2013 & SAC: Where are we going anyway?

[wascomat]

I'd be very happy with Mackie MCU/XT/C4 units if they could be stacked together. Give me a SACRemote API and I'll have MCU + 3XT + C4 working in a month, guaranteed.

I could run them off individual SACRemote systems, but the look and feel isn't quite right as they aren't synchronized with one another.

For me, this would be ideal:

3 Mackie XT units providing (bankable) 24 channels of input channels.
1 Mackie MCU providing Aux Returns, Outputs, Groups/DCA (banked).
1 Mackie C4 for the Wide view, linked to the current hot channel.

Granted, the C4 isn't made anymore (though I have one and they can be found if you look around). Using a Berhinger BCR2000 would work almost as well (though no scribble strips; would have to use the monitor which isn't too bad for that particular application).

I've played around with having a couple XT units work together to simulate a single MCU unit, it really bogs down SAC because of all the extraneous MIDI communication that has to take place. Getting this to run on SACRemote (using an API) is the right way to do it so it doesn't affect the host machine.
cheers,
Randy Hyde

Randy you are correct about the sync when running each unit as a unique SACRemote system but that is what I have been doing. I am using the buttons on the C4 as a midi 'learn' remote but without the scribble strips working- just memorizing the positions. I am usually looking at the screen anyways. I can run 64 channels with a main control and 7 extenders although I rarely run more than 24/36 channels total.
If you get the API working I will be a happy camper. I bought SAC mainly as an in ears mixer which gives me all those stereo busses to work with. Everyone gets their own stereo mix. I have gotten pretty good with the bank switching so sometimes I do a job with only the main MCU. This works ok but I have always wished for a solution to have the extenders work with the main control for the occasion where it is needed. I also run Nuendo 5.5 and all of my extenders will work there. I can't imagine working with just the 8 faders in that program. So I'm going to do a big +1 to your post based on the need for this feature. BTW I have 2 MOTU midi timepieces which are inexpensive and give the ability to run 16 unique instances of 16 channels each so i COULD run all 64 SAC channels with unique hardware for each channel on just one MTP. The old stumbling block of not enough midi channels to run multiple Mackies for SAC is no longer an issue. I will be your first volunteer beta tester.
Jim Stafford

[RandyHyde]

In all fairness, I think that many perspective buyers get sucked into their own visions of what SAC can do before they spend a whole lot of time playing with it. I am probably the person most guilty of this. I imagined SAC doing lots of things Bob neither stated SAC could do nor promised SAC would ever do. Richard warned me years ago about my enthusiasm and I suckered myself in too deep anyway.

I am annoyed that SAC doesn't do what I convinced myself it ought to do; and I'm not especially happy that Bob won't modify SAC to satisfy my particular needs and requirements. However, looking back, SAC largely does everything it was claimed to do when I first bought it (and more, considering there have been *some* improvements since then).

After stepping back and looking at what SAC *actually* does, rather than judging it on what I want it to do, I've come to the conclusion that it's okay and *most* people who discover SAC and build a system around it will do just fine with it. There are people, such as yourself and myself, who will never get past the poor control surface support SAC provides, and I think that SAC's "virtual mixing" capabilities are a bit overstated for operations like Plantation Productions that do ad-hoc shows where the virtual mixing workflow just isn't as effective as having physical faders. However, for "set it and forget it" sound engineers (especially owner/operator sound companies) I can certainly see SAC being an effective tool for those who are well-rooted in what SAC provides today rather than imagining SAC as how it might become.

That said, it's also clear to me that SAC will never really rise above the ankle-biter level until it addresses the physical control surface issue. Almost every big-time professional sound engineer I've talked to who has heard of SAC immediately rejects it because of the virtual mixing workflow. I predict that SAC will *not* make headway into the bigger arena of sound reproduction until this issue is addressed (e.g., by providing an API for 3rd parties to provide support for control surfaces). A few Vegas shows and one or two touring acts might sound impressive, but a few early adopters on the fringe don't make a trend.

