[QLab] How to set line delay on output
Michel Antoine Castonguay
vengb
full-function replacement for a $20k dedicated device (live on-the-
fly video FX, or DAW, or system delay processor, or...) is there a
point at which the HARDWARE that is being asked to do this has to be
recognised for what it ISN:T?
Doesn;t this somewhere along the line start looking like having a
powerful reliable dumptruck and then wondering why it isn;t able to
perform just like a Lambourghini, or a NASCAR, or a Jeep or a BMW
2002 rally car or a fighter jet? and sometimes all at once? and never
miss a single maneuver?
I'm amazed at what's possible here so far but I'm also looking at a
system (a MAC laptop) that can only go so far and stay dead-show-
reliable...
Linking machines, dedicated each to a task males some sense...
John V watching and learning...
> ________________________________________________________
> WHEN REPLYING, PLEASE QUOTE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED. Thanks!
> Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
> http://lists.figure53.com/listinfo.cgi/qlab-figure53.com
J. Vengrouskie
Soundscenes DC
240-423-0297
________________________________________________________
WHEN REPLYING, PLEASE QUOTE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED. Thanks!
Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.figure53.com/listinfo.cgi/qlab-figure53.com
sam kusnetz
>
> is anybody around having a suggestion for setting up a line delay (as
> opposed to effect delay) on a specific output ?
>>
>
danger will robinson!!!
AU lab is not, repeat, *NOT* safe for use in a live environment.
i would strongly advise solving this in hardware either within your audio interface (MIO and RME boxes do this, i think. others might too...)
> From: vengb <veng...@verizon.net>
>
> ... considering everyone seems to be looking at Qlab as their own
> full-function replacement for a $20k dedicated device (live on-the-
> fly video FX, or DAW, or system delay processor, or...) is there a
> point at which the HARDWARE that is being asked to do this has to be
> recognised for what it ISN:T?
actually, with regards to this specific question, i do not believe that the hardware is the limitation. for example, my macbook pro can definitely run an eight-channel project in logic or digital performer with several DSP plug-ins on each channel. in the audio-only domain, qlab is really not very taxing to a modern mac. i fully expect that once chris and sean implement AU support within qlab, we will start to see where our hardware limits are, but we're not there yet.
cheerio
sam
vengb
On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:19 PM, sam kusnetz wrote:
>
>
>> From: vengb <veng...@verizon.net>
>>
>> ... considering everyone seems to be looking at Qlab as their own
>> full-function replacement for a $20k dedicated device (live on-the-
>> fly video FX, or DAW, or system delay processor, or...) is there a
>> point at which the HARDWARE that is being asked to do this has to be
>> recognised for what it ISN:T?
>
> actually, with regards to this specific question, i do not believe
> that the hardware is the limitation. for example, my macbook pro
> can definitely run an eight-channel project in logic or digital
> performer with several DSP plug-ins on each channel.
Heck, on both my Motorola G5 tower and the intel Macbook pro I
regularly run over 16 channels with plugs (current fav is teh METRIC
HALO STRIP) all over and they don;t choke. When tracking live I tend
NOT to run anything I don;t have to, even to preferring BOOM RECORDER
over LOGIC for that, but that's just my It Musn't Fail paranoia.
> in the audio-only domain, qlab is really not very taxing to a
> modern mac. i fully expect that once chris and sean implement AU
> support within qlab, we will start to see where our hardware limits
> are, but we're not there yet.
I'm finding out just how capable these boxes actually are...
thanks
JV
Michel Antoine Castonguay
I'm amazed at what's possible here so far but I'm also looking at a system (a MAC laptop) that can only go so far and stay dead-show-reliable...
Linking machines, dedicated each to a task males some sense...
*
only play (2) audio cue & never play video or only (2) video cues but not
allow for multiple video outputs, etc....
It's up to the individuals hardware to limit the amount of outputs,
tracks, files, etc...
Qlab, being software, shouldn't be limited accept for when it creates
instability or confusion.
For example, I could easily complain that all the video users are ruining
my great Qlab audio application but no one cares what I think & someday
soon I'll actually need the video features. Just not yet.
As Qlab users, when we see the need for something that might be
incorporated to better the product, we SHOULD make the suggestion,
request, etc... Chris has been quite clear about that. It's up to him to
decide IF it passes the test or not.
This is your second post (the first being after one of mine) where it
appears that you're trying to protect Qlab from it's users expectations.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...
*
On Thu, December 3, 2009 2:00 pm, vengb wrote:
> ... considering everyone seems to be looking at Qlab as their own
full-function replacement for a $20k dedicated device (live on-the- fly
video FX, or DAW, or system delay processor, or...) is there a point
at which the HARDWARE that is being asked to do this has to be
recognised for what it ISN:T?
________________________________________________________
Steven Devino
*
On Fri, December 4, 2009 1:27 am, vengb wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 6:14 PM, * wrote:
>
>>
>> This is your second post (the first being after one of mine) where it
>> appears that you're trying to protect Qlab from it's users
>> expectations.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...
>
> likely, I think my intent is way more on the 'stunned & amazed' end
> of things than anything else.
> but then it's text... you can;t see me smile while I'm expressing my
> astonishment at what's actually possible!
sam kusnetz
On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:06 PM, qlab-r...@lists.figure53.com wrote:
> Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote, but it seems to me that if a single
> MacBook Pro can handle QLab playing sound files while Live driving effects
> and delays, I don't understand why all this couldn't be done in one
> software. And as long as QLab is more a diffusion tool than a DJ tool, it
> appears to me that it would be pertinent to have this feature.
1. there is no question that qlab *could* do this. chris has stated that AU support, which would give you this functionality, is in the pipeline. just be patient. :)
2. what is a diffusion tool?
sk
Charlie Richmond
> 2. what is a diffusion tool?
It's what the SoundMan-Server cue provides.
C-)
sam kusnetz
>
> It's what the SoundMan-Server cue provides.
ok charlie... but what is it!?
s
Charlie Richmond
> ok charlie... but what is it!?
The diffusion of sounds into a space using multiple loudspeakers and a level and
delay matrix in real time.
