Expanding Physical i/o Device Capability?

[gdougherty]

Okay, here's my most unique feature thought origination. It came from a dream I was having about showing SAC to a large church I visited. They had tons of potential channels coming from the stage, wireless mics and video projection, though they didn't always use all of them at the same time. Yes, I think about SAC and sound in general far too much...:rolleyes:

In describing what SAC could do for large channel count setups, I described the scene capabilities to switch physical inputs, labelling and order with the installed audio hardware having many more input channels than the 72 channel "surface". I described a theoretical setup with 256 channels of remote preamp input that would become what you needed at any moment through use of scenes.

This is almost doable, if SAC could address more than 36 stereo input device channels. Since I can run 3 RayDATs, multiple MADI cards, and MOTU devices will definitely handle high physical channel counts, it seems a real possibility to build a 96+ channel system for an install.

Would it be possible for SAC to address at least a 64 stereo channel system? With the HDSPe MADI devices RME claims the ability to build a 96 stereo channel setup, which seems wild, but possible if someone had the need and budget for the hardware.

[RBIngraham]

I tested a RME MADI card with 64 I/O with another software product and it worked just fine. I only had 16 channels of their I/O boxes so I could only listen to so many outputs at one time, but it was streaming to all 64 outputs no problem.

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. Get a life dude if you are dreaming of SAC. :p

2. If your church really needed that many I/O and they can afford it, you should just consider a LCS system or some other option that can handle all that I/O right out of the box. Or if you really think that no other solution than SAC.... :p OK, but maybe you just build a few SAC set ups that run as Submixers. Mix down all the choir mics or whatever it is that is creating a need for such large channel counts. With the remote abilities it shouldn't be too hard to be able to make changes from a FOH positions to the submixers. And with any luck, some day soon Bob will have recall via MIDI and maybe other options so that you could send a MIDI command that then recalls scenes on multiple SAC systems simultaneously. A dedicated Show Control software package might be best in that situation, depending on exactly what Bob comes up with for the Sequence and Control windows still in development.

[Bob L]

If you are going to submix individual signals into stems... use an analog console for the submixer... or you are doubling up on latency.

Bob L

[RBIngraham]

If you are going to submix individual signals into stems... use an analog console for the submixer... or you are doubling up on latency.

Bob L

Ah. Good point. But in some larger venues that may not matter, depending on what is going on with monitors. I've done a show where there was a SAC system for mixing the orchestra that then fed into another just mixing area mics and wireless mics and no one complained about any latency issues. Of course the orchestra is tucked into a corner way off stage and almost all the sound the performers and audience hear is from the speakers. This is in a venue where most folks are used to the tad weird issue of hearing some instruments cut through live while others don't at all. The music director is very good at dealing with the issue of hearing vocals in his small monitors while "tuning out" any live vocal that filters it's way back to the pit, which of course is arriving much later than what he hears in the monitor.

Either way this is a good example of why in some situations you really need to know exactly how much latency each piece in your system is causing, take it all into account and keep track of it, so it doesn't get out of hand. And also you need to remove that latency from any additional delays you might do if you're using any precedence effects.

[gdougherty]

I tested a RME MADI card with 64 I/O with another software product and it worked just fine. I only had 16 channels of their I/O boxes so I could only listen to so many outputs at one time, but it was streaming to all 64 outputs no problem.

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. Get a life dude if you are dreaming of SAC. :p

2. If your church really needed that many I/O and they can afford it, you should just consider a LCS system or some other option that can handle all that I/O right out of the box. Or if you really think that no other solution than SAC.... :p OK, but maybe you just build a few SAC set ups that run as Submixers. Mix down all the choir mics or whatever it is that is creating a need for such large channel counts. With the remote abilities it shouldn't be too hard to be able to make changes from a FOH positions to the submixers. And with any luck, some day soon Bob will have recall via MIDI and maybe other options so that you could send a MIDI command that then recalls scenes on multiple SAC systems simultaneously. A dedicated Show Control software package might be best in that situation, depending on exactly what Bob comes up with for the Sequence and Control windows still in development.

