Update! Console usability study from U of Michigan
Noleli
for your help and update you on our project.
We've created a video of our prototype, and we want your feedback.
What we have is a very cue-driven system, much like the Cadac, but
with very different interaction techniques for almost everything
except the faders. We suspect it will be somewhat controversial, but
that's not a bad thing!
We'll be making a second video this weekend showing a walkthrough of a
scenario that might be a bit more illustrative, but we're curious what
you have to say about what you see in the first video, too. Apologies
in advance for the less-than-excitingness of the video; we aren't
producers. :)
http://vimeo.com/8121936
Thanks so much!
-Noah & team
Charlie Richmond
> What we have is a very cue-driven system, much like the Cadac, but
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 -------- |
Bill Thompson
first I've heard of your adventure.
I tip my hat, based on the video you've covered just about every one of
my personal wants and gripes, almost as if you were reading my mind<G>!
I especially like wealth of physical controls provided. I am very
curious to see the next video to get a better understanding of how cues
are created and executed, but for the most part it appears that it would
be quite intuitive for anyone that has used current conventional
lighting or sound controllers.
The one thing not mentioned thus far is will it tie into an existing
show control architecture, e.g. suppose I want to trigger lighting cues
or sound effects from some other system. Which brings up a second
question, is there a playback engine built into Cue-bert or would I
still need another box? It appears (just guessing as I am late to the
party) that this project is geared towards sound reinforcement instead
of sound playback.
OK, more questions... moving faders, or support for moving faders?
Indications for grouping and group activity? Are you familiar with the
Trident Di-An? They used a couple of tricks that might be handy.
Also, any chance the cue strip could be moved from above the channel
strips to below? That's probably the only thing I found a little less
than obvious. Perhaps the rest of the architecture makes that strip more
of a display than a control?
In any case, I salute you, the control surface is a terrific combination
of all that is good in both analog and digital domains.
Bill
Scott Martinez
desk is not limited to 32 inputs? 56 or 96 could be an option right?
Whats your market? I still think I would rather have layers and DCA's.
-With the DCA to assigned to channels per scene to keep me and the
inputs and outputs physically close together. Also, comprehensive
playback options would be nice. Live Blind mode is something I wish I
have almost every show. Nice feature.
-Scott
Jim vanBergen
--
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.
--
Jim van Bergen
AudioArt Sound, NYC
917-826-1626
vanber...@gmail.com
TimmyP1955
half-length in order to fit them in. But then again, my preference
may depend upon their function. For aux and matrix levels I prefer
faders, for EQ and other parameter settings I prefer knobs.
Charlie Richmond
they've been out of production since the mid 80s - at least the hardware
versions. The current software versions can use a moving fader controller and I
would love to have this control surface work with these versions too!
Charlie
Jim vanBergen
--
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.
Charlie Richmond
> Very few desks have faders for aux, group, or matrix, unless it's a "swap" or monitor mode.�Flexibility is key, of course. Not that this prototype
I'm hoping they will be able to develop this control surface so it will control
SoundMan-Server since that would be much easier than getting it to pass audio
itself!
Charlie
Matt Otto
Matt Otto
(609) 707-2978
Off List: motto...@gmail.com
http://www.mattottosound.com
Noleli
We won't be able to get back to all your comments for a few days; we
all have papers and exams for other classes that have to take priority
for a bit.
But we do have a second video. This one is a walk-through of a
scenario. It's shorter, better paced, and more informative than the
first. Check it out: http://vimeo.com/8165086
Thanks!
-Noah
On Dec 13, 5:50 pm, Matt Otto <motto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is really fantastic. The only gripe I see so far is the 1 channel to 1 strip ratio. I know it feels odd at first to have a limited number of strips for multiple channels but it really becomes second nature in thinking. I am very interested to see where this is going.
>
> Matt Otto
> (609) 707-2978
paperst...@gmail.com
A few little things came to mind based on my experience with
consoles...
I have a preference for seeing the metering at the faders the way
cadac boards do it. I like that better than a meterbridge at the top
of the board. After mixing with the metering at the faders instead I
never prefer the "usual" meterbridge style. I have no idea if other
folks also prefer that or not.
I would want more than 8 groups if possible.
Dealing with the actual board, dual inputs could be a good thing.
Keeping all of the other programming in place, but having the mixer at
FOH be able to immediately switch to the secondary input for a backup
wireless on a principal.
Making sure that it was easy in the scene recalls to skip ahead. There
are times where you have to skip a cue for various reasons, and being
able to do so on the fly is nice. Cue display should also display if
there is any fade time or playback time related to said cue - so it
would be nice for it to countdown. Depends if you are using that area
only for scenes or for other kinds of cue.
Relatedly, having a good way to connect something like Qlab to the
console so that the go button in the master section could control a
show computer which might change mixing board scenes, but might be
just doing an audio playback cue.
I presume certain functionality, like being able to iso or safe
sections of the console from recall.
That's just off the top of my head, hope my response is remotely
helpful. Now I have to go have some coffee and wake up.
Tom Hares
+1 for the 'liking this' crowd.
I think most of the comments here already cover a lot of things to
look at further - but I do have one small suggestion.
Make the different between Live and blind MUCH more obvious. This
could be as simple as having the live/blind display change to show
what mode you are in (and this should be the minimum), a different
coloured border on the touchscreen or something similar. It was a
little disconcerting to see someone press that button and the
live/blind display above _didn't_ change.
Looking forward to seeing more about this
Tom
Richard B. Ingraham
Most of my thoughts have probably already been mentioned I think. I love
the idea of the blind/live switch. I've wondered for years now why audio
consoles don't have that concept since it's been in lighting for decades
now. :-)
Of course ideally what I've always wanted is a true server/client
relationship so that as a designer I can look at settings and cues (either
the one we are sitting in or another cue) without interrupting my operator.
So I can change things without getting in the way. There are a few that do
this, or come very close, but there is still room for improvements in my
opinion.
Of course my first thought is that while this is really nice, if it was an
actual product it would suffer from the biggest thing holding back other
similar products. Cost. My gut tells me that it would be expensive to
produce and it would put it out of the price range of many theatres, leaving
it only to those with healthy budgets. A Yamaha M7 is seen as a huge
investment in any theatre I work in and many of them couldn't even afford
that.
