Question about controlers

[drihanek]

I've been considering a permanent install at church. For some of our volunteers think they need something to touch when eq'ing, gate, comp., and mixing. I've read a couple of posts about controllers and know that this is a complex topic when it comes to SAC.

However, I was wondering if there was a template for the BCF 2000 and BCR 2000 or Mackie control pro and C4 pro that would allow the BCF to act as the fader, mute, solo, pans and the BCR as the control for eq, comp, and gate for the selected hot channel. With a dual monitor set up with mixer views to match control it would be easier to see what is going on with each control. Anyway, just wondering what the possiblities were available with midi control.:confused:

[Bob L]

The BCF2000 template exists up to 32 faders... there really is no need for physical knobs on eq and comps... etc... trust me... explore using the mouse for those and you will have a very smooth ride...

Once you learn how to navigate the interface with F-Keys and popup jump menus, you can get to any control much faster onscreen than on any control surface with banking around and selecting different modules sections.

And trust that looking at a bank of rotary faders with no readout displays is an absurd way to work, compared to the amount of detail and control using the onscreen controls.

Bob L

[RBIngraham]

I can see where if you are coming from the world of large format analog consoles, there might be some desire to still have all the knobs for EQ and such. However once you get used to just selecting the channel you wish to edit, then using an F-Key view to pull up the Wide Mixer window front and center on your screen, you can easily see all the data for that channel right in front of you. It's very easy to adjust just about anything.

But if you are comparing SAC to many of the digital consoles I would say it's even easier to use. For example I just got done doing some shows with a Yamaha M7. (no comments! I don't get to choose the desk everywhere I go!) Take a wild guess where I adjusted all my EQs, Dynamics and the like at.... yep.. you guessed it on the computer screen in Yamaha's Studio Manager. Because it's easier and faster to do many of the things in Studio Manager than it is to do it right on the desk even with it's touch screen. Then there are somethings you can do faster on the console itself.

At least that's my opinion anyway.

Richard

[drihanek]

Bob - I'm with you. I have a fellow volunteer who still has more influence over the helm of the starship enterprise than I and I'm having trouble convincing him of the switch without something he can touch (in all fairness he is not very good with a computer), so I thought I'd see what was available. Sounds like its just the fader template, cool. Not sure you would need 32 channels, but that is a fair sized mixing platform if you need alot of changes fast.

Richard - I guess my inspiration for the dual screen, BCF and BCR was a large format digital console. And the wide mixer was what I was thinking of for the second screen view (couldn't think of which mixer view it was at the time). So I'd have the hot channel and full mixer on the left screen to match the single BCF and the wide mixer on the right screen to match the BCR. I thought if it was possible to make the BCR control the same parameters everytime then I could manually label the BCR. For example the first column would be ParaEQ1 with the first row being gain, second row frequency, third row Q left to right across the BCR. Maybe using the last two columns for the key parameters for the comp and gate instead of the cutoff eq'a.

Anyway, just thought that option might be out there and I didn't know about it. I will have to find another angle to convince him. Cheers!

D

[Naturally Digital]

There's always the Mackie Control to consider. The C4 and fader extender are not supported but if it runs like in SAW then the MC will control EQ, Dyn etc.

[dbarrow]

The BCF2000 template exists up to 32 faders... there really is no need for physical knobs on eq and comps... etc... trust me... explore using the mouse for those and you will have a very smooth ride...

Once you learn how to navigate the interface with F-Keys and popup jump menus, you can get to any control much faster onscreen than on any control surface with banking around and selecting different modules sections.

And trust that looking at a bank of rotary faders with no readout displays is an absurd way to work, compared to the amount of detail and control using the onscreen controls.

Bob LWhile I totally agree with you and have fully embraced the virtual concept, I did notice something that might be useful as an option in SAC. On some of the Yamaha digital boards, you can go into a mode where the faders become the effect sends. I can see how that might be useful, since I often manipulate the send levels during a song. I guess this could also be done with scenes, but it might be a quicker way to set up a bunch of FX sends visually/kinesthetically in one sweep.

[RBIngraham]

While I totally agree with you and have fully embraced the virtual concept, I did notice something that might be useful as an option in SAC. On some of the Yamaha digital boards, you can go into a mode where the faders become the effect sends. I can see how that might be useful, since I often manipulate the send levels during a song. I guess this could also be done with scenes, but it might be a quicker way to set up a bunch of FX sends visually/kinesthetically in one sweep.

That's how almost all of the Yamaha boards I have ever touched worked. It's just that on the newer units, (like the M7 and LS9) since they do have knobs for aux sends, you only go into the Sends on Fader mode when you tell it to do so. So it's not forced onto you like all the desks that were mostly meant to be studio boards.

But honestly this Sends on Fader I think is mostly useful for setting up monitor mixes. That is definitely why Yamaha did that on the M7 and LS9 I am fairly sure. So you pull up Sends on Fader select Mix 1 and bring up the channels you want on that mix. Then move to the next mix, etc, etc, etc...

But with SAC, if you are using a control surface, you essentially already have the same thing. You just bring up Monitor 1 and your faders are that mixer. You bring up monitor 2 and your faders are that mixer.

I guess I could see where it might be useful to do something similar just for your effect processors or whatever you are using your Aux Sends for. But are those really being adjusted that often? Maybe for some people they are I guess?

I personally would rather have a SAC view that shows me all the Mixes that any given Input is being routed to across all 25 consoles. I'm not sure exactly how that would work or what it might look like, but I think it could be very helpful if you could pick an input and see everyplace that input is going without having to jump through 25 mixers. But if memory serves I think Bob had that on a list to think about already. But this desire on my part is probably linked to the fact that I'm not always using the Monitor Mixers just for Monitor sends, I treat them as a huge Matrix Mixer.

Richard

[drihanek]

Wait, so are you saying that the Mackie control might already do this? I don't know because I haven't used SAW enough yet, I'm more of a live person right now not much recording going on yet. :D

[RBIngraham]

Wait, so are you saying that the Mackie control might already do this? I don't know because I haven't used SAW enough yet, I'm more of a live person right now not much recording going on yet. :D

Yes I think the Mackie Control and the CM Labs Motor Mix allow you access to EQ and other functions. Download the Demo of SAC and Read thru the help file. That tells you exactly which control surfaces are supported and what functions they allow access to. Or download the manual from the web site and read it. It's the same thing essentially.

RBI

[Bob L]

You can find MotorMix controllers usually on EBay... the Mackie MCU also controls everything... either will work fine for 8 chans at a time.

