Software Audio Console (SAC)

[agedhorse]

Supporting a computer installation is no problem until you have a real problem. Then it's not all that easy.

[scarecrowbob]

"Why would it be odd for them to offer a turn-key system? Anybody can go buy a digital console which is just another piece of hardware and computer combined."

 

It is odd in the same sense that one of the businesses I have worked for offers training in marketing via social media: if you can't figure out how to put up a facebook page, how the heck are you going to balance all the subtle nuances that go into generating real leads?

 

If you have a decade of troubleshooting DAWs and know how and where to get help on the net for things like SAC, then I'd suggest that you are already a bit further along the curve than most sound system operators who would find SAC interesting.

[twostone]

Supporting a computer installation is no problem until you have a real problem. Then it's not all that easy.

 

Yea maybe so, but what's the difference if your using a Yamaha Digital console and it goes on the fritz your gonna still have problems trouble shooting.

Besides our nation is partially ran by computers from transportation dept with airway and waterway navigation to dept of defense defending us from cyber terrorist to Wall street and bank transaction and etc... really IMO not any thing ground breaking.

 

What would be ground breaking is super boosting the signal strength on the wifi instead of focusing on faster connection speed with their 4g technology now. What good is 4g when it dropouts every time a bird land on the wifi tower?

 

Anyway I understand this aint for your rookie beginner because it require a pretty steep learning curve and lot of knowldge about computers and is over kill for a wekend warriors doing small clubs.

[The Chinese]

Supporting a computer installation is no problem until you have a real problem. Then it's not all that easy.

 

The redundancy requirement destroys the financial gains.

 

then again, get a mac

 

hehe

[Coaster]

i dont see any version of SAC for mac

[fdew]

The redundancy requirement destroys the financial gains. then again, get a mac hehe

 

Redundancy isn't required. In my case I am using SAC for a critical application, so just as I have spare microphones plugged in and ready to use, I have a spare computer loaded and ready to go. Our purpose built new SAC computer cost less then $500 and our backup is our retired Video computer with it's hard drive partitioned so it can be booted as a sound computer or as a Video computer. (two operating systems, two sets of drivers ETC.) The cost to us was zero, the replacement cost for that computer is probably about $300 I have never used it except to test it, it is just a backup. The remainder of the SAC system is all modular and there are two or more of everything in our 40 ch system, so if I lose something I am out a max of 8 ch.

 

I have 40 channels in and out and all are configurable. For instance, there is no jack labeled "main out", so I can move things around in software if there is a failure in one of the pieces of hardware.

 

SAC is not available for a Mac,

 

Frank

[scarecrowbob]

Once again, I think that the concept is cool, but:

 

"I have 40 channels in and out and all are configurable. For instance, there is no jack labeled "main out", so I can move things around in software if there is a failure in one of the pieces of hardware."

 

To me, this is a problem, not a feature and it is something that I don't especially enjoy about digital consoles, either;

 

and, "The cost to us was zero, the replacement cost for that computer is probably about $300 I have never used it except to test it, it is just a backup."

 

This isn't true-- although you may not be able to cost out your time and skillset on this, what would the cost be for someone to whom a dual-boot partition is not an every day thing?

 

I am sure that I could set one up but even I would have to spend a non-trivial amount of time setting the thing up-- if I billed a client for that labor, it would not be a trivial line-item and would far outstrip the cost of the machine and its software.

 

There are a lot of ways to do what you do with SAC regardless of operating system. IIRC, there is a steinberg solution and a number of other native apps that will function in a manner similar to SAC-- I ahve done a lot of recordings where the monitor mix for musicians has been the DAW rather than a desk.

 

But to return to the idea that SAC is a good enough move for folks that they would build a system for a client, it is short sighted not to include the IT skills that are necessary to reliably operate and maintain the system.

[fdew]

 

Once again, I think that the concept is cool, but: "I have 40 channels in and out and all are configurable. For instance, there is no jack labeled "main out", so I can move things around in software if there is a failure in one of the pieces of hardware." To me, this is a problem, not a feature and it is something that I don't especially enjoy about digital consoles, either; and, "The cost to us was zero, the replacement cost for that computer is probably about $300 I have never used it except to test it, it is just a backup." This isn't true-- although you may not be able to cost out your time and skillset on this, what would the cost be for someone to whom a dual-boot partition is not an every day thing?

