Hi all,
Has anyone used the StudioLIve Series III with SAWStudio as a record/mix USB interface? If so, how well does it work? (Is the PreSonus USB protocol compatible with SAW?)
TIA
Printable View
Hi all,
Has anyone used the StudioLIve Series III with SAWStudio as a record/mix USB interface? If so, how well does it work? (Is the PreSonus USB protocol compatible with SAW?)
TIA
I don't have the answer. But if you are considering a purchase, my advice is to look elsewhere. My experience with PreSonus boards is that there is a very steep learning curve. Most digital boards in that price range are not very intuitive, but PreSonus seems to be the worst.
Thank you for your reply, Angie. However, I do hope someone has had hands-on experience with the Series III and can comment. I'm at the very early stages of consideration, so will definitely look at all options. I may even decide not to buy any physical mixer and use SAC. So many options these days...
Richard,
I have purchased and used PreSonus equipment in the past and if anything, their customer un-service is second-to-none!
There is absolutely no way of contacting them by phone and their email system is extremely poor.
This being said, I cannot really see any issues with any USB driver. If at all possible, see if you can rent one! Then you would know for sure.
... These are two excellent options are are both strongly recommended!Quote:
I may even decide not to buy any physical mixer and use SAC. So many options these days...
Would the mixer simply serve as a routing and monitoring device? Do you have another interface serving as your AD and DA for recording? If so, I like your idea of using a software mixer. If you already have SAC, that would be easiest, I think, because it's familiar and looks/acts a lot like SS. I don't have SAC, but have had great success using the mixer applets that came with my Lynx cards and later, with RME interfaces. I have saved settings for all the typical sessions and can set up for any of them in a few clicks. Perhaps a digital mixer can do the same thing via the USB connection. But if you don't have to buy one...
I do have SAC, and it is very different from the mixer apps that come with the sound interfaces. Things like TotalMix, etc., do strictly level and pan with mute buttons, and in the cases I know about, the mix processing is done in the interface hardware, which makes the latency a low as you can get without staying in the analog domain. SAC is far more powerful, with features like multiple BIG analog consoles tied together, only more transparent sonically than any analog mixer I ever worked with (even the old school Neve, or SSL boards). The downside is a bit more latency, though not enough of it in most instances to bother anyone, and certainly excellent for any live PA situation.
I will say that, for input monitor for a vocalist headphone feed in a studio recording setting, I still stay with an analog monitor path for vocal mike to headphones. Not all vocalists can hear the difference, but I can absolutely hear it. I ran careful comparison tests years ago to prove this.
Hi Cary,
I cannot disagree about SAC, as I do not have it and have not even demoed it. But I have TotalMix FX and it is far more capable than you might imagine, with the FX version offering EQ, dynamics, reverb, and delay. As with my earlier RME UCX interface, the UFX+ offers instantly recallable mixes of mic, phone patch, playback, effects, etc., for the headphones, phone patch out, and control room, that are reliably easy. Even "More Me" mixes are no problem. I don't know that it would be useful for live situations, as there are only 8 "scenes" available in each workspace, but for studio work, it's fine.
I do recall sensing a difference in the headphone feed years ago in my first experience with the Lynx mixer applet. There was a "feeling" in the presence band of 4-7k that added a certain phasiness, but I got over it very quickly. Lynx claimed a latency of 1-2 milliseconds between the inputs and outputs of the software mixer. I will do some testing next week to quantify the latency in the current RME UFX+.
I will add that if a vocalist can deal with a stage wedge five feet from their ears, they can deal with a few milliseconds of latency in their headphones. Sound travels about a meter in 3 milliseconds. Many interfaces claim a latency less than that in their software mixers and stage wedges are, depending on the height of the performer, more than a meter from their ears.
So I wonder if the fact that you can hear it, which I do not dispute, makes a difference in whether you can use it. In asking that question, I acknowledge that hearing it might possibly make it distracting for a performer. In that case, awareness might actually be a hindrance. Perhaps in this situation, ignorance could be bliss. If so, I encourage you to give a software mixer a long-term trial. You might find that you get over the very small latency and truly enjoy the ease of setup it offers.