C-)
Søren Knud
Den 04/12/2009 kl. 13.47 skrev Steven Devino <sde...@gmail.com>:
> I just do it in my Metric Halo 2882 on the way to the speaker. :-)
>
> Sorry I couldn't resist.
>
> Steve
Charlie Richmond
> The diffusion of sounds into a space using multiple loudspeakers and a level
> and delay matrix in real time.
The best wikipedia article I could find on this is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acousmatic_music
Charlie Richmond
> The best wikipedia article I could find on this is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acousmatic_music
This search also provides additional information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=sound+diffusion&go=Go
Michel Antoine Castonguay
1. there is no question that qlab *could* do this. chris has stated that AU support, which would give you this functionality, is in the pipeline. just be patient. :)
2. what is a diffusion tool?
Jeremy Lee
off...
On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Michel Antoine Castonguay wrote:
> 2. what is a diffusion tool?
> Well, I don't know how to say this in english, but to explain it, it
> includes the playback and mixing parts of the whole sound system.
--
Jeremy Lee
Sound Designer, NYC - USA 829
http://www.jjlee.com
Michel Antoine Castonguay
Charlie Richmond
> What is "LCS" ?
It is like this software (note the Live Diffusion Controller):
http://hfi.richmondsounddesign.com/software.htm
Charlie
| - Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond - |
| - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com "Performance for the Long Run" - |
| -------- SoundMan-Server -- the ultimate Virtual Sound System ------- |
| -------- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond ------- |
| -------- Facebook: charlie.richmond Twitter: charlierichmond -------- |
Richard B. Ingraham
Level Control Systems, now owned by Meyer Sound, just Google it. J
Or Here:
http://www.meyersound.com/products/lcs_series/
Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com
No virus
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.95/2546 - Release Date: 12/05/09
14:41:00
Steven Devino
On Dec 5, at Dec 5, 2009 8:13 PM, Charlie Richmond wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Michel Antoine Castonguay wrote:
>
>> What is "LCS" ?
>
> It is like this software (note the Live Diffusion Controller):
>
> http://hfi.richmondsounddesign.com/software.htm
That was good Charlie!!!
Steve
Charlie Richmond
>> http://hfi.richmondsounddesign.com/software.htm
>
> That was good Charlie!!!
Very pleased you like it - note it now no longer needs an AB64 ;-)
C-)
Jeremy Lee
________________________________________________________
WHEN REPLYING, PLEASE QUOTE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED. Thanks!
Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.figure53.com/listinfo.cgi/qlab-figure53.com
Charlie Richmond
> http://www.meyersound.com/products/lcs_series/matrix3/
> Completely modular, ultra expandable, quite expensive. Unfortunately, even it doesn't have a delay matrix. Yet...
But QLab has a delay matrix now....
C-)
Michel Antoine Castonguay
Charlie Richmond
> What ?
> Where do we find it ?
Use the SoundMan-Server cue option.
C-)
Charlie Richmond
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Michel Antoine Castonguay wrote:
>
>> What ?
>> Where do we find it ?
>
> Use the SoundMan-Server cue option.
And use this free utility:
http://www.cd-romney.com/downloads/SMSMatrixMac2.zip
It is Jason Romney's SMS Matrix Mac utility and it provides live fader control
of input and output gains and a crosspoint grid. Click on the crosspoint to edit
and load the crosspoint into an editor with gain and delay control for the
crosspoint. Keeps a log of the commands it has sent to SoundMan-Server so you
can copy and paste them into QLab or other show controllers without having to
type them. Also has a telnet prompt that shows any responses from
SoundMan-Server as well as allowing you to manually type commands.
The free version controls up to a live matrix size of 12 inputs and 12 outputs
and works on the same Mac as QLab.
| - Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond - |
| - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com "Performance for the Long Run" - |
| -------- SoundMan-Server -- the ultimate Virtual Sound System ------- |
| -------- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond ------- |
| -------- Facebook: charlie.richmond Twitter: charlierichmond -------- |
Stephen Swift
<char...@richmondsounddesign.com> wrote:
> It is Jason Romney's SMS Matrix Mac utility and it provides live fader
> control of input and output gains and a crosspoint grid. Click on the
> crosspoint to edit and load the crosspoint into an editor with gain and
> delay control for the crosspoint.
That's pretty cool.
> Very pleased you like it - note it now no longer needs an AB64 ;-)
So what hardware does it require, or does it recognize any audio
device that Mac OS X does?
sam kusnetz
> But QLab has a delay matrix now....
mac:
>> What ?
>> Where do we find it ?
charlie:
> Use the SoundMan-Server cue option.
charlie! be fair...
soundman-server is a sort of audio back-end which provides all kinds of awesome infrastructure to a sound system. it requires a PC running windows and an audio interface.
qlab has a cue which can be used to send commands to this machine, and so in that sense qlab is sm-s compatible.
BUT
sm-s is not *part* of qlab, and if you use it you *will* be dealing with an extra layer of complexity. similar functionality, though less elegant i imagine, could be achieved by using a metric halo interface on your qlab machine and sending midi commands to its built in mixer.
for certain, it can be worth it, but there it is.
cheers
sam
Charlie Richmond
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Charlie Richmond
> <char...@richmondsounddesign.com> wrote:
>> It is Jason Romney's SMS Matrix Mac utility and it provides live fader
>> control of input and output gains and a crosspoint grid. Click on the
>> crosspoint to edit and load the crosspoint into an editor with gain and
>> delay control for the crosspoint.
>
> That's pretty cool.
>
>> Very pleased you like it - note it now no longer needs an AB64 ;-)
>
> So what hardware does it require, or does it recognize any audio
> device that Mac OS X does?
The hardware required is any Windows computer with any combination of audio
interfaces up to provide inputs and outputs in the amount you need. This is
what has replaced the AB64 now.
Don't be put off by the fact that it's a Windows box - it simply sits on the
network, in a convenient location acting as an audio server, connected to the
audio system via its audio interfaces and communicating with QLab over the
network.
It can also serve multiple instances of QLab and/or Romney Matrices on multiple
Macs in the same subnet.
Charlie
| - Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond - |
| - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com "Performance for the Long Run" - |
| -------- SoundMan-Server -- the ultimate Virtual Sound System ------- |
| -------- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond ------- |
| -------- Facebook: charlie.richmond Twitter: charlierichmond -------- |
Charlie Richmond
> charlie:
>> Use the SoundMan-Server cue option.
