Mixing console

[Didier Morel]

Hi,
I am hesitating between two mixing console:

Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro
Soundcraft M12

I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do
what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio
compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on
small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic
instruments).
I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the
Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two
consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas
or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I
live and more expensive.

So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used
these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The
soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different
configuration or the quality is really lower ?

Thanks a lot for your help,
didier.

[George Gleason]

"Didier Morel" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi,
> I am hesitating between two mixing console:
>
> Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro
> Soundcraft M12
>
> I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do
> what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio
> compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on
> small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic
> instruments).
> I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the
> Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two
> consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas
> or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I
> live and more expensive.
>
> So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used
> these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The
> soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different
> configuration or the quality is really lower ?
>
> Thanks a lot for your help,


The soundcraft has better headroom and a sweeter eq
George

[Fill X]

There's so much about mackie vs soundcraft vs allen and heath on a google
search , you'll be busy for days. Basically I thnink you'll find no real
consensus. Each have trade offs in terms of routing and features. Last I
looked, mackie and sound craft still were using 60mm faders or something, which
bugs the hell out of me.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[George Gleason]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1058963767k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > The soundcraft has better headroom and a sweeter eq
>
> The Mackie has adequate headroom if you understand gain staging.
> Anything can run out of headroom if you're careless, and why use a
> console that lets you get careless about something this important?
>
> The Mackie has more agressive EQ. Which one is better depends on why
> you use EQ. I was listening over the shoulder of a guy at an AES show
> twisting the EQ knobs of a Mackie 8-bus and was really pleased with
> how he could warp and twist the drum and bass sounds on the demo
> recording. I didn't think he ended up with anything that sounded more
> like drums or bass, but he was being creative. I can't warp things
> that strangely with my Soundcraft 600 console, but then I can make
> finer adjustments when things are almost right without EQ.
>
> I like the way the faders feel on Soundcraft consoles better than
> Mackie, but I don't know about the particular Souncraft that you're
> looking at. For someone who moves faders when mixing, this is
> important. For someone who sets levels and funnels everything into the
> stereo master, it's less important.
>
>
My thoughts on mackie mixers are well documented in google
I went out of my way to say nothing pro or con directed at the mackie in my
post
the soundcraft is the better product IMO
George

[kelly mcguire]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message >...
> "Didier Morel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hi,
> > I am hesitating between two mixing console:
> >
> > Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro
> > Soundcraft M12
> >
> > I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do
> > what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio
> > compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on
> > small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic
> > instruments).
> > I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the
> > Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two
> > consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas
> > or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I
> > live and more expensive.
> >
> > So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used
> > these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The
> > soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different
> > configuration or the quality is really lower ?
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your help,
>
>
> The soundcraft has better headroom and a sweeter eq
> George
Having used both products I'd say the M12 has a bit better mic
pre's(especially for loud mics or sources) and musical EQ, it's a bit
more plasticy feeling but seemingly made OK. I never have had problems
with Mackie products but lots of folks may argue with that. The Spdif
conversion is pretty cool, although it may not be any better than
external conversion...just handy for live to two-track.
kelly

[Michael Drainer]

I think you'll finde the Allen & Heath MixWizard is a much better pick than
either of the two you are currently investigating.

http://www.allen-heath.co.uk/wz162dx.asp

Nice tight pots good pre-amps with direct out and inserts on every channel.
(great if you want to multi-track). 4 band EQ with HPF and 100mm faders.



"Didier Morel" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi,
> I am hesitating between two mixing console:
>
> Mackie VLZ 1642 Pro
> Soundcraft M12
>
> I have carefully read the specs and they both seem to be able to do
> what I want them to (plug it into a Motu 828, use it with TL Audio
> compressors and Drawmer DS201, in a homestudio configuration and on
> small live venues with strings quartet and accoustic/electronic
> instruments).
> I know the Mackie a bit but there is no way for me to test the
> Soundcraft. Has anyone tested both ? How do you feel about these two
> consoles. I know that there are other brands like Allen & Heath, Midas
> or Crest (forget about Berhinger) but there not easy to get were I
> live and more expensive.
>
> So what I'm really asking is the advice of someone who has really used
> these two consoles. How do they behave compared on to the other. The
> soundcraft is a bit cheaper, is it only a question of different
> configuration or the quality is really lower ?
>
> Thanks a lot for your help,
> didier.