If I understand the video correctly there are only 32 channels. That's
pretty limiting by modern standards. Even at the theatres with modest
budgets we would likely have it full all the time and most places I work
need more inputs than that even if the playback is not going through the
console and if you include the playback I would say 40 inputs is a minimum
unless you're doing just small cast musicals. I think limiting yourself to
a single layer would hold back a product like this, if it was an actual
product. Most users are used to multiple banks these days and one function
I really like is a user assignable layer for the faders. (something that I
hate is missing on the Yamaha M7) So that you can assign any input or
output or DCA channel to the surface, exposing all the "handles" that you
need to mix a show on a single layer. That way you don't really need
dedicated faders to groups or the like. (also, 8 groups would likely not be
enough in my book, it depends on what those are actually controlling)
I like the hard button to just kill an input. That would be very handy in
an emergency situation.
Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com
Charlie Richmond
> Most of my thoughts have probably already been mentioned I think. I love
> the idea of the blind/live switch. I've wondered for years now why audio
> consoles don't have that concept since it's been in lighting for decades
> now. :-)
never had a chance to work with those, Richard. Dropped it in subsequent
products because no one understood how to use them, but we are talking about the
late 80s here ;-)
> Of course ideally what I've always wanted is a true server/client
> relationship so that as a designer I can look at settings and cues (either
> the one we are sitting in or another cue) without interrupting my operator.
> So I can change things without getting in the way. There are a few that do
> this, or come very close, but there is still room for improvements in my
> opinion.
C-)
mackerr
wrote:
> Very interesting stuff.
>
> Most of my thoughts have probably already been mentioned I think. I love
> the idea of the blind/live switch. I've wondered for years now why audio
> consoles don't have that concept since it's been in lighting for decades
> now. :-)
>
>
The Yamaha PM5D has "Preview" mode which takes the control surface
"off line" so you can view or edit other scenes without effecting the
current processing. While it is no longer a current product, the PM1D
had the same function 10 years ago. I would expect that whatever
replaces the PM1D will also include that function. I don't have much
experience using it although the majority of my shows are on one or
the other of those consoles. I just find it unnerving in a show
situation to be messing about with controls in Preview. Maybe I need
to man up and get used to it,
One difference between operating a sound console and a lighting
console in "blind" is that a sound console during a show or rehearsal
is much less static than a lighting console. Going into blind means
you no longer have control of the current state of the console. That
is a nervous making scenario in my book. In a show stoppage I can jump
forward or back to make the edits I need.
The idea of the "server/client" console is attractive. When I am hired
to program PM1Ds on Broadway it is frustrating to not be able to edit
the console wile the operator is mixing. In rehearsals, when the
designer asks me to make a change I am generally unable to do it at
that moment. I find moments to jump in and make changes, but working
while everyone else is on a break, while it would work for me, is
normally verboten. Being able to work from my laptop live during a
rehearsal or even a performance would be great.
Mac
mackerr
> pretty limiting by modern standards. Even at the theatres with modest
> budgets we would likely have it full all the time and most places I work
> need more inputs than that even if the playback is not going through the
> console and if you include the playback I would say 40 inputs is a minimum
> unless you're doing just small cast musicals. I think limiting yourself to
> a single layer would hold back a product like this, if it was an actual
> product.
The video IS about a student project prototype. I see no reason it
couldn't be built in modular sections of 32, or 24, or 8 channels to
let a user build up a console of any size.
There seems to still be a demand of single layer consoles. There are
still a lot of Cadac consoles being spec'd for theater shows. And
there seems to be enough seats available for them, and they are
anything but inexpensive.
As more and more manufacturers offer sidecars to expand their digital
offerings I expect this kind of modular console is close over the
horizon. Small to medium control surfaces that can be ganged together
to build bigger ones. Remote I/O boxes, maybe with processing built in
that communicate over high speed networks, with all routing on the
network. The routing part is readily available from a number of
companies, just not as part of a console yet. GB Ethernet can carry a
lot of audio traffic, and 10GB is not far from general use.
Mac
Charlie Richmond
> Remote I/O boxes, maybe with processing built in that communicate over high
> speed networks, with all routing on the network. The routing part is readily
> available from a number of companies, just not as part of a console yet.
SoundMan-Server is an engine that currently exists that could do the whole
console using a single computer.
C-)
Justice Bigler
The Yamaha PM5D has "Preview" mode which takes the control surface
"off line" so you can view or edit other scenes without effecting the
current processing. While it is no longer a current product, the PM1D
had the same function 10 years ago. I would expect that whatever
replaces the PM1D will also include that function. I don't have much
experience using it although the majority of my shows are on one or
the other of those consoles. I just find it unnerving in a show
situation to be messing about with controls in Preview. Maybe I need
to man up and get used to it,
I've used the Preview function on both of the PM5Ds that we have a a lot. It does take some getting used to to be editing cues while the show is running, but you have to learn to trust the machine, I guess. Granted my shows don't have anywhere near the automation that Broadway or other real theatre shows have, but it is useful if I have to make a patch change in one cue and then copy it to the rest of the cues to keep thing updated.
One time I was in rehearsal for a show upstairs, and one of the guys running our PM5D downstairs called with a problem he couldn't figure out. He said that the console wasn't responding and wasn't passing audio. I asked if the top of the screen was red and said "preview", and told him to hit the Preview switch up in the scene management section. Problem fixed. We had a long discussion the next day about how, when, and why to use the preview function.
This Cue-bert console is interesting, and it was only a matter of time before someone decided to put the whole dame surface on a giant touch screen. I'm not sure that I like it though. One of the things that I like about the PM5D is the fact that it shows you information in multiple ways. You have the EQ settings for a channel displayed on the surface, and you have it displayed on the screen, and you can access it in Studio Manager. If the screen on a PM5D goes down you can still operate 95% of the function of the console. If the LED displays on the surface burn out you can access the screen. There's a level of redundancy in the set up. When you do away with the surface displays and put everything on one screen, the chances that that one screen will go down and ruin your day go up exponentially.
-Justice C. Bigler
Sound Technician
Tulsa Performing Arts Center
Justice Bigler
There seems to still be a demand of single layer consoles. There are
still a lot of Cadac consoles being spec'd for theater shows. And
there seems to be enough seats available for them, and they are
anything but inexpensive.
And every time a touring shows says they are bringing a 64 channel Cadac J-Type and a 32 channel J-Type side car, I groan and loose my breath for a moment when I realized that it will take twice as many guys and three times as long to get it in the theatre. I like small light digital consoles. Much easier to get in and out of the theatre.
