[Trevor]

"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]

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/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

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_]]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]]

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]

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/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

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/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

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/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

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/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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]

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]

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]

(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_]]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]]

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]

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]

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/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Carey Carlan]

(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]

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]

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]

(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]

(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]

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_]]

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