Stones

[Pro Sound Guy]

Originally Posted by Tomm Williams

Brings me to another thought. How much do bands (big bands) really know about their SR? I know they hire the best they can find for engineers but would Mick Jagger really know a Mixwiz from a Presonus from a Midas ? I wonder how much the engineer is driving the choice of components?

I see this frequently where someone post's that Singer "A" uses a Sennheiser "whatever". and then everybody runs out to buy a half-dozen of them. Well who actually convinced them to use that mic? Do these equipment choices really reflect what the band is trying to accomplish or what the BE is trying to accomplish or is it somewhere in between?

I suspect there are a lot of big name bands who don't know {censored} about how their sound gets to the audience and could care less as long as it's excellent (Anyone heard The Eagles live?) I think it could be very, very difficult to make any concrete conclusions as to why any band chose any piece of equipment unless you could talk in depth with the sound provider.

Appartently the BE for the Stones brings his own PM4000 along everywhere they go. I suspect it is not stock.

[agedhorse]

 

Originally Posted by Pro Sound Guy

Appartently the BE for the Stones brings his own PM4000 along everywhere they go. I suspect it is not stock.

 

and well maintained...

[Flogger59]

A. Local reinforcement company had a 40 channel 4k with power supply and case on sale for $2500 recently. My boss's band is using a PM1800 that they found in CTV's garbage ( yeah, free).

[Flogger59]

Originally Posted by agedhorse

Right, for a rental house that makes sense.

If you happen to be a sound company that has a A list client that really likes a 4k or an H3000 or an XL or Series 5 whatever, and it goes out all the time, it certanly seems to make sense to invest in maintaining it and maybe even having a refurb'd backup in the spirit of the big picture. It makes at least as much sense as investing $75k(+) in a new digital board under those circumstances.

True, but for the bread and butter gear wrangler at the local rental house, sadly, digital makes more sense. If a regional or national act goes on a week's hiatus an analog board often has to be "quarantined" at the warehouse so that the board settings aren't lost. With digital a place could rent the board on the off days with no fear of lost settings.

I know that pros in other markets will zero out and not think twice about it, but here in Quebec the FOH guys seem to be a particularly lazy lot.

[agedhorse]

 

Originally Posted by Flogger59

A. Local reinforcement company had a 40 channel 4k with power supply and case on sale for $2500 recently. My boss's band is using a PM1800 that they found in CTV's garbage ( yeah, free).

 

The 1800 is a fabulous board IMO. That and the 2800M were quite a pair.

[Dogoth]

A local sound contractor has a 4K and until just recently had an PM2800M monitor console & a Ramsa WRS840 (the two latter worked perfectly when they were sold). They still occasionaly get a call for a large format analog board. The 4K seems to fill the bill most of the time (and has little resale value) so why not keep it and rent it for a few more years? FWIW I'm pretty sure parts are still available at a reasonable cost (sort of like a Chevy 327 CID motor - they just made so frigging many of them.....).

[OneEng]

Some of the older acts also still mandate a huge front row of monitor wedges because they will not use IEM's. That doesn't mean that it is a good way to do a big show, it is just a preference of what the band (and the person doing the sound possibly) are used to.

Arguing that because some act had an analog board and the sound was great is flawed as well. Perhaps that is true, but perhaps it could have sounded even better?

I think that the analog boards are not long for this world guys (this coming from a guy that swears by his MixWiz). There are simply too many advantages to digital .... and not just from the user side of things. Digital mixers with their integration of nearly all other aspects of what is needed for good sound are also what the market demands. It is also more cost effective to do things in firmware instead many individual analog circuits on a piece price basis.

To Agedhorses point of firmware not being free.... this is true; however, this development is primarily a one-time-cost while all the analog circuits, buttons, sliders, etc, are variable costs that pertain to every unit sold.

I agree that you can get great sound from analog gear. I just think that it is a fading market ..... just like tapes and records when CD's came along. It was only a matter of time (and there are still people that swear records sound better than CD's).

I think that there is a case to be made that all the bells and whistles in a digital board are not needed. I am in automotive engineering and have heard the same debate .... but it is also flawed. No one would buy a car today that didn't have airbags everywhere, power windows, cruise control, etc etc. My point is that you can't TELL the market what it wants, the market tells YOU what it wants and you either give it to them, or go out of business while others give it to them.