Well, I wasn't dreaming of SAC, per-se. I was dreaming about something else, SAC just came up in the conversation. Kind of reflective of me at the moment though. Start talking sound, and SAC will get into things somehow...

[Brent Evans]

Well, I wasn't dreaming of SAC, per-se. I was dreaming about something else, SAC just came up in the conversation. Kind of reflective of me at the moment though. Start talking sound, and SAC will get into things somehow...

That's even worse, my friend...

[Naturally Digital]

In describing what SAC could do for large channel count setups, I described the scene capabilities to switch physical inputs, labelling and order with the installed audio hardware having many more input channels than the 72 channel "surface". I described a theoretical setup with 256 channels of remote preamp input that would become what you needed at any moment through use of scenes.

This is almost doable, if SAC could address more than 36 stereo input device channels. Since I can run 3 RayDATs, multiple MADI cards, and MOTU devices will definitely handle high physical channel counts, it seems a real possibility to build a 96+ channel system for an install.One way to deal with this under the current configuration is to save different I/O setups with the Preference files. So, major config changes would require a preference file load and then the scenes could be used to fine tune the I/O from there. (assuming they never need more than 72 active channels at a time).

[sebastiandybing]

I do have a 90 channel recording system up and running.
Its a rme hdsp madi card and a rme hdsp card with a digiface.
I can ofcouse not record all 90 cannels in saw or through sac,
but I patch the channels I need per session,
I will in this case vote for a matrix patch window in sac and saw.
Sebastian

[gdougherty]

I do have a 90 channel recording system up and running.
Its a rme hdsp madi card and a rme hdsp card with a digiface.
I can ofcouse not record all 90 cannels in saw or through sac,
but I patch the channels I need per session,
I will in this case vote for a matrix patch window in sac and saw.
Sebastian

They'd need to be able to address more than 36 stereo devices in the first place.

As for loading presets, I was thinking something where you could just fire a scene and be ready to go, not disable the engine, load a preset and restart. It's not much more difficult, but given everything that's stored in a preset it seems like asking for trouble just to arrange inputs differently.

[RBIngraham]

They'd need to be able to address more than 36 stereo devices in the first place.

As for loading presets, I was thinking something where you could just fire a scene and be ready to go, not disable the engine, load a preset and restart. It's not much more difficult, but given everything that's stored in a preset it seems like asking for trouble just to arrange inputs differently.

Well the needing more than 72 inputs simultaneously is really your only block at the moment. You can write a scene to switch which physical Input is assigned to each channel right now. No big deal.

I would suspect that you need to be careful about that, if the channel is open and turned up and you swap it, you never know what you're likely to be getting out of that mic until after you do it. :)

Dare I ask why they need more than 72 simultaneous inputs? Couldn't some of this be submixed down? (analog or digital, take your pick)

[gdougherty]

Well the needing more than 72 inputs simultaneously is really your only block at the moment. You can write a scene to switch which physical Input is assigned to each channel right now. No big deal.

I would suspect that you need to be careful about that, if the channel is open and turned up and you swap it, you never know what you're likely to be getting out of that mic until after you do it. :)

Dare I ask why they need more than 72 simultaneous inputs? Couldn't some of this be submixed down? (analog or digital, take your pick)

The concept is more of a large digital patchbay with all stage inputs patched to a preamp. Yes, you're exactly right. The physical addressing of inputs is the only thing limiting this scenario at the moment. My idea with scenes would be something like inputs for a house drum kit that's always patched vs a visiting drumset on a large stage. The scene switch would allow patching between inputs, eq and everything for a particular channel. You wouldn't be recalling just input assignment on the channels.

[RBIngraham]

The concept is more of a large digital patchbay with all stage inputs patched to a preamp. Yes, you're exactly right. The physical addressing of inputs is the only thing limiting this scenario at the moment. My idea with scenes would be something like inputs for a house drum kit that's always patched vs a visiting drumset on a large stage. The scene switch would allow patching between inputs, eq and everything for a particular channel. You wouldn't be recalling just input assignment on the channels.

