An interesting thread on PSW.

[kruntz]

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/51847/15826/

[quaizywabbit]

Sounds like they're trying to justify all the money spent on what they already have....

[Warren]

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/51847/15826/

Fear not! There will always be those that are afraid to attempt new ways of doing complex things. Mixing on a desk is second nature to most of us and then to change to mixing from a remote laptop I am sure was at first very concerning to all, with questions such as will it crash, are ADA8k'S going to sound good enough, is switching between screens fast enough, etc. Those are decissions each of us have to make regarding how each of us work. Most here are over the issues by now with a few holdouts. As I read the posts it seemed in their statments that it was quite apparent that few had ever actully used SAC but had a lot of bad things to say about it, towards the end of the thread view where begining to change we hope.

Keep the faith!!!

Chris

[RBIngraham]

I only read the first page and got bored by the end of that, so maybe there was some more enlightening stuff further in. Although I did find some of the bashing by people that clearly have never touched it to be amusing. I've never used a Digidesign Live Sound mixer, so it must suck! :D

One thing that I do feel that it points out, which doesn't surprise me even if it isn't rational thinking, is that Bob's endorsement of using the Behringer gear so heavily has in some ways tarnished the reputation of SAC, which is as we all know a great product and Bob doesn't deserve to be linked in any way to the likes of Uli Behringer.

I think that's the unfortunate message I read out of that thread. Because so many of us use the Behringer Preamps, we must not know what we are doing. :) or is that :mad:

I mean I'm not at all concerned with what anyone thinks of me (I stopped worrying about that in high school) but I do think it's unfortunate that Bob's product(s) will get lumped into the Behringer level of quality. When in fact it's pretty much the opposite.

[Bob L]

Don't forget... we're all using racks of Midas Preamps now. :)

Bob L

[quaizywabbit]

Don't forget... we're all using racks of Midas Preamps now. :)

Bob L

LMAO! wonder if we can get the Badges to put on em'

[kruntz]

Sounds like they're trying to justify all the money spent on what they already have....

Yes.
The "No Way!" posts remind me when they said "Digital console will never be on a *serious* rider" some years ago...
;)

[Mark Stebbeds]

I thought the world of IT was full of opinionated, arrogant idiots, but I have to say the audio world has more than its fair share. All this talk of 'Nationals' is just a combination of showing off their supposed achieved status and saying they haven't got the balls or the authority (or respect of the artists) to suggest an alternative.

Usually the way it works for a "national" touring act, is that the artist puts together a "rider" to their contract spelling out what kind of gear the concert promoter must provide, and frequently specifying that the artist's production manager (or someone) must approve the gear well in advance of the concert. On big venue tours, the artist just contracts directly with the sound company and brings the gear it with them. Frank Farrel is the sound mixer for Kenny Rodgers tours and one of the biggest proponents of SAC, yet he uses the Digi Venue for Kenny.


And the usual slagging of the ADA8000s just shows they have no idea of how the system is put together.

It doesn't matter how the system is 'put together'. The ADA8000 is of extremely poor build quality and reliability, and it's reputation as such is not exaggerated. SAC is still relatively new, but many SS users on this forum have complained about a 20***37; or greater failure rate, or defective upon arrival rate. I know you and many others here would like to believe otherwise, but that's not the reality. "Good enough" for the price, and "cheap enough to have many spares" is the mantra here to justify their use. No one ever says "I have compared them, and they are better than x, y, or z."

As far as the sound quality goes, I can only speak for myself. I've had these things in the studio on three separate occasions now, and each time they proved to be of inferior quality to everything else around. To be far, we had top notch studio consoles and outboard gear to compare them with. The closest to them were a Mackie 1202 headphone mixer, another piece of gear in the under $200 dollar range ..although of much better build quality.

Also to be fair, I am certain that a good engineer can get a good sound out of a system that incorporates them, because live sound is much more forgiving than studio work, given all of the ambiance, etc. But "good enough" is not what is called for when considering the available alternatives for a touring act.


I can see why Bob has such disdain for trying to convince people of the virtue of SAW and SAC. Let 'em stew in their own ignorance.

Bob is in the business of selling as many SAC units as he can, and the market is the low budget, small club, small venue rental, and church crowd. The ADA 8000 is the lowest priced unit with adequate connectivity that can be found. When talking about the next price point up the totem pole, "too expensive" is usually the excuse heard around here.

The SAC/Bheringer combo is a viable alternative for low budget and small sound reinforcement applications like churches or small theaters and self contained bands, or small rental sound where the owner/operator is the mixer, but a control surface and much better hardware is going to be required to take it to the next level where a "guest" mixer is involved ...and then the price point will be competing with consoles.

Mark

[DominicPerry]

Usually the way it works for a "national" touring act, is that the artist puts together a "rider" to their contract spelling out what kind of gear the concert promoter must provide, and frequently specifying that the artist's production manager (or someone) must approve the gear well in advance of the concert. On big venue tours, the artist just contracts directly with the sound company and brings the gear it with them. Frank Farrel is the sound mixer for Kenny Rodgers tours and one of the biggest proponents of SAC, yet he uses the Digi Venue for Kenny.
Well, there's still always the option to change, even if it requires suitable negotiation with the production manager. I can see it would be difficult, but these guys on PSW are acting as if nothing could ever change, even though, as pointed out by kruntz, things have changed for some of the big names over time.


It doesn't matter how the system is 'put together'. The ADA8000 is of extremely poor build quality and reliability, and it's reputation as such is not exaggerated. SAC is still relatively new, but many SS users on this forum have complained about a 20***37; or greater failure rate, or defective upon arrival rate. I know you and many others here would like to believe otherwise, but that's not the reality. "Good enough" for the price, and "cheap enough to have many spares" is the mantra here to justify their use. No one ever says "I have compared them, and they are better than x, y, or z."

As far as the sound quality goes, I can only speak for myself. I've had these things in the studio on three separate occasions now, and each time they proved to be of inferior quality to everything else around. To be far, we had top notch studio consoles and outboard gear to compare them with. The closest to them were a Mackie 1202 headphone mixer, another piece of gear in the under $200 dollar range ..although of much better build quality.

Also to be fair, I am certain that a good engineer can get a good sound out of a system that incorporates them, because live sound is much more forgiving than studio work, given all of the ambiance, etc. But "good enough" is not what is called for when considering the available alternatives for a touring act.


My point was not how good ADA8000s are but rather the fact that you can easily use any mic pres and any convertors you like with SAC, and that the people slagging them off seemed to assume that buying SAC meant being forced to use ADA8000s. You are probably right that I don't know the difference myself, as in my own home studio, the acoustics have never been good enough to tell the advantages of the DAV preamps or the SoundDevices preamps I had over the ADA8000. I have to say the Mackie, M-Audio, (cheap) Focusrite, Soundcraft (M4) and other cheap pres have all been about similar to worse than the ADA8000. I've not done live sound, so I couldn't comment on that.


Bob is in the business of selling as many SAC units as he can, and the market is the low budget, small club, small venue rental, and church crowd. The ADA 8000 is the lowest priced unit with adequate connectivity that can be found. When talking about the next price point up the totem pole, "too expensive" is usually the excuse heard around here.

I'm not sure that Bob is in the market for shifting as many SAC units as possible. I agree that the market you identified is likely to want cheap pres, and the ADA8000 fits the bill. And I agree that the regularity of their use may 'cheapen' the SAC brand in the perception of some. But if you want to put a bunch of API pres with Apogee convertors on them in front of SAC, there's nothing stopping anyone doing that. I've no idea how much a decent 24 or 32 channel desk is, but I'd have thought that buying SAC + computer would leave you with plenty of change to buy 24 channels of nicer-than-Behringer preamps if that's what you wanted. I've no idea why people aren't doing so, other than the many stories that even using ADA8000s gives them a better sound, both FoH and in the monitors/IEMs as to negate the need.

Dominic

[IraSeigel]

...
One thing that I do feel that it points out, which doesn't surprise me even if it isn't rational thinking, is that Bob's endorsement of using the Behringer gear so heavily has in some ways tarnished the reputation of SAC, which is as we all know a great product and Bob doesn't deserve to be linked in any way to the likes of Uli Behringer.

I think that's the unfortunate message I read out of that thread. Because so many of us use the Behringer Preamps, we must not know what we are doing. :) or is that :mad:

I mean I'm not at all concerned with what anyone thinks of me (I stopped worrying about that in high school) but I do think it's unfortunate that Bob's product(s) will get lumped into the Behringer level of quality. When in fact it's pretty much the opposite.

Richard, I think you've said something very insightful here.

Building a system for one's own use is one thing. Building it to rent out to promoters or corporations is another. And building it to showcase the gear used is still another.

I wouldn't go to a Midas showcase and expect to listen to the console through a pair of NS-10s. And I wouldn't want to listen to Adamsons or L-Acoustics with the intent of investing my money and have the source coming thru a 1208 Mackie. And you audiophiles wouldn't preview a $3000 turntable cartridge on a Technics turntable,

Perhaps showcasing the attributes of SAC with Micstasys or better gear, premium cabling, etc., would give the product a better "cachet".

But I'm not a marketing guy, and I "have no dog in this hunt".

Ira

[Yogi]

And that's the point Ira, until you've actually had "a dog in the hunt" you have no basis to judge. All these people who throw rocks at SAC (and the Behringers that we choose to use) have NEVER actually heard a SAC rig, and I say "put a dog in the hunt or shut up". Is that being mean spirited? Maybe, but to me it's like someone bashing a car they've never test driven. I remember back to the days when the sub 1***37; distortion power amps first came out. All the raving over how this or that amp was capable of .025% distortion. Most sounded like junk. I think the distortion was between their ears, and that's what I think about those who throw rocks at a SAC system built with ADA8000s. They aren't that bad sounding. Do they have power supply problems? Yep, but we have a solution, and it works well. And believe me I'd take the capabilities of SAC over anything else out there, hands down. Wanna complain or throw rocks? Put a dog in the hunt. Either that or keep your mouth shut about things you don't know anything about from a personal standpoint.

[dgrimm]

Don't forget... we're all using racks of Midas Preamps now. :)

Bob L

+100:D:D

[IraSeigel]

And that's the point Ira, until you've actually had "a dog in the hunt" you have no basis to judge. ...

Wanna complain or throw rocks? Put a dog in the hunt. Either that or keep your mouth shut about things you don't know anything about from a personal standpoint.

Yogi, I certainly hope you're talking rhetorically, and not addressing your comments to me!

Ira

[bobgassert]

i just found out yesterday that Behringer just bought Midas

[Warren]

Yogi:
If you look at what Ira uses he has ADA8000's as well as other units, it seems Ira just feels Bob's marketing of SAC might better benifet from ads showing RME Micstasys because a lot of engineers out there don't find the ADA8K all that great.

I don't think he was painting a target on his chest.

Chris

[RBIngraham]

I'm not sure that Bob is in the market for shifting as many SAC units as possible. I agree that the market you identified is likely to want cheap pres, and the ADA8000 fits the bill. And I agree that the regularity of their use may 'cheapen' the SAC brand in the perception of some. But if you want to put a bunch of API pres with Apogee converters on them in front of SAC, there's nothing stopping anyone doing that. I've no idea how much a decent 24 or 32 channel desk is, but I'd have thought that buying SAC + computer would leave you with plenty of change to buy 24 channels of nicer-than-Behringer preamps if that's what you wanted. I've no idea why people aren't doing so, other than the many stories that even using ADA8000s gives them a better sound, both FoH and in the monitors/IEMs as to negate the need.

Dominic

I agree. If you read through this forum I think you'll see that Bob is pretty unique as a software developer. He listens and takes in all of our suggestions, our pissing, our moaning and the like and works hard to improve the product. But it's pretty clear that he's not just throwing in everything under the sun or having the end users determine the over all direction of SAC. He has a pretty clear and laid out vision of what he wants SAC to be I think. This is different than a lot of software developers I know of smaller niche products, some are just the opposite, and frankly their products wouldn't be worth the hard drive space they consume except that they lucked out and had a good group of end users help forge the product into something very nice. I can only guess but I suspect that this is largely because Bob actually makes use of his own products, something else that is kind of rare as well, at least in the experience I have in working with software developers. (One of the reasons I have a job with a software company in fact, they need a person using the product in the field every day to tell them what is and is not working, etc...) :)

I think if you started to add really nice quality preamps to a SAC system and have enough of them to build a sizable mixing console, a SAC rig starts to creep up to the price of a "pro" level mixing console pretty quickly. It's hard to say though really because lets be realistic, mix desk pricing is all over the map. I mean I can get a fully loaded LS9 for 64 channels of mixing, even counting some external preamps to max it out will be less than $10K. However if one was to spend $10K on a SAC system, I suspect you could pick out some preamps that are a lot nicer than those built into the LS9. (not that that is really all that hard, at least in my opinion anyway, the LS9/M7 preamps leaves a fair amount to be desired)

I guess if I could choose I would likely go with some of the really nice Presonus Digimax preamps. (not the cheaper FS units but the originals that cost more like $1500 per 8 channels) Or if I had money to just burn get a rack full of Benchmark preamps and A-D-A conversion. (just throwing out something I've actually had the chance to hear in action once, not really trying to make a statement that it's the best.... but the DAC1 stuff did blow me away how clean they sound.. ) :)

A SAC rig full of those would set you back many, many thousands of dollars. Of course it would still likely compete very well (if not blow out of the water) most hardware consoles in the same price range. Unless you're stepping up to Cadacs or the like. (but those boards cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, just like the upper range Digicos and the like)

All this is my long winded way of saying that a 32 channel analog or digital mixer could set you back anywhere from $3K (less in fact for a Yamaha 01V96, which has 32 mixing channels) to likely $50K or more (although most in that price range typically have more than 32 channels now days...) depending on what you want, how much routing and automation you want and how nice of a build quality and audio quality you're willing to pay for. In this regard SAC really isn't all that different. You can build pretty large channel count systems for pretty cheap as I have. Or you could blow a ton of cash on some really high end stuff. The difference with SAC is that you could run the same software on all those rigs, if you really wanted to do so. :)

Since SAC is just software you could have the same UI on the $5K SAC rig as you do on the $50K SAC rig, the only difference would be the quality of components in use.

That's kind of cool, now that I think about it that way! :cool:

[Leadfoot]

I agree. If you read through this forum I think you'll see that Bob is pretty unique as a software developer. He listens and takes in all of our suggestions, our pissing, our moaning and the like and works hard to improve the product. But it's pretty clear that he's not just throwing in everything under the sun or having the end users determine the over all direction of SAC. He has a pretty clear and laid out vision of what he wants SAC to be I think. This is different than a lot of software developers I know of smaller niche products, some are just the opposite, and frankly their products wouldn't be worth the hard drive space they consume except that they lucked out and had a good group of end users help forge the product into something very nice. I can only guess but I suspect that this is largely because Bob actually makes use of his own products, something else that is kind of rare as well, at least in the experience I have in working with software developers. (One of the reasons I have a job with a software company in fact, they need a person using the product in the field every day to tell them what is and is not working, etc...) :)

I think if you started to add really nice quality preamps to a SAC system and have enough of them to build a sizable mixing console, a SAC rig starts to creep up to the price of a "pro" level mixing console pretty quickly. It's hard to say though really because lets be realistic, mix desk pricing is all over the map. I mean I can get a fully loaded LS9 for 64 channels of mixing, even counting some external preamps to max it out will be less than $10K. However if one was to spend $10K on a SAC system, I suspect you could pick out some preamps that are a lot nicer than those built into the LS9. (not that that is really all that hard, at least in my opinion anyway, the LS9/M7 preamps leaves a fair amount to be desired)

I guess if I could choose I would likely go with some of the really nice Presonus Digimax preamps. (not the cheaper FS units but the originals that cost more like $1500 per 8 channels) Or if I had money to just burn get a rack full of Benchmark preamps and A-D-A conversion. (just throwing out something I've actually had the chance to hear in action once, not really trying to make a statement that it's the best.... but the DAC1 stuff did blow me away how clean they sound.. ) :)

A SAC rig full of those would set you back many, many thousands of dollars. Of course it would still likely compete very well (if not blow out of the water) most hardware consoles in the same price range. Unless you're stepping up to Cadacs or the like. (but those boards cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, just like the upper range Digicos and the like)

All this is my long winded way of saying that a 32 channel analog or digital mixer could set you back anywhere from $3K (less in fact for a Yamaha 01V96, which has 32 mixing channels) to likely $50K or more (although most in that price range typically have more than 32 channels now days...) depending on what you want, how much routing and automation you want and how nice of a build quality and audio quality you're willing to pay for. In this regard SAC really isn't all that different. You can build pretty large channel count systems for pretty cheap as I have. Or you could blow a ton of cash on some really high end stuff. The difference with SAC is that you could run the same software on all those rigs, if you really wanted to do so. :)

Since SAC is just software you could have the same UI on the $5K SAC rig as you do on the $50K SAC rig, the only difference would be the quality of components in use.

