Re: Live8
Tim S Kemp
> Digital desk maybe with the dumbfuck 'virtual channels' ? Either that
> - proving that you should never *ever* use 'assignable' desks for
> demanding live use or that the engineer responsible is utterly
> clueless. If there is *one* fader you should have your finger on at
> the commencement of a new set.......
Digital rocks. Engineers who are ignoring digital and are lost at the sight
of a PM1, PM5 or a Digico are fooling themselves into history.
However - on the Live8 topic - am watching on Freeview, through a prologic
decoder, monitor audio speakers (my "home" rig... could go to the "office"
and listen on Tannoys) and the main BBC screwup for me has been atrocious
lipsync problems earlier on, Dido / Youssou N'Dour was over 1 second out.
Madonna is spot on.
Anyone got a kit list for this gig? I notice Turbo monitors in the stage
front but not had clear view of stacks and FOH...
Oh, and PB - can you email me, timskemp at gmail dot com, emailed you last
week and didn't get a rpely...
--
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"
"Would you rather silent but deadly?"
Pooh Bear
> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > Digital desk maybe with the dumbfuck 'virtual channels' ? Either that
> > - proving that you should never *ever* use 'assignable' desks for
> > demanding live use or that the engineer responsible is utterly
> > clueless. If there is *one* fader you should have your finger on at
> > the commencement of a new set.......
>
> Digital rocks. Engineers who are ignoring digital and are lost at the sight
> of a PM1, PM5 or a Digico are fooling themselves into history.
It's the 'virtual channels' ! NO bloody damn good in a demanding live
environment. You need to be able to access the right fader, knob, etc within
10s ? of milliseconds. Digital control surfaces stops that being possible.
> However - on the Live8 topic - am watching on Freeview, through a prologic
> decoder, monitor audio speakers (my "home" rig... could go to the "office"
> and listen on Tannoys) and the main BBC screwup for me has been atrocious
> lipsync problems earlier on, Dido / Youssou N'Dour was over 1 second out.
Yet another digital screw-up.
Thankfully analogue *can't* do that ! I didn't hear *that* particular problem !
> Madonna is spot on.
Yeah, The first decent act. I listened to it carefully and got it. She brought
her own engineer ! For sure ! I'd put money on it ! Not actually too surprised.
I bet she's done gigs before where they screwed up.
As the sound gradually improved during her set I realised what was going on.
Someone ( been there myself ) fighting with a crap mix to sort it out.
You'll notice that at the very end of her set the sound was almost spot on.
Even the kit wasn't sounding like someone thumping a piece of hardboard !
> Anyone got a kit list for this gig? I notice Turbo monitors in the stage
> front but not had clear view of stacks and FOH...
From one view I also thought I saw rust on the floor monitor grilles.
To me it sounds like a 'B rig' with a 'C rig' crew.
> Oh, and PB - can you email me, timskemp at gmail dot com, emailed you last
> week and didn't get a rpely...
Ahhh - ok - only check that account approx weekly. Consider it done.
Graham
Tim S Kemp
> It's the 'virtual channels' ! NO bloody damn good in a demanding live
> environment. You need to be able to access the right fader, knob, etc
> within 10s ? of milliseconds. Digital control surfaces stops that
> being possible.
Indeedy, however what happens when you mix digital (and my work is much
smaller venues than this) is you get used to how your consoles work. Leaving
a channel muted is unforgivable analogue or digital.
King Robbie is on now. Proper entertainer, well engineered, sounding like he
always does. Nice band too.
>> However - on the Live8 topic - am watching on Freeview, through a
>> prologic decoder, monitor audio speakers (my "home" rig... could go
>> to the "office" and listen on Tannoys) and the main BBC screwup for
>> me has been atrocious lipsync problems earlier on, Dido / Youssou
>> N'Dour was over 1 second out.
>
> Yet another digital screw-up.
>
> Thankfully analogue *can't* do that ! I didn't hear *that* particular
> problem !
>> Madonna is spot on.
>
> Yeah, The first decent act. I listened to it carefully and got it.
> She brought her own engineer ! For sure ! I'd put money on it ! Not
> actually too surprised. I bet she's done gigs before where they
> screwed up.
Damn right she will have, as will Robbie, as will Floyd. Mariah Carey
sounded worse than normal though...
Musically the Robbie set is best so far. I hope my neighbours are enjoying
listening to this...
> As the sound gradually improved during her set I realised what was
> going on. Someone ( been there myself ) fighting with a crap mix to
> sort it out.
>
> You'll notice that at the very end of her set the sound was almost
> spot on.
>
> Even the kit wasn't sounding like someone thumping a piece of
> hardboard !
Again, Robbies drummer had real presence... To be fair whenever you do
stuff like this the headline bands get the best treatment. Sting did well I
think.
>> Anyone got a kit list for this gig? I notice Turbo monitors in the
>> stage front but not had clear view of stacks and FOH...
>
> From one view I also thought I saw rust on the floor monitor grilles.
>
> To me it sounds like a 'B rig' with a 'C rig' crew.
>
>> Oh, and PB - can you email me, timskemp at gmail dot com, emailed
>> you last week and didn't get a rpely...
>
> Ahhh - ok - only check that account approx weekly. Consider it done.
>
> Graham
Ta
Tim Scott
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42C6F484...@hotmail.com...
> Tim S Kemp wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>> > Digital desk maybe with the dumbfuck 'virtual channels' ? Either that
>> > - proving that you should never *ever* use 'assignable' desks for
>> > demanding live use or that the engineer responsible is utterly
>> > clueless. If there is *one* fader you should have your finger on at
>> > the commencement of a new set.......
>>
>> Digital rocks. Engineers who are ignoring digital and are lost at the
>> sight
>> of a PM1, PM5 or a Digico are fooling themselves into history.
>
> It's the 'virtual channels' ! NO bloody damn good in a demanding live
> environment. You need to be able to access the right fader, knob, etc
> within
> 10s ? of milliseconds. Digital control surfaces stops that being possible.
Digital does rock, and is not so much the future, is is the now. Engineers
who don't realise that may as well think about retiring.
It all comes down to how good the engineer is controlling the desk, and how
good he is at programming it, and how much foresight he has to program it
well ... if there is a channel you need access to then you make sure it is
accessable from every page, and if the new band are one you are ready on
their page, etc. It all comes down to how experienced the engineer is on
that desk as to how quick he can get around it, and how good he is at
programming it appropriately for the gig. This goes for analog too, though
not so much. If everything has been advanced properly, then the desk can be
set up before the gig at the engineers home on his laptop.
After a couple of months of using a PM1D I find I can get around things
quick - I find it easier to flip the desk - so bring all the right side of
the desk (channels 25-48) to the left hand side where i am standing, i find
this easier and quicker than me moving to the other side of the desk. It
took a bit of getting used to to be able to do that, and be able to get my
head around the channels moving around, but now i find it so much easier.
Don't discount digital desks. IF programmed well they make life easier, and
do so much more than an old fashioned desk can, save space and weight etc
etc etc
Ralph Staub
<snipped Graham's rant about how digital mixers are "NO bloody damn good
in a demanding live environment">
Based on your ideas, opinions and impressions, it is clear to me you've
NEVER used a digital console in a live setting. Your assumptions about
using a digital console are so far from accurate, it reeds as comedy to
those of us who are using these tools regularly, proficently and quite
successfully. I suggest you should gain some experience in the topic
before offering a critique.
Ralph
shannon
No you bloody haven't been there
Its absolutely clear that you have only done small time local stuff and
have never been near a large modern sound company system in a Hyde Park
type event doing a simultaneous broadcast otherwise you would be aware
that the television mix comes from a split mix to a BBC mobile and off an
ENTIRELY different console to whatever the live engineer is mixing on.
All the major acts get to rehearse with their consoles and monitors and
store all their settings before the events and the live mix would be
already dialed in from the start.