They both have readout display screens which made it easier to control the other parameters and allow the labels to chase the controls as you flip around.

But... once again I will say this... for all the time you will spend in the beginning trying desperately to setup the perfect controller, your time would be better spent just practicing using the interface and learning it... there have been years of design and programming put into it to maximize the control of a large mixing format on small computer screens... and in the end... it does everything you will ever need and more...

Many have gone the route of two and three monitors only to find themselves back to one large format monitor soon after, and realize that it may be much more efficient than the idea of having windows maxed out and stetched across multiple monitors.

Once you practice with the F-Keys, you may realize there is no real need to have the Wide Mixer View visible at all times on another monitor... it can actually take you longer to move the mouse between two monitors than it can to press an F-Key and pop the Wide Mixer View onscreen when you need it. :)

Bob L

[gdougherty]

You can find MotorMix controllers usually on EBay... the Mackie MCU also controls everything... either will work fine for 8 chans at a time.

They both have readout display screens which made it easier to control the other parameters and allow the labels to chase the controls as you flip around.

But... once again I will say this... for all the time you will spend in the beginning trying desperately to setup the perfect controller, your time would be better spent just practicing using the interface and learning it... there have been years of design and programming put into it to maximize the control of a large mixing format on small computer screens... and in the end... it does everything you will ever need and more...

Many have gone the route of two and three monitors only to find themselves back to one large format monitor soon after, and realize that it may be much more efficient than the idea of having windows maxed out and stetched across multiple monitors.

Once you practice with the F-Keys, you may realize there is no real need to have the Wide Mixer View visible at all times on another monitor... it can actually take you longer to move the mouse between two monitors than it can to press an F-Key and pop the Wide Mixer View onscreen when you need it. :)

Bob L

My left keyboard hand usually sits around the right shift key for this reason. Right there it's next to arrows, shift, alt and ctrl. Really though, once you've got the board dynamics and EQ's set, 98% of my work is done with arrow keys and scenes.

[kruntz]

I thought if it was possible to make the BCR control the same parameters everytime then I could manually label the BCR. For example the first column would be ParaEQ1 with the first row being gain, second row frequency, third row Q left to right across the BCR. Maybe using the last two columns for the key parameters for the comp and gate instead of the cutoff eq'a.

Please, read this thread... :rolleyes:
http://www.sawstudiouser.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8665

[drihanek]

gdougherty - I noticed the last festival we did I ended up using the arrow keys alot, particularly for eq because my laptop screen is small and I have a hard time getting the cursor on the screen arrows and moving exactly how I want. May have to do with my mouse sensitivity though.

Kruntz - Sorry I hadn't read that tread or I would have never brought this thread up. I just need to convince my fellow church volunteers who are powerful and set in their ways. I thought this idea might have worked but its already been done thought through. On a side note -- "holy cow" on your layout of the BCR2000 way more workable and in-depth than what I was even thinking. May I give you a +100 for that brain-child.

Cheers

[RBIngraham]

gdougherty - I noticed the last festival we did I ended up using the arrow keys alot, particularly for eq because my laptop screen is small and I have a hard time getting the cursor on the screen arrows and moving exactly how I want. May have to do with my mouse sensitivity though.

Kruntz - Sorry I hadn't read that tread or I would have never brought this thread up. I just need to convince my fellow church volunteers who are powerful and set in their ways. I thought this idea might have worked but its already been done thought through. On a side note -- "holy cow" on your layout of the BCR2000 way more workable and in-depth than what I was even thinking. May I give you a +100 for that brain-child.

Cheers

So just as a thought are the Behringer units not programmable by the end user? Would it be totally impossible to figure out what MIDI commands are being sent back and forth from say a Mackie unit to SAC and just make a Behringer unit emulate those commands and hence you could make the knobs on the Behringer unit work just like a Mackie. I am sure it could be done. It's likely more a matter of if the hassle is worth all the effort and my guess would be no it's not. :D

Just an idea...

Richard

[Bob L]

You can try to trap the midi commands with MIDI-OX or something similar... good luck though... many of the interaction has to do with the readout display changes... not just the actual knob control... it can get very complex.

Bob L

[RBIngraham]

You can try to trap the midi commands with MIDI-OX or something similar... good luck though... many of the interaction has to do with the readout display changes... not just the actual knob control... it can get very complex.

Bob L

Yep! I understand the level of communications that is going on there. At least in the MoterMix anyway. I have a developer's package for that unit so I'm fairly familiar with it. I suspect the Mackie control units are equally complex and it would require that you ignore a ton of System Exclusive commands that updating LEDs and LCDs, etc... Hence why I said it's not worth the effort. At least it's not worth it to me anyway. But I'm happy with just using hardware control for faders and mutes only and the screen for everything else. :)

RBI

[drihanek]

Bob if you tell me good luck I have no chance (not that I had a chance anyway). ;) If I did pull it off I think people would want to try it. Anyway more experimenting with F keys and mixer window and mice.

[kruntz]

So just as a thought are the Behringer units not programmable by the end user?

Yes, they are.


Would it be totally impossible to figure out what MIDI commands are being sent back and forth from say a Mackie unit to SAC and just make a Behringer unit emulate those commands and hence you could make the knobs on the Behringer unit work just like a Mackie. I am sure it could be done.I'd do it, and I have a MIDI analyser, but I don't have a Mackie unit...
Would it be possible to have a (readable) dump of the actual template?

[Bob L]

Just load the Mackie Template and start moving controls on the screen... capture what SAC sends to the midi port.

That will get you started... but you will have to weed thru the complex strings that control the Mackie readout display.

Bob L

[kruntz]

Just load the Mackie Template and start moving controls on the screen... capture what SAC sends to the midi port.
That will get you started... but you will have to weed thru the complex strings that control the Mackie readout display.

Thanks, I'll do it.

[drihanek]

Kruntz - Wow man, take it on - conquer the giant (I read Bob's post and still wouldn't know where to begin):eek:. Let me know how it goes.

[kruntz]

Just load the Mackie Template and start moving controls on the screen... capture what SAC sends to the midi port.

If by "Mackie Template" you mean "MidiCtrl_Mackie_Control.mct", it does'nt seem to be working.
The only on-screen controls that send out something on the MIDI OUT are:
Solo, Mute, Pan, Fader and Key Listen.

All note-on commands, various note# and 0 or 127 velocity.

Pan is the only one to send out some sysex data (00 00 66 14 12 38 2x xx xx xx xx xx 20) too.