>
> charlie! be fair...
I always am - or try to be ;-)
> soundman-server is a sort of audio back-end which provides all kinds of
> awesome infrastructure to a sound system. it requires a PC running windows and
> an audio interface.
Or multiple audio interfaces.
> qlab has a cue which can be used to send commands to this machine, and so in that sense qlab is sm-s compatible.
>
> BUT
>
> sm-s is not *part* of qlab, and if you use it you *will* be dealing with an
> extra layer of complexity. similar functionality, though less elegant i
> imagine, could be achieved by using a metric halo interface on your qlab
> machine and sending midi commands to its built in mixer.
And there are distinct advantages to having the audio engine on a separate
server which is controlled over a network. And I would say it is actually less
complex than using a dedicated piece of hardware such as the MH which is very
nice but still relatively restricted in what it can do, connected directly to
the computer that you are using to design and run your sound with.
Also, sending MIDI messages to the MH is no more 'part of' QLab than sending
messages to SoundMan-Server via QLab cues. The MH is also quite expensive and
probably competitive in price with the total cost of SoundMan-Server, a cheap
Windoze box and a pretty nice audio interface - but of course cost is only part
of it.
> for certain, it can be worth it, but there it is.
Absolutely. And thank you for your response, which is, as always spot on.
What would really be worth doing though, is for Chris to integrate Jason
Romney's SMS Matrix into QLab so that it is far more seamless than having to cut
and paste commands.
Sincerely,
Charlie
| - Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond - |
| - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com "Performance for the Long Run" - |
| -------- SoundMan-Server -- the ultimate Virtual Sound System ------- |
| -------- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond ------- |
| -------- Facebook: charlie.richmond Twitter: charlierichmond -------- |
Christopher Ashworth
>
> What would really be worth doing though, is for Chris to integrate
> Jason Romney's SMS Matrix into QLab so that it is far more seamless
> than having to cut and paste commands.
Er, huh?
http://figure53.com/qlab/documentation/soundmancue.php
As far as I can tell the SoundMan Cue covers everything the matrix app
does, plus some....
-C
Charlie Richmond
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Charlie Richmond wrote:
>>
>> What would really be worth doing though, is for Chris to integrate Jason
>> Romney's SMS Matrix into QLab so that it is far more seamless than having
>> to cut and paste commands.
>
> Er, huh?
>
> http://figure53.com/qlab/documentation/soundmancue.php
>
> As far as I can tell the SoundMan Cue covers everything the matrix app does,
> plus some....
But it's command line based and not graphical, and I think this makes all the
difference to users.
I am most grateful to you for starting this interface, Chris, but for it to
become really useful I think that it will need to at least have the basic
features of Jason's GUI and would really benefit from having the same graphical
elements that users are used to having for Coreaudio control.
Sincerely,
C-)
Christopher Ashworth
>
> But it's command line based and not graphical,
<confusion> Huh?
> and I think this makes all the difference to users.
>
> I am most grateful to you for starting this interface, Chris, but
> for it to become really useful I think that it will need to at least
> have the basic features of Jason's GUI
Have you used both GUIs? Honest question. I can't tell. I'm confused.
Is this concern about not having a slider widget?
> and would really benefit from having the same graphical elements
> that users are used to having for Coreaudio control.
No doubt; (both) of these interfaces are relatively rough, bare-bones,
1st generation handle on the power of the SoundMan Server. No
argument there.
But they're also both graphical, and clean up some of the basic,
fundamental trickiness of crafting SMS commands, primarily by
transforming a graphical representation of the matrix into the textual
command that will manipulate that matrix. Jason's app appears to
simplify the command set to "gain" and "delay", whereas QLab presents
most of the other available commands, along with in-app reference
material.
Not saying the SoundMan Cue is the apex of interfaces for the SoundMan
Server, just saying that with due respect to Jason's app there's
nothing I see to be gained from working in that app rather than
directly in the SoundMan Cue. (I personally find the matrix
representation in QLab a little more clear than the SMS Matrix app,
but I haven't had much feedback on it so I can't speak for the folks
who matter, which is not me.)
-C
Charlie Richmond
> Is this concern about not having a slider widget?
In a nutshell, yes.
> No doubt; (both) of these interfaces are relatively rough, bare-bones, 1st
> generation handle on the power of the SoundMan Server. No argument there.
Agreed.
> But they're also both graphical, and clean up some of the basic, fundamental
> trickiness of crafting SMS commands, primarily by transforming a graphical
> representation of the matrix into the textual command that will manipulate
> that matrix. Jason's app appears to simplify the command set to "gain" and
> "delay", whereas QLab presents most of the other available commands, along
> with in-app reference material.
I agree. Combining the two would benefit overall.
> Not saying the SoundMan Cue is the apex of interfaces for the SoundMan
> Server, just saying that with due respect to Jason's app there's nothing I
> see to be gained from working in that app rather than directly in the
> SoundMan Cue. (I personally find the matrix representation in QLab a little
> more clear than the SMS Matrix app, but I haven't had much feedback on it so
> I can't speak for the folks who matter, which is not me.)
And neither can I! I hope we both get some constructive feedback at this point
and am pleased that it has now generated some interest.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Christopher Ashworth
> I agree. Combining the two would benefit overall.
Gotcha--thanks for the clarification.
I fear I have been a little abrupt in my response. I just want to
stress again that I appreciate your desire to get the next generation
of SMS tools out there, and that this is just a 1st-generation tool.
I don't want to come off as saying there's nothing about our little
cue that can be improved, or--even worse--to come across as scoffing
at your vision of a fully mature interface for the crazy-powerful tool
ya'll have built.
I just didn't want to undersell what I think actually is a pretty
helpful little utility (i.e. the current SoundMan Cue).
> I hope we both get some constructive feedback at this point and am
> pleased that it has now generated some interest.
Bring it on, I say! :)
Best,
Chris
Charlie Richmond
> Have you used both GUIs? Honest question. I can't tell. I'm confused.
