I hate the presonus sl16.4.2

[Craig Vecchione]

 

I don't get this? Analog or digital has nothing to do with using your ears. A mixer and rack full of gear is the same set of tools as a digital board with all that stuff baked in. Don't blame the hardware. It doesn't have ears.

 

Frankly, digital is far more ear friendly. With everything on the horizontal plane and the same level, your ears are in the same location as they are when moving a slider. You can now adjust things that you'd otherwise have to squat down and possibly move left or right, to change. Now you can no longer hear the high end, nor glance up to see the band.

 

I think the point was that they were able to concentrate on listening because they weren't concentrating on finding controls to make whatever adjustments they already had to make. An analog console can be operated as if it was braille...you know where your hand is by looking once, and can move about with only a quick glance to verify position. Not so when there's zero feedback to your fingers on a flat surface interface.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

I don't know, Craig. Mixing a live band takes a little more knowledge, talent, and education than talking on a phone. If it was easy, everybody could do it.

 

I understand your point - I just don't agree with your analogy.

 

I don't think you understood my point, because your reply doesn't mention the issue I was referring to, specifically the lousy interfaces on digital boards.

 

The analogy was about the fact that phones used to only be phones. Mixers used to only be mixers. Now phones are a bunch of other devices as well as phones, and digital mixers are now a bunch of other devices as well as phones. But digital mixers are still way behind the curve in terms of their interfaces. Phones aren't simple devices...they're far from it. But their interfaces are quite mature, and they're fast and easy to use. Mixers....not so much.

 

And you kinda make my point. While making a phone call is easier than mixing a band, people who are competent at making phone calls can figure out a smartphone in minutes, without instruction. People who know how to mix a band are not necessarily going to be up and running in minutes on a digital mixer.

[Vito Corleone]

 

People who know how to mix a band are not necessarily going to be up and running in minutes on a digital mixer.

 

And so maybe the paradigm has changed. Maybe the ability to get up and running in a few minutes on a strange mixer isn't going to be necessary for sound engineers in the future. Maybe if you're hired to do a gig you'll bring your own digital mixer and your own tablet that you already know how to operate.

 

Maybe venues will no longer have "house boards". They just have speaker systems in place and you come in and plug your mixer into it and you're good to go. Maybe sound rental companies will provide whatever brand mixer you require.

 

The marketplace tends to find that balance between the needs of the customer and the available hardware. I would imagine it will adjust relatively quickly.

[onelife]

 

I don't get this? Analog or digital has nothing to do with using your ears. A mixer and rack full of gear is the same set of tools as a digital board with all that stuff baked in. Don't blame the hardware. It doesn't have ears.

 

I agree, however, the point I was making was about the confusion we experienced with the new board not about the advantages or disadvantages of digital in general. Because the guy mixing ended up using a board he was familiar with he was able to focus on the talent rather than hunting for the control he needed for a specific adjustment.

 

Having read the manual for the StudioLive I now feel much more comfortable with the idea of going back to that venue and using the house mixer - in fact, I look forward to it.

 

[sibyrnes]

And so maybe the paradigm has changed. Maybe the ability to get up and running in a few minutes on a strange mixer isn't going to be necessary for sound engineers in the future. Maybe if you're hired to do a gig you'll bring your own digital mixer and your own tablet that you already know how to operate.

I'm afraid you are wrong. If you can't "get up and running on a strange mixer" you are going to be out of work. There are too many others who can, and if you can't you are going to be left behind.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm predicting a future here. One where the "house board" no longer exists. Where the band and/or hired sound guy brings their own much-more portable mixer that they are familiar with and plugs into the rest of the system.

[sibyrnes]

I'm predicting a future here. One where the "house board" no longer exists. Where the band and/or hired sound guy brings their own much-more portable mixer that they are familiar with and plugs into the rest of the system.

 

OK, but you know how successful most predictions of the future are! I think we would all be better off dealing with the reality we have. And that reality is no matter how interesting our philosophy about technology and marketing may be (to some) time marches on!

[Craig Vecchione]

 

And so maybe the paradigm has changed. Maybe the ability to get up and running in a few minutes on a strange mixer isn't going to be necessary for sound engineers in the future. Maybe if you're hired to do a gig you'll bring your own digital mixer and your own tablet that you already know how to operate.