The issue that happens in a studio setting is with headphones. You hear both the latency delayed headphone mix along with the zero latency bone conduction through your head and it creates varying degrees of comb filtering depending on the actual latency and frequency of the content involved.
Usually adding a small amount of reverb will mitigate that issue.
Yes, Ian, I have two Frontier Designs converters that I've been using for many years. My current mixing console is a 1977 Tangent 24 channel/16 buss board that is looking and acting a bit... uh, "tired", so was thinking of sprucing up the rig. I cater mostly to bands and groups of up to 20 members (bell choirs for example), and sometimes solo artists. So I do need several channels of input potential.
I actually have both SAWStudio full and SAC, and experimented with the combination for a couple days (with a volunteer "test specimen"). I really had a considerable amount of difficulty with the touch screen not consistently responding to mycommands. Sometimes I'd have to attempt the action several times. And I don't think it was because I needed more practice with it. It just didn't recognize different gestures or touches dependably (this was with a 3M monitor). That's primarily why I was looking into a digital hardware interface. Your points are well taken though... I don't want to buy something if it's either unnecessary or doesn't function well. Thanks for replying.
Phil -- so why wouldn't the same issue apply to wedges, since both latency (via physical distance) and bone conduction are at play? Or are you saying that the amplitude difference between the two in a live stage setup typically takes bone conduction out of play, practically speaking? Like, it's still there, but not noticable? That would surprise me, because my understanding is that bone conduction can be a big factor in the "more me" monitoring challenges bands face when sharing a common mix with wedge stage monitoring.
I find this comment funny because we use software that is not particularly intuitive - much because of it's non standard nature.
I have been interested in that board as well. I think Angie's comment becomes important if the board is to be used by other people. I attend an open mic at the Falcon in NY that has a presonus board. It can be problematic for that very reason - unless the person tending the board is familiar with it.
This is inherent to digital mixers. At work I use a Behringer xr18 which has no control surface. When you get the hang of it, you can do some fantastic things - and it sounds great (and like SS I can only remember how to use some of the features, While I have not used it this way, it might also do well as a converter for SS) - but I was hoping someone else would learn it - but I've realized that it is worthless for casual use.
On another fork, I had great experience with support at presonus. I had bought a Firestation - Yamaha had provided the firewire chips and stupidest driver for them which rendered it worthless. Presonus readily acknowledged it and made it right.
I had to think about that one. With headphones, you have only the direct sound getting into your ears from the transducer. With speakers, you hear not only the direct sound, but multiple reflections from different surfaces, all with different delay times. The result is multiple different comb filters with different spectra that mask each other. This is also why the idea of using a little reverb to mask the latency is workable.
I have long suspected that most vocalists would just assume that what they are hearing is normal, especially those who never worked in the "old school" analog environment. They have no reason to know these things, really, since their job is about performance, not technology. Compared to many, I am probably something of a nut, because I come from a technical background, so I often think in terms of the theory behind how it all works, meaning I want to know WHY a thing sounds the way it does, so I can do it again if I like it and don't have the exact same tools. So, if I hear comb filtering, I am more likely to notice it because I know what it is and what causes it. As a consequence, I try to set up my monitoring in a way that would please me if I was the artist, because with my luck, one day I will work with someone who DOES know the difference and I don't want to give them a reason to gripe, not to mention not wanting to distract them from the creative process. I have sung vocals in a studio setting that has monitoring latency, and I had to make myself ignore it, which I found distracting.
For just about anything other than vocals, I think SAC is just fine for the input monitor mix, and if I was running a full band session with a singer, probably everything except the singer would be monitored through SAC, with the singer alone getting an analog input monitor path. For vocal sessions away from home, I use a modified Rolls PM-50s which receivers an overall monitor mix from the tracks and has its on loop-through of the vocalist's mic which the singer can balance against the overall mix. Simple and cheap.
I should also say that SAC as a monitor mixer will have much better overall clarity than any analog mixer I have used.
I don't get the idea of the different spectra "masking each other." How is it that they mask each other?
That said, if they do mask each other, how does that reduce latency perception of the direct sound?
And how might that take the bone conduction factor out of the picture? Or doesn't it?