SAC is a wonderful product for certain markets. It's clearly not a wonderful product for certain other markets. Hopefully, SAC development will continue so that it will expand to additional markets.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

[Donnie Frank]

In all fairness, I think that many perspective buyers get sucked into their own visions of what SAC can do before they spend a whole lot of time playing with it. I am probably the person most guilty of this. I imagined SAC doing lots of things Bob neither stated SAC could do nor promised SAC would ever do. Richard warned me years ago about my enthusiasm and I suckered myself in too deep anyway.

I am annoyed that SAC doesn't do what I convinced myself it ought to do; and I'm not especially happy that Bob won't modify SAC to satisfy my particular needs and requirements. However, looking back, SAC largely does everything it was claimed to do when I first bought it (and more, considering there have been *some* improvements since then).

After stepping back and looking at what SAC *actually* does, rather than judging it on what I want it to do, I've come to the conclusion that it's okay and *most* people who discover SAC and build a system around it will do just fine with it. There are people, such as yourself and myself, who will never get past the poor control surface support SAC provides, and I think that SAC's "virtual mixing" capabilities are a bit overstated for operations like Plantation Productions that do ad-hoc shows where the virtual mixing workflow just isn't as effective as having physical faders. However, for "set it and forget it" sound engineers (especially owner/operator sound companies) I can certainly see SAC being an effective tool for those who are well-rooted in what SAC provides today rather than imagining SAC as how it might become.

That said, it's also clear to me that SAC will never really rise above the ankle-biter level until it addresses the physical control surface issue. Almost every big-time professional sound engineer I've talked to who has heard of SAC immediately rejects it because of the virtual mixing workflow. I predict that SAC will *not* make headway into the bigger arena of sound reproduction until this issue is addressed (e.g., by providing an API for 3rd parties to provide support for control surfaces). A few Vegas shows and one or two touring acts might sound impressive, but a few early adopters on the fringe don't make a trend.

SAC is a wonderful product for certain markets. It's clearly not a wonderful product for certain other markets. Hopefully, SAC development will continue so that it will expand to additional markets.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

I like reading your posts because they are respectful and you obviously choose your wording carefully. And though you and I disagree that 16 channels of control surface is "good enough for now," it's nice to read your posts.

I think the problem between SAC and Plantation Productions is that you tried to push a square peg in a round hole. I would no more want to use SAC as a "rental" than I would a NASCAR. That's why there are turn-key solutions like taxi cabs and ready-to-go digital consoles. Like any piece of performance equipment not intended for "daily use," SAC requires training, period.

I read your passion and almost desperation (not meant as an insult) at wanting to be able to set up a SAC system, give a 5 minute tutorial to a GE and then walk away. And as an obviously talented software engineer you are frustrated with lack of being able to take SAC to that level. But your last paragraph hit the nail on the head. SAC is what it is. It's designed and marketed as a virtual console. That is the developer's vision. As a compromise it DOES have limited control surface support. Which says to me that the developer *does* value the opinion of SAC users.

At this moment SAC has an intended market (a "niche" if you will) and for now is not "popular" or rider-friendly. But for the weekend warrior or "bottom feeder" as you call it, SAC allows us to give the same level of service as any national sound company. You need 8 monitor mixes? No problem. Oh...you meant 8 STEREO monitor mixes? No problem. You need 120ms delay on the lead singer's vocal in just his monitor? No sweat. You want surround sound? No problem. I've had problems getting reverb on just an acoustic guitar in one guy's monitor from a house engineer in a casino on a high-end sound system donning Yamaha consoles at 5x the cost of SAC. You have to give SAC credit for that. For quite literally the same money as mid-level analog desk, we are afforded the audio processing power of a 6+ figure digital console - minus control surface.

