Digital Audio Console..

[martiaudio]

Is the idea to actually sell the housings and the components, or to sell complete systems?

 

I don't know yet. And I am currently reading all post BTW thanks everyone.. it is very interesting indeed to take on board all comments even bad one.haha

 

I don't really know where I want to go from here for various reasons:

 

- The system works well.. Perhaps in needs of BETA test and practical use to feel the machine!!

- Perhaps I should have presented it from day one as a duet 2 x 8 faders vca type calling it "module control8" standalone or daisy-chained.

- And no I refuse to even consider manufacturing smarter/newly designed units because it is only a controller.. if it can be done successfully and robust like that I can't see the point in trying to produce something similar that will cost a fortune in a very difficult financial time, in a niche market

 

- The word 'Prototype" perhaps was wrong" I agree.. but the whole sample is new though. I like SAC, I am a customer and active member of their technical forum. I am happy to promote Bob Lentini's products for free, but although Software Audio Console is great.. It requires serious development to result in a full solution for a sound company, theatre/venue install.. that is what I tried to put across for those used to yamaha, Digico, Avid and Midas products or ready to step up from analog console for the first time.

 

- it is always difficult to come along with Behringer products even if I try to hide it. I don't like it myself but doing audio electronic I did get to understand that like any over manufacturer, some products stands out in quality, robustness and topology design with some integration and modifications. the BCF2000 controller and The ADA8000 are my only Behringer products proving that with success for the purpose of my console making.

 

All I can say at present is that I can propose my freelance A1 service possibly with a Digital console of 32/32i/os, wireless remote, mutitracks recording.. perhaps nothing more than that.

Yet I still believe that there is a demand for a solution like that at least in churches, theaters and venues.. because it is affordable and high grade.

 

 

The idea was to recommend SAC audio and present a list a item to buy along with the software..My job is to provide the finished set of products and solutions in a time line that includes module control(s) presented or tailored.

 

I need to perfect my own system to demo with.

 

 

 

 

Let's be honest here. SAC will never be in the same league as a hard realtime DSP system. I've got a similar setup to your system to operate iLive editor, but I wouldn't ever trust that to be a part of the signal chain.

 

I have to disagree on that..sorry.. well integrated it is a superb system.

[dbuckley]

Let's be honest here. SAC will never be in the same league as a hard realtime DSP system.

 

Yeah, history tells us that statements like that are just plain wrong. They might be true today, but "never" underestimates the power of tall foreheads to make the impossible possible.

 

Also worth noting that SAC is not unique; Charlie Richmond has had his software audio server thing out for a goodly while now. I've not tried it for it must be years now, but it does what it says on the can.

[martiaudio]

Just out of interest Martiaudio - which of the "professional" digital sound desks that you are competing with have you used? And by used, I mean actually used on an event, not looked at from a distance at a trade show.

 

What make you think that..

What I am doing is a result of using yamaha, and flirting with other platforms. If I am not expose to some I take a course?!!??

The same way that in the past I came to use Protools after I've tried everything else.

it is a case of feeling at ease with a platform to me..

Now I am starting to really play with my own integration for live and/or studio recording and it is great.

the fact that I can use the preamp I want, converter I want even what I make myself or modify. And I reckon this is great for studio because or the monitoring features..For crossed platform in recording studio using protools, it is great to have a system to record live in, operated on a hardware-ish and controlling the monitors all at once.. and instant playback.. one can always post produce back on Protools.

 

I think it is good but don't take my word for it.. look at SAC audio stuff and videos..that is how I started in my quest..

[paulears]

Sorry - but I am still confused as to what exactly you are proposing? Off-the-shelf software, a touch screen, computer of some sort and a fader panel. None of this is new, and I can order it myself this evening from the usual sources. What bit are you providing, and how much will it be? I assume you have some kind of unique selling feature, but I can't work out what it is.

 

Or are you just promoting the virtue of using easily connectable individual items to make a fine total system? It seems fine to be used by experienced users, but the start up process for a PC, and the bits is not just 'switching on' which is what users actually need (not want, note?)

 

My experience of working with this kind of stuff is that you have to power up and then start software in a strict order if you want the controllers to be picked up correctly.

 

So please, what exactly are we talking about a control for theatre, recording, live sound - what? What features does it have, what is the specification and how much will the whole thing cost - and where does it score over a purpose built single device.

