Time to retire the SDR24/96 [Archive]

hank alrich

April 19th 11, 04:19 AM

Carey Carlan > wrote:

> I've been using the same bit-capture device for a decade or more. My old
> Mackie SDR24/96 is just getting too unreliable to take to important gigs.
>
> What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16
> channels of sound)? I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.
> Something like a Zoom box with lightpipes instead of microphones.
>
> None of the processing is done in this device. I have excellent and good
> outboard preamps and ADC. All I need is a place to store the bits coming
> from 2 ADAT leads.
>
> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU all the better.
>
> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will interface with my
> laptop. That adds another component (the computer) that doesn't fit in the
> rack. Yes, it would work, but makes life that much tougher.

Aleisis HD24?

JoeCo Blackbox?
BBR1A with Lightpipe digital i/o
http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/BBR_models.html

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

RD Jones

April 19th 11, 05:16 AM

> Carey Carlan > wrote:
> > What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16 channels of sound)?

On Apr 18, 10:19 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Aleisis HD24?

Go ahead and get the HD24XR version and be done with it. ;->

> > I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.

It's not _quite_ that simple.
You have to arm each track individually.
If there's an "arm all" function I haven't found it yet.
RTFM ? I'm too busy arming tracks to read it...

RedDog

Rick Ruskin

April 19th 11, 05:23 AM

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:19:53 -0500, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Carey Carlan > wrote:
>
>> I've been using the same bit-capture device for a decade or more. My old
>> Mackie SDR24/96 is just getting too unreliable to take to important gigs.
>>
>> What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16
>> channels of sound)? I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.
>> Something like a Zoom box with lightpipes instead of microphones.
>>
>> None of the processing is done in this device. I have excellent and good
>> outboard preamps and ADC. All I need is a place to store the bits coming
>> from 2 ADAT leads.
>>
>> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU all the better.
>>
>> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will interface with my
>> laptop. That adds another component (the computer) that doesn't fit in the
>> rack. Yes, it would work, but makes life that much tougher.
>
>Aleisis HD24?
>
>JoeCo Blackbox?
>BBR1A with Lightpipe digital i/o
>http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/BBR_models.html

I have an HD 24 and can't recommend it. It sounds fine and has been
reliable but it uses IDE drives that are becoming scarce and Alesis
has stopped supporting it. Even when they did, they sucked at it.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 19th 11, 06:19 AM

Carey Carlan wrote:
> I've been using the same bit-capture device for a decade or more. My old
> Mackie SDR24/96 is just getting too unreliable to take to important gigs.
>
> What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16
> channels of sound)? I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.
> Something like a Zoom box with lightpipes instead of microphones.
>
> None of the processing is done in this device. I have excellent and good
> outboard preamps and ADC. All I need is a place to store the bits coming
> from 2 ADAT leads.
>
> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU all the better.
>
> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will interface with my
> laptop. That adds another component (the computer) that doesn't fit in the
> rack. Yes, it would work, but makes life that much tougher.

(pretty sure Hank found this first)

http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/BBR_introduction.html

Uses USB drives... I am unsure how those might rack up...
might be a rack shelf and something to strap them to the rack shelf.
Might also enable you to offer the media to the customer if they're
interested.

It is menu driven, and I am not sure how you arm tracks. "Touch
sensitive" - might be from the front panel ( which would be very nice ).

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 19th 11, 06:19 AM

RD Jones

April 19th 11, 06:38 AM

On Apr 18, 11:23*pm, Rick Ruskin > wrote:

> I have an HD 24 and can't recommend it. *It sounds fine and has been
> reliable but it uses IDE drives that are becoming scarce and Alesis
> has stopped supporting it. *Even when they did, they sucked at it. *
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WAhttp://www.liondogmusic.com-

Really ?
I got my XR new just barely a year ago.
The Alesis site seems to suggest that it's still a current product.
If this is true it's deplorable, but not outside the realm of remote
possibilities. >:-o

rd

Trevor

April 19th 11, 07:48 AM

"Rick Ruskin" > wrote in message
...
> I have an HD 24 and can't recommend it. It sounds fine and has been
> reliable but it uses IDE drives that are becoming scarce

Have you tried using a cheap SATA to IDE interface?

>and Alesis
> has stopped supporting it. Even when they did, they sucked at it.

That's more of an issue unfortunately.

Trevor.

Rick Ruskin

April 19th 11, 03:36 PM

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:38:32 -0700 (PDT), RD Jones >
wrote:

>On Apr 18, 11:23*pm, Rick Ruskin > wrote:
>
>> I have an HD 24 and can't recommend it. *It sounds fine and has been
>> reliable but it uses IDE drives that are becoming scarce and Alesis
>> has stopped supporting it. *Even when they did, they sucked at it. *
>> Rick Ruskin
>> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WAhttp://www.liondogmusic.com-
>
>Really ?
>I got my XR new just barely a year ago.
>The Alesis site seems to suggest that it's still a current product.
>If this is true it's deplorable, but not outside the realm of remote
>possibilities. >:-o
>
>rd

Since being bought by Numark, Alesis has been assembling, selling, and
servicing HD24's from existing parts. That stock is pretty much if
not totally gone now.

The little remote control is a joke and the old ADAT BRC, which is
supposed to be compatible, is the most inconvenient remote I've ever
encountered. Among other things, it is only stable @ 48khz and
settings must be kludged to do 44.1khz.

Just out of curiosity, how is your Mackie messing up on you?

Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

Carey Carlan

April 19th 11, 04:41 PM

Les Cargill > wrote in
:

> Carey Carlan wrote:
>> I've been using the same bit-capture device for a decade or more. My
>> old Mackie SDR24/96 is just getting too unreliable to take to
>> important gigs.
>>
>> What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16
>> channels of sound)? I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.
>> Something like a Zoom box with lightpipes instead of microphones.
>>
>> None of the processing is done in this device. I have excellent and
>> good outboard preamps and ADC. All I need is a place to store the
>> bits coming from 2 ADAT leads.
>>
>> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU all the
>> better.
>>
>> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will interface with my
>> laptop. That adds another component (the computer) that doesn't fit
>> in the rack. Yes, it would work, but makes life that much tougher.
>
> (pretty sure Hank found this first)
>
> http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/BBR_introduction.html
>
> Uses USB drives... I am unsure how those might rack up...
> might be a rack shelf and something to strap them to the rack shelf.
> Might also enable you to offer the media to the customer if they're
> interested.
>
> It is menu driven, and I am not sure how you arm tracks. "Touch
> sensitive" - might be from the front panel ( which would be very nice
> ).
>
> --
> Les Cargill

My Gracious? $3400 for a bit-capture device?

Yes, it's exactly what I asked for, but why is it so expensive? All it
does is transfer bits from the lightpipe to the hard disk.

Carey Carlan

April 19th 11, 04:47 PM

Rick Ruskin > wrote in
:

> Since being bought by Numark, Alesis has been assembling, selling, and
> servicing HD24's from existing parts. That stock is pretty much if
> not totally gone now.
>
> The little remote control is a joke and the old ADAT BRC, which is
> supposed to be compatible, is the most inconvenient remote I've ever
> encountered. Among other things, it is only stable @ 48khz and
> settings must be kludged to do 44.1khz.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how is your Mackie messing up on you?

It gives me a disk error about 30 seconds into a recording intermittently.
This happens on both external and internal drives. I've replaced hard
drives and carriers to no effect. And all those drives run just fine in
the computer.

After the error I have to unplug it (not turn it off) because it hangs.

Then I lose all my settings and have to once again tell it to read from the
lightpipe ports and clock from ADAT1.

The worst part is that it doesn't fail until the red light is on.

hank alrich

April 19th 11, 06:26 PM

Carey Carlan > wrote:

> Les Cargill > wrote in
> :
>
> > Carey Carlan wrote:
> >> I've been using the same bit-capture device for a decade or more. My
> >> old Mackie SDR24/96 is just getting too unreliable to take to
> >> important gigs.
> >>
> >> What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16
> >> channels of sound)? I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.
> >> Something like a Zoom box with lightpipes instead of microphones.
> >>
> >> None of the processing is done in this device. I have excellent and
> >> good outboard preamps and ADC. All I need is a place to store the
> >> bits coming from 2 ADAT leads.
> >>
> >> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU all the
> >> better.
> >>
> >> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will interface with my
> >> laptop. That adds another component (the computer) that doesn't fit
> >> in the rack. Yes, it would work, but makes life that much tougher.
> >
> > (pretty sure Hank found this first)
> >
> > http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/BBR_introduction.html
> >
> > Uses USB drives... I am unsure how those might rack up...
> > might be a rack shelf and something to strap them to the rack shelf.
> > Might also enable you to offer the media to the customer if they're
> > interested.
> >
> > It is menu driven, and I am not sure how you arm tracks. "Touch
> > sensitive" - might be from the front panel ( which would be very nice
> > ).
> >
> > --
> > Les Cargill
>
> My Gracious? $3400 for a bit-capture device?
>
> Yes, it's exactly what I asked for, but why is it so expensive? All it
> does is transfer bits from the lightpipe to the hard disk.

The company is in the UK so currency enxchange rates, presently not
favoring the US$, come into play.

It fits in a single rack space, aimed, as it was with the initial model,
at touring companies and groups seeking something compact and capable
of capturig 24 tracks/channels. It doesn't weigh much, and it also
houses full ADC and DAC. The Lightpipe descriptor is only about the
particular digital interface provided for that model.

In theory, it could replace both your HDR and your convertors.

General Specifications

Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
Disk interface: USB2
Format: FAT32
File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
Media: USB2 hard disk,
USB2 flash drive,
SHDC (with suitable adapter)
Monitoring: 1 x 1/4" TRS jack socket,
headphone mix/solo
Physical: 19" rack mounted 1U
Dimensions: (425mm x 150mm x 44mm)
Weight: < 2.4kg

Control and Synchronisation

MIDI: 1 x 5-pin DIN (open loop) - MIDI time
code (MTC) and MIDI machine control (MMC)
protocol
LTC: 1 x 1/4" TRS jack socket:
Frame rates supported: 30fps, 29.97drop fps,
29.97non-drop fps, 25fps, 24fps, 23.98fps
Machine control: 1 x 9-pin D, SONY PII protocol
Audio clock synchronisation: 2 x RCA sockets
AES3 / SPDIF Format, also used for
communications to slave units
Footswitch: momentary switch on ring of LTC
TRS socket
Keyboard: 1 x mini DIN PS2 connector,
Standard 102 key
Power: 9v - 16V dc (< 25W). 2.1mm dc inlet.
PSU supplied
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Rick Ruskin

April 19th 11, 07:08 PM

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:47:24 GMT, Carey Carlan >
wrote:

>Rick Ruskin > wrote in
:
>
>> Since being bought by Numark, Alesis has been assembling, selling, and
>> servicing HD24's from existing parts. That stock is pretty much if
>> not totally gone now.
>>
>> The little remote control is a joke and the old ADAT BRC, which is
>> supposed to be compatible, is the most inconvenient remote I've ever
>> encountered. Among other things, it is only stable @ 48khz and
>> settings must be kludged to do 44.1khz.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how is your Mackie messing up on you?
>
>It gives me a disk error about 30 seconds into a recording intermittently.
>This happens on both external and internal drives. I've replaced hard
>drives and carriers to no effect. And all those drives run just fine in
>the computer.
>
>After the error I have to unplug it (not turn it off) because it hangs.
>
>Then I lose all my settings and have to once again tell it to read from the
>lightpipe ports and clock from ADAT1.
>
>The worst part is that it doesn't fail until the red light is on.