There's a certain amount of pride I have when a musician asks for something well beyond the scope of most $250.00/night sound company like delay in his monitor. There's a certain amount of pride that goes with "Would you like that on just your voice or the overall monitor mix???" They almost don't know how to answer. "I don't know...nobody has ever asked me that before." Exactly. "Let's start with 100ms @ 50% and work from there."

I know you and I go back and fourth about this, but at least our banter is respectful. And I certainly concede that - as a professional, working musician - my interests in growing my sound company to the level you have achieved grow smaller by the day. I haven't mixed in 2 months but have been working my butt off as a drummer. I would be lying if I said I were unhappy about this.

I honestly hope we get to meet someday and I get to see your sound company in action. Outside the SAC environment, I think we see eye-to-eye on a lot of stuff. Certainly your work ethic and attention to detail are right on par with my business paradigms. Whether you continue to use SAC or not, I will always value your input and everything you have written. I have certainly learned a lot from you.

[RandyHyde]

I like reading your posts because they are respectful and you obviously choose your wording carefully. And though you and I disagree that 16 channels of control surface is "good enough for now," it's nice to read your posts.

I could live with 16 inputs and 8 outputs/returns faders as long as I could bank the inputs independently of the outputs.
If I could safely use a pair of Mackie XT units for inputs and a Mackie MCU (possibly on a different SAC Remote) for returns/outputs I'd be a happy camper. Eight channels is insufficient. And despite the auction availability of MotorMix units, I prefer to use devices that are in production and can be replaced at a moment's notice, if needed.

I think the problem between SAC and Plantation Productions is that you tried to push a square peg in a round hole.

I would not disagree with this assessment. SAC is really great for owner/operator sound companies. Plantation Productions doesn't fall into that category.

I would no more want to use SAC as a "rental" than I would a NASCAR. That's why there are turn-key solutions like taxi cabs and ready-to-go digital consoles. Like any piece of performance equipment not intended for "daily use," SAC requires training, period.

I read your passion and almost desperation (not meant as an insult) at wanting to be able to set up a SAC system, give a 5 minute tutorial to a GE and then walk away.

Well, I don't rent SAC systems by any stretch of the imagination (nor could I imagine that would be very practical or cost effective). I provide a service that just happens to use SAC as the mixing system. Sometimes, the client requires that I allow their people operate the FOH mixer. Training the GE to "mix" in five minutes in SAC isn't so much the issue (as long as you have an engineer trained on SAC to answer questions, show how to apply effects when asked, and stuff like that) five minutes actually works. The problem is the work flow. Real world sound engineers are used to mixing with faders and knobs and SAC completely changes that paradigm. It's very frustrating for someone who doesn't have considerable experience with SAC. This is why I've said I can't see SAC breaking into the upper echelon of pro audio in any significant way. Bob expects everyone to relearn how to mix audio; I just don't see that happening any time soon.

And as an obviously talented software engineer you are frustrated with lack of being able to take SAC to that level. But your last paragraph hit the nail on the head. SAC is what it is. It's designed and marketed as a virtual console. That is the developer's vision. As a compromise it DOES have limited control surface support. Which says to me that the developer *does* value the opinion of SAC users.

"SAC users" is the key word here. People who've invested the time and effort to build a SAC system and learn to use it well have probably bought into the virtual mixing system. Some of us did so because the bang for the buck was so enticing. Some people may have come from the DAW world and were already used to virtual mixing. However, the question I'm wondering is "how many people look at SAC and decide that virtual mixing is not for them and move on?" Is it better to please a small number of people who've already purchased SAC ("SAC users") or produce a product that a large number of people are interested in using? At this time, SAC lack of world dominance isn't because people haven't heard about it; lots of people have heard about it and have decided it's not for them (and, to keep beating a dead horse, largely because of the control surface issue).

At this moment SAC has an intended market (a "niche" if you will) and for now is not "popular" or rider-friendly. But for the weekend warrior or "bottom feeder" as you call it, SAC allows us to give the same level of service as any national sound company.