 

I see you are a protools user. How is your system better?

[martiaudio]

I think that's it - is using one specifically designed product simpler and easier to use? Using workarounds to make a limited number of faders do things is much more complicated than just bashing a single button and the faders swapping to new purposes. Using multiple devices never seems (to me) to be so reliable. My real question is simply the price. A dedicated mixer with guarantee will always be the 'best' (whatever the best actually is). People would use a more complex system like yours if it's cheap - so if the full blown digital control was 20 grand, and yours was two grand, many people would put up with the method of operation, but the price differential is much smaller - which means most people will go for tried and tested and a one box approach - won't they?

 

Well your initial price ratio is actually bang on I 'd say.. so the rest could just be about exposure, tests.. and like or hate.. but it is set to be as easy as switch on and off system set up.

In the right environment set up for us, I'd like it if you could try my stuff. from FOH to monitors, From Live to sync record to virtual soundcheck and the surface itself.. perhaps with 16 ( VCA stereo faders ) then.haha you'd be surprised.

 

Lets put it that way: Even if I haven't fully road tested the thing, numbers of SAC video shows serious set ups, like full orchestra with 64 inputs operated with a monitor /8faders a mouse and a keyboard respectively FOH and Monitors.. quite remarkable..

But don't get me wrong I don't like that kind of thing at all..I prefer to work with the same tools but smarter and packaged well otherwise I wouldn't.

Also because I have been sick of using protools and alike on computer for my own over the years it has been very uncreative for me.. it is better to come in the home studio, grab a guitar, switch on the system at once and operate A hardware and a software easy to use whether it is the live or Multitrack one. in fact it always feel right to operate the live app with the recording in the background. it really is like switching on the tapes and leave it on!

 

Sorry - but I am still confused as to what exactly you are proposing? Off-the-shelf software, a touch screen, computer of some sort and a fader panel. None of this is new, and I can order it myself this evening from the usual sources. What bit are you providing, and how much will it be? I assume you have some kind of unique selling feature, but I can't work out what it is.

 

Or are you just promoting the virtue of using easily connectable individual items to make a fine total system? It seems fine to be used by experienced users, but the start up process for a PC, and the bits is not just 'switching on' which is what users actually need (not want, note?)

 

My experience of working with this kind of stuff is that you have to power up and then start software in a strict order if you want the controllers to be picked up correctly.

 

So please, what exactly are we talking about a control for theatre, recording, live sound - what? What features does it have, what is the specification and how much will the whole thing cost - and where does it score over a purpose built single device.

 

I see you are a protools user. How is your system better?

 

 

OK..

 

 

you mentioned lighting solutions in the past.

I am not a lighting guy at all but it seems that a lot of people actually use computer for that now especially in US but that is besides the point completely: When I boot I have one software to start. That is ONE click more than any modern digital console.!!

 

On last comment.. it isn't better than pro tools but perhaps more practical for studio live purpose.

interestingly it becomes a very new trend to give away a software package with a console or at least propose the sync.( new CL serie, Avid Venue, cheaper Presonus, Mackie/Tracktion and probably all others to come I guess).

 

 

 

it seems that it is unclear to most what I am proposing with this..

I don't know myself like I already said.. I am taking the temperature and sadden by some outcome.

 

 

Well.. lets put is that way.. it is my digital console and as a set of units it is a NEW digital Console.. it works.. it has great features, perfect spec.. easy to use easy to show to someone to use on the spot.

 

If my system works, I can make more.. "Make" is more a case of integrate and " put together " like " turnkey solution " ready to use with all the optional trimmings that one can need.

 

Whether you recognized each of every item brands featured in the piece of hardware I made up to host the core software of the system or the I/o's and the processor used are really and truly irrelevant to the user at all. ( some who know what I used and know the gear know that it all sounds interesting.. some other take it down because of it without knowing anything else!! )

The fact that some of you feel not at ease with that way of doing is fine but I question the true reason??

 

Perhaps if you knew what is inside your best console and where those concept and components are also found it could most probably alarm you seriously.

 

More importantly it appear that in a disguised way of saying that professional users needs stability, switch on easy, work immediately and so on and so.. it could just be a love for branding, big size and sexy looking toy and if it cost you £25k it must be worth the money attitude..sorry to break it down that way but I am a tech and I meet over techs too. I know what we are!

