To SAC or not to SAC....

[Rabbit]

I'm considering taking advantage of Bob's very generous Christmas discount and adding SAC to my RML toolbox; however I'm not really sure it makes sense for me so I'm looking for some input on it relating to my specific needs.

I don't do live shows so that being the primary reason, as I understand the product anyway, for having SAC is moot. What I do mostly where SAC might be an advantage is tracking and overdubs. Currently I use Total Mix to control headphone outputs to a headphone distribution amp to eliminate latency issues that might popup when looping audio back through SAW to create headphone mixes. It's kind of a pain for a number of reasons but the solution does work. During overdubs to limit the possibility of audio glitches, working with multiple tracks with a good amount of VST and native plugs, I'll usually do a build mix and create new sessions for overdubs using the resulting stereo soundfile. Advantages I can think of to having SAC is that I could easily save monitor mixes for different sessions and also provide effects if needed, verbs for instance in the case of vocal overdubs, some singers just flat perform better that way. I can do this now with my headphone amp using a hardware verb, but again it's a pain....

Any comments are very much appreciated.

:)

[Naturally Digital]

I get good mileage out of SAC when I'm mixing. Essentially it lets me do more real-time processing by spreading the load between SAW and SAC. I playback out of SAW with the SAC link active and stream busses to SAC. On my Q6600 I set SAW affinity to cpu 1/2 and SAC to 3/4. I can basically double the number of plugins running in real-time.

I lose the ability to buildmix (have to capture in real-time) but for certain projects this isn't an issue.

I know others are using it in a similar context to yours. I just haven't needed that yet.

I've also used SAC on a couple of live gigs but for me, right now, it's more of a studio tool.

[Bruce Callaway]

I use SAC for all studio recording to create headphone mixes and control the monitor outputs including SAW playback. Latency is not an issue of course. My recent clients commented on how good the headphone mix was to them. I tried using live mode in SAW before however I cant go back to that method after using SAC.

I also use SAC for live mixing. Last night I provided the sound system for a Christmas Carols evening and sat in the crowd mixing with SAC remote having a glass of wine. Very nice :)

[hififrey]

Prior to buying SSLite I used SAC in the rehearsal space/studio. It sure was nice to finally get rid of the 24 channel mixer taking up alot of space. Now I just use a very small Carvin mixer for a headphone amp and a knob I can grab quickly to adjust the mains volume.

Now with Saw in the mix I use it for tracking overdubs. Have yet to convince the band to bring out SAC live but will happen one day.

[Bill Park]

It looks to me as if SAC is a bit more than you need for what you need to do, it really appears to me that you're looking for more of a boost from your buddys just to tell you to go ahead and buy it.... so, go ahead and buy it!

[Angie]

I think you'll be happy with it.

I use SAC as the console in the studio now with the SAW link. I'm able to get much lower latency using SAC and it cuts down on CPU overhead. I also don't have to hear complaints when the musician suddenly can't hear themselves because I came out of recready in SAW to make an adjustment.

[HapHazzard]

With a remote to SAC I am able to say..."Here, mix your headphone yourself"!
If they want reverb, echo, compressors and whatever, it's at their finger tips. With scenes I can change from inputs to playback so they can hear what was just recorded.

The list can go on for days, plus SAC got rid of soooo much hardware.

It's well worth every penny.

(Thanks Bob)

Hap

[Rabbit]

It looks to me as if SAC is a bit more than you need for what you need to do, it really appears to me that you're looking for more of a boost from your buddys just to tell you to go ahead and buy it.... so, go ahead and buy it!

:eek:Egads man! Am I that transparent? Seriously though I agree it's probably overkill for my needs which is why I started this thread, however for the hassles it might save me, and if it improves the client experience it could be great. I'm still undecided however, I have until 12/24, and thanks to all for your input so far.

[Bob L]

Definitely test the demo and see if it fits your desires. Also make sure to verify you can get acceptable latency with your setup.

Bob L

[Naturally Digital]

I also don't have to hear complaints when the musician suddenly can't hear themselves because I came out of recready in SAW to make an adjustment.This is the big one IMO. SAC is always on while you work away in SAW. This makes the whole studio experience that much better. Obviously SAW is different technology... it may never have this feature. That's one of the reasons I think linking SAW and SAC is so brilliant. :cool:

[John Ludlow]

I'm thinking about getting SAC for my studio too. In my case, I'm hoping that there is some way to record in SAW at one rate/res and send out several mixes at another rate/res. I've got an old Frontier Tango that would work fine for musician mixes, and my FireFace800 will output lightpipe.

