Wireless MIDI control

[Mike Jaspers]

Hello All,
I've lurked these forums from time to time for about a year now. I guess I should introduce myself: My name is Mike Jaspers and I'm an audio technician at a church.

I've kept SAC in the back of my mind for an application that has only recently become practical for us to TRY and implement and am now going through the research stage. However, I don't know enough of the background of SAC to know if my application would be practical.

What I would like to do is get rid of our existing Aviom system by going to a SAC system that gets audio i/o via Dante (already have the Yamaha RIO Dante stuff). I am not trying to replace our FOH mixer with SAC, only the aviom system.

I would like to have an iPad control a bcr2000 (audio via IEM xmitter) for each singer or musician of the separate "monitor mixes" within SAC. I know iPad control is "possible" with a hardware digital mixer like the Yamaha 01v and "missing link(wifi to midi)," but my goal is to use SAC because of the number of mixes and inputs I need.

Aviom and other variations on that product have become impractical for us because of the number of people we have trying to use one Aviom network. Using two networks of Aviom is possible but then we have to buy a product I feel is very much at the end of it's life cycle and has limited inputs and isn't all that flexible.

My other option is to simply buy an additional Yamaha CL mixer to handle IEM, but I then have to rely on an additional technician each week. My assumption would be that the SAC system could be largely controlled by the musos, much like Aviom now.

So, Is it possible & practical for me to accomplish this?
If so, what do I need besides another Dante license, ipad, SAC, time, and a computer?
And, how do I go about experimenting for not a lot of $?

Thanks much in advance and be blessed.
Sincerely,
--Mike

[ssrsound]

The only Dante computer input I've found that's useful is the FocusRite RedNet PCI card. It's not badly priced for what it is (just under $1k). I think the most expensive part of going Dante right now is getting all the mic inputs into Dante, and it sounds like you've got that already covered.

If you're going to then control the monitor mixes from iPads, I'd look at AC-7 Pro. The app emulates a Mackie control surface, which goes wireless to a receiver application on the PC that makes the signal look like a MIDI signal to SAC.

The Caveat, though, is that getting multiple MIDI signals into SAC is hard. The best way I've found is to run multiple instances of the SAC Remote Client, and have each iPad connect to its own instance of the SAC Remote Client. That's getting rather complex once you've got a bunch of them, and complexity tends to lead to problems down the line.


If I were you, I'd look at Windows-based tablets instead of iPads. Each user can then run the SAC remote application directly. That works pretty well. there have been some problems when wireless networks have dropouts. But at least the monitor mixes aren't in the direct signal path, so it may be ok.

[Wink0r]

Since you already have cat-5 distribution with the Aviom system you might consider using that for many/most of the mix locations. A simple netbook/tablet would work fine over cat-5 and relieve network congestion.

My other thought would be that the fader pack would be largely spare parts unless you feel the absolute need for one at the master station (host).

[Andy Hamm]

Wifi to MIDI is possible with rtpMidi (MIDI over IP) http://www.tobias-erichsen.de/software/rtpmidi.html.

I use my Promix 01 out front with a laptop to control my mixrack which is side stage with it. Since even wireless is faster than a standard MIDI port, I've never had an issue with it.

I get all kinds of comments from people that can't believe I have wireless flying faders.

[Mattseymour]

I'd have said the netbook/cheap old laptop approach is better than trying to use fader packs or an ipad. You can have more remotes than you're likely to want and old second hand laptops offer a dirt cheap controller. You can get touchscreen tabletty things very cheap too.

[Mike Jaspers]

The only Dante computer input I've found that's useful is the FocusRite RedNet PCI card. It's not badly priced for what it is (just under $1k). I think the most expensive part of going Dante right now is getting all the mic inputs into Dante, and it sounds like you've got that already covered.

If you're going to then control the monitor mixes from iPads, I'd look at AC-7 Pro. The app emulates a Mackie control surface, which goes wireless to a receiver application on the PC that makes the signal look like a MIDI signal to SAC.

The Caveat, though, is that getting multiple MIDI signals into SAC is hard. The best way I've found is to run multiple instances of the SAC Remote Client, and have each iPad connect to its own instance of the SAC Remote Client. That's getting rather complex once you've got a bunch of them, and complexity tends to lead to problems down the line.


If I were you, I'd look at Windows-based tablets instead of iPads. Each user can then run the SAC remote application directly. That works pretty well. there have been some problems when wireless networks have dropouts. But at least the monitor mixes aren't in the direct signal path, so it may be ok.

