before. *It's
a bad thing to do if you are repackaging existing functions for a user who
has existing expectations about how appliances work.

The "ultimate driving experience" is not enhanced by having to look
down at a screen while punching tiny little buttons in an exact
sequence that can lead to "dead ends" if not performed correctly.
Especially compared to my Honda, with simple knob controls, specific
for function, at least for audio. There is a screen for heat/ac
controls, which is hard to read. Much better are simple "knob"
controls whose location and selections can be easily memorized so you
don't have to look, other than maybe a very brief glance, in the first
place.

$.02, near-OT discussion continues: The navigation is great, I guess
(being a male who is secure and confident enough to ask directions),
but there are still buttons for the "entertainment equipment" anyhow,
so why bury simple functions in iDrive, and make it complicated,
except some sort of misplaced snob appeal-- "You gotta be smart to
drive a beemer!" g. It's a nice little car to drive, and I think
it's a safer small car due to handling, brakes, and so forth, but,
although I could "learn iDrive" no thanks here. "She likes it", and
there you go!

Go try one. *Also try the Tascams and the Yamaha. *Then go try one of the
nicer analogue consoles now being made, something like an API or Midas.
They're all different, with all of them most of the actual money goes into
the user interface hardware, and which one you like will depend on how you
like to work. *If everyone worked the same way they wouldn't need to make
so many different kinds.

I'm going to ask to tag along behind the real sound dude at the next
live presentation for some observation & instruction. This PA is used
for the rock trio and a horn (R&B/Soul) band, too, so setup will vary
and be instructive. "Paid for" via gofer duty, the best way to learn.
As I said, it's all just curiosity at this point but I seem to be
intrigued here.
Hey, it's good to be interested when one is in the sixth decade of
existence!
--D-y

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 11:32 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The modern digital consoles are to some extent trying to replicate the
user interface off of traditional consoles. Some of them do it well,
some do not. The problem is that a lot of them are trying to replicate
the functionality while at the same time trying to add a lot of new features.
The combination does not go well together.

I don't see a lot of new features on this generation's
digital consoles other than perhaps dynamics on every
channel (don't the SSLs have that?) and the Firewire I/O.
The new digital consoles have "presets." The old analog
consoles had "total recall." The problems as I see them a

(1) They don't use enough parts - knobs, indicators, jacks -
and try to make do with fewer knobs and a complicated
display. At least the display on the PreSonus is pretty
simple and you don't really need to look at it other than to
select setup options.

(2) Sometimes they're not designed by experienced users, or
they're designed by users who have developed their own
working style that isn't mainstream. See my comments about
the Solo function in my StudioLive review for one example.

iDrive, on the other hand, is an attempt at creating a brand new user
interface from whole cloth.

These days I'm suspicious of any device with a name that
starts with a lower case "i."

We're now at the point in technology where it is possible to make some pretty
good sounding devices very cheaply. It's _also_ possible to make similar
devices that sound just awful, with only minor software differences. Because
of this, the solidity and design quality of the hardware has now become only
a small part of the total equation and that is kind of alarming for all of
us.

Yup. And because so many new audio devices are really
accessories for a computer, they need to design them to work
with computer configurations (hardware I/O ports and
drivers, mostly) that they've not tested, that are
continuously being updated (operating systems), and
installed software that affects the smooth flow of audio
data where you want it.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/1/2010 11:32 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The modern digital consoles are to some extent trying to replicate the
user interface off of traditional consoles. Some of them do it well,
some do not. The problem is that a lot of them are trying to replicate
the functionality while at the same time trying to add a lot of new features.
The combination does not go well together.

I don't see a lot of new features on this generation's
digital consoles other than perhaps dynamics on every
channel (don't the SSLs have that?) and the Firewire I/O.
The new digital consoles have "presets." The old analog
consoles had "total recall."

The dynamics on every channel... the dynamics that have a million controls
on them so you can adjust the knee shape and more than just attack and decay
times.... the fully parametric EQ.... the fully parametric EQ with a million
filters.

It's not anything that you didn't have in the analogue world, but it was stuff
that you often had only a channel or two of in the analogue world, and now it
is on everything.

In addition a lot of the digital consoles have lots of fancy routing features.
Again, something that would be outboard in the analogue world but is now
integrated into the console and therefore requires additional UI.

The problems as I see them a

(1) They don't use enough parts - knobs, indicators, jacks -
and try to make do with fewer knobs and a complicated
display. At least the display on the PreSonus is pretty
simple and you don't really need to look at it other than to
select setup options.

This is true, and that is because those parts are the expensive part of the
console. The dsp is cheap... the software is expensive but amortized across
lots of units. Knobs and switches are expensive and GOOD rugged knobs and
switches are even more expensive.

(2) Sometimes they're not designed by experienced users, or
they're designed by users who have developed their own
working style that isn't mainstream. See my comments about
the Solo function in my StudioLive review for one example.

THIS is really frustrating, yes. I would consider this sort of thing to be
a major design failure. Unfortunately it's pretty common in the digital
world... and it used to be too common in the analogue world too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 11/1/2010 10:21 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Particularly on the 16 channel Presonus mixer, I don't
see what I recognize as being a full-function channel
strip.

