Re: Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56 Review Posted

[vdubreeze]

Mike,

Once again I am floored by a review of yours. Unfortunately, you have
spoiled me for what I hope to read in reviews but I guess that's
life. Not only is it full of useful info (I kept seeing an answer to
a thought I had ten lines after it occurred to me) but your writing
style, which contains zero bull****, is a pleasure to read.

You are several cuts above! Thanks for making these available.

v

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/31/2011 12:43 PM, vdubreeze wrote:

> Once again I am floored by a review of yours. Unfortunately, you have
> spoiled me for what I hope to read in reviews but I guess that's
> life. Not only is it full of useful info (I kept seeing an answer to
> a thought I had ten lines after it occurred to me) but your writing
> style, which contains zero bull****, is a pleasure to read.

Thanks. Now if I could only get someone like you to start
paying me for writing the way I like to write (or, these
days, even more concisely than I like to write). But that
just doesn't seem to be part of most audio-oriented business
models these days. There seem to be more people who prefer a
two minute video to a 20,000 word article. But maybe they
get more work done that way. <g>

Or maybe not.


--
"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

[PStamler]

Nice review, Mike!

At one point, you remarked about the odd taper of the gain control,
noting that you'd seen the same on other project-studio gear, and you
speculated that they all got their pots from the same place.

I think you're right, and I think they're using linear pots where they
should be using reverse-log. The reason is obvious -- reverse-log pots
are rare as hen's teeth unless you have them custom-made, and smaller
manufacturers (in this context Focusrite is small; big means companies
like Sony and Yamaha) can't afford them.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/2/2011 12:59 AM, PStamler wrote:
> Nice review, Mike!
>
> At one point, you remarked about the odd taper of the gain control,
> noting that you'd seen the same on other project-studio gear, and you
> speculated that they all got their pots from the same place.
>
> I think you're right, and I think they're using linear pots where they
> should be using reverse-log.

They're very much like Mackie and Behringer. Back when I had
friends at Behringer (ex-Mackie) and I got one of their
small mixers for a review, I commented to him about the
barely usable taper on the gain pots. He told me that they
had made a production change, were using different pots, and
he sent me a different mixer with the new pots. It was a
little better, more like (or maybe exactly like) a Mackie. I
once plotted gain vs. rotation on a Mackie Onyx.

Focusrite's response to my comment about the gain pots was
that it was to give better control at lower gain settinds
(like, yeah, just where you need it).


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

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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/2/2011 12:59 AM, PStamler wrote:
> > Nice review, Mike!
> >
> > At one point, you remarked about the odd taper of the gain control,
> > noting that you'd seen the same on other project-studio gear, and you
> > speculated that they all got their pots from the same place.
> >
> > I think you're right, and I think they're using linear pots where they
> > should be using reverse-log.
>
> They're very much like Mackie and Behringer. Back when I had
> friends at Behringer (ex-Mackie) and I got one of their
> small mixers for a review, I commented to him about the
> barely usable taper on the gain pots. He told me that they
> had made a production change, were using different pots, and
> he sent me a different mixer with the new pots. It was a
> little better, more like (or maybe exactly like) a Mackie. I
> once plotted gain vs. rotation on a Mackie Onyx.
>
> Focusrite's response to my comment about the gain pots was
> that it was to give better control at lower gain settinds
> (like, yeah, just where you need it).

CYA maneuver.

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

[James Perrett[_3_]]

To get the gain range needed without cramming all the gain beyond 3 o'clock requires an impossible to obtain taper. I assume that the audio interface market is too small for any affordable potentiometer manufacturer to make a potentiometer with the required characteristics.

James.

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/16/2011 8:56 AM, James Perrett wrote:
> To get the gain range needed without cramming all the
> gain beyond 3 o'clock requires an impossible to obtain
> taper. I assume that the audio interface market is too
> small for any affordable potentiometer manufacturer to make a
> potentiometer with the required characteristics.

This is of course a matter of design. Who says you have to
use a pot? or just a pot? You could have a pot with a
pretty smooth 15 or 20 dB range and a three position coarse
gain or attenuator switch. Or you could have a
multi-position rotary switch and let the whiners complain
about the gain changing in steps (while others praise it
because you can set two channels to "exactly" the same gain).

But even so, an order of 10,000 isn't too small for a pot
manufacturer, and when you put 8 of them on a box (or 16, or
24, or more on a console) you'll go through them pretty fast
in today's market. And when you have three of four
manufacturers who would use it, it wouldn't cost that much
more than what's off the shelf.

The real problem is that manufacturers feel compelled to cut
the cost to the bone so they can sell against the
competition (who has cut the cost to the bone). So a custom
pot or a switch goes out the window.


--
"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

[James Perrett[_3_]]

Yes, in my opinion cutting costs so much that you can't afford a pad switch seems silly but the vast majority of customers don't know any better so the manufacturers get away with cramming all the gain at one end. I understand that Audient managed to change the taper on the gain pots for the Mico after user feedback on the initial batch but Audient haven't cheapened their brand image like Focusrite did so they can still charge a little more for their products.

James.

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/18/2011 7:40 AM, James Perrett wrote:
> Yes, in my opinion cutting costs so much that you can't
> afford a pad switch seems silly but the vast majority of
> customers don't know any better so the manufacturers get
> away with cramming all the gain at one end.

The users discover that there's something they don't like
about it even though they don't know why. I regularly follow
the Mackie forum and I frequently seen complaints about the
gain control being very touchy up at the top end. Part of
this is the perceived need to record "hot" tracks, really,
so the waveform graphic doesn't look so wimpy. So they turn
up the gain and then have trouble controlling the level.
They won't be happy if you just tell them that they don't
have to worry about that and should leave more headroom.

> I understand
> that Audient managed to change the taper on the gain pots
> for the Mico after user feedback on the initial batch

You can get closer to a reverse audio taper by putting a
properly chosen fixed resistor between the wiper and one end
of the pot. That wouldn't cost much.

--
"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]

James Perrett > wrote:
>To get the gain range needed without cramming all the gain beyond 3 o'clock=
> requires an impossible to obtain taper. I assume that the audio interface =
>market is too small for any affordable potentiometer manufacturer to make a=
> potentiometer with the required characteristics.

No, manufacturers are just too cheap. Plenty of folks get and use reverse
log taper pots. They are expensive but life is like that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."