Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opinions for Church PA and Recording/Control Room Mix

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 3:07:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm not sure where to start. A church doesn't like the audio plan
submitted by the contractor who shall remain nameless, and asked me to
help the with the equipment list. Looking for your opinions -church
that is more traditional/classical - 800 to 1000 audience/service -
probably not many rock presentations - mostly acoustic stuff. Don't
have professionals running sound - just volunteers with experience of
the 24 channel Mackie. Video is on local cable.

The prices quoted by the contractor are straight retail which we all
know is not what you pay. Their prices do not include installation.

Contractor recommended analog - Allan & Heath stuff - What do you
think? I am more of a Yamaha fan maybe an 02r in the recording booth
and some sort of Yamaha for FOH - also thinking we ought to be digital
for scene memory etc. Mixer budget is $23,500.

Contractor rec:

Live mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest

Recording mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest

Also the Mic cabinet recommendation is sm57s/58s with a couple of dpa
4060s - what would you recommend as a basic mike cab? Budget is 6500.
Also being budgeted is 10K for a wireless system.

How about recorders - I was thinking an Alesis HD24 and an HHB cd
burner.

I am also thinking we need a good 4 chanel mic pre like Millennia or
Great River?

Thanks,

John
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 6:45:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<jmuirman1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120932457.860312.78470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Looking for
> your opinions -church that is more traditional/classical -
800
> to 1000 audience/service - probably not many rock
> presentations - mostly acoustic stuff. Don't have
> professionals running sound - just volunteers with
experience
> of the 24 channel Mackie.

Our old situation - a smaller congregation of about 300,
doing mixed acoustic/electronic, running a Mackie SR32 with
failing ribbon cables.

> Video is on local cable.

Only video here is for the nursery staff.

> The prices quoted by the contractor are straight retail
which
> we all know is not what you pay. Their prices do not
include
> installation.

We picked an 02R96 which runs about $10K retail. In the end
we picked up a B-stock unit for under $8K. It was in worse
shape than claimed and needed a trip to the warranty station
before it was usable. This delayed our implemetation by
almost a month, but we spent the extra time with our noses
in the manuals, which is paying off now that we are live.

However, it took a MY16AT and two ADA8000s to get us enough
inputs to do the job. This is life with digital consoles.
What you have to get may not be what you see in terms of
stated capacity of the console until you read the fine
print.

The local contractor we dismissed before getting a real
formal proposal from him pooh-poohed the 02R and wanted to
get one of the new Mackie digitals instead. He would have
never recommended ADA8000s. We would have needed additonal
expansion channels regardless.

Following his recommendations would have cost us list price
on whatever console we got plus installation, plus the
high-priced road on external inputs and outputs - about
twice what we actually paid for the add-on boxes we ended up
with.

> Contractor recommended analog - Allan & Heath stuff - What
do
> you think? I am more of a Yamaha fan maybe an 02r in the
> recording booth and some sort of Yamaha for FOH - also
> thinking we ought to be digital for scene memory etc.
Mixer
> budget is $23,500.

Our O2R is our FOH machine, and Adobe Audition running on a
PC with a bunch of M-Audio 1010 interfaces is our multitrack
recording *mixer*.

Yes there's a theoretically-unecessary trip into the analog
domain, but that's a hang-over from life with an analog
console. I suspect our final solution will involve another
MT16AT and a MOTU interface for 24 channels total.

We went digital primarily for scene support, but now that we
have the board in operation, the hidden agenda was the
availability of a full 4-band parametric on just about
*every* input and output. I don't know how much you have to
pay for an analog board with 48-56 channels and that kind of
equalization plus dynamics processing on just about every
input and output, but it is *lots*.

>Contractor rec:

> Live mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest

> Recording mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest

> Also the Mic cabinet recommendation is sm57s/58s with a
couple
> of dpa 4060s - what would you recommend as a basic mike
cab?

I have a lot of experience with SM57s and SM58s and heartily
un-recommend them. What I use is a combination of Audix,
Behringer, CAD, Marshall, and Kell.

If I had to work with just two mics in my mic locker, I'd
pick Audix OM5s and OM6s. OM5s are boy-girl singer mics and
OM6s are for deep-voiced men and everything else.

> Budget is 6500. Also being budgeted is 10K for a wireless
system.

I don't know what that means in terms of actual mics, but
I'm very happy with my Shure UC-series system, though I've
been swapping mics among the omni, card, and hypercard mics
that work with it. Right now I'm doing hypercards.

You didn't mention stage monitors, but let me state my
appreciation for EV ZX-5s. I don't have a lot of experience
with competive monitors, but am quite clear about the
benefits of these over $300 yammies and competively-priced
JBLs. It's all about spill into the audience and generation
of feedback through the monitors.

> How about recorders - I was thinking an Alesis HD24 and an
HHB cd burner.

I have a HHB 850 and its so-so. Nothing bad about it but
nothing that rocks my cradle, either. If I did it again, I'd
probabaly go Tascam. The problem with stand-alone
multitrack recorders is that the editing on PCs is very much
superior, and if you are going to edit on a PC, why not
record there as well?

> also thinking we need a good 4 chanel mic pre like
Millennia or Great River?

The best working multichannel mic preamp I've got experience
with is a classic Symmetrix SX202. It never disappoints.

I often work with less, and continue to be unconvinced by
claims that spending big bucks on mic preamps makes a
serious difference. As a practical matter, I'm about as
impressed with the mic preamps built into the 02R as
anything I've worked with.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:58:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<jmuirman1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120932457.860312.78470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not sure where to start. A church doesn't like the audio plan
> submitted by the contractor who shall remain nameless, and asked me to
> help the with the equipment list. Looking for your opinions -church
> that is more traditional/classical - 800 to 1000 audience/service -
> probably not many rock presentations - mostly acoustic stuff. Don't
> have professionals running sound - just volunteers with experience of
> the 24 channel Mackie. Video is on local cable.
>
> Contractor recommended analog - Allan & Heath stuff - What do you
> think? I am more of a Yamaha fan maybe an 02r in the recording booth
> and some sort of Yamaha for FOH - also thinking we ought to be digital
> for scene memory etc. Mixer budget is $23,500.

I dunno -- the prospect of semi-skilled volunteers running a Yamaha digital
board is fraught with terrifying possibilities. If you need scene memory
(which I frankly doubt would arise often), a notebook with written-down
settings would be a safer way to implement it.

> Contractor rec:
>
> Live mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest
>
> Recording mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest
>
> Also the Mic cabinet recommendation is sm57s/58s with a couple of dpa
> 4060s - what would you recommend as a basic mike cab? Budget is 6500.
> Also being budgeted is 10K for a wireless system.

That seems high for the wireless setup, but of course it depends on how many
people will need to wear them.

The mixer recommendation seems reasonable. It's hard to comment on the
contractor's mic recommendations without knowing more about what the
services are like, what instruments are playing, and what singers are miked,
but it seems like an odd quality gap between SM57/58s and DPA. Tell us more.

> How about recorders - I was thinking an Alesis HD24 and an HHB cd
> burner.

The HD24 seems like a good choice; what would be the application of the CD
burner?

> I am also thinking we need a good 4 chanel mic pre like Millennia or
> Great River?

Maybe, but first we need to know more.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 12:06:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1120932457.860312.78470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
jmuirman1@aol.com wrote:

> I'm not sure where to start. A church doesn't like the audio plan
> submitted by the contractor who shall remain nameless, and asked me to
> help the with the equipment list. Looking for your opinions -church
> that is more traditional/classical - 800 to 1000 audience/service -
> probably not many rock presentations - mostly acoustic stuff. Don't
> have professionals running sound - just volunteers with experience of
> the 24 channel Mackie. Video is on local cable.
>
> The prices quoted by the contractor are straight retail which we all
> know is not what you pay. Their prices do not include installation.
>
> Contractor recommended analog - Allan & Heath stuff - What do you
> think? I am more of a Yamaha fan maybe an 02r in the recording booth
> and some sort of Yamaha for FOH - also thinking we ought to be digital
> for scene memory etc. Mixer budget is $23,500.
>
> Contractor rec:
>
> Live mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest
>
> Recording mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest

Let me preface this by stating that I am a contractor who does a lot of
church work, and that I recommend a lot of the Yamaha digital product.

There is nothing wrong with the 02R96, but two of them with outboard I/O
and meter bridge will probably go over your budget.

Assuming that the Yamaha DM1000 has the I/O capability that you require,
I recommend it as a logical place to start.

The DM1000 has 24 channels of mic pre on board. You could extend that to
48 channels with the addition of an MY16-AE AES card, and MY8 AES cards,
and (3) outboard 8 channel pre-amps. The Yamaha AD8HR is expensive, but
it sounds good, and has dual AES outputs so it can be split two ways
without additional hardware. Your budget should allow for:

(2) Yamaha DM1000 mixers
(3) Yamaha AD8HR mic preamps
(2) MY16 AES Cards
(2) MY8 AES

The benefit of working with one console, is that your staff only needs
to learn once console.