Pooh Bear
What i've just heard was a classic scenario of how - if you can't get to the
right fader quick enough - how the sound is inferior. By dint of awful
horrible situations !
I've *always* had this suspicion about assignable control surfaces. If you
need to start 'fishing' for the fader you need - it shouldn't be in use in a
demanding live environment.
It's moot whether the signal processing is analogue or digital to be honest
but digital desks tend to be made this way more often. That is their
Achilles heel.
Sure - be blind to it. See if I care. See if Sir Bob Geldof Cares.
Btw, I'm essentially speculating that a 'digital control surface' is at
fault for being non-intuitive and clumsy to use. I may be wrong. I may also
likely be right.
Graham
Ian Gregory
> However - on the Live8 topic - am watching on Freeview, through a prologic
> decoder, monitor audio speakers (my "home" rig... could go to the "office"
> and listen on Tannoys) and the main BBC screwup for me has been atrocious
> lipsync problems earlier on, Dido / Youssou N'Dour was over 1 second out.
> Madonna is spot on.
No lip-sync error here (DTT off Crystal Palace) but I have seen some
cheap Freeview boxes loose audio/video sync for a while then snap back
into place.
--
Ian Gregory
Replace "groups" with my first name to email
Simple Feedback Trainer: http://sft.sourceforge.net/
Krazy Kanuck
mix I've ever heard on live television!
Len
--
....Order the "Accordion Evolution" documentary of the Las Vegas
International Accordion Convention from my website:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/limbery/
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42C72419...@hotmail.com...
Pooh Bear
You appear to have the proverbial rod up your arse !
I have been *personally* a Dept of Environment approved contractor for events in both
Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square !
When you've cooled down maybe you'd like to make a more reasoned comment ?
Graham
Pooh Bear
Yes I have, but never mind it's incidental.
> Its absolutely clear that you have only done small time local stuff and
> have never been near a large modern sound company system in a Hyde Park
> type event doing a simultaneous broadcast otherwise you would be aware
> that the television mix comes from a split mix to a BBC mobile and off an
> ENTIRELY different console to whatever the live engineer is mixing on.
> All the major acts get to rehearse with their consoles and monitors and
> store all their settings before the events and the live mix would be
> already dialed in from the start.
I never did OB, I admit.
Graham
shannon
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>> Digital desk maybe with the dumbfuck 'virtual channels' ? Either that
>> - proving that you should never *ever* use 'assignable' desks for
>> demanding live use or that the engineer responsible is utterly
>> clueless. If there is *one* fader you should have your finger on at
>> the commencement of a new set.......
>
> Digital rocks. Engineers who are ignoring digital and are lost at the sight
> of a PM1, PM5 or a Digico are fooling themselves into history.
>
> However - on the Live8 topic - am watching on Freeview, through a prologic
> decoder, monitor audio speakers (my "home" rig... could go to the "office"
> and listen on Tannoys) and the main BBC screwup for me has been atrocious
> lipsync problems earlier on, Dido / Youssou N'Dour was over 1 second out.
> Madonna is spot on.
>
> Anyone got a kit list for this gig? I notice Turbo monitors in the stage
> front but not had clear view of stacks and FOH...
I'll take a guess at the usual suspects, Brit Row in London and Clairs in
Philly
The mix you hear isn't off the house console, and you are right, the
digital consoles are the only way to go, since all your settings are
stored from rehearsal and can be uploaded to another identical console.
Its much faster to access a channel strips controls on a digital console
and light years faster to control dynamics and assign reverbs and delays.
Sound synch problems are usually a matter of delaying the audio to the
video framestores and DVEs required to make the remote video synchronous
for switching. Its a master control routing issue.
Pooh Bear
I suspect a digital desk is utterly *brilliant* for a West End show or whatever,
where the same requirements are placed on it night after night.
In fact I can hardly think of a better example of such usage.
Give me an 'unknown' concert scenario and I'll use a classic analogue desk any
day, simply for it's lovely simple control surface.
Graham
Pooh Bear
> I'll take a guess at the usual suspects, Brit Row in London and Clairs in
> Philly
I was kinda hoping it might not be - but I suspect you're right. Force majuere
etc...
I'll never be able to mention Brit Row in future without caveats, if they are
indeed the contractor,
Same goes for Clair Bros.
Graham
Pooh Bear
KrazyKanuck wrote:
> Just watched Bare Naked Ladies (Canada) on my home pro-logic....Best sound
> mix I've ever heard on live television!
I don't think we got that here ! In fact pretty certain not.
Maybe CBC was responsible ? The BBC should ask them to explain how to get a good
sound. The BBC has *outsourced* so many of its original functions that I bet
even the managers don't have a clue what they're meant to be responsible for
anymore !
Graham
Thomas Bishop
> any
> day, simply for it's lovely simple control surface.
And your "old fart" ways of thinking. And I mean that in the most polite
way. : )
What digital consoles have you had experience with?
Pooh Bear
Neve. Several models.
Graham
Jason Lavoie
but brit row (or other local sound co's) likely aren't responsible for
the tv mix (unfortunately)
I'll bet all they care about is getting a good live sound, and getting
a clean recording so they can make money later. the live tv feed is
probably handled by whoever was left after every good engineer was
taken up with the rest of the show details.
Jason
shannon
Why ?
You didn't hear the mix off the sound company console unless you were at
the event.
Do you have no concept of split microphone feed events ?
Tim S Kemp
> Tim S Kemp wrote:
>> However - on the Live8 topic - am watching on Freeview, through a
>> prologic decoder, monitor audio speakers (my "home" rig... could go
>> to the "office" and listen on Tannoys) and the main BBC screwup for
>> me has been atrocious lipsync problems earlier on, Dido / Youssou
>> N'Dour was over 1 second out. Madonna is spot on.
>
> No lip-sync error here (DTT off Crystal Palace) but I have seen some
> cheap Freeview boxes loose audio/video sync for a while then snap back
> into place.
Heh - Pace Puma, so not "cheap" but not reliable either... still at least I
can watch it again and again now!
Tim S Kemp
> I suspect a digital desk is utterly *brilliant* for a West End show
> or whatever, where the same requirements are placed on it night after
> night.
>
> In fact I can hardly think of a better example of such usage.
>
> Give me an 'unknown' concert scenario and I'll use a classic analogue
> desk any day, simply for it's lovely simple control surface.
Heh - my rig (the one I own) has revolved around 2x 01V for about 3 years
now, bigger desks being out of budget for me (part timer.. for now) however
I often have to work unfamiliar venue with unfamiliar "talent" (often hard
to describe as such). Knowing the tool is the important thing - I've never
had cock up that can be atributed to the desk with or without a sound
check.
Used to do a regular (every other month) seated dinner concert type thing, 8
acts in two hours, we'd arrange it as band / solo / band / solo where we
could and sound check in the afternoon, no-one else ever got asked to do
that gig as no one else locally could provide full recall for sensible
money, and the digital setup always did the bands justice, the event (which
was semi-posh) was a feedback - free event with FX cuelists and it was
great.
I still keep my hands in on a couple of analogue rigs too, but I know what I
prefer now.
Tim S Kemp
> I'll never be able to mention Brit Row in future without caveats, if
> they are indeed the contractor,
Would hav ebeen nice to see an Aspect rig...
psalter
for any of the events, but if this is typical of these types of shows
there are probably two stages, hence three broadcast trucks. One audio
truck for each stage that outputs to a third production truck that
handles a stereo music feed and supplemental audio like applause and
commentator mics. This truck also takes care of all camera switching
and video tape record and playback. One stage sets and line checks
while the other is live.
Also there is one front of house and monitor console for each stage,
and if the act is "heavy" enough they might even have their console
present as well.
I can't imagine any rehearsal for these events.