That's kind of cool, now that I think about it that way! :cool:

Again, your not accounting for not needing a snake, split snake, and monitor consoles. That's a huge part of the deal.

[ffarrell]

Frank Farrel is the sound mixer for Kenny Rogers tours and one of the biggest proponents of SAC, yet he uses the Digi Venue for Kenny.

Mark

This is true but for contractual reasons. We do use ADA8000 in our " B rig " and I find it a great value. I'm not saying everyone should sell their hi end stuff for ada8000 but as it goes with lots of stuff "good enough is good enough".
In the same way that Ipods out sell hi end stereos and mp3 out sell HDCD's in a wide margin.

No one would argue that a MP3 sounds better then 192K audio file but in audio, convenience wins hands down.

full disclosure: I am a partner in a company that sells a turnkey SAC System. www.cia.com and we offer Behringers products.

thanks
fvf

[RBIngraham]

I don't work in the big budget touring world, but my gut tells me that the artists on stage themselves are not the people picking out the mix desk. It's the bands FOH mixer and our it's management. Or the management probably sets the dollar figures allowed to be spent by the FOH mixer. :)

I know a few folks that run some of the sound companies that serve the big budget tours. Guess what, the sound shops don't pick out the gear that is in their shops. Well they do, but not really. They buy the stuff that shows up on riders, and that people will rent from them. The folks like me that go to the for "deals" because I don't have bug budgets get to pick from what's not currently in use that the big boys put on their riders or the cast offs that are sitting on the shelf collecting dust waiting to be sold off. (I rented one of the Yamaha Digitals so many times from one company that eventually the VP just said, you're going to pay me X to rent this console this time and you're not going to return it to me, got it! - It was time for him to get rid of it, because I was the only one that wanted it) :)

The shops stock the gear that people ask for. Pretty much end of story.

So if your waiting for SAC rigs to show up in shops that supply major tours, the only way I see that happening is that some major touring act choses to run a SAC rig. Then the shop that supplies them will just go buy one or put one together themselves more than likely. And probably ship an entire spare rig I would suspect, or at least plenty of spare parts. :)

Eventually after a few articles pop up in trade rags, everyone will want one. :p

[RBIngraham]

Again, your not accounting for not needing a snake, split snake, and monitor consoles. That's a huge part of the deal.

Good points. But once you get past a certain budget of production (I won't say quality because that's not always the case, since there are very good low budgets shows and piss poor shows that cost your left arm for a ticket) I don't think this really applies all that much. It's certainly the case for the smaller one or two man sound companies of course.

On many of the big buck digital consoles you don't need to run huge snakes to FOH any longer. It's a single piece of fiber, or many of them leave the "brains" on stage and run a couple control lines to the surface at FOH. Not all that different than what we do with SAC.

I'm not one of those folks that runs with nothing but a wireless laptop at FOH and I don't mean to sound like a snob, but I seriously doubt if you'll ever see major acts running sound this way. I know it's always dangerous to say never.. :p But really, those with the budgets and time and crew are unlikely (that's a better word I guess) to ever trust their FOH control to a Wi-Fi connection. :)

Point is unless you go with the wireless laptop connection at FOH, you still need at least a small snake to FOH of some type or something to deal with headphone feeds, talkbacks, COM, KVM Remote or Ethernet connection, etc, etc, etc....

Also with bigger budget ventures your probably going to have a separate person mixing monitors and FOH and how often do you see them using the same mixing desk? Unless you just happen to find two people that both agree to use SAC, or the management of the group forces them to do so, one will probably want SAC and the other will want something else. In the end I think it's the band's engineers that are picking out what they are using. At least for the acts that have that kind of money and clout.

For me personally this is also not much of a selling point. Almost all the venues I work in already have some type of installed lines to and from the stage. Most have multiple drop locations and all sorts of tie lines to various points where you need audio, COM, network or other CAT5 based tie lines, etc, etc, etc.... Not only are those lines already in place. But even if I was designing a system install from scratch with a SAC system in mind I would still spec plenty of tie lines both for XLR and CAT5 because there is going to be other gear besides the SAC system that needs to be able to send and receive audio, plus one thing I never do when I design a "system" (unless I'm forced into doing so by the client) is make it so putting in something new down the road will be a pain in the rear. So even if I didn't need snakes, tie lines, etc.. in a venue because I'm installing SAC, I would put them in place because other wise 10 or 15 or 20 years from now when someone wants to replace the SAC rig with something else they won't be stuck also having to rewire half the building in order to do so. I've seen that mistake WAY too many times in places where I've designed a new system. All the wiring is designed around the way the current mix console is laid out, or the way the current sound system is being used. But then when the venue wants to change or upgrade, etc... rather than just adding some gear and dropping things in place or swapping things out, they need to rewire half the place to make it all work without needed a ton of adapters or jumping through a bunch of stupid hoops. So if I get to install it my way, I try my best to make it as future proof as possible and flexible for future needs. Obviously I don't have a crystal ball and I don't know what all they might need in the future. But I do my best with what I know at the time the system is designed.

Sorry, didn't mean for this to be so long and rambling. But poorly laid out AV infrastructure in venues is one of my pet peeves. :)

[ssrsound]

IMHO, the guys in that forum aren't too far off. They see the utility and usefulness of SAC for the most part.

But as a rental house, I'm not planning on using SAC for anything unless one of my people is running the desk. It's too different from anything most people are used to. And for major acts, they still come to me asking for a PM5D or a M7CL becuase that's what their FOH engineer is used to. And often that FOH engineer shows up with a thumb drive with all his mix settings pre-created for the Yamaha mixer.

So no -- you're not going to foist SAC on an unsuspecting major act. If you get that business, you're going to give the major act exactly what they ask for, which will be whatever the FOH engineer has created his show plan for.

On the other hand, for shows where my people are doing the mix, and for corporates where we might pre-program stuff? SAC will be it all the way.

[Yogi]

Yogi, I certainly hope you're talking rhetorically, and not addressing your comments to me!

Ira

NO, NO Ira, that was directed at those people who throw rocks at a SAC system without ever even hearing one, much less seeing one. Until you've sat in the seat and actually mixed a show with it there is no way to pass judgement on it.

[IraSeigel]

NO, NO Ira, that was directed at those people who throw rocks at a SAC system without ever even hearing one, much less seeing one. Until you've sat in the seat and actually mixed a show with it there is no way to pass judgement on it.

OK, understood. Perhaps you could use the third person: "Until one seats in the seat and actually mixes a show...". Then it doesn't sound like a personal attack.

Jim King (SSRSound) says:
But as a rental house, I'm not planning on using SAC for anything unless one of my people is running the desk. It's too different from anything most people are used to. And for major acts, they still come to me asking for a PM5D or a M7CL becuase that's what their FOH engineer is used to. And often that FOH engineer shows up with a thumb drive with all his mix settings pre-created for the Yamaha mixer.

So no -- you're not going to foist SAC on an unsuspecting major act. If you get that business, you're going to give the major act exactly what they ask for, which will be whatever the FOH engineer has created his show plan for.

Yes, I totally agree. Although I wouldn't have used the word "foist", as if the rental company is trying to pull a fast one and provide sub-standard equipment on the sly.

[airickess]

IMHO, the guys in that forum aren't too far off. They see the utility and usefulness of SAC for the most part.

But as a rental house, I'm not planning on using SAC for anything unless one of my people is running the desk. It's too different from anything most people are used to. And for major acts, they still come to me asking for a PM5D or a M7CL becuase that's what their FOH engineer is used to. And often that FOH engineer shows up with a thumb drive with all his mix settings pre-created for the Yamaha mixer.

So no -- you're not going to foist SAC on an unsuspecting major act. If you get that business, you're going to give the major act exactly what they ask for, which will be whatever the FOH engineer has created his show plan for.
I have to agree with this on all counts.
When on tour the engineers need as much consistency as they can get from night to night when they aren't traveling with their own gear (and if you've ever been on tour you know that it becomes almost unworkable to use different crap gear every night - one spends too much time fixing bad gear and installs which takes away from the time to set up the show). SAC is consistent, stable and solid, BUT it is still software that depends on a hardware host to work. Hardware rigs using SAC vary greatly - just take a look at the various gear used by the people on this forum. I think it is this issue that will continue to prevent SAC from showing up on riders for the foreseeable future.
What I see instead is SAC rigs being carried by tours, much like SFX and QLab rigs. Almost no one rents sound effects triggering rigs for one-offs on tours - it's so much more inexpensive and efficient to carry the rig on the tour than hoping the rig you've rented for that day and that venue works without viruses or bugs or hiccups. (Yes, the previous statement can apply to regular digital and analog consoles too, but those consoles cannot be hooked up to the internet nor used in any other manner than as a console, unlike a desktop or laptop computer.).
When digital sound playback started to enter the live theatrical world it was not embraced quickly. Digital software playback took a bit of time to come into its own once it was proven stable and embraced by a few of the "power users" (Broadway, National touring acts, etc.). In the near future I see SAC making inroads into the lower-level theatrical tours where they are already used to using computers for playback and show control. SAC rigs would be really good for these tours because they would eliminate weight on the truck while freeing up space. Once a few of these rigs are proven road-worthy then I believe we'll see more SAC acceptance.
We SAC users are here in the very early stages of development of this software. It will take some time but I do think that this product will gain acceptance and market share.

[Mark Stebbeds]

Again, your not accounting for not needing a snake, split snake, and monitor consoles. That's a huge part of the deal.

But the snake has nothing to do with the sound quality or the reliability of the delicate hard drive computer based system, and numerous components running on their individual power supplies.

The snake issue is about money and convenience for the installer, nothing else. We know the system is much cheaper and easier to set up.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

On many of the big buck digital consoles you don't need to run huge snakes to FOH any longer. It's a single piece of fiber, or many of them leave the "brains" on stage and run a couple control lines to the surface at FOH. Not all that different than what we do with SAC.



The difference being you can adjust the pre-amps via remote control on the systems you are referring to, as opposed to running back and forth to the stage to "optimize" level. In the digital domain you're OK if the level isn't optimized, but pre amp adjustments are the source of poor signal to noise if adjusted too low, or distortion if set too hot.

Mark

[IraSeigel]

... SAC is consistent, stable and solid, BUT it is still software that depends on a hardware host to work. Hardware rigs using SAC vary greatly - just take a look at the various gear used by the people on this forum. I think it is this issue that will continue to prevent SAC from showing up on riders for the foreseeable future. ....

I agree that SAC is stable and solid. But I can't agree with the rest of this statement.

The reason that a PM5D (a "PM1D Lite") is a kind of de facto standard for tours is that the UI is pretty easy to grasp. If you're new to digital, you can step up to it, or a Soundcraft Vi6 or Vi4, and pretty much get yourself into a mix within a few minutes. Ditto, to a lesser extent, with a Yamaha M7CL or LS9. You'll see a lot more requests for PM5Ds on touring riders than you do currently for Venues because the UI is easier for analog engineers to grasp.

That being said, I think SAC will have a hard time making inroads with touring engineers because the UI is rather non-standard. I'm not talking about the look of the channel strips. I'm talking about what an engineer would expect if he went to copy settings from one channel to another, cut and paste, drag and drop, etc. Things that Windows users for the past 15 years have been doing with a mouse, and the Ctrl and Alt and Shift keys. Bob is well aware and determined to NOT be a Windows "cookie-cutter" program, and he feels he has better, more efficient ways of doing things. Fine. The purpose of this post isn't to pick a fight. It's just to point out and suggest that widespread acceptance of past digital consoles and future software-based consoles depends on the UI being the most-understandable, the most-accessible. Ones that you don't have to consult the manual for, or go to a forum to ask for help.

I would bet that there are software gurus at Yamaha and Soundcraft and elsewhere that are working on an implementation of the software that runs their consoles to be able to run independent of their hardware and operate solely on a computer system - in other words, direct competition for SAC. The program that you'll see on a majority of riders in, say, 5 years, will be the one that approaches the ease of use of the consoles mentioned above.

SAC is WAY ahead of the curve and is breaking lots of new ground. And it sounds REALLY good. But because there is not more recognition and acceptance of the fact that computer users are pretty savvy and experienced, to say nothing of audio engineers, and the insistence is to learn "the SAC way" or "the SAW way" (translation: "Bob's way"], instead of doing user testing to see what would work best FOR THE USER, I don't think it will be the "last man standing" in the future.

All that being said, I will continue to use SAC, marvel at the quality of my shows and the convenience it brings in such a compact package, and search through the helpfile and manual :eek: and forum when I can't figure something out.

Ira

PS And many of my issues would probably be minimized if the helpfile and manual were better indexed and more easily searchable, which is something that could be contracted out to another person. It's not something that the developer would need to use his valuable time. To search the manual and not find a thorough explanation of "F-Res Patch" is extremely frustrating and very easily fixed.

[RBIngraham]

The difference being you can adjust the pre-amps via remote control on the systems you are referring to, as opposed to running back and forth to the stage to "optimize" level. In the digital domain you're OK if the level isn't optimized, but pre amp adjustments are the source of poor signal to noise if adjusted too low, or distortion if set too hot.

Mark

I agree, which is why I just keep the SAC computer at FOH. But again I work in venues that typically already have mic/tie lines run in the building. Even if in some of the venues it's nothing more than custom portable snakes "permanently installed". :)

For those with the money there is nothing stopping you from using preamps with remote controls to FOH with a SAC rig. The Brikworm snakes actually have a remote control available and are fairly reasonable.

And there are really nice systems that are fully networkable allowing for multiple user controls and even Crestron touch screens and the like if you really need that and have the money to blow.

Just to be fair about it.

[RBIngraham]

OK, understood. Perhaps you could use the third person: "Until one seats in the seat and actually mixes a show...". Then it doesn't sound like a personal attack.



Of course then it should be:

"Until one sits in the seat and actually mixes.... blah, blah, blah..." :p

[Mark Stebbeds]

I'm not talking about the look of the channel strips. I'm talking about what an engineer would expect if he went to copy settings from one channel to another, cut and paste, drag and drop, etc. Things that Windows users for the past 15 years have been doing with a mouse, and the Ctrl and Alt and Shift keys. Bob is well aware and determined to NOT be a Windows "cookie-cutter" program, and he feels he has better, more efficient ways of doing things. Fine. The purpose of this post isn't to pick a fight. It's just to point out and suggest that widespread acceptance of past digital consoles and future software-based consoles depends on the UI being the most-understandable, the most-accessible. Ones that you don't have to consult the manual for, or go to a forum to ask for help.


I agree. The non-standard computer commands issue and multiple keystrokes for basic functions has contributed heavily to SS gaining reputation of being "hard to use" and "hard to learn".

Mark

[Haysus]

When on tour the engineers need as much consistency as they can get from night to night when they aren't traveling with their own gear (and if you've ever been on tour you know that it becomes almost unworkable to use different crap gear every night - one spends too much time fixing bad gear and installs which takes away from the time to set up the show). SAC is consistent, stable and solid, BUT it is still software that depends on a hardware host to work. Hardware rigs using SAC vary greatly - just take a look at the various gear used by the people on this forum. I think it is this issue that will continue to prevent SAC from showing up on riders for the foreseeable future.I totally agree. Consistency is the real issue, we all want it. From mics to amps to stacks. Bob has made way for stability and consistency in software. If there were a few more companies that stuck their neck out like C.I.A. but with different hardware. I could see SAC creep into "nationals" when hardware catches up to Bobs software.Maybe with "pro" hardware? If anyone can agree what "pro" hardware is. And when are said hardware manufacturers going to cater to our requests to build tour quality gear? I'm thinking of stuff like http://www.yamaha.com/ca/productdetail.html?CNTID=5028857&CTID=560488 but independent of the led sled. Can I ask for world peace while I am making requests:D

[RBIngraham]

What I see instead is SAC rigs being carried by tours, much like SFX and QLab rigs. Almost no one rents sound effects triggering rigs for one-offs on tours - it's so much more inexpensive and efficient to carry the rig on the tour than hoping the rig you've rented for that day and that venue works without viruses or bugs or hiccups. (Yes, the previous statement can apply to regular digital and analog consoles too, but those consoles cannot be hooked up to the internet nor used in any other manner than as a console, unlike a desktop or laptop computer.).
When digital sound playback started to enter the live theatrical world it was not embraced quickly. Digital software playback took a bit of time to come into its own once it was proven stable and embraced by a few of the "power users" (Broadway, National touring acts, etc.). In the near future I see SAC making inroads into the lower-level theatrical tours where they are already used to using computers for playback and show control. SAC rigs would be really good for these tours because they would eliminate weight on the truck while freeing up space. Once a few of these rigs are proven road-worthy then I believe we'll see more SAC acceptance.
We SAC users are here in the very early stages of development of this software. It will take some time but I do think that this product will gain acceptance and market share.

Good points. Who are you? You must be a theatre sound person? I probably should know, just don't recognize the forum name. :)

I would however actually point out (at least in my opinion) that Broadway and National Theatre tours are hardly where the innovators are in theatre sound. They typically let others wrangle out the bugs as there is just too much money riding on those shows to take any chances. They are just the shows that get articles published about them. Take SFX for instance. The early adopters of that technology were mostly themed attractions, colleges and Regional Theatres. Although with the financial situations most regionals find themselves in now days, I suspect they'll likely be doing less and less technical innovations.