You have to stand on one side. The things that look like
meters become the "scale" for the knobs below them. Or
think of the channel strip as horizontal rather than
vertical. Soundcraft had a digital console like that
about ten years ago. I rather liked it.

I guess I'm not choosing my words well. I'm not lamenting the absence of
scales, I'm lamenting the absence of functions that I use all of the time.
For example the 01v96 has delays on every input and output. The Presonus
only has them on its EFX units whose number is very limited compared to the
number of channels.

I didn't count noses, but I think the 01v96 has fewer
gozintas and gozoutas than the StudioLive 16. But the
question was asked about the 24-channel version. I think
the 24-channel similar Yamaha is quite a bit more
expensive than the 24-channel PreSonus, if they even
still make it.

Gozintas and comesoutas? For example, the 01v96 has 2 more aux channels.
It has direct outs for every channel which the Presonus don't have at all.
The 01V96 has well-supported provisions for adding outboard input and
outputs using hardware from a number of different third parties.

01V96s can also be slaved.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


In addition a lot of the digital consoles have lots of
fancy routing features.

Ironic in this context because I see no generalized input or output patching
on the Presonus 16 and 24 channel boxes.

You can patch the aux inputs and the EFX I/O, but that is not the same as
being able to patch every input and output, insert I/O and direct outs
included.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 1:34 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The dynamics on every channel... the dynamics that have a million controls
on them so you can adjust the knee shape and more than just attack and decay
times.... the fully parametric EQ.... the fully parametric EQ with a million
filters.

It's not anything that you didn't have in the analogue world, but it was stuff
that you often had only a channel or two of in the analogue world, and now it
is on everything.

In addition a lot of the digital consoles have lots of fancy routing features.
Again, something that would be outboard in the analogue world but is now
integrated into the console and therefore requires additional UI.

This is the big attraction: "Now I don't need to buy a
_______," or in live sound, substitute "carry" for "buy."
Look on the bright side. If these small format integrated
digital consoles really take off (and I don't think they
really will, except maybe in the rental/conference market)
that'll put a lot of analog outboard processing gear on the
market. Some of it will be cheap and crummy, for sure, but
some will be cheap and decent.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 1:39 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironic in this context because I see no generalized input or output patching
on the Presonus 16 and 24 channel boxes.

I think that's because it was designed to work with a DAW
program which has its own routing selection. If you want the
mic in channel 1 of the mixer to go to Track 10 in the DAW,
you just select StudioLive_1 as the source for Track 10.

Same for the analog direct outputs. If you want the mic in
channel 1 to go to Track 10 of your HD24 backup recorder
(everyone oughta have one) just plug it in. Where it gets a
little sticky is if you have a multi-conductor cable that
has multi-pin plugs on both ends, or you're connecting 8
channels through one ADAT optical cable (which the PreSonus
doesn't support anyway). I think the HD24 lets you assign
any input to any track, but my Mackie HDR24/96 doesn't.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 1:34 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm lamenting the absence of functions that I use all of the time.
For example the 01v96 has delays on every input and output.

That's not something that a lot of people use all the time.
And given that it's really half of an audio workstation,
with a computer and DAW program as the other half, that's a
function that's part of every DAW, whether it's advertised
or not. But I'll give you better than half a point for it
because it's a function that I'd be more inclined to find
useful in live sound than in the studio (where I have the
DAW, if I actually used one). And the StudioLive seems to me
to be more of a live console than a studio console.

Gozintas and comesoutas? For example, the 01v96 has 2 more aux channels.

The StudioLive 16 has 6 aux outputs, the 24 has 10. It's
been a long time since I looked at the Yamaha line but I
seem to remember (maybe not on that model) that there were
more possible paths than there were possible outputs, just
because there are only so many expansion card slots and even
if you fill them all with cards with the maximum number of
I/O ports, you still can't cover all the things that you can
assign as outputs.

It has direct outs for every channel which the Presonus don't have at all.

Sure it does. There's a pair of DB25 connectors that go to
the mic preamp outputs. And the Firewire outputs are
essentially direct outputs from the channels, unless you
re-assign them to the stereo mix or aux sends (and there you
go with at least a little assignability).



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


On 11/1/2010 1:39 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironic in this context because I see no generalized
input or output patching on the Presonus 16 and 24
channel boxes.

I think that's because it was designed to work with a DAW
program which has its own routing selection. If you want
the mic in channel 1 of the mixer to go to Track 10 in
the DAW, you just select StudioLive_1 as the source for
Track 10.

I use input and routing all the time on a digital console that hasn't
interfaced with a DAW in over a year.

My point is that input and output routing in particularly is very valuable
even when you are not using it with a DAW.

It is a superior alternative to having an analog patch panel, and is very
helpful, even when only 10 or 15 channels are in play.

As soon as you have outboard input and output channels, input and output
routing are absolutely necessary. Since the Presonus consoles seem to not
support external input and output channels, the absence of routing is at
least not a critical omission. But, it is still an omission.

The 01V96 has complete input and output routing, and fully supports outboard
input and output channels, for a similar price.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 11/1/2010 1:34 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm lamenting the absence of functions that I use all of
the time. For example the 01v96 has delays on every input and
output.