[David Morley]

In article <znr1058963767k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> The Mackie has adequate headroom if you understand gain staging.
> Anything can run out of headroom if you're careless, and why use a
> console that lets you get careless about something this important?

This may be true, but it´s still a valid point that the soundcraft has
more!

[Arny Krueger]

"David Morley" > wrote in message


> In article <znr1058963767k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:

>> The Mackie has adequate headroom if you understand gain staging.

Agreed.

>> Anything can run out of headroom if you're careless, and why use a
>> console that lets you get careless about something this important?

No console is invulnerable to abuse. The nature of abuse is that if you get
away with abusing it a little, you'll try to get away with more in the
future.

> This may be true, but it´s still a valid point that the soundcraft has
> more!

It's also a valid point that if you run out of headroom on a Mackie or other
halfways-decent console, you have only yourself to blame.

The Mackie console spec sheets I've looked at all claim 22 dB or more
headroom above 0 dBu. My personal experience with a SR32 is that it meets
spec, therefore I have no reason to believe that other Mackies don't meet
spec. If 22 dB isn't enough headroom to get the job done, what happens when
the same operator starts working with equipment like analog tape and DAWs,
that have only about half as much headroom?

BTW, I'm no great fan of Mackie consoles - I inherited the one I use. I also
fully agree that the equalization on Mackies is a lot less than many
situations really need, but that is why there are such things as insert
points, isn't it?

[George Gleason]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "David Morley" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In article <znr1058963767k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
> > wrote:
>
> >> The Mackie has adequate headroom if you understand gain staging.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >> Anything can run out of headroom if you're careless, and why use a
> >> console that lets you get careless about something this important?
>
> No console is invulnerable to abuse. The nature of abuse is that if you
get
> away with abusing it a little, you'll try to get away with more in the
> future.
>
> > This may be true, but it´s still a valid point that the soundcraft has
> > more!
>
> It's also a valid point that if you run out of headroom on a Mackie or
other
> halfways-decent console, you have only yourself to blame.
>
> The Mackie console spec sheets I've looked at all claim 22 dB or more
> headroom above 0 dBu. My personal experience with a SR32 is that it meets
> spec, therefore I have no reason to believe that other Mackies don't meet
> spec. If 22 dB isn't enough headroom to get the job done, what happens
when
> the same operator starts working with equipment like analog tape and
DAWs,
> that have only about half as much headroom?
>
> BTW, I'm no great fan of Mackie consoles - I inherited the one I use. I
also
> fully agree that the equalization on Mackies is a lot less than many
> situations really need, but that is why there are such things as insert
> points, isn't it?
>
>
Arny it isn't the channel headroom that causes problems on the Mackie , It
is the mix buss and this is especially bad on the larger one
you can run all the inputs at -3 and still overload the mix buss on the
mackie
you will not do this on the soundcraft
this is much more a problem with larger desks as you have more singnals to
pass through the mix buss
A&H gl3 suffered the same problem

George

[Arny Krueger]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "David Morley" > wrote in message
>>

> Arny it isn't the channel headroom that causes problems on the Mackie.

> It is the mix buss and this is especially bad on the larger one.

As in SR32?

> you can run all the inputs at -3 and still overload the mix buss on
> the mackie

So you are saying that if I run all the inputs on my SR32 with -3 (as
observed at the insert points), and then put all the sliders at 0, then I'm
right at the clipping point for the main mix buss?

Well, I know why I never get bothered this way - I never use more than about
half the inputs at a time, if that.

> you will not do this on the Soundcraft

I guess I'd not have that problem with a Mackie under the same conditions,
if I knocked the trims down a tad, right?

> this is much more a problem with larger desks as you have more
> signals to pass through the mix buss

Or someone set up the gain staging presuming that nobody would ever use all
the inputs concurrently, and/or that the odds of all inputs peaking at the
same time are pretty slim.

> A&H gl3 suffered the same problem

I see the concern, but I'm not sure its a problem that would bother me very
long, given that I know where the trim knobs are...

Not trying to be *smart* but this is a much more manageable situation than
the one with the channel eqs, and that one is not exactly what I'd call a
stopper.

<Aside> A neighboring church had a roof leak that flooded their SR32 and
they replaced it with a SR32. My first reaction was "lucky roof leak". So,
I'm still open to reasons why I'd like to punch a hole in my own church's
roof!