Thanks for your response and recommendations. I've been fine using the gigabit port in a mac mini; the focusrite card is supposed to have more Dante I/O capability, but I'm not sure I'd actually need more. I have 128 channels on the network right now and can choose any 64 I want to mix.

Regarding the complexity...I guess I may have to abandon the project if it won't work correctly/reliably. I had wanted to use iPads because we already have those available to test with and it seems like there is a lot more stability on iOS stuff.

[Mattseymour]

SAC doesn't have any direct ipad control options. You'd need to use something like ac7. That works well but it does get messy when you need multiple controllers.

So are you using the Dante virtual soundcard? What's the latency like these days. Last time I looked at it the latency was no good for live sound, perfect for recording channels from the dante network though.

[Mike Jaspers]

Since you already have cat-5 distribution with the Aviom system you might consider using that for many/most of the mix locations. A simple netbook/tablet would work fine over cat-5 and relieve network congestion.

My other thought would be that the fader pack would be largely spare parts unless you feel the absolute need for one at the master station (host).

That is a good idea. I had wanted to use iPads because we already use them (as a music reference (music stand)). The one good thing about Aviom is that control and audio are on that silly Ethernet cable; your way might require me to run additional cable on the stage.

The BCRs (not the fader pack...the rotary knob one) I thought I could use and put them on a wireless MIDI device so that just in case the WiFi wasn't working, we could still adjust a mix.

[Mike Jaspers]

SAC doesn't have any direct ipad control options. You'd need to use something like ac7. That works well but it does get messy when you need multiple controllers.

So are you using the Dante virtual soundcard? What's the latency like these days. Last time I looked at it the latency was no good for live sound, perfect for recording channels from the dante network though.

Right now, I have the latency on the Mac set at 10ms and there have been no hiccups. I do need to check with a lower setting...good point!

[ssrsound]

Thanks for your response and recommendations. I've been fine using the gigabit port in a mac mini; the focusrite card is supposed to have more Dante I/O capability, but I'm not sure I'd actually need more. I have 128 channels on the network right now and can choose any 64 I want to mix.

I've not really tested the virtual soundcard recently, but I thought the latency was too high for real-time audio? 10ms is nothing for recording. But 10ms plus several more ms for AD and DA converstion adds up to way too much for live monitoring. The reason for the RedNet card is to bring down the latency.

Have they improved that?

[Mike Jaspers]

What's the latency like these days. Last time I looked at it the latency was no good for live sound, perfect for recording channels from the dante network though.

The question now becomes how much latency is tolerable...4ms is the lowest available setting on the DVS, and while I'm sure that won't be a problem with the computer or standalone network, it probably will be too much with the AD/DA happening as well:

I think that ~7ms is likely according to the Yamaha literature, plus whatever might be added by SAC. Ugh...I don't think this will work. I just didn't even think about latency.

[Mike Jaspers]

I've not really tested the virtual soundcard recently, but I thought the latency was too high for real-time audio? 10ms is nothing for recording. But 10ms plus several more ms for AD and DA converstion adds up to way too much for live monitoring. The reason for the RedNet card is to bring down the latency.

Have they improved that?
Ahhh...See my post. Yes, the current low is 4 ms; still too much once the AD/DA happens. I'll check the specs on the RedNet card...thanks much!

[Mattseymour]

claims here (http://www.audinate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202#What is DVS latency?) to be capable of 4ms which, if my calculations are correct, is a buffer size of 192.

So is that 4ms from dante device to asio driver output or is there more latency to be found before the converters.

A lot depends on what people will tolerate. Some drummers are reputed to be unhappy at 32 buffers. Personally I'm quite happy at 128, but getting above that starts to sound a bit elvis when using in ears.

by the way, welcome. As another church sound guy all I can say is I wish I had your budget ;)

[Wink0r]

From the above source:

Can I run Dante Virtual Soundcard in a Virtual Machine (such as VMware)?

No. The Dante Virtual Soundcard places significant demands upon the network throughput of a computer. Virtual machines manage network connections via the CPU rather then through hardware, and thus cannot guarantee low latency under many conditions. For this reason, Dante Virtual Soundcard cannot be installed and registered on a virtual machine.From that bit of information it sounds like the virtual solution may not play well with SAC and remotes.