How professional one wants to promote a genuine argument, it is also all about the long well sounding spec to read and gadgety made serious machine that has just cost you a lot. it is a common Western materialistic behaviour.

[paulears]

I think I am going to give up. I really want to understand why you're so excited by your system, but frankly I can't. I've never balanced 64 channels of orchestra but I have done large scale orchestral work with probably 40 or so inputs and I really cannot imagine using 8 faders to do this - it's simple enough to group them into 8 faders but what about all the push/pulls for the inner parts when you need to give the second desk flute player a hand? even doing a smallish stage band with 8 faders would be a total pain. Given the choice between a digidesign protools setup and something small and 'clever' - I just don't see it at all, I'm sorry. You seem to dodge all my questions and just comment on some of the more minor elements.

 

How do you run the boot up sequence with one button - have you written scripts to automate the start up options?

 

Studio live purposes? More practical? I just don't think this system as I see it in the pictures could remotely work for any of the types of work I do - apart from maybe the comedian with the backing track!

 

If you want to do recording, I'd be quite happy using Cubase myself - because that's what I'm most efficient on. I suppose I could connect this to a fader panel and use all the routing and switching features of that software. I could cobble together a working system. I do use Cubase in a portable system - 16 ins, rack mount PC and rack screen - but this doesn't seem in reality to be any different to what you're promoting, and I use it for recordings with limited numbers of mics on the go - if I want to do proper multitrack, then I want a real mixer with faders and routing. I'm happy with my rack system - no issues with reliability, but the idea of using it for live sound just makes me shudder - it's too easy to mis-route compared to a real desk. I recorded a piano recital with 4 microphones and discovered afterwards I'd routed mic one to all 4 tracks! Far too easy!!

[martiaudio]

I think I am going to give up. I really want to understand why you're so excited by your system, but frankly I can't. I've never balanced 64 channels of orchestra but I have done large scale orchestral work with probably 40 or so inputs and I really cannot imagine using 8 faders to do this - it's simple enough to group them into 8 faders but what about all the push/pulls for the inner parts when you need to give the second desk flute player a hand? even doing a smallish stage band with 8 faders would be a total pain. Given the choice between a digidesign protools setup and something small and 'clever' - I just don't see it at all, I'm sorry. You seem to dodge all my questions and just comment on some of the more minor elements.

 

How do you run the boot up sequence with one button - have you written scripts to automate the start up options?

 

Studio live purposes? More practical? I just don't think this system as I see it in the pictures could remotely work for any of the types of work I do - apart from maybe the comedian with the backing track!

 

If you want to do recording, I'd be quite happy using Cubase myself - because that's what I'm most efficient on. I suppose I could connect this to a fader panel and use all the routing and switching features of that software. I could cobble together a working system. I do use Cubase in a portable system - 16 ins, rack mount PC and rack screen - but this doesn't seem in reality to be any different to what you're promoting, and I use it for recordings with limited numbers of mics on the go - if I want to do proper multitrack, then I want a real mixer with faders and routing. I'm happy with my rack system - no issues with reliability, but the idea of using it for live sound just makes me shudder - it's too easy to mis-route compared to a real desk. I recorded a piano recital with 4 microphones and discovered afterwards I'd routed mic one to all 4 tracks! Far too easy!!

 

I am sorry you feel that way. All info are on the web if you are intersted to really understand it. At the moment you are not trying. the DAW called SAWStudio is an over version of any quality DAW there is on the market. I have little interest in any of thses now..nuendo, cubase, pt, logic.. it becomes all very pretty but very hungry indeed. The SAW linked with SAC on my system is no comparaison to what you are describing.. it is as if I try desperately to hook up cubase with Venue.. where it will only take Protools I believe.. it doesn't matter because on SAC+SAW all session is named labelled automatically from SAC live.. So when and if you want to post produce it you know where your file is and what is what directly.. Or you can mix with SAW as it is a DAW and Midi Worstation in its own right.

 

But I should really stop. Everything there is to know is here and online.

[paulears]

I have looked at the individual components you are talking about. I am trying REALLY hard to see something unique in what you are doing.

 

I have no issue at all with you really liking the software you are using - that's a personal thing. However, is this the purpose of your project? To promote SAC and SAW as great tools? If so - I don't have a problem with it. My real issue is that you seem determined to avoid answering people's questions with the skill of an MP, deflecting specific questions into alternate areas, or just hyperbole.

the DAW called SAWStudio is an over version of any quality DAW there is on the market.