;-)

[George Gleason]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> "David Morley" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> > Arny it isn't the channel headroom that causes problems on the Mackie.
>
> > It is the mix buss and this is especially bad on the larger one.
>
> As in SR32?
>
> > you can run all the inputs at -3 and still overload the mix buss on
> > the mackie
>
> So you are saying that if I run all the inputs on my SR32 with -3 (as
> observed at the insert points), and then put all the sliders at 0, then
I'm
> right at the clipping point for the main mix buss?
>
> Well, I know why I never get bothered this way - I never use more than
about
> half the inputs at a time, if that.
>
> > you will not do this on the Soundcraft
>
> I guess I'd not have that problem with a Mackie under the same conditions,
> if I knocked the trims down a tad, right?
>
> > this is much more a problem with larger desks as you have more
> > signals to pass through the mix buss
>
> Or someone set up the gain staging presuming that nobody would ever use
all
> the inputs concurrently, and/or that the odds of all inputs peaking at the
> same time are pretty slim.
>
> > A&H gl3 suffered the same problem
>
> I see the concern, but I'm not sure its a problem that would bother me
very
> long, given that I know where the trim knobs are...
>
> Not trying to be *smart* but this is a much more manageable situation than
> the one with the channel eqs, and that one is not exactly what I'd call a
> stopper.
>
> <Aside> A neighboring church had a roof leak that flooded their SR32 and
> they replaced it with a SR32. My first reaction was "lucky roof leak". So,
> I'm still open to reasons why I'd like to punch a hole in my own church's
> roof!
>
much more a problem for live sound than recording
The problem is , there is no way to see it(the buss overload) coming and
when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your monitor
mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig)
I hated my GL3 for this and I hate the mackie for this as well
On my K2 / Lx7 I can run all trims(pfl) to zero all the faders to zero and
main out to zero
make setting up a mix under pressure of a 5 minute change over much
simplier
one does not HAVE to put up with quirky desks, there are decent units
available for basically the same money
George

[Arny Krueger]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I see the concern, but I'm not sure its a problem that would bother
>> me very long, given that I know where the trim knobs are...

>> Not trying to be *smart* but this is a much more manageable
>> situation than the one with the channel eqs, and that one is not
>> exactly what I'd call a stopper.

>> <Aside> A neighboring church had a roof leak that flooded their SR32
>> and they replaced it with a SR32. My first reaction was "lucky roof
>> leak". So, I'm still open to reasons why I'd like to punch a hole in
>> my own church's roof!

> much more a problem for live sound than recording

Hmmm.

> The problem is , there is no way to see it(the buss overload) coming

True enough. Clipping indicators are IME nonexistent on Mackie consoles.

> and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your
> monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig)

Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor mixes. I
guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on the aux send
masters.

> I hated my GL3 for this and I hate the mackie for this as well
> On my K2 / Lx7 I can run all trims(pfl) to zero all the faders to
> zero and main out to zero

> make setting up a mix under pressure of a 5 minute change over much
simplier

> one does not HAVE to put up with quirky desks, there are decent units
> available for basically the same money

I'm not sure that the gain structure of Mackie consoles is a quirk. It could
be a consequence of optimizing the console for situations where only a
subset of the inputs are used at any one time.

However, while most of the people who I've seen with SR32s overbought, that
might not be true for the majority.

[George Gleason]

> > and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your
> > monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig)
>
> Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor mixes. I
> guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on the aux send
> masters.
>
Musicians do not appreciate the volume swinging up and down on thier
monitors
this would not be a issue with a seperate monitor desk
but your board tape still gets f*cked
George>

[LeBaron & Alrich]

George Gleason > wrote:

> the soundcraft is the better product IMO

I told one of my fellow musos to get a Spirit Folio, arguably a board
from Soundcraft. It had a wallwart power supply and felt like it was
made out of painted tinfoil. Within days he returned it for a Mackie
1202 which has now served him reliably for several years. He plays for a
living, a dozen gigs or so each week.

Now, I like lots of things about Soundcraft boards, but they're not all
created equal and sometimes I might rather have an A & H or even,
blaspemers helmet mounted, a Mackie.