Richard B. Ingraham
Thanks for the info on the 5D, I never have had a chance to get that deep
into one.
As you pointed out though, it only has so many uses since if I understand
what you are saying, it's only available at the console, right? So that's
probably handy if you need to do things like a quick check on the next scene
while the current is "running", or if you need to work on programming scenes
while stopped during a tech rehearsal, but you don't want to start opening
microphones for actors that might be backstage shooting the bull in the
green room. :-)
What I am more looking for (and of course since I work mostly for poor
theatre companies, I want it all for about $100 :-)) is to be able to sit
at the tech table, and work on upcoming scene recalls without interrupting
my board op at all. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some expensive
console out there that allows this, but certainly nothing in the mid to low
price range I've run across. (i.e. In the M7 or cheaper price range) So
it's really a combination of the server/client relationship in addition to
having a live/blind mode. (or whatever name you wish to call it...) Right
now I can work on the console in Studio Manager, but that's making changes
on the console live. (same thing on the shows I've done with Software Audio
Console software, it has a client/server relationship between the host and
remotes, but all the remotes are "live" to what is happening on the console)
If I need to build a complex cue of some type while in tech I have two
choices right now. Stop the tech and make the changes, or let it roll by
and make the change later when we're not rehearsing and wait for the next
time we run through the show to see if that change works well or not. But
what if I could preprogram some scenes (or whatever name you like to use) in
the console and then just recall them when we get there in the show. And if
it's awful and what I did sucks, I could stop and fix it (which is still
likely faster than starting from scratch) or if it was good (or close to
what I wanted) then I could call it done, or almost done with little to no
stoppage in rehearsal. It not only would save tech time but it would save a
bunch of my time if I could work on other things while everyone else
rehearses that dance break for the 10th time. :-)
There are systems that have some of these aspects of course and I wouldn't
be surprised to see them integrated at some point in time.
Just something from my wish list that's all.
mackerr
On Dec 17, 10:19 am, "Richard B. Ingraham" <rbingra...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> >
>
> What I am more looking for (and of course since I work mostly for poor
> theatre companies, I want it all for about $100 :-)) is to be able to sit
> at the tech table, and work on upcoming scene recalls without interrupting
> my board op at all. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some expensive
> console out there that allows this, but certainly nothing in the mid to low
> price range I've run across. (i.e. In the M7 or cheaper price range) So
> it's really a combination of the server/client relationship in addition to
> having a live/blind mode. (or whatever name you wish to call it...) Right
> now I can work on the console in Studio Manager, but that's making changes
> on the console live. (same thing on the shows I've done with Software Audio
> Console software, it has a client/server relationship between the host and
> remotes, but all the remotes are "live" to what is happening on the console)
> If I need to build a complex cue of some type while in tech I have two
> choices right now. Stop the tech and make the changes, or let it roll by
> and make the change later when we're not rehearsing and wait for the next
> time we run through the show to see if that change works well or not. But
> what if I could preprogram some scenes (or whatever name you like to use) in
> the console and then just recall them when we get there in the show. And if
> it's awful and what I did sucks, I could stop and fix it (which is still
> likely faster than starting from scratch) or if it was good (or close to
> what I wanted) then I could call it done, or almost done with little to no
> stoppage in rehearsal. It not only would save tech time but it would save a
> bunch of my time if I could work on other things while everyone else
> rehearses that dance break for the 10th time. :-)
>
You can get close to that right now with Studio Manager. You can be
connected to the console and not "online". Make your changes off line
and only update the console (re-syncronize) when the time is right.
There are certainly improvements that could, and should, be made to
the way SM interacts with the console, but for the price it is pretty
good.
It is a shame DCA groups only work with inputs on the M7. I guess
Yamaha doesn't want to give all the features of their higher priced
consoles to low priced consoles. The PM5D and PM1D can both have DCA
control of mix masters. As the feature set of higher end consoles
grows maybe these types of features can move downstream to consoles
like the M7. The Centralogic section does have pretty fast sitching
between banks of masters.
Mac
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mackerr
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:47 PM
> To: theatre-sound
> Subject: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from
> U of Michigan
>
> You can get close to that right now with Studio Manager. You can be
> connected to the console and not "online". Make your changes off line
> and only update the console (re-syncronize) when the time is right.
> There are certainly improvements that could, and should, be made to
> the way SM interacts with the console, but for the price it is pretty
> good.
>
Interesting. Never really thought about working that way. I mean I've used
Studio Manager off line, but only when I was outside of the building that
houses the physical console.
Having said that, it does seem like working in that manner could be a recipe
for disaster as well. If you're not very careful about making sure you load
the settings from the console to Studio Manager first, then work on your
changes, etc... and then upload that to the console, you could really muck
stuff up and loose settings in the console. I'm sure it would work, you
would just have to develop a method of working that would allow for that and
stick to it very strictly I think. Although I could see where you could
work on things off line, save them to a new Scene in the memory and then
move that scene over to the console when you're back online and then recall
it in the console when you got to that point in the show.
> It is a shame DCA groups only work with inputs on the M7. I guess
> Yamaha doesn't want to give all the features of their higher priced
> consoles to low priced consoles. The PM5D and PM1D can both have DCA
> control of mix masters. As the feature set of higher end consoles
> grows maybe these types of features can move downstream to consoles
> like the M7. The Centralogic section does have pretty fast sitching
> between banks of masters.
>
Yep, I can only assume it's because they don't want to throw all the
features into the lower priced lines. Which is exactly why I'm working on
moving to other affordable products that fit into the budgets of places I
work, but offer more flexibility than the Yamaha stuff that is in the lower
price range. Nothing is perfect of course, but after spending many years of
wrestling with lower priced Yamaha consoles, making the square peg fit into
the round hole so to speak, I'm happy to be moving on to other products that
fill my needs better. :-)
sam kusnetz
mac wrote:
> Remote I/O boxes, maybe with processing built in that communicate over high
> speed networks, with all routing on the network. The routing part is readily
> available from a number of companies, just not as part of a console yet.
charlie replied:
SoundMan-Server is an engine that currently exists that could do the whole
console using a single computer.
i say:
charlie, i've been reading up on SM-S a bit... can you please outline for us a setup which makes SM-S a truly viable, useable alternative to a traditional digital console?
you know how i love to tease you, but this isn't that. i really like what SM-S can do, and i like how simple it is. i think i understand how to program it (it doesn't have a built in cue stack, right? it just responds to single commands.) but i do not understand how to use it in a love environment as an operator.