What do you mean? I have no idea?

When I have tried in the past to make a computer based system start up fully configured, it takes time and a proper boot up and start philosophy - hence my question:

How do you run the boot up sequence with one button - have you written scripts to automate the start up options?

How are you managing this? If you have a neat piece of software that will do this, I'd be genuinely interested - my own problem on one system is that even if I set windows to run the audio software on startup, as in when power is applied - it goes wrong because the Tascam A/D needs to have it's power applied (and USB made active) before the audio software is running - otherwise the system defaults to the wrong audio device. At the moment, it needs me to start windows, power up the device and then start cubase - so one button on is impossible. Have you solved this kind of issue? If you haven't then non-skilled users will find it too complex.

 

All I am asking is for you to list the features and benefits of your system compared to a stand alone device - because that is what users who may consider it will ask. You avoid giving real benefits, and take us to powerpoint style presentations. I'd just like facts, that is all I'm asking for. I don't need fancy graphics and backgrounds - just hard data.

[martiaudio]

I have looked at the individual components you are talking about. I am trying REALLY hard to see something unique in what you are doing.

 

I have no issue at all with you really liking the software you are using - that's a personal thing. However, is this the purpose of your project? To promote SAC and SAW as great tools? If so - I don't have a problem with it. My real issue is that you seem determined to avoid answering people's questions with the skill of an MP, deflecting specific questions into alternate areas, or just hyperbole.

the DAW called SAWStudio is an over version of any quality DAW there is on the market.

What do you mean? I have no idea?

When I have tried in the past to make a computer based system start up fully configured, it takes time and a proper boot up and start philosophy - hence my question:

How do you run the boot up sequence with one button - have you written scripts to automate the start up options?

How are you managing this? If you have a neat piece of software that will do this, I'd be genuinely interested - my own problem on one system is that even if I set windows to run the audio software on startup, as in when power is applied - it goes wrong because the Tascam A/D needs to have it's power applied (and USB made active) before the audio software is running - otherwise the system defaults to the wrong audio device. At the moment, it needs me to start windows, power up the device and then start cubase - so one button on is impossible. Have you solved this kind of issue? If you haven't then non-skilled users will find it too complex.

 

All I am asking is for you to list the features and benefits of your system compared to a stand alone device - because that is what users who may consider it will ask. You avoid giving real benefits, and take us to powerpoint style presentations. I'd just like facts, that is all I'm asking for. I don't need fancy graphics and backgrounds - just hard data.

 

I think we really are lost in translation here...

There are no guismo to boot up directly.. I was making a point that when you switch on a console it boots up.. for me I am only one step farther. boot than start software.. 2 steps instead of one.. I would be worried if someone struggle with that especially if you had one icon to select!!!

 

 

 

 

SAC On Stage link

 

Software Audio Workstation link

Why don't you take a good look at these links. and if you find constructive faults of variations to other " smarter machine" then I am interested and I am sure so is Bob Lentini the designer.

 

All I am proposing is a way of hardware modular control closer to any other machine.. the trend is vca less faders anyway whether you like it of not.. look at the Midas Pro2c, the yam CL serie. it isn't 8 stereo only.. but as modular control, mine isn't either!! full stop.

 

A big part of SAC community is people trying to get it like a smart hardware like me...with or without success..ergonomic or not at all!! light weight of massive ( for sound engineers that need BIG! )

Bob Always defend himself from that and must be bored about that because the intend isn't hardware...

it is from his point of view a Software Audio Console like it says on the can and it delivers everything and more..

 

in that regard I am trying to joint the two and come up with a ready to use system..

Like I said before.. this system is far from ready. it can take weeks to actually set it up properly because you have so many options and ways to do it.

For those who things I am re-inventing the wheel.. you really don't get it I think!

But if you want to do it yourself ..go for it.. I am happy to promote SAC because it is a musical and smart system here to last to my views. Bob might even just be ahead of its time along with very few others in the world, competing with multi millions dollars business with big names surrounding them.

 

I personally though that in this day of age A common sound professional would be interested in alternative solution way way cheaper yet good quality. Crazy and naive me to thing it could interest and attract positive attention!