[RBIngraham]

If by "Mackie Template" you mean "MidiCtrl_Mackie_Control.mct", it does'nt seem to be working.
The only on-screen controls that send out something on the MIDI OUT are:
Solo, Mute, Pan, Fader and Key Listen.

All note-on commands, various note# and 0 or 127 velocity.

Pan is the only one to send out some sysex data (00 00 66 14 12 38 2x xx xx xx xx xx 20) too.

Well I'm sure Bob will jump in at some point, but I'll take a stab at it....

My guess is that you'll need to send some data into SAC to make it respond to and generate other controls. Remember that when dealing with devices like a Mackie Control of a Motormix that the unit itself is essentially very dumb. What I mean by that is that all the unit itself can do is send a generic MIDI command of some type when you push a button or move a knob or faders, etc.... It's then up to the software or hardware application to read those MIDI data streams, choose how to respond to them and then also send back other MIDI data to the control surface so that the LCD display updates or that the LED under a button lights up. Then you get into the entire "bank" issue, where the only thing that is really keeping track of what "bank" of 8 faders your currently working on is SAC itself. The control surfaces has no idea about any of that stuff at all. There may be a bank button on the control surface but that doesn't mean the controller itself has any grasp of the concept. It just sends a MIDI command when you push the button and the software has to move to the next bank and then update all the faders and displays, etc...

The advantage to this of course is that the controller can be much more customized to the application since the application itself has to really manage all the data and what happen on the control surface. In contrast something more user programmable like a Behringer or an old Peavey PC1600 "understands" what data it's sending out and receiving and the user can program it to fit their needs and the software application doesn't even really need to know if it's a Behringer controller or a Peavey or a Yamaha digital console in a remote fader layer. But with the ability for more end user control you usually loose the ability for the surface to more closely integrate into the software or hardware.

It's not going to be easy to "fake" SAC into thinking it's working with a Mackie control I suspect. You would have to make the Behringer send specific commands to SAC when you push a button so that SAC will respond appropriately. Otherwise SAC wouldn't know if that row of knobs are supposed to be EQs, or Dynamics or aux send levels, etc...

I'm not saying it can not be done of course. But it's why my solution would simply be to hook up an older laptop and run the SAC remote on it, and then plug in a Mackie or Motormix when you need to adjust things like EQ or Dynamics with knobs. And keep a simple set of faders, mutes, solo control surface hooked up to the main SAC host computer. A bit of a hack, but a lot easier to get going I suspect.

Richard

[kruntz]

My guess is that you'll need to send some data into SAC to make it respond to and generate other controls.

If a control change on the screen does not send out anything on midi out, you can't keep the surface display "in sync" with the virtual interface. I'm sure you'll understand that if (for example) I add 4 dB of gain on filter band 1 with the mouse, and nothing is being tx'ed, my chances of turning on two more leds on the relevant knob of the BCR2000 are *zero*...


It's not going to be easy to "fake" SAC into thinking it's working with a Mackie control I suspect.I *don't* want to "fake" SAC. I'm just ready to write a couple hundred of C code lines, adding them to a finite state machine and make a statefull midi filter that will turn a BCF2000 into whatever controller could control SAC channel parameters.


You would have to make the Behringer send specific commands to SAC when you push a button so that SAC will respond appropriately.Yes, I know...;)


But it's why my solution would simply be to hook up an older laptop and run the SAC remote on it, and then plug in a Mackie or Motormix when you need to adjust things like EQ or Dynamics with knobs.This *is* the problem.
If you read my previous posts, I asked for a "readable" dump of the midi controller template, since I don't have a Mackie or Motormix at hand...
Bob said:

You can try to trap the midi commands with MIDI-OX or something similar...

So, we are back to my previous post: maybe "MidiCtrl_Mackie_Control.mct" is not the right one...

[RBIngraham]

Well I think that is the right template. So something is probably just missing.

My point was that in order to make SAC think that the control surface is in EQ mode, it might be expecting a certain MIDI command from the control surface and until you send it that command, SAC may never send you data when you fiddle with an EQ knob. Or SAC may think you are in a completely differnt "bank" of 8 channels. You might be moving input #1's EQ while SAC thinks the control surface is on channels 9-16 or something.

I'm just taking a stab in the dark here, so take it for what it's worth. But just think about how the data flow would happen. You would push a button on the control surface, maybe it's even marked EQ.. doesn't matter... then SAC realizes you are trying to control the EQ with the row of knobs rather than say Pans or Aux Sends or whatever. So until you send it the MIDI Command that makes SAC think you pressed the magic "EQ" button, SAC may well not send MIDI data out when you adjust an EQ. You likely also have to select 1 band at at time for the EQ of certain channel.

Anyway sorry if this isn't helpful. If you wanted to emulate a Motormix instead of the Mackie Control I might be able to help you. But I don't have a ton of time to devote to it, so I could only hook it up and start capturing what it spits out, as time allows.

I have read every post of this thread! I fully understand what you are trying to do. Thanks! :)

Good Luck! :D

Richard

p.s. I would still call it "faking" SAC into thinking that there is a Mackie Control present.. however you do it, it's still basically making control surface A appear to be B instead. Or should I say Control Surface B appear to be M instead. :p

[kruntz]

You would push a button on the control surface, maybe it's even marked EQ.. doesn't matter... then SAC realizes you are trying to control the EQ with the row of knobs rather than say Pans or Aux Sends or whatever. So until you send it the MIDI Command that makes SAC think you pressed the magic "EQ" button, SAC may well not send MIDI data out when you adjust an EQ. You likely also have to select 1 band at at time for the EQ of certain channel.

I understand your point.
If this is how it works, I think it will not be doable.
Since you read all the posts, :) you saw that this is what I'm trying to do:
http://www.sawstudiouser.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8665
This control surface should get every control change done on the screen, since multiple filter bands, multiple auxes etc. are concurrently displayed...


If you wanted to emulate a Motormix instead of the Mackie Control I might be able to help you. But I don't have a ton of time to devote to it, so I could only hook it up and start capturing what it spits out, as time allows.Thanks a lot, but I'd wait for a statement from Bob...


I have read every post of this thread! I fully understand what you are trying to do. Thanks! :)I'm really sorry if my post sounded a bit harsh, but English is not my first language and sometimes I leave out the needed smiles... ;)

[RBIngraham]

Thanks a lot, but I'd wait for a statement from Bob...