how do i quickly adjust the compressor on input channel 6?
how do i flip through the channels on a cue mix to do a mic check during preset?
how do i quickly patch in a CD player for a last-minute on-stage preshow event?
how do i emulate VCA/DCA faders?
answer me those, and then i really see how we might want to use SM-S instead of a yamaha M7.
richard wrote:
> What I am more looking for (and of course since I work mostly for poor
> theatre companies, I want it all for about $100 :-)) is to be able to sit
> at the tech table, and work on upcoming scene recalls without interrupting
> my board op at all. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some expensive
> console out there that allows this, but certainly nothing in the mid to low
> price range I've run across. (i.e. In the M7 or cheaper price range) So
> it's really a combination of the server/client relationship in addition to
> having a live/blind mode.
my god yes, exactly yes, this is what i want too. i *hate* being the only department that *needs* to stop tech to get certain kinds of work done.
cheers
sam
sam kusnetz
first, hello and welcome to the list!
> > I would put Sennheiser and Lectrosonics (probably out of your price range) at the top, followed by Shure and Audio Technica in the mid range, and then everyone else in the bargain bin.
to be fair, i would consider shure and audio-technica's top-of-the-line gear to be preferable to sennheiser's lower end stuff. that is to say, i'd rather have a shure UHF or UHF-R set than a sennheiser evolution 100 set.
> Got it. Just out of curiosity... what kinds of problems would we
> experience with something like an Audio-Technica ATW-251L (Freeway 200
> series, only $150 or so)?
it boils down to three things: physical build quality, sound quality, and signal quality.
- cheap mics are made of cheap plastic, and are easy to break. actually, even expensive mics are easy to break if you really try hard enough :).
- they just plain sound bad. they have that "i can tell he's wearing a wireless mic" sound which is the result of (i believe) poor quality compression/expansion and poor quality radio transmitter.
- they are either not frequency agile, or they have extremely limited agility. this means that if you have interference, you can't change to another channel to escape it.
the $500 price floor is a great rule-of-thumb.
> > Omni, center of forehead (cable properly disguised in the hair...it's not that hard, I promise). Don't put mics in the monitors (which means your monitors should *not* come from the same output as your PA speakers).
>
> For some reason I never made the connection that I can't get feedback
> if there's no way for the signal to actually feedback
you are now in the position of helping the next generation of actors understand that they don't need vocals in the monitors. get them while they're young, and every sound engineer that works with them in the future will thank you for it. remember, when an actor says "i can't hear myself, i need more me in the monitors" what he or she is really saying is "monitors are too loud. turn everything else down, please."
cheers and good luck!
sam
Charlie Richmond
>> Remote I/O boxes, maybe with processing built in that communicate over high
>> speed networks, with all routing on the network. The routing part is readily
>> available from a number of companies, just not as part of a console yet.
>
> charlie replied:
>
> SoundMan-Server is an engine that currently exists that could do the whole
> console using a single computer.
>
> i say:
>
> charlie, i've been reading up on SM-S a bit... can you please outline for us a
> setup which makes SM-S a truly viable, useable alternative to a traditional
> digital console?
What I said was that it is an ENGINE that can be used for this purpose, not that
it includes a work surface. The whole discussion here is around a proposed
console HUI that can communicate with an audio engine. This stuff is all very
much hypothetical at this point and in the future. Same with the processing
boxes that were mentioned. Nothing exists that actually passes audio using this
proposed work surface at this point.
> you know how i love to tease you, but this isn't that. i really like what SM-S
> can do, and i like how simple it is. i think i understand how to program it
> (it doesn't have a built in cue stack, right? it just responds to single
> commands.) but i do not understand how to use it in a love environment as an
> operator.
You are correct, although there are a number of other GUIs and HUIs that work
with it that have this extra functionality. SoundMan-Assistant provides it with
exactly the same capabilities as the AudioBox AB64 has, and SoundMan-Designer
provides it with an even better Windows programming interface than ABEdit has
and ABShowmaker for Mac also works with it. These programs are free downloads.
Also QLab has a SoundMan-Server cue type (which is extra cost) and Medialon
Manager (which is quite expensive of course) has a free SoundMan-Server MxM.
MediaMation's ShowFlow software also supports SoundMan-Server natively. There
are other more esoteric programs that are less suited to theatre available and
in the works - they are listed on our web site.
> how do i quickly adjust the compressor on input channel 6?
> how do i flip through the channels on a cue mix to do a mic check during preset?
> how do i quickly patch in a CD player for a last-minute on-stage preshow event?
> how do i emulate VCA/DCA faders?
Good questions. All I mean by my comment that it is an engine that could be
used with the proposed console user interface that is being discussed in this
thread ;-)
> answer me those, and then i really see how we might want to use SM-S instead of a yamaha M7.
The proposed console interface that is being discussed would have to support
SoundMan-Server in order for it to provide these functions. I can't really see
why the developers of that interface would want to make it control an M7 ;-)
Charlie
Jorge Cortes
J
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sam kusnetz
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:54 PM
> To: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from
> U of Michigan
>
> my god yes, exactly yes, this is what i want too. i *hate* being the
> only department that *needs* to stop tech to get certain kinds of work
> done.
>
I don't know, despite the limitations of our tools, I find (in general) I
stop tech far less than the lighting designer typically does. Depends on
the designer and how they work of course, and how big of a sound show we are
talking about, but in general. And when you're talking about a musical, I
find techs that are not run throughs of the show to be next to worthless
from a sound perspective.
Just some thoughts... not disagreeing.
Mike Glasspool
you are now in the position of helping the next generation of actors understand that they don't need vocals in the monitors. get them while they're young, and every sound engineer that works with them in the future will thank you for it. remember, when an actor says "i can't hear myself, i need more me in the monitors" what he or she is really saying is "monitors are too loud. turn everything else down, please."
cheers and good luck!
sam
Steven Devino
mackerr
On Dec 17, 10:30 pm, "Richard B. Ingraham" <rbingra...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
>
> I don't know, despite the limitations of our tools, I find (in general) I
> stop tech far less than the lighting designer typically does. Depends on
> the designer and how they work of course, and how big of a sound show we are
> talking about, but in general. And when you're talking about a musical, I
> find techs that are not run throughs of the show to be next to worthless
> from a sound perspective.
>
> Just some thoughts... not disagreeing.