Tim S Kemp
How do they work??? Isn't everything Lightwave / Ethersound / Cobranet or
PM1 Linked these days? ;)
Scott Dorsey
>Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>> It's the 'virtual channels' ! NO bloody damn good in a demanding live
>> environment. You need to be able to access the right fader, knob, etc
>> within 10s ? of milliseconds. Digital control surfaces stops that
>> being possible.
>
>Indeedy, however what happens when you mix digital (and my work is much
>smaller venues than this) is you get used to how your consoles work. Leaving
>a channel muted is unforgivable analogue or digital.
I find most of the inexpensive digital consoles are really, really annoying
in that regard. But I have worked on some consoles, like the Capricorn,
that made me think digital could be an advance if people just spent
some time and money on making a UI that worked.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
shannon
These aren't unknown concert scenarios for the PA engineers, and mostly
not for the broadcast engineers either.
The Pink Floyd mix was definitely not done on the fly.
The Motley Crue one was not worth doing at all.
But the facilities are made available to all the acts, to rehearse and
store their settings.
Some are better at it than others, I suspect that you would be
completely lost, but its not really your game.
A digital console is simpler and faster to access than 48 channels of
knobs and two racks of outboard effects.
you can relabel, re group, reset all the limiters and gates and onboard
reverb with a preset change.
Which is how you recover your rehearsal mix on a different console 5
minutes after the last act finished.
shannon
When and where ?
Tim S Kemp
>> Indeedy, however what happens when you mix digital (and my work is
>> much smaller venues than this) is you get used to how your consoles
>> work. Leaving a channel muted is unforgivable analogue or digital.
>
> I find most of the inexpensive digital consoles are really, really
> annoying in that regard. But I have worked on some consoles, like
> the Capricorn, that made me think digital could be an advance if
> people just spent
> some time and money on making a UI that worked.
In terms of UI the digico and the yamaha units are very very good. It's a
matter of training.
At least you don't need to stand on a crate to reach the back of a PM1
surface. Even at the low end of the scale I'm working (24 channels across 2x
01V) mutes are at a glance, lead vocal and host vocal are set recall safe
for the mute, and there's a recall undo button for the unsuspecting moments
of brain failure.
shannon
Did you mix monitors of front of house or work for any of the sound
companies ?
If so how come you appear completely unaware that the television mix is
entirely separate from whatever the sound company engineers are mixing ?
It was the same at the first live aid concert too.
Scott Dorsey
>These aren't unknown concert scenarios for the PA engineers, and mostly
>not for the broadcast engineers either.
>The Pink Floyd mix was definitely not done on the fly.
>The Motley Crue one was not worth doing at all.
>But the facilities are made available to all the acts, to rehearse and
>store their settings.
>Some are better at it than others, I suspect that you would be
>completely lost, but its not really your game.
>A digital console is simpler and faster to access than 48 channels of
>knobs and two racks of outboard effects.
We do it with a second engineer who has a ruled notebook that lists
all the parameters for the rough mix of the upcoming act. For something
big, it can take a few minutes to repatch everything, even without a lot
of outboard effects.
And there's always some change at the last minute... somebody has always
got another musician sitting in or a setlist change or something like
that. If you're lucky, he told the FOH guy. If you're really lucky,
he even told you in the truck.
The first song for _every_ group always involves a little tinkering.
>you can relabel, re group, reset all the limiters and gates and onboard
>reverb with a preset change.
>Which is how you recover your rehearsal mix on a different console 5
>minutes after the last act finished.
You can do it by hand. I do agree that the ability to do a recall is
a huge advantage of a digital console, or of a digitally-controlled
analogue console. The problem is that once that preset is recalled,
making changes on the fly can sometimes be an adventure with certain
digital consoles that will remain nameless.
But this isn't because the consoles are digital per se, just that they
were designed by feature-obsessed marketing wanks.
Scott Dorsey
>
>>> Indeedy, however what happens when you mix digital (and my work is
>>> much smaller venues than this) is you get used to how your consoles
>>> work. Leaving a channel muted is unforgivable analogue or digital.
>>
>> I find most of the inexpensive digital consoles are really, really
>> annoying in that regard. But I have worked on some consoles, like
>> the Capricorn, that made me think digital could be an advance if
>> people just spent
>> some time and money on making a UI that worked.
>
>In terms of UI the digico and the yamaha units are very very good. It's a
>matter of training.
See, I find the 02R really irritating. I haven't used any of the newer
big Yamaha digital consoles, but the control overloading on the 02R just
drives me up the wall.
Also it is _very_ easy to screw yourself up with the signal routing
functions.
You can blame the operator for operator errors, but a simple and easily
viewed interface with one control per function makes operator error much
less likely when everybody is operating in crisis mode and not thinking
very well.
Tim S Kemp
> See, I find the 02R really irritating. I haven't used any of the
> newer big Yamaha digital consoles, but the control overloading on the
> 02R just drives me up the wall.
>
> Also it is _very_ easy to screw yourself up with the signal routing
> functions.
02R was never intended as a live desk, it's control flow is similar to that
of an inline 8 buss (even if its surface isn't). 01V / 01V96 / DM1000 /
DM200 / PM5 / PM1 are all UI optimised for live use, everything falls to
hand. Recently had another engineer using the setuo on a regular basis and
only took a few hours to get proficient.
Ralph Staub
> What i've just heard was a classic scenario of how - if you can't get to the
> right fader quick enough - how the sound is inferior. By dint of awful
> horrible situations !
>
> I've *always* had this suspicion about assignable control surfaces. If you
> demanding live environment.
On an analog 56 channel desk, all faders are not immediately available
to the engineer either. If you're standing monitoring ch 1 with your
left, how do you get to, say, channel 53? In fact, you loose control of
one or the other. You have to move back and forth across the console,
and that movement takes time. On a digital console, I push a button and
the console (effectively) slides 4 feet to the left in far less time
than I could step four feet to the right. Faster.
> It's moot whether the signal processing is analogue or digital to be honest
> but digital desks tend to be made this way more often. That is their
> Achilles heel.
>
> Sure - be blind to it. See if I care. See if Sir Bob Geldof Cares.
>
> Btw, I'm essentially speculating that a 'digital control surface' is at
> fault for being non-intuitive and clumsy to use. I may be wrong. I may also
> likely be right.
In the old days, the 02R, 01V, 03D were exactly as you describe. The new
control surfaces like the PMxD series and perhaps the digico D5 are
an honest to goodness improvement in accessibility, even over analog.
There's not pages of screens to sort through. You push a button and the
entire channel appears right in front of you... comps, gates,
everything... and it all has knobs. Channels come to you FASTER than you
can go to them. You can't blame the new control surfaces for being slow
and clumsy when everyone with any experience on them says otherwise.
Your opinion is based on falsehoods, superstition and inexperience. When
you learn to overcome these things, you'll become a better engineer.
shannon
Perhaps it was the confusion of this classic analogue interface :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/thelive8event/pics/friday/?17#gallery-intro
Thomas Bishop
>
> Neve. Several models.
>
> Graham
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think they made live consoles. Have
you ever used one of the new Yamaha's? Or Digico, or Innovason, etc? If
not, then all your comments on digital LIVE mixers are completely
unsupported. Just because you are afraid of change does not make a new
technology inferior. I don't care if you never see the benefits of a
digital live console, but don't be surprised when you're left in the digital
dust.
Pooh Bear
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> What digital consoles have you had experience with?
> >
> > Neve. Several models.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think they made live consoles.
Indeed they didn't but they set the pattern for control surfaces.
> Have
> you ever used one of the new Yamaha's? Or Digico, or Innovason, etc? If
> not, then all your comments on digital LIVE mixers are completely
> unsupported. Just because you are afraid of change does not make a new
> technology inferior. I don't care if you never see the benefits of a
> digital live console, but don't be surprised when you're left in the digital
> dust.
I see digital mixers simply dying off on account of the useless user interface.