I'm not a tech but I'd have someone check the power supply, especially
the branches feeding the disk drives.

Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[email protected]

April 19th 11, 07:31 PM

On 2011-04-19 (hankalrich) said:
<big snip>

>> >> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU
<snip again>
>> > http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/BBR_introduction.html
>> > Uses USB drives... I am unsure how those might rack up...
>The company is in the UK so currency enxchange rates, presently not
>favoring the US$, come into play.
>It fits in a single rack space, aimed, as it was with the initial
>model, at touring companies and groups seeking something compact
>and capable of capturig 24 tracks/channels. It doesn't weigh much,
>and it also houses full ADC and DAC. The Lightpipe descriptor is
>only about the particular digital interface provided for that model.
I wish it had been out when I was shopping for recorder for
remote truck, I would have told Alesis and their proprietary
file format to kiss where the sun never shines. ONe has
to play games with sata converters, and then there's the
caddy thing.
An hd-24 user active on their yahoo group devised some Sata
caddies for the thing but he's not going into the full blown
manufacturing business, and then there's still that crappy
proprietary file format garbage to deal with. YEah yeah
I've got hd24tools, but still it's a pita step in the
process of delivery of material to the client.
Small footprint, broadcast wav files on usb drive to deliver
directly to client, as long as it had controls the old blind
man could feel I'd really jump on it, but I haven't seen one
physically yet, with fingers or eyes.
Variou i/o configurations available as were noted, analog to
their converters or litepipe.
I don't want to fool with a laptop that's general purpose,
number uno screen readers and capture of multitrack audio
don't coexist well together, and I demand the reliability.
WE don't play solitaire, we don't word process or anything
else if we're a recorder, we arm tracks roll and print.

Regards,

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Peter Larsen[_3_]

April 19th 11, 08:04 PM

Carey Carlan wrote:

> I've been using the same bit-capture device for a decade or more. My
> old Mackie SDR24/96 is just getting too unreliable to take to
> important gigs.

> What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16
> channels of sound)? I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.
> Something like a Zoom box with lightpipes instead of microphones.

HD24 (xr) or Joeco come to mind - I have yet to se use reports regarding the
Joeco. Join the HD24 mailing list.

> None of the processing is done in this device. I have excellent and
> good outboard preamps and ADC. All I need is a place to store the
> bits coming from 2 ADAT leads.

So the XR is irrelevant, good for you, it appaers slightly less roadworthy
than the vanilla model because of an insufficiently sturdy fitting of the
expansion kit.

> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU all the
> better.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will interface with my
> laptop. That adds another component (the computer) that doesn't fit
> in the rack. Yes, it would work, but makes life that much tougher.

Arny Krueger

April 19th 11, 08:37 PM

"Carey Carlan" > wrote in message

> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will
> interface with my laptop. That adds another component
> (the computer) that doesn't fit in the rack. Yes, it
> would work, but makes life that much tougher.

Due to some unusual requirements, my last few festival recording sessions
involved:

A laptop
An external DVD burner
An Ikey Flash-based recorder
A Panasonic CD recorder
A SX 202 mic preamp
NT-4 Mic + 12' stand
Cables for power, mics and other equipment.

Seems to me that haluling and setting up *this much* gear would break your
back, Carey. ;-)

Pamper yourself much? ;-)

My take is that as long as I can haul it all in one load of my roll-around
carrier, it is pretty well all the same.

Carey Carlan

April 19th 11, 10:14 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "Carey Carlan" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will
>> interface with my laptop. That adds another component
>> (the computer) that doesn't fit in the rack. Yes, it
>> would work, but makes life that much tougher.
>
> Due to some unusual requirements, my last few festival recording
> sessions involved:
>
> A laptop
> An external DVD burner
> An Ikey Flash-based recorder
> A Panasonic CD recorder
> A SX 202 mic preamp
> NT-4 Mic + 12' stand
> Cables for power, mics and other equipment.
>
> Seems to me that haluling and setting up *this much* gear would break
> your back, Carey. ;-)
>
> Pamper yourself much? ;-)
>
> My take is that as long as I can haul it all in one load of my
> roll-around carrier, it is pretty well all the same.

That may be the deciding factor, given the price and functionality of
the alternatives.

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 20th 11, 02:20 AM

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Les > wrote in
> :
>
>> Carey Carlan wrote:
>>> I've been using the same bit-capture device for a decade or more. My
>>> old Mackie SDR24/96 is just getting too unreliable to take to
>>> important gigs.
>>>
>>> What's the simplest device I can get to accept 2 ADAT lightpipes (16
>>> channels of sound)? I want a turn-it-on-and-punch-record machine.
>>> Something like a Zoom box with lightpipes instead of microphones.
>>>
>>> None of the processing is done in this device. I have excellent and
>>> good outboard preamps and ADC. All I need is a place to store the
>>> bits coming from 2 ADAT leads.
>>>
>>> I want simple because I want fast setup. If it fits in 3RU all the
>>> better.
>>>
>>> I found the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge which will interface with my
>>> laptop. That adds another component (the computer) that doesn't fit
>>> in the rack. Yes, it would work, but makes life that much tougher.
>>
>> (pretty sure Hank found this first)
>>
>> http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/BBR_introduction.html
>>
>> Uses USB drives... I am unsure how those might rack up...
>> might be a rack shelf and something to strap them to the rack shelf.
>> Might also enable you to offer the media to the customer if they're
>> interested.
>>
>> It is menu driven, and I am not sure how you arm tracks. "Touch
>> sensitive" - might be from the front panel ( which would be very nice
>> ).
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> My Gracious? $3400 for a bit-capture device?
>

Yep. there's also the Fostex LR16, but it's a
console form factor.

You might be able to cobble together a PC with
a Frontier Dakota. ZT systems still sells PCs with
2 PCI slots. Got mine at Sams, online. ZT Systems
2146l. I don't know where you put
the monitor, either.

Lightpipe has moved upmarket.

I don't think the price is out of line, FWIW. If
they sell 10,000 of them I would be amazed ( not
that it's not a great product, just that it's
pretty specialized ).

> Yes, it's exactly what I asked for, but why is it so expensive? All it
> does is transfer bits from the lightpipe to the hard disk.

The absence of internal drives is a feature, not a bug. Add drives,
and it's exactly your old SDR 24/96, yes? Only the
drives are now much more easily removable. And the drives
are available. I have a lifetime stash of 40 and 80 GB
EIDE drives for my aging Fostex VF16.

--
Les Cargill

Trevor

April 20th 11, 02:37 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> It fits in a single rack space, aimed, as it was with the initial model,
> at touring companies and groups seeking something compact and capable
> of capturig 24 tracks/channels. It doesn't weigh much, and it also
> houses full ADC and DAC. The Lightpipe descriptor is only about the
> particular digital interface provided for that model.
>
> In theory, it could replace both your HDR and your convertors.
>
>
> General Specifications
>
> Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
> Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
> Disk interface: USB2
> Format: FAT32
> File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
> Media: USB2 hard disk,
> USB2 flash drive,
> SHDC (with suitable adapter)

But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?

Trevor.

hank alrich

April 20th 11, 03:39 AM

Trevor > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It fits in a single rack space, aimed, as it was with the initial model,
> > at touring companies and groups seeking something compact and capable
> > of capturig 24 tracks/channels. It doesn't weigh much, and it also
> > houses full ADC and DAC. The Lightpipe descriptor is only about the
> > particular digital interface provided for that model.
> >
> > In theory, it could replace both your HDR and your convertors.
> >
> >
> > General Specifications
> >
> > Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
> > Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
> > Disk interface: USB2
> > Format: FAT32
> > File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
> > Media: USB2 hard disk,
> > USB2 flash drive,
> > SHDC (with suitable adapter)
>
>
> But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?
>
> Trevor.

How does "easily" sound? <g> There are a goodly number of reports of
success in the field with the Blackboxen.

http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/reviews.html

I think it's a pretty neat concept for touring aritsts/companies. The
price likely reflects build quality in this case.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Frank Stearns

April 20th 11, 04:13 AM

"Trevor" > writes:

>"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
>> It fits in a single rack space, aimed, as it was with the initial model,
>> at touring companies and groups seeking something compact and capable
>> of capturig 24 tracks/channels. It doesn't weigh much, and it also
>> houses full ADC and DAC. The Lightpipe descriptor is only about the
>> particular digital interface provided for that model.
>>
>> In theory, it could replace both your HDR and your convertors.
>>
>>
>> General Specifications
>>
>> Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
>> Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
>> Disk interface: USB2
>> Format: FAT32
>> File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
>> Media: USB2 hard disk,
>> USB2 flash drive,
>> SHDC (with suitable adapter)

>But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?

Yes, this is my question too -- at least how does it do so reliably.

Say what you will about the HD24(XR) file systems, they were devised to make 24
track/24bit /48K (12 track/96K) work on the slower drives of the early 2000s.

It is highly reliable, way more so (IMO) than any windows or mac file system, at
least for striping several datastreams to a disk a the same time, and not getting
hosed when those streams went into, say, a highly-fragmented windows file
system...

USB is another item that spooks me. I've had some inexplicably weird things happen
with large file/large total volume transfers via USB. It seems to lose its mind
every now and then, and I don't know what the USB spec calls for in the way of CRC
or other verfication.

I've never had any problems with similar high-volume transfers via firewire (and it,
oddly enough, is going/has gone away as an interface standard).

The only way in hell I'd consider striping multitrack to a general-purpose file
system is to do it the way RME does it. The data is interleaved to a SINGLE file
handle/single data stream. In the case of a windows file system, the OS and drive
then only needs to walk, not walk AND chew gum at the same time (times 12!).

After the recording is done, you have a re-save option to break out the individual
track data. Now if there's a "catch up" or other file system delay, for whatever
reason, the system can pause while everyone catches up, and you won't get clicks or
pop (or worse).

OTHO, I've feed 24+ tracks from an external USB2 drive to Protools for mixing, so I
guess it works. But if something goes wrong, you back up and try again.