>
> Richard B. Ingraham
> RBI Computers and Audiohttp://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com
Very True. But even though we stop the process less than lighting, why
is there an announcement that we a re "holding for sound" and not for
lighting? :-(
I also find techs fairly useless. At least there is plenty of time to
program. With no timing, and no actors at show levels, what's the
point? Everyone wants to work on "scenes" when it is the transition
between scenes that is the hard part.
Mac
Charlie Richmond
> Very True. But even though we stop the process less than lighting, why
> is there an announcement that we a re "holding for sound" and not for
> lighting? :-(
Because actors definitely need the correct sound before they can continue
rehearsing - incorrect lighting is less disruptive.
C-)
mackerr
On Dec 18, 12:29 pm, Charlie Richmond
In a "tech" that Richard and I were referring to the actors are not
rehearsing. They are marking through their blocking, and maybe
choreography, for the benefit of the technical departments. Primarily
so lighting can light them. Incorrect lighting is every bit as
disruptive.
Mac
Charlie Richmond
> In a "tech" that Richard and I were referring to the actors are not
> rehearsing. They are marking through their blocking, and maybe
> choreography, for the benefit of the technical departments. Primarily
> so lighting can light them. Incorrect lighting is every bit as
> disruptive.
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....
And in my experience, tech rehearsals can often include actors but just go
cue-to-cue, but of course I don't normally tech shows any more...
C-)
Dan Mills
> 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.
mackerr
On Dec 18, 6:22 pm, Charlie Richmond
<charl...@RichmondSoundDesign.com> wrote:
>
> And in my experience, tech rehearsals can often include actors but just go
> cue-to-cue, but of course I don't normally tech shows any more...
>
> C-)
As I said in my post, there ARE actors present. They are marking their
blocking and choreography for the benefit of the tech.
"In a "tech" that Richard and I were referring to the actors are not
rehearsing. They are marking through their blocking, and maybe
choreography, for the benefit of the technical departments."
Do any of your posts NOT promote your products?
Mac
Charlie Richmond
> 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?
We've had it on our sound equipment since 1972 ;-)
> Most sound desk scene recall doesn't even track in the way any lighting
> operator on a modern board would expect.
We've had tracking on ours since 1986.
There are really no excuses for the current state of affairs.
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
> Do any of your posts NOT promote your products?
What would be the point otherwise? Our expertise is what we have been
contributing to this industry since 1971. Ignore it at your peril ;-)
Charlie
Charlie Richmond
> 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?
It hasn't been missing on them, just on the ones that most theatres purchase.
C-)
mackerr
On Dec 18, 6:38 pm, Dan Mills <dmi...@exponent.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Care to expand on that? Every digital console I use has fade times
associated with each scene.
I am not familiar with the LS9, but the Yamaha DM series, M7, PM5d,
PM1D, all have fade times per scene, and per fader. As well, Digico
has fade times. Those would be the consoles I run into most often. I
do not know about Midas or Digidesign, although I see them less
frequently in theaters than Yamaha and Digico.
Mac
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mackerr
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 11:23 AM
> To: theatre-sound
> Subject: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from
> U of Michigan
>
> Very True. But even though we stop the process less than lighting, why
> is there an announcement that we a re "holding for sound" and not for
> lighting? :-(
>
> I also find techs fairly useless. At least there is plenty of time to
> program. With no timing, and no actors at show levels, what's the
> point? Everyone wants to work on "scenes" when it is the transition
> between scenes that is the hard part.
>
Glad it's not just me that has run into that. :-)
I remember working with one director who during tech was saying "holding for
sound", or "holding for lights" or "holding for ..." At least he was being
fair about it, I'll give him that.
At one point we were holding so he could fix something, so right as he was
done (I wasn't going to interrupt), I grabbed the SM's god mic and said
"holding for the director". He wasn't nearly as amused as he was when he
was holding for one of us. But at least the goofy comments pretty much
stopped. :-)
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mackerr
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 6:16 PM
> To: theatre-sound
> Subject: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from
> U of Michigan
>
> In a "tech" that Richard and I were referring to the actors are not
> rehearsing. They are marking through their blocking, and maybe
> choreography, for the benefit of the technical departments. Primarily
> so lighting can light them. Incorrect lighting is every bit as
> disruptive.
Well even more so now days with scrollers and movers and mirrors and
flashing crap and the lovely "whir" sound underscoring the entire show.
(grumble)
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Richmond
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 6:23 PM
> To: theatre-sound
> Subject: Re: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study
> from U of Michigan
>
> 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 think we were talking about the perception that when we do stop in a
rehearsal for sound, some people make a bigger deal out of it, while it's
perfectly OK to sit and spend 20+ mins while they fix the lights.
I can program just as fast as the lighting designer can if you are comparing
something of equal complexity. I mean sure, if all the LD is doing is
updating the time on a single fade of some kind while I'm reworking the
entire timing of a complex sequence of sound cues, well of course it's going
to take me longer to fix that, it only makes sense.
Actually I find all the comparisons as to who can work faster to be nonsense
really. I typically only do it in a very smart ass manner while giving
grief to LD friends of mine.
If we are talking about sound playback shows for example, well they are
completely different animals, lights and sound that is. An LD will create a
light plot but most days they still have to sit in the theatre to actually
create all the cues. (yes I know... visualization software and all that...
but even that will only take you so far I would suspect, not having been an
LD in years, I don't know) Where as I do the majority of my sound cue
creation in the comfort of my home studio. All my cues are already "built"
so to speak. When I get to the theatre I am just routing and setting levels
for the most part. I'm not creating "looks" from scratch as the LD might
be. And obviously I know everyone will work differently.
Guess I'm just saying it shouldn't be a race. We should all have time to do
what we need to do, but do it with respect for others time as well. So we
are not wasting other folks time tweaking something that might be completed
later when you're not holding up anyone but yourself.
> And in my experience, tech rehearsals can often include actors but just
> go
> cue-to-cue, but of course I don't normally tech shows any more...
I think we were just talking about how much of a waste of time stuff like a
cue to cue is for mixing sound, during a musical for example. On a playback
show that's a different story, but on a musical, we do spend a lot of time
essentially not doing much except wasting batteries in our wireless mics.