As much as I brag about my "32-channel digital mixer" when talking to perspective clients, I'd never claim that I can give the same level of service as "any national sound company" Though SAC is one of the least of my issues (Not having a VerTec line array and a bigger stage would be the number one and two problems).

You need 8 monitor mixes? No problem. Oh...you meant 8 STEREO monitor mixes? No problem. You need 120ms delay on the lead singer's vocal in just his monitor? No sweat.

Most of this stuff I was doing back with my A&H analog boards (though, granted, I only provided six mono and three stereo monitor mixes; fortunately, people rarely asked for for anything I couldn't handle).

You want surround sound? No problem.

Personally, I'd laugh at someone if they asked for surround sound; even on one of my "movie nite" gigs. Seriously, just because SAC has this (probably unused by 99% of SAC owners) feature doesn't mean you can provide this service. Do you really have the amps, cables, speakers, and tuning capability to do surround sound in a real-world venue? Heck, the comb filtering and interference patterns alone would be a nightmare. And where do you get the surround sound audio sources from? Perhaps from a Blue-Ray disc on a movie nite gig, but for normal live audio? Heck, I wouldn't even know how to *mix* a rock band to sound good in surround sound. I'm barely getting to the point I'm ready to attack L/C/R mixes with my rigs.

I've had problems getting reverb on just an acoustic guitar in one guy's monitor from a house engineer in a casino on a high-end sound system donning Yamaha consoles at 5x the cost of SAC.

That's probably more of a problem with the house engineer than the console. Attaching various effects to different channels is one thing that most not-dirt cheap digital consoles do very well.

You have to give SAC credit for that.

One thing you have to give SAC credit for is the ability to use VST (and SAW native) plugins. Forget reverb and dynamics; everybody's got that. Being able to attach low-cost and free plug-ins into SAC is absolutely amazing. Of all the things SAC does well and does wrong, the VST capability is the thing I will mist the most if I wind up having to go to a different desk (yes, iLive supports Waves plug-ins with a $1,500 add-on box, but SAC's implementation kicks butt).

For quite literally the same money as mid-level analog desk, we are afforded the audio processing power of a 6+ figure digital console - minus control surface.

I think you over-inflate the cost advantage. A decent SAC system will be 1/5 to 1/3 the cost of a decent digital console. And, to be honest, the control surface is a major part of the cost of expensive digital consoles.

However, note that very capable digital consoles are coming down in price. The A&H GLD and the Midas Pro2 are good examples of this. For about twice the price of a decent SAC system (say around $10,000), you can get a GLD; for a few more bucks (say $15,000) you can get a really good Pro 2 system. Sure, you can build SAC systems cheaper using low-cost components like Behringer preamps, but you can also buy a Behringer X32 for around $2,500 if you're willing to settle for Behringer.

There's a certain amount of pride I have when a musician asks for something well beyond the scope of most $250.00/night sound company like delay in his monitor.

Perhaps that's my problem. It's been a while since I could do a gig for $250. Indeed, about a year ago I sharpened my pencils a bit and determined that it cost me about $250 to set foot out of my doorway to do a gig (insurance, amortization, and other hidden costs) without considering things like labor, gas, and other consumable costs associated with each show.

There's a certain amount of pride that goes with "Would you like that on just your voice or the overall monitor mix???" They almost don't know how to answer. "I don't know...nobody has ever asked me that before." Exactly. "Let's start with 100ms @ 50% and work from there."

Most musicians I've worked with don't know how to answer because they wouldn't have understood a single word I just said

OTOH, unless there's a very good reason for it, my opinion of vocalists who want any effect in their monitors drops a notch. Having taken a couple year's of vocal courses in the past, the last thing I want between the microphone and the speaker is any effect that prevents me from hearing *exactly* what I'm singing; I want to hear it raw so I can correct it if it's off. Granted, some effects, such as a slap echo) you might need to hear in order to coordinate with the sound the system is producing, but give it to me as pure as possible.