I agree that tours will just carry their own SAC rigs. But most tours that I know about (I'm talking about theatre tours here) carry almost all their own gear anyway, and most that have computer involved in any way are already used to carrying spares, if not having full redundant rigs that run concurrently during the show. If I had the cash that is what I would have for my SAC rig, so with the flip of a switch you could go from A to B. It's a bit more complex than with a SFX or QLab rig, but it could be done.

I love being an early adopter. :D (well most days, I've pulled my hair out a few times with SFX over the years...) :) But then I've done the same thing with analog mixers, digital mixer and just about any piece of technology at some point...

[ssrsound]

I agree that tours will just carry their own SAC rigs.

Yeah -- I agree with that too. I can see the day when the rider I get says "we want stacks and racks, and 2 ethernet cables running from the stage to the FOH position", then they show up with their own SAC in either a single rolling rack, or a couple of pieces. That's where it'll make the inroads on the national tours.

[gdougherty]

Yeah -- I agree with that too. I can see the day when the rider I get says "we want stacks and racks, and 2 ethernet cables running from the stage to the FOH position", then they show up with their own SAC in either a single rolling rack, or a couple of pieces. That's where it'll make the inroads on the national tours.

Nah, stacks and racks only. I'd have a hard time trusting a provided ethernet cable to be 100% solid. It's easy enough to carry a spool of the outdoor grade stuff anyway.

[AndyW69]

In my experience of touring theatre in the uk, most regional/provincial theatres have an inhouse sound setup in a box or tucked right up in the gods, not ideal for mixing as a tour engineer, SAC makes perfect sense in this area, you could easily only need 1 or 2 seats from the auditorium to mix with a laptop, makes financial sense not to have to loose 10 seats for a big desk and rack

Andy

[MEGAHERTZ]

I only read the first page and got bored by the end of that, so maybe there was some more enlightening stuff further in. Although I did find some of the bashing by people that clearly have never touched it to be amusing. I've never used a Digidesign Live Sound mixer, so it must suck! :D

One thing that I do feel that it points out, which doesn't surprise me even if it isn't rational thinking, is that Bob's endorsement of using the Behringer gear so heavily has in some ways tarnished the reputation of SAC, which is as we all know a great product and Bob doesn't deserve to be linked in any way to the likes of Uli Behringer.

I think that's the unfortunate message I read out of that thread. Because so many of us use the Behringer Preamps, we must not know what we are doing. :) or is that :mad:

I mean I'm not at all concerned with what anyone thinks of me (I stopped worrying about that in high school) but I do think it's unfortunate that Bob's product(s) will get lumped into the Behringer level of quality. When in fact it's pretty much the opposite.

First off "Hi all, I'm new here"

I'm not a SAC user yet, but soon going to give it a try. I have however been doing a awful lot of reading about it and playing around with the demo. Anyway it looks to me like its just what I want. I remember the first time I ever worked with recording software thinking "I wonder if I could mix live sound with this stuff?" or if not "Is there any software available that you can?" Well at that time I couldn't find anything.

After seeing the possibilities with SAC I think it will leak into these guys realm eventually. After all I'm sure that if Midas or Yamaha would have came out with SAC first, the post on PSW would read much different. They would all be raving over it and switching their rig.

As for Bob's product being de-valued by being viewed as linked to a cheaper line of hardware I don't think it is a problem. After all I'm sure there are much more "LIMITED Budgets" than "UNLIMITED Budgets out there. Also trying to market a product like this to "The Big Dogs" you would want to be bearing a name like Midas, Yamaha, Soundcraft, or something in order to get your foot in quickly. You also need to take into account that the guys posting this stuff on PSW are probably NOT the same guys lugging in hundreds of pounds worth of mixers, rack cases, snakes, and so on...;) Unlike myself acting as a roadie/engineer.:D

[RBIngraham]

After seeing the possibilities with SAC I think it will leak into these guys realm eventually. After all I'm sure that if Midas or Yamaha would have came out with SAC first, the post on PSW would read much different. They would all be raving over it and switching their rig.

As for Bob's product being de-valued by being viewed as linked to a cheaper line of hardware I don't think it is a problem. After all I'm sure there are much more "LIMITED Budgets" than "UNLIMITED Budgets out there. Also trying to market a product like this to "The Big Dogs" you would want to be bearing a name like Midas, Yamaha, Soundcraft, or something in order to get your foot in quickly. You also need to take into account that the guys posting this stuff on PSW are probably NOT the same guys lugging in hundreds of pounds worth of mixers, rack cases, snakes, and so on...;) Unlike myself acting as a roadie/engineer.:D

First, Hello and Welcome. :)

I would add that if SAC (or some competitive product some day) were brought out by a big name in consoles, then lets not forget that they would just give a system to any big names in the industry that would try it out and then let an article be written about their show, to show it off. I know a couple of folks that have been offered free use of Digico boards just for this very purpose. I'm sure all the manufacturers do this, or suspect they do anyway.

[RBIngraham]

I agree. The non-standard computer commands issue and multiple keystrokes for basic functions has contributed heavily to SS gaining reputation of being "hard to use" and "hard to learn".

Mark

Yea, as much as I have grown to really like SAC it did take me quite a while to pick up some of the way SAC implements things. I think the biggest one that took me a while was to remember to not expect to click on a fader and zip the scroll wheel up and down to move a fader or settings. I kept changing the hot channel all the time by mistake. :)

For what it's worth I have talked to or shown several colleges SAC now since I started using it. Most are very impressed with it's performance and what can be achieved with fairly modest computing power by current CPU speed standards, etc...

However the comments I hear most ofter right off the top of the bat go something like this:

1. Why does it have to look like a Win 95 or Win 3.11 application? or What's up with the graphics?

2. Complaints about all the non Windows Standard keyboard commands, such as the mouse wheel, not able to just type in values and hit enter, no drag and drop, etc, etc, etc...

3. Questions, complaints, comments, etc.. about control surfaces and how they would want larger fader counts and not using Behringer units, etc.. (sorry you're never going to get a Broadway show running on Behringer gear) :)

A friend of mine that took a look at it had what I thought was a reasonable point. He said something akin to that he uses Yamaha's Studio Manager software to program the consoles and as a remote and such. He may not use it for 6 to 9 months at a time, but he can open it up and it's intuitive enough that it all comes back to him very quickly. (setting aside all the garbage of Yamaha studio manager and the havoc it can cause with other MIDI connections when not run on a computer just for that, etc...) He didn't feel that would be the same with SAC, and honestly I can see his point.

I'm not saying this to start an argument or a great debate about the directions Bob has chosen. Just to point out the feedback I've gotten from others in my field. It's likely some of the little things that also make people like to dismiss SAC as well as just ignorance and ego.

One thing I've learned with with a software developer that despite the fact that we work in an audio related field, these end users still spend an awful lot of time worrying about how **** looks, unless of course they want to hang a huge line array cluster right in the middle of the proscenium arch... then it's OK to look ugly. :p

[quaizywabbit]

Personally I think SAC rocks!, but, being educated enough in various things, industrial machine maintenance being one of them, I dont think the "Big Boys", whoever they may be, will adopt anything touted as "real-time" or "live" unless the OS it runs on is equally tamed, and utilizes each and every resource it's run on to its fullest.

I believe it should be possible to attach any midi device and set it up to function as the user desires it to, but i also believe this is not the case due to the first problem....if the OS is free to do whatever it wishes anytime, anywhere, how can you guarantee 'flawless' operations?(as close to the definition as possible, anyway) The overhead of attaching that much more bloat to a single processor would drop it out of "real-time".

I can't even fathom the coding nightmare Bob deals with when coping with an unruly (and everchanging) OS.


Find a way to make a level playing field, where things ARE predictable, every last core and memory stick is utilized, and then get jiggy with it....

i'm not arguing the vision......just the one concept the vision is based on, that affects everything else after it.....and makes it much more difficult to deal with over the long term...There are solutions available recognized by many industries that do just that, but they add costs ultimately to the end user, and might take significant development time to implement. However, if you could get those other cores chiming in, effortlessly load balancing recording and live operations (with significant overhead available for new features), wouldn't that be worth it???

[IraSeigel]

...
A friend of mine that took a look at it had what I thought was a reasonable point. He said something akin to that he uses Yamaha's Studio Manager software to program the consoles and as a remote and such. He may not use it for 6 to 9 months at a time, but he can open it up and it's intuitive enough that it all comes back to him very quickly. (setting aside all the garbage of Yamaha studio manager and the havoc it can cause with other MIDI connections when not run on a computer just for that, etc...) He didn't feel that would be the same with SAC, and honestly I can see his point.



You're never - dare I say EVER! - going to get a prospective user to read a manual all the way through before using this or any other program. It HAS to be intuitive. And, as Richard said, for the intermittent user, it has to be something that you could come back to very quickly, rather than re-learning key commands, etc. And if he/she had a problem/question, they should be able to enter a keyword in a FULLY SEARCHABLE online manual to quickly find the answer.

[RBIngraham]

You're never - dare I say EVER! - going to get a prospective user to read a manual all the way through before using this or any other program. It HAS to be intuitive. And, as Richard said, for the intermittent user, it has to be something that you could come back to very quickly, rather than re-learning key commands, etc. And if he/she had a problem/question, they should be able to enter a keyword in a FULLY SEARCHABLE online manual to quickly find the answer.

Yea, I realized a few years ago now that I was unique in the fact that I enjoy learning new products and figuring out how to use them and how to do so efficiently and effectively.

In the long run it has actually been beneficial for me. In working with another hardware DSP box with software controls, it also had a reputation for having a big learning curve and not the most intuitive UI, but also a very dependable and powerful product. (sound familiar?) Well after learning the product and developing a relationship with the manufacturer I actually got work going around and doing programing for other end users and doing training sessions to end users as well. I now actually have a basement full of this manufacturers older units they have taken in on trade, and can use them whenever I like in my own shows. Although I'm using them less and less now days as computers have been able to do it all natively and with my latest SAC rig, I pulled two of them out of the sound system, since I could just do everything they were doing internally in SAC. :)

So to me the people that just dismiss things that are are not instantly intuitive to them make me crazy and seem short sighted to me. But I've grown to realize that most end users are not going to enjoy a challenge as I do. :D

[UpTilDawn]

... And if he/she had a problem/question, they should be able to enter a keyword in a FULLY SEARCHABLE online manual to quickly find the answer.

As many good reasons as there may be to have an online manual (easy to update for example), an online manual that is not available as a pdf,or otherwise saveable version, is quickly becoming one of my pet peeves.:(

And for those of us who insist on keeping our precious rigs offline and away from the potential for harm, it's one of the more frustrating and irritating new trends to come down the pike.

Maybe just my opinion.:rolleyes:
DanT

[Mark Stebbeds]

And for those of us who insist on keeping our precious rigs offline and away from the potential for harm, it's one of the more frustrating and irritating new trends to come down the pike.


I find keeping our precious rigs offline is a major pain in the *ss. Perhaps a compromise for the paranoid would be to keep the cable disconnected until you need to go online, if that makes you feel better.

Personally I have never followed this advice, and have never had a problem ...at least not in about ten or fifteen years when we learned how to use common sense to avoid the hackers.

Mark

[IraSeigel]

As many good reasons as there may be to have an online manual (easy to update for example), an online manual that is not available as a pdf,or otherwise saveable version, is quickly becoming one of my pet peeves.:(

And for those of us who insist on keeping our precious rigs offline and away from the potential for harm, it's one of the more frustrating and irritating new trends to come down the pike.

Maybe just my opinion.:rolleyes:
DanT

Sorry - by "online" I didn't mean an HTML document on the web. I meant a PDF manual that you can download, or, even better, a helpfile that you can open from within the program. It would have to be with the same attention to detail as Bob has already done, but just with MUCH better search capabilities; i.e., MORE KEYWORDS like "F-Res Patch" instead of having to enter "Final Resolution Patch".

Ira

[RBIngraham]

Sorry - by "online" I didn't mean an HTML document on the web. I meant a PDF manual that you can download, or, even better, a helpfile that you can open from within the program. It would have to be with the same attention to detail as Bob has already done, but just with MUCH better search capabilities; i.e., MORE KEYWORDS like "F-Res Patch" instead of having to enter "Final Resolution Patch".

Ira

There is a pdf file of the manual. It's the same thing that is in the help file. Not saying that there isn't room for improvement as their always is.... I know first hand how difficult and time consuming it can be to write the documentation as it's one of my tasks at work as well.


I think we need to work on some kind of Keyboard short cuts cheat sheet because there is just so many functions in SAC that require to left click here, right click there, shift click for this but alt click for that, etc....

No matter how many times I've read the help guide from cover to cover so to speak, I still don't remember them when I really need them. :)

[UpTilDawn]

Sorry - by "online" I didn't mean an HTML document on the web. I meant a PDF manual that you can download, or, even better, a helpfile that you can open from within the program. It would have to be with the same attention to detail as Bob has already done, but just with MUCH better search capabilities; i.e., MORE KEYWORDS like "F-Res Patch" instead of having to enter "Final Resolution Patch".

Ira
That's a different story then.:)
I ran into an online-only manual with another program yesterday and still burning from that pita.:(

DanT

[hclague]

I think the biggest one that took me a while was to remember to not expect to click on a fader and zip the scroll wheel up and down to move a fader or settings. I kept changing the hot channel all the time by mistake. :)


Ha! I thought I was the only one who had this problem until an engineer I was trying to train on the system had the same comment.

i had asked Bob a while back about a possible option to choose whether the mouse wheel adjusts values or scrolls channels, but it was shot down. Maybe he might reconsider? ;)

Hal

[Trackzilla]

If the manual you need is 'online only' did you try saving the webpage so you could access it locally...that's how i kill that one when it appears in my life ;)

[905shmick]

If the manual you need is 'online only' did you try saving the webpage so you could access it locally...that's how i kill that one when it appears in my life ;)

Even better, install PDFCreator (http://www.pdfforge.org/) (free) and "print" it directly to a PDF.

[UpTilDawn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackzilla
If the manual you need is 'online only' did you try saving the webpage so you could access it locally...that's how i kill that one when it appears in my life



Even better, install PDFCreator (http://www.pdfforge.org/) (free) and "print" it directly to a PDF.



Both excellent ideas! Don't know why I didn't think of pdf creator the other night..... I use it now and then and like it.

Never really got the saved web page thing before.... haven't really tried, I suppose. I usually end up copying and pasting into a word doc, or even to photoshop when needed. Then I can copy the doc/image into a folder containing the program files and into a reference folder on the audio drive.

DanT

[DaveStevens]

Yeah, I'm one of the guys from "over there". (Ira, what's up?!!!, Long time) I've been giving SAC a test drive. Not bad, particularly for the money. Though to say it's going to replace the current crop of high end surfaces is simply silly. I can see some great apps for SAC but replacing a fully loaded D-Show or SD7 is a pipe dream perpetuated by guys that are speaking outside of the depth of their experience. If you guys want any credibilty at that end of the business give the Behringer mic pre thing a rest. Fine at the low end, but up top I shouldn't even have to mention how silly that is.

I've been posting my observations over there. Latency is HUGE right now, I'll try a setting Carlo (or shall I call you kruntz over here?) suggested tonight and see what happens.

Lastly, I'd like to address some of the ignorant comments made by some posters in this thread. Specifically addressing the accusations that we "are afraid of change". Kid, we drive change. Many of us are the reason that surface and digital technology has been able to progress particularly in the early days where there was a great deal of push back. Arrogant? A lot of us are good at what we do and know it. We wouldn't get paid what we do by the people we do if we weren't. Some of you Jr Mints have no idea how it is to swim in the deep end of the pool. Opinionated? Sure but at least we have the experience and expertise along with the track record to back it up. I'm glad to see there are some guys over here that get it. Stebbeds, Ira, Frank, they get it. Some of you guys would do well to follow their example and in the meantime, listen more, post less. Having an opinion is fine but make sure it's a well informed opinion.

Dave

[hclague]

For those of you that don't know, Dave is a heavy hitter. He knows of what he speaks.

Hal

[Mark Stebbeds]

How much does he weigh?

Mark

[Leadfoot]

Dang it, I was just starting to feel better about myself.. thanks heavy.

[RBIngraham]

How much does he weigh?

Mark

If that purple dinosaur avatar is an accurate picture, I would say he could stand to loose a few pounds. :p

[IraSeigel]

Hey Dave! Welcome here. It HAS been a long time. Still with the girls? Still living in the Land of Flannel?