But do you actually need more than 72 I/O at any one given moment?

If not then I don't see what's missing? You could just use Scenes to patch the I/O you need for a given situation.

Or heaven forbid you just set up an XLR patchbay someplace that plugs mic lines into the mic preamps and save yourself a lot of money on way more preamps than are probably needed and less complex of a system as well. At least that's my opinion. But then I'm used to having XLR and Speakon bays and way more mic lines and speak lines installed in venues than you have inputs or amp channels for. It's common practice in theatre even with venues that have pretty big budgets for lots of toys. :)

George I think you just need to pinch yourself and come out of dream land and everything will be a lot more clear. :p

[gdougherty]

But do you actually need more than 72 I/O at any one given moment?

If not then I don't see what's missing? You could just use Scenes to patch the I/O you need for a given situation.

Or heaven forbid you just set up an XLR patchbay someplace that plugs mic lines into the mic preamps and save yourself a lot of money on way more preamps than are probably needed and less complex of a system as well. At least that's my opinion. But then I'm used to having XLR and Speakon bays and way more mic lines and speak lines installed in venues than you have inputs or amp channels for. It's common practice in theatre even with venues that have pretty big budgets for lots of toys. :)

George I think you just need to pinch yourself and come out of dream land and everything will be a lot more clear. :p

Well, I don't need it, but we've had at least one visitor to the forum doing very large channel counts, and if manufacturers are touting their 96 channel capable digital boards, somebody must be using that much. I could certainly see it being used for a multi-band concert with dedicated preamps for each band's instrumentation. I don't know that it makes much sense to have a 96 input mix, but since hardware supports it then why shouldn't SAC support it? It'd be much easier to recall a scene than repatch everything for a band switchover.

I'm getting ready to go back to dream land, maybe tonight I'll come up with something else.. :rolleyes:

[RBIngraham]

Well, I don't need it, but we've had at least one visitor to the forum doing very large channel counts, and if manufacturers are touting their 96 channel capable digital boards, somebody must be using that much. I could certainly see it being used for a multi-band concert with dedicated preamps for each band's instrumentation. I don't know that it makes much sense to have a 96 input mix, but since hardware supports it then why shouldn't SAC support it? It'd be much easier to recall a scene than repatch everything for a band switchover.

I'm getting ready to go back to dream land, maybe tonight I'll come up with something else.. :rolleyes:

Good Point! Billy Elliot on Broadway uses all 96 inputs on a Yamaha DM2000 in the basement just to submix 96 contact mics that are embedded into the floor of the stage for tap mics. No lie! That doesn't count the fully loaded M7 that is just for orchestra pit monitors and who knows how many channel Digico at FOH. :)

Frankly I think if the venue truly has a need for that many inputs, they should just buy something that has that capacity right now and not try to kludge something together.

I could see a few clients who really need more than 72 I/O. But I also suspect that most of them that can afford to actually need that many mics or other input devices can also just afford one of the big buck surfaces that actually supports that many I/O.

Still, I see your point. Many of us seem to use up most if not all of the Inputs on SAC and still only use 50 percent of the CPU or so on a really fast system. Some day I'm sure SAC will be able to double it's I/O count and of course the computers will be faster and we'll still be at around 50 to 60 percent of the CPU. :)

[brent]

But do you actually need more than 72 I/O at any one given moment?

If not then I don't see what's missing? You could just use Scenes to patch the I/O you need for a given situation.

Or heaven forbid you just set up an XLR patchbay someplace that plugs mic lines into the mic preamps and save yourself a lot of money on way more preamps than are probably needed and less complex of a system as well. At least that's my opinion. But then I'm used to having XLR and Speakon bays and way more mic lines and speak lines installed in venues than you have inputs or amp channels for. It's common practice in theatre even with venues that have pretty big budgets for lots of toys. :)

George I think you just need to pinch yourself and come out of dream land and everything will be a lot more clear. :p

I work in these professional duty cycle church environments and design/install systems.