All that said -- when I'm on-stage, my overwhelming perception is that the sound is coming from the direction of the wedge.
Its not about direct or bounced sound. Put you fingers in your ears and talk. Do you hear your voice differently?
Put headphones on and talk, you will hear similar changes to the sound. Your voice will be louder with much of that occurring due to bone conduction.
Bone conduction latency is very short, the difference in latency between the low latency bone conduction and headphones causes comb filtering.
Remove the covering over your ears and relative level of sound from bone conduction drops significantly reducing the relative level of the comb filtering effect.
Adding reverb to the signal doesn't remove the comb filtering, but does help to mask mask the perceived effect.
Richard,
So, Richard, did you ever get a response to your original query?Quote:
Has anyone used the StudioLIve Series III with SAWStudio as a record/mix USB interface? If so, how well does it work? (Is the PreSonus USB protocol compatible with SAW?)TIA
As with many such postings, this posting went south.
Are you able to rent a StudioLIve Series III?
It might be helpful to note that most, if not all, of their USB devices use the same control software, called "Universal Control". I have used their "control software" with their USB audio interfaces along with SAC, and all worked well!
If you check the USB mixers - such as the StudioLIve Series III, these mixers use the same control software as the audio interfaces.
Hope this helps?
Hi Dell,
Apparently no one has had direct experience with the Series III, so... no, I didn't get a specific answer. I live far from any dealers, let alone one that would have one in stock and/or be willing to rent one. Some time ago I tried to get a Focusrite USB interface to work with SAC, and it turned out that the USB drivers didn't use the proper protocol, so it could never be used. I was concerned that I could run into that problem with SAW and the Series III. I wrote PreSonus about it a year ago and asked about their driver specific. They simply replied that the USB driver meets "standard protocol" or some such language, which really means nothing. Thanks for the input - it's good to know you've had success with their USB interaces; that bodes well.
Hey Richard,
Just saw this thread tonight. I have the series iii 16 channel board. It's still relatively new to us. We use it primarily for live mixing from stage for our family Gospel bluegrass band but are now recording a project with it. We use the included Capture program for recording... then we'll bring the audio into SAW for editing. To your question... I have not been able to successfully get SSL and the board to talk with each other. So, no recording/mixing with it in SSL via USB. Sigh. I've tried all the different options I can think of including Asio4all. Despite this, it's an amazing board, and Capture is a dream to work with for studio recording. It's not an editor but a well-designed tool for what it does. It punches in and gives you "handles" to slide the boundaries of what you've just recorded, or recorded over top of... guess you'd have to try it to see what I mean. Anyway, works great for our needs. But again, not as a SSL interface at this point. Sure hope that changes. In the meantime, I'm interested in interfaces for editing and monitoring that work well with SAW.
Kent
Kent, thank you for that reply!! I think this to be exactly what I need to know. I believe I understand you to say that SAWStudio does not "see" the USB device input in order to allow you to record and play back through the mixer. This is exactly what I was afraid of; that SAW requires a specific format for the ASIO driver and PreSonus doesn't use it. I did write the company a year or so ago and all they would say is that the drivers were "class compliant". That didn't tell me much... I had specifically indicated what SAWStudio needed, but they didn't bother to answer my specific question.
Frankly, I'd LOVE it if the Series III could be used as a controller, but that wouldn't be essential. But to not be able to record to SAW is definitely a major downside. Curiously, how do you monitor your audio that's been brought in to SAW if you can't get it into the board? Do you use a separate interface/converter?
Thanks again for your input.
Richard,
I guess this whole discussion could have been greatly simplified by asking the question, "Can the PreSonus StudioLive Series III be used as a control surface?" Apparently not ... yet!
However, it would appear that PreSonus does have plans to implement this functionality in the future. See here: StudioLive Series III DAW Mode Update
Here is the gist, "MCU and HUI DAW Control Mode for the StudioLive Series III Console mixers is currently in development. It will be supported in a future firmware update."
The question now is, "When?" Also, being a firmware update however, would suggest that this update would be "free".
Richard,
Okay...got it.
In asking the question, "Does the StudioLive Series III Console mixers support other daws?" ... the immediate answer would seem to "No!"