They are pretty easy to navigate, reliable, and decent sounding.


> Also the Mic cabinet recommendation is sm57s/58s with a couple of dpa
> 4060s - what would you recommend as a basic mike cab? Budget is 6500.

I would want a more rounded mic cabinet, but can't make specific
recommendations without knowing instrumentation.

> Also being budgeted is 10K for a wireless system.

That doesn't really convey any useful information. Is that 10K worth
cheap wireless, w/o infrastructure like antenna splitters, or is it high
end stuff with computer monitoring capability? What mic elements?

> How about recorders - I was thinking an Alesis HD24 and an HHB cd
> burner.

Not my forte, the real recording guys will chime in here.


> I am also thinking we need a good 4 chanel mic pre like Millennia or
> Great River?

Why?
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:17:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:
> I dunno -- the prospect of semi-skilled volunteers running a Yamaha
> digital board is fraught with terrifying possibilities. If you need
> scene memory (which I frankly doubt would arise often), a notebook
> with written-down settings would be a safer way to implement it.

What? We've been doing it for years.

--
"it's very dangerous to fall asleep in the bath, I keep myself awake by
constantly making toast"
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:55:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:C%Vze.1110444$w62.562515@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net

> I dunno -- the prospect of semi-skilled volunteers running
a
> Yamaha digital board is fraught with terrifying
possibilities.

Their existing console is a 24-input Mackie, and an 02R96's
first layer is also a 24-input console.

If you wire up a 02R96 to your house wiring the most
obvious way, the factory-supplied read/only "Scene 0" I/O
map provides logical hook-ups for all 24 inputs and all 8
aux sends, as well as the main outputs.

Add aux send gain settings, and you have a workable 24-in,
8 aux send console that is very suitable for a house of
worship with a typical music and drama program.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 2:04:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message
news:geeze-6FF969.20064009072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com

> The DM1000 has 24 channels of mic pre on board.

Yamaha doesn't seem to think so. Their web site says that
there are only 16 mic/line inputs and they have the pictures
and diagrams to back that up. There are only 16 real input
faders.

> You could extend that to 48 channels with the addition of
an MY16-AE AES
> card, and MY8 AES cards, and (3) outboard 8 channel
pre-amps.

48-16 = 32 32/8 = 4.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 2:49:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <IqWdnWE8NOyvH03fRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message
> news:geeze-6FF969.20064009072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com
>
> > The DM1000 has 24 channels of mic pre on board.
>
> Yamaha doesn't seem to think so. Their web site says that
> there are only 16 mic/line inputs and they have the pictures
> and diagrams to back that up. There are only 16 real input
> faders.

I please senior moment. I had DM2000 on the brain.

> > You could extend that to 48 channels with the addition of
> an MY16-AE AES
> > card, and MY8 AES cards, and (3) outboard 8 channel
> pre-amps.

> 48-16 = 32 32/8 = 4.

16+32=48

Correcting to (4) Preamps (2) MY16 cards, thank you very much.
July 10, 2005 2:51:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<jmuirman1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120932457.860312.78470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How about recorders - I was thinking an Alesis HD24 and an HHB cd
> burner.

Make sure you do your homework on how these will interface. We have both,
and I have so far been unable to transfer from the Alesis to the HHB in
digital. The HHB it seems only accepts two channel audio through its
lightpipe connection. The Alesis is sending 8 track ADAT format.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've spent a while trying to get this
working, reading manuals for both, and have come to the conclusion that it
just isn't possible. That said, you could probably go out of the Alesis to
a digital console, then two track out from that to the HHB.

R.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 6:34:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<jmuirman1@aol.com> wrote in message news:1120932457.860312.78470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Right off the bat, you'll have to forgive me for being a little strident, but
the older I get, the more churches I seem to rescue with a little service
call and some advice to the Board of Directors & Advisory Councils.

> I'm not sure where to start. A church doesn't like the audio plan
> submitted by the contractor who shall remain nameless, and asked me to
> help the with the equipment list. Looking for your opinions -church
> that is more traditional/classical - 800 to 1000 audience/service -
> probably not many rock presentations - mostly acoustic stuff.

Sounds pretty normal... in my case, there are usually less than 300 in a
sanctuary that will accomodate 700, and there's a regular rhythm section
of piano, electric bass and drums, two lead singers and a small choir.
When the whole band is there, add another two keyboards, sax, trumpet,
flute and electric guitar.

> Don't have professionals running sound - just volunteers with experience
> of the 24 channel Mackie. Video is on local cable.

We broadcast live every Sunday morning and archive the service on the
church's web site. One person does it all... it's a paid position and we
*never* have need of "scene" recall, because the "scene" is 98% exactly
the same every week unless there's a special musical guest of some sort.
Volunteers will generally end up costing the church money over the duration.

> The prices quoted by the contractor are straight retail which we all
> know is not what you pay. Their prices do not include installation.

The contractor doesn't get that big of a break, unless he's doing a few
installs per month and can qualify as a dealer. There's only a small
profit to be had (if you're honest) in the markup to near retail. Five to
15% would be about normal.

> Contractor recommended analog - Allan & Heath stuff - What do you
> think?

I would agree. I have the GL2400 series (32 inputs) at front of house
and it's the only desk in the building. The stereo 2-track broadcast,
the stereo 2-track feed for recording, and the stereo feed for the
social hall, junior church, day care and offices, all come from the
single A&H mixer. Six aux sends, using 4 for 4 monitor mixes and
2 for EFX sends are at the touch of a finger... not the scroll, scroll,
select, of endless digital monotony. If there's a problem or an
adjustment to be made, it shouldn't require but a second or two
to react.

That's 32 preamps of the non-esoteric, get the job done type, which
are quite acceptable... and somewhere around a $20,000 *savings*
from your mixer budget.

> I am more of a Yamaha fan maybe an 02r in the recording booth
> and some sort of Yamaha for FOH - also thinking we ought to be digital
> for scene memory etc. Mixer budget is $23,500.

Why do you need a seperate mixer for recording? Why do you
need scene recall? Why would you throw a digital mixer in front
of a bunch of inexperienced 'volunteers'?

Maybe it's those "volunteers" that are preventing you from getting the
most out of one single mixer. Offhand, it sounds a little sad that the
people who pay for the church to be in existance have to listen to the
mistakes of the 'volunteer' who can't get the job done, while they fork
over quadruple what they need to in order to let someone else set in
a seperate recording booth and make something actually listenable.
This could all be done in a single 'live' pass.

> Contractor rec:
>
> Live mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest
>
> Recording mix - Allan & Heath ML 3000 or Crest

I just don't get the need for a seperate recording setup. If I were on the
advisory council, I'd redicule the whole idea and suggest that a small
contract salary be paid to a professional who can get the job done in
one pass. You could probably pay someone generously for three or more
*years* on just the savings from your proposed console budget.

> Also the Mic cabinet recommendation is sm57s/58s with a couple of dpa
> 4060s - what would you recommend as a basic mike cab? Budget is 6500.

57s and 58 are workhorses that can get the job done. Ten of each and
you've still got more than $4,500 to blow. Get a three or four decent
Sennheiser vocal mics as options and you'll still have 4 grand to play
with on a few condensers for choir, podium, etc....

> Also being budgeted is 10K for a wireless system.

Obnoxious !! I run three AT receivers, each can use either a hand-held
microphone or a lavalier... and I have less than $2000 in all three sets.
I have yet to run more than two wireless inputs simultaneously, so one
of these units has never come out of the box.

> How about recorders - I was thinking an Alesis HD24 and an HHB cd
> burner.

Why are you thinking about multitracking? Unless you are selling some
sort of "studio" recording services, a multitrack machine is nothing more
than an appeasement to some energetic individual who can't just get
out on the FOH console and make a record.

> I am also thinking we need a good 4 chanel mic pre like Millennia or
> Great River?

You might not work for me very long... but when you figure out how simple
this really is, you'll have enough money left over to buy the Reverend a
brand new Porche. Unless I'm really missing some details (and you've
left out plenty, like speakers, amps, EQs, FX, dynamics, cabling, etc.)....

.....You're not talking about serving the congregation here... you're talking
about having a good old time in a recording environment while the paying
congregation has to tolerate sub standard audio.

I know nothing about your church, but there's money to be saved here...
and the first step is to spend some on a qualified operator.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
http://www.COLight.org
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 6:37:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:IqWdnWE8NOyvH03fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> "Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message
> news:geeze-6FF969.20064009072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com
>
> > The DM1000 has 24 channels of mic pre on board.
>
> Yamaha doesn't seem to think so. Their web site says that
> there are only 16 mic/line inputs and they have the pictures
> and diagrams to back that up. There are only 16 real input
> faders.