Many Mega churches with traditional and contemporary services need and use more than 72 inputs. We also must have mixing for broadcasts, recording, etc, etc. My last two employers used over 100 channels of audio. I used a combination of analog and digital consoles. Analog for the critical audio channels and digital for the things that needed automation and recall. Yes, I am talking about true automation and not just recalled mixes and patching. SAC would not work in these situations. When we broadcast, we need redundancy. One of my employers used multiple cores for the audio system, multiple graphics systems, multiple playback and recording machines, etc. We were doing what the pro broadcasters do. Putting all of our eggs in one basket would not have been wise. Ask any broadcast engineer, crap happens.

That said, I have been bringing SAC to the attention of my coworkers and owners. Yamaha was the the sales leader on the top end. Digi took that away from them. Yamaha owns the entry to mid market. A&H has a fine product line that is standardized. It could give Yamaha a run for their money on the mid to high end. Roland does a good job with their systems for the low to mid level. If we need something with the channel count of a Roland system under 10k, there just aren't many options. Presonus is just a drop in replacement for an analog console, using existing copper, etc. Not an option. SAC should clean up in this market for us. We will see what happens.

As for Broadway shows and people using larger systems, they are doing what they can afford to do and what is necessary. Until you have worked in that environment, it is easy to say what they can or should do. If the engineer is using his/her personal console (which is common) they are not going to buy another system, another core, etc to have it all upstairs. Those guys are not actively mixing the individual channels in those submixers. There is no need. The musicians, orchestra, conductor, etc is mixing. That is what they do. It's called talent. Why pay to put channels with faders that will never be touched under the engineer's fingers? There is no need for it.

[RBIngraham]

As for Broadway shows and people using larger systems, they are doing what they can afford to do and what is necessary. Until you have worked in that environment, it is easy to say what they can or should do. If the engineer is using his/her personal console (which is common) they are not going to buy another system, another core, etc to have it all upstairs. Those guys are not actively mixing the individual channels in those submixers. There is no need. The musicians, orchestra, conductor, etc is mixing. That is what they do. It's called talent. Why pay to put channels with faders that will never be touched under the engineer's fingers? There is no need for it.

I understand and that is why in a later post I said that clients that really need to use that many inputs simultaneously can usually afford to buy the big boy tools. Or at least I would certainly think so anyway. If you can afford 96+ mics or other input sources and all the cables, stands, etc... I would certainly hope that you allowed some budget to buy a console big enough to mix all that. Or buy enough submixers or whatever they prefer. :)

I'm not sure what Broadway shows you are referring to, but I can tell you that most B'way shows the engineers are not using their own personal consoles. Unless by personal console you mean it is one they chose to use and rented from the sound shop. I have plenty of friends that work on B'way. All the gear on those shows is rented. The engineer might bring in their own headphones and com handset. And the designer in the one that chooses the console, but obviously they have budgets even at that level of production and you need to pick something that the sound shops are going to be able to provide to you. That is why it will likely take quite a while until you see SAC (or even something similar to it) on a B'way show.

While submixers certainly are nothing new on Broadway shows (although often now days they just use one large console and put the stuff they don't need to touch very often on one of the layers buried in the desk), for better or worse (it's personal taste) there is less and less natural sound coming out of B'way orch pits these days. Everyone seems to putting up all sorts of baffles, micing every instrument in sight and mixing it all at the console. Most B'way pits have full Aviom systems where each musician is where headphones and has control of their own monitor mixer. At least that is what I've seen a lot of, both when visiting friends, and watching the tours that come through town. It's not my personal cup of tea, I'd love to make things sound as natural as possible, but rarely does the Sound Designer actually get to have full control of how a show will sound. That's ultimately in the hands of the director and the person signing the checks, which bigger and louder seems to be the style these days. :)