"Will the StudioLive Series III Console mixers ever support other daws?" ... again I would say no.
Here is what I was able to find out:
DAW Control is for StudioOne only!
StudioLive Series III mixers allow you to record and playback audio over AVB on any Mac that supports AVB.
Apparently there are a lot of folks who purchased these mixers with the understanding that they do support DAW control. However, any and all documentation appears to state that this only with the StudioOne software.
Though there is a lot of discussion with regards to MCU and HUI integration, there is apparently nothing out there to suggest that using other DAWs is, or will be, possible. And it would appear, that there are many current owners who are not at all happy with this discovery.
You are probably correct in these conclusions Dell... particularly at this point in time. But since my originally posited question was "Has anyone used the StudioLIve Series III with SAWStudio as a record/mix USB interface? If so, how well does it work? (Is the PreSonus USB protocol compatible with SAW?)", I'll be happy if I can get audio in and out of the mixer via USB on all 32 channels as indicated in their literature. I haven't bought the mixer as of yet.
Hey Richard-
Just a quick update. I am seeing StudioLive 16 in my audio driver options but had no success connecting SAW with it... until tonight. I haven't had a lot of time to mess with it but digging deeper I have successfully recorded into SAW via USB from the mixer. I haven't been able to establish the connection the other way. I am monitoring the recorded audio through the computer. So, I can say definitively that you can record to SAW from Series iii via USB. I don't know how many channels, etc. But I got it working and just messing around it sounded fine.
For context... the work I do involves remote recording so I use a Tascam portable and bring the audio into SAW via SD card. Haven't used an interface for recording in my workflow... so I'm a novice at setting things up. My computer monitoring though I have decent monitors leaves a lot to be desired. I'm in the market for a small quality interface that I can monitor with. Anyway, that should help explain why I'm not very in tune with using the Presonus as an interface. When I say I've tried everything I can think of, it's with minimal time and experience in view.
I would say that there's hope for some level of integration.
Here are some links that may be helpful.
https://answers.presonus.com/36584/s...-daws-well-so4
https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopi...123700#p123700
https://answers.presonus.com/25531/s...einberg-cubase
Hope this helps.
Kent
How many PC driver outputs pairs appear for that mixer? Other digital mixers I've seen have had an abundance. There may be a routing table to populate on the mixer (on the Berringer I am currently using, you can route any input to any channel) - or it could be arriving to the mixer and you just don't know how to make it audible (on that same mixer, the channels switch between USB return or analog input). Anyway I would be surprised (but not totally) if one half works and the other doesn't.
It has been my experience that the more features a device has, the more time you must spend with the manual...
Can we all agree it would be/is very surprising if/that any USB mixer doesn't work with SAWStudio as a USB audio interface? :confused:
Richard, it's always an option to buy it and send it back if it doesn't work for you. Is the return shipping cost worth the risk? Your call, of course.
FWIW, I have had the problem of multichannel audio not working via MME for a USB mixer (only got a single stereo pair, due to the way SAWPro was coded), but ASIO was fine for multichannel, IIRC.
I've checked the routing table and each USB channel is routed to it's corresponding input channel on the board. Configurable, of course. I have had no issues using the mixer as an interface with this CD project using the native software "Capture"... going both ways... using both the analog inputs on each channel of the mixer for recording, and switching them over to USB inputs when playing back from Capture. The issue is getting the mixer to receive from SAW.
- Yes, that's very true! Here is a link for instructions on setting up the mixer with different DAWs. Wishing for instructions for SAW. https://www.soundpro.com/catalog/documents/18402_2.pdf - See pg 8 on the document.Quote:
It has been my experience that the more features a device has, the more time you must spend with the manual...
I dug in last night trying to get the mixer to receive from SAW... working with the audio device setup and driver protocol. No success. Tried every possible config multiple times. But then... well, I hesitate to say this, because I don't know why this happened, but for one time I was actually able to hear and see that the mixer was receiving data from SAW. I immediately went to the file menu/preferences and saved Default settings. Next time I opened SAW it didn't work. What?!? I then spent quite a bit of time trying to replicate the setup. No success. There are only so many options and configurations. Why would connecting be so ellusive, then work briefly... save settings and fail to work again? Again, the board has no problems going back and forth to DAW via "Capture".