 

 

This is true of MY cost. I chose to give my time to this project.

 

 

I am sure that I could set one up but even I would have to spend a non-trivial amount of time setting the thing up-- if I billed a client for that labor, it would not be a trivial line-item and would far outstrip the cost of the machine and its software.

 

 

I bought set up and and use SAC myself (I am a employee of my "client". I didn't do it for resale. I do not and would not recommend selling SAC systems. The flexibility I like so much would make a SAC system hard to maintain remotely.

 

 

There are a lot of ways to do what you do with SAC regardless of operating system. IIRC, there is a steinberg solution and a number of other native apps that will function in a manner similar to SAC-- I ahve done a lot of recordings where the monitor mix for musicians has been the DAW rather than a desk.

 

 

Are any of these systems suitable as a live mixer? I am really interested, I know Steinberg Cubase but I don't know of live mixer software other then SAC.

 

 

But to return to the idea that SAC is a good enough move for folks that they would build a system for a client, it is short sighted not to include the IT skills that are necessary to reliably operate and maintain the system.

 

 

Again, I agree, SAC should not be sold into an environment where a skilled person is not on site to maintain it.

[Zeromus-X]

Ah. We're almost where I want to be.

 

Give me a system that runs off a rack-mounted server plugged into a 22" multitouch touchscreen (which should fit directly into a slant-top standard rack), with a built-in wireless connection to a pair of iPads. The server computer itself wouldn't be that expensive (maybe $600 including OS for a six-core system which should handle anything you throw at it), a 22" touchscreen (about $300), and the iPads (about $500 each new). You've now got a $1900 system capable of essentially an unlimited number of channels, onboard effects, customizability, and the ability to walk around the stage doing monitor checks and such via the iPads to hear exactly what the performer will hear. As a bonus, slap a CDRW into the server rack and at the end of the night, burn the recording of the show onto the CD for the band.

 

Combine that with active mains and subs and you've got a killer system that's easily portable and can blow away anything else on the market.

[scarecrowbob]

"Are any of these systems suitable as a live mixer? I am really interested, I know Steinberg Cubase but I don't know of live mixer software other then SAC."

 

I worked with a that was running ~10 IEM mixes off some MOTU + mac rig, though I don't think they had any processing on the channels. I do know they had a split and a bunch of ADAT converters (like your setup) and they seemed pretty happy and like it had been working well for a while.

 

But the more obvious answer is Avid Venue...

[scarecrowbob]

"You've now got a $1900 system capable of essentially an unlimited number of channels, onboard effects, customizability, and the ability to walk around the stage doing monitor checks and such via the iPads to hear exactly what the performer will hear."

 

Well, for not a lot more you can get an o1v96 + ADAT and an HD24. Add an iPad you've got pretty much what you're describing there. It is just a cost issue, but you're still talking within 200% of the same price, but with support and a better UI.

 

I mean, I guess I can see the appeal of unlimited track counts.... but that is really my larger point:

 

why?

 

In most places you'd be okay if they could only hear the vocals, and that could be fixed by un-f-ing the GEQ in most places.

[Tom Hicks]

 

Ah. We're almost where I want to be. Give me a system that runs off a rack-mounted server plugged into a 22" multitouch touchscreen (which should fit directly into a slant-top standard rack), with a built-in wireless connection to a pair of iPads. The server computer itself wouldn't be that expensive (maybe $600 including OS for a six-core system which should handle anything you throw at it), a 22" touchscreen (about $300), and the iPads (about $500 each new). You've now got a $1900 system capable of essentially an unlimited number of channels, onboard effects, customizability, and the ability to walk around the stage doing monitor checks and such via the iPads to hear exactly what the performer will hear. As a bonus, slap a CDRW into the server rack and at the end of the night, burn the recording of the show onto the CD for the band. Combine that with active mains and subs and you've got a killer system that's easily portable and can blow away anything else on the market.

 

 

I think its moving that way. Here's Tesla with a small footprint SAC setup, with a touchscreen and a fader pack at FOH.

[video=youtube;is0LtBsUU0o]

[agedhorse]

Tommy, your comments show how little you understand about the underlying problems some of us have to deal with.