I have but I'm not a typical user so I defer to the opinions of users on this
list who have lauded your ability with GUIs and am not trying to present my own
opinion as being anything but my own. I readily admit that the GUIs we have
produced in the past have not been terribly popular with the majority of theatre
sound designers or operators, despite our best efforts and obviously QLab's GUI
is winning the marketplace.
I have absolutely no interest in competing with you by producing our own GUI at
this point and want most of all to work with you in making QLab the best theatre
sound app in the business, with or without SounMan-Server. I want to make this
as clear as possible - I am a big fan.
> Is this concern about not having a slider widget?
I must admit that when you originally created the SoundMan-Server cue interface
I was baffled why you didn't use the exact same GUI that users are already so
familiar with that controls coreaudio based cues. Obviously you had your
reasons and I simply figured it would come along eventually, but after a while I
figured that the radical difference between the two interfaces was hindering the
acceptance of the SoundMan-Server cue type, although it's obviously more complex
and expensive so it naturally will be less popular. But the potential is
enormous, as we both know.
> No doubt; (both) of these interfaces are relatively rough, bare-bones, 1st
> generation handle on the power of the SoundMan Server. No argument there.
And I know that. And I know figure53 is incredibly busy responding to the needs
of its paying users and don't want to distract from that at all. I am simply
hoping we get some feedback from SM-S cue users as to what direction things
should go so we can move beyond this bare-bones GUI.
> But they're also both graphical, and clean up some of the basic, fundamental
> trickiness of crafting SMS commands, primarily by transforming a graphical
> representation of the matrix into the textual command that will manipulate
> that matrix. Jason's app appears to simplify the command set to "gain" and
> "delay", whereas QLab presents most of the other available commands, along
> with in-app reference material.
I agreed completely here. And we don't want to rush it because that wastes time
but I was actually hoping the first cut would in fact hide the textual command
since that seems to be an obstacle that scares people off, in my experience.
> Not saying the SoundMan Cue is the apex of interfaces for the SoundMan
> Server, just saying that with due respect to Jason's app there's nothing I
> see to be gained from working in that app rather than directly in the
> SoundMan Cue. (I personally find the matrix representation in QLab a little
> more clear than the SMS Matrix app, but I haven't had much feedback on it so
> I can't speak for the folks who matter, which is not me.)
And again, I hope we do get some feedback from the many users who may be very
interested in moving into this more advanced arena.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Charlie Richmond
> I fear I have been a little abrupt in my response. I just want to stress
Not at all - I think we have a good working relationship and understand each
other quite well, generally. It is a pleasure and an honour to be able to be
part of this amazing community you have built so quickly!
> again that I appreciate your desire to get the next generation of SMS tools
> out there, and that this is just a 1st-generation tool. I don't want to come
> off as saying there's nothing about our little cue that can be improved,
> or--even worse--to come across as scoffing at your vision of a fully mature
> interface for the crazy-powerful tool ya'll have built.
Again, not a problem. We are all designing for the future one day at a time and
the last thing we should do is leap before looking. All things come in due
course and I am always afraid of being viewed as being impatient, even though I
always am ;-)
> I just didn't want to undersell what I think actually is a pretty helpful
> little utility (i.e. the current SoundMan Cue).
No, I think it's brilliant and look forward to getting more constructive
feedback on it as soon as we get some users who will provide it to us. One
difficulty I have always had with advanced interfaces is that the primary target
users are the top 5% of the aptitude scale and they tend to adopt and understand
the process almost immediately and accommodate obscure and difficult processes
without complaint. Therefore, we get almost no feedback from them since they
quickly adapt and adjust to the quirkiness of the app.
But this doesn't help the 95% that we really need to move things forward for the
rest of the world. An example of the top 5%, which I only know about because I
witnessed it in person when presenting their system to them is Rich Walsh, well
known on this list. What I saw was an immediate understanding of the scripting
language and he immediately started programming in it, using capabilities that
are well beyond what I have actually learned over the last couple of years
working with SoundMan-Server and it was truly impressive to see him start
making it play files and send audio out with a few typed in lines in a telnet
interface. But this capability is anathema to the vast majority of geeks, much
less users and scripting is not how most people want to deal with in a GUI.
>> I hope we both get some constructive feedback at this point and am pleased
>> that it has now generated some interest.
>
> Bring it on, I say! :)
Absolutely! And I daresay Rich may be one of the first to start providing this
sort of feedback, just as he frequently contributes examples of Applescript for
the control of the QLab GUI.
Thank you for your understanding and great application yet again!
I have a very good feeling about all this and beg the list's indulgence for the
bandwidth taken up on in these early days.
Charlie
*
benefit from doing so.
I admit that I haven't even played with this feature in Qlab & maybe there
is already a huge section in the manual about this all but if not,
A comparison of what Qlab can't do that SMS can? Why would I need more
power, server side blah blah blah, etc...?
Where is the sales pitch?
Charlie?
IMO, if there isn't good documentation of what & how, there isn't going to
be much interest outside of those who already know.
I presume that the fact that SMS exists & Chris has integrated it at all
means that someone has needed these features & that is why they sit
waiting for others.
I've downloaded the various free versions of SMS & played with them on my
PC but ultimately I'm not a programmer & without a GUI for idiots, am
rather lost. I have been able to get sound to come out but was not
motivated to spend a bunch more time with it when SFX or Qlab do what they
do.
IF I need to trigger an audio cue while adjusting the aim of a satellite
heading toward the planet Mars, I bet SMS is the app:)
*
On Sun, December 6, 2009 3:20 pm, Charlie Richmond wrote:
> And again, I hope we do get some feedback from the many users who may be
> very
> interested in moving into this more advanced arena.
Christopher Ashworth
>
> I must admit that when you originally created the SoundMan-Server
> cue interface I was baffled why you didn't use the exact same GUI
> that users are already so familiar with that controls coreaudio
> based cues.
A perfectly reasonable question. My attempt to answer: (Apologies to
those on the list who may not care, but I think it is relevant to the
QLab community as a whole to discuss our design choices publicly.)
The SoundMan Server has a much more extensive set of features
associated with its audio matrix than does QLab. The GUI we have for
the Audio Cue isn't built to expose those features. If we did use the
exact same GUI as the current Audio Cue, we would have exposed the
exact same set of functionality. There's no point in doing that.