I think we should take these things unit by unit, and not brand by
brand, because lots of times my expectations turn out to be based on
erroneous assumptions.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[George Gleason]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
...
> George Gleason > wrote:
>
> > the soundcraft is the better product IMO
>
> I told one of my fellow musos to get a Spirit Folio, arguably a board
> from Soundcraft. It had a wallwart power supply and felt like it was
> made out of painted tinfoil. Within days he returned it for a Mackie
> 1202 which has now served him reliably for several years. He plays for a
> living, a dozen gigs or so each week.
>
> Now, I like lots of things about Soundcraft boards, but they're not all
> created equal and sometimes I might rather have an A & H or even,
> blaspemers helmet mounted, a Mackie.
>
> I think we should take these things unit by unit, and not brand by
> brand, because lots of times my expectations turn out to be based on
> erroneous assumptions.
>
Understood
I had great dislike for the spirit line until it was rebadged as the
soundcraft LX/7
My passion for A&H is limited to the ICON
IMO mackie made the market for small affordable desks, but others have
since trumped thier jack
IMO behringer is offering 110% of anything mackie is doing (for the products
I use) at 1/3 the cost
every product has strong points
one of the best mixes I ever did was on a 24 ch mackie supplied by MSI
but given the choice I still would choose SC over Mackie for every and any
application
but in small desks I would choose mackie over yamaha
the only agenda I have is to see things told and sold honestly
Mackie's advertizing has been , lets say, a bit optimistic as to the markets
they are built to serve

I guess I do hold a bit of a grude though as I bought into mackies quality
claims to the tune of 6(all bought at once) 1402's and was burned bad

It takes years and years to get to know gear and ever now I get suckered
HellI just bought a Alesis DEQ830

FS, Alesis DEQ830, like new
George

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Musicians do not appreciate the volume swinging up and down on thier
> monitors

And sound engineers do not appreciate the musicians unexpectedly
changing their volume either. You have to work together on these
things. Dynamic range is one thing. Shouting and whispering is
somethign that the engineer should know about ahead of time.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[George Gleason]

> But I always wondered this - if you have gobs of headroom in the
> busses, what happens after that point? You have more level going to
> the power amplifiers, and it's too loud, so you bring down the
> masters, and that's not really the right thing to do.

gain structure 101, starts here


you set proper gain structure for the electroincs then only turn up the amps
to the smallest gain that will give you the needed volume
George

[Kurt Albershardt]

George Gleason wrote:
>
> IMO mackie made the market for small affordable desks

Mackie simultaneously made the market and ruined it, sort of.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message

>>> and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your
>>> monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig)
>>
>> Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor
>> mixes. I guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on
>> the aux send masters.

> Musicians do not appreciate the volume swinging up and down on their
> monitors this would not be a issue with a separate monitor desk
> but your board tape still gets f*cked

It strikes me that in most applications you'd reset the trims a very small
number of times, and if you read this thread and anticipated the problem,
you'd set them appropriately from the onset.

As far as board tapes getting screwed up, it would be corrected
systematically when I upped the aux send masters, or dynamically when I
monitored record levels during the show. If the *tape* was digital I'd just
end up with a little more headroom.

;-)

[George Gleason]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
>
> >>> and when it hits you have to reduce all your trims screwing up your
> >>> monitor mixes(assuming monitor from house in a live rig)
> >>
> >> Changing the trims the same amount will scale down the monitor
> >> mixes. I guess one could quickly compensate by upping the gain on
> >> the aux send masters.
>
> > Musicians do not appreciate the volume swinging up and down on their
> > monitors this would not be a issue with a separate monitor desk
> > but your board tape still gets f*cked
>
> It strikes me that in most applications you'd reset the trims a very small
> number of times, and if you read this thread and anticipated the problem,
> you'd set them appropriately from the onset.
>
> As far as board tapes getting screwed up, it would be corrected
> systematically when I upped the aux send masters, or dynamically when I
> monitored record levels during the show. If the *tape* was digital I'd
just
> end up with a little more headroom.
>
> ;-)
>
Itwould be so much better to have the desk designed correctly to begin with
a very simple thing, but Mackie insists on making everyone learn the
mackie way
complete arrogence on thier part
and a big reason why I can not support thier products
why does everyone insist on making excuses for a poorly designed overhyped
product that requires special "understanding" to get basic utility out of?
I just don't see where this is something that should be

But I guess if your buying and using half asses tools you need to assume you
will have to use then with some sort of ' halfassed, well we do it this way
beacuse we have to" mentality
but please do not try to make it sound like this should be acceptable, it
just isn't
George

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> why does everyone insist on making excuses for a poorly designed overhyped
> product that requires special "understanding" to get basic utility out of?