That's not something that a lot of people use all the
time.

But, we're tallking a competitive product that has the feature fully
implements.


And given that it's really half of an audio
workstation, with a computer and DAW program as the other
half, that's a function that's part of every DAW, whether
it's advertised or not.

Much of the value of input and output delays has nothing to do with
interfacing with a DAW.

But I'll give you better than
half a point for it because it's a function that I'd be
more inclined to find useful in live sound than in the
studio (where I have the DAW, if I actually used one).
And the StudioLive seems to me to be more of a live
console than a studio console.

There you go - if its a live sound console, where are the input and output
delays?

Gozintas and comesoutas? For example, the 01v96 has 2
more aux channels.

The StudioLive 16 has 6 aux outputs, the 24 has 10. It's
been a long time since I looked at the Yamaha line but I
seem to remember (maybe not on that model) that there were
more possible paths than there were possible outputs, just
because there are only so many expansion card slots and
even if you fill them all with cards with the maximum
number of I/O ports, you still can't cover all the things
that you can assign as outputs.

The 01v96 has 8 aux channels.

It has direct outs for every channel which the Presonus
don't have at all.

Sure it does. There's a pair of DB25 connectors that go to
the mic preamp outputs.

Oh! the joy of wiring up DB25s! (not!).

And the Firewire outputs are
essentially direct outputs from the channels, unless you
re-assign them to the stereo mix or aux sends (and there
you go with at least a little assignability).

The connections from the inputs to FW are hard-patched and not assignable.

The assignable channels a

Main Mix Left / Right

.. Subgroup 1 & 2

.. Subgroup 3 & 4

.. Aux Send 1 & 2

.. Aux Send 3 & 4

.. Aux Send 5 & 6

.. Aux Send A & B (EFXA & EFXB Send)

.. Aux Return A (Aux Input A)

.. Aux Return B (Aux Input B)

.. FX Return A (EFXA Return)

.. FX Return B (EFXB Return)

.. 2 Track Left / Right

.. Talkback Left / Right

.. Solo Left / Right



It's all fine if you are interfacing with a DAW, but doesn't do a lot of
good in a typical live sound context.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 3:56 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

I use input and routing all the time on a digital console that hasn't
interfaced with a DAW in over a year.

I would find that pretty confusing. If I tell the guy on
stage to move the quanun mic a couple of inches to the right
he'll say "what's a quanun?" If I tell him to move Mic 3 a
couple of inches to the right he'll know what to do, but
then I have to remember that the quanun, which is Channel 10
on my console, is Mic 3 at the snake end. If you're doing
all the setup yourself, as I believe you do, then I guess
you can do whatever makes sense to you.

My point is that input and output routing in particularly is very valuable
even when you are not using it with a DAW.

It is a superior alternative to having an analog patch panel, and is very
helpful, even when only 10 or 15 channels are in play.

But it's not as good as having a plan and sticking to it.
I've never felt a need to use an analog patch bay for mic
inputs because all the patching I want to do is at the stage
end of the snake. I've occasionally re-patched tape outputs
to channel inputs when mixing if we've recorded things that
we hadn't originally planned and it's convenient to have
things adjacent on the console that aren't on adjacent
tracks, but I want my live setups to be as straight-line as
I can have them.

As soon as you have outboard input and output channels, input and output
routing are absolutely necessary.

What's an output input or output channel? Are you talking
about something like an 8-channel mic preamp with an ADAT
output? Yes, I can understand the need for being able to
route those 8 channels where you want them rather than
having them all together in a group. I think I acknowledged
that in one of my previous posts. But the StudioLive doesn't
have anything but analog inputs and the Firewire returns, so
it couldn't be a problem there. (though you might have a
problem with it because it DOESN'T have ADAT inputs)

Since the Presonus consoles seem to not
support external input and output channels, the absence of routing is at
least not a critical omission. But, it is still an omission.

Uh . . it's a problem that they left out something that you
don't need?

The 01V96 has complete input and output routing, and fully supports outboard
input and output channels, for a similar price.

I didn't mind working on the StudioLive. I hated working on
a Yamaha 01V (pre-96). It was just too confusing, largely
because of that routing matrix. I just set it up for 1-to-1,
saved that setup, and never touched it since. Too bad,
because this was in a system that had a DA-38 and the guy
who owned it (and also couldn't understand it) might have
found it handy to rearrange the returns for mixing.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/1/2010 4:08 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Much of the value of input and output delays has nothing to do with
interfacing with a DAW.

There you go - if its a live sound console, where are the input and output
delays?

Most people who buy $2,000 mixers don't adjust time delays
live. They just don't. I'm a bit surprised to find, from
reading the StudioLive forum, that this is the first mixer
for most of the posters. I sure wouldn't one as my first
mixer.

The 01v96 has 8 aux channels.

Whoop-de-doo! Can you gang pairs together to make stereo
sends with one knob for level and the other for pan? This
seems to be a popular feature with people using in-ear
monitors, but with only six aux sends, you can do only three
stereo mixes. The 24 has ten, so you can do five stereo mixes.