I'm really sorry if my post sounded a bit harsh, but English is not my first language and sometimes I leave out the needed smiles... ;)

Waiting for a response from Bob is probably the next step. :)

No worries! I was just being a smart ass! And hence why I put in more than enough smilies!

Best,

RBI

[Bob L]

It gets complex.... and yes... there are many different modes involved that do get setup from the control surface itself... you must be in eq mode on the Mackie for eq codes to be sent from the program... these modes are all initiated from the controller to begin with... the program does not waste time sending control codes to the controller for things the controller is not looking at.

Eq, comps and all kinds of other mixer settings are only used and visualized on the readout displays when you set the controller into those specific modes... faders and mute and solo lights and so forth are active all the time because there are dedicated controls for them.

I still suggest, in the end... you will be much faster at adjusting these kinds of things on the screen... one F-Key view with the wide mixer will defeat any attempt at adjusting individual mixer processing controls on a controller with limited knobs assigned to unnamed parameters with only led lights around the control for feedback. :)

Bob L

[Iain Westland]

i am playing with the mcu temp using a bcr. Couple of things I am still falling over but getting there. And with 4 BCF's, 1 BCR and SAC, being half the price of a MCU, alot more attractive.

There was a gig in the town centre yesterday, sound engineer was 24, refused to consider SAC as viable TO HIM. Can't control sound with just a mouse and a keyboard type sentence.

I will get a control surface in front of him, and then ween him away.

Does not matter how much I scream and shout about how he should wake up and smell the 21st centuary. I also think that a lot of small venue engineers will feel the same, and untill They see the FOH at Manchester Apollo being run by mouse and keyboard those preconceptions will stay.

I am going to do everything to change these miss conceptions, even if It means going into their world to get them.

iain

[Iain Westland]

its the on/off buttons I am falling down with at the moment

[Bob L]

Trust me... making a complex array of cheap controllers without fancy readout displays function... poorly... will not win anybody over... when they are ready... these engineers will make the jump... we are constantly blowing minds here in Vegas, and now on the road doing tours with SAC as is designed... the sound quality and the visual of seeing a SAC engineer calmly mixing and handling FOH and monitor mixes from one position is causing quite a comotion...

You do not help the cause by trying desperately to build up some kind of large jimmy-rigged control surface because that's what people think they need... it is not the answer.

Its already been done as best as it could ever be done with Steve's giant 32 channel fader and 4 touch screen video display control surface... if you feel the need for all that... contact him... there is a thread on here about the ultimate SAC control surface.

A bunch of BCR's and a BCF is not going to impress anyone who is already fighting the concept. :)

Bob L

[Iain Westland]

huskervu sorted the viewing out

just trying to get a screen dump

[Iain Westland]

http://www.musicsnotdead.com/forbob.bmphttp://www.sawstudiouser.com/forums/www.musicsnotdead.com/forbob.bmp

[Iain Westland]

bcr -> GenMce -> midiyolk -> SAC -> midiyolk -> huskervu

similar lcd type read out that you would get on the MCU, very impressed and a SAW Studio implementation included in GenMce

no probs here yet ...

iain

[Iain Westland]

You do not help the cause by trying desperately to build up some kind of large jimmy-rigged control surface because that's what people think they need... it is not the answer.


I am just trying to make use of my equipment rather than sell it. The people that I will be working with are not gonna be easily swayed by SAC, its too expensive. I'm not talking about the software but eveything needed to get quiet mic into big PA. Compared to the big boys desks its a snip, but against an A&H zed?

this investment is gonna make me money, the bcr - eye candy. keep them happy then intrigued that i prefer a mouse and keyboard as its quicker.

different point of view thats all

iain

[sjpaul]

Trust me... making a complex array of cheap controllers without fancy readout displays function... poorly... will not win anybody over... when they are ready... these engineers will make the jump... we are constantly blowing minds here in Vegas, and now on the road doing tours with SAC as is designed... the sound quality and the visual of seeing a SAC engineer calmly mixing and handling FOH and monitor mixes from one position is causing quite a comotion...

You do not help the cause by trying desperately to build up some kind of large jimmy-rigged control surface because that's what people think they need... it is not the answer.

Its already been done as best as it could ever be done with Steve's giant 32 channel fader and 4 touch screen video display control surface... if you feel the need for all that... contact him... there is a thread on here about the ultimate SAC control surface.

A bunch of BCR's and a BCF is not going to impress anyone who is already fighting the concept. :)

Bob L


I have to say I'm with Bob on this one..... I've used SAC this week using both a remote midi'd up to a 16 channel control surface and also have used my SAC host machine just using mouse and keyboard and find that apart from the ability to control more than 1 fader at a time with the control surface, I'm really getting comfortable using mouse, keyboard and F-keys.

I think it may be difficult to convince some people, but I'm not out to do that; I'm selfish in that respect.... it's about what works for me and for my business, and in countless ways, SAC is doing that. Set up and strip down times are ridiculously quick for me now. No multicore, no desk, no FX rack, no insert cables...... just my 1 box SAC flightcase. Sure, I enthuse about SAC when people ask me what I'm using, but if they can't grasp how great it is, that's their loss.....

Perhaps SAC is easier for users who have been around computers a lot. Keyboard layout is untuitive and mouse control easy.....
But people get set in their ways and are just used to faders and rotary knobs. If those hadn't been invented, they'd just be reliant on some other means......

I just love being able to fold up my console and stick it under my arm and walk away from the mix position!:D

[sjpaul]

I am just trying to make use of my equipment rather than sell it. The people that I will be working with are not gonna be easily swayed by SAC, its too expensive. I'm not talking about the software but eveything needed to get quiet mic into big PA. Compared to the big boys desks its a snip, but against an A&H zed?

this investment is gonna make me money, the bcr - eye candy. keep them happy then intrigued that i prefer a mouse and keyboard as its quicker.

different point of view thats all

iain


Too expensive? Are you serious?

SAC and Allen & Heath Zed don't even compare.... apples and oranges. The features in SAC are more up in big Midas league....waaaaaay beyond what I could have hoped to afford to have in a "real" console.

I know it's not just the software you need to buy, but I built my 24 channel SAC rig for under a grand by buying 2nd hand gear.

[Bob L]

Iain...

No need to convince everyone... those that want a standard console should use one.

SAC is not for everybody... just for those that want to push the envelope waaaaayyyyyyy beyond anything else they could ever dream of using ANY standard console... analog or digital... for a ridiculously Loooowwwwww price.