Why do some people insist on applying what they know about one product
to another product and then say it doesn't work for them? You
continually suggest that there's a standard for console design to
which Mackie doesn't adhere. What is this standard?

It would indeed be nice if one design criterion for a console is that
all channels operating at their 0 VU level could be summed without
overload, however look at how you'd have to design it. If you take the
simple route and say that each operating channel added to the bus
incresases the summed level by 3 dB, and that sometimes you'll only be
needing one or two or six channels, you need about 90 dB of dynamic
range in the summing bus. It's not impossible, but it's not cheap.

We (as engineers) deal with this by simply reducing the level going
into the summing bus by trimming all the channels by an appropriate
amount. A good engineer will have a sense of what will be going into
the mix and start pretty much at the right place. It works on any
console, even a Mackie.





--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[EggHd]

<< A good engineer will have a sense of what will be going into
the mix and start pretty much at the right place. >>

Also, there's the rub with consoles with line trims designed to work with a
range of operating levels.

It seems that some people start to mix and goof around with the line trim and
the fader level with each input. To me that's a recipe for disaster if the
engineer doesn't understand what 32 channels of modern processed audio can do
to the stereo bus in a low priced console. Heck, any console.







---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1059141895k@trad
> In article
> >
> writes:
>
>> why does everyone insist on making excuses for a poorly designed
>> overhyped product that requires special "understanding" to get
>> basic utility out of?

> Why do some people insist on applying what they know about one product
> to another product and then say it doesn't work for them? You
> continually suggest that there's a standard for console design to
> which Mackie doesn't adhere. What is this standard?

I know of none, and I've looked for it. Maybe there's one buried in the
SMPTE or EBU someplace. One might be able to derive something from the AES
standards.

http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/aes-standards-in-print.cfm#standards

http://www.ebu.ch

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/index.cfm?stdtype=smpte&scope=0

> It would indeed be nice if one design criterion for a console is that
> all channels operating at their 0 VU level could be summed without
> overload, however look at how you'd have to design it. If you take the
> simple route and say that each operating channel added to the bus
> increases the summed level by 3 dB, and that sometimes you'll only be
> needing one or two or six channels, you need about 90 dB of dynamic
> range in the summing bus. It's not impossible, but it's not cheap.

This issue relates to something as basic as the assumption of how much the
bus output increases as operating channels are added. If you presume
uncorrelated signals then its 3 dB for the first channel added. If you
presume correlated signals then its 6 dB for the first channel added and
proportionately more per successive channel that is added. It's the
difference between a geometric sum (square root of sum of squares) versus
and sum in regular linear arithmetic.

Reading George's post, he seems to be saying that he judges how a console
works with a correlated signal applied to every input.

In that case, the bus output increases in accordance with regular
arithmetic. IOW he appears to be judging a console by what happens if you
take a signal generator and apply it's output to every input, and setting
every fader to zero dB.

Of course this is not how consoles are used in the real world. Consoles are
almost always used with uncorrelated signals that sum up geometrically.
Levels build up slower with geometric summing than with regular arithmetic.

> We (as engineers) deal with this by simply reducing the level going
> into the summing bus by trimming all the channels by an appropriate
> amount.

Well, I think it depends on what kind of engineers we are.

I can definitely see someone testing a console with a signal generator, and
applying the same input to every input to see what happens. On the face of
it, this might seem like a reasonable thing to do. Some may even find it
surprising to hear that this is NOT a reasonable thing to do.

Coming up with 32 uncorrelated signals is not trivial, and analyzing the
performance of a console that is processing 32 uncorrelated signals is an
interesting technical challenge. I don't think there are a lot of people who
have tested consoles with 32 uncorrelated signals.

OTOH, I don't think there are a lot of people who have operated consoles in
practical use, with 32 correlated signals. Using a console with 32
correlated signals makes no sense at all in the real world.

Most audio signals in a studio are statistically speaking, uncorrelated. OK,
they may get loud and soft together, but their relative phases and
amplitudes vary greatly at any instant in time.

>A good engineer will have a sense of what will be going into
> the mix and start pretty much at the right place. It works on any
> console, even a Mackie.

I can see someone who is very thorough and methodological testing consoles
with a signal generator and being dismayed with a console that clips in that
kind of a test. If they've been making decisions based on this kind of test
for years, I think it might come as a shock to hear that this is an invalid
test.

