PreSonus StudioLive Series III

[cgrafx]

Richard, is there a reason for not wanting to move to a software solution?

you already own SAW and SAC, all you'd need are the preamps and computer interface.

If your considering the PreSonus your already moving to a digital console with latency.

SAC as a software only solution is far more capable then the PreSonus board in every aspect except the physical faders and even that is pretty easy to mitigate with a small control surface.

The least expensive route would be 4 behringer ada8200's and an RME RayDAT card (should cost about $1400, easily less than $1000 if you buy second hand).

If you go to something like the MOTU 8M series stuff you can run USB which will support up to 64 channels In/Out.

My live rig is 32 in/32 out. I record on this all the time. Its dead simple to fire up SAW studio. My default settings already have SAC link engaged. Just launch SAC and then SAW Studio Arm channels and I'm ready to record.

I just made the switch to the MOTU 8M boxes on my live rig in order to have AVB support to use as a digital split. This makes it so I don't have to use our hardware splitter when we do shows where FOH is supplied. Just plug everything in as we normally do, and I can give a fully buffered split to the FOH, no mic splitter required.

I'm still currently running the RayDAT card as the interface to the computer, but have a parallel AVB network running to supply FOH or other feeds as needed. I'm currently exploring Thunderbolt options as an alternative to the RME card, but I won't make that jump until I deploy my new motherboard with Win10.

Latency in to out is just shy of 6.5ms. If I move to USB or Thunderbolt I believe I can get that number down under 4ms. Nobody has ever complained or had any concerns about that delay. I run my system at 48kHz and 1x64 buffer size. System resources run around 22%. Thats 32 active channels in and out, Stereo two-way FOH and 5-7 stereo Monitor Mixes.

In the Studio I'm running a similar ADAT setup with a pair of RME 9652 cards and a mix of preamps (mostly MOTU at this point), but I was using Mackie and Behringer in previous configurations.

[Richard Rupert]

Richard, is there a reason for not wanting to move to a software solution?

you already own SAW and SAC, all you'd need are the preamps and computer interface.

Yes, as I mentioned somewhere back in this thread, I do have both softwares and a few old ADA8000s and a 3M monitor. (I have been at the studio and live mix game a long time and have never divested myself of any "leftover gear", so have a lot lying around ). I had fully intended to go the SAW/SAC route in the studio, and have "fooled around" with the setup, even running a couple of faux sessions to see how it would go. The problem is, I found the monitor navigation functions to be... let's say not "dependable". I would get unexpected actions from finger motions. And I practiced in the house for some time with the monitor to get the motions correct. I just felt uncomfortable with it.

If your considering the PreSonus your already moving to a digital console with latency.

That's something I hadn't considered.

SAC as a software only solution is far more capable then the PreSonus board in every aspect except the physical faders and even that is pretty easy to mitigate with a small control surface.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the layer methodology of accessing higher track counts. I rarely need more than 32 tracks, and never more than 50 (I know... but if that's what the producer wants, that's what (s)he gets <LOL>), so the StudioLive 32 looked like a reasonable solution.

The least expensive route would be 4 behringer ada8200's and an RME RayDAT card (should cost about $1400, easily less than $1000 if you buy second hand).

If you go to something like the MOTU 8M series stuff you can run USB which will support up to 64 channels In/Out.

My live rig is 32 in/32 out. I record on this all the time. Its dead simple to fire up SAW studio. My default settings already have SAC link engaged. Just launch SAC and then SAW Studio Arm channels and I'm ready to record.

I just made the switch to the MOTU 8M boxes on my live rig in order to have AVB support to use as a digital split. This makes it so I don't have to use our hardware splitter when we do shows where FOH is supplied. Just plug everything in as we normally do, and I can give a fully buffered split to the FOH, no mic splitter required.

I'm still currently running the RayDAT card as the interface to the computer, but have a parallel AVB network running to supply FOH or other feeds as needed.

These are all good suggestions, but as I said above, I have all the necessary hardware and software.

I'm currently exploring Thunderbolt options as an alternative to the RME card, but I won't make that jump until I deploy my new motherboard with Win10.