[Mike Jaspers]

claims here (http://www.audinate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202#What is DVS latency?) to be capable of 4ms which, if my calculations are correct, is a buffer size of 192.

So is that 4ms from dante device to asio driver output or is there more latency to be found before the converters.

A lot depends on what people will tolerate. Some drummers are reputed to be unhappy at 32 buffers. Personally I'm quite happy at 128, but getting above that starts to sound a bit elvis when using in ears.

by the way, welcome. As another church sound guy all I can say is I wish I had your budget ;)
Thanks again...

It looks like this project is unfeasible at this time, but I have to say that this exchange has been one of the most helpful I've ever had on the internet; kudos.

And, Matt, thanks for the welcome, but I'm not really sure you want my budget! ;) I had to struggle through an Amek Recall RN that was losing output drivers and other functions daily, but they wouldn't let me get anything different for over 18 months!
Blessings.

[ssrsound]

From the above source:
From that bit of information it sounds like the virtual solution may not play well with SAC and remotes.

Not so sure about that. But I certainly wouldn't run it through the *same* Ethernet port. I'd want audio on one, and network talking on another.

[RBIngraham]

Thanks again...

It looks like this project is unfeasible at this time, but I have to say that this exchange has been one of the most helpful I've ever had on the internet; kudos.

And, Matt, thanks for the welcome, but I'm not really sure you want my budget! ;) I had to struggle through an Amek Recall RN that was losing output drivers and other functions daily, but they wouldn't let me get anything different for over 18 months!
Blessings.


I think you've answered your own questions here. What you are asking for is rather complex and to do it with SAC would require a lot of very fiddly little bits of gear with extra software other than SAC, plus several pieces of hardware to make it all work. It would very convoluted and in my opinion not very reliable.

My recommendation would be that if you already have the Aviom, stick with it. SAC is cool and all, but even if you didn't want ipad controls and real knobs to twirl, setting up an Aviom like system with SAC requires more pieces of hardware and more cable runs than an Aviom system does.

Couldn't you just start doing some submixing going into the Aviom system so you can use the 16 inputs to it more efficiently? 16 inputs to mix to their choice is really a lot of flexibility I would think. You don't need to take every instrument in on it's own channel.

Just my opinion.

[Mattseymour]

From the above source:
From that bit of information it sounds like the virtual solution may not play well with SAC and remotes.

You're confusing completely different technologies that happen to have the word virtual involved.

The Dante virtual soundcard is an ASIO driver that provides an interface from the Dante network into the PC without any dedicated hardware.

You're still running windows, sac and the Dante drivers native on hardware.

Virtual machines running through vmware, kvm, xen, mean effectively running a PC on your CPU, under an OS running native. You would NEVER want to use a virtual machine for realtime av work.

[Mike Jaspers]

I think you've answered your own questions here. What you are asking for is rather complex and to do it with SAC would require a lot of very fiddly little bits of gear with extra software other than SAC, plus several pieces of hardware to make it all work. It would very convoluted and in my opinion not very reliable.

My recommendation would be that if you already have the Aviom, stick with it. SAC is cool and all, but even if you didn't want ipad controls and real knobs to twirl, setting up an Aviom like system with SAC requires more pieces of hardware and more cable runs than an Aviom system does.

Couldn't you just start doing some submixing going into the Aviom system so you can use the 16 inputs to it more efficiently? 16 inputs to mix to their choice is really a lot of flexibility I would think. You don't need to take every instrument in on it's own channel.

Just my opinion.
Yes, I definitely hear you.

The problem is expectations. We do submix drums, keys + pads, etc., and a general catch all channel, so that is 13 channels left in the aviom.
Bass
Electric1
Electric2
Keys 2
Leader
Click
Loops
Acoustic1
Percussion
Cue Mic
Singers
And then I have 2 channels left as "flex channels," but the rub is that they want to put all the singers (usually 4-10)on their own IEM xmitter, which means the singers all need to be separated out to their liking--and there is just no way to do that without adding another aviom (or similar) network.

I've looked into the pivitec, behringer, and roland stuff but I really think these solutions will be dead in a couple years with console control being developed for android and iOS platforms. Simply put, If you have enough mixes and easy control, why bother with another system? The idea of the above systems is that it eliminates the FOH guy (if no monitor guy)from constantly attending to monitoring requests, and that can happen if you have enough mixes and easy control of those mixes.