Expensive... I don't think so. :D

Get comfortable using SAC yourself if you want to... then take on the gigs yourself... you don't have to convince anyone who is resistant to the SAC concept... let them use the consoles they like... you should not force anyone into the SAC arena... they will come eventually... or they won't... they may find themselves out of work in the near future as bands and club and theater owners start requesting SAC and those that do not use it are simply not hired for the gig... that day is closer than you may think... its starting to happen here in Vegas... and some engineers I know are now refusing gigs unless they can use their SAC system... very interesting indeed. :)

I, for one, have no desire to mix on any other type of console... there is no way I can duplicate the results that I can as easily as I can using my SAC system. If there is resistance to SAC, I now leave the gig to someone else.

Gigs are now coming my way strictly based on musicians on the gig demanding that SAC be used for their monitors. Once they work with a SAC system, they are not happy working any other way... and they are starting to be very influential in getting SAC into the next venue they play at... the movement has begun...

So... use SAC where you can... otherwise use a hardware console that clients are comfortable with.... otherwise pass the job onto someone else.... you do have choices you know.

Bob L

[dbarrow]

Too expensive? Are you serious?

Ditto. I built a 32in/32out system for under four grand, including a BCF2000, WiFi router, shockmount rack and other amenities that could have been paired down. It replace an Allen & Heath FOH board, similar monitor board, snake and a big FX/Comp/Gate Rack. The sound quality far exceeds what it replace and, for that matter, the sound quality of boards costing up to 60K and beyond. Add to that 5 band parametric EQ (plus low and hi adjustable frequency shelving), compression, gating, massive buuss assignment, etc. per channel and it doesn't even compare. It blows away the stuff it replaced - for far less money.

As I've said before: some people immediately grasp how cool it is and how good it sounds. We played an upscale birthday party in Houston for a guy that owns an advertising agency (who is also a musician) and he was blown away by it immediately. For some reason, a bunch of guests at his party were curious about our setup and, once they got the "pitch" (which I'm getting quite familiar with by now), they were blown away as well. O got the impression I could sell these guys several systems ready made. They were practically drooling to have one.

Then there's the people who will argue with me about it and say that it can't possibly do all that and I don't know what I'm talking about; that it's a computer and therefore unreliable (even though digital console are basically computers). These people are unconvinced even though they are standing there watching and listening to me mix a ten piece band with flawless, stunning quality. I think it's a form of mental illness with these people.

[RBIngraham]

Too expensive? Are you serious?

SAC and Allen & Heath Zed don't even compare.... apples and oranges. The features in SAC are more up in big Midas league....waaaaaay beyond what I could have hoped to afford to have in a "real" console.

I know it's not just the software you need to buy, but I built my 24 channel SAC rig for under a grand by buying 2nd hand gear.

Of course they are not comparing apples to apples. But if the budgets for a band or what have you are in the low end Allen and Heath or Mackie range, they will likely see SAC as a fairly significant investment. Now if they open their eyes and think about all the other gear that SAC could replace, then anyone that's being honest with themselves will see the extreme value that SAC brings to the table.

It's also worth pointing out that for those with smaller needs, some of the more affordable digital consoles will compete close to a decent SAC rig in price. Still not apples to apples, but it's closer than comparing it to a Zed console. :)

I have to question your statement about putting together a SAC rig for $1k? Really, including everything? If you did, great for you, but my guess is your only talking about the price of the sound card and the ADA units and maybe that includes the price of SAC itself? I have a real hard time believing that you put together 2 laptops, RME sounds cards, SAC and ADA units, plus cables, wireless routers, etc... all for $1k? Hmmmm.. :cool:

Sure, maybe you already had the laptops and such so you didn't think of that as money you spent on putting together your SAC rig. I am certainly in a similar position, I bought the software, and a few more ADA units than the 1 that I already owned, and I've used sound cards I already owned. So putting together a SAC rig didn't cost me all that much.

But if you don't already have all that gear kicking around, building a reasonably solid SAC rig, even on the cheap is going to cost more than $1K. I would say including computer, SAC software and cables and hardware you're looking at least $2K minimum and more if you want a remote, or a control surface, etc...

By the time you add all that up, you're into the price range of a low end digital mixer from Yamajunk.

Now, don't take that the wrong way, I'll take my SAC rig any day over a 01V96 or a DM series or a LS9-16. (or the Behringer or other manufacturers equivalents) And I think SAC provides an even greater amount of bang for the buck than any of those units. (or I wouldn't have bought SAC..) :)

But if you are really comparing costs and being honest about it and comparing apples to apples, you can't negate the costs of the computers or the software itself, or all the extra bits of kit needed in your SAC rig.

Just saying.... :)

[RBIngraham]

Ditto. I built a 32in/32out system for under four grand, including a BCF2000, WiFi router, shockmount rack and other amenities that could have been paired down. It replace an Allen & Heath FOH board, similar monitor board, snake and a big FX/Comp/Gate Rack. The sound quality far exceeds what it replace and, for that matter, the sound quality of boards costing up to 60K and beyond. Add to that 5 band parametric EQ (plus low and hi adjustable frequency shelving), compression, gating, massive buuss assignment, etc. per channel and it doesn't even compare. It blows away the stuff it replaced - for far less money.


That's a much more realistic figure for a nice SAC rig.

My point in the other post is that for some users out there, if their monitor needs are very small or none at all, and in many instances there is no need for 5 bands of EQ and Dynamics on every input.... well then maybe all they need is a simple A&H with a couple of channels of dynamics and an EQ or 2.

So SAC would be over kill for them, no matter how much nicer it is to use. So if you are looking at it from that point of view, then I can see why someone might think SAC is expensive.

But as you point out, when you see the value in all the processing and you need that and/or know what to do with it... well then there is little comparison. SAC will win in bang for the buck against almost anything.




Then there's the people who will argue with me about it and say that it can't possibly do all that and I don't know what I'm talking about; that it's a computer and therefore unreliable (even though digital console are basically computers). These people are unconvinced even though they are standing there watching and listening to me mix a ten piece band with flawless, stunning quality. I think it's a form of mental illness with these people.

Now that cracks me up! :D

They won't believe their own eyes... you must be hiding some other cool gear backstage someplace??? LOL.

Oh and for the record... I've locked up an M7 on a couple of occasions (or watched it hose something while you are in the middle of it) and at least one of the other smaller desks, I forget which model exactly. I've also seen a small sliver of glass that got stuck in the edge of a M7 touch screen (an electrician broke a lamp for a lighting fixture on the catwalk above, we thought we cleaned it all up... but small pieces of glass are a bitch to find all of them....) make the console become the digital audio equivalent of a paper weight. We thought we were down for the count and were going to have to get the board serviced, when my tech saw the tiny sliver of glass....