So, at first glance it looks like I could record SAW at 96/24 and send raw channels to SAC, which would run them out of the FF800 (in ADAT) into the Tango at 44/16 and from there into 4 custom mixes for headphones - leaving all the FF outputs available for non-musician-mix things.

But the rub is that I don't think the FF800 is capable of operating at multiple freq/res - that is, running analog i/o at 96/24 and, at the same time, outputting 8 tracks to ADAT at, say, 44/16. In that case, I would be limited to the lowest common denominator (48/20 max) for everything - and not being limited to 48/20 is one of the reasons I bought the FF800 to begin with.

Maybe I could get another (non-FF800) converter to push the Tango...? Is that needed? What's the best way, do you think?

[Bob L]

SAC and SAW must run at the same rate when linked together.

Bob L

[Bill Park]

:eek:Egads man! Am I that transparent? Seriously though I agree it's probably overkill for my needs which is why I started this thread, however for the hassles it might save me, and if it improves the client experience it could be great. I'm still undecided however, I have until 12/24, and thanks to all for your input so far.

I don't see it improving the client experience or anything else in your particular situation, it just appears that you've talked yourself into it, and want to join the crowd. And there is nothing wrong with that. But I don't see it being 'easier'. Why can't these feeds come from outputs in SAW?

Many years ago, Bobs solution and mine was to have a hardware output to headphone mixes, and put a cheap hardware reverb on it for the whining singers who can't stand to hear their own voices unless they are drenched in effects. No latency there. Very little expense, either.

SAC is a great tool, but to buy it to create headphone mixes? Well, not my choice.

[Mark Stebbeds]

Not a SAC guy, so can't comment on it's features, but there shouldn't be a problem creating adequate headphone mixes with SS or any off the shelf DAW. With SS, using RME products and Total Mix can resolve any latency issues.

Mark

[Iain Westland]

I just ran the auxes out when tracking, 9652 cards. Never had a prob with latency, only one drummer noticed it and it was fixed by changing the headphones....

iain

[Rabbit]

it just appears that you've talked yourself into it, and want to join the crowd.



Sort of presumptuous on your part for someone who doesn't know me at all don't you think? All I was asking for in this thread was input on the merits of SAC for my particular needs and not an analysis of my motivation. If you did know me you'd understand I'm not one who needs to "join the crowd". :)

Regarding verb in vocalist's monitor mixes; all this time I've been told they like the effect as they find it inspirational, little did I know I've been lied to and the true reason is they can't stand their own voices.

As stated in my original post I'm able to do what's needed regarding headphone mixes now, I was just checking to see if SAC might be a better way to go, no more no less. Still, thanks for the input. :)

[Bob L]

SAC is definitely a fun approach to replacing an otherwise full featured recording mix console.

As mentioned by others here, one extra nice thing about using SAC as your front end for headphone mixes with SAW is that you are now free to start and stop the SAW engine as you change things and make some quick edits along the way, without the headphones shutting down.

Another nice thing is that you are not having to alter aux sends from normal fx routing just to output a headphone mix... let alone multiple mixes to more than one performer at the same time. You do this all from SAC... easily... and there really is no comparison to using a full mixer and faders for the mix rather than aux sends.

One more thing is that when building mixdowns that had aux sends set for headphone mixes, you first have to disable the extra out device assignments in the buildmix dialog or you would be building multiple mix files... one for each of the headphone mixes... with SAC... no need because the auxes are not sending mixes to separate outputs (usually).

Another nice thing includes using SAC as a VSTi host and having multiple sampler plugins patched and ready to go... makes recording synth overdubs a snap.

Anyway... the choice remains your decision... the best way to make an intelligent decision would be to explore the idea using the SAC demo and try out how it all interfaces with your recording process... then you can see if it adds to your experience or not. :)

Bob L

[Mark Stebbeds]

Regarding verb in vocalist's monitor mixes; all this time I've been told they like the effect as they find it inspirational, little did I know I've been lied to and the true reason is they can't stand their own voices.


I think what Bill was trying to say is that most all professional studio singers prefer to hear their vocals bone dry so they can hear the nuances of their performance and the sound of their "instrument", without masking it with effects.

It is typically the inexperienced or insecure artists that need to hear effects, and yeah, in many cases, to hide their flaws.

The same is true with headphone mixes. Most pro studio musicians and singers are happy to hear the control room mix and some click, without the bother of individual mixes for "more me". They want to hear the tempo, and the other guy ...they are secure in their performances and sound.