If something hiccups in a live field recording, you're probably screwed.

My $0.02. (And I recently added a vanilla HD24 to stripe duplicate data from the
primary HD24XR. While still not 100% fool proof, it's several shades better than
relying on a 2-track capture of the monitor mix as a "backup.")

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 20th 11, 05:20 AM

Trevor wrote:
> "hank > wrote in message
> ...
>> It fits in a single rack space, aimed, as it was with the initial model,
>> at touring companies and groups seeking something compact and capable
>> of capturig 24 tracks/channels. It doesn't weigh much, and it also
>> houses full ADC and DAC. The Lightpipe descriptor is only about the
>> particular digital interface provided for that model.
>>
>> In theory, it could replace both your HDR and your convertors.
>>
>>
>> General Specifications
>>
>> Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
>> Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
>> Disk interface: USB2
>> Format: FAT32
>> File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
>> Media: USB2 hard disk,
>> USB2 flash drive,
>> SHDC (with suitable adapter)
>
>
> But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?
>
> Trevor.
>
>

So that's 55-56 mbit/second - 55,296,000 bit/sec.

I'd be interested in hearing from eyewitnesses, but for
a single pair of devices on a USB2 connection 240 Mbit
*shouldn't* be out of range - especially if it's
important to the people implementing the host side.

Especially for $3400...

--
Les Cargill

Mike Rivers

April 20th 11, 12:50 PM

On 4/19/2011 11:13 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:

>> But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?

> Yes, this is my question too -- at least how does it do so reliably.

> Say what you will about the HD24(XR) file systems, they were devised to make 24
> track/24bit /48K (12 track/96K) work on the slower drives of the early 2000s.

> USB is another item that spooks me. I've had some inexplicably weird things happen
> with large file/large total volume transfers via USB. It seems to lose its mind
> every now and then, and I don't know what the USB spec calls for in the way of CRC
> or other verfication.

I don't think that USB in itself is the problem (though I
don't really know this for a fact). The numbers show that it
should have plenty of breathing room for 24 channels at
standard sample rate, but 8 channel USB I/O boxes seem to be
the norm, and there are darn few of them. Some models with
numbers like 16 or 18 in them usually don't have that many
analog inputs and depend on an outboard A/D converter with
ADAT optical output to provide the other 8 inputs.

Then, for Windows users, there's the ASIO problem that you
can't have more than one ASIO device at a time. If you need
two or three boxes to get 24 channels, you're at the mercy
of the manufacturer to provide a driver that allows
cascading their own devices. The last couple of versions of
Mac OS-X allow you to "aggregate" multiple devices using the
Apple Core Audio subsystem.

There are a couple of 24-channel Firewire I/O boxes. I'm
pretty sure MOTU still makes one so that's a possibility.

Still, with the computer hardware built by one company (or
several, actually), the operating system from another, the
audio I/O from yet another, and perhaps a driver from still
a another, the cables, the software, you have to be a pretty
good system engineer to built that all up reliably. When you
don't have the opportunity for a "let's do that again after
I reboot the computer," buying a bulletproof single piece of
hardware is the best way to protect your reputation and live
to get another gig.

> The only way in hell I'd consider striping multitrack to a general-purpose file
> system is to do it the way RME does it. The data is interleaved to a SINGLE file
> handle/single data stream. In the case of a windows file system, the OS and drive
> then only needs to walk, not walk AND chew gum at the same time (times 12!).

> After the recording is done, you have a re-save option to break out the individual
> track data.

Hmmmm . . . I was aware that RME seems to have the best
reputation for robustness, but didn't know it worked like
that. How does this scheme interact with the application
software (DAW)? Does the driver know when the recording
session stops and ask you to split up the stored file? And
how does that affect disk storage requirements?

--
"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

April 20th 11, 01:43 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> Then, for Windows users, there's the ASIO problem that you
> can't have more than one ASIO device at a time. If you
> need two or three boxes to get 24 channels, you're at the
> mercy of the manufacturer to provide a driver that allows
> cascading their own devices. The last couple of versions
> of Mac OS-X allow you to "aggregate" multiple devices
> using the Apple Core Audio subsystem.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb06/articles/pcmusician.htm

"Fortunately, quite a few manufacturers have developed suitable multi-device
drivers that typically support up to four identical interfaces, or a mix of
up to four similar models from the same range. The best advice (as always)
is to download the latest drivers for your interface, so that you can read
the accompanying Read Me or Help file to see what expansion possibilities
there are, before purchasing an additional unit."

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?high=&m=748861&mpage=1#748902

"You can't use more than one ASIO driver simultaneously in any app - it's a
limitation of ASIO.
However, there are situations when several interfaces can share the one ASIO
driver - this depends entirely on the qualities of the driver.
With M-audio, for example, you can use up to 4 interfaces from the Delta
range, even mix different types, using the same ASIO driver, and all
interfaces appear in the Delta ASIO control panel. "

PStamler

April 20th 11, 05:15 PM

Radar?

Peace,
Paul

Scott Dorsey

April 20th 11, 05:53 PM

In article >,
PStamler > wrote:
>Radar?

Or, on a smaller scale, the portable 8-track gadgets like the Fostex.

Still, the radar is really hard to beat.
--scott
(still in DTRS-land and still happy about it)

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

david correia

April 20th 11, 06:09 PM

Does anyone know of one of those small, cheap portable recorders that
has spdif in?

David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

Richard Webb[_3_]

April 20th 11, 06:18 PM

Frank writes:

<snip>

> Say what you will about the HD24(XR) file systems, they were devised
> to make 24 track/24bit /48K (12 track/96K) work on the slower
> drives of the early 2000s.

Indeed this is true. I've found that if I run a UPS in the
power chain I don't worry about it at all. tHe extra steps
getting the assistant to play with the gui to do format
conversion and transfer later is a pain in my backside, but, when the power source is beefed up with a ups I have few
complaints in that regard.
Just still would have gone with the balck box had they been
out when I was starting to re-equip after Katrina. I want
some cooler high end microphones, and improvements for the
less than truck one rack and go solution, like Manley labs
or something for line mixer instead of the dreaded b word,
then we might at a blackbox.

But, the xr's converters aren't bad, and it does its job,
and the yahoo group for its users is quite supportive.
There are some actual pros in that forum as well as a couple of pretty savvy individual providing some aftermarket
support that Alesis in its new guise as supplier of bottom
feeder dj junk doesn't have time to provide.

<big snip of good points re usb>

> If something hiccups in a live field recording, you're probably
> screwed.

Which is one reason why I suggest a good ups for anybody
using the Alesis. That's the one feeling I always get when
starting a project using digital that I never got with
analog tape, that what if that turns into "oh no" feeling.

> My $0.02. (And I recently added a vanilla HD24 to stripe duplicate
> data from the primary HD24XR. While still not 100% fool proof, it's
> several shades better than relying on a 2-track capture of the
> monitor mix as a "backup.")

YEp, that's one way to do it. I'll probably go with the
Joeco and if it works I've got client deliverables right
now, if it don't ... well we've got the data from the
Alesis.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Mike Rivers

April 21st 11, 12:33 AM

On 4/20/2011 8:14 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> david correia wrote:
>> Does anyone know of one of those small, cheap portable
>> recorders that has spdif in?

> I don't believe any of them have it. I would guess
> the space budget for the connector ( they won't do it
> optical ) would kill 'em.

The M-Audio MicroTrack had a S/PDIF input, but that product
has been discontinued. A lot of people bought it just for
that feature, however. The TASCAM 680 records up to 8
channels, with six mic/line inputs and an S/PDIF input.

--
"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

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 21st 11, 01:14 AM

david correia wrote:
> Does anyone know of one of those small, cheap portable recorders that
> has spdif in?
>
>
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com

I don't believe any of them have it. I would guess
the space budget for the connector ( they won't do it
optical ) would kill 'em.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 21st 11, 01:24 AM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>> Radar?
>
> Or, on a smaller scale, the portable 8-track gadgets like the Fostex.
>

You can't find fresh drives for 'em easily. They're
around, but scarce. Mine also has little button-switches
going out. Of all the ones to go, the PAN went first.
It'll be a full day of disassembly/reassembly to take
the thing apart, too. I just use something else for
stereo monitoring - the onboard or an ADA8000.

> Still, the radar is really hard to beat.
> --scott
> (still in DTRS-land and still happy about it)
>

--
Les Cargill

Frank Stearns

April 21st 11, 02:03 AM

Mike Rivers > writes:

snips

>> The only way in hell I'd consider striping multitrack to a general-purpose file
>> system is to do it the way RME does it. The data is interleaved to a SINGLE file
>> handle/single data stream. In the case of a windows file system, the OS and drive
>> then only needs to walk, not walk AND chew gum at the same time (times 12!).

>> After the recording is done, you have a re-save option to break out the individual
>> track data.

>Hmmmm . . . I was aware that RME seems to have the best
>reputation for robustness, but didn't know it worked like
>that. How does this scheme interact with the application
>software (DAW)? Does the driver know when the recording
>session stops and ask you to split up the stored file? And
>how does that affect disk storage requirements?

Oh, sorry... My central focus on reliable "live-capture" was the foundation for that
post. I should have zoomed out a bit...

After you do your initial capture of data through your RME hardware with the RME
software, you go back and do a re-save to break out that data into separate files.
Then you can do normal post production with your DAW of choice (though you can
playback the native interleaved stream through other RME mixer applications).

If the file system is whacky at that point, no problem; you haven't lost anything.
You're just annoyed in the mix session at which point you can defrag, get a new
drive, tweak your host system, or whatever might be needed to get consistently clean
playbacks while you mix.

Now, I don't know that RME does this interleave by default with everything they
provide; it's the method used in the recording function of their DIGIcheck software.

Sometime back I'd posted a query about finding the most direct and simple method to
stripe audio data to a laptop without involving PT or other full-blown DAW.

Given that I had an RME piece in a "B" kit already, some good person here suggested
DIGIcheck and I have used it a few different times with good success -- but tracking
to a laptop is *not* my primary capture method. (!) (Tracking a live
orchestra/choir to a windows laptop does not foster relaxation. <g>)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

Frank Stearns

April 21st 11, 05:02 PM

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 4/20/2011 9:03 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>>>> The only way in hell I'd consider striping multitrack to a general-purpose file
>>>> system is to do it the way RME does it. The data is interleaved to a SINGLE file
>>>> handle/single data stream.

>> Oh, sorry... My central focus on reliable "live-capture" was the foundation for that
>> post. I should have zoomed out a bit...
>>
>> After you do your initial capture of data through your RME hardware with the RME
>> software, you go back and do a re-save to break out that data into separate files.
>> Then you can do normal post production with your DAW of choice (though you can
>> playback the native interleaved stream through other RME mixer applications).