[George Gleason]

Arny
this is not a test, this is a real wiorld problem
and it does not take 32 signals to cause it
there are console in the price range of the mackie that actually work well
it would be a simple thing for makcie to rescreen thier desks so that the
indicated zero levels would not cause this problem
it does not take a re-engineering of the signal path just a little
adjustment in the printing of the marking on the desk
I have no Idea what a written standard is but the real world standard is
zero on the fader and zero at the pfl
is considered a nominal signal that a desk should be able to pass at every
channel with out clipping at any point in the desk regardless of how many
are being used
and of course everyone is correct that you will not start a show passing
this level through a mix buss in fact it only happens during the very
intense parts of a program
and to assume that a desk can pass nominal level at all channels active is
not a excessive expectation
in fact it is a basic requirment to know that you have the headroom to get
you through unanticipated events in a program, remember we are talking LIVE
sound here , not studio where there is no luxury of knowing what will be
sent your way
also if you are reading carefuuly I do not single mackie out for this fault
I find it unacceptable in the A& H and Yamaha products as well
this does not happen on the midas or soundcraft
so perhaps I hacve been spoiled by being able to have many desks and
actually evaluating them in real world situations and choosing to like the
ones that work best as the "standard" by which I judge all products
presented for a given application
as far a a live mixing desk in th under 5,000$ range
Midas and Soundcraft IMO just work better beacuse the companies took a few
moments to be sure that thier desks could do what thier layout suggests
IMO the fact you can not send a complex hot mix through the mix buss is the
equlivalent of buying a one ton truck but after you get it finding out it
can only carry one ton , 500 lbs at a time
it the buss can not pass 16 channels at zero do not put 16 channels on the
desk make it a 12 channel desk
or remake the zero point so that there is one logic to the gain stageing
that always applies
not one logic you can use if your using 6 channels and another that is
required if using all 16
why bother marking the desk at all if the markings can not be used as a
guide?
George

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Reading George's post, he seems to be saying that he judges how a console
> works with a correlated signal applied to every input.
>
> In that case, the bus output increases in accordance with regular
> arithmetic. IOW he appears to be judging a console by what happens if you
> take a signal generator and apply it's output to every input, and setting
> every fader to zero dB.
>
> Of course this is not how consoles are used in the real world. Consoles are
> almost always used with uncorrelated signals that sum up geometrically.
> Levels build up slower with geometric summing than with regular arithmetic.

That's the ideal case, and it's really the only one that you can
measure, but of course other than in a lab, a console doesn't have to
do this. But still, giving it the benefit of real world applications,
there could easily be a requirement for the bus to accommodate signals
with peak values that come in over a pretty wide range.

> > We (as engineers) deal with this by simply reducing the level going
> > into the summing bus by trimming all the channels by an appropriate
> > amount.
>
> Well, I think it depends on what kind of engineers we are.

The kind that make things that we have in front of us work right.

> Most audio signals in a studio are statistically speaking, uncorrelated. OK,
> they may get loud and soft together, but their relative phases and
> amplitudes vary greatly at any instant in time.

On the other hand, in a live sound situation, you can have the full
band cranking, and then the lead vocalist comes in and you need
another 6 dB to get his vocal up above the level of the band. Then the
background vocalists come in on the chorus and that's another 3 dB.
Then there's the drum solo when everyone else leaves the stage and you
want to turn the drums up so that they're a bit above the level of the
whole band (because that's the dramatic thing to do).

And before all of that happens, the acoustic singer/songwriter opens
the show. She plays guitar and piano and has no accompaniment, but
since you're using all the inputs on the console and all the mics you
own for the main act, you need to bring those four mics and one direct
box up to a level loud enough so that people expecting the full tilt
rock band won't have to turn up their hearing aids too much.

By setting the power amplifier gain so that it's a bit louder than you
can stand with the master faders on the console set to their design
center and the console's VU meters reading a little above 0 VU, then
you can use your ears to set the channel input gains with the channel
faders at their design center position so that you get the mix level
you need for the act, and have plenty of working headroom.
Essentially, you set the channel trims so that you get an approximate
mix at the right output level for whatever you're mixing (whether it's
four channels or forty-eight channels) and then you won't have
problems.

If you set all the channel trims so that each channel is putting out
near its maximum level rather than the level that's required to get
the proper console output level, then the more channels you have in
use, the sooner you'll get into trouble.

