PreSonus StudioLive Series III

[Richard Rupert]

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.

I remember your posting about these tests. Good to be reminded. Thanks.

[Dave Labrecque]

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.

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.

[Angie]

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.

I've been using the SAC/SAW combo in the studio since SAC was first released and have never had a vocalist or voice-over artist complain about latency issues.

[jmh]

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.

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.

[cgrafx]

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.

The difference is your ears aren't covered when you use a wedge. Put your fingers in your ears and talk and tell me what you hear

[Angie]

I find this comment funny because we use software that is not particularly intuitive - much because of it's non standard nature.

SAC and SAW have the look of and are set up like an analog board. It is easier to understand.

[Cary B. Cornett]

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 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.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I've been using the SAC/SAW combo in the studio since SAC was first released and have never had a vocalist or voice-over artist complain about latency issues.

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.

[Dave Labrecque]

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 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.

[cgrafx]

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.

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.