 

 

Over all I have little interest about ultra slick esthetic like the like for an Ipad3.. I love apple, I have been a fan since I can remember and I thought their product will remain for ever as Art and beautiful objects and piece of technology of its time..

but with iphones and ipads it became way too popular and ruins everything magical and design about it. it developed a none sustainable trend for expensive and expected design to the common people with no appreciation at all.

So that You and Everyone of us in every field of expertise DO expect that esthetic now on everything.

and manufacturers understand that. it is a way of marketing.

It looks good it is expensive so it MUST be good.. is it?

 

Don't get me wrong the look and feel of Digico, Cadac and Innovason products to me is mind blowing and it really is good.

 

My priority is functionalities, a minimum ergonomy, comfort in use ( where most fails).. and quality of sound above all: Nothing MARKETING material here!!

Equally I don't want a messy set up like a bare SAC system proposed if you see what I mean with a poxi pc.

 

Yet when you use a 3M multitouch monitor and push 10 virtual faders simultaneously. it is quit all right actually! nothing else but a screen. NO keyboard, no mouse, nothing but a screem and it works.. that is marketing material but way to early for sound engineers.

 

 

 

I know a guy in London who built a hardware 16 faders quite big and bulky but with the processor and I/os in the rear.. a All in one solution box that works well.

It is your type of thing I understand. I even thing he managed the booting direct in the software when you switch on. He also managed some direct xkey control. Nice

 

To really conclude that episode

 

I am shocked to see the overall resilience and habit of denting anything new that comes across like the press does on regular basis very well in this country.

 

As a practical example,

I have read somewhere recently a sound guy giving away a critic on the new X32 Behringer that it is rubbish due to preamps and converters.. without trying the machine has it was not distributed yet..

 

SAD!!

 

especially when we know that it is produced on the same production line than Midas!! that Behringer can actually be really good at producing converters ( when you see what is under the bonnet of some of their products like I have experienced.) I don't know about X32.. but I/os and ADDA might just be the forte and everything else not so good!!

 

Some people should really get their facts right before talking and writing away..

 

In my case despite my arguments, I get confusing critics like if it was a defense habit.. OH I don't understand it !! therefore Can't be good mentality.

 

 

[paulears]

Yep - we are lost. I'll duck out here. Best wishes. P

[martiaudio]

Yep - we are lost. I'll duck out here. Best wishes. P

 

Thanks anyway..

if anything this helped me reviewing my initial presentation and try to get it clearer.. promoting SAC more openly which I didn't

and give clear example of set up including the type of pc used in the background , soundcard and converter recommendations.

Also that the system is made of

a rack , a or several modular control, optional wireless controls

Basically the same that any other system with "STAGE BOX".

( I thing A&H comes with a controller that is not hardware I/o either!! )

 

 

I rather not talk about it any longer but get back to this really good topic on latency like we had because that was very interesting indeed.

[mervaka]

The A&H iLive system has all its DSP integrated hard realtime into the iDR stagebox end. The surfaces just provide control and some additional I/O including PAFL/talkback. IIRC, the SBCs integrated in the surfaces run DSL, but the surface itself is again a low level implementation.

[dosxuk]

Then there's consoles like the Soundcraft Vi 2/4/6 where while the surface runs Windows XP (Embedded), all the sound processing is done in a dedicated DSP rack with circuitry designed for the purpose. So if (when?) your surface has a hiccup and needs restarting, the sound carries on being processed so no break in the show.

 

But then again, who needs that when we can have something which costs a fraction of the price, "takes weeks to actually set it up properly", and comes with a lovely rack of Behringer pre's. After all things like actual hardware DSP are only for people who buy things because they're shiny.

[pisquee]

Something not mentioned, it isn't just about our apparent need to have something shiny and expensive as our new toy as you seem to be implying. We need a piece of equipment that will be accepted on a rider, and/or for a touring/visiting engineer to be able to walk up to and be able to use, ideally one that is common and give them a chance of already being familiar with it from past experience of the same desk, or a similar model from the same manufacturer. Behringer are going to struggle to get past this stumbling block no matter how good the X32 turns out to be, and a practically home made mixer that is apparently cobbled together is going to have an even harder time being accepted.

[RichM]

When someone comes out with an all-in-one box for SAC, that I can turn on with one button, that has support people on the end of a phone, that I can chuck in the back of a truck and know it will work when I take it out again, then I'll be interested.

 

Until then, I'll stick with the many products out there that, you know, already do the job.