So hardware digital consoles can mess up plenty... don't kid yourself. (I know I'm preaching to the choir here..) :)

And that doesn't count some of the horror stories I've heard about some of the bigger more expensive units, like Innovason, or the new Allen and Heath digital stuff.... :p

[gdougherty]

Of course they are not comparing apples to apples. But if the budgets for a band or what have you are in the low end Allen and Heath or Mackie range, they will likely see SAC as a fairly significant investment. Now if they open their eyes and think about all the other gear that SAC could replace, then anyone that's being honest with themselves will see the extreme value that SAC brings to the table.

It's also worth pointing out that for those with smaller needs, some of the more affordable digital consoles will compete close to a decent SAC rig in price. Still not apples to apples, but it's closer than comparing it to a Zed console. :)

I have to question your statement about putting together a SAC rig for $1k? Really, including everything? If you did, great for you, but my guess is your only talking about the price of the sound card and the ADA units and maybe that includes the price of SAC itself? I have a real hard time believing that you put together 2 laptops, RME sounds cards, SAC and ADA units, plus cables, wireless routers, etc... all for $1k? Hmmmm.. :cool:

Sure, maybe you already had the laptops and such so you didn't think of that as money you spent on putting together your SAC rig. I am certainly in a similar position, I bought the software, and a few more ADA units than the 1 that I already owned, and I've used sound cards I already owned. So putting together a SAC rig didn't cost me all that much.

But if you don't already have all that gear kicking around, building a reasonably solid SAC rig, even on the cheap is going to cost more than $1K. I would say including computer, SAC software and cables and hardware you're looking at least $2K minimum and more if you want a remote, or a control surface, etc...

By the time you add all that up, you're into the price range of a low end digital mixer from Yamajunk.

Now, don't take that the wrong way, I'll take my SAC rig any day over a 01V96 or a DM series or a LS9-16. (or the Behringer or other manufacturers equivalents) And I think SAC provides an even greater amount of bang for the buck than any of those units. (or I wouldn't have bought SAC..) :)

But if you are really comparing costs and being honest about it and comparing apples to apples, you can't negate the costs of the computers or the software itself, or all the extra bits of kit needed in your SAC rig.

Just saying.... :)

Agreed. We're about $3800 into an install at a church with new computer parts, long optical cables for the stage snake (much less expensive than comparable copper snake runs) and wiring 24 channels of floor box input to preamps in a rack onstage. We've been able to reuse some cabling and custom rack rails that helped shave down the cost of smaller incidentals.

Same deal on my rack setup. I started at $3K that built a 24 channel setup with new RME gear and rackmount computer in a case I already owned. Laptop is personal use. Now I'm really wanting to build an input panel so I'm not wearing out the connections on the front of the preamps and so life is easier and more consistent than trying to thread 8 channel subsnakes around to the front of the rack. While I'm at it, I'm starting to think I should break down the rack so preamps are separate and I can actually lift the case into my van. The tall rackmount I use now is unweildy for all that. By the time I have an ideal setup I'll likely be over $4K, especially if 12-16 channel multipin connectors end up being as expensive as I think they'll be. A netbook or two would be a nice addition as well for monitors and a backup.

[Iain Westland]

It would be really nice if some people bothered to read posts a couple of times before answering.

I own SAC, Except for the amps and speakers I have everything I need for a 24 track system, boxed and mobile.

A guy I put on some gigs with has A full PA, and the only decent place locally has an in house system. Its to make Andy happy that I am looking to pander his 'I need' attitude.

I clearly stated what It would get compared to at the low end, and then it would be penny for penny.

Bob, at my level I cant turn down gigs because they wont use my equipment, wish I could but we would get no calls if we did that. theres 5 schools of sound engineering within 35 miles of here offering degrees.

lots of students working for next to nothing (a big swing around here), we are gonna win the race, and I will not only show but convert Andy to an M&K SAC, but first I get him to use it in a way he understands.

Oh, and it will be one BCR no BCF's (but I might see if theres a decent MCE for the BCF, all change then)

Bob, I know you have your vision of your software. But not everybody will want to work that way, if they did you would not have written all those midi controler dumps would you.

So far the only things its not working on are phase, input atten

iain

[Bob L]

Iain,

Well... good luck with that... but I still feel you are just making things harder to operate and spending a lot of time doing so... :)

Use the power of the onscreen graphics and get proficient with the mouse and nothing else will come close... except perhaps full 10 finger multi-touch screen technology in the near future.

Bob L

[sjpaul]

Of course they are not comparing apples to apples. But if the budgets for a band or what have you are in the low end Allen and Heath or Mackie range, they will likely see SAC as a fairly significant investment. Now if they open their eyes and think about all the other gear that SAC could replace, then anyone that's being honest with themselves will see the extreme value that SAC brings to the table.

It's also worth pointing out that for those with smaller needs, some of the more affordable digital consoles will compete close to a decent SAC rig in price. Still not apples to apples, but it's closer than comparing it to a Zed console. :)

I have to question your statement about putting together a SAC rig for $1k? Really, including everything? If you did, great for you, but my guess is your only talking about the price of the sound card and the ADA units and maybe that includes the price of SAC itself? I have a real hard time believing that you put together 2 laptops, RME sounds cards, SAC and ADA units, plus cables, wireless routers, etc... all for $1k? Hmmmm.. :cool:

Sure, maybe you already had the laptops and such so you didn't think of that as money you spent on putting together your SAC rig. I am certainly in a similar position, I bought the software, and a few more ADA units than the 1 that I already owned, and I've used sound cards I already owned. So putting together a SAC rig didn't cost me all that much.

But if you don't already have all that gear kicking around, building a reasonably solid SAC rig, even on the cheap is going to cost more than $1K. I would say including computer, SAC software and cables and hardware you're looking at least $2K minimum and more if you want a remote, or a control surface, etc...

By the time you add all that up, you're into the price range of a low end digital mixer from Yamajunk.

Now, don't take that the wrong way, I'll take my SAC rig any day over a 01V96 or a DM series or a LS9-16. (or the Behringer or other manufacturers equivalents) And I think SAC provides an even greater amount of bang for the buck than any of those units. (or I wouldn't have bought SAC..) :)

But if you are really comparing costs and being honest about it and comparing apples to apples, you can't negate the costs of the computers or the software itself, or all the extra bits of kit needed in your SAC rig.