>Oh, I get it. You use the software that RME provides as the
>capture program, then use the DAW (or your real console) for
>mixing after you break the RME file out into individual
>tracks. Pretty neat. Probably less of a software load on
>the computer, too. And if it's a live show, you don't really

Today's processors have plenty of horsepower for multitrack, and theoretically so do
the file systems. But in the case of the latter, seems to me that too many
age/use/file-system-design-trade-off variables come into play to make them reliable
enough for recording. The single stream thing sets aside a number of lurking
gotchas.

You might have some of the same twists and turns due to fragmentation or drive aging
that slows seek ability, but now you're just chasing one path, not 24+!

>I've always wanted to play with that program, but since I
>never had an RME interface, I've never had it to play with.
>Is this a recommended procedure for multitrack recording, or
>something that you dreamed up that just happens to work well?

You mean that RME dreamed up... (Mostly DIGIcheck has some interesting metering and
analysis tools; the recording aspect almost seems like an afterthought. Perhaps for
that reason, the recording function is delightfully simple and uncluttered.)

I had overflow work and needed to cobble together a bullet-proof "B" kit from parts
on hand that I could send out with an associate, and the recording platform I had
was an older laptop.

DIGICheck seemed like the perfect solution because it did *exactly* what I wanted
given the need: simply capture digital data from the RME box and stripe it to the
laptop. No routing, no processing, no (or extremely simple) UIs to mess with. And
the single file approach was a jump-for-joy.

>I've never been screwed by my Mackie HDR24/96. PreSonus has
>a program called Capture that they ship with their
>StudioLive digital firewire I/O mixers that's really simple
>and puts very little strain on the CPU, though it does save
>one file per track per record pass. It's aimed (may god not
>strike me down this time) at the church crowd, I think,
>where someone who knows enough to be dangerous buys a mixer
>for the church that's too complicated for any of the
>volunteer sound crew to operate. But it defaults to all
>tracks armed for recording, one track assigned to the preamp
>(direct) out of each channel of the mixer, and one button
>starts it recording. Press the Firewire Input buttons on the
>mixer, rewind to the beginning, and you can do everything
>over again except move the mics and stop the feedback.

Chuckle.

Capture sounds similar to DIGICheck except for the multi-file aspect. And in fact
that Presonus box was suggested to me, but what I had was the RME (which I mainly
use for a router/digital format converter; it just also happens to have some
reasonably good mic preamps and ADCs/DACs bolted on).

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

Trevor

April 28th 11, 10:21 AM

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...

>>> Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
>>> Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
>>> Disk interface: USB2
>>> Format: FAT32
>>> File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
>>> Media: USB2 hard disk,
>>> USB2 flash drive,
>>> SHDC (with suitable adapter)
>>
>>
>> But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?
>>
>
> So that's 55-56 mbit/second - 55,296,000 bit/sec.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing from eyewitnesses, but for
> a single pair of devices on a USB2 connection 240 Mbit
> *shouldn't* be out of range - especially if it's
> important to the people implementing the host side.
>
> Especially for $3400...

No it's not out of *possible* range, IF there are no hiccups on the system,
and trying to run other devices like USB mice etc. Unfortunately USB2 has
not proven to be that reliable for continuous data streaming at that level.
Surely USB3 is the answer now if you really need something other than
firewire? I would certainly not be taking the risk at that price anyway.

Trevor.

hank alrich

April 28th 11, 03:45 PM

Trevor > wrote:

> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
> >>> Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
> >>> Disk interface: USB2
> >>> Format: FAT32
> >>> File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
> >>> Media: USB2 hard disk,
> >>> USB2 flash drive,
> >>> SHDC (with suitable adapter)
> >>
> >>
> >> But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?
> >>
> >
> > So that's 55-56 mbit/second - 55,296,000 bit/sec.
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing from eyewitnesses, but for
> > a single pair of devices on a USB2 connection 240 Mbit
> > *shouldn't* be out of range - especially if it's
> > important to the people implementing the host side.
> >
> > Especially for $3400...
>
>
> No it's not out of *possible* range, IF there are no hiccups on the system,
> and trying to run other devices like USB mice etc. Unfortunately USB2 has
> not proven to be that reliable for continuous data streaming at that level.
> Surely USB3 is the answer now if you really need something other than
> firewire? I would certainly not be taking the risk at that price anyway.
>
> Trevor.

Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes failing
to perform as specified?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

hank alrich

April 28th 11, 07:59 PM

Richard Webb > wrote:

> Hank writes:
> <snip>
>
> >> No it's not out of *possible* range, IF there are no hiccups on the system,
> >> and trying to run other devices like USB mice etc. Unfortunately USB2 has
> >> not proven to be that reliable for continuous data streaming at that level.
> >> Surely USB3 is the answer now if you really need something other than
> >> firewire? I would certainly not be taking the risk at that price anyway.
>
> > Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes
> > failing to perform as specified?
>
> I'd be very interested in the answer to that question, as
> it's looking like my future recorder of choice. As for USB
> mice, etc. those wouldn't be running with it of course, but
> we're talking a dedicated device, designed to do one thing,
> and that's write audio tracks to disk.

The folks behind it had a good track record <heh> before they headed
into this venture. So far I haven't heard anything negative, except that
a few people have misunderstood the purpose of the device, which is as
you state. It's not built for overdubbing and such. It's intended for
live capture and comes in various models with I/O appropriate to
different setups.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Richard Webb[_3_]

April 28th 11, 09:49 PM

Hank writes:
<snip>

>> No it's not out of *possible* range, IF there are no hiccups on the system,
>> and trying to run other devices like USB mice etc. Unfortunately USB2 has
>> not proven to be that reliable for continuous data streaming at that level.
>> Surely USB3 is the answer now if you really need something other than
>> firewire? I would certainly not be taking the risk at that price anyway.

> Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes
> failing to perform as specified?

I'd be very interested in the answer to that question, as
it's looking like my future recorder of choice. As for USB
mice, etc. those wouldn't be running with it of course, but
we're talking a dedicated device, designed to do one thing,
and that's write audio tracks to disk.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 29th 11, 02:17 AM

Trevor wrote:
> "Les > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>> Sample Rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz
>>>> Bit depths: 16bit; 24bit
>>>> Disk interface: USB2
>>>> Format: FAT32
>>>> File type: Broadcast WAV (BWAV)
>>>> Media: USB2 hard disk,
>>>> USB2 flash drive,
>>>> SHDC (with suitable adapter)
>>>
>>>
>>> But how does it handle 24 channels of 24/96 .wav's via USB2?
>>>
>>
>> So that's 55-56 mbit/second - 55,296,000 bit/sec.
>>
>> I'd be interested in hearing from eyewitnesses, but for
>> a single pair of devices on a USB2 connection 240 Mbit
>> *shouldn't* be out of range - especially if it's
>> important to the people implementing the host side.
>>
>> Especially for $3400...
>
>
> No it's not out of *possible* range, IF there are no hiccups on the system,
> and trying to run other devices like USB mice etc.

The system in question is a one-input, one-output link. Completely
dedicated, single-path/single virtual circuit link, if you will.

> Unfortunately USB2 has
> not proven to be that reliable for continuous data streaming at that level.

Interesting. I've had zero problems with it (mainly for backup
hard disks ). This for several years now. The disks themselves die, but
I don't lose files.

> Surely USB3 is the answer now if you really need something other than
> firewire? I would certainly not be taking the risk at that price anyway.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Trevor

April 29th 11, 04:52 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes failing
> to perform as specified?

Or does anybody have a single report of them working flawlessly in all
cases, on all systems for that matter?

All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.

Trevor.

Trevor

April 29th 11, 04:59 AM

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
>> Unfortunately USB2 has
>> not proven to be that reliable for continuous data streaming at that
>> level.
>
> Interesting. I've had zero problems with it (mainly for backup
> hard disks ). This for several years now. The disks themselves die, but
> I don't lose files.

Of course not, file backup is not real time continuous data streaming.
Slight delays in data transfer go unoticed for such applications, and USB2
is fine if you can accept that it is slower to transfer your data than ESATA
or USB3. Personally I've been using ESATA for that a long time before USB3
came along.

Trevor.

Trevor

April 29th 11, 06:00 AM

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.

Just to answer my own misgivings, I guess RAM is so cheap these days that
the box probably contains a huge amount, and can probably buffer
sufficiently to cope with any hiccups on the USB2 bus/hard drive. Having
seen even 8 channel systems drop samples on USB2/laptop systems in days gone
by, just makes me wary these days I guess when better interfaces are
available.

Trevor.

hank alrich

April 29th 11, 07:48 AM

Trevor > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes failing
> > to perform as specified?
>
> Or does anybody have a single report of them working flawlessly in all
> cases, on all systems for that matter?
>
> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
>
> Trevor.

There "might" be issues regardless of device. This thing has been out
since 2009. Reports of failure are not ubiquitous.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 29th 11, 08:02 AM

Trevor wrote:
> "Les > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Unfortunately USB2 has
>>> not proven to be that reliable for continuous data streaming at that
>>> level.
>>
>> Interesting. I've had zero problems with it (mainly for backup
>> hard disks ). This for several years now. The disks themselves die, but
>> I don't lose files.
>
> Of course not, file backup is not real time continuous data streaming.

This isn't streaming. There's no realtime requirement. You could
buffer it to one of two limits:

1) Until it takes too long to drain the buffer to meet
UI requirements, or
2) Until the cost of the buffer beats your budget ( unlikely -
DRAM would be just fine for a buffer, and it's about $50
a GB or so ).

> Slight delays in data transfer go unoticed for such applications,

As Mr. Dorsey is fond to note, the entire point of recording *is* delay

:)

So long as the data gets to the drive eventually, latency is completely
irrelevant... the channel itself is underutilized... think 55MBit*
against a link which is capable of some 160 MBit.

* 96,000samp/sec * 24chan * 3bytes/sample * 8bits/byte

should be plenty of time to get there unless the error rate is
just no longer tenable.

And if I wrote the firmware, it would have a "test drive"
function....

> and USB2
> is fine if you can accept that it is slower to transfer your data than ESATA
> or USB3.

It's plenty fast for what I use it for.

Personally I've been using ESATA for that a long time before USB3
> came along.
>

ESATA looks very nice. I would think it a better choice than USB.

> Trevor.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

April 29th 11, 08:06 AM

Trevor wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
>> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
>> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
>
> Just to answer my own misgivings, I guess RAM is so cheap these days that
> the box probably contains a huge amount, and can probably buffer
> sufficiently to cope with any hiccups on the USB2 bus/hard drive.

There ya go. I'd also put a drive/cable tester built-in to the box.

> Having
> seen even 8 channel systems drop samples on USB2/laptop systems in days gone
> by, just makes me wary these days I guess when better interfaces are
> available.
>

This is probably considerably ... sleeker than a laptop. Life
is better when you can button up the box.