Oh! the joy of wiring up DB25s! (not!).

Snakes are cheap and convenient. And they're easier for most
of us to 'wire' than fiber optic cable.

The connections from the inputs to FW are hard-patched and not assignable.

I don't get what you're driving at. You mean that you can't
put Chanel 1 on Track 10? Sure you can. Not from the
console, but from the DAW. I can't send it to Track 10 on my
Ampex, but then my Ampex doesn't have Firewire inputs.

You're just being cantankerous. They make different mixers
differently to suit different users.

It's all fine if you are interfacing with a DAW, but doesn't do a lot of
good in a typical live sound context.

Give me an example of why you need to do this in a live setup.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 11/1/2010 3:56 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

I use input and routing all the time on a digital
console that hasn't interfaced with a DAW in over a year.

I would find that pretty confusing. If I tell the guy on
stage to move the quanun mic a couple of inches to the
right he'll say "what's a quanun?" If I tell him to move
Mic 3 a couple of inches to the right he'll know what to
do, but then I have to remember that the quanun, which is
Channel 10 on my console, is Mic 3 at the snake end. If
you're doing all the setup yourself, as I believe you do,
then I guess you can do whatever makes sense to you.

Well, that's where things can be different.

First off, if someone is just physically moving a mic, then the cabling and
routing on the console are none of his concern. He might know what a Quanun
is, but more likely he'd know that Laurie plays the quanun, and we'd talk
about it as "Laurie's mic".

I'm the only guy who has to worry about cabling and the console. Here's
reality in my world:

The stage left solo vocal mic is either Marve's or Dale's, so whoever is
doing lead singer and worship leader is whose mic that is to the people on
stage.

It turns out that the stage left solo vocal mic has a red foam foamie, and
is plugged into the termination box for snake A in jack 3. We've got two
snakes because we started out with just one and outgrew it after about 5
years. Instead of ripping it out, we just added another one like it and
called is snake B. Anyway snake A line 3 is plugged into outboard mic/line
interface (ADA 8000) for mic channels 9-16 on console outboard interface
card 1.

Since this mic has an important role, I patched it into fader 3 on layer 1
of the console. The default mic preamp for that channel is AD3, but somehow
the mic preamp for that channel went west a few years back. Since I have so
many mics out on the expansion card, its not worth the trouble to get the
console serviced.

On the Presonus, the above is not possible on several grounds. First off, no
expansion slots. Secondly, no layers so there is no place to expand to.

My point is that input and output routing in
particularly is very valuable even when you are not
using it with a DAW.

It is a superior alternative to having an analog patch
panel, and is very helpful, even when only 10 or 15
channels are in play.

But it's not as good as having a plan and sticking to it.

As I pointed out above, a console with input and output patching can enable
a better plan. In my case, if I had a Presonus, there would be no possible
plan. The plan would be get rid of the Presonus and get something that can
do the job and the competitive 02R96 might be the answer. Then, how stupid
would I feel having just taken a loss on a $2k console that was hot and
spiffy to get a $2k console that has been around a while but still does a
lot more.

I've never felt a need to use an analog patch bay for mic
inputs because all the patching I want to do is at the
stage end of the snake. I've occasionally re-patched tape
outputs to channel inputs when mixing if we've recorded
things that we hadn't originally planned and it's
convenient to have things adjacent on the console that
aren't on adjacent tracks, but I want my live setups to
be as straight-line as I can have them.

The real world often intrudes.

As soon as you have outboard input and output channels,
input and output routing are absolutely necessary.

What's an output input or output channel? Are you talking
about something like an 8-channel mic preamp with an ADAT
output?

That's what an ADA 8000 is, only it also has 8 line level analog outputs.

Yes, I can understand the need for being able to
route those 8 channels where you want them rather than
having them all together in a group. I think I
acknowledged that in one of my previous posts. But the
StudioLive doesn't have anything but analog inputs and
the Firewire returns, so it couldn't be a problem there.
(though you might have a problem with it because it
DOESN'T have ADAT inputs)

However, the competitively priced 01V96 has built in ADAT I/O, and a slot
that supports a variety of standard and proprietary audio interfaces ranging
from AES/EBU to ADAT to A-Net.

Since the Presonus consoles seem to not
support external input and output channels, the absence
of routing is at least not a critical omission. But, it
is still an omission.

Uh . . it's a problem that they left out something that
you don't need?

I must not be choosing words well. Routing is absolutely needed when you
have expansion chassis. Looks to me like you're a close to being a digital
console virgin. You don't seem to have ever had a good date with a real one.

The 01V96 has complete input and output routing, and
fully supports outboard input and output channels, for a
similar price.

I didn't mind working on the StudioLive. I hated working
on a Yamaha 01V (pre-96). It was just too confusing,

So its OK to damn a product you've never used, just a primitive predecessor?

largely because of that routing matrix.

The routing matrix of the current Yamaha digital consoles is transparent
until you need it. It comes preset ready to go. You can reset the whole
console to factory defaults with a few button presses.

I just set it up for 1-to-1, saved that setup, and never touched it since.