I will likely go digital in the next few years (somehow between putting 3 kids through college over the next 15 years). My personal reason for this is weight and complexity. If I were buying again today from scratch, I would definitely be going digital... no doubt about it. Having already purchased great analog gear (over 10 years ago), it is a much harder business case

Now all I need is for some company to come up with a digital board with 16 mic pre's, a small footprint, integrated 802.11 wireless IEM, and SD card recording all built in for around $1500.00 and I will be jumping ship ...... I am sure Andy will get right on this

[Rbts]

Actually chuckling - Well - um -yea - Live Sound IS gonna go "digital" - and you will not find many "analog" boards - in like 50 years - but make no mistake - records DO sound better than CDs - totally!

A few months ago - one of my "buds" took me on a little "tour" of his life - musically - played me a bunch of CD's of bands he liked and stuff (just one song off each) - and you know - everything sounded "good" (I forget the names) - and then at a certain point - we got back to the "records" - and the instant he played one - it DID sound "better" - he looked over at me and shrugged - saying "well yea - they just DO sound better" - and they do. BUT -

In a live sound setting - no one is going to be "A" - "B" comparing the two - and the digital sound will still sound "great" - but IF you could somehow magically switch over and be like - "OK - here's that - but - analog" - it "would" sound "better".

[Tomm Williams]

For me it's not so much what sounds better as my board sounds just fine. I really don't think I'd hear a bit of difference in a digital board. It's also not about all the onboard goodies, I've got a rack full of processing. Nor is it about the weight, my board takes two people to move but I have never failed to find help. What it boils down to for me is this is the rig I'm comfortable with. I've learned to run all of it (fairly) competently and have no reason or demand to re-create the wheel.

Yes, all that analog gear takes up space but I don't have a shortage of space in any venue I've worked at. I'm happy as hell to see the value of analog dropping, been looking at a monitor board of some sort for quite awhile. Yamaha PM's are getting cheaper and cheaper. And even though it can be argued that a digital board is no more expensive than analog with all the processing, it is much more expensive up-front. Being able to put my system together over time was more cost effective for me. It also gave me a lot of experience running it.

[agedhorse]

Originally Posted by OneEng

I think that the analog boards are not long for this world guys (this coming from a guy that swears by his MixWiz). There are simply too many advantages to digital .... and not just from the user side of things. Digital mixers with their integration of nearly all other aspects of what is needed for good sound are also what the market demands. It is also more cost effective to do things in firmware instead many individual analog circuits on a piece price basis.

There are also significant disadvantages to digital, including the accelerated (shortened) lifespan of critical components, lack of continued support of operating system and interface software/firmware/hardware.

Originally Posted by OneEng

To Agedhorses point of firmware not being free.... this is true; however, this development is primarily a one-time-cost while all the analog circuits, buttons, sliders, etc, are variable costs that pertain to every unit sold.

Even though software/firmware appears to be an inexpensive one time cost, I disagree that it's inexpensive, and it is necessary to maintain on a continuing basis. There is also a large hidden cost to supporting the issues that plague software/firmware based systems, especially those that are low production (compared with the auto industry).

Originally Posted by OneEng

I agree that you can get great sound from analog gear. I just think that it is a fading market ..... just like tapes and records when CD's came along. It was only a matter of time (and there are still people that swear records sound better than CD's).

Sound quality is not the priimary driving factor behind the shift. In fact, there are a significant number of (at the same price/performance point) analog consoles that perform just as well as their digital counterpoints. The convenience of having all outboard gear integrated is probably the most compelling factor, as well as save and recall. For monitor systems, add the mix on fader capability. I have worked with enough pro FOH guys that I can understand completely why some of them just prefer the traditional analog hardware work surface. No surprises, feels food, does the same thing on every board, and reliability has been one of the most interetsing reasons. A couple ofthese guys recently have faced total failure during a show issues with a digital console (large frame, not Yamaha) and were done with the digital route for the time being.

Originally Posted by OneEng

I think that there is a case to be made that all the bells and whistles in a digital board are not needed. I am in automotive engineering and have heard the same debate .... but it is also flawed. No one would buy a car today that didn't have airbags everywhere, power windows, cruise control, etc etc. My point is that you can't TELL the market what it wants, the market tells YOU what it wants and you either give it to them, or go out of business while others give it to them.

I think we may have come to the point of diminishing returns here. If you look at the challenges Toyota is facing, almost all issues (other than the floormats and friction guides) are due to the complex integration of computer controlled throttle, and control elements. In fact, I'm not convinced that anybody really knows FOR SURE what the causes of their problems are. Unlike in the aviation industry, there is not the budget for redundency, nor multiple feedback elements and safeguards. While falling out of the sky is not likely, other serious operational problems have occurred.