We got the mixer with the mindset Dave mentioned. We arranged with our Equipment sales guy a plan to try it out and the freedom to return if it didn't work out. He was generous with the return window. The mixer has been great for what we use it for... Live on stage and now recording a project direct to computer via Capture. It's a keeper.
Hi Kent,
THANK YOU for going to the effort to check this out. It's very helpful, though odd... I would think that if USB takes signal one way it would send it the other as well.
The music store owner I'm dealing with contacted his rep who then went to PreSonus tech support and asked if SAWStudio could be expected to "see" the mixer as an audio device. I had given him (from Bob Lentini) the specific requirements for an ASIO driver. All I found out was that the mixer could not be used as a controller, and if SAWStudio "sees" the mixer it will work as an interface. Well, I already KNOW that. I just needed to know if the drivers matched the specs that Bob gave me. Sigh.
At any rate, as you say "There's hope" for this functioning. Happy to hear it's a least going one way. I'm not convinced enough to plunk down 2.5 grand yet, but it still looks like it might be in the running. Thank you for the links as well. I truly appreciate it.
I had tried a Focusrite USB interface that would NOT connect to SAW or SAC. With Bob's help, I determined that the ASIO driver was not the correct format. So I'm a bit skittish about assuming the Series III will work.
My "local" PreSonus dealer (who's 30 miles away)has been very good to me in the past, so I'd like to stay with him... he sends clients to my studio, and always gives me as good a price as any other vendor. And I think it's always good to buy local if you can. So you can understand my desire to support him as he does me. Heisn't big enough to stock mixers, and he can't take it back since his market is also small and he couldn't re-sell it, so if I jump for this mixer it's mine with no chance to return it.
Yes, I understand that. Thanks for your input.
As I mentioned before, it's odd that it wouldn't go both ways once the device is "seen" by the software. That truly is frustrating.
Quote:
- Yes, that's very true! Here is a link for instructions on setting up the mixer with different DAWs. Wishing for instructions for SAW. https://www.soundpro.com/catalog/documents/18402_2.pdf - See pg 8 on the document.
Now it's getting curiouser and curiouser!! I agree; why once and not EVERY time? But the fact that it worked once really has my juices flowing!!! How is the mixer listed in the DRIVER MODEL/ASIO PROTOCOL? Does it actually say "PreSonus" or some such thing that identifies it as the mixer?Quote:
I dug in last night trying to get the mixer to receive from SAW... working with the audio device setup and driver protocol. No success. Tried every possible config multiple times. But then... well, I hesitate to say this, because I don't know why this happened, but for one time I was actually able to hear and see that the mixer was receiving data from SAW. I immediately went to the file menu/preferences and saved Default settings. Next time I opened SAW it didn't work. What?!? I then spent quite a bit of time trying to replicate the setup. No success. There are only so many options and configurations. Why would connecting be so ellusive, then work briefly... save settings and fail to work again? Again, the board has no problems going back and forth to DAW via "Capture".
I wish that were an option for me (explained in another post). THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR VALUABLE INPUT, KENT.Quote:
We got the mixer with the mindset Dave mentioned. We arranged with our Equipment sales guy a plan to try it out and the freedom to return if it didn't work out. He was generous with the return window. The mixer has been great for what we use it for... Live on stage and now recording a project direct to computer via Capture. It's a keeper.
In our sessions thus far I am controlling up to 8 or so channels at once from Capture back and forth from the mixer. In the Digital Patching the "USB Sends" page allows each USB channel to be assigned to many different sources (including 32ins, the auxs, etc). Default setting is as you would expect it to be. Channel 1 to USB 1, Channel to USB 2...
Here's what I'm seeing when Standard, Hi Performance, and 24BIT WDM Multimedia drivers are selected:
Attachment 2930
Here's what I'm seeing when click on Audio Driver Model and Select Asio Protocol:
Attachment 2932
Here's what I'm seeing when click on Audio Driver Model, Select Asio Protocol then Select StudioLive Series III Asio:
Attachment 2933
Attachment 2934
I'll post pic of message I get when trying to play a .wav in SAW