There is *no substitute* for a channel strip per input ! Something that digital
desk promoters seem to think is *clever* not to have !
If 'Live 8' had happened 15 yrs ago with analogue desks I doubt we'd even be
having this conversation.
Almost every digital desk has a 'kludgy' user interface. That's what this is
about. Unless it was simply a bunch of fuckwits doing the sound ?
Graham
Pooh Bear
> Did you mix monitors of front of house or work for any of the sound
> companies ?
I *was* the sound company ! Period ! Get over it !
For your amusement, I mixed the live sound. OK ?
Graham
Pooh Bear
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> What digital consoles have you had experience with?
> >
> > Neve. Several models.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think they made live consoles.
They don't. I was involved in the Neve digital project some ~ 16 yrs ago.
I was one of the very few of Neve's classic analogue engineers who was even
*allowed* to mix with the digital team !
The issue of a *live* console vs any other is moot in the digital domain. Unless
Midas come along and finally make a workable control surface for live use !
> Have
> you ever used one of the new Yamaha's? Or Digico, or Innovason, etc? If
> not, then all your comments on digital LIVE mixers are completely
> unsupported
I've seen them. They all have rather less faders than the number of 'virtual
channels'.
This is where the nonsence starts.
> . Just because you are afraid of change does not make a new
> technology inferior. I don't care if you never see the benefits of a
> digital live console, but don't be surprised when you're left in the digital
> dust.
I write DSP assembler when I have to ! Don't even think of trying that "I know
better than you " trick on me !
Graham
shannon
No, it sounds like you did a small gig a long time ago, and you have no
idea what goes on at large simulcast shows within at least the last twenty
years, if you think that the sound company is responsible for the
broadcast mix.
Pooh Bear
I never said *otherwise* !
OTOH I've since been involved with various production companies. I'm not
witless about this area you know !
If the guy in the OB truck doesn't have a decent feed he can't make it any
better. I'm appalled at the idea that whoever was indeed in the OB truck may
have had some decent feeds but had no idea how to use them !
Graham
Pooh Bear
Capricorn is essentially Neve of course !
Graham
shannon
I'm just sticking up for the sound companies live sound crew because I
know they are not responsible.
This is the recording truck normally used by the BBC at Hyde Park
http://www.bbcradioresources.com/ob/LiveMusic/specification.html
As you can see from its spec, there is no reason that their stereo mix
should not be up to scratch, it carries a BSS active split and Nexus
digital snake and a 48 Channel SSL with a 32 channel Soundcraft K3 as a
submix.
Tim S Kemp
> SSL
<drool>
Scott Dorsey
>
>> See, I find the 02R really irritating. I haven't used any of the
>> newer big Yamaha digital consoles, but the control overloading on the
>> 02R just drives me up the wall.
>>
>> Also it is _very_ easy to screw yourself up with the signal routing
>> functions.
>
>02R was never intended as a live desk, it's control flow is similar to that
>of an inline 8 buss (even if its surface isn't). 01V / 01V96 / DM1000 /
>DM200 / PM5 / PM1 are all UI optimised for live use, everything falls to
>hand. Recently had another engineer using the setuo on a regular basis and
>only took a few hours to get proficient.
Well, that's sort of the problem. In the truck, you don't want a live
desk, but you also don't want a recording desk either. It's a weird
mix of features.
Thankfully there's still a market for broadcast desks like this, but it's
not a huge one and there aren't too many out there any more that are
specifically designed for the job.
Scott Dorsey
>> SSL
>
><drool>
Having had to use the SSL5000 broadcast desks before.... there is nothing
there to drool over. There is a lot more to bang your head on the desk
over.
Has SSL even made any broadcast consoles since then?
Arny Krueger
> Tim S Kemp wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>> Digital desk maybe with the dumbfuck 'virtual channels'
?
>>> Either that - proving that you should never *ever* use
>>> 'assignable' desks for demanding live use or that the
>>> engineer responsible is utterly clueless. If there is
*one*
>>> fader you should have your finger on at the commencement
of
>>> a new set.......
>>
>> Digital rocks. Engineers who are ignoring digital and are
>> lost at the sight of a PM1, PM5 or a Digico are fooling
>> themselves into history.
> It's the 'virtual channels' !
I presume you mean the layering of the controls.
> NO bloody damn good in a demanding live environment.
There's no need to operate a digital console with either
scenes or layers. I can operate my 02R96 as a straight-up 24
input mixer with 24 faders.
Tim mentioned the Yamaha PM1 which Tim mentioned has 48
faders, and if all you want to do is mix 48 inputs, then
there's no need for layers at all.
>You need to be able to access the
> right fader, knob, etc within 10s ? of milliseconds.
I think you need a little time with a stop watch. If you
have your hand on the right fader, you're still limited by
human reaction time. Human reaction time is limited by the
complexity of the actual function being tested with more
complex tasks taking longer. However, about 0.3 seconds
(300 milliseconds) is a common number for the simplist
tasks. You can't do *anything* in tens of milliseconds.
We're talking 100s of milliseconds at the minimum.
> Digital control surfaces stops that being possible.
Not at all. For openers, you can just use your digital
control surface as a 1:1 device. For every operational
channel there is one fader and its on the active layer.
Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability
to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer
that controls all channels that will be in use for a given
scene.
Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that
you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24
faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48
faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd
probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a
layer button in about the same amount of time as it would
take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
faders that are some distance away.
Paul van der Heu
> Damn right she will have, as will Robbie, as will Floyd. Mariah Carey
> sounded worse than normal though...
>
I would not be surprised if the 'big acts' roll in their own digico all
preset and ready to go with their own engineer doing the finetuning on
site, feeding maybe 16 subgroups to FOH where they 'just' paste it
together.. I'm sure the madonna choir was pre-mixed..
--
Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot
Ralph Staub
<snip>
>
> Not at all. For openers, you can just use your digital
> control surface as a 1:1 device. For every operational
> channel there is one fader and its on the active layer.
>
> Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability
> to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer
> that controls all channels that will be in use for a given
> scene.
>
> Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that
> you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24
> faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48
> faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd
> probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a
> layer button in about the same amount of time as it would
> take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
> faders that are some distance away.
I posted similar common sense earlier and Graham was afraid to respond
to me as well. Everything he says about digital consoles was true up to
several years ago. Sadly, his earlier experiences have left him tainted
and he's elected to be been left behind. More room for us, I suppose.
Scott Dorsey
>"Tim S Kemp" <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote :
>
>> Damn right she will have, as will Robbie, as will Floyd. Mariah Carey
>> sounded worse than normal though...
>
>I would not be surprised if the 'big acts' roll in their own digico all
>preset and ready to go with their own engineer doing the finetuning on
>site, feeding maybe 16 subgroups to FOH where they 'just' paste it
>together.. I'm sure the madonna choir was pre-mixed..
Depends on the available time between setups. Everybody _wants_ to do
that, but often there isn't the time and ability to do the handover
effectively. It gets crazy when you have ten acts on the same stage in
a day.... not everyone can have their own FOB position, if only because
the power requirements and grounding issues would drive everyone insane.
Tim Scott
> Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that
> you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24
> faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48
> faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd
> probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a
> layer button in about the same amount of time as it would
> take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
> faders that are some distance away.
The PM1D has the advantage of being both of these if you want.
48 channels available in one layer, but split into 4 sets (or 96 channels
split into 8 sets)
At the flip of a button any of the sets of faders can be at hand, in the way
you program it.
So, for instance you could have a set of faders that are always at hand and
never more, while the other four do, or the faders moving from the right
side of the desk to the left, or the bottom layer to the top, or any
combination you can think of. You can have 6 (IIRC) of these 'bank jumps'
prgrammed in per show. If a smaller show you can have both left and right
sides of the desk set the same, ie both having channels 1-24.
Bob Olhsson
news:adeec1t88i54osc2f...@4ax.com...