Originally Posted by OneEng

I will likely go digital in the next few years (somehow between putting 3 kids through college over the next 15 years). My personal reason for this is weight and complexity. If I were buying again today from scratch, I would definitely be going digital... no doubt about it. Having already purchased great analog gear (over 10 years ago), it is a much harder business case

That's a personal choice, based on your trade-off metrics. I don't think the difference in "sound quality" should be a driving factor as it's doubtful to be significant (at this price point).

Originally Posted by OneEng

Now all I need is for some company to come up with a digital board with 16 mic pre's, a small footprint, integrated 802.11 wireless IEM, and SD card recording all built in for around $1500.00 and I will be jumping ship ...... I am sure Andy will get right on this

How do you make a million dollars in the digital mixer industry? ... Start with 10 million

[Scodiddly]

Having heard serious complaints about crappy sound quality at Stones concerts in previous years I'm not sure I'd put any kind of assumption on analog vs. digital. Let's just say that huge scale sound reinforcement is a complicated business, with a lot of opportunities to screw up.

I think one of the most compelling reasons to go digital in the last couple of years has been not only the integration of lots of functionality in a van-friendly package, but also remote control. Now that you can take a small surface (usually an iPad) right onstage with the musicians to tune monitors, out into the audience to tweak the speaker systems and the mix, you can make drastic improvements in the quality of the presentation.

Being able to mix from a theater seat instead of a glassed-in booth? Priceless. And being able to tune a large multi-speaker system in an arena gets much faster, easier, and better when you can walk into a zone, bring up the speaker(s) there, tweak them, and move on to the next.

[Dookietwo]

As nice as analog is for the most part if 1 part in the chain is digital then your hearing digital.
It would be very rare to go see a large format show that does not have digital in the signal flow. Go out an analog desk, go to a digital eq-crossover, go out to DSP processing amps, or DSP controled powered speakers. Digital delay for the delay stacks. Racks of digital effects processors, gates, compressors,etc.
A large format show with Analog desk to analog eqs to analog crossovers to analog amps,speakers? Analog delay for the delay stacks?

Some say LPs sound better. Growing up in the 60s-70s I can say Turntables have a built in eq to record/track the lows help smooth too much high freq content noise that the recording process can't reproduce well/correctly. This is the RIAA curve eq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Play the same song on 5 different turntables and you'll hear 5 different reproductions. Although RIAA was a standard the true amount of eq varied from turntable to turntable. Brand to brand. A little more bass or a less highs and a turntable would be considered thick or fat sounding. Less bass or more highs and its was bright or revealing or sterile. With a little bit of eq like whats in a turntable you can make a cd sound just fine. Plug a turntable in to a stereo and although your eq on the stereo may be flat your still listening to an eq'd sound.

All desk color the sound to some degree and or in different ways.

Dookietwo

[Pro Sound Guy]

Originally Posted by Dookietwo

As nice as analog is for the most part if 1 part in the chain is digital then your hearing digital.
It would be very rare to go see a large format show that does not have digital in the signal flow. Go out an analog desk, go to a digital eq-crossover, go out to DSP processing amps, or DSP controled powered speakers. Digital delay for the delay stacks. Racks of digital effects processors, gates, compressors,etc.
A large format show with Analog desk to analog eqs to analog crossovers to analog amps,speakers? Analog delay for the delay stacks?

Some say LPs sound better. Growing up in the 60s-70s I can say Turntables have a built in eq to record/track the lows help smooth too much high freq content noise that the recording process can't reproduce well/correctly. This is the RIAA curve eq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Play the same song on 5 different turntables and you'll hear 5 different reproductions. Although RIAA was a standard the true amount of eq varied from turntable to turntable. Brand to brand. A little more bass or a less highs and a turntable would be considered thick or fat sounding. Less bass or more highs and its was bright or revealing or sterile. With a little bit of eq like whats in a turntable you can make a cd sound just fine. Plug a turntable in to a stereo and although your eq on the stereo may be flat your still listening to an eq'd sound.

All desk color the sound to some degree and or in different ways.