And for waaaay too much money for the trouble a 'volunteer' will
encounter while trying to operate it.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 6:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <WR%ze.8949$ZN6.6444@trnddc02>,
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:IqWdnWE8NOyvH03fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> > "Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message
> > news:geeze-6FF969.20064009072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com
> >
> > > The DM1000 has 24 channels of mic pre on board.
> >
> > Yamaha doesn't seem to think so. Their web site says that
> > there are only 16 mic/line inputs and they have the pictures
> > and diagrams to back that up. There are only 16 real input
> > faders.
>
>
> And for waaaay too much money for the trouble a 'volunteer' will
> encounter while trying to operate it.


1) Depends on the volunteer. I've had volunteers with no digital console
experience, and no live sound experience outside of church, grab the
fundamentals and run with them. I have also seen volunteers who don't
really understand the signal flow of a 1402. You can't make the jump to
digital, unless the client is committed to learning it.

2) Digital with recall means that ground zero settings are easily
achievable, and can be preserved off the console.

3) The digital board provides a level of consistency and assurance that
is lacking with an analog board.

4) Given that you don't need to go outboard for comps, gates, and
effects, the digital console has another leg on analog, given that thos
settings are also preserved.

Scene recall is very useful in a church setting, even when the settings
are typically static.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 7:22:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message...

> 3) The digital board provides a level of consistency and assurance that
> is lacking with an analog board.

<cough-cough> I fail to see this one *at all* !! I never have to worry
about booting up my analogue mixers (or IF they'll boot) nor loosing
settings, and I get double the number of inputs - on average - so that
nothing really ever *has* to change when some special guest or act
comes along.

> 4) Given that you don't need to go outboard for comps, gates, and
> effects, the digital console has another leg on analog, given that thos
> settings are also preserved.

Given that only a compressor or two (the same for gates) would be in
the average scenario anyway, I still see it as a waste of time and money
for too little in return for a *fixed* installation that sees precisely the same
activity from week to week.

> Scene recall is very useful in a church setting, even when the settings
> are typically static.

If the settings are static, which I agree they usually are, what's the need
for a snapshot that just *might* not come back on the next bootup?

Quite honestly, I haven't done anything more than ride a single fader
or ocassionally mute a channel or two in the past 4 years... and my
services are broadcast live from the desk that does the FOH. The
thought of needing some sort of 'recall' for that is beyond me.

;-)

Sorry... Unless you're turning a half dozen (+) acts per week in a church
that has enough of a cash flow and budget to not care anyway, digital
is still the only *iffy* medium in the marketplace. "Assurance" is one
word that I just don't yet attach to most digital consoles... especially if
they are to be touched by more than one 'volunteer'. <g>

DM
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 8:20:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
message
news:nw0Ae.701$Gk4.228@trnddc01
> "Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message...

>> 3) The digital board provides a level of consistency and
>> assurance that is lacking with an analog board.

> <cough-cough> I fail to see this one *at all* !! I
never
> have to worry about booting up my analogue mixers (or IF
> they'll boot) nor loosing settings, and I get double the
number of inputs - on average -
> so that nothing really ever *has* to change when some
special guest or
> act comes along.

One of the realities of church sound is that the console is
often shared among a number of applications and operators.
When I had an analog console I might come in Sunday morning
and find that durning the week someone else used it for some
other purpose like rehearse for a youth program or a
contata. Of course, the other operator(s) didn't restore
the console back to my Sunday AM settings. All I had to do
is reset all 176 knobs to be the way they were when I walked
out the door the previous Sunday noon.

With the 02R96 digital console I simply scroll up to a copy
of the previous Sunday AM scene that I stashed away, load
it, and instantly restore the console to the way I left it
the previous week.

I can also use Studio Manager to save and restore the
console settings using status information that is stored on
a PC or removable media related to that PC.

I can even swap in a whole new or different console of a
similar or identical kind, and configure new new console to
be set up the way I left the predecessor console, in a few
seconds.

>> 4) Given that you don't need to go outboard for comps,
gates,
>> and effects, the digital console has another leg on
analog,
>> given that thos settings are also preserved.

Tes the 02R96 can take a ton of functions that are usually
implemented with outboard processors and bring them onboard.
Do most people with analog consoles have a full 4-band
parametric and and a dynamics processor for *every* input
and output? Both the Yamaha and Berhinger digital consoles
provide these facilities and store their settings in scene
memories.


> Given that only a compressor or two (the same for gates)
would be in
> the average scenario anyway, I still see it as a waste of
time and money
> for too little in return for a *fixed* installation that
sees
> precisely the same activity from week to week.

The cheapest parametric that I'd consider using is the
little Behringer that runs about $80 a channel. I've already
implemented over a dozen parametrics in the 02R96 and have
over 50 left in reserve. 12 * $80 = $1,000. 64 * $80 =
$5,120.

>> Scene recall is very useful in a church setting, even
when
>> the settings are typically static.

Right but just because Sunday AM is static doesn't mean that
other services and operators don't come and go. I just did
a week of Vacation Bbile School openings with drama and a
diffferent musical team every morning. Moving the related
mics and cables on an off the platform is pain enough,
restoring the console to its pre-VBS condition was more
pain.

> If the settings are static, which I agree they usually
are, what's the need
> for a snapshot that just *might* not come back on the next
bootup?

The snapshots are a lot more durable than that. They can be
stored on external media.

> Quite honestly, I haven't done anything more than ride a
single fader
> or ocassionally mute a channel or two in the past 4
years... and my
> services are broadcast live from the desk that does the
FOH.

It's not uncommon to have rotating praise teams. That means
up to 4 sets of musicians every month. Plan "A" is that you
limit the customizing of the console per praise team to what
you can remember or otherwise document and manually restore
every week. Plan "D" is that you pull in the appropriate
scene memory for that praise team.

> The thought of needing some sort of 'recall' for that is
beyond me.

I wish that I have never walked in on Sunday morning and
found that someone in the youth group was playing DJ with
the console Thursday night.

I wish that I have never walked in on Sunday morning and
found that one of the other operators didn't use the console
to record a demo for his vocalist daughter with console
Tuesday night.

I wish that have never had the need to send a console out
for service.

> Sorry... Unless you're turning a half dozen (+) acts per
week in a church
> that has enough of a cash flow and budget to not care
anyway digital
> is still the only *iffy* medium in the marketplace.

I take it you've never used a Mackie console with bad
ribbons. Now that's an *iffy* console!

> "Assurance" is one
> word that I just don't yet attach to most digital
consoles...
> especially if they are to be touched by more than one
> 'volunteer'. <g>

Yes, a joke not the way things are.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 8:42:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:34:00 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

<clipped 'cause you've already read it, but saved for the next
time this arises>

Talking good sense will get you nowhere in this world, dreamer.
"It's folks like you wot cause unrest" -Monty Python

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"Watch the dying day, blushing in the sky,
Everyone is up tight; So, come on night.
Everyone is gone, home to oblivion." -E.S.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 10:37:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in message news:5j91d1pkggkokfufd3946g501li01860va@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:34:00 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> <clipped 'cause you've already read it, but saved for the next
> time this arises>
>
> Talking good sense will get you nowhere in this world, dreamer.
> "It's folks like you wot cause unrest" -Monty Python
>
> Thanks, as always,
>
> Chris Hornbeck
> "Watch the dying day, blushing in the sky,
> Everyone is up tight; So, come on night.
> Everyone is gone, home to oblivion." -E.S.


Shift, scroll, alt, scroll, shift, select, shift, scroll,
insert smiley's not included in original reply.
Save, reboot, wait and hope for forgiveness.

<g>
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 11:40:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <nw0Ae.701$Gk4.228@trnddc01>,
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

> "Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message...
>
> > 3) The digital board provides a level of consistency and assurance that
> > is lacking with an analog board.
>
> <cough-cough> I fail to see this one *at all* !! I never have to worry
> about booting up my analogue mixers (or IF they'll boot) nor loosing
> settings, and I get double the number of inputs - on average - so that
> nothing really ever *has* to change when some special guest or act
> comes along.

I have yet to see a small Yamaha board fail to boot. While I suspect
that you are a highly experience, skilled, and organized audio
engineer, you would be the exception in many churches.
What do you mean "double the number of inputs on average'?



> > 4) Given that you don't need to go outboard for comps, gates, and
> > effects, the digital console has another leg on analog, given that thos
> > settings are also preserved.
>
> Given that only a compressor or two (the same for gates) would be in
> the average scenario anyway, I still see it as a waste of time and money
> for too little in return for a *fixed* installation that sees precisely the
> same
> activity from week to week.

Then it won't be *your* choice for recording/foh console. Personally I
see a great deal of economy in a self contained console equipped with
useable on board processing, and scene recall. Apparently, I am not the
only one.

> > Scene recall is very useful in a church setting, even when the settings
> > are typically static.
>
> If the settings are static, which I agree they usually are, what's the need
> for a snapshot that just *might* not come back on the next bootup?

Have you ever used Yamaha digital mixer, and had one fail to "boot", or
lose settings? Are you the only person who runs your board, or do you
share duties with others?