In my engineering experience moving from a semi-pro to totally pro recording studio environment, it became clear to me instantly that the above simplicity was a superior recording environment because it was all about the music and the band, and not "more me", and technology.

You may be surprised to discover that most orchestral musicians don't want to hear ANYTHING but the click in their one-sided headphones, and perhaps some piano or bass for a pitch reference. They want to hear themselves ...and the rest of the orchestra or string section ...in the room so they can blend themselves with their performance. They don't need no steenking mixing.:)

Mark

[Rabbit]

I totally agree some singers want effects in their cans to hide flaws but in the end those flaws are apparent in the tracks anyway so it doesn't really matter; that's another issue. Lennon was known to want verb in his cans during vocal takes, he was also known to not like his voice very much so whatever his motivation it worked for him.

Some very good singers I've worked with enjoy a little reverb, not all but some. I don't track with verb of course but I'm all for giving them what they feel they need to get a good perfomance and if a little ambience helps so be it.

[Mark Stebbeds]

I totally agree some singers want effects in their cans to hide flaws but in the end those flaws are apparent in the tracks anyway so it doesn't really matter; that's another issue.

Actually, that's my point. Without the masking the artist can hear the flaws better (and ugly mouth and throat noises) and correct, and become a better singer. Think Nora Jones. You can hear what she is thinking, the sound is so intimate.


Lennon was known to want verb in his cans during vocal takes, he was also known to not like his voice very much so whatever his motivation it worked for him.

I think the Beatles were an aberration and opened lots of doors for the rest of us. The Beatles are recorded much of their music live in the early days, singing two on a mic while playing their instruments, when they were "newbies" 45 years ago.

I'm not saying you should not put reverb in the cans if someone asks for it. I'm just offering on opinion based on my experience. I don't offer it up unless someone asks for it.

Reverb is for cowards.:eek::eek:

Mark

[Bill Park]

we're wandering of on a tangent here due to what was an aside by me. How'bout we go back to the practical question at hand.... is SAC the first/best choice for the need at hand? Putting aside for a moment everyone's enthusiasm for the product?

[Mark Stebbeds]

we're wandering of on a tangent here due to what was an aside by me. How'bout we go back to the practical question at hand.... is SAC the first/best choice for the need at hand? Putting aside for a moment everyone's enthusiasm for the product?

I think we're still talking about headphone mixes, are we not? ...and whether or not you need SAC to accomplish that in a studio environment.

...on topic I think.

Mark

[Rabbit]

Point taken of course, my point was that someone trying to mask flawed singing by wanting effects in their headphones doesn't really matter. A bad take is a bad take which will be apparent on playback, singers who have pitch or technique problems is a whole other discusssion and problem to deal with. Personally I find effects in my cans distracting if I'm singing, but if someone cuts a great track with it who am I to argue.

Yeah the Beatles changed everything and many people are aware of things like Lennon not liking his voice etc. Do some people want echo or verb in their can because he did? Undoubtedly yes, I've had some ask for effects than ask to have them removed after the first verse.

[Rabbit]

we're wandering of on a tangent here due to what was an aside by me. How'bout we go back to the practical question at hand.... is SAC the first/best choice for the need at hand? Putting aside for a moment everyone's enthusiasm for the product?

Thanks Bill, I was doing a bit of wandering myself :D

[Iain Westland]

I worked mainly with kids. I always gave the more me option as I knew they wern't secure enough in their ability. Verb in the cans, never offered it. Not teaching them reliance and masking. Hopefully one day they will be able to stand infront of a guy like Mark, and not appear too egotistical and amateur.

iain

[DominicPerry]

I use SAC in my home studio to give me a Control Room mix and a headphone mix. I find it easier than just using SAW and I find it preferable to any of the desks I can afford - using a Mackie Onyx 1220 is a worse option for me, for a number of reasons. When I need a zero latency headphone mix, I haul out my £50 ART MyMonitor, which is brilliant, and stick it in front of the mic pre concerned, and feed it with a 3rd monitor mix - the same as the second one but without the vocals (but with vocal reverb if required - clever stuff).
For me, for the money, SAC beats any small footprint mixer as far as I'm concerned. If I were called on to suddenly track a band, I also like the fact that I suddenly have a very big mixing desk. If I need a bunch of zero latency headphone mixes, I'd rush out and buy as many ART MyMonitors as I needed. If I wanted to splash out, I'd buy another 24" or larger monitor and put just SAC on it. But there's no need really.

Dominic