 

 

Or maybe someone actually comes up with a usable interface design that's intuitive. Technology is supposed to work for us

[Axisplayer]

 

Or maybe someone actually comes up with a usable interface design that's intuitive. Technology is supposed to work for us

 

EDIT: Craig this is not directed at you, your comment just prompted me to write this….

 

Craig, that is a difficult task, though not impossible. Look at how long it took computers (Macs and Windows) to arrive at similar interfaces. (Everyone save their arguments here…heard it, but they have been converging.) Digital consoles will indeed converge and evolve. Fat channel vs environment view has yet to be decided although to my disdain, fat channel seems to be thriving. Frankly I don't like that view of things at all, and much prefer looking at my 01v96 than a SL with its fat channel. This is a different topic for another thread though.

 

​A Mac can run Windows software, Windows machines read Mac data. It is a requirement in complex computing environments, and in the end that is what digital audio is…a complex computing environment, not an audio environment. These folks will arrive at a point where they know that a Yamaha console should be able to take in data from a StudioLive and make sense of it. It is about standards, formats, and data archival. The boards may have different features, but they should have a common core set at minimum that allows the engineer to move the computing "requirements" from one platform to another without the current pitfalls.

 

Often it is the complexity of digital that people complain about. I don't get that though. Yes, they are more complicated than analog consoles. They have to be. You are not just running a board with X number of channels. You are running an environment with X faders, X gates, X compressors, X limiters, X graphics/parametrics/or both, and more. Obviously the console is harder to grasp, because it has summed up the difficulty of multiple racks of different equipment into one unit.

 

I don't think it is any more difficult to walk up to a strange digital console and take control than to walk up to a analog board, with more racks of processing, all from multiple manufactures, with varying input/output levels, controls, nuances, and quirks. In fact it is somewhat easier since everything is now at least from one manufacturer, with a common interface, ability to work somewhat seamlessly, internal routing, and with matched levels (generally.)

 

Certainly the interface is going to be more challenging. The processing and routing is far more flexible. The quantity of gear available at your fingers is vast.

 

At some point, audio folks will realize the same thing that computer manufacturers did some time ago. There needs to be human interface specialist (I am sure they have them, but they are not as adept yet because the task is much more in infancy) involved in the development of these products. As the technology reaches maturity, standards will evolve.

 

[Vito Corleone]

OK' date=' but you know how successful most predictions of the future are! I think we would all be better off dealing with the reality we have. And that reality is no matter how interesting our philosophy about technology and marketing may be (to some) time marches on![/quote'] Yeah, I'm just thinking that something will have to give. Digital mixers aren't going anywhere and there flexibility will make them in high demand. They also will become more personalized to each band and to each engineer who runs one. The stationary desk in a venue may not have a lot of value in the future. It will be like that grand piano in the corner. Great if you all you need to do is play piano, and it's all miked and ready to go. But not of much use to the synth player with his own set of sounds and patches.

 

and I don't really see the manufacturers standardizing their mixers. So the other option is that every sound guy has to learn to become a master of a couple dozen different brands and models of digital mixers? Possible, of course. Just not sure that's the easiest or most logical outcome.

[Vito Corleone]

Or maybe someone actually comes up with a usable interface design that's intuitive. Technology is supposed to work for us

Even if someone does, that will just be one mixer of the dozens out there. I suppose that over time, a really great interface could become standardized. But, for the most part, this industry doesn't have a great history of doing that.

 

Something will have to give eventually. We're still in the early phases of the technology. But already I'm seeing this change at the level of my band. We have our own perfectly functional analog FOH system that still gets used from time to time. But most of our hired engineers would rather bring their own digital mixers. It's easier for them. They know the system. They have saved scenes for every band they work with. I can very easily see this becoming SOP for sound techs.

[Dogoth]

And forget about any tactile feedback. That's a given, but should it be?

 

That's my rant, and I'm sticking to it.;-)

 

Great rant! Even with faders, the aforementioned Roland board does give you tactile feedback. Just the wrong kind. I thought all motorized faders were built by just a few companies so maybe it's the software but this board has a strange issue. Here it is:

 

Let's say you have a guitarist placed at -10 in the mix and push it to -3 for solos. If you just nudge the fader SOMETIMES it nudges back for the first db or so (you can feel the motor trying to put it back where it was). It's really freeky. This is the only motorized fader board I've ever experienced this on and the first few times it's disconcerting. Talk about "fighting the mix" :-).