BUT . . if you want to put the best S/N ratio numbers on your spec
sheet, you run the inputs with as much gain as you can. A practical
engineer will realize that with all that music, a few dB of S/N lost
won't make a bit of difference in what the audience is hearing. An
operator who knows the theory will tell you that the show can't be
mixed on that console.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Bob Cain]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> This issue relates to something as basic as the assumption of how much the
> bus output increases as operating channels are added. If you presume
> uncorrelated signals then its 3 dB for the first channel added. If you
> presume correlated signals then its 6 dB for the first channel added and
> proportionately more per successive channel that is added. It's the
> difference between a geometric sum (square root of sum of squares) versus
> and sum in regular linear arithmetic.

Arny, doesn't this apply to RMS levels rather than peak
levels? If one is concerned about peak levels then it would
seem to me that the 6 dB criterion would apply independantly
of correlation considerations.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >
> > This issue relates to something as basic as the assumption of how much
the
> > bus output increases as operating channels are added. If you presume
> > uncorrelated signals then its 3 dB for the first channel added. If you
> > presume correlated signals then its 6 dB for the first channel added and
> > proportionately more per successive channel that is added. It's the
> > difference between a geometric sum (square root of sum of squares)
versus
> > and sum in regular linear arithmetic.

> Arny, doesn't this apply to RMS levels rather than peak
> levels?

Good point. I just did a simulation with 60 seconds of 44/32 high density
white noise in CEP, and two independent waves summed to a wave whose average
was 3 dB higher, but the peak was 5.4 dB higher.

I obtained the same results for 10 seconds of noise except that the peak was
5 dB higher. Note, both numbers are less than theory, but show results that
are probably asymptotic to theory or 6 dB.

I guess that means that if you wait long enough, sooner or later you'll get
all the peaks to come together.

> If one is concerned about peak levels then it would
> seem to me that the 6 dB criterion would apply independently
> of correlation considerations.
> simpler."

That appears to be the case. Thanks for the memory jog/correction. Hey, I
knew all this stuff cold 30 years ago...

;-)

However, the simulation seems to show you might wait a while for that one
big peak.

I think this explains while most recordings have infrequent peaks that are
pretty wild compared to the rest of the file. Everything lines up at those
rare instants.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> I think this explains while most recordings have infrequent peaks
>> that are pretty wild compared to the rest of the file. Everything
>> lines up at those rare instants.

> Like when everyone happens to be exactly on the beat. :-)

I guess that's why the peaks are so infrequent!

With the "We don't start practicing until a half hour before the service
starts whether we've ever sung it before or not" musicians at my church, I'd
settle for everyone to even START anywhere near close to the beat. All
singers singing all the verses would be nice, too. Hey, if you can't read
the words as fast as the music is playing (after you had it slowed down
twice), why bother singing?


Whoops, just venting.

[Roger W. Norman]

I agree. I had just this conversation last week with a 10 piece latin/cuban
band I've been working with, and the leader wanted to pick up a nice
console. Due to price alone he'd run across an Alesis Studio32 or whatever,
and after explaining live sound to him enough to get him to realize the
Alesis wouldn't do the job, he jumped out to Ebay and bought a damned 1604
VLZ. Now it's not that the 1604 won't work, but this is live mixing of 16
inputs, and I know damned well that a 1604 isn't going to perform admirably
with 16 mics running out the summing bus. And if some of them (say half)
are phantom powered, then the phantom is going to fall off considerably too.
So now we have too much on the mix bus and too little headroom on the
condenser mics. Not a good combination. I tried to explain this to him,
but hey, it's his $480 and for that price if he doesn't like it, or he gets
himself familiar with what he really needs, then he hasn't lost a ton of
money. But before he made the purchase he had the money for a Crest and
could have squeezed in a Midas if he really tried. Now he doesn't have the
money for either, and I'm pretty certain he's not going to like congos,
bongos, tymbales, trombone, trumpet, sax, flute plus piano and vocals going
out the mix bus, but we'll see.