Besides the behringer(price) system, it would seem to me that with our current dante-based system, it would probably be a lot better just to use a separate console for monitor mixes in terms of flexibility and value, but I'll continue investigating.

[jlklein]

What I would like to do is get rid of our existing Aviom system by going to a SAC system that gets audio i/o via Dante (already have the Yamaha RIO Dante stuff). I am not trying to replace our FOH mixer with SAC, only the aviom system.

I would like to have an iPad control a bcr2000 (audio via IEM xmitter) for each singer or musician of the separate "monitor mixes" within SAC. I know iPad control is "possible" with a hardware digital mixer like the Yamaha 01v and "missing link(wifi to midi)," but my goal is to use SAC because of the number of mixes and inputs I need.

Hi Mike,
We have Aviom now and are putting in a SAC system in our Sanctuary (we've been using SAC for a couple of our portable systems for a couple years). Since we already have the Aviom, we're going to use it as a 16 channel CAT5 snake and have two methods to try, based on input from the list here.

The first (transition) step will be to have the musos use the Aviom as they do now, but use SAC to submix the 16+ channels down to something manageable by the Aviom 16 ch system. I.e. instead of our Worship Leader taking up 4 channels with his acoustic, electric, acoustic simulator, and ukelele (yeah, you read that right, lol), he now will have 1 channel called "Jeff's guitars" on his Aviom. They'll also have a laptop or two on the stage running SAC Remote, so if they need to change the balance of something before the submix, they can do that.

The next step would be to have everyone on their own SAC Remote laptops and have each instance's output feed a pair of Aviom channels, so 8 stereo monitor outputs to each Aviom network (one for us) to take advantage of the CAT5 16 channel digital snake capabilities. They'd still have the Aviom personal mixers, but they would just use one of the paired channels and mute the others, and control their mix with a netbook or something running SAC remote. This really just allows us to use the Aviom CAT5 as a digital snake rather than having to locate additional outputs and headphone amps at the stage using other means.

Maybe you could adapt some of these ideas to your needs?

Hope that helps,
Jeff

[Mattseymour]

SAC is an excellent solution to the problem you have, and would be the perfect option if you were using it to mix foh as well.

I think it's probably still worth looking at the Focusrite Rednet card (http://uk.focusrite.com/ethernet-audio-interfaces/rednet-pcie-card) as this offers lower latency than you can get with the virtual soundcard. I'm willing to bet it probably has a lower demand on the system too, but that's just uninformed conjecture... I am on an internet forum after all.

If I were in your shoes, I'd at least have a play with virtual soundcard and SAC, see how well it works. If you can get a demo of the rednet card, even better.

It's also worth exploring the SAC interface on a cheap second hand touchscreen PC with some of the musicians.

I suspect SAC could work really well for you, but forget the iPad. You, I and many others feel support for iPad/Android is the way forward but it seems Bob doesn't so I would see if you can make it work for you as it is.

One advantage of the cheap second hand laptop approach is... they're cheap compared to iPads. You may already have a few around the place, but how dedicated could they be to being mix controllers and not having people also wanting to check their e-mail, read song lyrics, etc, etc... No idea how you have your Dante network setup, but it's likely you wouldn't want a wireless network used for mix control also on the internet... Setting up dedicated machines for SAC control means you have something that can be all preset and administrator managed.

Check out this install (http://www.sawstudiouser.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13608&highlight=drum+room) as one way of achieving what you want with a touch interface.

[airickess]

I had to struggle through an Amek Recall RN that was losing output drivers and other functions daily, but they wouldn't let me get anything different for over 18 months!
Blessings.Output drivers? The Amek Recall RN is an analog console with some dynamics and gating functions via a computer hookup. Were the analog outputs just failing?

[Mike Jaspers]

Output drivers? The Amek Recall RN is an analog console with some dynamics and gating functions via a computer hookup. Were the analog outputs just failing?

Yes,
The analog output drivers were failing on multiple sources. I'm talking about a little IC that would get toasted.

[Mike Jaspers]

Hi Mike,
We have Aviom now and are putting in a SAC system in our Sanctuary (we've been using SAC for a couple of our portable systems for a couple years). Since we already have the Aviom, we're going to use it as a 16 channel CAT5 snake and have two methods to try, based on input from the list here.