1-to-1 is how the Yamaha routing matrix is when set to factory defaults. You
didn't have to set it up for it to be that way, it came that way! I suspect
that most of the scenes were still set to factory defaults, even if a few
had been played with.

Too bad, because this was in a system that had a DA-38
and the guy who owned it (and also couldn't understand
it) might have found it handy to rearrange the returns
for mixing.

That may answer the question of how that console's routing matrix got
screwed up before you first saw it. It seems like it was a case of the blind
leading the blind.

Sue me, I read the user's guide and figured it out right the first time I
needed it, which was when we installed it. 16 mic channels (02R96) wasn't
enough for us. To go live I had to populate an expansion slot and use the
added inputs that it provided.

If you want a real thrill, compare and contrast interfacing an Aviom system
with either an 01v96 or a StudioLive. Been there, done that and the
comparison isn't pretty. Avioms are usually a lot more strategic for most
people than stereo aux sends.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 11/1/2010 4:08 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Much of the value of input and output delays has nothing
to do with interfacing with a DAW.

There you go - if its a live sound console, where are
the input and output delays?

Most people who buy $2,000 mixers don't adjust time delays
live. They just don't.

Is this how you totally discount a benefit of a #2K mixer that does let you
adjust time delays?

I'm a bit surprised to find, from
reading the StudioLive forum, that this is the first mixer
for most of the posters. I sure wouldn't one as my first
mixer.

It makes sense to me. The StudioLive looks to me like more like an analog
mixer that just happens to be implemented digitally.

The 01v96 has 8 aux channels.

Whoop-de-doo! Can you gang pairs together to make stereo
sends with one knob for level and the other for pan?

Why would one want do that in a live sound context?

Why would one want to do that, period?


This seems to be a popular feature with people using in-ear
monitors, but with only six aux sends, you can do only
three stereo mixes. The 24 has ten, so you can do five
stereo mixes.

If you are serious about IEMs, you go Aviom. You let your musos have their
own mixes at their fingertips.

Oh! the joy of wiring up DB25s! (not!).

Snakes are cheap and convenient. And they're easier for
most of us to 'wire' than fiber optic cable.

The misleading statement here is the implication that fiber optic cable is
the only option with competitive consoles. A lie, of course.

The connections from the inputs to FW are hard-patched
and not assignable.

I don't get what you're driving at. You mean that you
can't put Chanel 1 on Track 10? Sure you can. Not from the
console, but from the DAW. I can't send it to Track 10 on
my Ampex, but then my Ampex doesn't have Firewire inputs.

This is obvioiusly a case of an cantankerous old-schooler who does very
little with live sound trying to teach recording to a new schooler who
straddles live sound and recording weekly and way more than he ever wanted
to. But I get the job done and with a smile on both my face and the
client's.

You're just being cantankerous. They make different mixers
differently to suit different users.

I've heard this story before, and it has proven to be urban legend. The
urban myth of 7 years ago was that an 02R96 was a "recording console" and
unsuited for live sound. So now I've done live sound for 7 years on an
02R96, and recording as well. Fact is that the Yammie smaller digital
consoles of that day from the 01V96 to the DM2000 were basically all y the
same software running on different hardware, and the hardware was all
digitally patchable and expandible. The first hard limits you hit are all in
the software, which is all pretty much the same.

My point is just this: The StudioLive should look like a stripped-back,
lobotomized throwback to everybody who is comfortable with real digital
consoles. It is at least ironic that for about the same money, you *can* get
a real digital console.

It's all fine if you are interfacing with a DAW, but
doesn't do a lot of good in a typical live sound context.

Give me an example of why you need to do this in a live
setup.

I just did in another post. But the real story is that for recording, you
don't even need a console. Buying a StudioLive for recording makes no sense
at all to me unless you need a console for a security blanket, as a
convenient way to haul around a lot of mic preamps, or to impress visiting
firemen.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/2/2010 8:02 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

1-to-1 is how the Yamaha routing matrix is when set to factory defaults. You
didn't have to set it up for it to be that way, it came that way!

Actually, I set it up so that directl outputs went to TDIF
1-8 and inputs from TDIF 1-8 went to channels 9-16 so he
could use it like a split console with the mics going into
the first 8 channels and the recorder returns coming into
the last 8 channels. This was for studio use, not live sound
with recording.

That may answer the question of how that console's routing matrix got
screwed up before you first saw it. It seems like it was a case of the blind
leading the blind.

Nope, it was me who "screwed" it up. This was maybe 11 or 12
years ago so I don't remember the details, but this was the
easiest way for him to get accustomed to using it. It was
his first multitrack recording setup and it was too
difficult to switch between input and tape return monitoring
on the same channel. It was also an early 01v, not the same
mixer you have.

Sue me, I read the user's guide and figured it out right
the first time I
needed it

Well, I figured it out, too, but they guy lived 150 miles
from me, he was a dozen years older than me, and all of his
recording experience (a whole lot of it) was with mono and
stereo Nagras and portable Ampex recorders, going back more
than 40 years. I wasn't about to teach him how a digital
console works if he didn't catch right on to it, which he
didn't.