Moreover, the SoundMan Server has a different set of abstractions in
its underlying model, so even to accomplish the exact same set of
features as the current Audio Cue, the current GUI wouldn't work.
Thus, the exact same GUI isn't even sufficient to recreate the current
functionality, much less expand upon it.
Once we start trying to expose the really fun and cool stuff about the
SoundMan Server, the current GUI is even less suitable.
While I am flattered that folks have complimented QLab's GUI, I do not
consider myself a GUI expert. But I will say, with the confidence of
a "been-in-the-trenches-long-enough-to-know-this-is-true" attitude,
that the best & simplest GUIs often belie a subtle set of *deeply*
interconnected functional relationships that are difficult to see
directly but extremely easy to break by adding new relationship or
rearranging the elements of the existing design. Cocoa programmer
David Weiss recently put it this way, in reference to code:
"When reading code you are seeing the solution. What's harder to see
are the problems that combined to shape the solution." ( http://twitter.com/davidweiss/status/6068714186
)
Jason Fried states this same principle in different words, describing
the work on an interface as fundamentally *invisible*. (The
consequence of which being that one shouldn't ever worry when other
folks copy your interface, because they can't copy the important
parts. See: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1561-why-you-shouldnt-copy-us-or-anyone-else
)
> Obviously you had your reasons and I simply figured it would come
> along eventually, but after a while I figured that the radical
> difference between the two interfaces was hindering the acceptance
> of the SoundMan-Server cue type, although it's obviously more
> complex and expensive so it naturally will be less popular.
I'd say it's not so much that *I* had reasons, but that the
fundamental properties of the problem had their own reasons for why it
couldn't happen. :) (As hopefully clarified above.)
The topic of complexity is a whole other can of worms, which I leave
for discussion over a good beer on a different day. :)
Best,
Chris
Christopher Ashworth
>
> Jason Fried states this same principle in different words,
> describing the work on an interface as fundamentally *invisible*.
> (The consequence of which being that one shouldn't ever worry when
> other folks copy your interface, because they can't copy the
> important parts. See: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1561-why-you-shouldnt-copy-us-or-anyone-else
> )
I didn't complete my thought. I meant to conclude:
The other consequence of this is that when it comes to the reasons
we'd add a new SoundMan Cue at all--exposing the features QLab doesn't
have--it is not a simple matter of "just adding some widgets to the
existing GUI". GUIs aren't widgets, just like sound designs are sound
effects. Trying to pile new pieces of GUI on top of an old design
doesn't work. It doesn't solve the new problems, it doesn't expose
the new features, it's a square peg in a multi-dimensional hyper-
spherical hole.
-C
Christopher Ashworth
On Dec 6, 2009, at 5:16 PM, Christopher Ashworth wrote:
> GUIs aren't widgets, just like sound designs are sound effects.
*aren't*.
*aren't* sound effects.
sheesh.
I am now leaving to go make dinner for my wife.
You may hold your collective sigh of relief that I'm going to shut up
to yourselves until I'm out of the room.
Charlie Richmond
> I might be more interested in using a SMS-cue if I knew why I would
> benefit from doing so.
>
> I admit that I haven't even played with this feature in Qlab & maybe there
> is already a huge section in the manual about this all but if not,
>
> A comparison of what Qlab can't do that SMS can? Why would I need more
> power, server side blah blah blah, etc...?
>
> Where is the sales pitch?
>
> Charlie?
The main reason this subject came up at this point is because there has been a
discussion about sound diffusion and someone asked how one does that. That is
just one thing that SM-S can do and there are many others which QLab doesn't do,
but of course if you don't want to do it then there is no impetus to use it.
I don't think people want me to put in 5 pages of bumph here extolling the
features that 95% of them will probably never use. I have chosen to reply
judiciously when people ask pointed questions about specific functions that they
would like to have and that results in enough negative feedback in most cases to
remind me that the vast majority have no interest in such advanced things.
The SMS cue in QLab just touches on most of the additional capabilities
available and I hope it will be more comprehensive in the future. The sales
pitch for what it could ultimately do is on our web site for those potentially
interested:
http://www.richmondsounddesign.com/virtual-sound-system.html
> IMO, if there isn't good documentation of what & how, there isn't going to
> be much interest outside of those who already know.
I agree completely, but also am aware that this will grow with time and is
really only of interest to those who feel a need for it until it becomes more
generally accepted.
> I've downloaded the various free versions of SMS & played with them on my
> PC but ultimately I'm not a programmer & without a GUI for idiots, am
> rather lost. I have been able to get sound to come out but was not
> motivated to spend a bunch more time with it when SFX or Qlab do what they
> do.
And that's exactly what everyone will find. For everyone who is not a
programmer of their own GUI, they will want to use something like the
SoundMan-Server cue in QLab. And I don't think it's a GUI for idiots nor will
it ever be since it really addresses rather advanced concepts but I know it will
become more intuitive as we move ahead.
> IF I need to trigger an audio cue while adjusting the aim of a satellite
> heading toward the planet Mars, I bet SMS is the app:)
No, actually that's not in there just yet ;-)
Thanks always for your input!
Charlie
Charlie Richmond
Extremely interesting insights and I think you don't give yourself enough credit
of course! The proof is purely in the pudding in the case of what works for
users....
> I'd say it's not so much that *I* had reasons, but that the fundamental
> properties of the problem had their own reasons for why it couldn't happen.
> :) (As hopefully clarified above.)
Well put and understood. Believe me, we have tussled over exactly the same
problems since we have had such complex systems to provide interfaces for over
the years. It's not surprising you had similar dilemmas.
> The topic of complexity is a whole other can of worms, which I leave for
> discussion over a good beer on a different day. :)
Sounds like a plan!
Charlie
Charlie Richmond
> I am now leaving to go make dinner for my wife.
You are quite the man - compliments to her!
> You may hold your collective sigh of relief that I'm going to shut up to
> yourselves until I'm out of the room.
And I'm heading off to a seasonal party/bash and won't be bothering people here
again for some time either...
C-)
Jeremy Lee
"This car comes with unlimited beer for life!" because there's a map
to the bodega in the glove box.