:-)
Having said that, I hate cue to cue rehearsals in all but the most "wordy"
of plays. You always spend more time starting and stopping than if you just
started at the top and worked through the show. Unless you're doing
something like "The Importance of Being Earnest" (just to use an example)
where you could stop and skip 30 pages of dialog and there were no sound or
lighting cues on any of those pages I always felt that by the time you stop
everyone, and then all departments get on the same page again as to where we
are starting , etc, etc, etc... well it would have been faster if we just
ran through all the dialog and kept going. At least that is my experience
anyway... most days.. Sorry, just a pet peeve. :-)
Charlie Richmond
> "holding for the director". He wasn't nearly as amused as he was when he
> was holding for one of us. But at least the goofy comments pretty much
> stopped. :-)
Love it! I knew you'd sort this discussion out - thanks!
C-)
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mackerr
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:59 PM
> To: theatre-sound
> Subject: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from
> U of Michigan
>
> Care to expand on that? Every digital console I use has fade times
> associated with each scene.
>
> I am not familiar with the LS9, but the Yamaha DM series, M7, PM5d,
> PM1D, all have fade times per scene, and per fader. As well, Digico
> has fade times. Those would be the consoles I run into most often. I
> do not know about Midas or Digidesign, although I see them less
> frequently in theaters than Yamaha and Digico.
>
Yes, the LS9 has fade times for recalling scenes. Hell even a 01V and the
01V96 have fade times for scene changes. Although the faders on a 01V will
chatter like a mother when you that feature, it's there and it works.
The biggest difference I've seen between digital consoles that were designed
for churches or concerts that we as theatre sound folks press into service
and consoles that are designed from the ground up for theatre is that on the
later you can easily create scenes where each "control" can fade at a
different rate if you like. So if you want to fade up input 1 over 10
seconds while fading up input 2 over the next 10 minutes, you can easily
write a cue to do that. You cannot do that easily on any the Yamaha or
other digital consoles I've used. Maybe some of the pricey units allow for
that I don't know.
How important that is for your show... well depends on the show really.
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Richmond
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 6:42 PM
> To: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study
> from U of Michigan
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Dan Mills wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> We've had it on our sound equipment since 1972 ;-)
>
> > Most sound desk scene recall doesn't even track in the way any
> lighting
> > operator on a modern board would expect.
>
> We've had tracking on ours since 1986.
>
> There are really no excuses for the current state of affairs.
>
But to be fair Charlie, until some of the more recent models none of the
Richmond Products were designed for live sound mixing, which I can only
suspect is what many of us are talking about.
While 8 or 16 inputs can accommodate a playback show nicely (most days...
although that channel count is climbing these days, at least mine is.. I can
only assume that most other designer's track counts are climbing as well,
even in playback only shows) you're not going to mix much of a musical with
that many inputs.
So I might well be wrong about this, but I don't know of any audio consoles
designed for live sound mixing that understood the concept of "tracking" as
a theatre person understands it in 1986. :-)
Although I guess you could have built up a fairly large Command Cue system
maybe? But even so, if you wanted to use that to mix live sound you would
have had to insert it into an analog console or something.
Charlie Richmond
> But to be fair Charlie, until some of the more recent models none of the
> Richmond Products were designed for live sound mixing, which I can only
> suspect is what many of us are talking about.
You are, as always, correct. That subtlety always eludes me on this list and I
apologise.
> While 8 or 16 inputs can accommodate a playback show nicely (most days...
> although that channel count is climbing these days, at least mine is.. I can
Hmmmm... not to nitpick, but our original systems in the 70s were expandable up
to 48 inputs and the computer controlled ones starting in the mid 80s were
fully modular and could be configured with up to a million inputs although the
largest ones we ever produced were a few hundred inputs. But again, you are
correct that they were not specifically designer for live sound mixing primarily
because they were not set up in a typical input strip configuration and most
systems didn't even have a HUI type control surface.
> So I might well be wrong about this, but I don't know of any audio consoles
> designed for live sound mixing that understood the concept of "tracking" as
> a theatre person understands it in 1986. :-)
Perhaps this one being developed by the U of Michigan could be the first if they
are so inclined...?
> Although I guess you could have built up a fairly large Command Cue system
> maybe? But even so, if you wanted to use that to mix live sound you would
> have had to insert it into an analog console or something.
Yep - and many Disney and Universal venues did that.
Thanks for your level headedness as always... ;-)
Charlie
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Mills
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 6:38 PM
> To: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study
> from U of Michigan
> 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.
>
I think what you may be forgetting is that there are VERY few sound consoles
truly designed for theatre sound. Luckily there are a few dedicated
souls/companies out there that are really committed to building tools
designed from the ground up for theatre sound. Unfortunately many of those
products also have a price tag that is out of the budget range of many of us
doing theatre sound for a living. That's changing little by little
thankfully, but even so the products that really fulfill our needs will
likely not be the cheapest things out there. Our market is just so small
that it's only understandable.
Most sound desks you're probably thinking of are designed for live
sound/concert sound, or like an M7 its biggest market is churches or that is
where you'll really see Yamaha pushing it. It's just that the
resourcefulness of the sound designer is making the square peg fit into the
round hole and since we've been doing it that way for so long it becomes the
norm and because we often do it so well... no one (not even some of us)
notice much. :-)
mackerr
On Dec 19, 1:42 pm, "Richard B. Ingraham" <rbingra...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> >
> The biggest difference I've seen between digital consoles that were designed
> for churches or concerts that we as theatre sound folks press into service
> and consoles that are designed from the ground up for theatre is that on the
> later you can easily create scenes where each "control" can fade at a
> different rate if you like. So if you want to fade up input 1 over 10
> seconds while fading up input 2 over the next 10 minutes, you can easily
> write a cue to do that. You cannot do that easily on any the Yamaha or
> other digital consoles I've used. Maybe some of the pricey units allow for
> that I don't know.
>
I don't know what passes for "pricey", but you can do that on the
consoles I use. The caveat is that you cannot have 2 scenes running at
the same time. If you have a 10min fade set and you advance to another
scene before it is complete it will be truncated. The fader will move
to its new position in the new scene.
As far as consoles built from the ground up for theater, I know of
none. The closest is probably the D5T from Digico which is a software
modification to a D5, The Cadac J series incorporates modules that
were designed specifically for theater, but I don't know that it was
purpose built for theater. In either case they are right at the top of
the price scale being probably the 2 most expensive consoles in use in
theater today. When we finally see the Cadac S-Digital we will finally
have a console specifically designed for theater.
