Re: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from U of Mich

[thechri...@aol.com]

Hi all -

 

I have been following this thread, and now find myself experiencing this in real life.  I too have worked with analogue consoles (Yamaha, Midas, Soundcraft, and Cadac) as well as digital consoles (Yamaha O2R, PM5D, and PM1D), and have experienced all of the tech process/programming issues discussed here.

 

This past week, I began tech on a tour which is running on an LCS system.  I am new to LCS, and have mixed thoughts so far.  LCS is a Server/Client system, and is 'tracking style' by nature, which allows multiple people access to all functions and cue lists, as well as make either live or 'blind' changes - exactly what has been discussed in this thread lately.   

 

The mixed thoughts I have relate to the fact that control surface in no way reflects or operates in the traditional "mixing console" method.  Most gain, EQ, dynamics, and routing changes must be done via computer screen, not on a recognizable 'selected channel' strip that most of us digital desk users are used to.  I do acknowledge that the complete flexibility and features of LCS are very impressive however. 

 

Otherwise, while the LCS does work much like what has been discussed in this thread, I imagine that the high price of the system components (along the lines of a Cadac console) would put it out of the reach of most small and mid-level productions.

 

Those are my thoughts.  I would be interested to hear thoughts from anyone else who has worked on LCS, and how it's features and operation apply to this ongoing discussion.

 

-Chris Walters

 

 

 

In a message dated Fri, 2009-12-18 at 23:22 +0000, Charlie Richmond wrote:

> Since 1985 when we came out with our first computer controlled theatre sound
> system, Tony Tait at the Old Globe, who was the first to use it on the original
> pre-broadway Into the Woods, advised us that, for the first time in his career
> sound was able to program changes faster than lighting.
>
> Either sound programming has gotten slower or lighting has gotten faster, but
> with moving lights now part of the norm, I doubt the latter....

I have long wondered why sound seems to repeatedly ignore the lessons of
40 odd years of computerised control applied to lighting.

You would think that once freed from the requirements of analogue
'channel strip' mixers, the requirements would be very similar, and that
something based on a tracking style interface similar to most modern
lighting desks would work at least for runs long enough to make the
plotting time worthwhile.

I mean the lighting guys have things as absolutely standard
functionality which are completely missing from most (there are
exceptions) digital mixers....

Simple stuff, like move fades having durations associated with them,
absolutely basic on every £5,000 light board, completely missing on a
£15,000 sound desk?

Most sound desk scene recall doesn't even track in the way any lighting
operator on a modern board would expect.   

Now granted, sound has traditionally had lower channel counts then
lighting, and is possibly somewhat more interactive then most theatrical
lighting, but the channel count is rising fast, and there are ways to
manage the interactivity.

Regards, Dan.


--
PLEASE edit unnecessary text out of your reply.

To unsubscribe or set your delivery options, see the web page:
http://groups.google.com/group/theatre-sound-list

Please take non-theatre-sound topics to private email.