Qlab also "comes with a delay matrix" when you plug it into a DME-64
or a console with one that it can control.
On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:00 PM, sam kusnetz wrote:
> charlie:
>> But QLab has a delay matrix now....
>
> mac:
>>> What ?
>>> Where do we find it ?
>
> charlie:
>> Use the SoundMan-Server cue option.
>
>
> charlie! be fair...
>
> soundman-server is a sort of audio back-end which provides all kinds
> of awesome infrastructure to a sound system. it requires a PC
> running windows and an audio interface.
>
> qlab has a cue which can be used to send commands to this machine,
> and so in that sense qlab is sm-s compatible.
>
> BUT
>
> sm-s is not *part* of qlab, and if you use it you *will* be dealing
> with an extra layer of complexity. similar functionality, though
> less elegant i imagine, could be achieved by using a metric halo
> interface on your qlab machine and sending midi commands to its
> built in mixer.
--
Jeremy Lee
Sound Designer, NYC - USA 829
http://www.jjlee.com
Charlie Richmond
> Yes- this is Charlie being cheeky again. It's sort of like saying "This car
> comes with unlimited beer for life!" because there's a map to the bodega in
> the glove box.
Well.... I think you are being a bit unfair about the joint effort that Chris
and I are committed to here. It's more like, to use your analogy:
"This car comes with a user friendly dispenser for any type of beer keg you will
ever want!"
> Qlab also "comes with a delay matrix" when you plug it into a DME-64 or a
> console with one that it can control.
The analogy here is:
"This car comes with a trunk in which you can install a bracket and dispenser
for beer kegs of only very specific types and sizes and may not be available in
the future."
But I'm very pleased you have put this in terms that we can all relate to, ie
beer ;-)
Charlie
| - Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond - |
| - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com "Performance for the Long Run" - |
| -------- SoundMan-Server -- the ultimate Virtual Sound System ------- |
| -------- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond ------- |
| -------- Facebook: charlie.richmond Twitter: charlierichmond -------- |
Charlie Richmond
> Qlab also "comes with a delay matrix" when you plug it into a DME-64 or a
> console with one that it can control.
Another comment is perhaps in order: we can easily provide a delay matrix
almost instantly to anyone who needs one by providing an evaluation license
file, whereas obtaining a DME-64 and/or console requires some time and cost.
Yes, you need a spare windoze computer but most facilities have a bunch of these
hanging around anyway...
And in that respect, since we are looking for more feedback on the SM-S cue in
QLab, I am always willing to provide an evaluation file to anyone who wants to
test and provide constructive feedback. Of course the free version which
requires no file or dongle can also be used but the evaluation license allows
using any number of inputs, outputs and tracks.
Charlie
sam kusnetz
> Another comment is perhaps in order: we can easily provide a delay matrix
> almost instantly to anyone who needs one by providing an evaluation license
> file, whereas obtaining a DME-64 and/or console requires some time and cost.
> Yes, you need a spare windoze computer but most facilities have a bunch of these
> hanging around anyway...
ok, so, non-snarky honest-to-god questions here:
1. am i reading this correctly that a rather normal, desktop PC such as is the type that would be spec'ed for an office is a suitable machine to run soundman?
2. in your qlab-plus-soundman paradigm, does the computer running qlab actually handle audio at all, or does it simply function as a control device for the soundman computer, which does all the real work? if the latter, then don't we need to start to concern ourselves with RAM, hard disk speed and fragmentation, etc. on the windows box?
3. let us pretend for a minute that the whole reason i use qlab is because of its elegant command structure for playing and fading sounds. why would i want to give that up in favor of a DOS-like command line interface to my sound playback? (all the while understanding that soundman is very capable, very powerful. but the questions stands.)
cheers
sam
Charlie Richmond
> 1. am i reading this correctly that a rather normal, desktop PC such as is the
> type that would be spec'ed for an office is a suitable machine to run
> soundman?
Yes. Actually the recommended spec is here:
http://www.richmondsounddesign.com/faq.html#SM-SPC
> 2. in your qlab-plus-soundman paradigm, does the computer running qlab
> actually handle audio at all, or does it simply function as a control device
It functions as a control device for soundman but can also function
simultaneously to control coreaudio inside the computer it is running on.
> for the soundman computer, which does all the real work? if the latter, then
> don't we need to start to concern ourselves with RAM, hard disk speed and
> fragmentation, etc. on the windows box?
Yes, you do need to do that, and we provide recommendations for that on the FAQ
page (above). But SM-S does not serious tax typical modern computers until you
get up into hundreds of inputs, outputs and playback tracks.
> 3. let us pretend for a minute that the whole reason i use qlab is because of
> its elegant command structure for playing and fading sounds. why would i want
> to give that up in favor of a DOS-like command line interface to my sound
> playback? (all the while understanding that soundman is very capable, very
> powerful. but the questions stands.)
You wouldn't and that's why I was hoping that Chris would provide the SM-S cue
GUI with that same elegant interface ;-) You have essentially made the same
point that I did a few messages back. But if you want to have a live delay
diffusion matrix controlled by QLab then this command line interface is what you
currently have available, with a more elegant one hopefully on the way.
This subject came up because people were asking about live delay and diffusion.
Charlie
| - Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond - |
| - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com "Performance for the Long Run" - |
| -------- SoundMan-Server -- the ultimate Virtual Sound System ------- |
| -------- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond ------- |
| -------- Facebook: charlie.richmond Twitter: charlierichmond -------- |
Dave Tosti-Lane
that I used to use as an SFX machine with a Layla and a Gina installed. It's
way below the recommended spec on Charlie's site, but I've got SMS running
on it with one of those evaluation keys, and receiving commands from SMS via
Cat5. In just about a half hour of testing I've gotten it to play cues from
its hard disc, and to set crosspoint delay and gain all controlled from the
Mac. When I get a chance in a week or two, I'm going to try this idea of
using it as a matrix inserted into the flow between Qlab and the mixer. I'm
curious to see how well it will work. I also have a machine that just barely
sneaks up on the spec Charlie listed that I'll be able to play with on this
in a couple of weeks. If the machine is just being used to provide the delay
matrix, there isn't much of any demand on the hard disc - though reasonable
speed and Ram would probably be needed. (This old machine is a 1Ghz with 1
Gig Ram running XP - an old SFX 5.6 box.)