The first (transition) step will be to have the musos use the Aviom as they do now, but use SAC to submix the 16+ channels down to something manageable by the Aviom 16 ch system. I.e. instead of our Worship Leader taking up 4 channels with his acoustic, electric, acoustic simulator, and ukelele (yeah, you read that right, lol), he now will have 1 channel called "Jeff's guitars" on his Aviom. They'll also have a laptop or two on the stage running SAC Remote, so if they need to change the balance of something before the submix, they can do that.

The next step would be to have everyone on their own SAC Remote laptops and have each instance's output feed a pair of Aviom channels, so 8 stereo monitor outputs to each Aviom network (one for us) to take advantage of the CAT5 16 channel digital snake capabilities. They'd still have the Aviom personal mixers, but they would just use one of the paired channels and mute the others, and control their mix with a netbook or something running SAC remote. This really just allows us to use the Aviom CAT5 as a digital snake rather than having to locate additional outputs and headphone amps at the stage using other means.

Maybe you could adapt some of these ideas to your needs?

Hope that helps,
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff, it sounds like you are very creative in using aviom with SAC. Your idea wouldn't really work for us for the main reason that each person in our aviom network is different(no one person plays more than one instrument or plays and sings (usually) etc.) and I have more than 16 separate mixes to create. Thanks much for the suggestion, though.

[airickess]

Yes,
The analog output drivers were failing on multiple sources. I'm talking about a little IC that would get toasted.Too bad. That console really sounds nice. I mixed on one for 4.5 years at a house gig and I loved the Neve-designed preamps and EQ section.

[gdougherty]

Thanks, Jeff, it sounds like you are very creative in using aviom with SAC. Your idea wouldn't really work for us for the main reason that each person in our aviom network is different(no one person plays more than one instrument or plays and sings (usually) etc.) and I have more than 16 separate mixes to create. Thanks much for the suggestion, though.

If the behringer power play stuff is usable, it'd be a relatively cheap way to do a few networks. Outside of the Roland stuff that gets you 32 channels at $800ish per station, I don't think there's a truly workable solution for personal monitor mixing without using multiple 16 channel networks specialized for subgroups of musicians. A studiolive 24.4.2 might be able to manage a good chunk of it though with its 10 mono auxes. That'd give you multiple iOS devices for mix control. You're off your Dante network though and on to analog splits, but it's doable.

[MSLR]

Hello,
I'm following the discussions because I've always in Mind to switch to SAC for our church in Germany. Especially the discussion with DANTE is very interesting because we're using the Yamaha mixers which we can expand with the MY16-AUD card to make all the signals available for recording and for monitoring.

I'm actually waiting for the availability to an AVB compatible firmware upgrade for the Dante devices and for the MyMix personal monitoring system. Both promise to be compatible to AVB in the future. This would be (from my point of view) one of the most simple ways to implement a personal monitoring systems with low complexity for the time-to-time user. But unfortunately I have no ideas about the timline for the availability of AVB at Dante and MyMix devices.

My system in mind is looking like that:
Existing Yamaha Mixers with MY16-AUD cards as input/output devices AND for backup. SAC with RedNet card for FOH (and monitoring for the core of the music team). MyMix for the monitoring of all the others.

Using the existig gear will also be a smooth way to move to a more computer based system in combination with minimizing the risk - and the cost.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Martin Schaller

[marcus]

This to me is actually kinda funny, i just started to look into the Dante interfaces and found my ideal system yesterday... 2 Rednet 2's and Rednet PCIE card, and a gigabit switch for the Rednet. Simple, yet versitile. To bad it's not available yet, but gotta save anyways, it's a $6000 - 7000 upgrade.

Back to the regular scheduled program... :D

[Mike Jaspers]

If the behringer power play stuff is usable, it'd be a relatively cheap way to do a few networks. Outside of the Roland stuff that gets you 32 channels at $800ish per station, I don't think there's a truly workable solution for personal monitor mixing without using multiple 16 channel networks specialized for subgroups of musicians. A studiolive 24.4.2 might be able to manage a good chunk of it though with its 10 mono auxes. That'd give you multiple iOS devices for mix control. You're off your Dante network though and on to analog splits, but it's doable.

Thanks, George. I think I may have found something that will work well.

There is a product: "AirFader" that is right now for M7 and LS9 consoles. I've emailed the developer to see if it will be possible to control the CL series at some point. If so, I think that I can get the AirFader server version going and use android based tablets for those on wireless IEM and relieve aviom input/network issues by having each musician mix his/her IEMs via AirFader. I could keep the stationary band members on aviom but put singers on the airfader system.