Cheers,
Ira

[mfowler1981]

"-Though to say it's going to replace the current crop of high end surfaces is simply silly. I can see some great apps for SAC but replacing a fully loaded D-Show or SD7 is a pipe dream perpetuated by guys that are speaking outside of the depth of their experience. If you guys want any credibilty at that end of the business give the Behringer mic pre thing a rest. Fine at the low end, but up top I shouldn't even have to mention how silly that is.
-Latency is HUGE right now
-Kid, we drive change.
-Arrogant? A lot of us are good at what we do and know it.
-Some of you Jr Mints have no idea how it is to swim in the deep end of the pool. "

That's some pretty strong words without mentioning anything specifiic. What can a D-show or SD7 do that SAC cannot?

SAC presents no more latency in its entire system that a digital snake in itself.

Here is a posting directly from whirlwinds website about Latency.
http://www.whirlwindusa.com/wwlatart.html

Here are some general latency spec's from the posting listed above

Unit Approx. Latency (ms)
Digital Snake 3-7 (ms)
Digital Console 1-3 (ms)
Drive Signal Processor 5-10 (ms)
System Total 9-20 (ms)

I personally am not a fan of Behringer. I'm am looking at RME and SSL with MADI for my front end to SAC.

[IraSeigel]

Here is a posting directly from whirlwinds website about Latency.
http://www.whirlwindusa.com/wwlatart.html

Here are some general latency spec's from the posting listed above

Unit Approx. Latency (ms)
Digital Snake 3-7 (ms)
Digital Console 1-3 (ms)
Drive Signal Processor 5-10 (ms)
System Total 9-20 (ms)


Hi,
Just curious about something in these figures.
Does this mean that, no matter what kind of digital or analog system you're using, you're ALWAYS going to have a minimum of 5-10ms of latency (or delay?) intrinsic in the drive processing? So anytime you see a BSS or DBX or SoundWeb, etc, in the system, you should assume that you're going to have that much delay?

And if you're going thru multiple systems - let's say DriveRack and then into a SoundWeb or SymNet for distribution to many different areas in a venue - does the delay increase thru each Drive Signal Processor used?

Thanks,
Ira

PS By what Dave mentions as "Latency being a huge issue", I'm guessing that he means the lag time in working with a wireless tablet - a la Yamaha's Studio Manager or Soundcrafts Vi6 software - or operating SAC via wireless. I don't think he meant latency that's inherent to a system.

[Rick Stansby]

Fear not! There will always be those that are afraid to attempt new ways of doing complex things. Mixing on a desk is second nature to most of us and then to change to mixing from a remote laptop I am sure was at first very concerning to all, with questions such as will it crash, are ADA8k'S going to sound good enough, is switching between screens fast enough, etc. Those are decissions each of us have to make regarding how each of us work. Most here are over the issues by now with a few holdouts. As I read the posts it seemed in their statments that it was quite apparent that few had ever actully used SAC but had a lot of bad things to say about it, towards the end of the thread view where begining to change we hope.

Keep the faith!!!

Chris

I am a member of the PSW community, and I think you have missed a lot of the concerns that have been posted on PSW, as well as a lot of the praise for SAC.

There are some PSW members who are willing to try new things, and who mix shows on remote laptops. Instead of pretending that we don't exist, perhaps you should ask yourself what we are using. I suggest you look at Studio Manager for the Yamaha consoles.

Look at the overview screen (your "F mixer"). Consider how much more information and control studio manager gives you.

Look at the selected channel window (your W mixer), look how much more information and control the EQ and dynamics graphs give you.

The SAC looks like a bunch of analog sliders and number fields, only gain is displayed graphically, the rest must be deciphered to be understood. The Yamaha gives you graphic display of Q and frequency. It is almost as if the scared PSW members have embraced a new way of doing things, while the cutting edge SAC users have insisted on trying to imitate analog controls.

[Rick Stansby]

Hi,
Just curious about something in these figures.
Does this mean that, no matter what kind of digital or analog system you're using, you're ALWAYS going to have a minimum of 5-10ms of latency (or delay?) intrinsic in the drive processing? So anytime you see a BSS or DBX or SoundWeb, etc, in the system, you should assume that you're going to have that much delay?

Yes. You will always have delay when using a DSP, some may be less than 5 ms.


And if you're going thru multiple systems - let's say DriveRack and then into a SoundWeb or SymNet for distribution to many different areas in a venue - does the delay increase thru each Drive Signal Processor used?

Yes. The latency is cumulative.

[Jeff Scott]

I mixed on a Yamaha LS9 for several months before implementing my SAC system. The Yamaha Studio manager enabled you to do things faster than on the console but there were quite a few things you could only do thru the LS9 board itself. I found that frustrating. In the end I just found SAC easier and more intuitive to use.

[RBIngraham]

Hi,
Just curious about something in these figures.
Does this mean that, no matter what kind of digital or analog system you're using, you're ALWAYS going to have a minimum of 5-10ms of latency (or delay?) intrinsic in the drive processing? So anytime you see a BSS or DBX or SoundWeb, etc, in the system, you should assume that you're going to have that much delay?

And if you're going thru multiple systems - let's say DriveRack and then into a SoundWeb or SymNet for distribution to many different areas in a venue - does the delay increase thru each Drive Signal Processor used?

Thanks,
Ira

I personally think some of those numbers are a tad high. Of course they are also very generic numbers with no actual make and model numbers expressed as examples... and of course while it appears to be an article from Live Sound, it is posted on the web site of manufacturer who is of course trying to sell you a digital snake. :)

It's also hard to say how old that article is. The picture of the Live Sound cover is a tad too fuzzy for my eyes to read anyway. So the info could also be a tad dated.

Digital Snakes seem all over the place in terms of latency. It totally depends on whether they are just a format converter (like an AudioRail for example) or if they are a fully networkable and switchable Ethernet based protocol (like something based on Cobranet or EtherSound). For snakes that are Ethernet based it also depends on how many hops on and off the network you are talking about. Each time you hop on and off the network it adds a touch more latency. So mic to snake is on hop on, then snake to mix console, is a hop off, then mix console to snake, hop on, snake to DSP of some kind, hop off, DSP to snake, hop on, snake to amplifier, hop off. So the more hops on and off you have the more latency. If you minimize some of those, then of course you also lower the latency.

For systems like the AudioRail, I think the added latency of that is measure in microseconds rather than milliseconds. So for the most part those add almost no latency at all except for what is already present with whatever A-D-A convertors you have plugged into them. But these systems don't offer as much flexibility.

It all just depends on what you need to do and what tolerances can be acceptable for a given situation.

Most of the digital consoles I've worked with have less than 2ms of through put latency. And maybe I just haven't paid enough attention, but most of the DSP processors I've worked with have about the same amount, 2ms or less. (not counting any delay I might add for artistic reasons, such as to add precedence effect delay or for fill speakers, etc...) Maybe I just am not looking at some of the more popular units or something, I don't know...

I typically try to keep a system under 6ms total, from mic in to speaker out and I don't really think that is all that difficult to achieve.

To finally answer your question, yes, your total system latency will add up Ira as you add more and more devices to a signal chain. This is why it's important to know how much each component in your system is adding so you can manage it. It's why it's important to know real numbers of how much latency is in our SAC systems.

So just as an example if I have a Yamaha console and it has 1.5ms of latency, and I chain together two dsp boxes that are each add 2ms, then I'm at 5.5ms of total system latency. That's probably workable in most situations.

It all depends on your needs, the venue, etc, etc, etc.... Just as that article kind of mentioned. If you're talking about the latency of the sound system at a major league ball park, well then it likely wouldn't matter all that much if the latency was 20 ms or 6 ms. :p

[RBIngraham]

I mixed on a Yamaha LS9 for several months before implementing my SAC system. The Yamaha Studio manager enabled you to do things faster than on the console but there were quite a few things you could only do thru the LS9 board itself. I found that frustrating. In the end I just found SAC easier and more intuitive to use.


I use Yamaha M7 and LS9 consoles on a very regular basis. I also use Studio Manager. There are things that I like better in Studio Manager and there are things that I like a lot better in SAC. One thing I will say is that it annoys me that with the M7 and the LS9 is the fact that if you want to get things done quickly you almost have to have Studio Manager fired up and running. There are so many functions that are just a hassle to get to on the console itself that you almost have to use Studio Manager whether you like it or not. But of course as you noted, there are other things that you can only do at the console. Like adjust delay times on outputs, there's one that annoys me... I have to get my butt up out of my seat at the tech table to go adjust the output delays... GRRRRrrrrr.. :p Oh well, I guess the exercise won't kill me. :)

I've posted several times now why I just like using SAC on a show over either the M7 or LS9, so for those that really care, you can search the forum. :)

[hclague]

I suggest you look at Studio Manager for the Yamaha consoles.

Look at the overview screen (your "F mixer"). Consider how much more information and control studio manager gives you.

Look at the selected channel window (your W mixer), look how much more information and control the EQ and dynamics graphs give you.
controls.

Rick

Have you mixed via a laptop remoted in to a Yamaha console using Studiomanager? If so could you outline the setup? When I tried it it was no where near as stable and functional as the SAC remote software.

Maybe there was a better way I should have tried it but I believe I had to use two computers. Computer #1 running studiomanager connected to the console. Computer #2 remoted in to Computer #1 via Tight VNC.

Hal

[Rick Stansby]

I mixed on a Yamaha LS9 for several months before implementing my SAC system. The Yamaha Studio manager enabled you to do things faster than on the console but there were quite a few things you could only do thru the LS9 board itself. I found that frustrating. In the end I just found SAC easier and more intuitive to use.

I don't want to dispute which system has a better overall control set. I just want to point out that SAC has missed a major advantage available with computer control. It is amazing to me that SAC has not added graphic display of settings.

As for things you can't do in studio manager, at least you can adjust gain and reverb times.

[Rick Stansby]

Rick

Have you mixed via a laptop remoted in to a Yamaha console using Studiomanager? If so could you outline the setup? When I tried it it was no where near as stable and functional as the SAC remote software.
Yes.


Maybe there was a better way I should have tried it but I believe I had to use two computers. Computer #1 running studiomanager connected to the console. Computer #2 remoted in to Computer #1 via Tight VNC.


I don't like VNC because you have to send all of the screen data, instead of just control and monitoring data. Also I think a dedicated router is more reliable than an adhoc network between laptop wifi cards. I use a single laptop.

I hooked a Linksys router to the back of the mixer, and I run studio manager on my laptop. The initial set-up can be frustrating for many, but I have a dedicated laptop, which I don't use for business or surfing the web. Once the laptop is configured it hooks up every time. There are rare glitches, and of course I lose sync if I walk out of range of the router.

[Rick Stansby]

I use Yamaha M7 and LS9 consoles on a very regular basis. I also use Studio Manager. There are things that I like better in Studio Manager and there are things that I like a lot better in SAC. One thing I will say is that it annoys me that with the M7 and the LS9 is the fact that if you want to get things done quickly you almost have to have Studio Manager fired up and running. There are so many functions that are just a hassle to get to on the console itself that you almost have to use Studio Manager whether you like it or not. But of course as you noted, there are other things that you can only do at the console. Like adjust delay times on outputs, there's one that annoys me... I have to get my butt up out of my seat at the tech table to go adjust the output delays... GRRRRrrrrr.. :p Oh well, I guess the exercise won't kill me. :)

I've posted several times now why I just like using SAC on a show over either the M7 or LS9, so for those that really care, you can search the forum. :)

Both Studio Manager and SAC have certain limitations. I find that I adjust channel gain much more often than output delay. YMMV.

[hclague]

This question is posed to the "Varsity" players ( Dave, Frank, Ira, Bob etc.. )

At your level I'm assuming the rigs have only one AD (Mics in) and one DA (speaker managment out or Amp output) conversion. The signal path in between remains digital. Is this correct?

That way I would think latency is certainly minimized. I have kept my system this way but at the local level, seems most are running with multiple conversions.

Hal

[IraSeigel]

...
I hooked a Linksys router to the back of the mixer, and I run studio manager on my laptop. ...

You couldn't do this with the older generation of digital consoles like the TT24 (may it RIP). The provided USB port was for a computer. Then you'd run your wireless router off the computer.

The newer generation of consoles - like the Vi and Si series Soundcrafts and the Yamahas, you can do as Rick does and not have to use an intermediate computer; the necessary software and protocols are built into the desk.

Ira

[DaveStevens]

Hey Dave! Welcome here. It HAS been a long time. Still with the girls? Still living in the Land of Flannel?

Greetings. I retired from touring and moved to Vegas in 2005. I had a good 14 year run with Annie and Nance and a good 10 years with one of those other "local bands". ;) For the last few years I've been one of the principal mixers for one of the big shows on the Strip. These days I work for a fire breathing, stilt walking clown that likes to travel in space. ;)

PM me with what you've been up to.

Dave

[DaveStevens]

That's some pretty strong words without mentioning anything specifiic. What can a D-show or SD7 do that SAC cannot?

SAC presents no more latency in its entire system that a digital snake in itself.


There was a driver profile issue. The Fast Track is fine now latency wise. That rig with that interface would only do a 4x256. I just tried to load it on one of the production DAWs that is connected to all 128 channels of the MADI. After assigning the 49th input and checking the load looks like it locked up. Also didn't recognize the 2nd Hammerfall card and didn't recognize the last two inputs on the 1st card. Doesn't matter

Strong words, you bet. I mentioned some of it over on the other thread. As for features that are in high end surfaces that aren't in SAC anyone that has used the big dog surfaces even a bit can tell differences. Flexibility of bus structure is a big one for me. Matrices? Anyone? This labeling and input assignment is a pain in the ass. A grid is a lot slicker way to do it. I'm not here to bash the SAC it's got some cool things and it's cheap but to think that it can replace a big dog surface in a high end app in my experience and opinion foolish and naive.

Dave

[RBIngraham]

Both Studio Manager and SAC have certain limitations. I find that I adjust channel gain much more often than output delay. YMMV.

I work in theatre. I have a board op/mixer (ie. a human) at the FOH mixer that does these things for me. No matter if I'm using SAC or a Yamaha. :D

I'm using delays typically to adjust for precedence delay effects to make the sound as natural as possible, locating the sound back to the natural voice of the actor as much as possible.

So usually, I'm adjusting delay times just as much as gains. In fact, usually a lot less.

Yes, I get different mileage results than you. Probably because I'm on a completely different highway than you are. :)

[KUI]

Wow DAve have you ever used SAC for a real Gig? I build SAC systems in Nashville. Have 1 out with the Brady Seals Band, Colt Ford has also used this sytems with great accolades. I have built the system pictured below and do not believe that all you have said is quite right. SAC can and will be used for major acts in the foreseeable future. My self and others are constantly worlking on a control surface. This rig has done 12 shows that average a week on location since August 09.

[RBIngraham]

This question is posed to the "Varsity" players ( Dave, Frank, Ira, Bob etc.. )

At your level I'm assuming the rigs have only one AD (Mics in) and one DA (speaker managment out or Amp output) conversion. The signal path in between remains digital. Is this correct?

That way I would think latency is certainly minimized. I have kept my system this way but at the local level, seems most are running with multiple conversions.

Hal

A-D-A conversions is NOT where most of your total latency comes from in any one "box". Most of the latency is processing time needed to do all the calculations, or in the case of SAC, there are buffers created between the sound card and SAC itself, to allow the computer time to process the data.

So while doing a lot of extra A-D-A conversions will add some extra latency over just having on one point where the A to D and one point where the D to A happens, that number is likely to be fairly small unless you're just talking about a ridiculously large of "boxes" that do something to the signal.

The main place where you're likely to notice a bigger difference by having an all digital signal path is audio quality. The more you have to convert back and forth, the more all those tiny errors that happen when you covert to and from digital will add up and eventually effect your over all signal quality. But I think you'd have to get up to a pretty large number of devices before you would hear a noticeable difference. But it all depends on the quality of the converters in the equipment as well.

[Bob L]

I understand that humans, in general, are resistant to change... but some of these comments are just simply sad jibberish.

SAC is brand new and so it is still finding its way into the so called pro arena... and its a bold concept to gain faith in... and it will take a little time... but... I personally take offense at anyone suggesting I have no professional experience... and that others who like and use SAC are less than professional... and that SAC will NEVER match the current large digital expensive systems.... I dare say... I already believe it has easily surpassed them in almost ALL respects... not the least of which is the EXTREME money savings AND how much less gear needs to come out of the trucks.... and audio quality... no contest.

SAC is doing gigs of all sizes and proving itself on a nightly basis here in major showrroms... Large conventions with bigger A/V budgets for 4 days than many pro tours have for an entire x month tour.

These kinds of comments saying how it would never be taken serious in the real pro market... are simply laughable... stop speculating and take a look around... SAC is already being used in many huge events by those that are ready for change.. SAC is creeping up on the audio industry... and my guess is that soon many of the loudest bashers will find themselves in dinasour land looking for work... lugging their Yamahas and DigiCos and Venues around behind them. :)

And if we really want to talk about the real pros... it saddens me that any audio engineer that considers himself a professional has ever accepted and praised the horrendous audio quality of the current line of digital consoles without complete embarrasment...

It's unfortunate that most of the loudmouth attacks seem to be coming from those that have never seen or heard or tried a real SAC rig... properly built... with latencies as low or lower than many digital systems in the marketplace...