> Quite honestly, I haven't done anything more than ride a single fader
> or ocassionally mute a channel or two in the past 4 years... and my
> services are broadcast live from the desk that does the FOH. The
> thought of needing some sort of 'recall' for that is beyond me.

Sounds like a pretty easy gig. So we have established that *you* are not
a potential customer of this technology.

> ;-)
>
> Sorry... Unless you're turning a half dozen (+) acts per week in a church
> that has enough of a cash flow and budget to not care anyway, digital
> is still the only *iffy* medium in the marketplace. "Assurance" is one
> word that I just don't yet attach to most digital consoles... especially if
> they are to be touched by more than one 'volunteer'. <g>


I agree on one point, "you don't get it". ;<)
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 12:53:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> Why do you need a seperate mixer for recording? Why do you
> need scene recall? Why would you throw a digital mixer in front
> of a bunch of inexperienced 'volunteers'?


Training. Training. Training. Digital mixing isn't the future, it's the now.

> Maybe it's those "volunteers" that are preventing you from getting the
> most out of one single mixer. Offhand, it sounds a little sad that
> the
> people who pay for the church to be in existance have to listen to the
> mistakes of the 'volunteer' who can't get the job done, while they
> fork
> over quadruple what they need to in order to let someone else set in
> a seperate recording booth and make something actually listenable.
> This could all be done in a single 'live' pass.

Very few churches here in the UK pay their technical crews.

> I have yet to run more than two wireless inputs simultaneously, so one
> of these units has never come out of the box.

You're not a man until you've filled a submixer with wireless ;) 

I'm getting fed up with the stalwarts of analogue. Single desk operation of
broadcast and recording mixes is an area where the routing, multi-layer
control, flying faders, dynamics-per-channel and inbuilt effects and EQ of a
digital desk come into their own, we do live (albiet net) broadcast every
week, we record worship for reference and training purposes and the sermon
for sale and resource. Everything is set up on two Yamaha 01V (we had one,
the band grew, we bought another) which have been in situ for over four
years now. They are noiseless, easy to use, and have been 100% reliable.

New volunteers can get into the position by being shown the basics of
operation in a few hours. Visiting engineers are more and more familiar with
the digital desks and are both surprised and impressed that a church can be
so up to date. The quality of the produced sound is excellent.

Learning digital mixers is an essential part of being an engineer, unless
you're within five years of retirement of course.


--
"it's very dangerous to fall asleep in the bath, I keep myself awake by
constantly making toast"
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 12:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> <cough-cough> I fail to see this one *at all* !! I never have to
> worry about booting up my analogue mixers (or IF they'll boot) nor
> loosing
> settings, and I get double the number of inputs - on average - so that
> nothing really ever *has* to change when some special guest or act
> comes along.

Component failure happens in analogue world too.

> Given that only a compressor or two (the same for gates) would be in
> the average scenario anyway, I still see it as a waste of time and
> money
> for too little in return for a *fixed* installation that sees
> precisely the same activity from week to week.

Don't knock it - when you've got compression and gating on every channel the
noise floor and dynamic control are better than you can imagine.


>> Scene recall is very useful in a church setting, even when the
>> settings are typically static.
>
> If the settings are static, which I agree they usually are, what's
> the need
> for a snapshot that just *might* not come back on the next bootup?

Unlike one that might not be there after the cleaners come, or the theives
steal your mixer - I just rent another and upload from my laptop...

> Quite honestly, I haven't done anything more than ride a single fader
> or ocassionally mute a channel or two in the past 4 years... and my
> services are broadcast live from the desk that does the FOH. The
> thought of needing some sort of 'recall' for that is beyond me.

Admittedly we have two experienced engineers and four different bands...


--
"it's very dangerous to fall asleep in the bath, I keep myself awake by
constantly making toast"
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:25:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <E6adnRKtaq-Z5U3fRVn-gg@rogers.com> dizNOSPAM@funkydory.ca writes:

> > How about recorders - I was thinking an Alesis HD24 and an HHB cd
> > burner.
>
> Make sure you do your homework on how these will interface. We have both,
> and I have so far been unable to transfer from the Alesis to the HHB in
> digital. The HHB it seems only accepts two channel audio through its
> lightpipe connection. The Alesis is sending 8 track ADAT format.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I've spent a while trying to get this
> working

You won't. They may use the same digital connector but the data format
is different. If you have a digital mixer with a stereo digital output
in the S/PDIF optical format, you can feed that to the HHB CD
recorder. Other than that, you'll need to send it an analog signal.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:25:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <sO%ze.8907$ZN6.4448@trnddc02> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> We broadcast live every Sunday morning and archive the service on the
> church's web site. One person does it all... it's a paid position and we
> *never* have need of "scene" recall, because the "scene" is 98% exactly
> the same every week unless there's a special musical guest of some sort.
> Volunteers will generally end up costing the church money over the duration.

The reason why scene recall is useful in a church situation is where
the sanctuary is used for different purposes during the week. The
Sunday service might be 98% the same each week, but if they have a
a choir rehearsal one night, a discussion group another night, and a
small prayer meeting another night it's nice to have presets that route
and turn up the faders on the microphones that are used for those
activities. It doesn't solve all the problems but it's a start.

For some things, the janitor could turn on the system and it would
work better than none. Still, there's no substitute for a qualified
operator.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <dY-dnQcLKLp-Tk3fRVn-hg@karoo.co.uk> news@timkemp.karoo.co.uk writes:

> Training. Training. Training. Digital mixing isn't the future, it's the now.

Oh, here we go again.

Church sound people are for the most part volunteers. Some will be way
into the technology, some will never get it but really want to "do
something." It's hard to be the boss in a church since it's supposed
to be so diplomatic. Some times you just have to weed out those who
aren't going to adjust to whatever technology you choose, and teach
them how to coil mic cables neatly. But if you get too high tech (and
I consider a digital console for an all-volunteer organization in this
catagory) it's possible that you, as the one who understands it, never
has a day off.

> I'm getting fed up with the stalwarts of analogue.

And I'm getting fed up those who say it's no longer a suitable
technology. Give it a rest. If you want to proselytize, show examples
of how the features are actually useful in specific applications
instead of just listing features as if they were equally important to
all users. So far, my response to just about all the "advantages"
you've posted has been "What's the big deal? I can already do that."




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 2:08:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> I run three AT receivers, each can use either a hand-held
> microphone or a lavalier... and I have less than $2000 in all three
> sets.



I agreed with everything you wrote, except the part about using cheap
wireless. I've been to too many churches that tried to do that and
failed. You appear to be lucky. The OP may not be. My own church was
not. We got taxis and tow trucks and any other kind of RF trash you
could imagine messing us up. A move to better quality wireless gear
solved it.

Also, my personal experience with AT's wireless has been less than
stellar. If one wants to go low bucks, at least use the Sennheiser
budget range.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 2:48:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks for opinions thus far. Some of you have raised some good
questions and I need to clarify some things.

(1)Why a recording console?:

They want to make good recordings of the choirs, solo performers,
sermons etc. Presently, I do their recording work and have to haul my
preamps, mics and recorders to the church which means I have to tear
down my home studio. Also, we may want to mentor some kids - you know,
give them good role models and teach them how to run sound and record
etc.

The second reason is that we will have a video production booth and
they want their own feeds from a splitter that is in the plan. A
special booth is being built in the new sanctuary.

(2) My original question was in regard to: mixing, mics, recording gear
and wireless and there were many comments about monitors and cabling
etc - I was saving those topics until later - but yes those are issues
as well. I think we're looking at Array speakers - no sure what
monitors are.

(3) The music is not probably what you would find at the Willowcreek
church in Chicag area - there's somne contemporary stuff, but most is
more classical and acoustical - typical choirs, pianists, cellists,
solo vocals etc. I play there about 4 - 5 times a year and do acoustic
guitar and have percussion, cello and piano join in sometimes.

(4) The overall budget is about 100K for audio.

(5) Our volunteers are probably more knowledgeable than I inferred. But
- you are right this is an issue. The reason the contractor spec'd
analogue consoles was because the A/V guy was afraid of digital and
requested analogue. However, after I showed him the dynamics,
parametric eq, scene memory on my 02R, he said he thought the crew
could handle it.

(6) Regarding digital:

The church has a lot of different events throughout the week - sermons,
puppet shows, youth groups, choir performances, performers brought in,
I believe they are trying to get Jars of Clay - , weddings and so on --
to my way of thinking, it's not a "one-fader-scene" church. I'm partial
to digital because instead of teaching the volunteer engineers to set
compression, pan, para-eq for every event, you can teach them to go to
turn it on; press "Scene"; scroll to "9:00am Service"...bada bing bada
boom - it's done.

(7) Mike cabinet:

We are going to hang mics for the choir for pa but also good recordings
-what kind and how many - 2 or 3 spaced??

I personally don't care for 58's - reminds me of Adam Sandler in the
"Wedding Singer". The contractor recommended 16 of them. I think we
should have some 58's and some 57s, but not 16. We also need some other
good vocal mics, condensers for solo instruments - maybe like sm81s or
km184s - at any rate I'm thinking of a more colorful palette than
beige. I like the c535 cause it's a great vocal mike and does well on
some instruments....