Dave Tosti-Lane
On MondayDec/7,MondayDec/7:1101 PM 11:01 PM, "sam kusnetz"
Christopher Ashworth
>
> 3. let us pretend for a minute that the whole reason i use qlab is
> because of its elegant command structure for playing and fading
> sounds. why would i want to give that up in favor of a DOS-like
> command line interface to my sound playback? (all the while
> understanding that soundman is very capable, very powerful. but the
> questions stands.)
Precisely the reason Charlie is urging us to refine and improve the
SoundMan Cue. For the stuff that QLab currently already does, there
would be no reason.
But as I said before, that would probably be true even if the SoundMan
Cue was equally as elegant as the existing Audio and Fade Cues.
But what you *can't* do with QLab, you probably can do with a SoundMan
Server, and although the current SoundMan Cue ain't perfect, it does
give you the option to do what you otherwise couldn't.
For example: SoundMan provides a full matrix and DSP processing for
the live inputs to your audio device. At some point we'll add live
input routing to QLab, but for the time being if you want your QLab
workspace to automate turning a bunch of mics on and off, you could
drop in a dedicated SoundMan Server, set it up as a nice little self-
contained mic routing and processing box, and then build some cues in
your QLab workspace to control that box during the show as QLab
handles the file-based playback.
-Chris
Stephen Swift
> QLab, but for the time being if you want your QLab workspace to automate
> turning a bunch of mics on and off, you could drop in a dedicated SoundMan
> box, and then build some cues in your QLab workspace to control that box
> during the show as QLab handles the file-based playback.
If anyone has the time, I think it would be helpful to see this as an
example workspace. What Chris describes, sounds like the best of both
worlds. Use QLab for everything it does, and for the few cues you
need extra functionality, use SMS. Each machine would need it's own
audio interface, correct? If I only had one audio interface
available, and I wanted to use both QLab and SMS, my QLab workspace
would have to be entirely SMS cues, correct?
Stephen
*
Where:
365 days, 365 plays, 365 venues...
What:
Perform the same skit at the same time with the same intro & outro music.
How:
You would need a cue that starts the skit & a cue that ends the skit so
that everyone is prompted at the same time.
I would assume that with a Qlab rig sitting in my theater connected to the
internet, (365 old PC sound man server hosts) = 1 PC at each venue with an
internet connection. Using the headphone out (only need stereo) for I/O, I
can trigger them all with SM cues within Qlab, yes?
Does the free version of Qlab V2 come with the SM cue or do you have to
buy a XY or Z type license?
Is the stereo version of SMS free?
*
On Tue, December 8, 2009 10:24 am, Stephen Swift wrote:
> If anyone has the time, I think it would be helpful to see this as an
> example workspace.
________________________________________________________
Charlie Richmond
> Precisely the reason Charlie is urging us to refine and improve the SoundMan
> Cue. For the stuff that QLab currently already does, there would be no
> reason.
With all respect and partly to be devil's advocate, I would say there actually
are some reasons, chief of which is that it allows you to use the server/client
paradigm which provides for:
1. A Server that has all the wired audio input and output connections
conveniently located near the amplifiers and other sound equipment and not tied
to your design or operator's computer
2. A Client (QLab) that can be located via wireless or wired network anywhere
in the house and has a much faster connection to the server than through using a
remote desktop paradigm
3. Multiple QLab clients so that, for example, the designer can have a QLab
workstation, the operator can have another one and anyone else who is interested
such as the stage manager can have one as well.
There is also the issue that we are a small developer whose objective is to
provide an audio engine that is specifically designed and optimised for doing
exactly the sort of thing that QLab is intended to control: live and playback
audio for theatrical and entertainment venues. As such, we are responsive to
developers such as Chris who have very specific and critical needs and currently
have over 35 such developers creating their own GUIs and control programs for
SoundMan-Server and who acknowledge that we are currently the only ones doing
this - or at least doing it well.
This is a huge potential advantage over using a generic sound process such as
coreaudio, good as it is, because anomalies such as the 10mS fade-in problem and
the lack of live inputs, EQ, delay, plugins and the fact that not all controls
are inherently vectored would instantly be resolved.
Anyway, I'll stop here since this discussion is still probably not of interest
to the majority of the list. I agree with Chris in what he said below, but
would also point out that there are many more things it can do besides just
handling live inputs ;-)
Thanks for the bandwidth as always...
Charlie
> But as I said before, that would probably be true even if the SoundMan Cue
> was equally as elegant as the existing Audio and Fade Cues.
>
> But what you *can't* do with QLab, you probably can do with a SoundMan
> Server, and although the current SoundMan Cue ain't perfect, it does give you
> the option to do what you otherwise couldn't.
>
> For example: SoundMan provides a full matrix and DSP processing for the live
> inputs to your audio device. At some point we'll add live input routing to
> QLab, but for the time being if you want your QLab workspace to automate
> turning a bunch of mics on and off, you could drop in a dedicated SoundMan
> Server, set it up as a nice little self-contained mic routing and processing
Charlie Richmond
> Theoretical example:
>
> Where:
>
> 365 days, 365 plays, 365 venues...
>
> What:
>
> Perform the same skit at the same time with the same intro & outro music.
>
> How:
>
> You would need a cue that starts the skit & a cue that ends the skit so
> that everyone is prompted at the same time.
>
> I would assume that with a Qlab rig sitting in my theater connected to the
> internet, (365 old PC sound man server hosts) = 1 PC at each venue with an
> internet connection. Using the headphone out (only need stereo) for I/O, I
> can trigger them all with SM cues within Qlab, yes?
365 telnet connections is theoretically possible but the latency might be an
issue - it depends on how fast you want response to the start command.
> Does the free version of Qlab V2 come with the SM cue or do you have to
> buy a XY or Z type license?
The SM-S cue is an extra cost option, but in this case it would apply only once,
to the QLab client that is connected to all the servers. I don't think Chris
has designed the telnet connection for the SM-S cue in QLab to be able to
communicate with multiple servers, although it certainly is possible.
> Is the stereo version of SMS free?