Just saying.... :)


OK, so I was slightly off at under a grand.... oh - and we're talking UK pounds here not Dollars! But I just costed out what I paid for the components and software in my SAC rig.

2nd hand P4 3.4Ghz PC, s/h monitor, s/h HDSP9652, SAC software, Toslink cables, wireless N router, wireless N lappy card, s/h lappy, flightcase, 3 x ADA8000 (B stock) and 30m CAT 5 cable. Total £1170 which I think would translate to about $1600? Fair enough, most of my purchases were s/hand stuff.

Then I compare what I've replaced in terms of hardware....
A & H GL3300 24/8/2, 50m multicore, 2 x 10u FX / EQ racks.... and when I cost out the s/hand values of that little lot, SAC comes in at around a third of the price and a tenth of the weight!

And @ Ian.... I'm not trying to give you a hard time buddy; WE ALL KNOW the quality that SAC brings to the table. Just show people what it does and let them make up their own minds if it's for them or not.

Already, in the annals of history, engineers have been left behind as they refused to give up the reins of analog desks for digital. Most of it is fear of the unknown and an unwillingness to accept, nay EMBRACE change! If they're not at least interested in keeping up with new technology, then IMO, they're in the wrong game.....

Sorry if I've taken this thread waaaaay off topic.

[dbarrow]

Now that cracks me up! :D

They won't believe their own eyes... you must be hiding some other cool gear backstage someplace??? LOL.

That's why I say it is mental illness. They can see and hear it, but they just won't have it. They are right and I am wrong, blah, blah, blah. It's like it just isn't fair or something. The good news is that they could sell their expensive stuff and get SAC, if they could get past the mental illness portion of their reasoning. If I saw and heard someone else doing what I'm doing now, I would be all over it. It didn't even take that much for me. A Linux guy in a church I frequently work in was telling me he was going to build a computer mixing system on the Linux platform. We talked about it for a couple of months. He was asking me what all it should do, etc. (he knew more about Linux than live sound mixing). After quite a bit of this I started wondering why someone hadn't already come up with something like this, so I did a simple Google search for "live sound mixing software", or some such and up came SAC. I read the forum for w hile, asked some question and ultimately pulled the trigger. I have barely looked back since.

The funny thing is that my friend even used SAW as an example in his "linux sound mixing" dialog of what might be possible and I am still registered for an early version of SAW from ten years ago. I'm still waiting on that Linux system.

[RBIngraham]

OK, so I was slightly off at under a grand.... oh - and we're talking UK pounds here not Dollars! But I just costed out what I paid for the components and software in my SAC rig.



Ahhhhh! My appologies.... I forgot all about that possibility that we might not be talking about US dollars here. Sorry. Now that makes a lot more sense.

Thanks,

[RBIngraham]

It would be really nice if some people bothered to read posts a couple of times before answering.


Ian with all due respect, it's a forum, threads will always go off topic from what the original post was about or what the original question was. It's human nature my friend. :)



Bob, I know you have your vision of your software. But not everybody will want to work that way, if they did you would not have written all those midi controler dumps would you.

So far the only things its not working on are phase, input atten


I totally agree that many will never want to mix with just a keyboard and mouse. But I just don't understand the need for banks of knobs. I guess I could see a desire for aux send levels, but really when I've needed that I just put them into one of the monitor mixers and then you can do the equivalent of "Sends on Faders" just like a Yamaha or other digital console.

I guess what it really comes down to is that making a leap from a digital console to SAC just is sort of a natural progression. But going from an all analog system to SAC is probably a bit more of a shock to the system. Those of us that have been using digital consoles for years are already used to not having a knob for every function on every channel. :)

And I would add that I just realized this.... but hats off to Bob for not putting in what is the worst possible virtual control you can put in software.... the virtual knob! Anytime I run into software with virtual knobs they ussually are just a hassle. Some ask you to actually make a circular motion with your mouse in order to operate... pain in the you know what! So thank you Bob for no knobs on the screen! I suspect a lot of thought was probably spent on the SAC interface and that's why I hadn't even noticed until now that there were no knobs. :p

[dbarrow]

I hadn't thought about it, but the "virtual knob" does completely suck. I like the sliders and the list of values approach that Bob uses. The only thing that might be yet another option is direct entry via typing it in. This would be usefull when you had multiple channels selected and you wanted to set them all to the same value for a reverb aux or something. As it is now selecting multiple auxes and then changing the value via a slider just moves them all up or down by a certain scaled amount. It doesn't make them all the same value. Sometimes I want to set several channel's auxes to the same value and I have to either manually change each one or select all the desired channels, slide the aux all the way down, deselect them, so it doesn't just scale the values on the way back up, reselect the channels and slide the aux send fader to the desired value. What if you could just select multiple channels and type in values? I guess you could also use the channel copy features. I have experimented with that method to put in equal aux send values yet.

The only reason I care about this is that sometimes I will set all the backing vocalist reverb aux sends to the same value (different from the lead) and it would be good to have any easier way to do this. I have also made scenes for each singer as lead with a particular FX combo with certain levels and the backing vocalists at a different common set of FX levels.

[Bob L]

Dave... select all the chans and then grab any one of the auxes and then right-click to set them all to the default... then slide up to the value you want... you can then also click up and dwn in the readout display or beside the aux fader... they will all be set to the identical value.

Fast and simple. :)

Bob L

[Iain Westland]

Ian with all due respect, it's a forum, threads will always go off topic from what the original post was about or what the original question was. It's human nature my friend. :)

It was the quite specific answers to me to do with my posts that I was referring to. I Can fly off on a tangent with the best of you ... I'm English, we invented the short attention span:D:D


I totally agree that many will never want to mix with just a keyboard and mouse. But I just don't understand the need for banks of knobs. I guess I could see a desire for aux send levels, but really when I've needed that I just put them into one of the monitor mixers and then you can do the equivalent of "Sends on Faders" just like a Yamaha or other digital console.


With this BCR template it uses very few of the knobs (top 8 are the functions, second row Of 8 are the [faders]) plus the buttons. Its got 16 that are not being used, so I can see myself trading this for a BCF sooner rather than later.

When we look at the Wide Mixer its nigh on impossible to get all that onto a BCR, so your gonna have to split it into two different screens at least, and if two then simplify each and have 4 or 5 screens.

I will admit some of this is me, I use a Soundtracs Quartz desk in the studio and SAW as a very very well spec'd tape machine, so yea, I like twirling things. But I also have to give my mate a half way house as it were between the simplicity of SAC and the average will have to do of analogue.