 

First of all, stand alone digital consoles use an operating system that bears little (practical) resemblence to Windows. In fact, there are "windows" platforms that are specifically geared towards critical use applications, they are severely stripped down from even their simplest "consumer" brethren, are extremely stable, have extremely limited access to any outside world, the OS can not be changed externally, has different checks and balances, etc.

 

Secondly, the software for these devices is specific to the operating system, tightly integrated, with few external options that would allow changes, viruses, gitches, etc to alter the core operating parameters of the device. It's all closed vendor integrated.

 

Thirdly, troubleshooting a Yamaha digital console is so completely different than troubleshooting an open access (as in multiple vendors, non-integrated standards) computer that it's an absurd comparison.

 

Forthly, The high security, high reliability applications that you mention are again not your off the shelf hardware, integrated with other random off the shelf hardware, slapped together with off the shelf software, off the shelf drivers, installed with off the shelf networks, etc. Again, they are very rigerous hardware and software applications, designed for specific applications, built to industrial standards, without most of the "frills" that cause the problems in consumer oriented machines. In fact, there are entire classes of hardware, software and OS's that are built for these applications, they are considered "process control" computers, PLC's, etc.

 

Fifthly, the software and hardware for critical applications like traffic control (as an example) can monitor these things with dual procsses, and look at both outputs with a seperate "conflict monitor processor" to determine if there is an error or failure in one of the two processing paths. In the case of a traffic light controller, if the conflict monitor flags a difference in outputs, it may put the system into failsafe mode by flashing all lights red and notifying the system monitor that there is a fault and to dispatch emergency service. Same sort of thing applies to avionics controls. One of the divisions of the parent company I worked for manufactured avionics products, and at dinner one night we talked all about the general philosophy of fly by wire and general avionics controls, and how failures are mitigated based on a very complex decision tree aimed at identifying if there was a failure of the actuator(s), the feedback device(s) or the controls. Of course everything was redundant, but the logic for deciding what was really wrong, and then the safest action to remediate it was very complex. Nothing is left to chance. It's all handled by (real) engineers certified by the FAA and other organizations, that have extensive experience in the field.

 

So compare the above examples that have a pretty high reliability, safety record and uptime compared to the average PC and you will see that these are two totally different worlds, the ONLY thing they have in common is the word "computer". Yes, the high reliabilty world really is ground breaking,

 

Yea maybe so, but what's the difference if your using a Yamaha Digital console and it goes on the fritz your gonna still have problems trouble shooting. Besides our nation is partially ran by computers from transportation dept with airway and waterway navigation to dept of defense defending us from cyber terrorist to Wall street and bank transaction and etc... really IMO not any thing ground breaking. What would be ground breaking is super boosting the signal strength on the wifi instead of focusing on faster connection speed with their 4g technology now. What good is 4g when it dropouts every time a bird land on the wifi tower? Anyway I understand this aint for your rookie beginner because it require a pretty steep learning curve and lot of knowldge about computers and is over kill for a wekend warriors doing small clubs.

[agedhorse]

 

Again, I agree, SAC should not be sold into an environment where a skilled person is not on site to maintain it.

 

 

This is the system's soft white underbelly. It is probably the biggest challenge by far... and changing every day too.

[Tom Hicks]

Thanks for all the comments, folks. From my perspective, the objections to digital live sound seem similar to the days of the digital/analog recording wars. Use whatever works best for you though. After mixing on the system since about x-mas, i much prefer it to the old analog console and effects rack combo.

[agedhorse]

Actually, the issues are completely different Tom. The old digital vs. analog argument centered on warm analog sound, tape saturation, etc. vs. a grainy perception, cold, sterile, etc. The mixer argument centers on reliability and ease of use on a jon in the real world versus getting a lot of features and low cost. Sound quality hasn't even been discussed.

[twostone]

Thanks for all the comments, folks. From my perspective, the objections to digital live sound seem similar to the days of the digital/analog recording wars. Use whatever works best for you though. After mixing on the system since about x-mas, i much prefer it to the old analog console and effects rack combo.

 

Maybe someday a all in one touch screen pad with a just a wireless stage breakout box

[Tom Hicks]

Actually, the issues are completely different Tom. The old digital vs. analog argument centered on warm analog sound, tape saturation, etc. vs. a grainy perception, cold, sterile, etc. The mixer argument centers on reliability and ease of use on a jon in the real world versus getting a lot of features and low cost. Sound quality hasn't even been discussed.