And please... spare us the Behringer comments... Behringers have nothing to do with SAC... except as one choice you have when you build one... I could easily throw back at those high-endie pro's comments about how weak the pres are in their Midas XL8 compared to my big SAC rig using racks of Manley mic pres and my choice of what I might feel are the best converters in the industry.... but all of that is pointless discussion... SAC can have any one of hundreds of front-end designs... with custom, or off the shelf components... your choice... it seems that point is missed by some of these arguments... or purposely glossed over so they can throw the focus off what's real and just get down and dirty in bashing land.... I would think that any real pro would look at that feature with incredible excitement, as now they can have the freedom to design their own front-end and not have to accept the pres that come with their x tens or x hundred thousand dollar consoles.

The reality is... SAC has been put up side by side in large venues with many of the big digital... and even some analog consoles... and has proven cleaner and quieter and smoother sounding to everyone present when switching back and forth between the two systems... and that is with a rack of Behringers... so... before making bold statements of how ridiculous SAC is... people might want to have a real listen first, just to preserve their reputation and not appear foolish to those that have heard the difference.

So... this forum welcomes anyone who is here to learn about this new technology... and explore the possibilities it brings to the industry we all claim to love... audio.... but... I and others do not take kindly to wild bashing and personal slander attacks about how amateur we might be in contrast to those that claim to be the pros... so I say to anyone with that intent... please take your childish behaviour elsewhere... I am not a fan of self proclaimed or real professionals who behave like children... I can respect a truly pro resume... but I can't respect non-professional behaviour in my forum.

I am happy to share ideas and concepts with anyone, pro or not, who has something constructive to say... and who might want to share in the vision that SAC offers...

And, comments about missing elements that all are familiar with come up pretty weak, in my opinion, when you truly see what SAC changes and brings to the table to replace and obsolete those concepts. I am not here to copy and duplicate the same old thing that's been done hundreds of times.. I choose to attempt to expand on those methods and offer new ways of getting things done in a more efficient manner, taking the ideas of virtual to its limits... and going far beyond anything a physical system can offer for any amounts of money...

Matrix mixing has been mentioned... how about 24 giant matrices... each of which can be individually controlled with a laptop or netbook... with eq, comps, gates and so forth... offering new ways of doing things that leave the matrix mix in the dust, in my opinion... what... your studio manager can only be used with one laptop at a time... too bad... you want eq curves... I say why... I have seen and worked with eq curve displays... and heard what other pros have done using that concept... it seems to have people lost in drawing pretty pictures rather than listening with their ears... I have seen many of those displays... they are completely ridiculous as far as offering up any real information... in my personal experience on the Midas XL8, for instance... I can not look at the eq curve display and tell anything about where the real boosts and cuts are... in both db levels and exact frquencies... I doubt anyone else can either... so what's all the rage about eq curve displays... I can tell exactness very quickly in SAC... it's just a different concept... once explored... many others have commented on how much easier it is to dial the eq into the mix... or precisely set comp or gate thresholds... etc.

I find it very exciting to now have the opportunity to build your own Neve, or Midas, or Yamaha, or SSL... etc, console in your basement or garage... and own it... and truly realize after a few gigs using it, that you have now just replaced the need for these other extremely expensive consoles and racks of external effects and room eqs... etc... and not only duplicated everything you could do before, but have now gone far beyond what was even considered possible before...

For those that try it out with an open mind... and get into the flow of some of the new ideas and concepts, the results can be extremely rewarding, and many are realizing far better mixes and efficiency than ever before in their reports of their gig experiences.

Some are crashing and burning in making the transition... and others are perfect right out of the gate... it is different... it is powerful... it is very exciting.... it may not be for everybody... but it is definitely for many... and I am truly believing it will continue to find it's way deep into the pro and every audio market and make quite an impact...

So... no need for people to fight back and go out of their way to bash and preach about the impossiblities that SAC can NEVER achieve... in fact... for those not interested SAC... I feel they should be thanking me... because, I predict that soon... there will be a smorgasbord of very expensive pro digital consoles on E-Bay for extremely cheap prices that they can snatch up for themselves... but will any pro ever want to use them again on their important gigs? :)

It has been said before... Once you Go SAC... You'll never go Back!!

And I say... Resistance Is Futile... You will EVENTUALLY be assimilated. :D

Bob L

[DaveStevens]

Bob most of the brickbats are coming from SAC forum side of the fence. A guy over there asked about the desk and got the opinions of people working in the business. Carlo started the thread over here where they started attacking people for presenting an opinion. Many of these guys have no idea what it takes to get work done at this end of the biz yet offer opinions about something of which they know nothing about. And it happens a bunch over there as well. The whole resistant to change mantra or wanting to protect an investment is just plain BS. AFAIK the people making those claims have zero experience in the world of high performance audio. The guys in your forum that do have that experience largely agree with what was posted over there.

I'm all about change but I'm also about the right tool for the right job. Some of us think at this point your product is not appropriate for for all applications. And frankly I don't think any product ever will. Some of us have valid concerns and when you or other dismiss that as some conspiracy against you rather than an honest disagreement it weakens your ability to be objective. I understand it's your baby but at the same time misrepresenting or even as some do by vilifying those that don't agree with you is doing the exact same thing that you are railing against in your post. You are introducing Mr Kettle to Mr Pot.

I've got one up now at the show, seems to be running OK except it's about 50 channels short of a full load of just mics and playback not including SFX and FX. And we'd be a couple hundred outputs short. :eek: FOH is 196x312 (counting the room acoustics simulator, the mixer alone is 156x184) with mon beach weighing in at 152x76. We love the I/O. ;) If you make it to Vegas, let me know I'll give you the tour. We're getting ready to fire up the 2nd show, I'll post more observations as I find them.

Dave

[lixisoft]

FOH is 196x312
--------------------------------

Please explain this to me in more detail..................

[ssrsound]

Dave -- you and Bob are in the same city. If you read through the site you'll see that his prototypes are running several of the showrooms. Y'all should talk.


196x312? That's just silly. Someone's just throwing hardware at a problem rather than solving it. Not that I wouldn't enjoy seeing it... :}

[airickess]

196x312? That's just silly. Someone's just throwing hardware at a problem rather than solving it. Not that I wouldn't enjoy seeing it... :}No, that's not the case at all. Sound designs for the large shows in Vegas are incredibly intensive, especially in the purpose-built rooms (and aren't most of them purpose-built nowadays?). It's not just for a few bands in a traditional theater where you might have a L/R P.A. setup plus some front-fills and maybe some balcony delays.
One of the "problems" faced on one of the earlier Vegas shows Dave Stevens was working was the band was split up into three (or was it four) sections and the band sections were hundreds of feet apart in a large, round room. Yes, throwing the right hardware at that "problem" was the correct thing to do.
If you have a chance, go see LOVE. It's an amazing sound design and requires an incredible amount of outputs and processing and it all sounds GREAT!

[Bob L]

Well... obviously... SAC itself is not ready for 196 x 312 in one box... but so... how many shows currently have that need?

And I'm not sure I would ever want to attack a situation like that with a single system built like that anyway.

But... if you notice... I am not in those forums making wild accusations or claims... I am representing what SAC brings to the table very accurately...

Obviously... I cannot control how others behave in a public forum.

So... Dave... it would be nice to meet with you here in Vegas, and perhaps discuss where and how SAC could be applied in a show of that size.... give me a call at my contact number sometime if you are interested to explore what SAC is now... and better yet... contribute some ideas to where it has to go to fit your needs for the next show of that size.

The extra beauty that SAC brings to the table is direct communication with myself as the developer... and new features can easily be customized and coded overnight for special needs in productions of that size and budget... that's hard to find with most other systems. :)

Bob L

[RBIngraham]

Bob most of the brickbats are coming from SAC forum side of the fence. A guy over there asked about the desk and got the opinions of people working in the business. Carlo started the thread over here where they started attacking people for presenting an opinion. Many of these guys have no idea what it takes to get work done at this end of the biz yet offer opinions about something of which they know nothing about. And it happens a bunch over there as well. The whole resistant to change mantra or wanting to protect an investment is just plain BS. AFAIK the people making those claims have zero experience in the world of high performance audio. The guys in your forum that do have that experience largely agree with what was posted over there.

I'm all about change but I'm also about the right tool for the right job. Some of us think at this point your product is not appropriate for for all applications. And frankly I don't think any product ever will. Some of us have valid concerns and when you or other dismiss that as some conspiracy against you rather than an honest disagreement it weakens your ability to be objective. I understand it's your baby but at the same time misrepresenting or even as some do by vilifying those that don't agree with you is doing the exact same thing that you are railing against in your post. You are introducing Mr Kettle to Mr Pot.

I've got one up now at the show, seems to be running OK except it's about 50 channels short of a full load of just mics and playback not including SFX and FX. And we'd be a couple hundred outputs short. :eek: FOH is 196x312 (counting the room acoustics simulator, the mixer alone is 156x184) with mon beach weighing in at 152x76. We love the I/O. ;) If you make it to Vegas, let me know I'll give you the tour. We're getting ready to fire up the 2nd show, I'll post more observations as I find them.

Dave

Dave I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of rocks or other hard objects being thrown around on either forum if you ask me. Not that you likely wanted my opinion, since I'm sure I fall under the category of "should post less". :p

Sure, the folks in the Pro Sound Web forum are bashing a product and not a person, but when heated language is used to bash a product and make comments suggesting one would be foolish to use SAC in an serious application... well how do you expect professionals that are using SAC to react? It's just an indirect way of saying that I am a fool.

Having said that, I don't automatically assume that the folks on the Pro Sound Web forum don't know what they are talking about and I agree that some on this forum have improperly categorized folks on that forum. Hell this is a pretty small industry, many of us are are all on the same forums and emails lists (as you and I are perfect examples, this is what the 3rd list or group we've run into each other? :))

I did like how one of the Pro Sound Web members took my post from here and put it over there, but didn't bother to copy my name to it, and lumped me in with others bashing the Pro Sound Web members. They could at least give credit and/or blame where it's due, it's a common courtesy if you're going to pilfer what someone else wrote. :) Actually it's usually common courtesy to ask someone for permission before you copy and paste what they wrote... but maybe that's just me...

I've been trying to join the PSW forum actually and for some reason it won't let me. It keeps saying it's sent me a confirmation email but I never get that email. Oh well... probably best that I don't get involved in yet another forum! The audio world will be better off for it I'm sure. :p

Dave seriously, just because you don't know for sure if anyone on this forum has any experience working in high profile shows (or shall I just say high budget shows, since you seem to associate that with quality/ability of work, at least that is how your posts come across to me anyway) doesn't mean that we don't. Certainly there are plenty of folks on this forum that are small business owners that are running small sound companies that have little experience in keeping folks like Jonathan Deans happy. (I can only assume that is the show you're talking about, please correct me if I'm wrong) The same is true for members of this forum. I shouldn't make any assumptions about their skill set or experience over on PSW. However I don't believe I threw any stones at the Pro Sound Web forum, just pointed out that there seemed to be plenty of SAC bashing by folks that clearly had never tried it out if they have even seen one.

I'm glad your checking SAC out. I think that goes a long way to show that your a very open minded person to trying new things out. I don't think most of us over here are suggesting SAC would be a full replacement for a large LCS rig. At least not the members who even know what LCS is. :D

Take care.

[mloretitsch]

Keep in mind there are a lot of pros out there who don't use PSW for one reason or another. You are hearing from one portion of the industry. As sound engineers we are highly opinionated especially with the large sums of money involved in the gear we own, but I think everyone should take the high road and let it go.

If you are into SAC and want to see more of it:
-Be professional with clean rack installs no matter your size.
-Take pride in what you do and be a good representative to the SAC community.
-Add it to your riders as a preferred mixer
-Share your knowledge with other engineers in a non-condescending way.

IMHO of course...
-Matt

[IraSeigel]

...
If you are into SAC and want to see more of it:
-Be professional with clean rack installs no matter your size.
-Take pride in what you do and be a good representative to the SAC community.
-Add it to your riders as a preferred mixer
-Share your knowledge with other engineers in a non-condescending way.

IMHO of course...
-Matt

Good suggestions. Thanks.
Ira

[DominicPerry]

As there are clearly now members of PSW coming over to this thread, I've deleted my original, somewhat inflammatory post, although it still exists in quotes in one of Mark's posts. I think a constructive discussion is more in order; my apologies for raising the temperature rather than adding anything useful. I shall go and be a Jnr Mint (whatever that is) in the corner somewhere.

Dominic

[MikeDee]

http://zomgcandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/food-blog-pictures-618.jpg (http://zomgcandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/food-blog-pictures-618.jpg)

Proud to be one, lol. :D:D:D:D:D

Now let's all be friends...group hug! :cool:

[mfowler1981]

Junior Mints
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Junior Mint" redirects here. For the Seinfeld episode, see The Junior Mint.


An open box of 4.75 oz Junior Mints as sold in the United States
Junior Mints are a candy consisting of small rounds of mint filling inside a dark chocolate coating. Currently produced by Tootsie Roll Industries, the product is packaged in varying amounts from the fun-size box to the much larger 12.0 oz. box.

[Wink0r]

I've been trying to join the PSW forum actually and for some reason it won't let me. It keeps saying it's sent me a confirmation email but I never get that email.
I had the same experience, but that didn't stop them from adding my email address from their mailing list.

[Rick Stansby]

I have built the system pictured below ...

That is a slick looking set-up. Good job.

[Rick Stansby]

Bob,
First let me say that I am very interested with the work you do, and I certainly don't mean to bash anyone here. I mentioned the issue of graphic EQ curves, so I will respond to your following comment.


you want eq curves... I say why... I have seen and worked with eq curve displays... and heard what other pros have done using that concept... it seems to have people lost in drawing pretty pictures rather than listening with their ears... I have seen many of those displays... they are completely ridiculous as far as offering up any real information... in my personal experience on the Midas XL8, for instance... I can not look at the eq curve display and tell anything about where the real boosts and cuts are... in both db levels and exact frquencies... I doubt anyone else can either... so what's all the rage about eq curve displays... I can tell exactness very quickly in SAC... it's just a different concept... once explored... many others have commented on how much easier it is to dial the eq into the mix... or precisely set comp or gate thresholds... etc.


By that argument you should remove the graphic display of EQ gain settings.

[Mark Stebbeds]

As usual, the comments regarding the perceived weaknesses in SS are about features, intuitiveness, maneuverability around the interface, graphic displays etc. But the defensive arguments or opinions always come back to "it sounds good" and "it's cheap" and "it's easier to set up".

The two have nothing to do with each other.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, and include the cost of remote controlled stage rack mic pre amps as are included in the DigiCo, Yamaha and Digidesign Venue systems so frequently mentioned here as a cost comparison, then you have to add on the cost ..for comparison. For a 56 channel remote controlled mic pre amp set up, you have to spend something around $35K or $40K ...AND UP ....AND UP ...just to get started. Then add on several more more grand for output DA and several more grand for various interfaces, you are approaching the price point of the aforementioned consoles ...with their redundant power supply back ups.

....and you still have no control surfaces in that budget....

Mark

[quaizywabbit]

mixing by eye, or with your ears???

[ssrsound]

I think one of the things you're missing (or not realizing the potential of) is the erector-set-like flexibility of SAC. To me that's its biggest strength.

Want cheap Pres/AD converters? Get the behringer ones. Want better ones? Get better ones. I'm personally excited about the prospect of having the exact same core running either one for different purposes.

By the same token, you want EQ curves? drop in your favorite VST or SAW plug-in. Unlike most offerings out there, you're not stuck with whatever the manufacturer decides you'll like. And when something even better comes your way, you're free to drop that in too. I mean, it's far from the first digital console to allow VST plugins, but it's a strength that's worth not ignoring.

[Ogmeister]

Bob,

Your comments about used digital consoles has hit home for me as I have one PM5 two M7's and three LS9's and would love to move them out of the way, but I still have them on many cross rentals and shows.
After my first side by side A/B comparison with the Yammiess against the SAC I was convinced. In fact my first time out on a gig with SAC I setup a parallel system using SAC and one M7. Headliner mixed on the M7 and I mixed the local act on the SAC. Needless to say I was blown away at the ease of getting a great sound. ( by the way I am more of a systems guy then a mix engineer) It was so good that I had many unsolicited comments from several people about how great it sounded. You did not have to be a "Pro" to discern the difference of what the M7 sounded like against the SAC.... and this was my first time using the console.....WOW!

I can not wait till the day comes that these acts start asking for the SAC console on their riders. I don't give a hoot about the cost I am in business to provide quality audio. In my opinion there has been no digital console that I considered sounding good till I heard your SAC.
The only reason I own these Yammies is because that is what is popular on the riders.

To all you so called "Pros"
If you just put your ego in the background and give this software a fair test you will find what I discovered.... it is amazing!!!!
Use your ears like nature intended and stop relying on graphs and fancy instruments and you will not be disappointed.

