Trident Series 82 - Anybody ??

[Frankovitchy]

With all the Trident "hype" on the internet (i just saw an add in Sound on Sound yesterday with Toft sitting in front of a Series 82) i'm pretty amazed that a search here on GS didn't show anything else than a post regarding a demo version of the console.

First of all i thought that Toft was doing his own Toft thing and Oram owned the Trident name...oh well guess not

Has anyone bought a Series 82 ?

And to all of you Trident aficionados out there, how does the specs perform in comparison with the original 80c ?

If Toft is back with Trident does that mean that Toft Audio is closed or?

Thanks!

[Dean Roddey]

Sure does look cool. Nice EQ, sweepable high pass, full 24 groups so that even Children of the DAW wouldn't feel constrained , 3 band EQ on the groups, inline plus split, and seemingly quite price competitive with considerably less functional 5088 and 1608 consoles, right?

[Voyage.One]

The Toft is based on the 80-B, the series 82 is based on the 80C. Different mixers

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Voyage.One

The Toft is based on the 80-B, the series 82 is based on the 80C. Different mixers

The 80C was an 80B with 24 more inputs to the juke box [which wasn't really 24 additional inputs as they could only switch between an "A" and a "B" input... you could use "A" + "B" but those returns would have the same level and pan control] along with two extra strips in the main channel frame... not bloody much of a difference in all reality.

Layout of the two desks was the same - EQ was the same - mic amps were the same - number of auxes and busses same - same... master section and statuses... yup, you guessed it -- same on the 80B & 80C

Peace

[Dean Roddey]

The EQs on the groups immediately sort of raises the question, why not put a stereo link button on the odd number groups to allow for easy stereo EQ of the pairs that will inevitably be very common during mixing, right?

[Fletcher]

The EQ isn't on the groups - its on the monitor return path [just looked at the channel strips on the Trident website]. I also noticed that its laid out like an 80B and not an 80C [no "A" / "B" input selection on the monitor section].

Nice looking desk!!

[Dean Roddey]

But there's also one on the groups, right? If you look at the group strips, there's a 3 band on them, in addition to the primary one on the channel strip and the secondary one on the channel strip monitor section.

[Fletcher]

No - there appears to be two monitor paths... one on the main channel strip [2 band] which appears can be used to build additional cue mixes and one on the jukebox [3 band]... from what it looks like in module photos the only EQ that can go to groups [24 busses or 2 buss] are the channel EQ's [4 band]... but it does appear you can indeed feed the aux sends from the monitor section on the channel strips [2 band] as well which may be what you're mistaking for feeding the group bussing.

I'd probably need to read the manual [or at least see a full block diagram] to know if my conjecture is on or not... but I'm like 95+% sure I'm not too far off base.

Peace

[Dean Roddey]

Oh, no, I don't mean on the group sends from the channel strips, but on the groups themselves over in the split section. So, on the channel strip there are two EQs, the main one and the secondary monitor path one. But there's also one on each of the group sections.

Here's a little blurb/overview PDF. At the bottom are the layouts of each of the sections:

http://www.trident-audio.com/images/...ries82_web.pdf

[kbshearer]

Fletcher,

From seeing the 82 at AES, I believe your take on the path is correct. It does have the strange feature of two monitor paths with eq, with aux sends from the split monitor section.

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios

[kbshearer]

Dean,

95% sure those eq's on the split section are for the monitor returns, not group sends.


Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios

[Jack Luminous]

Don't know how it sounds or how it's built but it looks very nice. Exactly the features I'd wish for a big console. Nothing fancy but everything's there !

[Dean Roddey]

It's probably just a terminology issue on my part, not being a console guy. I was assuming that, given that it's an inline design, that, during tracking, the secondary path on the channel strips would be the returns from the DAW/tape, primary path would be the mic inputs which are sent through the groups and out to DAW/Tape via the group outputs. Then, during mixing, the primary channel input would be flipped to the DAW, and the 24 groups would be used for grouping of channels on the way to the master bus (with the secondary channel path only used if you need more inputs.)

So I thought that 'monitor returns' would be the secondary channel strip path to be used for monitoring already recording stuff while tracking. And on the split section you could use the EQ for on the way out to tape/DAW while recording, and on channel stuff passing through the groups on the way to the master bus during mixing.

But I must not be correct about that. I've been struggling to understand the whole console signal flow on various consoles but it's diffusing for a DAW guy.

[kbshearer]

Dean,

Everything's correct other than being able to use the eq's on the split section on the groups "on the way out." The only path the eq's (on the split section) are assigned to is the monitor return, not the group sends. Yes, you absolutely can use the monitor returns as extra inputs on mix. This console just has the very unusual feature of having both inline and split monitoring.

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios

[Dean Roddey]

So I guess my problem is that I'm confused when you call the split part 'monitoring returns', when in the scenarios above they don't ever seem to be used for monitoring? During recording they are outputs to the DAW/tape, during mixing they are just groups for grouping together channels for common processing, right? So why are they referred to as monitor returns?

[Fletcher]

It seems counter intuitive to have two monitor paths... but I suppose sitting in front of one [preferably with a manual] it could be figured out. I'm sure there are ancillary mixes that can be created that way [I would think for headphone or stems during recording purposes] but it still seems like a bit of overkill.