By the way, after his first project was finished, he swapped
it off for a Mackie 1604 VLZ (probably Pro at the time)
because he was more comfortable working with it than the
Yamaha. Me, I could adjust to it if I had to, but with no
advantage, I'll stick to what I know, thank you.

If you want a real thrill, compare and contrast interfacing an Aviom system
with either an 01v96 or a StudioLive. Been there, done that and the
comparison isn't pretty. Avioms are usually a lot more strategic for most
people than stereo aux sends.

Are you saying that an Aviom is hard to use? I never really
played with it much. Seemed pretty simple to me (with my
player-in-the-studio hat on) once the inputs were
connected. I know they have a special card for the Yamaha
mixers. I just looked at the analog version. I like cables
and plugs that i can see.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/2/2010 8:16 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

urban myth of 7 years ago was that an 02R96 was a "recording console" and
unsuited for live sound.

Did you read that on the Internet somewhere? My friendly
local dealer sold a truckload of that size Yamaha mixers
with only a handful going to recording studios. Most were
for installed live sound, churches, theaters, shows, that
sort of thing. The reason why they worked so well was that
there were reasonably stable setups and it was easy to just
select one and go. Studio people liked them because they
were quieter than the analog consoles of the day, had decent
EQ, and interfaced easily to the digital recorders of the
day. They used one set of bells and whistles, you used a
different set.

My point is just this: The StudioLive should look like a stripped-back,
lobotomized throwback to everybody who is comfortable with real digital
consoles.

Yeah, but it sells pretty well to users who have no
experience with consoles at all and will probably not exceed
its capabilities for a long time. Most of them seem to be
going to people who have bands, do live shows, and want to
record their shows with as little extra stuff as possible.

Hey, don't yell at me. I didn't buy one, and I don't plan
to. It isn't anything I need. And you already have your
solution.

It is at least ironic that for about the same money, you *can* get
a real digital console.

But I have a feeling that most of the PreSonus users would
have a hard time "getting" a Yamaha 01v or 02r.

the real story is that for recording, you
don't even need a console. Buying a StudioLive for recording makes no sense
at all to me unless you need a console for a security blanket, as a
convenient way to haul around a lot of mic preamps, or to impress visiting
firemen.

All of the above are valid. There are plenty of people who
are doing recording today without a console. Me, I like the
security blanket, but neither the Yamaha or PreSouus does it
for me. I wouldn't buy or recommend a StudioLive for someone
who wants a studio console. But for someone who likes the
idea of a digital console for live work and nothing more
than a Firewire cable and a laptop computer to record
everything that went into the mix, it's not a bad solution.
"Scenes" and "channel presets" are popular with this
crowd, and I think they're quite misused and abused, but
they'll learn eventually.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 11/2/2010 8:02 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

If you want a real thrill, compare and contrast
interfacing an Aviom system with either an 01v96 or a
StudioLive. Been there, done that and the comparison
isn't pretty. Avioms are usually a lot more strategic
for most people than stereo aux sends.

Are you saying that an Aviom is hard to use?

No. Just that it is very simple and clean if you have a digital console for
which an ANET card exists.

Otherwise, its pretty messy. 16 jumper cables or the equivalent snake worth
of mess.


I never
really played with it much. Seemed pretty simple to me
(with my player-in-the-studio hat on) once the inputs
were connected. I know they have a special card for the
Yamaha mixers.

I can't believe how close I came to not going that route.

Ijust looked at the analog version. I like cables and plugs that i can
see.

I have no problem at all seeing the ANET cable. ;-)

In the end you have to do some virtual patching to make it work. If I need
to *see* virtual cabling, I just call up the patches on the LCD...

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


On 11/2/2010 8:16 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

urban myth of 7 years ago was that an 02R96 was a
"recording console" and unsuited for live sound.

Did you read that on the Internet somewhere?

No, if you believe that old saw about Usenet not being the Internet. ;-)

Otherwise yes, if one takes the crowd over at AAPLS seriously at all.

My friendly
local dealer sold a truckload of that size Yamaha mixers
with only a handful going to recording studios. Most were
for installed live sound, churches, theaters, shows, that
sort of thing. The reason why they worked so well was that
there were reasonably stable setups and it was easy to
just select one and go.

Partially because of the internal patch bay, they are also very good for
setups that are anything but stable.

Studio people liked them because
they were quieter than the analog consoles of the day,
had decent EQ, and interfaced easily to the digital
recorders of the day. They used one set of bells and
whistles, you used a different set.

Since I work on both sides of the live/recording divide...

My point is just this: The StudioLive should look like
a stripped-back, lobotomized throwback to everybody who
is comfortable with real digital consoles.

Yeah, but it sells pretty well to users who have no
experience with consoles at all and will probably not
exceed its capabilities for a long time. Most of them
seem to be going to people who have bands, do live shows,
and want to record their shows with as little extra stuff
as possible.

I think you've described the StudioLive! market right there.

It is at least ironic that for about the same money, you
*can* get a real digital console.

But I have a feeling that most of the PreSonus users would
have a hard time "getting" a Yamaha 01v or 02r.

Something I can't relate to. I've encountered experienced people who have
had an infinitely hard time with them, while I jumped from a Mackie SR32 to
an 02R96 with expansion boxes all by myself by just reading the book. Mine
was even shipped broken. I diagnosed the bug, got it serviced and then
installed it myself.