Thanks Bob.... I have willingly assimilated........ :)

[Rick Stansby]

mixing by eye, or with your ears???

Of course you are mixing with your ears. I think you'll agree that your eyes can be used to enhance your ability to control the mixer to make the sounds your ears want to hear.

For example, lets say the soundcheck has not started and I am trying to configure the mixer, as much as possible in advance. How can I use my ears to help me? I can't, but I can use my eyes. For example, I would like to make sure I put a hpf on each of the vocal mics. I don't even have to pick up my pen or mouse or keyboard, and I can quickly scan the overview window in Studio Manager. The tiny eq curve on that window certainly doesn't tell me a whole lot about the EQ settings for the channels, but it is quickly apparent if the hpf is engaged, and if the frequency is at a reasonable place. With the SAC, I will have to go through each channel one at a time. The F mixer doesn't really tell me anything about the channel EQ settings.

If this was a show, or tour, I might be able to take time to look at each channel carefully. Sometimes I don't have the luxury of time. The post on PSW was specifically aimed at using the SAC for one-off, throw and go, concerts, with guest engineers. Most of my concerns about SAC relate to that specific application. Not broadway shows, concert tours and church services.

[RBIngraham]

As usual, the comments regarding the perceived weaknesses in SS are about features, intuitiveness, maneuverability around the interface, graphic displays etc. But the defensive arguments or opinions always come back to "it sounds good" and "it's cheap" and "it's easier to set up".


Sorry bub, but I don't think so. I've listed several times things that I like about SAC over some of the various competition. Certainly cost was one of the reasons, isn't bang for the buck important? I mean if you have all the money in the world to go buy whatever you want when you want it, well then god bless you.

But setting aside cost, over all I prefer the UI of SAC over the Yamaha M7 and LS9 in combination with Studio Manager. I find I have far more flexible routing than I do with either of those two platforms or any other digital board I've worked with. (but the M7 and LS9 are the largest/most expensive ones I've worked with on a regular basis)

I'll take the Scene Automation in SAC any day over what I'm used to dealing with in Yamaha land. A hell of a lot easier to use and far more flexible for my work.

I can set up more than 1 remote at a time. So if I'm working with an assistant designer, a board op and myself as designer, we could all be working on the system at the same time. I could even set up a special remote just for a backstage wireless wrangler if I wanted to do so. So the remote aspects are far more flexible.

Yes it did take me time to get used to SAC and some of the different ways it uses keyboard shortcuts and mouse movement, etc... But I feel like I've done enough shows on SAC to know what I'm talking about and I've certainly done enough shows on either a M7 or LS9 to know how to milk every ounce of routing flexibility out of them.

I like SAC enough over either the LS9 or the M7 that I'm hoping that by next summer I can figure out an efficient way to mix shows with SAC using the house M7 just as a control surface (mostly so I don't have to move the darn thing) and maybe for some mic preamps (but hopefully not, because I've used the M7/LS9 preamp alongside both a Presonus Digimax FS and ADA800s [for additional preamps on an LS9], I'll take the Digimax FS or the ADA8000s any day over the built in preamps on either of those Yamaha desks, anyone can call me whatever names they might like but that's my opinion)



The two have nothing to do with each other.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, and include the cost of remote controlled stage rack mic pre amps as are included in the DigiCo, Yamaha and Digidesign Venue systems so frequently mentioned here as a cost comparison, then you have to add on the cost ..for comparison. For a 56 channel remote controlled mic pre amp set up, you have to spend something around $35K or $40K ...AND UP ....AND UP ...just to get started. Then add on several more more grand for output DA and several more grand for various interfaces, you are approaching the price point of the aforementioned consoles ...with their redundant power supply back ups.

....and you still have no control surfaces in that budget....

Mark

I find it somewhat amusing that you say the criticisms of SAC are about the UI, feature set and intuitiveness of the software and then go into comparing costs. :D

I'm not sure why the costs of remote controlled preamps need to be included. I've put a very nice SAC rig together for less than the cost of a LS9-16, but I have far more mixing channels, more I/O, more routing flexibility than consoles much larger than that (like a M7 or LS9-32). A M7CL-48 is over $20K and it doesn't have any remote controlled preamps stock. You can of course buy them if you want, but then the price goes up a lot.

I have already pointed out some fairly affordable remote controlled preamps if your needs require that you keep the preamps on stage and want to just run a piece of CAT5 to FOH.
http://www.brikworm.co.uk/index.html

We've talked about this product plenty on the forum.

I'm not really interested in doing the math at the moment but just a rough adding in my head tells me that I could likely put together a SAC rig with remote preamps (multiple Brikworms) and about the same amount of I/O as a Yamaha M7-48 for a tad more than half the price of a stock M7-48. The only difference would be the number of faders available on the control surface.

You don't have to spend $35K plus to get 56 channels of remote preamps. Sure I suspect the Brikworms might have some features lacking that something that costs a lot more likely doesn't. I don't really know, I have not used any of them. I just put the ADA units right next to me at FOH on the SAC rigs I am running.

Maybe some on this forum are trying to compare SAC to Digico consoles or Digidesign consoles that likely have price tags in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I'm not. I have not worked on those desks, so I couldn't compare and contrast. But I have compared and contrasted with the digital boards I have extensive knowledge of and I still prefer SAC. (in most situations) The fact that I can put together comparable sized I/O for less than half the price (if not cheaper) and have much more flexibility is an added bonus and it means venues I work in that couldn't even comprehend buying a LS9, might have a chance to get something pretty nice.

Oh yeah.. one last thing... you seem to love to worry about power supplies... :) the stock M7 does not have a backup power supply, that's an additional cost item, that is not inexpensive, for the LS9 it's not even an option.

Obviously you may well disagree but I feel like I've been comparing apples to apples.

[RBIngraham]

For example, lets say the soundcheck has not started and I am trying to configure the mixer, as much as possible in advance. How can I use my ears to help me? I can't, but I can use my eyes. For example, I would like to make sure I put a hpf on each of the vocal mics. I don't even have to pick up my pen or mouse or keyboard, and I can quickly scan the overview window in Studio Manager. The tiny eq curve on that window certainly doesn't tell me a whole lot about the EQ settings for the channels, but it is quickly apparent if the hpf is engaged, and if the frequency is at a reasonable place. With the SAC, I will have to go through each channel one at a time. The F mixer doesn't really tell me anything about the channel EQ settings.

If this was a show, or tour, I might be able to take time to look at each channel carefully. Sometimes I don't have the luxury of time. The post on PSW was specifically aimed at using the SAC for one-off, throw and go, concerts, with guest engineers. Most of my concerns about SAC relate to that specific application. Not Broadway shows, concert tours and church services.

Rick,

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate (or SAC advocate I guess...) what I would do for that given scenario is to simply select all of the vocal mics in the F-Mixer, then press an F-Key to view the Wide Mixer for any one of the selected channels, then engage the EQ, turn on the high pass filter, and set it to 100Hz or whatever freq. you like to use. When you select multiple channels like that, and do something to one of them, you do it to all of them at the same time. This same trick can be used to do all sorts of short cuts in SAC. It's just about knowing the interface.

I can however see your point about a one off, especially where you might have guest engineers. In those situations you might just need to go with something that more folks will be familiar with rather than what I might think is a better tool for the job.

Just as another example, on of the places I would love to yank the LS9-32 from is a college I work with a lot. While I might some day use SAC in that venue for the shows I design, I probably wouldn't try and push them into replacing the LS9 with SAC. First of all there are usually no dedicated sound students at the college or maybe we'll have one every 2 or 3 school years. So most of the students pressed into sound service are likely not going to take the time to want to learn how to run SAC efficiently. Second, and more importantly, like it or not they will run into far more Yamaha digital desks out in the real world than SAC systems (at least for any time in the foreseeable future) so it's important that the students be exposed to working with the Yahama products. That will be far more useful to a potential employer likely than knowing how to run SAC.

[Mark Stebbeds]

I've listed several times things that I like about SAC over some of the various competition. Certainly cost was one of the reasons, isn't bang for the buck important? I mean if you have all the money in the world to go buy whatever you want when you want it, well then god bless you.

<snip>

I find it somewhat amusing that you say the criticisms of SAC are about the UI, feature set and intuitiveness of the software and then go into comparing costs. :D

I'm not sure why the costs of remote controlled preamps need to be included.

It's my observation that cost ...and ridding one's self of physical work ... are the primary reasons offered on this forum as a reason to switch to SAC. And of course, it "sounds better than anything", just like SS "sounds better than anything".

And yeah, I suggest that if one is to compare a "SAC system" to the cost of a Venue or PM5 that incorporate stage boxes of mic pres that are remotely controlled from the FOH, you can't ignore the cost of those, nor compare them with a Behringer rack ...as is done here frequently ...if not by you, then by others. And the cost of the units I'm familiar with ...the Aphex, SSL, Neve and Sytec ....are going to run you around $5K per 8 channels ...or much more ....plus the costs of the controllers. I'm sure you can find cheaper.

You are one of the primary supporters here of the SAC system and seem to be much more informed of the features of the various digital consoles. You are also a theater guy, and without intent to diminish the challenges, the requirements of theater sound are a lot less demanding than road work on a pop music concert tour. In fact, in a theater senario that stays semi-permanent for weeks at a time after several rehearsals, and primarily uses wireless lav mics which taxes the headroom on a mic pre amp very little, the inexpensive Behringer solution is probably adequate.

Most of my theater viewing experience has been on Broadway or in premier LA theaters, and I think I enjoyed theater much more back in the pre-wireless lav days, when the actors had to "project" to be heard, and the orchestra was sparsely mic'd accordingly ...to fill out the room.

Even the most successful Broadway shows sound consistently thin and shrill to me with all of the poorly placed and unnecessary lavs. My favorite theater sound are the smaller rooms where the actors aren't mic'd at all.

Mark

[Bob L]

Mark... sorry but I have to disagree with most of your comments about apples to apples...

SAC is capable of doing more than other systems for much less money... AND also capable of matching or costing much more than the consoles you mention based on what you decide to use as a front end... so I can spend as much as a Midas-XL8 if I want... or anywhere in between... and realize one SAC system gives the capabilities of 25 individual mixing consoles in one installation... and spare me the rebuttle that.. who needs 25 consoles... I say you all do... once you apply the concept... it is an amazingly powerful new way to work... and can be used in so many numerous ways to improve workflow... improve flexibility... allow multiple engineers to work from multiple remotes at the same time... each performing different functions or creating completely different mix feeds for broadcast or podcasts, or video truck feeds... etc.

I also find it interesting to note that whenever I design in a concept or feature different from the norm... that feature is most always dissed as being not needed... but when one common feature that exists everywhere else... like eq curve displays is questioned by myself or other SAC users as not being necessary... we are always wrong and being designated as amateurish or in many cases there is an underlying insinuation of a failure on my part as a developer as if I could not figure out how to implement that feature... perhaps I decided conciously NOT to implement the feature and found no use for it.

Also... with respect Rick.... you need to spend a little time to look at and experiment with the interface to see that some of your last comments are not releveant... as I and many others have no issues with speed of navigation and seeing every detail about every control on the 25 separate consoles that SAC represents... there are numerous ways to instantly navigate to any specific spot within the interface... much beyond anything anyone can ever do on the typical digital hardware control surfaces that everyone defends... and seeing multiple chans of detailed control displays... not little tiny useless displays... is a simple key or mouse click away... and not just one way to look at it... but many ways to look at it from different vantage points... and the console chan chasing features for individual views and hardware control surfaces allow amazing amounts of flexibility.

And... I must disagree about Studio Manager... I personally find it to be embarrasing as an interface... the very tiny controls for pans and auxes and faders are ridiculous, in my opinion... and the tiny eq curves do nothing but prove my point about how useless those graphs can be...

So... instead of arguing about details that are miniscule in the scope of what SAC offers, it would certainly be more fun and productive for all involved in this discussion to start exploring the details of how SAC operates for real... give it a try... open your mind that the ride will be different... and maybe you all will start to find out just how powerful and effective the ride can be... and with a little applied thought to individual mixing needs... just how many different ways SAC can solve your show situations.

And Mark... what is it about you that you must fight soooo hard to diss virtually every idea and product that I come up with... I truly have no idea what it is that I did to you to deserve such blatant public ridicule... oh well... perhaps I will never know... but really... if you have such distaste for everything I and my products are about... why do you hang here? (don't answer that...:))

Really...the price one must pay for marching to a different drummer and challanging the status-quo. :rolleyes:

I have said it many times before about SAW... I am offering my products and development ideas to the world... if you like them... use them and let's have constructive conversations about improving them... if you don't like them... simply leave them alone and move on with those products you do like... why must there be such a need to bash and stomp on them and myself as a designer... just don't use them... and as mature professionals... don't gossip about them... if you have nothing nice to say... simply keep quiet.

Bob L

[RBIngraham]

And yeah, I suggest that if one is to compare a "SAC system" to the cost of a Venue or PM5 that incorporate stage boxes of mic pres that are remotely controlled from the FOH, you can't ignore the cost of those, nor compare them with a Behringer rack ...as is done here frequently ...if not by you, then by others. And the cost of the units I'm familiar with ...the Aphex, SSL, Neve and Sytec ....are going to run you around $5K per 8 channels ...or much more ....plus the costs of the controllers. I'm sure you can find cheaper.

You are one of the primary supporters here of the SAC system and seem to be much more informed of the features of the various digital consoles. You are also a theater guy, and without intent to diminish the challenges, the requirements of theater sound are a lot less demanding than road work on a pop music concert tour. In fact, in a theater scenario that stays semi-permanent for weeks at a time after several rehearsals, and primarily uses wireless lav mics which taxes the headroom on a mic pre amp very little, the inexpensive Behringer solution is probably adequate.

Most of my theater viewing experience has been on Broadway or in premier LA theaters, and I think I enjoyed theater much more back in the pre-wireless lav days, when the actors had to "project" to be heard, and the orchestra was sparsely mic'd accordingly ...to fill out the room.

Even the most successful Broadway shows sound consistently thin and shrill to me with all of the poorly placed and unnecessary lavs. My favorite theater sound are the smaller rooms where the actors aren't mic'd at all.

Mark

Well you won't get any argument from me that if you want to compare SAC to the really big end consoles then you should compare the costs with comparable equipment and comparable feature sets. other than the list prices that are some times mentioned in trade rags I really have no idea how much some of the really big buck consoles cost. I never had a budget for one, so I don't even bother to ask. I did price out the 5D a few times but it was always just a bit too big of a price tag to make it work in the installs I've designed. Maybe if I cheaped out on the speakers I could have fit it in the budget, but really I like to spend money on the parts that actually make the most difference in sound quality (in my not so humble opinion anyway) which is speakers and mics. So I've dealt with the less Yamaha consoles but got the nice d&b speakers.

I'm sorry but you kind of stepped on a nerve when you insinuated that theatre isn't as difficult as concert sound. Sorry I beg to differ. Honestly I would say you don't have a clue what you're talking about. But to be fair about it, I suspect you likely know as much about theatre sound and what is really required as I do about concerts and big tours... which is very little. :) I've gone to concerts, and I've met guys that work on major tours (like Madonna just as an example), and I have relationships with sound shops that rent gear to those tours (hence how I've met folks working on such tours) but really.. that's about where it ends. The closest I've gotten is being in the sound shop getting gear for a show of mine while they were prepping a big tour. :D

Just like I doubt doing a major concert tour is as easy I suspect it should be, theatre sound is a lot more involved than you are giving it credit. Some theatre tours only do single nights in a venue. Most sit down for longer stints, especially if you're talking about big markets like LA, but there are tours that set up, do the show, and pack it all up again in a single day. I'm glad I've never had to deal with that! Even the big buck tours do not have endless amounts of rehearsal time. They tech the show once when the tour goes out and that's about it. The rest of the time they typically get one day to load in and set up, with a show that evening. I've met a few folks on tours that have been out on the road for 4 years straight with only minimal breaks. Again.. better them than me.. :D

Ummm... if you think that a good quality wireless lav on a good singer doesn't show all the warts of a mic preamp then I'm sorry... but that just proves my point. You have never had to deal with it. The dynamic range on a good singer is very drastic, just as I'm sure a good rock singer is capable of as well.

In most theaters I would be laughed right out of the venue if I showed up with a rack of Behringer Mic preamps. Yes, I have 4 of them, and I've used them and you can see line diagrams of how I set them all up on my web site. But right now anyway, I'm using my SAC rigs in venues that wouldn't have anything even close to that mixing power if I hadn't put together a SAC system for them. I'm using the ADA8000s because that's what these venues can afford. (or rather it's what I can afford to supply to them, in most cases) If I was putting together a good system for someone, guess what... it wouldn't have Behringer preamps. :) But it will take time before I get to move SAC into some of the bigger venues I work in that have at least some budgets for all sorts of reasons that vary according to the situations at hand.