 

[Dogoth]

 

The guy doing the mixes was looking into the eyes of the talent rather than the interface on the digital board.

 

 

This sums it up pretty good. I'd agree that with digital boards a larger percentage of the show time is spent looking at the interface than at the stage as compared to their analog predecessors. This DOES vary with the interface and the operators familiarity with the board. Better mixers require less attention but it's still an issue. This is not to say you don't need to look for which analog knob you're going to turn but finding it is MUCH faster.

 

"Where's that feedback coming from?" You didn't see the artist swing the mic into the monitor because you're head was plugged up (Oops can't say that here :-) your eyes were busy finding the gain reduction on that gate 3 layers back from the strip view screen :-).

 

Hey, I'm a fan of digital mixers in general. The advantages usually offset disadvantages but they have a long way to go before they can rival analog consoles when it comes to "the flow of the show". FWIW I've come across a few oddball analog boards that had you hunting for the right knob but that's an extremely rare occurrence rather than the norm with digital.

 

[dbMontana]

As usual, I defer to all those more experienced than I -- namely all of you.

 

That said, the first time I even touched a mixer was around March 2011 -- yup that's right, I'm approaching 3 1/2 years of experience total! The first 3-4 times I ran sound was on a Behringer 20-channel analog something. Since then it's been Presonus 16.0.2 and 16.4.2 and now my X32 Compact with various hands on exposure to M7, LS9, QU-16, and Venue 48. I believe I posted here about a day last summer when I got drafted last minute to mix a band at an outdoor festival using their GB8. Man, I'm glad that walking back and forth and bending over squinting at rows and columns of little knobs is intuitive to most contributors here but certainly not I. I did take the time to walk around front to try to discern which channels were patched to which of the dozen or so little boxes (each of which had a different "control interface") stacked in the two outboard racks. Didn't help one bit.

 

Guess it's just what you're used to. My 20-year old son has never seen a rotary-dial phone and just for giggles once we dug out our old turntable so he could experience what it was like to lift and reposition the needle to learn a guitar riff.

 

Yes, the UI on digital mixers is still (rapidly) evolving -- matter of fact IMHO that's where the market share of the future will be decided for MI-level gear. And yes, I'm sure I could walk up to a Expression Vi* (which I've never seen or touched) and I'd be roughly as confused as on the GB8. Maybe Axis' points about the evolution of the personal computer are most telling of the things I'm old school about. My MacBook is amazing but hides some things from me and my Windoze boxes won't let me (even as administrator) modify certain settings but the mass of Linus boxes I work on are ruthlessly efficient at letting me do whatever (occasionally stupid) thing I want. User friendly? Not really. Comfortable for me? Indeed. It took me quite a while to come to an understanding with my iThings.

[OneEng]

Dave,

 

This is what I and Abzurd have both been saying as well.

 

For the afore mentioned use case of modifying the gain reduction on a gate, from my own experience, it is much easier on my X32 Rack through the iPad interface than it is on my old MixWiz rig with an ACP88. First off, I would have to remember which channel of the mixer was lined up to which channel of the gate. Next, I would have to squat down and find the right knob on the right channel. Finally, I have only an "open" and "closed" LED to indicate what the gate is doing. I can't trigger the gate on a filter of any kind. On my X32Rack, not only can I see the curve, on the console, I can actually see a little blue dot moving up and down the curve to show me exactly what is going on with the input with respect to the reduction curve I have setup.

 

I positively hated setting up the gates and compressors on my old rig. I don't miss that nightmare situation at all.

 

It may well come down to different strokes for different folks.

 

I will not be giving up my digital mixer any time soon.

[OneEng]

Axisplayer,

 

Nice post. I agree.

[dbMontana]

Axisplayer' date=' Nice post. I agree.[/quote'] Yup.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Yeah, I'm just thinking that something will have to give. Digital mixers aren't going anywhere and there flexibility will make them in high demand. They also will become more personalized to each band and to each engineer who runs one. The stationary desk in a venue may not have a lot of value in the future. It will be like that grand piano in the corner. Great if you all you need to do is play piano, and it's all miked and ready to go. But not of much use to the synth player with his own set of sounds and patches.

 

and I don't really see the manufacturers standardizing their mixers. So the other option is that every sound guy has to learn to become a master of a couple dozen different brands and models of digital mixers? Possible, of course. Just not sure that's the easiest or most logical outcome.