Pet peeve aside, yes, attaching effects to any channel (monitor or FOH) is really nice; a big boost from my analog days. However, most digital desks will let you put reverb, delays, and dynamics on just about every channel. Indeed, one bitch I have with SAC is that you don't get SAC's dynamics on the output channels without attaching the Studio Levelizer plug-in. Bob's compressors ought to be available on every group and output channel.

I know you and I go back and fourth about this, but at least our banter is respectful. And I certainly concede that - as a professional, working musician - my interests in growing my sound company to the level you have achieved grow smaller by the day. I haven't mixed in 2 months but have been working my butt off as a drummer. I would be lying if I said I were unhappy about this.

That's okay. Before I had dreams of taking my sound company "to the next level" as well. But as I've sat down (during that same pencil sharpening session) and calculated what it would cost for me to go to that level, I nearly had a heart attack. I don't remember if it was Tim Weaver, Mac Kerr, or Tim McColluch over at ProSoundWeb who pointed out that "moving up to the next level in the sound business pretty much means spending as much money as you've spent from day one, all at once." He was absolutely right. For me, moving up to the next level will cost me around $250,000 which is roughly what I've spent to date on this company. Considering a good gig pays me 1% of my total investment in the company, I can't justify (from a business sense) spending this kind of money without having a corresponding boost in the number of gigs and the average price per gig.

There's also the issue of my age (about to turn 57). At a typical show, most of my efforts are directed towards logistics (that means "schlepping gear around") and trouble-shooting. I'm rapidly approaching the point where I can't lift 100-pound speakers, 160-pound stage sections (granted, two people), or heavy truss stands. I probably blow a significant amount of my profits each year going to "Massage Envy" a day or two after a big show .

It may seem funny, but I find mixing shows to be incredibly boring. I like to *watch* the shows; a good sound engineer doesn't watch the show-- they pay attention and handle cues (such as boosting solos and turning effects on and off at appropriate times). Engineers who watch the show tend to miss these cues. Paying attention to the task at hand, when I could enjoy the show, is not interesting to me....

I honestly hope we get to meet someday and I get to see your sound company in action. Outside the SAC environment, I think we see eye-to-eye on a lot of stuff. Certainly your work ethic and attention to detail are right on par with my business paradigms. Whether you continue to use SAC or not, I will always value your input and everything you have written. I have certainly learned a lot from you.

I don't plan on eliminating SAC completely (unless a better software mixing system comes along that I can retask my hardware to). I might very well get an iLive desk at some point or another for my A rig (assuming control surface support never appears, which is an assumption I'm making at this point). But SAC will live on in my B rigs.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

[RBIngraham]

Personally, I'd laugh at someone if they asked for surround sound; even on one of my "movie nite" gigs. Seriously, just because SAC has this (probably unused by 99% of SAC owners) feature doesn't mean you can provide this service. Do you really have the amps, cables, speakers, and tuning capability to do surround sound in a real-world venue? Heck, the comb filtering and interference patterns alone would be a nightmare. And where do you get the surround sound audio sources from? Perhaps from a Blue-Ray disc on a movie nite gig, but for normal live audio? Heck, I wouldn't even know how to *mix* a rock band to sound good in surround sound. I'm barely getting to the point I'm ready to attack L/C/R mixes with my rigs.

I know I'm from a different breed of sound mixing, but I use Surrounds all the time in many theatres I work in. The biggest rig being the venue I'm the audio supervisor for in a local LORT theatre. We have 20 TurboSound surround boxes in that theatre. And yes each of them has a dedicated speaker line back to the amp room/rack. Potentially we could have an amp channel for each one, but then we'd have almost no amps left for anything else. So there is always some ganging of them. And we have a Yamaha DME that is just for the delays and EQs for those plus the main system. 16x16 DSP for the mains and surrounds. Obviously we have this because we do a lot of shows that are just playback. But I use the surrounds for the musicals that are mixed there as well. You'd be amazed at how much nicer a vocal verb can sound when you can pull it out into the room and surround the audience. I use them all the time for the orchestra reinforcement as well.