If you've been to a Broadway caliber show then you should know (unless maybe you just didn't look I guess, but what sound guy doesn't go to a show and check out the sound board? :p) full well that most of those shows are being run on top of the line mix consoles. I don't think you'd see all those Cadacs working on Broadway if sound quality wasn't important to them and if a Behringer preamp was all that was needed to make a nice wireless mic sound as good as it possibly can. (granted... the Cadac is a dying breed on the great white way... but it's being replaced by high end digitals, some Yamaha but even those are starting to fall out of fashion now that there are better options like Digico, Studer, etc...)

As for the comments about the general sound quality of theatre shows I'm not sure how to really respond to that. I won't argue that I have heard more than my fair share of shows that I didn't think sounded all that good, despite being a big budget show with plenty of gear, etc, etc, etc... and I've heard some really great shows in small venues. (I work in the 100 to 200 seat houses a lot myself) And vice versa... I've heard some really nice sounding shows in big venues and plenty of crap in small venues. (some of the crap I'll even personally take the blame for... I've done this for a while, I can't say I've always been pleased with the end results.. that's life in general I would guess, sometimes you do great, some times you fail)

I obviously can not really respond to you in depth unless you and I have happened to see the same show in the same venue on the same evening. Even then that doesn't mean I know anything about how that show was mixed or who made all the choices, etc....

I will say one general thing.... if you think the Sound Designer is the making all the choices about how things sound and has complete control.. well... you couldn't be more wrong. There is a saying in theatre sound... everybody knows two jobs... their own, and sound. :p (I suspect that holds true outside the theatre world?)

Lets just say that by the time I put enough orchestra on stage so the actors can hear the music well, and then make sure the orchestra is happy with what they have (the big boys are mostly using Aviom Systems in the pits now days with headphones or IEM buds, but those are beyond my budgets, so we still use small hotspot vocal monitors and the like) and then make the director and/or producer happy... well maybe like 10 to 20 percent of what the audience gets to hear is what I would like it to be personally. Directors and producers always want things louder. The music isn't written (orchestrated) in a way to make it sound good with just natural sound (or very rarely anyway). Most singers are not being really trained to project. Put all those factors together and you'll see why shows can be less than stellar some days.

Of course vocals are not going to sound big and full like they would if the cast was using a bunch of hand helds. We're strapping tiny little mic elements to actors and putting them in their hair line or over an ear. Simple physics just dictates that it's not going to sound the same as someone using a nice handheld with a much larger diaphragm about a 1/4" away from their mouth. :)

Most theatre sound folks that have been around a while will probably agree that some of the best sounding shows are those with no mics at all, or darn few. No arguments there. But the choices of when mics are used are frankly not always left in the hands of the sound designer. It's much more a group choice.. or as we call it in the theatre world.. a collaboration, which some days I really love that word/concept and other days it makes me want to go postal. Depends a lot on who you are collaborating with really.

And if we're talking about working in the big 2 to 3 thousand seat venues... well no actor I know is going to fill that house without a mic these days.

It's also a lot to do with audience expectations. Old timers in theatre will tell you that you used to say "I'm going to hear a play tonight...", but most people now days will say "I'm going to see a play tonight...". I think that kind of sums up the tastes of the modern audience. I typically say that modern audiences need their sound to be spoon feed to them. No one really wants to "work" at listening any more. All the sound has to be in your face, or patrons will complain that they couldn't hear x, y and z.

I can't tell you how many shows I've been to where I've felt the show was over amplified and I could not only hear every word the actors said, but every breath. The I go into the lobby and/or the mens room at intermission and hear people talking about how they couldn't hear something (people sitting very close to where I was sitting mind you, not someone on the opposite side of the theatre) and I'm thinking how the hell could you not hear that? Well some of it might be because I take better care of my hearing, some of it might just be a better trained ear, but I chalk a lot of it up to the fact that when I go to see a show I'm actively listening the show. I'm not sitting back and expecting it all to be blasted in my face. It may sound strange, but there is a big difference.

Anyway this is WAY longer than I ever wanted it to be... so there you have it... we don't have to agree, everyone has their opinions and I'm a firm believer in we'll have to just agree to disagree... but please don't belittle one persons craft unless you've actually spent time doing it.

Thanks.

[quaizywabbit]

very well said!

appreciation for applications 'unknown' would do alot to change focus from "my way" to "what's the best way??"

[DaveStevens]

A lot has gone on here in the last day. Some random thoughts.

Bob, would love to meet. Same place I've been on the Internet since 1995, dstevens@roaddog.com and the infamous but retired http://barking.roaddog.com/ , But all this sound s h i t really isn't what I'm into these days, http://www.roaddog.com/racing/ . Audio just pays the bills. ;) I'm on a 30 year run, I deserve it.

About the I/O at our show. It's how these kinds of shows are designed. I suppose we are "throwing hardware at it" but if one is to do these sorts of soundscapes it's what you have to do. Those that doubt there is an opportunity to make a few mil a show designing these extravaganzas. Of our I/O 40x128 is an acoustic room simulator called VRAS, though the hippies in Berkeley like to call it Constellation these days. The rest is sound FX, the real 8 pc band, 32 tracks of a 50 voice choir and a 100 piece orchestra (and a bunch of funky techno loop stuff) FWIW, those wussies at LOVE only have 248 outputs. ;)

@Richie Ingraham, is that Jon Deans guy any relation to Jimmy Dean? I love sausage... :D I'm not high enough up the chain to actually be able to talk to a designer. They make me talk to the band instead. That's why I was hired, I can relate to the musos. My gig is to show up, make the band happy, direct my minions to fix anything we break and design and program some things we need as we change the show.

As for SAC... It's great, certainly capable. I've been hammering the piss out of it the last couple of days and I like it. But as with all other tools, it's not the be all and end all of everything. Nothing is. Nor ever will be. The greatest strength is also the greatest weakness. The ability to configure it with a myriad of quality of gear. From Behringer to Manley or Massenberg. Anyone that tells me that Uli's crap is equal to Eve Anna Marie's or George's gear is going to get bitch slapped. If the low end stuff works for you, cool, use it. There is a difference between a $200 8 ch pre amp and a $5k 8 ch pre amp.

One last thing. Listen to Mark Stebbeds. As much as you hate to hear it, he's hit the nail on the mother f u c k ing head. And he's able to communicate that point in a more professional manner than I. Gang, perception is reality and it makes or breaks things in this business. SAC has got a great potential. Don't f u c k it up by over promising an under delivering. You might not like the harsh medicine but it's the reality of the business.

There is a cool product here. Don't let arrogance crater it...

Dave

[DaveStevens]

Just a few more things before I rack for the night..

Meters. I like to be able to see all or at least pages of my meters on a single screen. Haven't found a way to do that in SAC yet. Even if it's banks of 24 or 16 inputs and 8 outputs I'd like to have a dedicated window.

How about comp and gate meters? I can't see my dynamics meters without opening the channel (BTW, love that wide channel window). I'm used to seeing what I'm squashing too much or gating so much I don't notice it.
And then when I do open the input window, my gate and comp share the same GR meter. In cases where I gate and comp and input, for example a kick or rack toms, I can't tell if the gain reduction is a gate or a comp. Separate gate and comp meters would be cool.

Dave

[quaizywabbit]

There is a difference between a $200 8 ch pre amp and a $5k 8 ch pre amp.

no wonder it costs a damn fortune to go see these "headliners"

Cranked to the gills, smoke and lights, and now youre tellin me im payin for a $5000 preamp that makes absolutely no difference in my nosebleed section.......

[sjpaul]

As for SAC... It's great, certainly capable. I've been hammering the piss out of it the last couple of days and I like it. But as with all other tools, it's not the be all and end all of everything. Nothing is. Nor ever will be. The greatest strength is also the greatest weakness. The ability to configure it with a myriad of quality of gear. From Behringer to Manley or Massenberg. Anyone that tells me that Uli's crap is equal to Eve Anna Marie's or George's gear is going to get bitch slapped. If the low end stuff works for you, cool, use it. There is a difference between a $200 8 ch pre amp and a $5k 8 ch pre amp.

There is a cool product here. Don't let arrogance crater it...

Dave

Dave, I have to disagree with the above statement. SAC's "greatest strength" as you put it, is just that: its' greatest strength. The fact that as a small scale sound guy I am able to configure the system with whatever front end that I like (or more importantly) can afford to spec, is what allows me to buy into the concept of Bob's design. I can whack on 24 channels of Berry mic pres for not a lot of dough, whereas folks with bigger budgets can use the high end stuff that they crave.... Does that somehow diminish SAC as a product? I don't think so. It means that the software product can be brought to the masses rather than staying purely with those who can afford the all singing, all dancing budget for the front end.

If those folks "in the know" can't look at the whole system, i.e., the SAC software AND whatever front end to it is being used and make judgments based on those choices, then to me that would be like going to a show being mixed on a top end Midas console but using some p!ss poor loudspeaker and amp set up, and then blaming the console for the cr@p sound quality.

I, like Richard, try to spec my systems with the best quality gear that my end of the marketplace can afford to pay for. Until recently, that meant using old school but decent quality analog desks. There's NO DOUBT in my mind that I'm getting better results BOTH in terms of sound quality and flexibility by using SAC instead. And I use the Berry preamps.... far too many people are knocking that product just purely down to snobbery about the name. Oh, and the minor point about not having to lug around a behemoth of a console flightcase and 22u FX rack, plus snake. I now walk into a venue with a laptop at FOH, freeing up space for more paying punters.

[sjpaul]

Just a few more things before I rack for the night..

Meters. I like to be able to see all or at least pages of my meters on a single screen. Haven't found a way to do that in SAC yet. Even if it's banks of 24 or 16 inputs and 8 outputs I'd like to have a dedicated window.

How about comp and gate meters? I can't see my dynamics meters without opening the channel (BTW, love that wide channel window). I'm used to seeing what I'm squashing too much or gating so much I don't notice it.
And then when I do open the input window, my gate and comp share the same GR meter. In cases where I gate and comp and input, for example a kick or rack toms, I can't tell if the gain reduction is a gate or a comp. Separate gate and comp meters would be cool.

Dave

You mean having inputs and outputs on the same screen at once? Just re-order the outputs to be at the end of the inputs that you're using (or anywhere you like for that matter- could be in the middle of them). On a decent wide screen in the F mixer view, you should be able to get 24 ins, half a dozen FX returns and 8 outputs all visible on 1 screen. Get the layout you want and then save it as a mix template. Customise the view that you want on the screen and then save it as an F key file. I mix on a 15.4" laptop screen with pretty crap resolution, so I'm limited as to how many channels I can stretch across that....

I agree with you on the gain reduction meter comment. I'd like 2 please. I'd also prefer to have the GR meters placed just above the fader / meter section in the Z mixer view as I quite often like to use a z mixer stretched across the screen at the fader section for mixing and it woul be handy for the GR meters to be visible on that view without having to key "D" to jump to that section.

[Yogi]

Just a few more things before I rack for the night..

Meters. I like to be able to see all or at least pages of my meters on a single screen. Haven't found a way to do that in SAC yet. Even if it's banks of 24 or 16 inputs and 8 outputs I'd like to have a dedicated window.

How about comp and gate meters? I can't see my dynamics meters without opening the channel (BTW, love that wide channel window). I'm used to seeing what I'm squashing too much or gating so much I don't notice it.
And then when I do open the input window, my gate and comp share the same GR meter. In cases where I gate and comp and input, for example a kick or rack toms, I can't tell if the gain reduction is a gate or a comp. Separate gate and comp meters would be cool.

Dave

This sounds a bit like what I'd requested in the G mixer window. Gee, imagine that.

[mloretitsch]

There is a cool product here. Don't let arrogance crater it...

Dave

Dave, thanks for giving SAC a fair shot and adding some constructive criticism. Sometimes you need a framing hammer, and sometimes you need a dead blow hammer, and yet other times you need that 8 pound sledge hammer. SAC is a great tool for that bevy of hammers you need to solve problems.

We're all operating at different levels here so it's hard to see eye to eye sometimes. For me personally, SAC lets me provide unprecedented capability for small and medium clients. I've enjoyed watching the theater discussion where things operate at the upper edge of input/output counts.

-Matt

[gdougherty]

Just a few more things before I rack for the night..

Meters. I like to be able to see all or at least pages of my meters on a single screen. Haven't found a way to do that in SAC yet. Even if it's banks of 24 or 16 inputs and 8 outputs I'd like to have a dedicated window.

How about comp and gate meters? I can't see my dynamics meters without opening the channel (BTW, love that wide channel window). I'm used to seeing what I'm squashing too much or gating so much I don't notice it.
And then when I do open the input window, my gate and comp share the same GR meter. In cases where I gate and comp and input, for example a kick or rack toms, I can't tell if the gain reduction is a gate or a comp. Separate gate and comp meters would be cool.

Dave

I'll throw in a +1 on these. Sometimes to see what my comp is actually doing if I have a tight gate I have to turn off the gate. Sure, mixing with eyes vs ears and all, but I can't tell I'm getting -6db reduction on average with my ears to set my makeup gain at +6db. I'd love to see a thin 4 bar meter. Input level on top, gate GR below it, comp GR below that and output level at the bottom. I'd be happy with just a gr meter on the F-mixer though. Even the 3 color light state discussed in the ML skin thread would be plenty to find the oversquashed and overgated channels Dave noted.

[Leadfoot]

There is a cool product here. Don't let arrogance crater it...

Dave

1. Thanks for the heads up, even though we've been working on it for years over here, we were not quite sure if it was cool, but now we know for sure.

2. Arrogance.. I can't tell you how much I don't care about you and what you've been up to. You have been very fortunate to be able to do what you do, and that's it. Don't belittle others with your self proclaimed awesomeness.
Saw and Sac are original ideas, if you've ever had an original idea and tried to turn it into reality, maybe you'd have a clue. And don't reply with any of your childish comments, I'm no kid, I've heard 'em all. I'm not impressed.
If you have anything nice to say, that would be great.

[MikeDee]

To see multiple comps/gates, why not set up an F-Key to expand the Z-Mixer across the screen (as many channels as will fit)?

Simply right-click and scroll up to where you need to be; then save the F-Key.

The flexibility is there...but, as with just about any system, sometimes a bit of front-loaded setup/tweaking is in order. Once you got it going, you'll always have it, an F-Key stroke away.

HTH,

[Mark Stebbeds]

I'm sorry but you kind of stepped on a nerve when you insinuated that theatre isn't as difficult as concert sound. Sorry I beg to differ. Honestly I would say you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

<snip>

Ummm... if you think that a good quality wireless lav on a good singer doesn't show all the warts of a mic preamp then I'm sorry... but that just proves my point. You have never had to deal with it.

Well, I did not mean to step on a nerve which is why I said that theater sound has it's own challenges ...and skill set. But I still think it's less taxing on the equipment.

I have more experience with wireless lavs than I care to think about ...ranging from durable Lectrosonics models and the top of the line Sennheisers. So in that regards you are simply wrong. I don't do theater, but I use them regularly for location recording and mixing and broadcast TV audio. In almost every case, a hand held or boom mic on axis and correctly positioned almost always sounds better (more robust, fuller range) than a much more expensive but off axis lapel wireless lav system. That is what I am referring to, and I'm sure it's the same whether the mic is hidden in a hair line or in a wig, or on a lapel. You can hear the nuances of the performance much better when on axis and close to the capsule ...and hence how the rest of the audio path performs.

And I've had plenty of experience with those headset type of mics used by pop singers, which all sound inferior to me than a good dynamic or condenser on axis and in proximity.



Anyway this is WAY longer than I ever wanted it to be...
Me too.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

Mark... sorry but I have to disagree with most of your comments about apples to apples...

SAC is capable of doing more than other systems for much less money... AND also capable of matching or costing much more than the consoles you mention based on what you decide to use as a front end.

I thought that's what I said. But comparing remote controlled pre-amps to remote controlled pre-amps ...at a substantial part of the cost of a system... is an apples to apples comparison IMHO



I have said it many times before about SAW... I am offering my products and development ideas to the world... if you like them... use them and let's have constructive conversations about improving them... if you don't like them... simply leave them alone and move on with those products you do like... why must there be such a need to bash and stomp on them and myself as a designer... just don't use them... and as mature professionals... don't gossip about them... if you have nothing nice to say... simply keep quiet.

Well, then perhaps you should set the tone rather than insult or bash everyone who uses something other than your products to make their living as you did when you entered the thread on post #75....




it saddens me that any audio engineer that considers himself a professional has ever accepted and praised the horrendous audio quality of the current line of digital consoles without complete embarrasment...

Mark

[RBIngraham]

Well, I did not mean to step on a nerve which is why I said that theater sound has it's own challenges ...and skill set. But I still think it's less taxing on the equipment.

I have more experience with wireless lavs than I care to think about ...ranging from durable Lectrosonics models and the top of the line Sennheisers. So in that regards you are simply wrong. I don't do theater, but I use them regularly for location recording and mixing and broadcast TV audio. In almost every case, a hand held or boom mic on axis and correctly positioned almost always sounds better (more robust, fuller range) than a much more expensive but off axis lapel wireless lav system. That is what I am referring to, and I'm sure it's the same whether the mic is hidden in a hair line or in a wig, or on a lapel. You can hear the nuances of the performance much better when on axis and close to the capsule ...and hence how the rest of the audio path performs.