> Trevor.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Mike Rivers

April 29th 11, 12:06 PM

On 4/28/2011 11:52 PM, Trevor wrote:

> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.

I would suggest a Studer A-827 then. I understand they still
have a few new ones and you should be able to get one at a
good price, about that of ten JoeCo Black Box recorders.

Really, if you're going to trust computer technology, at
some time there will be unexpected "issues."

--
"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

Trevor

April 29th 11, 12:31 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> I would suggest a Studer A-827 then. I understand they still have a few
> new ones and you should be able to get one at a good price, about that of
> ten JoeCo Black Box recorders.

You forgot the cost of tape to put in it, and the truck to carry it to gigs
:-)

> Really, if you're going to trust computer technology, at some time there
> will be unexpected "issues."

Right, but simply no need to take chances with an inferior interface when
there are far better available. Still, as long a it works I guess. It's just
the others that don't which made me nervous. And for the record I have
recorded hundreds of live gigs using a laptop and MOTU boxes with firewire
interface, and have yet to have one problem. One day I might of course, but
no way would I go back to tape! It's not like tape decks never failed
either, not only do you have electronics to fail, but mechanicals as well
:-(

Trevor.

Scott Dorsey

April 29th 11, 01:25 PM

In article >,
hank alrich > wrote:
>Trevor > wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes failing
>> > to perform as specified?
>>
>> Or does anybody have a single report of them working flawlessly in all
>> cases, on all systems for that matter?
>>
>> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
>> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
>> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
>There "might" be issues regardless of device. This thing has been out
>since 2009. Reports of failure are not ubiquitous.

Complex digital systems fail, and when they fail in the field there is
usually not anything you can do about it. Newer and less well-debugged
systems tend to fail more. Simpler systems tend to fail less.

The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.

But, this being the modern digital world, we have a solution for all of
these problems: run a safety copy.

If you don't like it, try an Ampex instead. The Ampex sounds really good...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

April 29th 11, 01:26 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 4/28/2011 11:52 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
>> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
>> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
>
>I would suggest a Studer A-827 then. I understand they still
>have a few new ones and you should be able to get one at a
>good price, about that of ten JoeCo Black Box recorders.

Don't do it, go with the Ampex. The automated setup systems on the A-827
aren't something you want to be debugging in the field.

>Really, if you're going to trust computer technology, at
>some time there will be unexpected "issues."

I agree, and I find this terrifying. In part because we know how to do
system verification, we just don't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

hank alrich

April 29th 11, 02:52 PM

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> In article >,
> hank alrich > wrote:
> >Trevor > wrote:
> >
> >> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes failing
> >> > to perform as specified?
> >>
> >> Or does anybody have a single report of them working flawlessly in all
> >> cases, on all systems for that matter?
> >>
> >> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
> >> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
> >> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
> >>
> >> Trevor.
> >
> >There "might" be issues regardless of device. This thing has been out
> >since 2009. Reports of failure are not ubiquitous.
>
> Complex digital systems fail, and when they fail in the field there is
> usually not anything you can do about it. Newer and less well-debugged
> systems tend to fail more. Simpler systems tend to fail less.
>
> The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.
>
> But, this being the modern digital world, we have a solution for all of
> these problems: run a safety copy.
>
> If you don't like it, try an Ampex instead. The Ampex sounds really good...
> --scott

In two of the in-use reports I read the backup was another Blackbox. Two
rack spaces total.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Arny Krueger

April 29th 11, 04:22 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> On 4/28/2011 11:52 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the
>> chance at that price when I know there *might* be
>> issues, no matter how infrequently. There are simply
>> better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.

> I would suggest a Studer A-827 then. I understand they
> still have a few new ones and you should be able to get
> one at a good price, about that of ten (10) JoeCo Black Box
> recorders.

I noticed that there are ADAT and AES/EBU options/versions, and I was almost
in love.

Sorry about that price!

The Joeco blackbox is probably a big empty box. even at just 1 RU. I
foresee a power supply, a small board with some interface chips on it,
another small board with a CPU, RAM and flash for firmware, and the
display/control board. Big question - which CPU? Intel? ARM? Something
else?

Anybody who wants to take a risk on developing a larger market should be
able to field an equivalent for 1/6 the price.

For less than 1/3 the price I can buy a laptop a M-Audio Profire Lightbridge
and recording software if I don't like what comes with the Lightbridge.

> Really, if you're going to trust computer technology, at
> some time there will be unexpected "issues."

The vast majority of which can be caught in the shop before your first gig,
if you are diligent.

I put some time into shaking out my iKey, and was rewarded with zero
surprises on the festival circuit. There were media issues and eventually I
needed to reflash the firmware, but that all happened at home, early on.

Frank Stearns

April 29th 11, 04:51 PM

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>In article >,
>hank alrich > wrote:
>>Trevor > wrote:
>>
>>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes failing
>>> > to perform as specified?
>>>
>>> Or does anybody have a single report of them working flawlessly in all
>>> cases, on all systems for that matter?
>>>
>>> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
>>> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
>>> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
>>>
>>> Trevor.
>>
>>There "might" be issues regardless of device. This thing has been out
>>since 2009. Reports of failure are not ubiquitous.

>Complex digital systems fail, and when they fail in the field there is
>usually not anything you can do about it. Newer and less well-debugged
>systems tend to fail more. Simpler systems tend to fail less.

>The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.

>But, this being the modern digital world, we have a solution for all of
>these problems: run a safety copy.

Very true. I stripe two 24 tracks with the same data.

But in my estimation JoeCo did a few odd things. In a heartbeat I would have bought
one, possibly two, had they done these things:

- if they insisted on loose external drives, use eSata or Firewire instead of USB

- better to add 1U to the package height and integrate two, possibly three removable
drive bays, with the option to simultaneously stripe two with the same data, with #3
perhaps on standby. I'd happily pay a little higher price for this.

- banked the I/O options. Let me select and intermix the I/O interface in groups of
8, possibly user-changable by swapping I/O cards, such as that SadiE box used for
location recording. (It requires a laptop, though, as the recorder.)

BTW, there are other issues with USB besides the quirky things I've seen happen
with long file transfers.

Yes, in some ways it's attractive to take your USB porta drive directly from gig to
studio, but now you're making frequent mechanical use of perhaps one of the WORST
connector designs on the planet (yes, even worse than a cheap phone plug), the USB
connector!!! (Firewire and eSata connectors aren't a whole lot better.) At best
they're good for what, a few hundred connection cycles before they're prone to
simply falling out?

I'd feel better if they'd use, say, that ruggedized RJ45 integrated with an
XLR shell. At least with the shell the thing latches firmly, stays latched, and is
forced into correct alignment at each insertion.

>If you don't like it, try an Ampex instead. The Ampex sounds really good...

Yes, I loved the MM1000 and MM1200s I used long ago (the 1000 actually sounding a
little better than the 1200). But the 1000-16 is somewhat awkward to rackmount. <g>
You'd have a chance to rack a 1200 (24-inch racks!) but there's still the issue that
my twin 24-track kit, with preamps, racks in a couple of cases that I can load by
myself into the back seat of the car. A 1200 wouldn't quite make that. <w> (For most
of my classical gigs, it's impractical to bring the mobile rig. It's rack cases in a
corner of the space or nothing at all.)

I wonder how many Joeco boxes are out there now?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

Mike Rivers

April 29th 11, 09:06 PM

On 4/29/2011 7:31 AM, Trevor wrote:

> You forgot the cost of tape to put in it, and the truck to carry it to gigs
> :-)

Not at all. It's all part of the fun.

> simply no need to take chances with an inferior interface when
> there are far better available. Still, as long a it works I guess.

Recording audio to a disk isn't a very hard job. That's why
it works at all. You can analyze it to death and it will
work until something happens. Chances are greater that the
problem will be in the $49 power supply, $39 memory module,
or a $19 power supply than that the USB interface won't
handle the data stream.

> no way would I go back to tape! It's not like tape decks never failed
> either

No, but you usually know right away when there's a failure,
and sometimes it's a partial failure. A momentary dropout on
one track is probably less harmful to the project than the
whole thing shutting down and it takes a minute to reboot
it. And it's usually easier to fix a tape deck than a
computer, too.

But I understand. I don't use tape any more either, and I,
too, have had impressive reliability with digital audio
based on both general purpose and dedicated hardware. But I
don't feel comfortable with something that I don't have the
documentation, tools, or knowledge to troubleshoot.

--
"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

April 29th 11, 09:08 PM

On 4/29/2011 8:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.

Two "computer" years is like 20 "mechanical" years. ;) The
Black Box Recorder will be obsolete before there are enough
operating hours to verify the reliability predictions
(assume there are any).

--
"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

April 29th 11, 09:13 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 4/29/2011 8:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.
>
>Two "computer" years is like 20 "mechanical" years. ;) The
>Black Box Recorder will be obsolete before there are enough
>operating hours to verify the reliability predictions
>(assume there are any).

This is just the way everything is today, it's normal.

The solution to this is to wait until everything is obsolete before using it.
--scott

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

Rick Ruskin

April 29th 11, 09:26 PM

On 29 Apr 2011 16:13:28 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>On 4/29/2011 8:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.
>>
>>Two "computer" years is like 20 "mechanical" years. ;) The
>>Black Box Recorder will be obsolete before there are enough
>>operating hours to verify the reliability predictions
>>(assume there are any).
>
>This is just the way everything is today, it's normal.
>
>The solution to this is to wait until everything is obsolete before using it.
>--scott

that's why my motto is: "Yesterday's Technology Today. (Or maybe the
day before's)
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[email protected]

April 30th 11, 01:04 AM

On 2011-04-29 (hankalrich) said:
<snip>
>> >There "might" be issues regardless of device. This thing has
>>been out >since 2009. Reports of failure are not ubiquitous.
<snip again>

>> The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.
>> But, this being the modern digital world, we have a solution for
>>all of these problems: run a safety copy.
>> If you don't like it, try an Ampex instead. The Ampex sounds
>>really good... --scott
>In two of the in-use reports I read the backup was another Blackbox.
>Two rack spaces total.
yes, and I"m sure both did not fail. Unless it's a power
supply issue external to the box that is, and that can be
combatted by use of a UPS. I'm sure the usb reliability
issues one might see where one's trying to use a variety of
devices has been well handled in this, because all the
possible conditions can be limited to those involving the
handling of the audio data. Remember this thing doesn't
have to walk and chew gum simultaneously, which helps.
tHere are plenty of biological human units around who
experience "reliability issues" when we ask them to do that.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

hank alrich

April 30th 11, 03:01 AM

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> hank alrich > wrote:
> >
> >In two of the in-use reports I read the backup was another Blackbox. Two
> >rack spaces total.
>
> That's a perfectly reasonable and very inexpensive way of doing it. I bet
> you could even loop the cabling through.
> --scott

It's about like running two 2" machines in parallel. Except for the
number of rack spaces.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

hank alrich

April 30th 11, 03:01 AM

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
> >In article >,
> >hank alrich > wrote:
> >>Trevor > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > Does anybody have even a single report of the Joeco Bloackboxes failing
> >>> > to perform as specified?
> >>>
> >>> Or does anybody have a single report of them working flawlessly in all
> >>> cases, on all systems for that matter?
> >>>
> >>> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the chance at that price
> >>> when I know there *might* be issues, no matter how infrequently. There are
> >>> simply better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
> >>>
> >>> Trevor.
> >>
> >>There "might" be issues regardless of device. This thing has been out
> >>since 2009. Reports of failure are not ubiquitous.
>
> >Complex digital systems fail, and when they fail in the field there is
> >usually not anything you can do about it. Newer and less well-debugged
> >systems tend to fail more. Simpler systems tend to fail less.
>
> >The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.
>
> >But, this being the modern digital world, we have a solution for all of
> >these problems: run a safety copy.
>
> Very true. I stripe two 24 tracks with the same data.
>
> But in my estimation JoeCo did a few odd things. In a heartbeat I would
> have bought one, possibly two, had they done these things:
>
> - if they insisted on loose external drives, use eSata or Firewire instead
> of USB

Firewire incurs a licensing fee, and will be obsoleted shortly, too, in
the big picture.