(8) Why a multi-track recorder?

The church wants to make cds, maybe put mp3s of sermons etc on the
website - It's just so versatile - and the media is so cheap (I just
bought a 200 mb hard disk for my HD24 for $115)

(9) Why a seperate preamp?

I was thinking that for serious recordings of the piano for example, a
millennia, avalon, Hardy, great river would be worth the cost in terms
of quality - but then, probably need like apogee a/d converters. Maybe
this should be added later.

Thanks,

John
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 3:02:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

jmuirman1 wrote ...
> The second reason is that we will have a video production
> booth and they want their own feeds from a splitter that is in
> the plan. A special booth is being built in the new sanctuary.

I'd have to agree that it is more comforting to know that the
"recording mix" is being done by someone who isn't concurrently
responsible for the FOH mix. And in an environment that allows
proper monitoring of the mix.

Furthermore, the more "acoustic" the content, the more different
the recording mix will be from the FOH mix. And it is difficult
to achive a proper balance of a large pipe organ with a vocal
soloist, etc. when you are in the room with the instrument.

And the "recording mix" is also used for all external feeds
(hallways, nursery, hearing assistance, radio/TV, etc.)
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:40:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> Their existing console is a 24-input Mackie, and an 02R96's
> first layer is also a 24-input console.
>
> If you wire up a 02R96 to your house wiring the most
> obvious way, the factory-supplied read/only "Scene 0" I/O
> map provides logical hook-ups for all 24 inputs and all 8
> aux sends, as well as the main outputs.
>
> Add aux send gain settings, and you have a workable 24-in,
> 8 aux send console that is very suitable for a house of
> worship with a typical music and drama program.


Although I was a contributor to the analog vs. digital debate (in favor of
digital), I have to agree that in this situation it may not be the best
choice. In a venue where there are a lot of engineers in and out, I think a
digital mixer is iffy, though I would choose it. But when those engineers
are church volunteers who can barely get by with a Mackie
as-simple-as-it-can-get mixer then it's no place for a digital console.
Maybe there are some skilled technical people volunteering at this church
and I'm completely wrong, but at my church the volunteers are afraid of all
the lights and the faders that move all by themselves. I guess I could just
tell them it was God.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> it's possible that you, as the one who understands it, never
> has a day off.

I'm at this point right now. Congregation of over 1200 and I'm the only one
who can run (or is even interested in running) FOH? I love the digital
board and would not have done anything differently, but I've got to figure
out how to make it less intimidating.

> And I'm getting fed up those who say it's no longer a suitable
> technology. Give it a rest. If you want to proselytize, show examples
> of how the features are actually useful in specific applications
> instead of just listing features as if they were equally important to
> all users. So far, my response to just about all the "advantages"
> you've posted has been "What's the big deal? I can already do that."

I just walking in to rehearsal (and it's the same for the services) several
hours ago, pushed two buttons on the mixer, and walked off to take care of
other things while the band rehearsed. It took me longer to unlock the door
than to get the exact same mix dialed in that was present two services ago.
You can't do that.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:13:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:E_kAe.315$c41.220@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> Their existing console is a 24-input Mackie, and an
02R96's
>> first layer is also a 24-input console.
>>
>> If you wire up a 02R96 to your house wiring the most
>> obvious way, the factory-supplied read/only "Scene 0"
I/O
>> map provides logical hook-ups for all 24 inputs and all
8
>> aux sends, as well as the main outputs.
>>
>> Add aux send gain settings, and you have a workable
24-in,
>> 8 aux send console that is very suitable for a house of
>> worship with a typical music and drama program.
>
>
> Although I was a contributor to the analog vs. digital
debate
> (in favor of digital), I have to agree that in this
situation
> it may not be the best choice.

Given that the catch-word "may" has been introduced, I'm
bound to agree.

> In a venue where there are a
> lot of engineers in and out, I think a digital mixer is
iffy,
> though I would choose it.


The irony is that a digital mixer is on the face of it, a
simpler device than the corresponding analog mixer. There
are a far number of adjustments, but most of them are
virtual.

> But when those engineers are church
> volunteers who can barely get by with a Mackie
> as-simple-as-it-can-get mixer then it's no place for a
digital
> console.

I think that our SR32 has far more actual on-panel knobs and
buttons than our 02R96.

> Maybe there are some skilled technical people
> volunteering at this church and I'm completely wrong, but
at
> my church the volunteers are afraid of all the lights and
the
> faders that move all by themselves.

The faders don't move by themselves if you don't use layers
or scenes.

>I guess I could just tell them it was God.

Just tell them that since all they ever did was mute
channels and adjust faders, now they have a console that on
the face of it, is pretty much just mutes and faders.

For example, count the number of buttons, knobs and faders
in the respective channel strips.

The 02R96 has 6 total controls, 8 if you add in the controls
on the corresponding mic preamp, while a SR32 has 20 knobs,
buttons and faders per mic input channel strip.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:35:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geezer Sonics" <geeze@deafguy.com> wrote in message...

> What do you mean "double the number of inputs on average'?

For about 1/3 of the purchase price, a little A&H provides 32 mic
pres, where most digi desks have only 1/2 to 1/3 the number of
actual XLR mic preamps as they do advertised "channels".

> Then it won't be *your* choice for recording/foh console.

I thought I said that, my brother... ;-)

> Have you ever used Yamaha digital mixer, and had one fail to "boot", or
> lose settings?

The most common problem I've run into, is the random reversal of both
I/O polarity and stereo image (sync issues, I'm sure). Settings often die
with power supply or hard drive problems, but I've only experienced this
type of loss with a Mackie. Sony has been velly, velly good to me... and
I've never liked any of the on-board processing in an O2R, found it to be
unfriendly as an interface (even prefer the GUI and board layout of the
Mackie over the small Yammy).

> Are you the only person who runs your board, or do you
> share duties with others?

I have one substitute that's only had to work 5 times in the past four
years, although that person was there for 14 years prior to me. If
you were to listen to the archive, you can still easily pick out which
dates I was absent from within just a few minutes.

> Sounds like a pretty easy gig. So we have established that *you* are not
> a potential customer of this technology.

I am indeed a potential customer... I just don't need it. However, I am
considering taking the PM1D class so I don't get unexpectedly stumped
while I'm out and about.

> I agree on one point, "you don't get it". ;<)

No... "I don't *need* it". <g> If I thought the guy wasn't jusy wanting
to spend the church's money, I wouldn't have been so adamant. He'll
make more 'points' by spending less money and having a better job done.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:35:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
message
news:NbqAe.4010$8N5.1247@trnddc09

> The most common problem I've run into, is the random
reversal
> of both I/O polarity and stereo image (sync issues, I'm
sure).

No doubt due to off-board hardware and/or its configuration.
It's not fair to indict equipment that is a victim, not the
offender.

> Settings often die
> with power supply or hard drive problems, but I've only
> experienced this type of loss with a Mackie.

Can't happen with a Yammy.

> I've never liked any of the on-board processing in an O2R,
> found it to be unfriendly as an interface (even prefer the
GUI
> and board layout of the Mackie over the small Yammy).

The small and medium Yammys use the same 320 x 240 display.
Of course the PM1 and PM5 have fancier, color displays.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:44:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tim S Kemp" <news@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message...

> Digital mixing isn't the future, it's the now.

Actually, it's pretty much been in my "now" for almost 10 years. That
doesn't mean I have to like it any more than analogue. ;-)

> Very few churches here in the UK pay their technical crews.

That's fairly true on this side of the pond as well.... at least until the
repair bill expenses and complaints start to outweigh the potential
salary and need for 'responsibility' in the position.

> You're not a man until you've filled a submixer with wireless ;) 

Good one. Point taken.

> Learning digital mixers is an essential part of being an engineer, unless
> you're within five years of retirement of course.

<cough-cough> I will not be forced into early retirement. <g>

DM
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:xjlAe.316$c41.5@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...

> I just walking in to rehearsal (and it's the same for the services) several
> hours ago, pushed two buttons on the mixer, and walked off to take care of
> other things while the band rehearsed. It took me longer to unlock the door
> than to get the exact same mix dialed in that was present two services ago.
> You can't do that.


I walked in, hooked up the mics, turned on a master power switch for the
booth, then another for the power amps, and proceeded to have a cup of
coffee.... and the mix I have dialed in has been there for 100 services.

It's really all in what you *need* to get the job done.


;-)


DM
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
message
news:bpqAe.4014$8N5.1918@trnddc09
> "Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
> news:xjlAe.316$c41.5@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> I just walking in to rehearsal (and it's the same for the
>> services) several hours ago, pushed two buttons on the
mixer,
>> and walked off to take care of other things while the
band
>> rehearsed. It took me longer to unlock the door than to
get
>> the exact same mix dialed in that was present two
services
>> ago. You can't do that.