Yes, and it includes 4 playback tracks.
Charlie
Christopher Ashworth
> This is a huge potential advantage over using a generic sound
> process such as coreaudio, good as it is, because anomalies such as
> the 10mS fade-in problem and the lack of live inputs, EQ, delay,
> plugins and the fact that not all controls are inherently vectored
> would instantly be resolved.
To be fair:
- Sean found the source of the 10ms fade-in problem; we're working on
a solution.
- CoreAudio certainly supports live inputs; we just haven't taken
advantage of that yet.
- CoreAudio certainly supports EQ, delay, and plugins; we just haven't
taken advantage of them yet.
CoreAudio is pretty badass, all told.
But so is SoundMan Server, and it is likely to always expose some set
of features beyond what we build directly into QLab, making it very
cool that it is possible to access those features from within a QLab
workspace via the SoundMan Cue.
Cheers,
Charlie Richmond
> CoreAudio is pretty badass, all told.
I admit I'm not an expert on it for sure - does coreaudio allow all its settings
to be changed with a vector time value so that they change over the duration
desired without audible artifacts? How do other features compare?
> But so is SoundMan Server, and it is likely to always expose some set of
> features beyond what we build directly into QLab, making it very cool that it
> is possible to access those features from within a QLab workspace via the
> SoundMan Cue.
Agreed! ;-)
C-)
Sean Dougall
for me.
I would add, though, that the 10 ms fade -- although it's coming up
because of a bug in QLab -- stems from a very sensible precaution
built into CoreAudio, which is meant to prevent an app from causing
serious damage by immediately turning on an input to a matrix mixer.
As Chris said, we're working on a fix for it.
And not to take away from anything else Charlie said, especially about
the server-client paradigm. Badass indeed.
-Sean
Michel Antoine Castonguay
Christopher Ashworth
On Dec 9, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Michel Antoine Castonguay wrote:
> And it would be really useful to have that extra feature. Am I alone ?
Nope, and eventually we'll get Audio Unit support in there; just encountering some trickiness to get that working cleanly.
Best,
*
had many times).
About 2/3 of the way thru Act 1 we hit a new cue (autofollow with no gap)
& I notice (2) cues playing on top of each other. Accept Act 1 is just one
GO & so hitting the GO button twice won't do anything on the first push
because I've disarmed the top of Act 2 cue until intermission. Still with
me?
So two cues in Act 1 are playing at the same time with no good reason why.
In fact you'd have to do it on purpose normally.
I run to the booth & press S on the cue that shouldn't be playing & look
at the cue list. Sure enough, somehow the op clicked on the auto continue
(arrow) on a cue & turned it into an auto follow (arrow with circle).
I tested the entire cue list this afternoon & it worked as desired so it
happened since then. This occurred only on the A machine rig so the B
machine rig was still running correctly. Which means the show isn't saved
with this flaw. It just got clicked on one one machine. NOTE: One more
reason to run the show from the MIDI remote which eliminates most of the
clicking that must be done on the actual machines.
So I wonder what those of you with more Qlab experience than I do to keep
your cue list from being modified accidentally once you finish programming
& tweaking.
I'm really glad that it happened during first tech but would of course
like to not have it happen again.
Just curious. Certainly not looking for a new feature:)
*
Steven Devino
Steve Devino
*
*
On Wed, December 9, 2009 8:14 pm, Steven Devino wrote:
> Lock the lock. Then the op has to unlock to modify
> Steve Devino
Philip Barrett
PB
*
drawer which will convert the group cue to a separate cue list.
This would clean up my main cue list which is twice as long because each
of my 23 cues has it's own group for fades.
A few questions:
1. does everything function exactly the same? Auto continues still work
the same without modification? no extra chance for things to get
disconnected/unlinked?
2. can you convert a separate cue list into a group cue?
I'm interested in others experiences are & the perceived benefits of a
separate cue list versus main cue list groups.
Thanks in advance.
Michel Antoine Castonguay
Accept Act 1 is just one GO & so hitting the GO button twice won't do anything on the first push
because I've disarmed the top of Act 2 cue until intermission.
Michel Antoine Castonguay
Steven Devino
On Dec 9, at Dec 9, 2009 10:57 PM, * wrote:
> I just read that a group cue on the main cue list can be dragged into the
> drawer which will convert the group cue to a separate cue list.
>
> This would clean up my main cue list which is twice as long because each
> of my 23 cues has it's own group for fades.
Ra you do realize that you can fade an entire group with one fade cue right?
Steve
Christopher Ashworth
>
> A few questions:
>
> 1. does everything function exactly the same? Auto continues still
> work
> the same without modification? no extra chance for things to get
> disconnected/unlinked?
All cues within the group will function exactly the same way.
The "conversion" process to turn groups into cue lists and vice versa
is tiny, because under the hood they're really the same thing
already. It's just that one has a playback position and the other
does not. "Converting" them means changing a number that tells the
group to start acting like a cue list.
> 2. can you convert a separate cue list into a group cue?
Yup, just drag it back into some other cue list.
-C
Michel Antoine Castonguay
Ra you do realize that you can fade an entire group with one fade cue right?
Steve
Jeremy Lee
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Christopher Ashworth <ch...@figure53.com> wrote:
QLab, but for the time being if you want your QLab workspace to automate
turning a bunch of mics on and off, you could drop in a dedicated SoundMan
Server, set it up as a nice little self-contained mic routing and processing
box, and then build some cues in your QLab workspace to control that box
during the show as QLab handles the file-based playback.
Christopher Ashworth
I'll have to defer to Charlie on these as the source for the
definitive answer....
-C
________________________________________________________
Charlie Richmond
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I'll have to defer to Charlie on these as the source for the definitive
> answer....
The best way to 'create' an SD7 is to get one but similar things have been done
using the Motor Mix (or multiple MMs). No one is using QLab in this way yet
afaik though.
C-)
| - Charlie Richmond - Richmond Sound Design - Skype: charlierichmond - |
| - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com "Performance for the Long Run" - |
| -------- SoundMan-Server -- the ultimate Virtual Sound System ------- |
| -------- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlierichmond ------- |
| -------- Facebook: charlie.richmond Twitter: charlierichmond -------- |