And I've had plenty of experience with those headset type of mics used by pop singers, which all sound inferior to me than a good dynamic or condenser on axis and in proximity.


Me too.

Mark


Most theatre shows are using Omni Lav elements. Not cardiod. There is very small differences between the on axis sound and off axis sound when using an omni, as I would suspect that you already know.

Most of the variations you get in sound quality with lav mics are do to reflections or objects between the mic and the vocal source, so the forehead of the actor, or if it's on their ear, then you're getting all sorts of odd reflections and interaction between the mic element and the side of the actors face.

I would agree that theatre is less taxing on the equipment itself. With the exception of the wireless mics themselves. Those get the crap beat out of them all the time.

Like I said before, of course a tiny little mic element hidden on the actor is not going to sound as nice and full range as handheld right in front of the performers mouth. But in the theatre world, visuals take precedence most days to audio, so we do what we can.

[Mark Stebbeds]

Most theatre shows are using Omni Lav elements. Not cardiod. There is very small differences between the on axis sound and off axis sound when using an omni, as I would suspect that you already know.


It's my understanding they are all omni, so I guess I mispoke ...although I still believe there is an axis that has a bit better frequency response.

I meant to say off proximity, or the mic not being positioned optimally, because that is next to impossible, especially when someone is moving.

Mark

[RBIngraham]

It's my understanding they are all omni, so I guess I mispoke ...although I still believe there is an axis that has a bit better frequency response.

I meant to say off proximity, or the mic not being positioned optimally, because that is next to impossible, especially when someone is moving.

Mark

Right. You can buy cardiod lav elements if you want to do so. But I don't know of anyone that uses them. Some folks like to use the cardiod headsets, but I don't prefer them as even a small change in the angle of the mic can change the sound drastically. Although I've only done a few shows with the tiny headset style mics.

Yes, obviously the mic positions are far from ideal. But most days we try to make them invisible as much as possible as well as make them sound good.

The entire reason almost no theatre people use mics mounted on the actual lapel anymore is because if you keep the mic on the performers head, then at least the relationship between the mic and the performers mouth will stay reasonably consistent. So at least it's not changing as it would if you did a lapel mic and then it changes every time the actor moves their head.

Glad those days are gone for the most part.

[Dave Tosti-Lane]

Yes, obviously the mic positions are far from ideal. But most days we try to make them invisible as much as possible as well as make them sound good.

I was trying to stay out of this one, but I can't resist.
The other thing about theater use that I think most studio guys don't grok is how many of the bloody things we need to use at the same time. 20 to 40 RF mics in a show is not that unusual. On top of the orchestra channels and FX channels.
That and the fact that every one of them is not only a moving target, but is moving into and out of proximity of 2 or 3 other mics throughout any given musical piece. In a duet, two mics may start out on opposite sides of the stage, and seconds later be less than an inch apart. And when they are in close, they are doubling and halving distances constantly requiring constant active mixing. The kinds of shows Dave S is talking about are the same deal. A show mixer is dealing with multiple sets of these moving targets in real time constantly. None (well, few) of these shows are going to convert over to nice handhelds or wired mics. As Richard says, the visual is the king - in most theater shows concealment is the priority.

I don't get why people get so stirred up about these discussions. Honestly, it's part of why I rarely post here any more. It's not "bashing" to point out ways that SAC could better fit into a market, particularly when specific points are being made.
It is so counterproductive to dismiss criticism and chase the critic away with insults - even if you feel insulted by the criticism. You learn almost nothing from people who love the product as it is - you learn from people who want changes. Maybe the ultimate decision is they're wrong, or that Bob doesn't want to take the product there - that's fine, but if you are determined not to seriously entertain the criticism, you get left behind. (and after all these years, I know that's not what Bob is doing - even when he is a bit put off by criticism, he is clearly taking it in and its influence will show down the road as it has again and again)

Word of mouth is the primary marketing mechanism for SAC and Studio as far as I can see (for reasons I respect). That means the very last thing you want is to have people who are known and respected in a particular market to believe there is no point in raising criticism or explaining what they need in order to fit SAC into their way of working.

Dave Tosti-Lane

[Rick Stansby]

I've been busy with work, but I'd like to respond to your post now. First let me say that I don't think Studio Manager is perfect. There are a lot of improvements that could be made. I only use SM as a baseline, because that is what I use. There are lots of features in SAC that I think are implemented better than SM, and lots of features that I wish would be added to SM.

Rick,

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate (or SAC advocate I guess...) what I would do for that given scenario is to simply select all of the vocal mics in the F-Mixer, then press an F-Key to view the Wide Mixer for any one of the selected channels, then engage the EQ, turn on the high pass filter, and set it to 100Hz or whatever freq. you like to use. When you select multiple channels like that, and do something to one of them, you do it to all of them at the same time. This same trick can be used to do all sorts of short cuts in SAC. It's just about knowing the interface.

I see what you are saying and I certainly think this "ganging" of channels is a great feature, that should be added to Studio Manager. I guess my main concern is the amount of information that is displayed on the F mixer, as opposed to the overview window in SM. Selecting all of the channels and opening the W mixer won't tell you what all of the channels are set to, will it? I'm not just talking about EQ settings, I'm talking about aux send levels, gain, phantom power, polarity, dynamics metering, pan and routing. When I look at the F-mixer I don't see any of this information, all of which is displayed on the overview window in SM. Some have argued that the eq curves are misleading, but I feel that you have a choice to use them on SM, but not on SAC. SM still shows you the same info that SAC shows, with the added bonus of EQ curves - for those who choose to use them. You can always ignore the EQ curves, and look at the numerical representations of gain, Q and frequency.


I can however see your point about a one off, especially where you might have guest engineers. In those situations you might just need to go with something that more folks will be familiar with rather than what I might think is a better tool for the job.

That was the original topic of the post on PSW, although I know the discussion has branched out from there. I would certainly be a lot quicker to suggest SAC for a "choreographed" performance (a "vegas" show, or a band on tour). The thing that first drew me to explore SAC was the multi-client aspect. I know of no other mixer that allows discreet control by multiple engineers.

[RBIngraham]

I see what you are saying and I certainly think this "ganging" of channels is a great feature, that should be added to Studio Manager. I guess my main concern is the amount of information that is displayed on the F mixer, as opposed to the overview window in SM. Selecting all of the channels and opening the W mixer won't tell you what all of the channels are set to, will it? I'm not just talking about EQ settings, I'm talking about aux send levels, gain, phantom power, polarity, dynamics metering, pan and routing. When I look at the F-mixer I don't see any of this information, all of which is displayed on the overview window in SM. Some have argued that the eq curves are misleading, but I feel that you have a choice to use them on SM, but not on SAC. SM still shows you the same info that SAC shows, with the added bonus of EQ curves - for those who choose to use them. You can always ignore the EQ curves, and look at the numerical representations of gain, Q and frequency.



Yes, I understand. I was just throwing that out there as a solution to your particular example. There is lots of features I'd like to see added in SAC. I use it because it's the best tool for the given circumstances and there are other tools I would use for other venues or types of shows depending on the needs for those projects.

[Mark Stebbeds]

I was trying to stay out of this one, but I can't resist.
The other thing about theater use that I think most studio guys don't grok is how many of the bloody things we need to use at the same time. 20 to 40 RF mics in a show is not that unusual. On top of the orchestra channels and FX channels.
That and the fact that every one of them is not only a moving target, but is moving into and out of proximity of 2 or 3 other mics throughout any given musical piece. In a duet, two mics may start out on opposite sides of the stage, and seconds later be less than an inch apart. And when they are in close, they are doubling and halving distances constantly requiring constant active mixing. The kinds of shows Dave S is talking about are the same deal. A show mixer is dealing with multiple sets of these moving targets in real time constantly. None (well, few) of these shows are going to convert over to nice handhelds or wired mics. As Richard says, the visual is the king - in most theater shows concealment is the priority.


Again, not a theater sound man, but I understand all of the reasons why the audio mix is usually thin and shrill in my theater experiences.

But as a sound guy, I've never understood why theater sound has gravitated to the wireless lav approach, when everything sounded so much better back in the pre-wireless lav days, when we relied on the actors to "project" ...even in quite large Broadway rooms. I remember seeing a few mics hanging.

At least it sounded natural, and the orchestra was not subject to over-micing and over amplification to get the sound level up to the actors voices.

Mark

[tomasino]

Interesting posts on both forums..

So, congrats Bob!
All these folks have decided that SawStudio & SAC belong in the Major Leagues now. Something most of us have known for a long time.
Being seriously compared to "the best of the best" (perceived or otherwise) is always a good thing.

:cool:

[IraSeigel]

I've been busy with work, but I'd like to respond to your post now. First let me say that I don't think Studio Manager is perfect. There are a lot of improvements that could be made. I only use SM as a baseline, because that is what I use. There are lots of features in SAC that I think are implemented better than SM, and lots of features that I wish would be added to SM.

....

Rick, Richard and everyone else comparing SAC to Yamaha Studio Manager:

Studio Manager is now currently at v2.31. SAC is currently at v2.2.
Give Bob a break! Studio Manager has had a big headstart! :)

[RBIngraham]

Rick, Richard and everyone else comparing SAC to Yamaha Studio Manager:

Studio Manager is now currently at v2.31. SAC is currently at v2.2.
Give Bob a break! Studio Manager has had a big headstart! :)

I didn't think I was comparing Studio Manager to SAC. At least it wasn't a concise choice anyway. Now compare SAC to the LS9 or M7 Console and the Studio Manager as part of that package certainly. But Studio Manager all by itself is nothing but pretty pictures or at best an offline editor, until you plug it into the console. :)

I think it's fair to compare SAC to those consoles as a whole. The LS9 isn't that much older than SAC really. Even if it wasn't how else do you compare a new product but to compare it to what else is already available? Or to compare it to the popular products or other products you're familiar with.

Obviously it's harder to compare and contrast a piece of hardware with software because the software can be changed and/or updated a lot easier than the piece of hardware. That has both benefits and drawbacks, but mostly benefits in my book. :)

Also keep in mind that Studio Manager consists of at least 3 separate pieces of software, Studio Manager itself, the Editor Install for each piece of hardware you might be communicating with, and a driver of some type that communicates with the hardware. (the DME Network driver in the case of the M7 and LS9)

[Rick Stansby]

Rick, Richard and everyone else comparing SAC to Yamaha Studio Manager:

Studio Manager is now currently at v2.31. SAC is currently at v2.2.
Give Bob a break! Studio Manager has had a big headstart! :)

I'm not pitting them against each other, I'm just looking at the things that each one has done right.

The advantage with SAC is that Bob will actually consider input from everyone here. Yamaha has made a decent program with studio manager, but as far as I can tell, they have no plans of making it better.

[IraSeigel]

The advantage with SAC is that Bob will actually consider input from everyone here. ...

And that, Rick, is why we're all here.
Ira:)

[Dave Tosti-Lane]

But as a sound guy, I've never understood why theater sound has gravitated to the wireless lav approach, when everything sounded so much better back in the pre-wireless lav days, when we relied on the actors to "project" ...even in quite large Broadway rooms. I remember seeing a few mics hanging.

At least it sounded natural, and the orchestra was not subject to over-micing and over amplification to get the sound level up to the actors voices.

Mark

Part of the answer is that the "Theater" part is higher priority than the "Sound" part - even (illogically) in a musical where reality is totally suspended for musical numbers. My friend Rick Thomas verges on the apoplectic when he talks about this with directors and producers - his point is that sound is fully HALF of the theater experience, with visual being the other half - so why don't we get HALF the budget and HALF the time, and HALF the - well you get the idea. (I almost said "you get the picture unwittingly illustrating the reality :) )
But the biggest part is the influence of the producers, who believe that louder is better, funnier, stronger. And orchestrations for modern musicals which get the band so loud that you have to mic the actors to get over them. And the perception that the audience is either graying and needs the aural support, or that the younger audience is attracted by loud music and pushed vocals.
I don't know a single broadway sound designer who is happy about this, or who wouldn't opt for a more natural balance if the person paying their check would agree. But in the end, in order to keep working, they have to do what the producer asks, because if they don't the producer just dumps them and brings in someone else who will.

And, if your broadway experience is mainly with touring shows, you add in the same problem that plagues touring concert shows - fitting the same show into a different venue every few days, not enough set-up time to spend getting things right, precious little "quiet time" within the limited set up time, and in recent years, so much noise from moving lights fans and motors too close to the audience that you have to push vocal level up for intelligibility. All of those fond memories of actors being able to carry into huge halls without reinforcement were well before we filled the space overhead of the audience with 100 high level white-noise generators (in spaces which were designed to be reflective).

Dave Tosti-Lane

[Mark Stebbeds]

Good explanation ...and reality check.

I remember being a young concert sound mixer on the road and going to my first Broadway play in NYC ....The Elephant Man starring David Bowie. (well maybe not so young)

Being on the road at the time with a rock band that made an effort to be as loud as possible every night, it was enlightening to see how great something could sound with good voice projection and minimal amplification.

I guess we all do what we get paid to do ...and use the gear our clients require.

Mark

[airickess]

Part of the answer is that the "Theater" part is higher priority than the "Sound" part - even (illogically) in a musical where reality is totally suspended for musical numbers. My friend Rick Thomas verges on the apoplectic when he talks about this with directors and producers - his point is that sound is fully HALF of the theater experience, with visual being the other half - so why don't we get HALF the budget and HALF the time, and HALF the - well you get the idea. (I almost said "you get the picture unwittingly illustrating the reality :) )
But the biggest part is the influence of the producers, who believe that louder is better, funnier, stronger. And orchestrations for modern musicals which get the band so loud that you have to mic the actors to get over them. And the perception that the audience is either graying and needs the aural support, or that the younger audience is attracted by loud music and pushed vocals.
I don't know a single broadway sound designer who is happy about this, or who wouldn't opt for a more natural balance if the person paying their check would agree. But in the end, in order to keep working, they have to do what the producer asks, because if they don't the producer just dumps them and brings in someone else who will.

And, if your broadway experience is mainly with touring shows, you add in the same problem that plagues touring concert shows - fitting the same show into a different venue every few days, not enough set-up time to spend getting things right, precious little "quiet time" within the limited set up time, and in recent years, so much noise from moving lights fans and motors too close to the audience that you have to push vocal level up for intelligibility. All of those fond memories of actors being able to carry into huge halls without reinforcement were well before we filled the space overhead of the audience with 100 high level white-noise generators (in spaces which were designed to be reflective).

Dave Tosti-LaneI couldn't agree more.

[Yogi]

Recently I saw Jersey Boys in Raleigh, NC. What a great show. Those guys had it down pat. Perfect balance of music and vocals, of course all the actors were using the Countryman E-6 mics. They didn't push anything unnatural since the hall has very good acoustics. The show was a 3 week run and I saw it in the last week so any problems had already been worked out. Usually Broadway Series South, which runs the shows here, contracts the system with the same company so those guys are on top of what to place where for each show that comes in to town. It doesn't hurt that they spent a great deal on acoustical design when the hall was built.

Too bad other theaters don't do their homework on the front end and fix the acoustics before they try and overcome the problems with electronics. Last time I checked I still can't make poor acoustics sound good with electronics, no matter what that the budget is. I've seen many churches do the same thing, continue to purchase "improvements" to the system when the root cause is the building and they refuse to do anything to that because it will ruin the esthetics (in their mind). It's as if the building has some sacred aura to it, and if you change that it will no longer be sacred. What burns me up more is that there are sound system installers more than willing to sell them the latest and greatest with results that are no different than what they had in the first place or at best only minimally better.

[IraSeigel]

...What burns me up more is that there are sound system installers more than willing to sell them the latest and greatest with results that are no different than what they had in the first place or at best only minimally better.

Where can I get work like that? Someplace warm preferably, where there's no blizzards. Or earthquakes. Or active volcanoes. Hmmm, Sydney? Tel Aviv? Buenos Aires?:)

[Yogi]

Where can I get work like that? Someplace warm preferably, where there's no blizzards. Or earthquakes. Or active volcanoes. Hmmm, Sydney? Tel Aviv? Buenos Aires?:)

Problem is Ira you'd have to lose your integrity. It takes a cold hearted son of a gun to do that kind of crap, and I see the results of it all the time. How those guys stay in business is beyond me.

[RBIngraham]

I know of no other mixer that allows discreet control by multiple engineers.

LCS also allows for a true client/server relationship and it's modular so you build a system to the size you need with the surfaces you need. It just costs a few more dollars than a SAC rig will set you back. :p

[quaizywabbit]

Problem is Ira you'd have to lose your integrity. It takes a cold hearted son of a gun to do that kind of crap, and I see the results of it all the time. How those guys stay in business is beyond me.

"there's a Sucker born every minute"

[IraSeigel]

"there's a Sucker born every minute"

And many of them have big budgets!:)