There are tons of eSata drives around in housings that interface with
the external world via USB. I think it was an extremely practical
decision.

I'm working with a yearly event that includes a music festival. I hope
we eventually have one of those as part of the FOH rig. I'll pitch the
bands to bring their own USB drive and take home the tracks. We present
roughly thirty in ten days, more if the event runs longer, which dpends
on where Christmas falls and the venue is available. Every band member
will know what I mean. If I said, "Bring an eSata drive" I'd be met with
a significant share of blank stares.

> - better to add 1U to the package height and integrate two, possibly three
> removable drive bays, with the option to simultaneously stripe two with
> the same data, with #3 perhaps on standby. I'd happily pay a little higher
> price for this.

Why bother when in the same rack psace you can duplicate the whole rig?
I think including the drive bays would raise the cost a lot and
complicate usage for the majority of potential users.

> - banked the I/O options. Let me select and intermix the I/O interface in
> groups of 8, possibly user-changable by swapping I/O cards, such as that
> SadiE box used for location recording. (It requires a laptop, though, as
> the recorder.)

The guy who is Mr. Blackbox used to be Mr. Sadie. He's been there and
done that.

> BTW, there are other issues with USB besides the quirky things I've seen
> happen with long file transfers.
>
> Yes, in some ways it's attractive to take your USB porta drive directly
> from gig to studio, but now you're making frequent mechanical use of
> perhaps one of the WORST connector designs on the planet (yes, even worse
> than a cheap phone plug), the USB connector!!! (Firewire and eSata
> connectors aren't a whole lot better.) At best they're good for what, a
> few hundred connection cycles before they're prone to simply falling out?
>
> I'd feel better if they'd use, say, that ruggedized RJ45 integrated with
> an XLR shell. At least with the shell the thing latches firmly, stays
> latched, and is forced into correct alignment at each insertion.
>
>
> >If you don't like it, try an Ampex instead. The Ampex sounds really good...
>
> Yes, I loved the MM1000 and MM1200s I used long ago (the 1000 actually
> sounding a little better than the 1200). But the 1000-16 is somewhat
> awkward to rackmount. <g> You'd have a chance to rack a 1200 (24-inch
> racks!) but there's still the issue that my twin 24-track kit, with
> preamps, racks in a couple of cases that I can load by myself into the
> back seat of the car. A 1200 wouldn't quite make that. <w> (For most of my
> classical gigs, it's impractical to bring the mobile rig. It's rack cases
> in a corner of the space or nothing at all.)
>
> I wonder how many Joeco boxes are out there now?

I have no idea, but I note two things: they keep expanding the audio
interface options, and they are steadily adding distribution around the
planet.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

hank alrich

April 30th 11, 03:01 AM

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >On 4/29/2011 8:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >> The Joeco has simplicity in its favor, newness against it.
> >
> >Two "computer" years is like 20 "mechanical" years. ;) The
> >Black Box Recorder will be obsolete before there are enough
> >operating hours to verify the reliability predictions
> >(assume there are any).
>
> This is just the way everything is today, it's normal.

The Blackbox isn't a computer in the usual sense. If USB3 is backwardly
compatible with USB2, it could be good for a good run.

> The solution to this is to wait until everything is obsolete before using it.

I resemble that remark. All over Austin I have killer players coming up
to me and saying, "Man, your daughter sure can sing!"

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

hank alrich

April 30th 11, 03:01 AM

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>
> > On 4/28/2011 11:52 PM, Trevor wrote:
> >
> >> All I'm saying is that Í for one would not take the
> >> chance at that price when I know there *might* be
> >> issues, no matter how infrequently. There are simply
> >> better intrerfaces for the purpose IMO.
>
> > I would suggest a Studer A-827 then. I understand they
> > still have a few new ones and you should be able to get
> > one at a good price, about that of ten (10) JoeCo Black Box
> > recorders.
>
> I noticed that there are ADAT and AES/EBU options/versions, and I was almost
> in love.
>
> Sorry about that price!

AFAICT one cold knock rouhgly a grand off it to get to street.

> The Joeco blackbox is probably a big empty box. even at just 1 RU. I
> foresee a power supply, a small board with some interface chips on it,
> another small board with a CPU, RAM and flash for firmware, and the
> display/control board. Big question - which CPU? Intel? ARM? Something
> else?
>
> Anybody who wants to take a risk on developing a larger market should be
> able to field an equivalent for 1/6 the price.
>
> For less than 1/3 the price I can buy a laptop a M-Audio Profire Lightbridge
> and recording software if I don't like what comes with the Lightbridge.
>
> > Really, if you're going to trust computer technology, at
> > some time there will be unexpected "issues."
>
> The vast majority of which can be caught in the shop before your first gig,
> if you are diligent.
>
> I put some time into shaking out my iKey, and was rewarded with zero
> surprises on the festival circuit. There were media issues and eventually I
> needed to reflash the firmware, but that all happened at home, early on.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Peter Larsen[_3_]

April 30th 11, 04:51 AM

Frank Stearns wrote:

> Yes, in some ways it's attractive to take your USB porta drive
> directly from gig to studio, but now you're making frequent
> mechanical use of perhaps one of the WORST connector designs on the
> planet (yes, even worse than a cheap phone plug), the USB
> connector!!! (Firewire and eSata connectors aren't a whole lot
> better.) At best they're good for what, a few hundred connection
> cycles before they're prone to simply falling out?

The worst connector on the planet is the sata connector, it is designed for
50 operations. Divide by 10 because it is the salesmans claim. Then it is 5.
Translated to the newlyweds english that means do not disassemble if it can
at all be avoided. Researched the solididy of it after discarding a brand
new, fortunately also empty, 320 gigabyte drive after brushing into the
cable connector when inserting a ram module.

> I'd feel better if they'd use, say, that ruggedized RJ45 integrated
> with an
> XLR shell. At least with the shell the thing latches firmly, stays
> latched, and is forced into correct alignment at each insertion.

Minitüchel. A weird number of loose parts when disassembled but mechanically
and electrically wonderful and less prone to wiggle-type contact noise than
just about anything else.

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Mike Rivers

April 30th 11, 01:06 PM

On 4/29/2011 8:04 PM, wrote:

> >In two of the in-use reports I read the backup was another Blackbox.
> >Two rack spaces total.

> yes, and I"m sure both did not fail. Unless it's a power
> supply issue external to the box that is, and that can be
> combatted by use of a UPS.

Power is power. If the recorder is properly designed so that
it's continually writing to the disk, everything up to the
point where power failed will be there. The RADAR is like
that. The Mackie HDR24/96 is not. On an HDR24/96, you can
lose up to 15 minutes worth of material prior to a power
failure, so if a recording is important, it's worth keeping
the recorder alive with a UPS long enough to shut it down
orderly. I don't know about the SDR24/96, the ADAT HD24, or
the BlackBox.

Of course computers, being computers, yanking power can
cause unpredictable results. By dumb luck and convenience
(not necessarily smart engineering) a lot of live portable
recording is done with laptop computers and, unless the
battery is dead, they have their own UPS.

But when power goes down, the show goes down. There's no
point in continuing to record if the mixer goes down and the
band stops playing. You just don't want to lose what's
already been recorded.

--
"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

April 30th 11, 03:47 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>But when power goes down, the show goes down. There's no
>point in continuing to record if the mixer goes down and the
>band stops playing. You just don't want to lose what's
>already been recorded.

The band never stops playing! If a little thing like a power outage stops
the band, something is terribly wrong.

When the power goes out the Nagra plugged into the ambient mikes keeps
rolling.

Seeing as how the digital systems all pretty much have internal switching
supplies anyway, I am surprised some of the manufacturers have not provided
DC power inputs as well.

The best concert I ever attended was Cab Calloway performing with the
Virginia Beach Symphony Pops. The power went out and the band sounded
a thousand times better, they were better balanced, and Calloway was still
louder than the band. It would have been even better but they
managed to get the power back on for the second set unfortunately.
--scott

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

Frank Stearns

April 30th 11, 09:24 PM

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>
>>But when power goes down, the show goes down. There's no
>>point in continuing to record if the mixer goes down and the
>>band stops playing. You just don't want to lose what's
>>already been recorded.

>The band never stops playing! If a little thing like a power outage stops
>the band, something is terribly wrong.

>When the power goes out the Nagra plugged into the ambient mikes keeps
>rolling.

>Seeing as how the digital systems all pretty much have internal switching
>supplies anyway, I am surprised some of the manufacturers have not provided
>DC power inputs as well.

>The best concert I ever attended was Cab Calloway performing with the
>Virginia Beach Symphony Pops. The power went out and the band sounded
>a thousand times better, they were better balanced, and Calloway was still
>louder than the band. It would have been even better but they
>managed to get the power back on for the second set unfortunately.

/rant mode on

I've been appalled lately at the number of my classical clients who have a soloist
who feels they "must be amplified" in some manner to balance properly, everything
from a Japanese koto to a classical guitar in an ensemble with one voice and one
viola -- this in modest 200-400 seat venues.

So far, I've managed to talk them out of it, saying the original composition from
the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th century likely <g> had no provision to be "amplified,"
and that they should trust the composer, who was no doubt aware of the limitation of
the various instruments, and had used them appropriately in the arrangement.

If that doesn't work, I also say that it'd wreck the recording (and it would, it's
not a lie, and that gets their attention, especially if they're writing the check
for my fee).