... the live tv feed is probably handled by whoever
> was left
Even more likely it was handled by whoever mixed each artist's last album
which is a pretty common train wreck.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Ian Gregory
> Perhaps it was the confusion of this classic analogue interface :-)
More details on Sound One at
http://www.bbcradioresources.com/ob/LiveMusic/index.html
--
Ian Gregory
Replace "groups" with my first name to email
Simple Feedback Trainer: http://sft.sourceforge.net/
Joe Sensor
Pathetic. (..)
Ron Capik
> < ...snip.. >
>
> Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability
> to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer
> that controls all channels that will be in use for a given
> scene.
>
> Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that
> you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24
> faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48
> faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd
> probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a
> layer button in about the same amount of time as it would
> take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
> faders that are some distance away.
But you will need to have a map of the various layers in your
head so you instantly know which layer to to call. Ergonomics
of the user interface are still being worked out for these digital
control surfaces. If those 48 faders are "scattered all over" that
monster desk have you mapped the desk well?
Are there any folks out there doing ergonomic studies of
sound boards in various live situations?
I do that all the time when designing GUI interfaces for software.
I'll make a prototype, watch someone use it, then make adjustments.
So, what knob(s), button(s), fader(s) are tweaked the most/least?
How much does it depend on the engineer's background?
How different is the [tweak] pattern for monitor, FOH,
broadcast applications, etc. ?
How about low end "pro-sumer) vs high end (real professional)
applications?
I would say digital control surfaces are still a work in progress.
Umm, are there any good books/chapters/articles on logical
mapping of control surfaces?
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Tim Scott
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:da8rsb$aj5$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Though if the FOH desk is digital, then the band theoretically show up with
their show on disc, and just load it in. assuming they could get access to
the kind of desk they can do their rehearsal at 'home' and save everything
to disc and bring it along - all they would then have to do is repatch the
show to match the set up at the actual event - which can be done on the
engineers laptop back stage before the on site line check.
Scott Dorsey
>
>> Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that
>> you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24
>> faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48
>> faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd
>> probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a
>> layer button in about the same amount of time as it would
>> take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
>> faders that are some distance away.
>
>The PM1D has the advantage of being both of these if you want.
>
>48 channels available in one layer, but split into 4 sets (or 96 channels
>split into 8 sets)
>
>At the flip of a button any of the sets of faders can be at hand, in the way
>you program it.
I find this really irritating. BUT, it doesn't do any harm because you
don't have to use it. You can just use only the first layer and be done
with it.
But what I find REALLY irritating is having to select the channel in order
to change the aux send levels or EQ.
Scott Dorsey
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> that, but often there isn't the time and ability to do the handover
>> effectively. It gets crazy when you have ten acts on the same stage in
>> a day.... not everyone can have their own FOB position, if only because
>> the power requirements and grounding issues would drive everyone insane.
>
>their show on disc, and just load it in. assuming they could get access to
>the kind of desk they can do their rehearsal at 'home' and save everything
>to disc and bring it along - all they would then have to do is repatch the
>show to match the set up at the actual event - which can be done on the
>engineers laptop back stage before the on site line check.
And that does happen, although of course the actual mix at the live event
turns out to be very different than the mix in rehearsal because the hall
is so different. That's less of an issue at a stadium concert where there
isn't so much spill from the main stage and all the sound is coming from
the PA, but it's still a little one.
The problem, though, is that you've got three mixes being made at the
monitor, FOB, and remote truck locations. Sometimes multiple remote
broadcast mixes are being cut, too. And there are only a limited number
of people that really know the band and the music to mix it. And there
is no time. And nobody ever tells the guy in the truck ANYTHING.
It's better than it was back in the days of expensive analogue tape,
when the guy in the truck would also be making a bunch of submixes to
go to tape. These days folks usually have enough tracks in the truck
just to record everything and straighten the record mixes out later,
which leaves them free to deal with the live broadcast mixes. Although
I'll say I did a festival gig to 1" 8-track not too long ago.
Ron Capik
> < ...snip.. >
>
> [ ... ] and light years faster to control dynamics and assign reverbs and
> delays.
>
Nit pick of the moment: light years are a unit of distance not time...
Later...
Ron Capik <<< cynic in training >>>
--
Tim Scott
"Ron Capik" <r.c...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:42C7FE48...@worldnet.att.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> < ...snip.. >
>>
>> Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's ability
>> to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer
>> that controls all channels that will be in use for a given
>> scene.
>>
>> Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean that
>> you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between 24
>> faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and 48
>> faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd
>> probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a
>> layer button in about the same amount of time as it would
>> take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
>> faders that are some distance away.
>
> But you will need to have a map of the various layers in your
> head so you instantly know which layer to to call. Ergonomics
> of the user interface are still being worked out for these digital
> control surfaces. If those 48 faders are "scattered all over" that
> monster desk have you mapped the desk well?
Certainly on the PM1D, the users has the decision as to what feed are mapped
to which channel, all of the patching is software based, so channel one on
stage can be patched to any of the 96 channels. So if the input feeds are
indeed scattered all over then the engineer can only blame himself.
You only have two layers, 1-48 and 49-96.
The desk itself is split left and right and bottom and top, so you have four
banks of faders. At the touch of the "flip" button you can switch or cycle
through different configurations of how these are arranged, to bring the
desired set of 12 faders to your fingers instantly, whether that set of
channels be to your right, or underneath. You can have up to 8 of these
patterns programmed, and the "flip"will cycle through them. If you only
have two programmed then it will just flip between the two. If you have
some channels you want all the time, whatever page you are on, then you can
have, say channels 1-12 in the same position on each of these patterns.
These desks are highly versitile, and to someone experienced, and who knows
what they are doing they are much more useful for a show. It is all down to
how thought through the programming and set up of the features are. If the
useful and important channels are scattered all over, or the important
channel is buried in the bottom layer, then it is down to bad programming
and not bad control surface design.
Once you have gotten your head into the idea of the soft patch, and having
faders anywhere, and sets of channels flying around, it is so much more
useable than an analog desk.
Tim Scott
"Joe Sensor" <crab...@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3iqca1F...@individual.net...
> Why does every single discussion on this newsgroup become a bash fest?
>
> Pathetic. (..)
Dunno, it certainly didn't used to be this way. Used to be fairly friendlu
here.
Tim Scott
"Bob Olhsson" <o...@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:DTSxe.383186$cg1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Jason Lavoie" <jla...@engsoc.org> wrote in message
> news:adeec1t88i54osc2f...@4ax.com...
> ... the live tv feed is probably handled by whoever
>> was left
>
> Even more likely it was handled by whoever mixed each artist's last album
> which is a pretty common train wreck.
The live tv feed would have been handled by a different company from the
live mixes, and so there shouldn't have been any problems with the live
sound getting all of one companies best guys, as the company doing the
broadcast feed will have different staff.
Thomas Bishop
> to change the aux send levels or EQ.
You'd get used to it, Scott, I promise. I have made that mistake before, as
well as no switching layers and moving the fader for the wrong channel. But
I have also made some stupid mistakes on analog consoles too, and have
learned from it all.
Arny Krueger
> Tim Scott <tim....@nospamplease.orange.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean
that
>>> you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between
24
>>> faders that are in a tight little row in front of me,
and 48
>>> faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop,
I'd
>>> probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit
a
>>> layer button in about the same amount of time as it
would
>>> take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
>>> faders that are some distance away.
>>
>> The PM1D has the advantage of being both of these if you
want.
>>
>> 48 channels available in one layer, but split into 4 sets
(or
>> 96 channels split into 8 sets)
>>
>> At the flip of a button any of the sets of faders can be
at
>> hand, in the way you program it.
> I find this really irritating.
What is even more irritating is using an analog console
where what you get is rigidly limited to what you see.