Mac
mackerr
On Dec 19, 2:49 pm, mackerr <mack...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> As far as consoles built from the ground up for theater, I know of
> none. The closest is probably the D5T from Digico which is a software
> modification to a D5, The Cadac J series incorporates modules that
> were designed specifically for theater, but I don't know that it was
> purpose built for theater. In either case they are right at the top of
> the price scale being probably the 2 most expensive consoles in use in
> theater today. When we finally see the Cadac S-Digital we will finally
> have a console specifically designed for theater.
>
>
After I hit send I realized I had not included the LCS system. That is
certainly a console built from the ground up for theater shows. Again,
at the top of the price range. I have never run into one personally,
and they tend to be used is such special circumstances (Jonathan
Deans) that it slipped my mind. ;-)
Mac
Charlie Richmond
> Perhaps this one being developed by the U of Michigan could be the first if
> they are so inclined...?
And they could also take advantage of the ability to fade and crossfade at
different rates smoothly between two eq, delay, and other effects settings as
well as level settings...
C-)
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mackerr
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:50 PM
> To: theatre-sound
> Subject: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from
> U of Michigan
>
> I don't know what passes for "pricey", but you can do that on the
> consoles I use. The caveat is that you cannot have 2 scenes running at
> the same time. If you have a 10min fade set and you advance to another
> scene before it is complete it will be truncated. The fader will move
> to its new position in the new scene.
>
Well for me it depends on what show you're talking about as it will vary
widely from company to company as to what "pricey" is. But normally I'd say
much over a M7 is pricey at least where I get to work anyway, as almost no
place I've worked can afford a 5D let alone a Cadac or PM1D or a Digico.
I'm sure they are worth it but when a mix console costs more than my house
(remember I live in the Midwest were things don't get so artificially
inflated.. LOL) that's when I just start to think.. "wow it must be nice
to have money to burn" :-)
As for the scene recalls... doing 2 simultaneous fades at different rates
is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure I can do one 10 second fade and
follow it up with a 2 minute fade (although some of the desks seem to limit
you to 30 seconds I think, if memory serves). But to my mind that's not
ideal. Now, I've made it work on many, many shows... don't get me wrong.
But it's not what I really want.
> As far as consoles built from the ground up for theater, I know of
> none. The closest is probably the D5T from Digico which is a software
> modification to a D5, The Cadac J series incorporates modules that
> were designed specifically for theater, but I don't know that it was
> purpose built for theater. In either case they are right at the top of
> the price scale being probably the 2 most expensive consoles in use in
> theater today. When we finally see the Cadac S-Digital we will finally
> have a console specifically designed for theater.
>
LCS is the main one that comes to mind (not really knowing much about a D5T,
since I doubt I'll ever have the budget so why bother to study up on it...)
as you remembered. I was also thinking Cadac as well. They might not only
sell to theatre, but that is certainly where I've seen the majority of them
used. I'm sure they are used elsewhere, but the only articles I remember
reading where a Cadac was used outside of theatre was award shows, like the
Oscars, etc... Their products while maybe not solely for theatre certainly
took a lot of the needs of theatre in mind and incorporated them, at least
as far as I can tell anyway. (again not ever really having a budget for
such things)
LCS is the only product that seems to allow the level of programming I would
like to have and is available all from one manufacturer all in a single
package. (I'm sure I've missed something some place and someone will chime
in "you forgot about this XYZ.... etc...) However I've assembled packages
of gear in the past that allows me the control I really desired. It's just
that it took some creative use of MIDI, and SFX and more affordable Yamaha
desks. You just have to use the Scene Memories in the consoles for what
they are good at (large recalls with or without fade times) and when I need
more pin point control (as in my example where I only want to adjust a fader
or two, or that could be a single channel EQ, etc..) I used MIDI and I can
capture a move in SFX and play it back as part of a cue. It gets a little
more tricky with the M7 and LS9 desks since they have made those desks with
less MIDI control and less flexibility (in my opinion). Even on the more
expensive models (as far as I can tell from the manuals) you need to play
around with recall safes and selective recalls and junk to make a scene do 1
simple thing rather than recalling large numbers of channels.
My latest favorite is Software Audio Console from RML labs. It's software,
so you have to be willing to accept that. And it has it's quirks.... but I
can actually write a very simple scene to adjust 1 small parameter if I want
and I can fade the parameters you might expect to be able to fade (like a
aux send or fader, etc.... but it won't fade EQs or the like, etc... ) And
while at the moment it can only do one set of fades per scene, you can run
more than one scene recall simultaneously, so I could implement the example
I gave of moving 2 faders simultaneously but at different rates, I just need
to trigger 2 scenes back to back. The developer has stated that he is
working on things for the application that will make it even more useful to
us theatre types in the future. Granted, they all say that, but he has
already put things in the application that I asked for and I've only owned a
license since May.
I'm not saying that Software Audio Console will replace a nice LCS rig or a
Digico (like some of its users might, if you read their forum) but for those
of us struggling with budgets it's a very nice alternative that frankly I
would prefer over an M7 or LS9 in most situations.
Jim vanBergen
used. I'm sure they are used elsewhere, but the only articles I remember
reading where a Cadac was used outside of theatre was award shows, like the
Oscars, etc... >>
--
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.
mackerr
On Dec 19, 7:16 pm, "Richard B. Ingraham" <rbingra...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> As for the scene recalls... doing 2 simultaneous fades at different rates
> is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure I can do one 10 second fade and
> follow it up with a 2 minute fade (although some of the desks seem to limit
> you to 30 seconds I think, if memory serves). But to my mind that's not
> ideal. Now, I've made it work on many, many shows... don't get me wrong.
> But it's not what I really want.
>
The Yamaha consoles will do 2 different fade times in a single scene.
The fade time of each fader is adjustable. They both need too start
at the same time though. You can't start a 2 minute fade and 30
seconds into it start a 10sec fade. Being able to run multiple scenes
simultaneously would be swell.
Hopefully in the next year we will see the direction Yamaha is going
to go in. When the replacement for the PM1D comes out, and sooner is
better as far as I'm concerned, I think it will have major changes and
improvements that will show the direction the rest of the line will
head.
Mac
Richard B. Ingraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theatre-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theatre-sound-
> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mackerr
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 8:01 PM
> To: theatre-sound
> Subject: [theatre-sound-list] Re: Update! Console usability study from
> U of Michigan
>
>
>
> The Yamaha consoles will do 2 different fade times in a single scene.
> The fade time of each fader is adjustable. They both need too start
> at the same time though. You can't start a 2 minute fade and 30
> seconds into it start a 10sec fade. Being able to run multiple scenes
> simultaneously would be swell.