There's a story about town about one of the partners of a local install
company with a generally excellent reputation who took an 02R96 to one of
his best accounts and never could get it to work. I can tell you how to do
that to yourself... ;-)

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"--D-y" wrote in message


Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that
could be used to good use in a studio, with no sound
quality issues that would rate it as a "you need better
than that" item? Including the gate, limiter, effects
functions?

Nobody has ever explained to me why I should be excited about the two
little Presonus digital consoles when the well-seasoned Yamaha 01v96 seems
to outperform it and out-function it in virtually every area of operation
for a similar amount of money, whether for live sound or in the studio.

I also don't know why anybody who was actually doing work for themself
would even want a console in their stuidio when DAWs work so well, and
cost so much less and often take up much less space.

You have taken the time to learn the yamaha , if you were fresh to the world
of digital live consoles the Presonus is MUCH easier to get mixing on
I sold my o1v V2 96 cause i t was so clumsy at live performance audio

and given the choice between the presonus and a o1v I would choose the
presonus for live sound
I have no idea as to how it works as a studio desk as I abhore and avoid
studios as much as I can

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

But I have a feeling that most of the PreSonus users would
have a hard time "getting" a Yamaha 01v or 02r.

EXACTLY , Mike, and this is the entire point of the "fat channel" and the
reason for the 24.4 to exisit
I see the Fat Channel as a expanded version of the first digital i owned
the A&H Icon.
george

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 11/1/2010 1:34 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The dynamics on every channel... the dynamics that have a million
controls
on them so you can adjust the knee shape and more than just attack and
decay
times.... the fully parametric EQ.... the fully parametric EQ with a
million
filters.

It's not anything that you didn't have in the analogue world, but it was
stuff
that you often had only a channel or two of in the analogue world, and
now it
is on everything.

In addition a lot of the digital consoles have lots of fancy routing
features.
Again, something that would be outboard in the analogue world but is now
integrated into the console and therefore requires additional UI.

This is the big attraction: "Now I don't need to buy a _______," or in
live sound, substitute "carry" for "buy." Look on the bright side. If
these small format integrated digital consoles really take off (and I
don't think they really will, except maybe in the rental/conference
market) that'll put a lot of analog outboard processing gear on the
market. Some of it will be cheap and crummy, for sure, but some will be
cheap and decent.


Comps gates and verbs are stupid cheap right now, I just got a 4 ch Drawmer
gate for 175$ and 3 spx 1000's for 200$ ea
for some reason good dual 31 band eq's have not seen the price drop yet, it
is still 600$ to get into a 'industry standard"
george

[--D-y]

On Nov 3, 6:18*am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...





"--D-y" wrote in message


Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that
could be used to good use in a studio, with no sound
quality issues that would rate it as a "you need better
than that" item? Including the gate, limiter, effects
functions?

Nobody has ever explained to me why I should be excited about the two
little Presonus digital consoles when the well-seasoned Yamaha 01v96 seems
to outperform it and out-function it in virtually every area of operation
for a similar amount of money, whether for live sound or in the studio.

I also don't know why anybody who was actually doing work for themself
would even want a console in their stuidio when DAWs work so well, and
cost so much less and often take up much less space.

You have taken the time to learn the yamaha , if you were fresh to the world
of digital live consoles the Presonus is MUCH easier to get mixing on
I sold my o1v V2 96 cause i t was so clumsy at live *performance audio

and given the choice between the presonus and a o1v I would choose the
presonus for live sound
I have no idea as to how it works as a studio desk as I abhore and avoid
studios as much as I can

The OP asked about studio use for the Presonus only in reference to
where it ranked in sonic quality to studio gear.
In his ignorance, he didn't mean he was going to use one in a
recording studio; he was thinking of price, where the Presonus was on
one hand, expensive compared to lunch money but on the other hand,
probably really cheap compared to vast arrays of knobs/buttons/
switches and what they connect to in a stationary studio setup.

Having read his op, the OP understands he may have led the
conversation astray to some extent, but the question was answered--
mainly, "not junk", if not really best suited to the recording
environment-- and, no surprise in this ng, the discussion has been
interesting and informative for someone who has been in a few (maybe
as many as four) real studios but not for setting up or adjusting
anything.
--D-y

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"--D-y" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 6:18 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...





"--D-y" wrote in message


Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that
could be used to good use in a studio, with no sound
quality issues that would rate it as a "you need better
than that" item? Including the gate, limiter, effects
functions?

Nobody has ever explained to me why I should be excited about the two
little Presonus digital consoles when the well-seasoned Yamaha 01v96
seems
to outperform it and out-function it in virtually every area of
operation
for a similar amount of money, whether for live sound or in the studio.

I also don't know why anybody who was actually doing work for themself
would even want a console in their stuidio when DAWs work so well, and
cost so much less and often take up much less space.