As you say, even in the big Mackies, you run out of umph pretty quickly.
Three years of working with an SR 40*8 decidedly made my live console
purchase something else! <g> If one can run 40 mic inputs on that thing and
have it sound good, I'd be amazed.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
> Arny
> this is not a test, this is a real wiorld problem
> and it does not take 32 signals to cause it
> there are console in the price range of the mackie that actually work well
> it would be a simple thing for makcie to rescreen thier desks so that the
> indicated zero levels would not cause this problem
> it does not take a re-engineering of the signal path just a little
> adjustment in the printing of the marking on the desk
> I have no Idea what a written standard is but the real world standard is
> zero on the fader and zero at the pfl
> is considered a nominal signal that a desk should be able to pass at every
> channel with out clipping at any point in the desk regardless of how many
> are being used
> and of course everyone is correct that you will not start a show passing
> this level through a mix buss in fact it only happens during the very
> intense parts of a program
> and to assume that a desk can pass nominal level at all channels active is
> not a excessive expectation
> in fact it is a basic requirment to know that you have the headroom to
get
> you through unanticipated events in a program, remember we are talking
LIVE
> sound here , not studio where there is no luxury of knowing what will be
> sent your way
> also if you are reading carefuuly I do not single mackie out for this
fault
> I find it unacceptable in the A& H and Yamaha products as well
> this does not happen on the midas or soundcraft
> so perhaps I hacve been spoiled by being able to have many desks and
> actually evaluating them in real world situations and choosing to like the
> ones that work best as the "standard" by which I judge all products
> presented for a given application
> as far a a live mixing desk in th under 5,000$ range
> Midas and Soundcraft IMO just work better beacuse the companies took a
few
> moments to be sure that thier desks could do what thier layout suggests
> IMO the fact you can not send a complex hot mix through the mix buss is
the
> equlivalent of buying a one ton truck but after you get it finding out it
> can only carry one ton , 500 lbs at a time
> it the buss can not pass 16 channels at zero do not put 16 channels on the
> desk make it a 12 channel desk
> or remake the zero point so that there is one logic to the gain stageing
> that always applies
> not one logic you can use if your using 6 channels and another that is
> required if using all 16
> why bother marking the desk at all if the markings can not be used as a
> guide?
> George
>
>

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Now it's not that the 1604 won't work, but this is live mixing of 16
> inputs, and I know damned well that a 1604 isn't going to perform admirably
> with 16 mics running out the summing bus.

It will perform just as well as with one input to the summing bus if
you turn down the input trims on all of the channels.

> And if some of them (say half)
> are phantom powered, then the phantom is going to fall off considerably too.

I haven't checked out the 1604 to see how much oomph the phantom power
supply offers. I know that the later SR 4-bus series (SR24-4, SR32-4)
intentionally skimped on the phantom supply, with the assumption
(before the run on cheap condenser mics) that it was unlikely that
more than half a dozen or so would be used on stage. It may or may not
be a problem with the 1604, and also how much of a problem depends on
the individual mics' current draw.

> So now we have too much on the mix bus

Not necessarily

> and too little headroom on the condenser mics.

I really think that someone who only has a budget for a used 1604
should be worrying about how many condenser mics it will power.
Chances are he'll get better results overall with SM57's. Latin band,
right? What needs a condenser? And if it does, will it be a good
condenser?

> but hey, it's his $480 and for that price if he doesn't like it, or he gets
> himself familiar with what he really needs, then he hasn't lost a ton of
> money.

However, you could turn this around and help him make it work with his
band. What's he using for power amplifiers and speakers? It sounds
like a pretty big band, and if he doesn't have healthy power and
speakers behind the mixer, he isn't playing venues large enough to
warrant PA anyway (or he's playing too loud in the venues he's
playing). With the instrumentation you've described, perhaps only four
or five sources need to be amplified, until he gets to playing gigs
too big for his own sound system anyway.

I can appreciate George's point where he often has to work with groups
he's never heard, and perhaps with forms of music with which he's not
familiar. In that instance, it's good to have a console that allows
you to make basic setup mistakes you that don't have time to correct
and not suffer badly. But you're crying gloom and doom over a band's
own PA system that you haven't even heard yet. Give it a chance. And
don't make it too loud, please.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[George Gleason]

.. But you're crying gloom and doom over a band's
> own PA system that you haven't even heard yet. Give it a chance. And
> don't make it too loud, please.

Mike I just want to repeat one of the BEST mixes I ever did was on a 24.4
mackie
But the Cuban /Latin music is in a league of its ownfor being all that all
the time and more
like some one said
It can't be too loud , all the red lights arn't on yet
LOL
I have several latino shows under my belt and LOUD does not begin to
describe what the bands demand
I make them sign waiver of responsibility for hearing damage
there is no dynamic range it is just full on all night and your gear better
be ready
George