I will be very interested in reading how you make out with that setup. I'm due for a new computer at the very least (mine is 10 years old and 32 bit).

Latency in to out is just shy of 6.5ms. If I move to USB or Thunderbolt I believe I can get that number down under 4ms. Nobody has ever complained or had any concerns about that delay. I run my system at 48kHz and 1x64 buffer size. System resources run around 22%. Thats 32 active channels in and out, Stereo two-way FOH and 5-7 stereo Monitor Mixes.

Very impressive.

In the Studio I'm running a similar ADAT setup with a pair of RME 9652 cards and a mix of preamps (mostly MOTU at this point), but I was using Mackie and Behringer in previous configurations.

I also have an RME 9652 card in my house computer. Good devices for sure. Thanks for your informed input and suggestions. I suppose I may end up going the SAW/SAC route in the end.

Good looking live rig, by the way!!!

[UpTilDawn]

Yes, as I mentioned somewhere back in this thread, I do have both softwares and a few old ADA8000s and a 3M monitor. (I have been at the studio and live mix game a long time and have never divested myself of any "leftover gear", so have a lot lying around ). I had fully intended to go the SAW/SAC route in the studio, and have "fooled around" with the setup, even running a couple of faux sessions to see how it would go. The problem is, I found the monitor navigation functions to be... let's say not "dependable". I would get unexpected actions from finger motions. And I practiced in the house for some time with the monitor to get the motions correct. I just felt uncomfortable with it.
That's something I hadn't considered.

... I suppose I may end up going the SAW/SAC route in the end.
...

Sounds like the obstacle here is the touch monitor and not necessarily the SAW/SAC combination.
Operation is smooth as silk, using keyboard and mouse... even just keyboard much of the time.

[Richard Rupert]

Sounds like the obstacle here is the touch monitor and not necessarily the SAW/SAC combination.
Operation is smooth as silk, using keyboard and mouse... even just keyboard much of the time.

Well, yes that's true. But be aware that this is a commercial facility and there's a little "wow" factor that comes into the mix. A board with blinking lights all over the place DOES have some cache. But really, that's not the only reason I'm looking at a hardware interface with faders, as I hope I've expressed in the previous posts. I do agree that SAW and SAC are great together.

[Dave Labrecque]

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the layer methodology of accessing higher track counts. I rarely need more than 32 tracks, and never more than 50 (I know... but if that's what the producer wants, that's what (s)he gets <LOL>), so the StudioLive 32 looked like a reasonable solution.

Richard, I'm curious. How does the StudioLive avoid the layer approach to that many inputs or tracks?

[Richard Rupert]

Richard, I'm curious. How does the StudioLive avoid the layer approach to that many inputs or tracks?

StudioLive 32 Series III has 32 input faders and a master fader. You can route things all over the place to create subgroups and set up DCA control... it's a pretty flexible device. I'm not saying SAC is "weaker" or more limited in ANY way other than the multi-fader use clumsiness I experienced with the 3M monitor.

[cgrafx]

StudioLive 32 Series III has 32 input faders and a master fader. You can route things all over the place to create subgroups and set up DCA control... it's a pretty flexible device. I'm not saying SAC is "weaker" or more limited in ANY way other than the multi-fader use clumsiness I experienced with the 3M monitor.

The week spot you were dealing with is the Touch Screen.

Its definitely nice to have the physical faders, but beyond that there is not much advantage.

StudioLive is still based on single mix architecture. Monitor mixes are handled as Aux Sends or possibly matrixes.

SAC is based on a Multi mix architecture (25 completely independent mixing consoles).

I'm also pretty sure your limited to the built in effects on the board, so unlike SAW/SAC which both support VST plugins, your limited internally to what PreSonus provides as effects.

SAC lets you add an effect to a single channel, or group(s) (bussed on an AUX sends) and can be routed individually to a single mixer or passed through to 1 or more other mixers.

Its just a much more flexible architecture.

However, if you don't use that additional functionality than it won't make any difference.

Keep in mind later versions of SAC have a much improved touch interface (use the specific touch controls), but based on what you have described you might be better served by a physical control surface rather than the touch screen.