 

 

The irony is that they've already standardized these mixers by interfacing with one or more tablets via wireless.

 

The topic of standardization is interesting, as standards are the double-edged sword of technology...standardize, and you're able to spread your tech to others readily. But standardize, and lose innovation, as the standard becomes a technological snapshot.

 

I agree completely that there won't be a standard interface. But when (not if) someone comes up with a better interface, we'll see copies and improvements. And the underlying technology for networking to tablets, computers, etc. will evolve to what works best.

[dbMontana]

Dave,

 

This is what I and Abzurd have both been saying as well.

--snip--

Apologies. I was indeed painting with too broad a brush. Though certainly several (many?) of my other comrades here have repeatedly lauded the relative simplicity of an analog console.

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

The irony is that they've already standardized these mixers by interfacing with one or more tablets via wireless.

 

.

 

I don't see how that standardizes them if all the interfaces work differently depending upon the make/model and have different learning curves.

[dbMontana]

 

I don't see how that standardizes them if all the interfaces work differently depending upon the make/model and have different learning curves.

Another possibility previously mentioned is that instead of a standard digital-mixer UI evolving a standard basic-functionality API (application programming interface) evolves so that various flavors of UI/workflow/etc can access different mixers.

 

"Yea, the XYZ app/UI suits my workflow/style best. Sure is nice that the AH/Presonus/X32/Venue/... console installed at FOH for tonight's gig supports that. Remember the days when you had to remember how to work on ten different interfaces?"

[Axisplayer]

Maybe even translators! You find a single UI that you like which fits your work flow (maybe for your iPad if that floats your boat) and you buy it. Then you should be able to find translators that make that UI link to the inner coding of the various consoles (personalities if you will) you might encounter. One UI, with support available for various different consoles.

 

Strongsoft (http://strongsoft.co.uk/ummu_box.html) has taken a similar approach. They make a wireless box and UI for iOS devices. You download various interface codes (several Yamaha from 01v96 on up, and a Roland M-400) that tie the UI on the iPad to the box they make which plugs directly into the console. You buy the UI you like, and just connect it to the various consoles it can support.

 

I could see a viable market for this if it supported a fair number of different consoles, and offered several versions of UI (like maybe FAT channel or environment/layer view.)

[B. Adams]

I think it's a little funny that so many people are complaining about the lack of standardization with digital consoles all of a sudden. No one seemed to complain too much back in the analog days when things were either absent or in a different place. Sometime the aux section was above the EQ, mutes/on switches for channels and auxes or EQ, swept mids or swept everything or nothing variable at all, variable Q or not, no pad or polarity reverse, matrices, individual phantom etc. Every console was different. Not to mention the variety of outboard you'd run into, and differences between comps, gates, FX, and even EQ's between manufacturers or sometimes different product lines from the same manufacturer. Or the outboard racks to your left or right, behind you, or under the desk. Now all of a sudden, because it's digital and not a physical knob, people want it to have the layout standardized.

 

I guess I'm old school, even though I'm not that old. You have a piece of equipment, and you learn how to use it. If you have the status/money, you use only what you like, and if you can't you just deal with what you're given. There's no reason a manufacturer should have to make their interface exactly like another, and I can see distinct reasons for avoiding that sort of thing. What might be a selling point for one market segment might not be for another. You're not going to sell a Studiolive to U2, and you're not going to sell an XL8 to the garage band down the street. There's no reason they should look the same, and they're definitely not going to function the same.

 

I use dozens of different consoles in any given year, and figuring out how to do what I need to do with them is just another part of my job. And it's definitely not the hardest or most time consuming part of my job. If you know what you need to do to get the sound you want, finding the tool to do it doesn't take too long.

 

For the record, I hate the Studiolive too, but not necessarily because of the user interface or FAT channel or anything. They're simple to use though, I can't imagine anyone having a hard time getting around on it. The lack of moving faders is a dealbreaker for me, and I guess that's sort of lumped into the user interface category, but what I really hate about them is the sound. They're the worst of any digital mixer I've worked with.

[Unalaska]

On an analog console once you find something it stays there

[Craig Vecchione]

 

 

I don't see how that standardizes them if all the interfaces work differently depending upon the make/model and have different learning curves.

 

No, no...I'm just referring to the smaller standardization of the wireless connection...the communication protocol to talk to an Android device is standardized, as is the protocol to talk to an iPad/Pod Touch/Phone.