>
Ah, now I got it. Thanks for the info. You definitely cannot do that in
lower end Yamaha gear, but as we've said before, you get what you pay for
and Yamaha isn't going to put all the cool stuff into their more modest
products.
Noleli
to see such an active discussion! I'll try to answer as many questions
as possible.
On control surfaces, third-party audio engines: right now, this is
just a concept, and a fairly limited one at that. There is a ton
(read: years-worth) more design and refinement work to be done before
this kind of implementation detail is worked out. That said, it is
unlikely that the surface would pass audio itself.
On playback, show control, QLab-type functionality, fade times:
excellent idea. We hadn't gotten this far, but my instinct is that
this could/should be built in without becoming feature creep.
On moving faders, having only 32 inputs, 8 groups, stereo out: Yes. We
want more of everything. These are all limitations imposed by the hand-
me-down Tascam M-3700 we had available to tear apart and create this
prototype.
On the cue timeline position: thanks for all the feedback and
suggestions. We're leaning toward orienting it vertically on one side
or the other, but this is still up in the air.
On layers: one of the most common complaints about digital we heard
during our research is that it is impossible to see the entire state
of the board in a single glance. We tried to address this by enforcing
a single layer, but given popular demand, there really is no reason to
artificially impose this restriction, particularly if I/O is handled
by a separate engine.
On a sidecar to see/control more channels: again, no reason not to.
On faders versus knobs: because we have yet to deal with outputs, the
bank of knobs as currently presented is intended only for modifying
DSP. In other words, there is no user interface for a matrix because
there is no matrix — yet. I don't know exactly how we would deal with
an output section, but the preference for faders when setting levels
is good feedback.
On metering at the fader: cool idea. I'd be interested to hear whether
others prefer that, or if people tend to find it distracting.
On dual inputs: right now it would be fairly easy to tell the system
to swap one input channel for another, having all of the relevant
programming follow you to the new channel. There is no single-button
way to do this, though. Is there a demand for this type of
functionality (for when dual micing)?
On recalling/skipping cues: the plan is to have keypad entry actually
work correctly, so jumping around should not be an issue.
On "safeing" sections of the board from recall: we are working with
the concept of manual override. The intent is that anything that has
been modified from the programming would retain the modified value
until told otherwise. In other words, anything you, as the operator,
do manually will take precedence over the show's programming. You have
the option to save your modifications into the current cue or several
cues (with quite a bit of flexibility). If that doesn't cover the need
for safeing, let us know.
On the visual distinction between live and blind: this is a very
important point. The distinction is clear, but on the display, not at
the button. Not adding LEDs to the button position is a major
oversight on our part. Thank you. (The distinction as it currently
exists can be seen at 0:58 of the scenario video http://vimeo.com/8165086.
Note the red strip across the bottom of the display.)
On cost concerns: the great thing about working in academia is that it
doesn't matter! ;)
On controlling the show from blind mode: when in blind mode, the
physical controls (faders, go/back, etc.) still affect the live
output. Only the touchscreen goes into blind.
On a client/server model: there is no technical reason this shouldn't
be, especially since it's all in software. The tricky part would be
determining precedence or limiting the simultaneous functionality of
each client (i.e. the surface and a laptop).
Finally, really interesting conversation about what sound folks have
to deal with during rehearsals. That will certainly influence any
designs we come up with that go beyond just running a show.
nbsproduct...@att.net
Tell him if he buys an IEM set, I'll give him whatever he wants in his mix
-------------- Original message from Mike Glasspool <mike.gl...@gmail.com>: --------------
Not to disagree with what Sam is saying, just to kind of add a twist to it.Different actors like to hear different monitor mixes.. so what is good for one actor, with no vocals in the monitors isn't good for another. You need to get them all to agree on a mix.. fun times.Oh, and sometimes they really do want themselves in the monitors - not because they really need it, just because they think it should be like that..Fight the good fight, though :)
you are now in the position of helping the next generation of actors understand that they don't need vocals in the monitors. get them while they're young, and every sound engineer that works with them in the future will thank you for it. remember, when an actor says "i can't hear myself, i need more me in the monitors" what he or she is really saying is "monitors are too loud. turn everything else down, please."
cheers and good luck!
sam
--
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.
philip
Scanned by MailDefender - managed email security from intY - www.maildefender.net Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.716 / Virus Database: 270.14.111/2569 - Release Date: 12/16/09 19:52:00
Disclaimer: This message, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately and destroy your copy of the message. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not use, copy, alter, or disclose the contents of this message. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail or any information contained within it is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. All information or opinions expressed in this message and/or any attachments are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Cadac Holdings Ltd.
It is the responsibility of the recipient to take adequate security measures.
Correspondence to: One New Street Luton Bedfordshire LU1 5DX England
Cadac Holdings Ltd, Registered office: Unit 1 Youngs Industrial Estate Stanbridge Road Leighton Buzzard LU7 4QB England. REG No 06704124.
Charlie Richmond
> Is response to Charlie, we added motorised faders with full dynamics and cross-fades in the early nineties, but also in fairness to Charlie he said "most
> consoles that theatres buy" and our price-point does exclude a lot od smaller theatres.
Absolutely!! I would never have included any Cadac consoles in that category
even though I'm aware that the theatres that can afford them certainly do use
them!
> In response to a comment about "lighting desks have been doing this programmed stuff for years, why don't the audio desks do the same?". My limited
> knowledge tells me that when you shine a light at a particular spot the brightness, colour etc. is _ALWAYS_ the same, nothing the actor does or does not
> do can change that but live performers sound different night after night so an audio console's need forï¿œmanual control is far greater than a lighting
> board (again I'm speaking from limited knowledge of lighting so please don't be offended if I seem to be saying it's easy).
Not only that, but sound involves independent signals all of which must be
controlled and kept absolutely pure throughout the path, whereas lighting only
needs to control a single 'signal' (the power going to the device being
controlled. I wrote a couple of articles that touched on the salient
differences between control of lighting and control of sound and they are linked
to here:
http://www.richmondsounddesign.com/bibliographies-articles.html
The first one that deals with this in reasonable detail is the one called 'A
Sound Future (Part 1)' by Charlie Richmond and was originally published in TD&T
in 1988.
A lot has changed since then but it's still fairly valid in its basic
comparisons.
This whole discussion is extremely interesting!
Charlie
dso...@comcast.net
happy new year all
ed dimarzio
dramatic sounds