Also (so far) these clients have been thrilled by "how good it sounds" when we took
away the amplification... Correct. Don't run your sonically-rich instrument through
some $100 crap porta-PA system you got at the music store. It's bound to sound
better without.

And if you need PA with this kind of music, you've probably selected the wrong venue
or need a better instrument. If you insist on the "wrong" venue and PA is warranted,
then you spend the money to make it as hi-fi as possible and not the usual PA lo-fi
or mid-fi.

/rant mode off

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

Richard Webb[_3_]

April 30th 11, 11:51 PM

MIke Rivers writes:
> Power is power. If the recorder is properly designed so that it's
> continually writing to the disk, everything up to the
> point where power failed will be there. The RADAR is like
> that. The Mackie HDR24/96 is not. On an HDR24/96, you can
> lose up to 15 minutes worth of material prior to a power
> failure, so if a recording is important, it's worth keeping the
> recorder alive with a UPS long enough to shut it down
> orderly. I don't know about the SDR24/96, the ADAT HD24, or the
> BlackBox.

rIght, I know the Alesis can have some issues there.
hd24tools has been known to rescue some of them ()see the
yahoo group for info) but I wouldn't take a chance on
anything that writes to a file system without a ups. even
though there's nothing to record often after the power goes
down it's nice to do a nice orderly shutdown, then come back up when power does. IF somebody else is paying the bill a
UPS is part of what I feel I must have on the recorder, if
that recorder is writing to any sort of file system to disk.

But then, I have some major trust issues with this stuff
anyway <grin>.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Trevor

May 1st 11, 05:29 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> If you don't like it, try an Ampex instead. The Ampex sounds really
> good...

Nope, far happier with my current firewire setup thank you.

Trevor.

Trevor

May 1st 11, 05:31 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> If you don't like it, try an Ampex instead. The Ampex sounds really
>> good...
>> --scott
>
> In two of the in-use reports I read the backup was another Blackbox. Two
> rack spaces total.

Yep, and still much cheaper and smaller than a Studer/Ampex alternative.

Trevor.

Scott Dorsey

May 1st 11, 04:48 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>I used to rant and rave about big stages and big PA systems
>for 3 piece string bands, but the the truth of the matter is
>that without the big scale of a festival, the performers
>can't afford to come. The organizers can't meet expenses
>without audiences in the thousands, and with that many
>people that far from the staget you must have amplification
>(or they'll want their money back).

Well, festivals are sort of a weird case, because in most cases they
are taking place in locations with really, really bad acoustics and
usually rather noisy locations as well.

Correspondingly, there's some amount of PA support that is often required
in order to make things scale.

Still, I have heard a 3 piece string band perform in a 500-seat hall very
well without amplification and everyone could hear. However, that hall
was designed for the application and it wasn't a tent or a hotel ballroom.

>We try to make our folk festivals as hi-fi as possible but
>there's always someone who will say "we can't here all the
>way in the back."

Then they should come up front.
--scott

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

John Williamson

May 1st 11, 04:52 PM

Frank Stearns wrote:
<Snip>
>
> But midway back in the halls, peaks probably hit 80-84 dB for Ms. Price; 75-78 for
> Mr. Stern. A side point here is that IMO people have simply been overly conditioned
> to hearing everything going through transducers and electronics when they don't need
> to be -- and the sense of what true acoustic music can be has been/is getting lost.
>
It's not just the audience, either. I worked on a couple of tours last
year, one with a British male voice choir, who had no electronics with
them apart from the piano, (It saved lugging a proper, decent, upright
round with us) and a Canadian mixed choir who "needed" a full PA for
every performance.

Leaving aside the different venues and their effect on sound quality,
the Canadian choir, as far as I was concerned, might just as well have
put a CD on and gone home, because that's what they sounded like. They
felt, though, that it was impossible to perform without a PA, though
they sounded as good as the British choir when they were practicing
without one. From what I could tell, they wanted the confidence of
foldback monitors, and to better balance the sound, they also needed FOH
speakers, half a dozen or so microphones, and a mix engineer.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Scott Dorsey

May 1st 11, 04:57 PM

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>But I don't think PA does or should apply to classical music in the majority of
>settings, even the bigger ones.

I agree, BUT by the same token classical music probably shouldn't be
performed in a shopping mall atrium either.

>Consider this: I've heard Yo Yo Ma and Isaac Stern in a 3,000 seat venue in
>Portland, Oregon; Leontyne Price at Symphony Hall in Boston (probably also a 3000
>seat house), and several other top solo/duo/trio players in similar-sized venues.
>
>These were absolutely spell-binding performances that I'll remember vividly for the
>rest of my life. No PA. (If there had been, I would have risked arrest or getting
>beat up to find the "plug" and pulling it. Actually, been doing sound design in that
>Portland house this year for the first time, and I now know where the "plug" is...
><evil g>)

The problems come when you have performers who aren't top notch and cannot
balance properly. Unfortunately, helping them out with PA means not only
doesn't it sound good, but it also means the performers never have a chance
to learn to do it right either.

>But midway back in the halls, peaks probably hit 80-84 dB for Ms. Price; 75-78 for
>Mr. Stern. A side point here is that IMO people have simply been overly conditioned
>to hearing everything going through transducers and electronics when they don't need
>to be -- and the sense of what true acoustic music can be has been/is getting lost.

That's another thing.... people want it loud. I have done PA for talking head
events at conferences, and if I bring the level up so that in the back of the
room at FOB position, the voices are at about normal speech level.... then
people start yelling that it's not loud enough. Voices need to be at least
6 dB over reasonable levels for the audience to be happy.

Sheesh.

>One side note about that 3000 seat hall in Portland. I also heard Nickel Creek in
>that house. Sonically passible but still annoying PA sound for most of the show,
>but in the 3rd encore, Chris Thile asked that the PA be shut down, and invited the
>remaining audience (probably 500-700 of us) to come down toward the stage.
>
>I got a little a little closer, but not much. Again, spell-binding; it was jaw
>dropping to hear those players with those instruments. There was no "PA veil" to
>bleed off some of the magic.

For bands like this I think the solution is to use a teeny tiny little bit
of PA... mostly vocals to allow the band to balance properly. It's supposed
to be sound _reinforcement_ and not sound _replacement_ after all. However
this defeats audience expectations.

>But *removing* PA entirely takes you to a whole new place with players of this
>level.

I think it is possible to use it subtly and in a way that it doesn't
interfere with the players. And that might involve area miking the
whole band with a single pair that goes into the PA or it might involve
just miking a single vocal.

But to do this, you still need a hall that sounds good in the first place
and performers who can balance themselves properly.
--scott

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

[email protected]

May 1st 11, 06:09 PM

On 2011-05-01 (ScottDorsey) said:
<snip>

>Still, I have heard a 3 piece string band perform in a 500-seat
>hall very well without amplification and everyone could hear.
>However, that hall was designed for the application and it wasn't a
>tent or a hotel ballroom.

Agreed.

>>We try to make our folk festivals as hi-fi as possible but
>>there's always someone who will say "we can't here all the
>>way in the back."
>Then they should come up front.
But the bar and the ****er's closer to the back <g>.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Scott Dorsey

May 1st 11, 06:55 PM

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>And if you need PA with this kind of music, you've probably selected the wrong venue
>or need a better instrument. If you insist on the "wrong" venue and PA is warranted,
>then you spend the money to make it as hi-fi as possible and not the usual PA lo-fi
>or mid-fi.

Right. Most of the "crossover" classical performances I see are being done
in venues that are inappropriate for the music. Even so, I often see PA
doing more harm than good.

What disturbs me, though, is less classical work than folk, jazz, and
traditional Broadway material... also never intended to be reinforced,
but modern audiences have a different expectation than the audiences
they were originally played to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

hank alrich

May 1st 11, 08:06 PM

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> You can argue that good performances transcend all, but that's perhaps
> saying that good performances transcend bad PA vs. good PA.
>
> But *removing* PA entirely takes you to a whole new place with players of
> this level.

I agree.

Recently Shaidri and I played a small venue, capacity of 80 max, that is
gaining a rep for great sound. Sound was mediocre, to me, no better -
overly loud and often poorly balanced.

When I told the operator that Shaidri would play her fiddle into her
vocal mic, he looked alarmed and said, "She doesn't have a pickup on
it??" I said, "No, and it works fine. Really, in a venue this size we
really don't need a PA". He thought I was nuts.

Later he had trouble keeping my guitar from feeding back through the
stage monitors, as if the knobs won't turn both ways. (We work with a
fraction of the stage monitor level of most all other acts with whom we
share stages.) After the event was over I apologized for not warning him
about the sensitivity of the guitar I was playing. It's alive, you can
feel _all_ of it vibrating when playing it. It almost too easily hears
itself in the monitors.

He replied that the guitar was "all midrange" and that he'd "fixed it"
by scooping out all the mids. In reality, his entire system, mains and
monitors all, was extremely midrange heavy. The guitar itself is a
wonder of steel string bandwidth, with pianoesque low end and extended
overtones. A friend of mine with world-class audio chops mixed us last
Wednesday night and commented that my guitar was a soundman's dream...

There was no point in trying to talk to him about this. Next time I'll
bring the other McCollum which also has a lovely sound, but which is
somewhat less responsive and works better in situations like that.

We've played fifteen gigs in the last six weeks and it's been quite the
exercise is PA variety, from none at all in fabulous rooms to outdoors
in a city with one of the worst sounding PA's I've ever heard. A cool
thing is that the gamut has shown us we've now gotten delivery to the
level that we can reach at least a few and often lots of audients in
spite of the sound system. We're even about to order a refill for the CD
warehouse. <g>

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Carey Carlan

May 2nd 11, 12:36 PM

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

> That's another thing.... people want it loud. I have done PA for
> talking head events at conferences, and if I bring the level up so
> that in the back of the room at FOB position, the voices are at about
> normal speech level.... then people start yelling that it's not loud
> enough. Voices need to be at least 6 dB over reasonable levels for
> the audience to be happy.
>
> Sheesh.

Most of those drive bass-thumper cars and are already deaf.

Mike Rivers

May 2nd 11, 01:06 PM

On 5/1/2011 9:58 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

> I don't think PA does or should apply to classical music in the majority of
> settings, even the bigger ones.

Well, they don't have "arena" classical music shows, do
they? If they did, I'd expect that sound reinforcement would
be necessary. I also expect that the audience would either
be not your typical classical audience or the typical
classical audience would be astute enough to understand that
this would be something different.

I don't expect that it would be necessary to amplify an
orchestra in a 2000 seat hall, but I can understand that,
for better or worse, different interpretation of certain
compositions might be possible with amplification.

