Flying faders on live consoles???
Puffin
Maybe someone has modified a Seies 4, pm 4000, xl-3 or the Gamble ex.
Also, has anyone used the midas xl-200
thanks
puffin
Dave
Midas can provide a moving faders automation package with the XL4 or
XL3. I only know of one of these. Might want to have a really big
wallet for these.
Dave
Larry Bouthillier
Yes, we have one of these. I have not mixed a show on it yet, but I've
played with it a bit at gigs and have gotten some feedback from the
mixing engineers about its "feel". To sum it up from what I've found
first-hand and have been told...it's like a PM3000, but sonically better.
Larry Bouthillier -- Media Specialist, Audio Engineer
Harvard University and Scorpio Sound Systems, Inc.
bout...@husc.harvard.edu
DSound God
>
>Wondering where I could find A 40 input desk with VCA based fader
automation.
>Maybe someone has modified a Seies 4, pm 4000, xl-3 or the Gamble ex.
>puffin
Try ProMix at 914-668-8886. They have the only cadac concert series
console available in the country. I think they might also have a Recall by
Langley. As stated before, you definitely will need a big wallet for any
automated console with flying faders.
FSQR
>term for servo-motor controlled linear faders? Because before I do, I'll
>want to make very clear that while Joe Martinson made one or two nice
>contributions to elements of a moving fader automation system (available
>on request), he by no means invented the concept, and little in his
>system can actually be thought of as original.
When I hear the term GML, the first thing I think of is your EQ (which I
love). I don't think it really very orginal either, except for one or two
nice contributions:-). Personally, except for the fact that Martech's
flying fader system was one of the first moving faders systems on the
market (before they got caught up in the NEVE/AMS mess), I think your
system is just as good as the Martech system, but different. I also find
it interesting the in the orginal post to this thread, the writer asks
about flying fader VCA based systems, something I think of as an oxymoron.
George Massenburg
Ummmm, am I to have to swallow the use of 'flying faders' as a generic
term for servo-motor controlled linear faders? Because before I do, I'll
want to make very clear that while Joe Martinson made one or two nice
contributions to elements of a moving fader automation system (available
on request), he by no means invented the concept, and little in his
system can actually be thought of as original.
Except what is obviously an inviting, catchy term for it...
I may be asking for a rasher of flames here, but I'd like to know.
Respectfully,
George Massenburg
g...@netcom.com
Mike Banks
> two
> nice contributions:-). Personally, except for the fact that Martech's
> flying fader system was one of the first moving faders systems on the
> market (before they got caught up in the NEVE/AMS mess), I think your
> system is just as good as the Martech system, but different. I also
> find
> it interesting the in the orginal post to this thread, the writer asks
> about flying fader VCA based systems, something I think of as an
> oxymoron.
Hang on.......
Morgan Martin, Joe Martinson etc were not the inventors of moving fader
automation. But it raises the question, who was?
Necam 1, 2 and 96 were there long before Flying Faders. Neve worked
together with Martinsound to produce Flying Faders under the supervision
of Roger Cameron and Morgan Martin. The AMS and Neve "mess"/merger came
long after F/F (3/5 years).
Mike Banks
David Harrelson
>>Ummmm, am I to have to swallow the use of 'flying faders' as a generic
>>term for servo-motor controlled linear faders? Because before I do, I'll
>>want to make very clear that while Joe Martinson made one or two nice
>>contributions to elements of a moving fader automation system (available
>>on request), he by no means invented the concept, and little in his
>>system can actually be thought of as original.
>
>love). I don't think it really very orginal either, except for one or two
>nice contributions:-). Personally, except for the fact that Martech's
>flying fader system was one of the first moving faders systems on the
>market (before they got caught up in the NEVE/AMS mess), I think your
>system is just as good as the Martech system, but different. I also find
>it interesting the in the orginal post to this thread, the writer asks
>about flying fader VCA based systems, something I think of as an oxymoron.
>
>
As far as the originality of GML EQs, wasn't it George Massenburg who
created the Parametric EQ (correct me if I'm wrong, George), and wasn't it
George who did make substantial original contributions to moving fader
automation, such as the improvements over Neve's 'tractor belt' driven system
in Necam?
NToates
NECAM (with tractor belts) was the first moving fader and was released in
1976. I for one have worked on all versions of the system and If I dare
suggest even my friend George M probably worked on NECAM I or II. The next
generation was NECAM 96 which although had flat (non tractor belts) was
still slugglish. George is the person that brought moving faders into the
20th century.
Flying Faders was a spin off from Martinsounds original idea to build a
virtual desk, the cost of building a complete console was to high. Neve
then got into the picture as they were trying to frantically design and
build something to match the high power performance of the GML automation.
Neve aquired the name and product of Flying Faders from MARTEC, whether
this system is as good or better than GML is better left to personal
choice, what is interesting is the fact that "Flying Faders" seems to be
becoming a phrase to generically describe automated faders.
To answer the question at the very begining. Yes there is "Flying Faders"
on a live PA desk, its at the HOLLYWOOD BOWL here in Los Angeles, and yes
it is very expensive.
