The final step in digital consoles?

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

Are there any real-world products like these?

(1) A box that had only a row of faders on front and jacks
on the back, and relied on a computer program like Yamaha's
Studio Manager for the rest of the HUI.

(2) A box that had a touch-sensitive flat panel display on
top for its HUI, and had the usual inputs and outputs on the
back.

(3) A box that had just input and output jacks, and relied
on a computer program like Yamaha's Studio Manager for the
HUI.

(4) A box that relied entirely on external multiplexers like
the Behringer ADA8000 for inputs and outputs, and used a
computer program like Yamaha's Studio Manager for the HUI.
The box would be a solid metal shell except for a power cord
fitting and a bunch of lightpipe, USB, and/or Firewire
ports.

Are there any existing commercial products that are like
these?

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1121720245k@trad

> What have you done with the real Arny Kruger? He'd know
these
> answers.

I wish.

> Or is it that as a new 02R96 user, you're enthralled
> with Studio Manager? Have you tried the C-Mexx C-Console
(if
> they make one for your model?)

I was unware of the product. Thanks, Mike.

I had forgotten about the DS 2416 DSP Factory.

Too bad that Yamaha has not provided software support for
it.

> In article <f-qdnXFdKsEUTUbfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>
> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

>> Are there any real-world products like these?

>> (1) A box that had only a row of faders on front and
jacks
>> on the back, and relied on a computer program like
Yamaha's
>> Studio Manager for the rest of the HUI.

> The Yamaha 01X is sort of like that. It has faders on
front, jacks on
> the back, and uses a DAW program to do much of the work. I
> think it's bundled with a version of Cubase (which makes
sense
> since Yamaha now owns Steinberg) so you get Steinberg's
user interface, plus the
> faders and knobs on the "box."

It's really tiny (2 mic inputs, 8 faders), and seems to
lack useful numbers of expansion ports other than mLAN.

>> (2) A box that had a touch-sensitive flat panel display
on
>> top for its HUI, and had the usual inputs and outputs on
the
>> back.

> There are a number of digital consoles that use a touch
sensitive
> display. The Mackie dxb is one.

This looks like it fits the description and has enough
capacity to be interesting.

>> (3) A box that had just input and output jacks, and
relied
>> on a computer program like Yamaha's Studio Manager for
the
>> HUI.

> Any computer audio interface meets that description. Most
DAW software
> can display a "console-like" user interface.

Operative phrase "console like". However, DAW software also
relies on the PC's CPU to function, which is different than
what I was thinking of.

>> (4) A box that relied entirely on external multiplexers
like
>> the Behringer ADA8000 for inputs and outputs, and used a
>> computer program like Yamaha's Studio Manager for the
HUI.

> See above, with ADAT optical I/O.

Same comment about relying on the PC's processor applies as
above.

-----

Thanks Mike, you provided a number of good tips for me to
follow up on.

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

"StraightEight" <straighteight@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121764975.561918.37730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Not sure if these are any use?

> http://www.digidesign.com/products/venue

Seems like implementation of items 3 and 4:

3) A box that had just input and output jacks, and relied
on a computer program like Yamaha's Studio Manager for the
HUI.

(4) A box that relied entirely on external multiplexers like
the Behringer ADA8000 for inputs and outputs, and used a
computer program like Yamaha's Studio Manager for the HUI.
The box would be a solid metal shell except for a power cord
fitting and a bunch of lightpipe, USB, and/or Firewire
ports.

....with the external multiplexer and for extra grins a
distance cabling system built-in.

Thanks.

> http://www.mackie.com/products/digitalxbus/index.html

Yes, that is the Mackie DXB that Mike mentioned.

It fits the description of a box that has a touch-sensitive
flat panel display on
top for its HUI, and the usual inputs and outputs on the
back.

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

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96985DFC946BCgulfjoehotmailcom@140.99.99.130
> There is another category you didn't mention.
>
> 5) A box with no audio inputs or outputs that does nothing
but
> control a computer to do the "real" work.
>
> Smart AV controller from ATI Group, Inc. reviewed in PAR
in
> April. http://www.smartav.us or www.smartav.net

Yes, that would be another valid class of product. It seems
to be a really fancy DAW controller.

To really fit, the software that it controlled would have to
run in real-time. IOW it would have to be usuable for live
sound.

I don't know of much DAW software that processes real time
audio.

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

"Joe Kesselman" <keshlam-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:jMqdnWfx6LPohEDfRVn-oQ@comcast.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> I don't know of much DAW software that processes real
time
>> audio.
>
> Some of the DSP-assisted stuff should be as fast as a
> dedicated digital mixer.