> Consider this: I've heard Yo Yo Ma and Isaac Stern in a 3,000 seat venue in
> Portland, Oregon; Leontyne Price at Symphony Hall in Boston (probably also a 3000
> seat house), and several other top solo/duo/trio players in similar-sized venues.

I saw Benny Goodman playing at Constitution Hall. There was
one microphone up front (this was probably 50 years ago).
When he came out on stage, he walked up to the microphone
and said "Is this mic on?" When the audience responded, his
next words were "Please turn it off when we're playing."
There was no problem hearing a 6 piece jazz group, but you
had to be quiet and pay attention.

> One side note about that 3000 seat hall in Portland. I also heard Nickel Creek in
> that house. Sonically passible but still annoying PA sound for most of the show,
> but in the 3rd encore, Chris Thile asked that the PA be shut down, and invited the
> remaining audience (probably 500-700 of us) to come down toward the stage.

I was running the house console at a pop country music
festival when the power went out just as Jerry Lee Lewis
came on stage, fairly late at night. A breaker well outside
the festival area had tripped so power wasn't going to be
restored very quickly. Someone brought down a small
generator from the campground area, the stage folks plugged
a guitar amplifier into it, plugged a mic into the
amplifier, and the small audience who remained came right up
to the front of the stage where The Killer did a fine show.

I was able to enjoy it from about 250 feet away at the house
console.

> But *removing* PA entirely takes you to a whole new place with players of this
> level.

About 15 years ago, bluegrass bands started learning how to
work around a single mic like they used to. There's always
been some sort of sound reinforcement with this music when
presented as a show, but when bluegrass festivals grew to
the size of rock festivals, the only sources for sound
reinforcement was from rock sound companies. The bands
eventually became unhappy with the mixes that they were
getting, both on stage and out in the audience, and reverted
to mixing themselves acoustically on stage and playing into
a single mic. This generation's musicians had to learn how
to do it since they grew up with individual mics, but most
of them learned pretty well. Still, we're often asked by the
yahoos to TURN IT UP.

--
"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

May 2nd 11, 02:19 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 5/1/2011 9:58 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>
>> I don't think PA does or should apply to classical music in the majority of
>> settings, even the bigger ones.
>
>Well, they don't have "arena" classical music shows, do
>they? If they did, I'd expect that sound reinforcement would
>be necessary. I also expect that the audience would either
>be not your typical classical audience or the typical
>classical audience would be astute enough to understand that
>this would be something different.

They do, in fact, have arena classical music shows, and that is the problem
right there. I might even put the Boston Pops on the Esplanade in that
category.

>I saw Benny Goodman playing at Constitution Hall. There was
>one microphone up front (this was probably 50 years ago).
>When he came out on stage, he walked up to the microphone
>and said "Is this mic on?" When the audience responded, his
>next words were "Please turn it off when we're playing."
>There was no problem hearing a 6 piece jazz group, but you
>had to be quiet and pay attention.

Yes. It's harder to do that today, but it's still possible and it's still
worth the effort.

>About 15 years ago, bluegrass bands started learning how to
>work around a single mic like they used to. There's always
>been some sort of sound reinforcement with this music when
>presented as a show, but when bluegrass festivals grew to
>the size of rock festivals, the only sources for sound
>reinforcement was from rock sound companies. The bands
>eventually became unhappy with the mixes that they were
>getting, both on stage and out in the audience, and reverted
>to mixing themselves acoustically on stage and playing into
>a single mic. This generation's musicians had to learn how
>to do it since they grew up with individual mics, but most
>of them learned pretty well. Still, we're often asked by the
>yahoos to TURN IT UP.

I think this is a marvelous improvement and is a thing to be encouraged.
It's a nice compromise between no PA at all (and requiring singers to
learn to project instead of croon) and conventional PA.

If people want it turned up, they should have got a front row seat instead
of one in the balcony. Although frankly these days with good rooms and
fill systems, there's no reason for levels to vary much in the hall.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Frank Stearns

May 2nd 11, 04:05 PM

(Don Pearce) writes:

>On 1 May 2011 13:55:26 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>
>>>And if you need PA with this kind of music, you've probably selected the wrong venue
>>>or need a better instrument. If you insist on the "wrong" venue and PA is warranted,
>>>then you spend the money to make it as hi-fi as possible and not the usual PA lo-fi
>>>or mid-fi.
>>
>>Right. Most of the "crossover" classical performances I see are being done
>>in venues that are inappropriate for the music. Even so, I often see PA
>>doing more harm than good.
>>
>>What disturbs me, though, is less classical work than folk, jazz, and
>>traditional Broadway material... also never intended to be reinforced,
>>but modern audiences have a different expectation than the audiences
>>they were originally played to.
>>--scott

>I was at a concert just the other day. The speakers were domestic Hi
>Fi - Big KEFs. The mics were Schoeps omnis and the sound level was
>just high enough to add clarity rather than volume. Best PA I have
>ever heard.

Good gear indeed helps, but you just revealed perhaps the single Big Secret of
really good PA -- turn it down!

Reinforce, add body, add clarity, but try to avoid if at all possible getting way
ahead of the actual acoustic source.

Extra gold stars for delaying the PA signal(s) just enough to avoid any potential
comb filter issues between PA system sound and natural sound of the source.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

Frank Stearns

May 2nd 11, 04:23 PM

(hank alrich) writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:

snips

>We've played fifteen gigs in the last six weeks and it's been quite the
>exercise is PA variety, from none at all in fabulous rooms to outdoors
>in a city with one of the worst sounding PA's I've ever heard. A cool
>thing is that the gamut has shown us we've now gotten delivery to the
>level that we can reach at least a few and often lots of audients in
>spite of the sound system. We're even about to order a refill for the CD
>warehouse. <g>

Congrats! That would indicate real music is getting through. :)

Part of the PA problem appears to be how the operator is thinking about the
process.

Seems that a for a many of the "mid-level" operators, PA becomes a competition: how
much volume can we get before feedback. And that's the entire focus -- not the
music, not the tonality, but how much noise can the system make. (For these guys
it's some sort of blind ritual that must always be followed.)

"If I can get 112 dB in the house before feedback and you can only get 110 dB, I'm
better at this than you."

The fact that the **music** calls for, say, 80-85 dB max is overlooked.

The competent PA mixers come at it from the other direction... What can they do to
support the music; what can they do that's appropriate for the music? They only have
a passing interest in gain before feedback, and will back away to save tonality.

(It's also amazing how much better even a lower-end system will sound if you can
stay at least 6 dB below the feedback threshold.)

Rare birds, though, who understand all this. Good thing you had at least one on your
tour!

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

Frank Stearns

May 2nd 11, 04:30 PM

Mike Rivers > writes:

snips

>I saw Benny Goodman playing at Constitution Hall. There was
>one microphone up front (this was probably 50 years ago).
>When he came out on stage, he walked up to the microphone
>and said "Is this mic on?" When the audience responded, his
>next words were "Please turn it off when we're playing."
>There was no problem hearing a 6 piece jazz group, but you
>had to be quiet and pay attention.

That last sentence says a great deal about many things in our culture.

I'm not a complete pessimist; we need to push back where we can to educate and
encourage those very things: settling down and giving complete, rapt attention to
the performers.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

Don Pearce[_3_]

May 2nd 11, 05:23 PM

On Mon, 02 May 2011 10:05:18 -0500, Frank Stearns
> wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:
>
>>On 1 May 2011 13:55:26 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>And if you need PA with this kind of music, you've probably selected the wrong venue
>>>>or need a better instrument. If you insist on the "wrong" venue and PA is warranted,
>>>>then you spend the money to make it as hi-fi as possible and not the usual PA lo-fi
>>>>or mid-fi.
>>>
>>>Right. Most of the "crossover" classical performances I see are being done
>>>in venues that are inappropriate for the music. Even so, I often see PA
>>>doing more harm than good.
>>>
>>>What disturbs me, though, is less classical work than folk, jazz, and
>>>traditional Broadway material... also never intended to be reinforced,
>>>but modern audiences have a different expectation than the audiences
>>>they were originally played to.
>>>--scott
>
>>I was at a concert just the other day. The speakers were domestic Hi
>>Fi - Big KEFs. The mics were Schoeps omnis and the sound level was
>>just high enough to add clarity rather than volume. Best PA I have
>>ever heard.
>
>Good gear indeed helps, but you just revealed perhaps the single Big Secret of
>really good PA -- turn it down!
>
>Reinforce, add body, add clarity, but try to avoid if at all possible getting way
>ahead of the actual acoustic source.
>
>Extra gold stars for delaying the PA signal(s) just enough to avoid any potential
>comb filter issues between PA system sound and natural sound of the source.
>
>Frank
>Mobile Audio

Gold stars awarded. There was a delay in use.

d

[email protected]

May 2nd 11, 08:58 PM

On 2011-05-02 said:
>>I saw Benny Goodman playing at Constitution Hall. There was
>>one microphone up front (this was probably 50 years ago).
>>When he came out on stage, he walked up to the microphone
>>and said "Is this mic on?" When the audience responded, his
>>next words were "Please turn it off when we're playing."
>>There was no problem hearing a 6 piece jazz group, but you
>>had to be quiet and pay attention.
>That last sentence says a great deal about many things in our
>culture.
>I'm not a complete pessimist; we need to push back where we can to
>educate and encourage those very things: settling down and giving
>complete, rapt attention to
>the performers.

I'm in total agreement. IN fact, I've been arguing this for
years. Same at meetings, etc. One of my biggest gripes is
sitting near somebody at a meeting or seminar only to have
him constantly beeping and buzzing as he takes calls on his
cell phone.

I've been an advocate of turn down for clarity, have more
than you need available, then turn the damn thing down
<grin>.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Richard Webb[_3_]

May 2nd 11, 11:33 PM

Frank Stearns writes:

<snip>

>>I was at a concert just the other day. The speakers were domestic Hi
>>Fi - Big KEFs. The mics were Schoeps omnis and the sound level was
>>just high enough to add clarity rather than volume. Best PA I have
>>ever heard.

> Good gear indeed helps, but you just revealed perhaps the single Big
> Secret of really good PA -- turn it down!

INdeed, I always thought that's the goal, minimum necessary
to just reinforce.

> Reinforce, add body, add clarity, but try to avoid if at all
> possible getting way
> ahead of the actual acoustic source.

Agreed, but as somebody noted elsewhere, often for spoken
word etc. people demand a bit more than would be thought
necessary.

> Extra gold stars for delaying the PA signal(s) just enough to avoid
> any potential
> comb filter issues between PA system sound and natural sound of the
> source.

That means thinking about the deployment of speakers,
deploying them so as to delay appropriately, more than just
a couple speakers on sticks, or even a center cluster.

OFtentimes more sound reinforcement is required than
necessary because the audience doesn't pay good attention
during the performance, life still goes on. The audience
itself is a significant noise source <grin>.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.