Again its pretty simple to setup 8-16 channels of physical faders. The Behringer x-touch extenders are perfect for this and less than $300 each.

Since you actually already have pretty much everything you need to make this work now, maybe its worth spending time re-testing SAC/SAW but without the 3M monitor.

I did a lot of research before I jumped on the SAW Studio band wagon and one of the things that I really liked, aside from the sonic quality, was the idea that it was a virtual version of a real console and multi-track recorder. (Full channel strips without having to load EQ, Compressors, Gates, etc, etc).

SAC carried that design into the Live Mixing space and the two in combination have been tremendously effective for both live and studio use.

[Richard Rupert]

The week spot you were dealing with is the Touch Screen.

I agree.

Its definitely nice to have the physical faders, but beyond that there is not much advantage.

Hey, you forgot the blinking lights <LOL>

StudioLive is still based on single mix architecture. Monitor mixes are handled as Aux Sends or possibly matrixes.
SAC is based on a Multi mix architecture (25 completely independent mixing consoles).

Correct. I am quite familiar with the functionality of SAC, and I have the latest version.

I'm also pretty sure your limited to the built in effects on the board, so unlike SAW/SAC which both support VST plugins, your limited internally to what PreSonus provides as effects.

That is correct. But since I'm using this in a studio environment, once that audio is captured into SAW I can add whatever I desire to the returned audio.

SAC lets you add an effect to a single channel, or group(s) (bussed on an AUX sends) and can be routed individually to a single mixer or passed through to 1 or more other mixers. Its just a much more flexible architecture.

I'm not arguing, believe me.

However, if you don't use that additional functionality than it won't make any difference.

I don't see that it's a terrific advantage in basic tracking, and as I said above, I'd have access to whatever SAW offers (and as you know, it's a lot) during the overdubbing/mixing stages.

Keep in mind later versions of SAC have a much improved touch interface (use the specific touch controls), but based on what you have described you might be better served by a physical control surface rather than the touch screen.

And again, some of this is because I have clients who like to stick their fingers in the pie too. They don't relate to grabbing a mouse to make a change.

Again its pretty simple to setup 8-16 channels of physical faders. The Behringer x-touch extenders are perfect for this and less than $300 each.

My analog console has 24 inputs, and I'd rather not have fewer... 32 would be ideal. Maybe four X-Touches would serve me, I'll have to look into it. But then I'd have $1200 (half of the StudioLive price) in faders with no compression per channel, e.q. or interface. Granted I have those things now, but could eliminate a lot of hardware it the StudioLive would function simply as an input and playback with separate headphone output device.

Since you actually already have pretty much everything you need to make this work now, maybe its worth spending time re-testing SAC/SAW but without the 3M monitor.

You make a very good point there, Phillip. If I don't get this quest behind me pretty soon, that's what I'll do. But I was hoping to resolve all this before the sale is no longer offered by PreSonus.

I did a lot of research before I jumped on the SAW Studio band wagon and one of the things that I really liked, aside from the sonic quality, was the idea that it was a virtual version of a real console and multi-track recorder. (Full channel strips without having to load EQ, Compressors, Gates, etc, etc).

I do like those aspects as well, and have used Bob's software exclusively since 1995.

SAC carried that design into the Live Mixing space and the two in combination have been tremendously effective for both live and studio use.

I promise: I'll give it another try. Of course, I am definitely staying with SAW... I was just trying to find an interface with faders and headphone routing for tracking and overdubs. Thanks for posting.

[cgrafx]

I agree.

Hey, you forgot the blinking lights <LOL>

Blinking lights are cool

My analog console has 24 inputs, and I'd rather not have fewer... 32 would be ideal. Maybe four X-Touches would serve me, I'll have to look into it. But then I'd have $1200 (half of the StudioLive price) in faders with no compression per channel, e.q. or interface. Granted I have those things now, but could eliminate a lot of hardware it the StudioLive would function simply as an input and playback with separate headphone output device.

When you work with the control surface it doesn't have to be a 1-to-1 mapping because the control surface chases with the selected channels.

8 channels of faders can be used very effectively when setup properly.

16 channels means a bit less hopping around, and more Blinky lights