> I walked in, hooked up the mics, turned on a master power
switch for the
> booth, then another for the power amps, and proceeded to
have a cup of
> coffee.... and the mix I have dialed in has been there for
100
> services.

You're not addressing the common problem of mixing vastly
different kinds of services on the same mixer.

Since we have scenes to burn, and they are easy to define
and recall, we're using 3 scenes for an ordinary worship
service.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:58:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message news:znr1120992011k@trad...
>
> In article <sO%ze.8907$ZN6.4448@trnddc02> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:
>
> > We broadcast live every Sunday morning and archive the service on the
> > church's web site. One person does it all... it's a paid position and we
> > *never* have need of "scene" recall, because the "scene" is 98% exactly
> > the same every week unless there's a special musical guest of some sort.
> > Volunteers will generally end up costing the church money over the duration.
>
> The reason why scene recall is useful in a church situation is where
> the sanctuary is used for different purposes during the week. The
> Sunday service might be 98% the same each week, but if they have a
> a choir rehearsal one night, a discussion group another night, and a
> small prayer meeting another night it's nice to have presets that route
> and turn up the faders on the microphones that are used for those
> activities. It doesn't solve all the problems but it's a start.

Keeping in typical size (not like the church where I did the ICGM televised
Award show... where the entire basement was a video post and broadcast
facility), a 32 input analogue desk should already have the ability incorporated
to handle each of those scenarios with a simple un-muting of the needed
inputs. EG: our big choir only does one appearance per month... the rest
of the month the mics just hang there muted.

> For some things, the janitor could turn on the system and it would
> work better than none. Still, there's no substitute for a qualified
> operator.

I really do agree... I'm just being my usual, obstinate, money-saving,
keep it simple self. <g>

DM
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:17:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message news:11d2olqn45vin01@corp.supernews.com...
> jmuirman1 wrote ...
> > The second reason is that we will have a video production
> > booth and they want their own feeds from a splitter that is in
> > the plan. A special booth is being built in the new sanctuary.
>
> I'd have to agree that it is more comforting to know that the
> "recording mix" is being done by someone who isn't concurrently
> responsible for the FOH mix. And in an environment that allows
> proper monitoring of the mix.

Oh, Richard... you've seen me in this same debate for years. ;-)
The proper monitoring in this case is where the darned people
have to put up with the mix. If the operator is competent, it should
be clonable for recording after just a little familiarization and some
tweaking. (I'm not talking about monster cathedrals or tiny little
halls, just a typical 500 to 2000 seater church).

> Furthermore, the more "acoustic" the content, the more different
> the recording mix will be from the FOH mix.

In some cases, yes... but I don't really grip why the two cannot be
exactly the same unless there are *serious* problems with the room.

> And it is difficult
> to achive a proper balance of a large pipe organ with a vocal
> soloist, etc. when you are in the room with the instrument.

Why? THAT IS where the balance is supposed to be made *proper* !!


Love always,

DM

:-)
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:17:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> Oh, Richard... you've seen me in this same debate for years. ;-)
> The proper monitoring in this case is where the darned people
> have to put up with the mix. If the operator is competent, it should
> be clonable for recording after just a little familiarization and some
> tweaking. (I'm not talking about monster cathedrals or tiny little
> halls, just a typical 500 to 2000 seater church).

Dunno. My observation is that doing the live FOH mix is
regularly beyond their capacity. Giving them the extra burden
of recording mix is just asking for trouble with both FOH and
recording.

>> Furthermore, the more "acoustic" the content, the more different
>> the recording mix will be from the FOH mix.
>
> In some cases, yes... but I don't really grip why the two cannot be
> exactly the same unless there are *serious* problems with the room.
>
>> And it is difficult
>> to achive a proper balance of a large pipe organ with a vocal
>> soloist, etc. when you are in the room with the instrument.
>
> Why? THAT IS where the balance is supposed to be made *proper* !!

IME, things like pipe organs and even pianos are never "reinforced",
but quite necessary for a mix used outside the room.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:44:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:11d4rr9l25ca1e0@corp.supernews.com

> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...

>> Oh, Richard... you've seen me in this same debate for
>> years. ;-) The proper monitoring in this case is where
the
>> darned people
>> have to put up with the mix. If the operator is
competent,
>> it should be clonable for recording after just a little
>> familiarization and some tweaking. (I'm not talking
about
>> monster cathedrals or tiny little halls, just a typical
500
>> to 2000 seater church).

> Dunno. My observation is that doing the live FOH mix is
> regularly beyond their capacity.

At times getting a good FOH mix is all a person can do at
one time.

>Giving them the extra burden
> of recording mix is just asking for trouble with both FOH
and
> recording.

Agreed.

That's why I recommended that they don't have a recording
mixer at all, and do it on a PC DAW.

The beauty of mixing and editing a recording as opposed to
doing it live is that with the recording you have 20-20
hindsight all of the time. With a 2-track recording you can
still elimiante a lot of long empty pauses and spurious
noises, not to mention trim up the ends just right. With a
multitrack recording, you can do or redo anything you can do
while sitting at the console in a live recording.

Even though we burn a CD during the service, I always rip
it, edit it and burn it prior to distribution.

My multitrack recordings are just of the music. If a
multitrack mixdown will enhance the music during a service,
I'll do a separate mixdown of the music and replace the
music that was originally recorded on the 2-track.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:12:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<jmuirman1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121017715.820427.114020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> (1)Why a recording console?:

> They want to make good recordings of the choirs, solo
> performers, sermons etc. Presently, I do their recording
work
> and have to haul my preamps, mics and recorders to the
church
> which means I have to tear down my home studio. Also, we
may
> want to mentor some kids - you know, give them good role
> models and teach them how to run sound and record etc.

> The second reason is that we will have a video production
> booth and they want their own feeds from a splitter that
is in
> the plan. A special booth is being built in the new
sanctuary.

IME none of these are adequate justifications for having a
second console given that its so easy and economuical to
hook a PC DAW to the console direct outs and/or inserts,
record the service on a mic-per-track basis, and redo the
mixing later on on the DAW.

> (2) My original question was in regard to: mixing, mics,
> recording gear and wireless and there were many comments
about
> monitors and cabling etc - I was saving those topics until
> later - but yes those are issues as well. I think we're
> looking at Array speakers - no sure what monitors are.

Stage monitors are speakers that the performers use to hear
things that they can't hear well enough without some
electronic help. Many churches spread the praise team across
the platform, making it hard for the singers and
instrumentalists on one side of the platform to hear the
singers and instruments on the other side.

If you work with electronic instruments, amplified
instruments or prerecorded tracks, then you need some
speakers so that the performers to hear them.

Most modern church SR systems put the performers into a
space that is as isolated as possible from the sound field
of the main speaker arrays. Without stage monitors, the
performers may think that they are in a dead zone and that
all their music is going into a black hole. With stage
monitors they hear sound that is tailored to meet their
needs. Sometimes it seems to me that setting aux output
levels (before fader sends) is more critical than mixing the
mains.

> (4) The overall budget is about 100K for audio.

If you don't have a good set of main speakers, you should
plan on spending a big chunk of that on mains. Design and
deployment of the main speakers is arguably the most
critical and skill-itensive part of the whole story.

> (5) Our volunteers are probably more knowledgeable than I
> inferred. But - you are right this is an issue. The reason
the
> contractor spec'd analogue consoles was because the A/V
guy
> was afraid of digital and requested analogue. However,
after I
> showed him the dynamics, parametric eq, scene memory on my
> 02R, he said he thought the crew could handle it.

IME people tend to be afraid of digital consoles until they
actually get one working for them.

> (6) Regarding digital:

> The church has a lot of different events throughout the
week -
> sermons, puppet shows, youth groups, choir performances,
> performers brought in, I believe they are trying to get
Jars
> of Clay - , weddings and so on -- to my way of thinking,
it's
> not a "one-fader-scene" church. I'm partial to digital
because
> instead of teaching the volunteer engineers to set
> compression, pan, para-eq for every event, you can teach
them
> to go to turn it on; press "Scene"; scroll to "9:00am
> Service"...bada bing bada boom - it's done.

As I pointed out in another post, it takes us about 3 scenes
to get through a morning service, but the basic concept is
the same - load and go with a pre-saved configuration
instead of re-inventing it every Sunday morning.

> (7) Mike cabinet:

> We are going to hang mics for the choir for pa but also
good
> recordings -what kind and how many - 2 or 3 spaced??

Tell us something about your choir and where they stand. I
worked with 2 omni choir mics for a long time, but I was a
much happy camper when I added 2 spot broad cardiods for the
men's bass and tenor sections. Our choir is short on men,
but men's voices are a lot of the charm of a choir. By
making up with electronics what I lacked in human beings I
was able to reintroduce some missing balance and
intelligibility.

> I personally don't care for 58's - reminds me of Adam
Sandler
> in the "Wedding Singer". The contractor recommended 16 of
> them. I think we should have some 58's and some 57s, but
not
> 16.