Tease him into the light as It were.

I'm trying to not be defensive here, We all agree that SAC does not need bells n whistles. BUT for some there will be a need for a half way house and its to that end I am experimenting.

The nail in the head will be the first gig, already writting the scenes to allow for straight through just record the gig then add EQ's, Comps etc as the evening flows and an all at once scene where I run the lot (I have enough RAW multitracks on the computer to set rough levels, comps etc ready.

Even loaded SAC onto this computer to play with it a bit, and this only has the realcrap onboard sound card.

I am just a little bit excited.....

iain;)

[Bob L]

Much easier to teach someone SAC as its designed than with all that complexity... Wide Mixer view split to 2 or more screens????

Doing a live video shoot recording today at the Golden Nugget... set the video guy up with a SAC wireless laptop and his own monitor mixer for the camera mix... taught him in about 10 mins what he needs to know and he is sitting in the light booth, happy as can be, doing his own camera mix...

It's really not all that hard as it is. :)

Bob L

[dbarrow]

God bless you, sir!

[UpTilDawn]

Much easier to teach someone SAC as its designed than with all that complexity... Wide Mixer view split to 2 or more screens????

Doing a live video shoot recording today at the Golden Nugget... set the video guy up with a SAC wireless laptop and his own monitor mixer for the camera mix... taught him in about 10 mins what he needs to know and he is sitting in the light booth, happy as can be, doing his own camera mix...

It's really not all that hard as it is. :)

Bob L

No kidding! That is really great Bob!


I sure wish SAC had come out early enough for our school to have auditioned it before buying a new system..... It's a real shame.
I would love to be able to do this for the video shoots we do from time to time.

DanT

[gdougherty]

Ian, I'll just chime in that to me it seems more complicated to have to learn an unlabeled interface plus a new virtual mixing interface at the same time. Faders on a BCF would be intuitive enough. I've found, like Bob, that just a few pointers on how things work, an assurance that the Full view is a nice approximation of an analog desk, comments that arrow keys are a great way to nudge levels with the shift modifier for faster action, and maybe watching over my shoulder for a few minutes is enough to get most people comfortable enough to do a mix on their own. Most anyone with more experience than just moving faders up and down grasp things very quickly.

[Iain Westland]

but they are labled, the same as an MCU, look at my earlier picture.

Split as in the way an MCU does it, few buttons controlling everything. The CF can be set up where the pan buttons then go on to also do the eq, comps, gates.

We might as well stop here, I am not going to give up on hardware faders, much easier to control 5 at a time than with a mouse. (I dont get 10 mins to set up the scenes needed for each band - more than once I havent met a band 10 bins before they go on stage)

It might seem overkill using SAC for all this, but when Bob mentioned the idea and a pre payment I jumped on, so mow I have a truck to carry my suitcase rather than the estate everybody else has here

iain

respect to all here, thanks for your time

[RBIngraham]

but they are labled, the same as an MCU, look at my earlier picture.

Split as in the way an MCU does it, few buttons controlling everything. The CF can be set up where the pan buttons then go on to also do the eq, comps, gates.

We might as well stop here, I am not going to give up on hardware faders, much easier to control 5 at a time than with a mouse. (I dont get 10 mins to set up the scenes needed for each band - more than once I havent met a band 10 bins before they go on stage)

It might seem overkill using SAC for all this, but when Bob mentioned the idea and a pre payment I jumped on, so mow I have a truck to carry my suitcase rather than the estate everybody else has here

iain

respect to all here, thanks for your time


Yes, but if I am looking at your screen shots correctly that is just a visual of what the knobs are doing that appears on the computer screen right? There is no scribble strip like labels on a BCR, except for making a paper template that fits over the knobs. Then the knobs have an LED ring around each knob on the control surface, but you still have to look back up at the computer screen to see what the actual setting is.

I think the point of the "unlabeled" comment is that the surface won't tell you what channel you are working on and it won't display the settings of the parameters you are adjusting, you still need to look at the screen to do that.

[Iain Westland]

Right now I see, at my screen res the readout is the same size as the bcr knobs spacing so with that at the bottom and the bcr just below the monitor I am not noticing much of a Problem.

The number far right is the channel number plus the effect your using.

As I said I am just trying to make use of my equipment. The Bcr is only here till I get a BCF, then It might get relegated to the studio or sold.

I will prob set up an MCU emulation on that, just cos there are times I would find it easier.

I bow to your label point, just didnt put two and two together with regards to this.

iain

[dbarrow]

Dave... select all the chans and then grab any one of the auxes and then right-click to set them all to the default... then slide up to the value you want... you can then also click up and dwn in the readout display or beside the aux fader... they will all be set to the identical value.

Fast and simple. :)

Bob LI'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. It doesn't seem to work that way for me. Where do I "grab" the Aux? If I have three different channels, each with Aux 1 set to a different value and I select the three channels and do any of the things you suggest, the values just move up or down in relative scale to where each one was. They don't all end up with the same value. I'm obviously not doing it right. Pleas enlighten me further.

[RBIngraham]

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. It doesn't seem to work that way for me. Where do I "grab" the Aux? If I have three different channels, each with Aux 1 set to a different value and I select the three channels and do any of the things you suggest, the values just move up or down in relative scale to where each one was. They don't all end up with the same value. I'm obviously not doing it right. Pleas enlighten me further.

You need to use the Left/Right Click on the faders to set them all to the default level, which is unity gain. Then you can move them all to the same levels. So left click on the Aux of one of the selected channels, then while still holding down the left mouse button, also right click. The Aux fader should then go to unity gain. And if I interpreted Bob's description correctly all the selected channels would follow suit. Now with all channels at unity gain, grab the aux for any one of the channels and adjust to what you want them all to be.

I havn't tested myself, so maybe I should do that to make sure it's working. :p

[dbarrow]

Thanks for clearing it up. I didn't realize it was left/right clicking at the same time. Very cool.

[mycorn]

yes it does work

the drawback is that they'l all go to 0db
until you drag them back

my channel auxes generally run -15 or less
so you need to be careful about the momentary
burst at 0

fwiw

[dbarrow]

yes it does work

the drawback is that they'l all go to 0db
until you drag them back

my channel auxes generally run -15 or less
so you need to be careful about the momentary
burst at 0

fwiw
I can mute the Aux and then unmute it once the level is set. I think I would be doing all this in advance to create scenes anyway.