You have taken the time to learn the yamaha , if you were fresh to the
world
of digital live consoles the Presonus is MUCH easier to get mixing on
I sold my o1v V2 96 cause i t was so clumsy at live performance audio

and given the choice between the presonus and a o1v I would choose the
presonus for live sound
I have no idea as to how it works as a studio desk as I abhore and avoid
studios as much as I can

The OP asked about studio use for the Presonus only in reference to
where it ranked in sonic quality to studio gear.
In his ignorance, he didn't mean he was going to use one in a
recording studio; he was thinking of price, where the Presonus was on
one hand, expensive compared to lunch money but on the other hand,
probably really cheap compared to vast arrays of knobs/buttons/
switches and what they connect to in a stationary studio setup.

Having read his op, the OP understands he may have led the
conversation astray to some extent, but the question was answered--
mainly, "not junk", if not really best suited to the recording
environment-- and, no surprise in this ng, the discussion has been
interesting and informative for someone who has been in a few (maybe
as many as four) real studios but not for setting up or adjusting
anything.
--D-y

I believe the 24.4 , like the ls9 was concieved and marketed to the live
sound community with some crossover ability to the recordist
george

[hank alrich]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

"--D-y" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 6:18 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...





"--D-y" wrote in message


Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that
could be used to good use in a studio, with no sound
quality issues that would rate it as a "you need better
than that" item? Including the gate, limiter, effects
functions?

Nobody has ever explained to me why I should be excited about the two
little Presonus digital consoles when the well-seasoned Yamaha 01v96
seems
to outperform it and out-function it in virtually every area of
operation
for a similar amount of money, whether for live sound or in the studio.

I also don't know why anybody who was actually doing work for themself
would even want a console in their stuidio when DAWs work so well, and
cost so much less and often take up much less space.

You have taken the time to learn the yamaha , if you were fresh to the
world
of digital live consoles the Presonus is MUCH easier to get mixing on
I sold my o1v V2 96 cause i t was so clumsy at live performance audio

and given the choice between the presonus and a o1v I would choose the
presonus for live sound
I have no idea as to how it works as a studio desk as I abhore and avoid
studios as much as I can

The OP asked about studio use for the Presonus only in reference to
where it ranked in sonic quality to studio gear.
In his ignorance, he didn't mean he was going to use one in a
recording studio; he was thinking of price, where the Presonus was on
one hand, expensive compared to lunch money but on the other hand,
probably really cheap compared to vast arrays of knobs/buttons/
switches and what they connect to in a stationary studio setup.

Having read his op, the OP understands he may have led the
conversation astray to some extent, but the question was answered--
mainly, "not junk", if not really best suited to the recording
environment-- and, no surprise in this ng, the discussion has been
interesting and informative for someone who has been in a few (maybe
as many as four) real studios but not for setting up or adjusting
anything.
--D-y

I believe the 24.4 , like the ls9 was concieved and marketed to the live
sound community with some crossover ability to the recordist
george

a friend of mine does FOH for a fairly major and long-running act, and
his house mixes, done from a tablet PC as he roams the room most often
controlling ls7's or ls9's, sound like they were done in some
world-class multi-megabucks dedicated recording facility. they are
stunning mixes that _translate_ across playback systems. blows me away.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

"--D-y" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 6:18 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...





"--D-y" wrote in message


Curiosity question is, is this a pro-level board that
could be used to good use in a studio, with no sound
quality issues that would rate it as a "you need better
than that" item? Including the gate, limiter, effects
functions?

Nobody has ever explained to me why I should be excited about the two
little Presonus digital consoles when the well-seasoned Yamaha 01v96
seems
to outperform it and out-function it in virtually every area of
operation
for a similar amount of money, whether for live sound or in the
studio.

I also don't know why anybody who was actually doing work for
themself
would even want a console in their stuidio when DAWs work so well,
and
cost so much less and often take up much less space.

You have taken the time to learn the yamaha , if you were fresh to the
world
of digital live consoles the Presonus is MUCH easier to get mixing on
I sold my o1v V2 96 cause i t was so clumsy at live performance audio

and given the choice between the presonus and a o1v I would choose the
presonus for live sound
I have no idea as to how it works as a studio desk as I abhore and
avoid
studios as much as I can

The OP asked about studio use for the Presonus only in reference to
where it ranked in sonic quality to studio gear.
In his ignorance, he didn't mean he was going to use one in a
recording studio; he was thinking of price, where the Presonus was on
one hand, expensive compared to lunch money but on the other hand,
probably really cheap compared to vast arrays of knobs/buttons/
switches and what they connect to in a stationary studio setup.

Having read his op, the OP understands he may have led the
conversation astray to some extent, but the question was answered--
mainly, "not junk", if not really best suited to the recording
environment-- and, no surprise in this ng, the discussion has been
interesting and informative for someone who has been in a few (maybe
as many as four) real studios but not for setting up or adjusting
anything.
--D-y

I believe the 24.4 , like the ls9 was concieved and marketed to the live
sound community with some crossover ability to the recordist
george

a friend of mine does FOH for a fairly major and long-running act, and
his house mixes, done from a tablet PC as he roams the room most often
controlling ls7's or ls9's, sound like they were done in some
world-class multi-megabucks dedicated recording facility. they are
stunning mixes that _translate_ across playback systems. blows me away.

I do the same and get results that I feel compare to your observations.
george