> BUT, it doesn't do any harm
> because you don't have to use it. You can just use only
the
> first layer and be done with it.
Agreed.
> But what I find REALLY irritating is having to select the
> channel in order to change the aux send levels or EQ.
I don't know how *every* digital console handles this, but
for the 02r96, a channel becomes selected whenever you touch
any of the exposed controls for it, including the fader
knob, the the mute button, the select button, etc. So
selecting a channel is as simple as tapping the top of its
fader knob - quite painless and intuitive.
Arny Krueger
>
>> < ...snip.. >
>>
>> Secondly, one benefit of being a digital console's
ability
>> to reassign faders is the abilty to create a single layer
>> that controls all channels that will be in use for a
given
>> scene.
>>
>> Thirdly, just because a fader is visible does not mean
that
>> you can reach there instantly. Given the choice between
24
>> faders that are in a tight little row in front of me, and
48
>> faders that are scattered all over a monster desktop, I'd
>> probably take the tight little row of faders. I can hit a
>> layer button in about the same amount of time as it would
>> take me to reach over a bank of faders to operate some
>> faders that are some distance away.
>
> But you will need to have a map of the various layers in
your
> head so you instantly know which layer to to call.
There aren't *that* many layers.
> Ergonomics
> of the user interface are still being worked out for these
> digital control surfaces.
Ideally, the entire surface would be a display, and the
nomenclature for everying visible would reflect all
important parameters of its current state. I'd be happier if
the channel strips would display the friendly name of the
channel.
>If those 48 faders are "scattered
> all over" that monster desk have you mapped the desk well?
The same applies to digital desks. If the available faders
are hard to remember, have you organized the desk well?
> Are there any folks out there doing ergonomic studies of
> sound boards in various live situations?
Searching google suggests that most such *reasearch* is
being done by marketing types. ;-)
> I do that all the time when designing GUI interfaces for
> software. I'll make a prototype, watch someone use it,
then
> make adjustments. So, what knob(s), button(s), fader(s)
are
> tweaked the most/least? How much does it depend on the
> engineer's background?
Most ergonomic studies seem to show that the most-used part
of a mixing desks is the faders.
> How different is the [tweak] pattern for monitor, FOH,
> broadcast applications, etc. ?
> How about low end "pro-sumer) vs high end (real
professional)
> applications?
> I would say digital control surfaces are still a work in
> progress.
As is everything in a healthy technology.
>Umm, are there any good books/chapters/articles on
> logical mapping of control surfaces?
Let me get back with your after I get a few more weeks
experience with my first mapping design for my new 02R96.
;-)
The two layers are called praise and worship, and spoken
word and special music.
Ralph Staub
> I don't know how *every* digital console handles this, but
> for the 02r96, a channel becomes selected whenever you touch
> any of the exposed controls for it, including the fader
> knob, the the mute button, the select button, etc. So
> selecting a channel is as simple as tapping the top of its
> fader knob - quite painless and intuitive.
I don't much care the touch faders or the auto channel selection, so I
just turn it off. that way the selected channel is always the last
channel I selected... And there enlies another beauty of digital;
Flexibility. You like it one way, I like it the other. We BOTH get our
choice with the same console.
Ralph
Phildo
> I'll never be able to mention Brit Row in future without caveats, if they
> are
> indeed the contractor,
>
> Same goes for Clair Bros.
>
Those two companies were responsible for two of the three worst sounding
gigs I have heard. I used to work at Brit Row and had a lot of respect for
them but it seems they have been going downhill rapidly in the last few
years.
Phildo
Scott Dorsey
Yeah, I would get used to it. But the way I look at this stuff, people are
supposed to adapt machines to do what they want, rather than adapt themselves
to the machines.
Neve did a pretty good job of this with the Capricorn, not such a good
job with their digital mastering desk.
I basically wound up building a custom console to do exactly what I wanted,
exactly the way I wanted it, because there aren't too many good broadcast
consoles out there today.
The great thing about digital systems is that it _should_ be possible to
build your own custom systems based on standard control surfaces and router
modules, with a lot less effort than building analogue gear custom. There
are some folks like Klotz and Graham-Patten systems who have been doing this
in the broadcast console world, basically providing a kit to build yourself
a console. Much the way modular analogue consoles used to be.
Phildo
> Btw, I'm essentially speculating that a 'digital control surface' is at
> fault for being non-intuitive and clumsy to use. I may be wrong. I may
> also
> likely be right.
>
I used to think the same way as you Graham. Then I got to use some of the
bigger digital boards and I realised just how wrong I was. When you've
actually used something like a digico or PM1D you will very soon change your
mind. Until then you are sounding like a complete luddite.
As Tim said, it's not the future it's the now and anyone who sticks to
analogue will be flipping burgers within the next few years.
Phildo
Ian Gregory
> Anyone got a kit list for this gig? I notice Turbo monitors in the stage
> front but not had clear view of stacks and FOH...
Some more info on the Blue Room (a theatre tech forum) from Mark
Isbister - see
http://www.blue-room.org.uk/index.php?showtopic=7724&view=findpost&p=68878
To quote:
"Hello All
I'm fresh back from Hyde Park where I was working for Brit Row. I can
therefore supply some concrete facts regarding the Sound side of the event.
The band sound was run from 4 digico D5 desks 2 on monitors and 2 at
FOH. Some of the bands had rehearsed in around london during the week
running up-to the event using TFM450 wedges and a pair of digico desks.
The sessions from these rehearsals where then brought to site on a
digico USB watch (nice swag). At each end of the multicore there was
also a spare D5 desk which was used for checking these session files and
building new ones for the engineers who hadn't had any pre programing
time. As for the feedback the many of the bands came with their own
monitor and foh engineers many of whom had very little time on the
boards before there artists took to the stage. The monitor system
sounded great and it was quite possible to get a very in your face vocal
sound on stage. Quite a few of the enginners didn't go out on stage to
have a listen during the turnaround those who did had a feedback feed show.
The line system was based on a A/B idea with 56 channels of bss splits
for each system. As one band was performing the next act was being
set-up on the back of the revole. A large back stage area (nicknamed
stage 2) was used to prep the following bands gear on rolling risers.
Sennheiser sponsored the event with serveral hundred microphones from
there catalogue available as well as the standard fare from Brit Rows
hire stock.The TV and radio sound was mixed in two BBC SSL Equiped
mobile trucks one for each line system. These are the same trucks that
did the broadcast mix at glasto with the same team opeating them so the
earlier comments regarding the glasto mix are a little hard to justify
maybe something to do with the mud done there. Anyway Live8 has been the
most intense 48 hours in my life to-date lets hope that the G8 sit-up
and take notice of public pressure and Make Poverty History.
If anyone has any questions regarding the gig please post and I will try
to answer the best I can.
Mark"
http://www.blue-room.org.uk/index.php?showtopic=7724&view=findpost&p=68878
John Deans
covered they normally take a mike split and have their own people mix,
sometime their mixes are awful and their attitude can be awfully high
handed.
"Tim Scott" <tim....@nospamplease.orange.net> wrote in message
news:3iqoldF...@individual.net...
Phildo
> Anyway Live8 has been the
> most intense 48 hours in my life to-date lets hope that the G8 sit-up and
> take notice of public pressure and Make Poverty History.
>
done until they sort out the corruption in the government there. The west
has given $5,000 aid PER PERSON to Africa since the 50s.
Nice sentiment but until people realise nothing will change in Africa unless
the politics change there then the powerful rich will simply take the money
for themselves while the poor people starve and die.
Phildo
Joe Sensor
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>;)
Who cares? It wasn't a musical event, was it? :-)
Lorin David Schultz
>>
>> Give me an 'unknown' concert scenario and I'll use a classic
>> analogue desk any day, simply for it's lovely simple control
>> surface.
"Thomas Bishop" <bishop...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> And your "old fart" ways of thinking.