I would think that running a real-time mixer has to be
comparable to running a mixdown.

Most DAW software running on a modern system runs mixdowns
in several times less time than real time.

So, the required CPU power would seem to be there with no
added hardware.

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1121786954k@trad
> In article <epadnWrWDt-NnEDfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>
> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:
>
>>> Smart AV controller from ATI Group, Inc.
>
>> To really fit, the software that it controlled would have
to
>> run in real-time. IOW it would have to be usuable for
live
>> sound.

> Well, only if you wanted a live sound console.

You know my opinion - a live sound console is just about the
only kind of console to have. If it doesn't run in real time
then hopefully its at least a DAW.

> One of the
> things that DAW makers always seem to avoid when
demonstrating
> their wares is how to actually record with it.

There's not a lot to show. Besides, to demo recording they
would need something to record that was interesting.


> They show the
> vast number of tracks you
> can have and the gaggle of plug-ins, and how wonderful the
mix
> engine sounds, but these whiz-bang demonstrations almost
never
> have musicians in front of microphones, with headphones
on,
> playing, listening, overdubbing, and fixing.

Given the noise levels and acoustics at shows, that would be
a heavy requirement to meet. How about the people with
stand-alone recorders, do they have demos like that?

> I guess it would cost too much to pay the musicians, to
say
> nothing of how much preparation is required before you're
> ready to go. And then there's the problem of monitoring
> latency that they don't want you to hear about.

IME latency can be a pretty well-solved problem.

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

In article <HZ6dnfV-A4RHw0DfRVn-jw@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> > One of the
> > things that DAW makers always seem to avoid when demonstrating
> > their wares is how to actually record with it.
>
> There's not a lot to show.

Sure there is - how many buttons you have to press and menus you have
to access before you're ready to record, how to check levels, how to
set up monitoring, stuff that you have to do before you press the
record button. It's all about the user interface.

> Besides, to demo recording they
> would need something to record that was interesting.

I could sing "Strangers in the Night."

> Given the noise levels and acoustics at shows, that would be
> a heavy requirement to meet.

There's no need to make a fabulous recording when you're trying to
show the process and procedure. Everyone expects that, given good
sources, good acoustics, and intelligent engineering, the acutal audo
quality won't be compromised. If I was doing a demonstration like
this, I'd hire a duo or trio, set them up, and have them play a
backing track, then do a couple of overdubs. Then, when demonstrating
mixing, I'd go to per-recorded tracks.

> How about the people with
> stand-alone recorders, do they have demos like that?

I'll race my Mackie HDR and an analog console against your Audition
any day. <

> IME latency can be a pretty well-solved problem.

So, why not demonstrate it? It's not something that one can take for
granted.



--
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

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1121811156k@trad
> In article <HZ6dnfV-A4RHw0DfRVn-jw@comcast.com>
> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:
>
>>> One of the
>>> things that DAW makers always seem to avoid when
>>> demonstrating their wares is how to actually record with
it.
>>
>> There's not a lot to show.
>
> Sure there is - how many buttons you have to press and
menus
> you have to access before you're ready to record,

Enable buttons for every channel and one big record button.

> how to check levels,

Don't bother - thats what headroom is for.

> how to set up monitoring,

In the analog domain.

> stuff that you have to do before you press the record
button. It's all about the user
> interface.

They're often pretty much the same - something like an
analog tape machine.



>> Besides, to demo recording they
>> would need something to record that was interesting.
>
> I could sing "Strangers in the Night."

Post an MP3 for us to audition, will you Mike? ;-)

>> Given the noise levels and acoustics at shows, that would
be
>> a heavy requirement to meet.

> There's no need to make a fabulous recording when you're
trying to
> show the process and procedure.

Yeah, but lots of people will talk about what it sounded
like.

> Everyone expects that, given
> good sources, good acoustics, and intelligent engineering,
the
> acutal audo quality won't be compromised. If I was doing a
> demonstration like
> this, I'd hire a duo or trio, set them up, and have them
play a
> backing track, then do a couple of overdubs. Then, when
> demonstrating mixing, I'd go to per-recorded tracks.

>> How about the people with
>> stand-alone recorders, do they have demos like that?

> I'll race my Mackie HDR and an analog console against your
> Audition any day.

But my Audition does lots mo bettah!

>> IME latency can be a pretty well-solved problem.

> So, why not demonstrate it? It's not something that one
can
> take for granted.

Where can you take it for granted?