George I hope I have not stepped over the line.
Respectfully
Nigel Toates
NTo...@aol.com
P.S George did you work on NECAM I or II ?
Geoff Rubay
Harrelson) wrote:
I hate to admit it George, but there a lot of people out there
(especially here in film land) that use the term "flying faders" like they
use the word Kleenex. Sometimes you ask for "Kleenex" and get sandpaper.
Personally, I prefer Kleenex and GML. Oh, and I think your eq's are good
in a pinch :)!
bi...@boi.hp.com
I was suprised to find this thread as I don't visit this group often. I was
a designer of the digital electronics for Flying Faders. At the time,
Flying Faders was a step ahead for automation. GML fader systems were the
chief competition at the time. I think the step forward was the feature set
of the software coupled with the access available with all the buttons. The
problem with so many features is that most of them don't really get used.
I have breifly looked at more modern automation and none of them have the
button-ized look of Flying Faders. As usual, simple and effective beats
more features. Cheaper always helps!
The majority of Flying Faders design ideas definately go to Joe Martinson
alone. He was the 12-24 hr a day power source for the project. Dale Manquen
deserves much credit as well for the mechanical control design. There were
many others who contributed, too (you know who you are).
Many ideas were tried for the "virtual console". We tried many Joe inspired
projects which are not part of the Flying Faders system. VCAs were even
experimented with (even for Flying Faders!). They weren't too clean and
suffered from temperature drift. The fundemental concepts that make VCAs
work don't lend themselves to audio purity easily. One of the hard problems
of the virtual console is making sure the operator can tell what the knob is
supposed to be doing as it switches through different functions. Dedicated
knobs sure give straight forward functionality. Some of the other ideas are
probably still valid.
I hope that the "Flying Faders" generic label doesn't overshadow all the
other great contributions to console automation, but I'm glad something
I was involved with made it to that status (pat, pat) :->
Any good automation stories? What was the wierdest mix using automation
you've encountered? Inquiring minds want to know...
bigd
George Massenburg
AUTOMATION SYSTEMS.
I am more than a little reluctant to post my feelings
regarding Neve/Siemans at this time in this forum. But
this does not, however, stop me from reciting the record.
Likewise, Nigel, I'm loathe to confront you for leaving out
what I consider to be significant facts along the
development path of our modern automation systems (I
appreciate that there's now at least one person at your
company with an inkling of integrity and humanity, and I'd
want to protect that), but I have always hoped to provide
the public with the real story.
Here is what really happened (Nigel, as you say you joined
Neve in '80, so some of this may be new).
First, a bit of history. While living in Paris and working
at Europa Sonar Studios (now gone) I went to the Neve
factory in early 1974 (I remember Britain was in the midst
of a coal strike and Rupert's office was illuminated at the
time by one small, bare lamp run on a car battery). I was
hoping to interest Neve in an device that I had developed
and named (and had given an AES Paper on in 1972), the
first commercial parametric equalizer, then manufactured by
my first company, ITI. As we were shown around the Neve
factory, a door was pointed out beyond which we were not
allowed; this was the Necam research room. At the same
time that I was prevented from seeing or discussing the
automation effort, I was invited to leave my schematics and
drawings of the equalizer in the rather unlikely event
anyone at Neve was seriously interested. This first
encounter has more or less
Yes, Nigel, I've worked on Necam I, II and I'd like to
think that because I've had to make recordings on almost
every automation system out there without whining I've
learned the positive features of each system. I was not
able to work on Necam 96 - it did not, and as far as I'm
concerned, does not to this day work very well. Regarding
Necams I & II: those of us who tried in the smallest way to
push the envelope in the recording studio quickly ran, as I
did, into limits of the fader's accuracy and speed of
response, the human-interface's speed and ease of
operation, and the system's capacity, reliability and
accuracy. I started thinking about how a good automation
system should perform. Nevertheless, Necam I was
unquestionably the seminal automation system, and it bred a
rapid and limitless expansion of an engineers domain.
With the rather brisk pace of evolution of the
micro-processor in particular and technology in general
being what it was, we professional automation users
expected much from Necam 96.
I started a recording/production company called ARC in 1978
with four partners; my contribution to this was the design
and construction of three recording studios/rehearsal
facilities and the designing and building of peripheral and
console electronics and sound re-inforcement. Oh, and I
also made four records a year. Thus, around 1978 I came to
work on servo-driven faders: we tried to achieve an overall
error spec of 0.1% and full-scale travel in less than 60ms.
Over a period of three years those who visited us (Joe
Martinson among the many) might have seen an early DC
linear-motor fader (using enough samarium-cobalt material
to partially erase tapes within a half of a meter, but
barely able to move), or a fader with an exotic worm-gear
and custom-milled oilon bearing drive, Pic belts, and an
array of other grotesque contraptions.
Originally we used multiple, arrayed 6502's (remember
them?). But, with increasing demands, quickly exceeded
their capability, and in 1980 I bought one of the first
(Sr. #12) Exormacs MC68000 development systems (for
$27,500!?!) and started writing code.