Oh come ON Thomas, you can't really be serious, are you? Suggesting
that current digital consoles are anywhere CLOSE to mature enough to
compete with a decent analog desk for impromptu live mixes? That's
absurd.
When the control surface is a-knob-for-every-function like an analog
desk, the comparisons can begin. If there's even ONE menu between me
and the adjustment, it's too late by the time the change is made.
Admittedly some of the better units now have the I/O managed better
thanks to decent resampling on the inputs, but anything less than
top-of-the line desks still present I/O challenges that could be ulcer
makers in an emergency.
Then there's the issue of throughput delay. 9ms from input to output
can really mess up a cue mix.
I'm not yet an old fart and I really love the advantages of digital, but
in the case of live, seat-of-the-pants mixing, I don't see digital as
HAVING many advantages yet. Maybe someday, but not today.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply)
Lorin David Schultz
>
> Certainly on the PM1D, the users has the decision as to what feed are
> mapped to which channel, all of the patching is software based, so
> channel one on stage can be patched to any of the 96 channels.
"I can't hear the kick mic! What's going on?"
"It's going into input nine on the snake."
"Great, where the fuck does that show up on the board? For that matter,
where the fuck are the inputs? Whaddaya mean 'in the other rack?!'"
I don't begrudge anyone else their preferred working method, but *at
this point in the development of digital consoles* I'll stick with
peering over the edge of the board and looking for the XLR with a 9 on
it, seeing which channel it's plugged into on a clearly labelled panel,
then going to the strip that I *know* is associated with that connector,
and that I *know* is showing me all the parameters for that channel.
Lorin David Schultz
>
> Most ergonomic studies seem to show that the most-used part
> of a mixing desks is the faders.
Is that why designers fucking BURY everything else? <g>
We have some Yomama digital desk in our supersuite. Someone screwed
around with it and messed up the output routing. I spent half-an-hour
trying to figure out how to get input "A" to output "B" and finally gave
up. I called one of the other audio guys to have a look, and he
couldn't figure it out either. He eventually got it after an hour with
the manual.
Sure, neither one of us had either so much as touched that mixer before,
but we're not exactly newbies to either audio or digital (ours was the
first all-digital station in Canada). The point is that problem solving
is easy with an analog mixer, and unnecessarily difficult with many
(most?) digital desks.
Predrag Trpkov
"Phildo" <Ph...@phildo.net> wrote in message
news:3ir70dF...@individual.net...
The money has been pumped there for decades now, but what you're talking
about has been well known and obvious from the beginning. And yet nothing's
ever changed. The west has continued throwing money at Africa. Now Africa
is a continent and not a country. There are over 50 states there and each
one is a separate case, but, generally spoken, don't you think it might be
possible that there are not only african politicians and rulers, but also
other parties involved and profitting from the sad state of affairs? That
there might be a whole global network of interests having one interest in
common: preserving the status quo?
Predrag
Arny Krueger
news:CqYxe.5930$H64.821@trnddc07
> Arny Krueger wrote:
Agreed.
Arny Krueger
message
news:rl7ye.90921$HI.16564@edtnps84
> "Tim Scott" <tim....@nospamplease.orange.net> wrote:
>>
>> Certainly on the PM1D, the users has the decision as to
what
>> feed are mapped to which channel, all of the patching is
>> software based, so channel one on stage can be patched to
any
>> of the 96 channels.
> "I can't hear the kick mic! What's going on?"
> "It's going into input nine on the snake."
> "Great, where the fuck does that show up on the board?
For
> that matter, where the fuck are the inputs? Whaddaya mean
'in
> the other rack?!'"
Seems pretty real world.
This is about organizational skills, not digital versus
analog.
The point I see is that the scenario is not uncommon. One
can easily encounter it with a digital or an analog board.
And, nobody resolves it in milliseconds.
> I don't begrudge anyone else their preferred working
method,
> but *at this point in the development of digital consoles*
> I'll stick with peering over the edge of the board and
looking
> for the XLR with a 9 on it, seeing which channel it's
plugged
> into on a clearly labelled panel, then going to the strip
that
> I *know* is associated with that connector, and that I
*know*
> is showing me all the parameters for that channel.
Digital necessarily changes that how?
Phildo
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Give me an 'unknown' concert scenario and I'll use a classic
>>> analogue desk any day, simply for it's lovely simple control
>>> surface.
>
> "Thomas Bishop" <bishop...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> And your "old fart" ways of thinking.
>
> Oh come ON Thomas, you can't really be serious, are you? Suggesting that
> current digital consoles are anywhere CLOSE to mature enough to compete
> with a decent analog desk for impromptu live mixes? That's absurd.
Another luddite who has never used a modern digital desk. When you have
actually got your hands on one and spent some time on it then maybe you can
come back and talk sense. Until then all you are spouting is crap.
> When the control surface is a-knob-for-every-function like an analog desk,
> the comparisons can begin. If there's even ONE menu between me and the
> adjustment, it's too late by the time the change is made.
You are clueless. Oh well, more work for those of us who move with the
times.
Phildo
Geoff Wood
> ;)
I was sad not to see any titties too.
geoff
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>> Most ergonomic studies seem to show that the most-used
part
>> of a mixing desks is the faders.
> Is that why designers fucking BURY everything else? <g>
Frankly, yes. Its a matter of simple math. Since every
channel strip *usually 32 or more) and output control is
composed of like a parametric equalizer with 4 full bands
(Q, amplitude, frequency) *and* a flexible dynamics
processor, a control surface with enough dedicated
human-sized knobs would be uneconomically large, for all
the but the very largest desks.
If I have the choice between 02R96 eq and the eq on my old
Mackie SR32, its a no-brainer.
> We have some Yomama digital desk in our supersuite.
Someone
> screwed around with it and messed up the output routing.
I
> spent half-an-hour trying to figure out how to get input
"A"
> to output "B" and finally gave up. I called one of the
other
> audio guys to have a look, and he couldn't figure it out
> either. He eventually got it after an hour with the
manual.
I admit it. It took about a working day for me to get
comfortable navigating our O2R96. Once I got comfortable I
found it obvious and intuitive, but it took me that long to
stop being intimidated, and realize that it was that way.
> Sure, neither one of us had either so much as touched that
> mixer before, but we're not exactly newbies to either
audio or
> digital (ours was the first all-digital station in
Canada).
> The point is that problem solving is easy with an analog
> mixer, and unnecessarily difficult with many (most?)
digital
> desks.
I agree that there's nothing like a digital console for
making things obscure and arcane if that is what you want to
do. However, you can get pretty similar levels of obscurity
with an analog console if your wiring is messed up enough.
Usually there is a root scene, numbered 0 or 1, that is a
very simple and straight-forward view of the console.
Phildo
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:42c90f38$1...@clear.net.nz...
Phildo
Forty Winks
news:ggggc1lvtjumlapuk...@4ax.com:
> Tim Scott wrote:
>
>>Though if the FOH desk is digital, then the band theoretically show up
>>with their show on disc, and just load it in. assuming they could get
>>access to the kind of desk they can do their rehearsal at 'home' and
>>save everything to disc and bring it along - all they would then have
>>to do is repatch the show to match the set up at the actual event -
>>which can be done on the engineers laptop back stage before the on
>>site line check.
>
> The desks look to have been Digico D5s, and quite a few of the acts
> are listed as users on the digico web site.
I was with the support act at a recent REM show where they'd asked the
local SR company to source a pair of D5's so they could do a double
'soundcheck' for Live8. Their guys then just took the mix with them on
memory stick on the day. Cost me my soundcheck on the day as well...
I don't understand why a D5 couldn't have been used for the broadcast as
well. If the desk being used for OB had been loaded with the FOH mix, all
gains eq's and dynamics etc would have been in place and the engineer would
have been a lot closer from the word go.
Tim Scott
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:l8qdndQ9Wp5...@comcast.com...