As far as I'm concerned how ever many 57s and 58s it's that
much too many. I have 5 57s and a 58 buried someplace and
they will tend to stay buried as long as anybody who listens
actually chooses the mics.


>We also need some other good vocal mics, condensers for
> solo instruments - maybe like sm81s or km184s - at any
rate
> I'm thinking of a more colorful palette than beige. I like
the
> c535 cause it's a great vocal mike and does well on some
> instruments...

As usual you're talking higher priced mics. I'm having very
good luck with pieces like the Audix OM-series I mentioned,
Kel HM-3s and MXL 603s.

It has been pointed out here many times that SR and quality
sound are somewhat incompatible.

SR is by definition meatball surgery because your mics are
picking up so much of the reflected and direct sound of the
mains. Just because you don't have loud oscillation doesn't
mean that you aren't getting some feedback. I would guess
that the portion of the output of a typical mic in my
system, that comes out of the mains abnd/or monitors is
typically only about 6-12 dB below the direct sound from the
instrument or the performer.

Secondly, concert halls and houses of worship have different
acoustical goals and designs so getting a concert hall sound
in your recordings can be quite elusive even if the SR
system is turned off.

> (8) Why a multi-track recorder?
>
> The church wants to make cds, maybe put mp3s of sermons
etc on
> the website

So feed a tap on the main feed into a CD burner. When the
pastor is delivering the sermon his scene is composed of
just his wireless mic - *every* other mic in the house is
muted. Other than the residual noise of all those muted
channels which isn't much, there is no appreciable
difference between the CD burner recording and any other
recording that I might make. OK, it is recorded with about
10 dB more headroom then I'd use with a dedicated track, but
the dynamic range of the wireless mic (UX-series Shure) is
IME way, way less than that of the CD burner and console
anyhow.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:22:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> Given that the catch-word "may" has been introduced, I'm
> bound to agree.

I said "may" because I feel that only the original poster is familiar enough
with the church and the people running the equipment to make a decision like
this.

> The irony is that a digital mixer is on the face of it, a
> simpler device than the corresponding analog mixer. There
> are a far number of adjustments, but most of them are
> virtual.

Here's an example: parametric EQ. Getting the wrong frequency selected is
worse than not trying to use EQ at all. Not all people are familiar enough
with eq bands to be able to dial in those frequencies in order to cut or
boost them. More people do know the difference between "high," "low," and
"mid," with only one confusing freq. knob on the mids. When I was training
the ministrial staff how to use the Spirit 328 (the most analog-friendly
digital mixer I've ever used), the comment of "I'll just leave that alone"
was made when discussing the EQ. I love having it and that's one reason
I'll never go back to analog, but it IS more complicated than four knobs.

> The faders don't move by themselves if you don't use layers
> or scenes.

I know, but I do. And the volunteers see me doing it and are scared.
Impressed, but intimidated.

> Just tell them that since all they ever did was mute
> channels and adjust faders, now they have a console that on
> the face of it, is pretty much just mutes and faders.

That is the first thing I tell people I train on it. Then I show them how
to recall scenes so that the service is ready to go without touching a
single fader. The recall is a little intimidating, but the fact that they
don't have to do any real SR work is comforting.

I'm with you, Arny, in saying that digital mixers are here to stay and their
benefits far outweigh any negative comments that anyone has said here. But
I know that they are not the right tool for every job. In a volunteer-based
church it is not always the best, but that can only be determined by someone
who is familiar with the resources and personnel that they have to work
with.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:22:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:zgvAe.416$zw4.318@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> Given that the catch-word "may" has been introduced, I'm
>> bound to agree.

> I said "may" because I feel that only the original poster
is
> familiar enough with the church and the people running the
> equipment to make a decision like this.

That might be an over-simplification. If they had a good
contractor, he should know a bit somthing about his
customer.

>> The irony is that a digital mixer is on the face of it, a
>> simpler device than the corresponding analog mixer. There
>> are a far number of adjustments, but most of them are
>> virtual.

> Here's an example: parametric EQ. Getting the wrong
> frequency selected is worse than not trying to use EQ at
all.

That's true for a graphic eq as well.

> Not all people are familiar enough with eq bands to be
able to
> dial in those frequencies in order to cut or boost them.

The same argument can be applied to the midband sweep on a
Mackie SR32.

> More people do know the difference between "high," "low,"
and
> "mid," with only one confusing freq. knob on the mids.

The digital consoles I've worked with (Yammy) and seen
(Behr) do a far better job of showing the graphical results
of setting eq than any analog console or eq that I've ever
seen or heard of, and by far. Admitted the Behr is the
econo-version, but its still representative.

As we all know, so-called graphic equalizer slider positions
don't tell the true story, but a calculated FR graph can.

> When I was training the ministrial staff how to use the
Spirit 328
> (the most analog-friendly digital mixer I've ever used),
the
> comment of "I'll just leave that alone" was made when
> discussing the EQ.

Given the Spirit's woefully inadequate display particularly
as applied to eq, I'll second that.

> I love having it and that's one reason
> I'll never go back to analog, but it IS more complicated
than
> four knobs.

Actually, the Yammies have 8 knobs (level and freq/Q) for
each of 4 bands. But, the money feature is the fact that you
instantly see what the knobs do to the FR as you twist them.

>> The faders don't move by themselves if you don't use
layers
>> or scenes.

> I know, but I do. And the volunteers see me doing it and
are
> scared. Impressed, but intimidated.

I've smelled the fear, but it seems like the shock and awe
will be short-lived. The scary part is saving and loading
scenes when the room is live. Once you get passed that...

>> Just tell them that since all they ever did was mute
>> channels and adjust faders, now they have a console that
on
>> the face of it, is pretty much just mutes and faders.

> That is the first thing I tell people I train on it. Then
I
> show them how to recall scenes so that the service is
ready to
> go without touching a single fader. The recall is a
little
> intimidating, but the fact that they don't have to do any
real
> SR work is comforting.

Exactly.

> I'm with you, Arny, in saying that digital mixers are here
to
> stay and their benefits far outweigh any negative comments
> that anyone has said here. But I know that they are not
the
> right tool for every job.

I agree that they digital mixers aren't a 100% solution for
100% of all applications. Layers are only going to work if
someone plans the layout of the board, and scenes are only
going to work if they are tailored to the application.

Based on what I've seen around town, even some supposedly
sucessful contractors aren't up to doing this right.

>In a volunteer-based church it is
> not always the best, but that can only be determined by
> someone who is familiar with the resources and personnel
that
> they have to work with.

True for analog, true for digital. I had a supposed "pro"
operator rammed down my throat by a brain-dead music
comittee chairman. Not only did the pro make the same
mistakes the volunteers did and then some, paying him to be
at every rehearsal and event was out of the financial
question. I still had to be there to show him where
everthing was. I just ended up with another person to
support.

What I got out of the experience is that its better to have
two volunteers working together as much of the time as
possible, because our room is just too awkward and complex
for one person to run it like it should be run.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:11d4rr9l25ca1e0@corp.supernews.com

> IME, things like pipe organs and even pianos are never
> "reinforced", but quite necessary for a mix used outside
the
> room.

Never is a big word. Our grand piano can easily be
overwhelmed by our pipe organ.

I know that our organist likes to cut me down behind my back
just every chance he gets, and one reason is probably the
fact that me running SR, he can't blast the pianist and
vocalists into submission. I also think he is uncomfortable
because my recordings show that his playing is not always as
good as he might like people to think it is.

IME organists seem to tend to have these power things going.
They are often not happy unless they are running the show.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:42:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote
>> IME, things like pipe organs and even pianos are never
>> "reinforced", but quite necessary for a mix used outside
>> the room.
>
> Never is a big word. Our grand piano can easily be
> overwhelmed by our pipe organ.

Of course, and that is why I qualified it with "IME". By
preference, I am more involved with traditional/acoustic
music and not places that have to reinforce the piano to
keep up with the rest of the instrumentation.

> I know that our organist likes to cut me down behind my back
> just every chance he gets, and one reason is probably the
> fact that me running SR, he can't blast the pianist and
> vocalists into submission. I also think he is uncomfortable
> because my recordings show that his playing is not always as
> good as he might like people to think it is.
>
> IME organists seem to tend to have these power things going.
> They are often not happy unless they are running the show.

I guess our keyboard players (piano and organ) are not as
competitive? :-)
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:00:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You know, it's times like this I'm glad I belong to a really small
congregation. Prep for service is as follows:

1) The bass player plugs his bass into his amp and turns the amp on.

2) The rabbi decides whether or not to play his oud and, if so, whether or
not to use the amp. If so, he plugs it in and turns his amp on.

3) Everybody tunes.

4) Somebody tries to figure out why the hell we ran out of candles again,
when we just bought a new box.

5) The rabbi tunes the oud again.

6) Somebody finds the box of candles, which was hidden under some
dry-roasted peanuts that have been there since 1999.