Eventually, we were introduced to the 'ironless core' DC
motor (at first a Maxon) and found, through seemingly
endless trial and error, an efficient, highly accurate
linear-fader drive mechanism. Essentially fishing line
around a pulley, this method mimics the cheap and accurate
Heathkit Plotter. I'm told that many (including Mike
Blackburn, then at Neve) laughed out loud when they saw it
at first. Nonetheless, it is this method which is chosen
predominately for the making of professional servo-drive
linear faders, and it is this method that Joe Martinson (of
Flying Faders) among many others adapted when he
constructed his first system.
Our first Automation Systems went into Conway Studios and
Ocean Way Studios, both in Hollywood, in 1984 and Golden
Era in 1985. At about the same time, Neve was talking up
and writing papers about Necam 96, and in 1985 both the GML
system and Necam 96 were at the AES. The preformance of
early Necam 96 systems was disappointing if measured by the
persistent voices of dissatisfied customers. Continued
modifications to Necam 96 proved unsuccessful in satisfying
ever more strident objections, and in '85 & '86 Neve
placated four sufficently dissatisfied customers by
purchasing GML Automation systems for them to replace
non-performing Necam 96s. At least one of these studios
was threatening a lawsuit.
C.J. Flynn (who started with GML at the same time GML was
incorporated the first week of October 1982) remembers that
Joe Martinson showed up sometime around the end of '83 or
maybe early '84, first asking for a quotation on a system
for his studio, then saying that he could design one much
less expensively for the low-end studio and asking for our
fader design (saying that he and his group were adept at
writing code and writing a less expensive automation system
would be a breeze), then finally asking for our code (a
couple of months after our telling him to buy the P&G 21216
element directly). Somewhere in '85 he became really
serious about writing a system - he was observed taking
pictures of a GML system that he had picked apart under the
auspices of free demo time given him by Teri Piro at Mama
Jo's; and we were told that he did the same thing at Sound
Castle.
Neve at that time initiated an offer of co-operation
whereby Neve would have exclusive rights to OEM GML
Automation and would install and support GML Automation on
Neve V and VR consoles. Negotiations proceeded for about a
year as the deal, from our point of view, got worse and
worse. Whatever the intention, the deal on the table at the
end was indistinguishable from one whose primary goal was
simply the control and suppression of our product, and the
promotion of Necam 96 as a product (a product in which Neve
presumably had a huge investment).
We demurred. Neve/Siemans went shopping for a cooperative
company, and Joe Martinson responded vigorously. Joe's
system was and is not without it's innovations. I count
his calibration method and his list tree as the ideas I'd
like to have forseen. I was not and am not impressed with
the graphical interface - I think that it's slow - but
we've have learned alot about how not to make the same
mistakes from looking at it. I give him alot of credit for
what he brought out, but I'm a little irked that he
patented what he considered to be his key innovations, and
I didn't. Finally, I understand from Joe (you know, after
all of this we seem to be able to talk with one another)
that the relationship with Neve though profitable for him
for a couple of years has soured.
Whatever the case, there were many times that we tried to
sell against an organization who was able to deep-discount
their automation system, and to bind consoles, automation,
and tape machines (Mitsubishi, remember them?) into one
seemingly affordable lease package (I've heard Siemans
described as a rather large bank with a hardware store out
front). That's business, I suppose. Unfortunately, the
Neve promotion was sufficiently successful that it may well
have been responsible for shifting a good deal of recording
business to studios with "Power Packages" (remember them?).
On the other hand, many of the marginal studios that went
under in the last 5 to 7 years probably would have done so
anyway (with the growing advantages of
ModularDigitalMultitracks and the growth of "artist
recording studios").
This is hardly the end of the story, but the shadows grow
long and I think that this sufficiently describes our end
of the early days of third-generation automation.
George Massenburg
g...@netcom.com
Chris Christensen
George,
Thanks for sticking your neck out and setting the record straight!
Also, thanks for taking the time to contribute to this forum.
--
Just My opinion, worth the price paid and not a reflection of my employer.
D.R. "Chris" Christensen chr...@shasta.gvg.tek.com
Grass Valley Group Inc. 916-478-3419 Voice 916-478-3887 FAX
P.O. Box 1114 Grass Valley, California, 95945
Gil Morales
: ON THE SUBJECT OF THIRD-GENERATION RECORDING CONSOLE
: AUTOMATION SYSTEMS.
: George Massenburg
: g...@netcom.com
--
PEACE
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAy+dJyYAAAEEALx8YZqjZh/TDQw+f3dhCbmG92hVCIYXLaXC5uLx/XtuUgTE
6paPr/BEkqhu0csyDPPEvoaVz/tYasl4qdei4kczJLDWP4ABVLOefn0/M5LA9SKt
06McROpusPUAIn3xVzcMNS/Lv2Lx8uM2ulb4DKj48nmFetwZApPyXGyZD1DlAAUR
tCFHaWwgTW9yYWxlcyA8ZmFkZXJib3lAbmV0Y29tLmNvbT4=
=O4Lg
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----