Yes, it's not something you're going to set up for a one off event that you tear down at the end of the night. But I have the DSP all set up so anyone can come in and use a basic L/R surround feed. And it's easy to reconfigure if someone wants or needs something more specific. These kind of things are where nothing will really replace a good DSP with a Matrix. I wouldn't even try to think of doing all that processing inside of SAC. And yes the entire system is time aligned back to the proscenium/plaster line.

Having said all that... no I have never made use of the Surround Panner in SAC. The only exception being that I have used the panner for a variable Sub feed or the variable center feed before when I didn't want to chew up an Aux send or deal with setting up a monitor mixer for that. But then I also don't use SAC at this venue either.

The difference here is that it's not 5.1 surround sound like a movie theatre or your the set up in your home. You can not mix it like that and you don't pan stuff to just one speaker in the back of the room unless you're going for a special effect of some type or you want to locate some sound effect in the rear of the room, etc... It's much more subtle in it's use and I get the "are these things on???" question all the time. Then I have to go to my laptop and mute them and "they" realize.. yep they were actually on and yes they do something...

And then there is the guest designers that I have to babysit the system for... that's when you have to walk the house and make sure they are not blowing away the folks in the side seats with ridiculous amounts of surround level. Happens all the time because many of them don't have and/or take the time walk the room fully and take that into consideration.

Even in several of the smaller venues I have at least a pair of rear speakers I use for this kind of thing. Sometimes it's literally nothing more than a pair of powered speakers on sticks in the rear of the house. (I did that in the one performing arts magnet program/high school for one show... now the director wants it all the time..... ) Properly used they can really add to the sonic quality of your show.

Probably wouldn't work great for rock band though. Too much noise coming off the stage already to deal with. Only useful for some vocal effects perhaps. But in a more controlled situation definitely worth the time.

[Trackzilla]

Not to sidetrack too much, but I also use surround live on rare occasions. Specifically outdoor symphonic events. My approach is to use an arc of micro line arrays (similar to those Bose thingys) in pairs at a delay fill distance in the audience, one facing back one facing forward. The rearward facing sets are integrated normally, the forward sets get a time aligned feed from a convolution reverb at a lower level. It takes a sense for subtlety and a bit of fiddling to get a decent effect spread without simply verbing those close to them into space, but the end result is a rather convincing auditory illusion of an indoor concert hall with good acoustics through a surprising amount of the listening area. The real trick is to be gentle enough that you don't notice that it's there...you just miss it if you turn it off.

[operationwhat]

I believe that everything is possible with SAC, we just have to have guts and try things insted of saying OHhh...this and that would be great! Aybody says that this ain't true, he haven't learned the SAC entirely
I worked and still work on hugh analog mixers and yes it has its own work flow... but as I work more and more with SAC or in DAWs I feel less need for faders at all.
Multi-touch screens do the job just fine...

Look at it this way...
U can trigger drums,use Autotune,multiband compress instruments,insert Hardware FX Rev,Delays,send signal to wherever u want, mix up to 24 stereo IEM mixes, Do GEQ on every channel if processor stands the draw,use Waves plugins, Antress Plugins or whatever plugins with no latency....Recal/Store Presets,ride scenes,write notes in a channel, play mp3/CD, use VST instruments LIVE, use guitar processors live - Line6,NI GuitarRig... even more cool guitar stuff soon from my FIRM!
WANT MORE????
U can build your own system!
Add multi-touch control surface,add faders if you're old school and even add 2 more single-touch monitors for the FOH and MON GEQ , or SendFX instant control or Analyzer view ....do whatever.

And know do that on iLive or Digidesign or Soundcraft ;D
Gotta be kidding me

Also, there's the TouchIT aplication that lets you shortcut all the major functions in SAC and access them on touchscreen...you can have 2 or 3 virtual keyboards that do different things...this way you can skip the need for the 3M multi-touch Monitor or mouse or hardware keyboard.