Dookietwo

You have a valid point as far as analog to digital, and digital to analog conversion in the chain, but Im thinking its more the ease of operation, and being comfortable
with the console the BE wants when doing the show. I am personally looking foward to seeing
400mhz or higher sampling rates with conversion. I have heard the 10K platters with
vinyl, and high dollar systems and was quite struck with awe at the sound of pure analog high end.
I think what is attractive for me is being able to reach for a tone control, or aux and have instant
touch and operation. Why not make something with that ease of operation and also digital.
Also, with a digital console if you do not have it on a UPS it could be a disaster in a power sag
or black out for an instant. When a friend who owns a large install company here in town was
showing me a Soundcraft digital console and demonstrating it to me I stopped him in mid sentence and said "So if something fails on this and I cant open it up and possibly repair it in the field I am F#$%%$." He said yea if it breaks your F$%^&*#. The repair part of digital consoles scares me.

[agedhorse]

To clarify, at the pro level, I don't think the sound difference brtween digital and Analog is the issue.

[Two of Seven]

Originally Posted by Dookietwo

..........

Some say LPs sound better. Growing up in the 60s-70s I can say Turntables have a built in eq to record/track the lows help smooth too much high freq content noise that the recording process can't reproduce well/correctly. This is the RIAA curve eq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Play the same song on 5 different turntables and you'll hear 5 different reproductions. Although RIAA was a standard the true amount of eq varied from turntable to turntable. Brand to brand. A little more bass or a less highs and a turntable would be considered thick or fat sounding. Less bass or more highs and its was bright or revealing or sterile. With a little bit of eq like whats in a turntable you can make a cd sound just fine. Plug a turntable in to a stereo and although your eq on the stereo may be flat your still listening to an eq'd sound...........

Dookietwo

small point - I don't recall the turntables we listened to in the 60s and 70s to have the RIAA eq built in to them - I think it was part of whatever preamp section/receiver they were plugged into. The curve was added to the vinyl at some point in recording/pressing and subtracted by the RIAA preamp circuit at playback. I would offer that the sonic differences were due to tone arm/cartridge/tracking, etc.

[agedhorse]

Correct, I think dookie was referring to this but was unclear in his response.

Originally Posted by Two of Seven

small point - I don't recall the turntables we listened to in the 60s and 70s to have the RIAA eq built in to them - I think it was part of whatever preamp section/receiver they were plugged into. The curve was added to the vinyl at some point in recording/pressing and subtracted by the RIAA preamp circuit at playback. I would offer that the sonic differences were due to tone arm/cartridge/tracking, etc.

[W. M. Hellinger]

Originally Posted by Two of Seven

small point - I don't recall the turntables we listened to in the 60s and 70s to have the RIAA eq built in to them - I think it was part of whatever preamp section/receiver they were plugged into. The curve was added to the vinyl at some point in recording/pressing and subtracted by the RIAA preamp circuit at playback. I would offer that the sonic differences were due to tone arm/cartridge/tracking, etc.

I guess I could look it up, but I wonder if RIAA existed with early vinyl... 78's for example... and if the RIAA thing came along with the advent of LP (long play) records? Obviously the pure mechanical record players didn't have any RIAA.

I'm probably dating myself here... but I recall attempting to sharpen the needle of my first record player... I can't remember why I thought that might be a good idea at the time. I don't recall listening to all that many records with my record player... mostly I used it to sling plastic army men around my bedroom... and draw cool round & round designs on the platter with crayons.

Hey... I looked around on eBay... I think this one's the same model I had when I was a kid:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-ANTI...item3f1ed6aafe

I might be dating myself.

[Two of Seven]

don't worry about sharpening the needle - just replace it with any #18 finish nail.

a while ago my kids had to do this wax museum diorama thingy at school and we ended up borrowing an old wind up portable record player

(http://img.readtiger.com/wkp/en/Port...ord_player.jpg)

from a very nice lady at a local small museum. Just had to try it out and it actually sounded pretty good! Surprisingly loud and very charming - engaging. Felt like I was in The Great Gatsby for a sec.

[Two of Seven]

delete duplicate post - forum screwing up!

[Two of Seven]

delete triplicate post - forum really screwing up

[TimmyP]

Wrong on the RIAA curve. When the record master is cut, an EQ curve is applied. When it's played back, an inverse of the cutting curve is applied to make the response off of the record the same as what came off of the master tape.

When the master is cut, the highs are boosted. When the highs are reduced at playback, the vinyl noise is reduced a like amount.

Low frequencies cause large modulations of the cutting stylus. This necessitates increasing the spacing of the "grooves" (there's just one), which reduces playback time. So, when the master is cut, the low frequencies are reduced to alleviate the above-mentioned problem(s). During playback the lows are boosted to bring the response back to flat. The problem is that any LF turntable noise is boosted as well.