 

We'll agree to disagree then, as I'm not interested in an argument. If you have had a bad experience with SAC, I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. I've been using a SAC system since last Dec. and I prefer it to the analog console. Owners and crowds seem to notice, and approve. But maybe that's just my mad mix skillz.

[Tom Hicks]

Maybe someday a all in one touch screen pad with a just a wireless stage breakout box

 

sooner or later, the wires gotta go!

[RoadRanger]

Maybe someday a all in one touch screen pad with a just a wireless stage breakout box

You can do that with an iLive system I'm told. All the "guts" are in the stagebox - the console is mostly just a remote control and not needed if you put a PC on-stage to wirelessly connect your tablet PC to.

[agedhorse]

We'll agree to disagree then, as I'm not interested in an argument. If you have had a bad experience with SAC, I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. I've been using a SAC system since last Dec. and I prefer it to the analog console. Owners and crowds seem to notice, and approve. But maybe that's just my mad mix skillz.

 

Tom, you have missed just about every point I have brought up, it has nothing to do with analog versus digital. Nothing, zip, zero, nada. Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with analog versus digital either. I develop products with an underlying digital platform, I am not anti-digital. I am anti-stupid general purpose live audio user interface, and anti-open to the outside world hardware/software platform, which is, IMO, what SAC is now (IN IT'S CURRENT IMPLIMENTATION). If the user interface becomes more useable in the GENERAL PURPOSE LIVE AUDIO world, and the hardware dedicated and specific to the unit (in that every SAC works exactly the same with full compatability from system to system), then my opinion might change.

 

Got a feeling you are just another SAC troll that has some kind of interest in this platform other than just a user. Maybe jaust a fanatic user, whatever, but you are completely missing the points that everybody here has been making in the quest for the SAC agenda.

[RoadRanger]

SAC originally had it's own OS which I thought was a much better idea than using windows. Only "problem" was the limited support of different hardware.

[twostone]

 

You can do that with an iLive system I'm told. All the "guts" are in the stagebox - the console is mostly just a remote control and not needed if you put a PC on-stage to wirelessly connect your tablet PC to.

 

 

Okay I stand corrected again

[Tom Hicks]

 

Tom, you have missed just about every point I have brought up, it has nothing to do with analog versus digital. Nothing, zip, zero, nada. Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with analog versus digital either. I develop products with an underlying digital platform, I am not anti-digital. I am anti-stupid general purpose live audio user interface, and anti-open to the outside world hardware/software platform, which is, IMO, what SAC is now (IN IT'S CURRENT IMPLIMENTATION). If the user interface becomes more useable in the GENERAL PURPOSE LIVE AUDIO world, and the hardware dedicated and specific to the unit (in that every SAC works exactly the same with full compatability from system to system), then my opinion might change. Got a feeling you are just another SAC troll that has some kind of interest in this platform other than just a user. Maybe jaust a fanatic user, whatever, but you are completely missing the points that everybody here has been making in the quest for the SAC agenda.

 

 

Have you ever mixed a gig on a SAC system, agedhorse? I was hoping to get some reactions from other users. What was it like in your case?

[agedhorse]

Somebody brought their system in to mix for a recording. In spite of all their effort, and they spent a considerable amount of time trying to get everything to work together, their laptop kept hanging up or re-booting, and they had trouble with a small control surface (Behringer?) and Behringer mic pre's that they were trying to use. I do not know the experience of these folks, how long they had been using the system, if they had made any changes before that gig, or anything else. All I provided was about 16 channels of split to them. I try not to get involved with other people's problems since I have a show to run and the audience doesn't really care what the problem is or whose problem it is. We run the show, it's up to them to make their end work. They got some audio, but I do not think any of it ended up being useable. I know they spent a lot of time on the website looking at documentation and a manual and were talking to their computer geek trying to resolve their issues.

 

I can't take the risk of mixing a show that I do on a new piece of hardware that's not an industry standard. IF there is a failure, it's a lot more forgiving for it to be an industry standard piece of gear that has a documented track record, like Yamaha PM series consoles, or the M7 or even the LS9, or the Venue, or anything that is instantly acceptable as from documented professional pedigree. Cost is not an issue, features are not an issue. Getting the show put together and mixed the best way possible 100% of the time without glitches and excuses is what I get paid to do.