Also u have the menus - panels that Brett programmed to fasten up our work!
+ you can move them wherever u want? It's up to us really.

So.... what more do we need???

I know... would be great to have a dedicated hardware,a quadcore processing card that would do the FX,0 latency,64bit floatpoint....but it would bring up expenses even more, might exclude the possibilaty of using your own combination of vst plugins or instruments...
Also the ability to track inside SAC would also be cool but u have SAW to do this.
A mp3/CD dual deck player would be great to have inside SAC but that was also figured out a year back....

Note:
Had a concert last week and there was the iLive T-80 A&H + a monitoring mixer and old A&H gl3200 with no gates or GEQ,fx for monitor mixing.... 6 bands,max 20ch used... now that was a Horror SHOW!!!!
Small stage and everything was open - no gates on the monitoring mixer...nor GEQ.
Mamma Mia!!!!
The guy didn't wanted to change too much on the analog board cause the second headliner already did their sound check and the guy figured its ok, that will work just fine for the others.

It could have been done with one 24ch SAC + a laptop as a remote,
costing the PA company about 4k of investment instead of 15k,using quality preamps or.... 2k of investment using B-stuff, upgraded or pimped up to work flewlesly for 600$

SO....
Would it make a difference in sound??? YES,a HUGHE!!!
- it would be much easier to carry a laptop and a small rack than an anaog mixer + fx rack + EQ rack + snake + spliter + I/O rack + DMixer....
SAC pros
+ less cabling
+ less hardware
+ less expenses
+ more flexibility
+ custom built sys
+ 48ch/m or 24ch/st monitoring
+ you can use your own VST/VSTi plugins
+ monitoring inputs or outputs on an external LCD MT screen
+ view every GEQ of monitor output on an external LCD MT screen
+ ......... same for the FX sends
+ Mix the show from home or in studio environment, even 400 miles away using internet... with 20ms latency
.....and the list goes on...

All this can be done!
I tried all of this and I assure you that the limitation are within us.

Also I believe that Bob is trying really hard, to integrate all this into on big SAC system , just to prevent the need of sac users to look for the solutions searching the internet by their own.I hope this happen soon so that everybody could be happy

But still, as long as you have the best tool out there - SAC - and you know how to work with it, u don't really need all the expensive stuff that the industry is trying to force feed you with.

[AntonZ]

(snip) But I use the surrounds for the musicals that are mixed there as well. You'd be amazed at how much nicer a vocal verb can sound when you can pull it out into the room and surround the audience. I use them all the time for the orchestra reinforcement as well. (snip)

Trying to learn here from you Richard. Do you mean you have the direct signal in the mains/front and verb returns in the surrounds?

[Andy Hamm]

I've also done shows in quad/surround like this one:

http://www.pinkfloydniagara.com.

They are usually set up in a particular venue, and I don't run into them all that often. I did this show back in 2008, and it was an analog rig with a panning joystick and group outs to the surround fills.

[ssrsound]

I do a whole lot of movie premiers and movie nights in surround sound. But its a whole lot easier to use a surround processor and take discrete feeds from each channel into SAC after the 7.1 processor, each sending to their own dedicated out. That way all the tuning is done by the surround processor with its automatic timing/volume setups and a measurement mic. Occasionally I'll fiddle with the LR, sending some <100hz signal to the LFE speakers to fill it all out. Mostly, though, I'm taking advantage of having 8 output busses without any convoluted handstands to get the signal where I want it, and mixing in some microphones and music for the pre/post show stuff.

...but I never use the SAC surround features -- I'm depending on the sound design that was done in the mixing process on the movie. If I were designing a show like Richard, or had time to design complex sound for a band I might (or a show like Bob's Vegas installs). But its something that really takes some thought, not something that can easily be done effectively on the fly other than a few minor adjustments.

...but I'm glad its there -- I may use it some day.