7) See 5)

8) We begin the service.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:6BxAe.410669$cg1.390393@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> You know, it's times like this I'm glad I belong to a
really
> small congregation. Prep for service is as follows:
>
> 1) The bass player plugs his bass into his amp and turns
the
> amp on.
>
> 2) The rabbi decides whether or not to play his oud and,
if
> so, whether or not to use the amp. If so, he plugs it in
and
> turns his amp on.
>
> 3) Everybody tunes.
>
> 4) Somebody tries to figure out why the hell we ran out of
> candles again, when we just bought a new box.
>
> 5) The rabbi tunes the oud again.
>
> 6) Somebody finds the box of candles, which was hidden
under
> some dry-roasted peanuts that have been there since 1999.
>
> 7) See 5)
>
> 8) We begin the service.

That seems really complex compared to how things were when
we had just an acoustic piano, a pipe organ, and some
singers.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:03:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message...

> You're not addressing the common problem of mixing vastly
> different kinds of services on the same mixer.
>
> Since we have scenes to burn, and they are easy to define
> and recall, we're using 3 scenes for an ordinary worship
> service.

Three mute groups? "Scene" terminology can run the gamut
from the simplest of functions to total resetting of the desk...
the latter of which is rarely necessary in a church environment.

I maintain the money is better spent on more user-friendly gear.

DM
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
message
news:%vyAe.8550$Ll6.5260@trnddc06
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message...
>
>> You're not addressing the common problem of mixing
vastly
>> different kinds of services on the same mixer.

>> Since we have scenes to burn, and they are easy to define
>> and recall, we're using 3 scenes for an ordinary worship
>> service.

> Three mute groups?

Admittedly they could have been mute groups, but since we
had full-blown scenes...

However since you mentioned them, lets talk about the mute
groups on the OP's Mackie SR24 or my SR32. Next! That was
quick! ;-)

> "Scene" terminology can run the gamut
> from the simplest of functions to total resetting of the
> desk... the latter of which is rarely necessary in a
church
> environment.

The nice thing about scenes is that one feature fits a wide
range of requirements. On their new digital consoles Mackie
calls them snapshots, I believe. Scenes come from digital
lighting panel nomenclature, as I recall.

> I maintain the money is better spent on more user-friendly
gear.

I agree that money is well-spent on user-friendly gear, even
in those few remaining cases where it is analog. ;-)
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:05:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message...

> For example, count the number of buttons, knobs and faders
> in the respective channel strips.
>
> The 02R96 has 6 total controls, 8 if you add in the controls
> on the corresponding mic preamp, while a SR32 has 20 knobs,
> buttons and faders per mic input channel strip.


This is exactly the problem I see with 'virtual' mixing. On the analogue
mixer (or a good digital) there are plenty of 'reach-out-and-touch' knobs
that let the operator respond with real immediacy to a crisis or other
unforseen issue. On the average digital desk, one would just have
begun the seemingly endless selecting and scrolling process to
address said issue. Reaction time is *very* bad, and we're still
talking about volunteers, not experienced operators in this case.

DM
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
message
news:0yyAe.39898$ZN6.27149@trnddc02
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message...
>
>> For example, count the number of buttons, knobs and
faders
>> in the respective channel strips.
>>
>> The 02R96 has 6 total controls, 8 if you add in the
controls
>> on the corresponding mic preamp, while a SR32 has 20
knobs,
>> buttons and faders per mic input channel strip.

> This is exactly the problem I see with 'virtual' mixing.
On
> the analogue mixer (or a good digital) there are plenty of
> 'reach-out-and-touch' knobs that let the operator respond
with
> real immediacy to a crisis or other unforseen issue.

> On the average digital desk, one would just have
> begun the seemingly endless selecting and scrolling
process to
> address said issue.

Endless selecting and scrolling? What sort of backward
digital mixer requires this kind of torture? Certainly not
the Yammies that the OP was asking about.

If you have been say setting aux sends, you need only touch
the display button by the channel eq knobs or adjust one of
the eq knobs to start displaying and/or setting eq for the
currently selected channel(s).

If you have been setting eq on some channel(s) and want to
move to the next channel(s), you need only touch the next
channel's select button, brush your finger on that
channel's fader knob, or even just bring your finger near
the fader knob for that channel.

I can't think of any common function that absoutely requires
scrolling.

OTOH if you are making mass changes on adjacent channels,
scrolling can be your friend. I used scrolling to get the
aux sends in "the ballpark" when I was initially setting up
the mixer, because it minimized my workload.

BTW, I just mentioned one of the really nifty features of
digital mixers, the ability to pair or group (or ungroup)
channels very quickly and easily. I'm not bound by some
mixer designer's ideas about what should or should not be
grouped or paired. And, I don't have to operate the group
with special knobs or push a lot of buttons to set up or
destroy the group.

BTW let me add my voice to those who have already mentioned
the fact the fact that *big* medium-sized digital mixers are
relatively narrow, eliminates a lot of problems with
reaching and parallax. We had a very tight sound booth with
the SR32, but with the 02R96 its about the right size, maybe
just a little tight.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:07:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message news:11d4rr9l25ca1e0@corp.supernews.com...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> > Oh, Richard... you've seen me in this same debate for years. ;-)
> > The proper monitoring in this case is where the darned people
> > have to put up with the mix. If the operator is competent, it should
> > be clonable for recording after just a little familiarization and some
> > tweaking. (I'm not talking about monster cathedrals or tiny little
> > halls, just a typical 500 to 2000 seater church).

> Dunno. My observation is that doing the live FOH mix is
> regularly beyond their capacity. Giving them the extra burden
> of recording mix is just asking for trouble with both FOH and
> recording.

That, coupled with repair expenses, is why I recommend a small
salary (call it a tithe, if you want) to at least a semi-professional.
Of course, this is based on the fact that I wouldn't have been in
the churches had there not been technical or service issues
that were costing the church more money than they'd spend
on paying an operator to put an end to these 'issues'.

> >> Furthermore, the more "acoustic" the content, the more different
> >> the recording mix will be from the FOH mix.

> > In some cases, yes... but I don't really grip why the two cannot be
> > exactly the same unless there are *serious* problems with the room.

And I suppose, problems with system specs as well.

> >> And it is difficult
> >> to achive a proper balance of a large pipe organ with a vocal
> >> soloist, etc. when you are in the room with the instrument.

> > Why? THAT IS where the balance is supposed to be made *proper* !!

> IME, things like pipe organs and even pianos are never "reinforced",
> but quite necessary for a mix used outside the room.

Quite true with regard to the organ, in many cases... but piano would
fade into nothingness in most places I visit, certainly in my church and
it's just a 700-seater. And if you ask me, there's still a way to get all
but the largest pipe organs into the FOH mix almost unnoticeably, but
adequate for a broadcast/recording.

I still maintain that there's money to be saved and operating issues
to be addressed by the OP.... spending more money on frills will not
make the audio any better in the actual service... that takes a human.

DM
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
>> IME, things like pipe organs and even pianos are never "reinforced",
>> but quite necessary for a mix used outside the room.
>
> Quite true with regard to the organ, in many cases... but piano would
> fade into nothingness in most places I visit, certainly in my church and
> it's just a 700-seater. And if you ask me, there's still a way to get all
> but the largest pipe organs into the FOH mix almost unnoticeably, but
> adequate for a broadcast/recording.

We specified hard floors everywhere, but lost out under the pews. :-(
But we insisted for the stage area and got hardwood risers for the
choir and washed aggregate concrete for the main stage.

http://www.rcrowley.com/Rieger/images/Sunnyside.htm

The 9ft Steinway is more than adequate to cover seating area of 550
without a bit of reinforcement. That piano has autographs from Janis
Joplin, Lorin Hollander, and other famous players from back when it
was the Oregon Symphony stage instrument.

And the Rieger mechanical tracker-action pipe organ has nothing
electronic but the stop presets and the air blower. (We did put a
couple of EV 30W subwoofers in the back wall behind the free-
standing organ case if we ever want to add an electronic 32-ft
pedal stop :-)

If you look closely, you will see the distributed, pew-back speaker
system I designed and installed. Still in use 15 years later and going
strong. There are ~550 3x5" oval speakers spaced every 18" behind
the continuous grille at the top of the backside. Effectively 1 speaker
for each audience member. Wired and amped for 4 zones of delay.

Biggest problem is that from the operating position (open-air, back
wall above the main entrance) it actually sounds louder to the operator
than it does to the audience down on the floor.

We also have the same 3x5" ovals every 18" in the floor of the choir
area, with custom cabinets of five 12" woofers on either side, and
then crossed over to the two 30Ws in the back wall for sub. It was
intended as coverage for the choir members, but the robes (and
feet) tended to block the sound from the floor and we had to add a
horn high up in the ridge to cover the choir area.

But the choir distributed array actually makes quite a nice-sounding
system for playing trax for vocal soloists. It provides both the FOH
coverage AND the monitor for the soloist all in one piece (similar to
the GD's "Wall of Sound" :-)
!