Certainly the PM1D displays the name of the channel, as to what you, the
operator named at (albiet confined to 4 charaters of ascii) but it does away
with whit LX tape!
Tim Scott
There was a time years ago, that Wig were in a position and certainly
considered buying Brit, but as Wig has a Christian/Church background/ethos
they decided against it, as they didn't see what Brit was doing, whee it was
going to be inline with that.
Scott Dorsey
>"Tim Scott" <tim....@nospamplease.orange.net> wrote:
>>
>> Certainly on the PM1D, the users has the decision as to what feed are
>> mapped to which channel, all of the patching is software based, so
>> channel one on stage can be patched to any of the 96 channels.
>
>"I can't hear the kick mic! What's going on?"
>
>"It's going into input nine on the snake."
>
>"Great, where the fuck does that show up on the board? For that matter,
>where the fuck are the inputs? Whaddaya mean 'in the other rack?!'"
Sadly, this is not a thing that is specific to digital at all, and it is
a VERY common thing.
It gets worse at festivals with lousy PA systems rented by a particular
company that has a large amount of the Washington DC large event market.
Channel 3 on the snake to the FOH will be out, so channel 4 on the snake
turns into channel 3 on the board. But channels 5 and 6 on the splitter
are out, so channel 5 on the snake (which is channel 4 on the FOH) becomes
channel 7 on the record truck feed... the PA guy is talking into the
clearcomm about this being on channel such-and so, and the stage guys are
trying to figure out which slot that channel is, and the record truck
guys are either keeping a clipboard or have written the FOH numbers on
board tape above their faders....
If anything, the ability to repatch digital stuff might reduce some of
this disaster.
>I don't begrudge anyone else their preferred working method, but *at
>this point in the development of digital consoles* I'll stick with
>peering over the edge of the board and looking for the XLR with a 9 on
>it, seeing which channel it's plugged into on a clearly labelled panel,
>then going to the strip that I *know* is associated with that connector,
>and that I *know* is showing me all the parameters for that channel.
I agree completely, but then I'm an old fart with a tape machine.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I don't understand why a D5 couldn't have been used for the broadcast as
>well. If the desk being used for OB had been loaded with the FOH mix, all
>gains eq's and dynamics etc would have been in place and the engineer would
>have been a lot closer from the word go.
Because the broadcast mix often bears no resemblance to the FOH mix. In
a stadium concert, it's a lot less different than in a small club, but
even so it's usually a very different philosophy.
Now, if the remote truck crew had done a run-through and saved a mix (either
on a memory stick or with a pencil and clipboard), things might have been
better off. But there's never any time or money for that.
Scott Dorsey
>Certainly the PM1D displays the name of the channel, as to what you, the
>operator named at (albiet confined to 4 charaters of ascii) but it does away
>with whit LX tape!
This is what gives us FAGO, BONG, FIDL, and FVOX.
Forty Winks
news:dabc3a$dl1$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> Forty Winks <Ya...@bedtime.com> wrote:
>>
>>I don't understand why a D5 couldn't have been used for the broadcast
>>as well. If the desk being used for OB had been loaded with the FOH
>>mix, all gains eq's and dynamics etc would have been in place and the
>>engineer would have been a lot closer from the word go.
>
> Because the broadcast mix often bears no resemblance to the FOH mix.
> In a stadium concert, it's a lot less different than in a small club,
> but even so it's usually a very different philosophy.
Which is why I suggested that the gain settings, eq etc would be in place,
not the entire mix. This would leave the OB mix engineer more brain cells
free for concentrating on getting other stuff together in the 15 minutes so
that would have been available for stage setup/line check. Even the front
of house mix from the previous soundcheck would be a hell of a lot closer
to a passable mix than one set up by someone usin that 15 minutes to set
gains, eq's, dynamics etc to the signal supplied by the Drum/Guitar/Keys
tech playing/hitting/shouting into the requisite instrument or mic.
>
> Now, if the remote truck crew had done a run-through and saved a mix
> (either on a memory stick or with a pencil and clipboard), things
> might have been better off. But there's never any time or money for
> that. --scott
Of course, but I think the problem with this show was that most of the acts
were otherwise occupied in the weeks running up to the concert, and had no
time for rehearsal/soundchecking, which is why REM's D5 programming was
done at the soundcheck of another show in the middle of Germany less than a
week before.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Of course, but I think the problem with this show was that most of the acts
>were otherwise occupied in the weeks running up to the concert, and had no
>time for rehearsal/soundchecking, which is why REM's D5 programming was
>done at the soundcheck of another show in the middle of Germany less than a
>week before.
This is normal. Hell, at some festivals the PA guy is lucky enough just
to get an input list. Let alone an ACCURATE input list. It's a wonder
anything works at all.
Ralph Staub
> Oh come ON Thomas, you can't really be serious, are you? Suggesting
> that current digital consoles are anywhere CLOSE to mature enough to
> compete with a decent analog desk for impromptu live mixes? That's
> absurd.
Your opinion is very commonly held by engineers with little or no
experience on a digital console, and rarely held by engineers with some
digital time under their belt. Once a person gets past the learning
curve they usually realize their fears of impeded access were not based
on anything factual, only myth.
In fact, just the opposite, and here's just one example why.... Get an
EQ curve, aux settings and comp on the 1st background vocal mic (in
analogland, you'd have to patch the comps, taking up more time, but I
won't go there...). Copy, Paste-Paste-Paste. The other three BG voxes
are perfectly matched with only a tweak or two to get them where you
want them. Much faster than touching every knob on an analog console and
all the associated rack gear.
The new digital control surfaces are every bit mature enough to beat
analog's butt in a fair fight. Like any thing though, it's not a fair
fight if the engineer is experienced at analog but not at digital. You
wouldn't take Jeff Gordon out of his NASCAR, put him on the finest
motocross bike on the planet, then expect him to win a race any time
soon. It takes a little time to adjust and learn. Few engineers that
actually go through that process with digital consoles continue to
believe as you do.
My .02
Ralph
Tim S Kemp
> But what I find REALLY irritating is having to select the channel in
> order to change the aux send levels or EQ.
Better than reaching across 30 channels of knobs, catching the wrong aux
send and making the most huge screwup on a large format analogue desk.
--
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"
"Would you rather silent but deadly?"
Tim S Kemp
> Tim S Kemp <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> shannon wrote:
>>> SSL
>>
>> <drool>
>
> Having had to use the SSL5000 broadcast desks before.... there is
> nothing there to drool over. There is a lot more to bang your head
> on the desk over.
>
> Has SSL even made any broadcast consoles since then?
> --scott
Sod the quality, reliability and usability - just bow down at the three
letters - ess ess ell...
Tim S Kemp
>> sounded worse than normal though...
>>
>
> I would not be surprised if the 'big acts' roll in their own digico
> all preset and ready to go with their own engineer doing the
> finetuning on site, feeding maybe 16 subgroups to FOH where they
> 'just' paste it together.. I'm sure the madonna choir was pre-mixed..
Maddies choir was either (a) well rehearsed and scene recalled, (b)
automixed using lots of comps or (c) playback...
Tim S Kemp
> Well, that's sort of the problem. In the truck, you don't want a live
> desk, but you also don't want a recording desk either. It's a weird
> mix of features.
>
> Thankfully there's still a market for broadcast desks like this, but
> it's not a huge one and there aren't too many out there any more that
> are specifically designed for the job.
Yeah that's the thing - I think if I were specifying an OB truck for that
kind of event and was getting fed an analogue split there'd be a PM5 in
there...
Ralph Staub
>
> Sadly, this is not a thing that is specific to digital at all, and it is
> a VERY common thing.
>
> It gets worse at festivals with lousy PA systems rented by a particular
> company that has a large amount of the Washington DC large event market.
<snip>
I reply, confident you're not referring to me... email me the good dirt. ;-)
Ralph