At the same time there are people who prefer in-line desks to split desks... this format will definitely allow a user to work "in-line" or "split" depending on needs and preference. Another thing I've found over my career -- so long as additional function doesn't cause sonic compromises then additional function is a good thing... there are all kinds of times I've wished I had additional function and it wasn't there.

A further an unrelated thought... if you know what you're doing you can add several more inputs via the return path on an "in-line" desk... and while it doesn't look like you'd need extra inputs on something like this desk... I suppose that if you did... you'd have them without a struggle.

Peace

[kbshearer]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

So I guess my problem is that I'm confused when you call the split part 'monitoring returns', when in the scenarios above they don't ever seem to be used for monitoring? During recording they are outputs to the DAW/tape, during mixing they are just groups for grouping together channels for common processing, right? So why are they referred to as monitor returns?

Well the split monitor section does have a dual purpose....group send levels and monitor returns. So the strange part of this board is that you can bring the "tape" inputs back either on the channel inline monitor path and/or the split path. Those are both returns. Just as with the 80b, there's a rotary knob that adjusts the return level...then the monitor fader on the split section adjusts the group send level...(although there's no eq in that send path.The eq works only on the return path.) But everybody on the planet hits the "fader rev" button and uses the small fader for monitor return levels and the rotary knob for group send level.

Having both monitor sections sure can give you a ton of inputs on mix...

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios

[Dean Roddey]

Oh, OK. If I were designing it, I think I'd have left the returns off of the groups and made the EQ work for the group sends so that you could do group level EQ while tracking and mixing without having to patch in any outboard. That would have made it an even more one stop shopping type of desk, and 2x the number of channels worth of inputs for mixing seems a bodacious plenty already, and it doesn't seem like most folks would be willing to give up the convenience of grouping in order to get 24 more inputs, right (and I presume you would give up grouping if you using them as mix inputs)?

I guess you could use some of them as extra F/X returns, with EQ on the returned signal, which a lot of people would otherwise end up doing with outboard gear otherwise.

[kbshearer]

Dean,

Think of it this way: Let's say you have a series 82 with 32 input channels and 24 channels of split monitoring. You could obviously use the 32 channels for full featured inputs for mixing. You could then use the 32 inline monitor inputs with limited eq for an additional 32 inputs.THEN....you could use the split section channels in any combination of two ways: You could push the "playback" button and have the source be another set of returns, adding 24 additional channels of line inputs with eq and sends...OR...you could leave them in group mode and use them as 24 subgroups with inserts, eq's and aux sends. And of course, the groups would be assigned from the main input channel buss switches. So if I understand you correctly, the only feature you're not getting on your wish list is the ability to eq the group buss sends....although you can eq them if used as returns. It's a pretty flexible system, actually allowing 64 inputs on mix AND 24 groups.

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios

[Dean Roddey]

Yeh, that's all true. And given that I couldn't afford to buy the plastic knobs, much less the console, it hardly matters what I'm missing anyway. As I said above, extra F/X returns seems a good use for them as well in return mode. It would have been nice though if they'd allowed them to be switched into the group send path, seems like it would have made for a really nice benefit in terms of replacing potentially a lot of outboard group and F/X return EQ commonly used in mixes.

Of course, for all I know, for some technical reason that might have been hugely difficult or greatly increased the cost somehow.

[Kris]

I would love one.

[Frankovitchy]

First off thanks for all the replies!

I'm a rock guy doing mostly classic and hard rock acts (incl. my own band)
Trident has always been a favorite of mine, did quite a few sessions at the legendary Sweet Silence Studios here in Copenhagen on their A-Range...= Amazing!

Tried a couple of 80b channels some years back and loved the eq for guitars and well, rock

So my simple thought was "if i can get the 80c in a new updated package WITH warranty" then that's a no-brainer

Been talking a bit with Alan from PMI, thumbs up for his extremely fast replies and detailed answers!...Can't wait for someone to buy one and share some experiences with us (i might be that guy if someone doesn't come along soon)

[in the red]

Originally Posted by Frankovitchy

First off thanks for all the replies!


So my simple thought was "if i can get the 80c in a new updated package WITH warranty" then that's a no-brainer

hm. i would think you wouldn´t need the waranty. the old trident 80 is a pretty simple board to maintain! if you can´t do it yourself, get a tech! and maybe recap the thing. it really is not rocket science! and, i would guess a vintage 80 would be much cheaper then the new one? just a thought...

[Higure]

Hi!

OK, I'm officially lost with this console -- no surprise here, I remember I was lost when I checked the MTA 980 years ago.

So, let's take an example with a 32/24 console.
I'd feed the 'input channels' with the alnalogue outputs from Pro Tools.
Then... what can I exactly expect being able to do with the 24 'dual group channels'?

Was planning on using the dual group channels as additional FX returns. Still, the faders seem to control bus send levels, not returns.

Any idea whether or not I'd be able to use the 'dual group channels' for FX returns?

Thanks

[Frankovitchy]

Originally Posted by in the red

hm. i would think you wouldn´t need the waranty. the old trident 80 is a pretty simple board to maintain! if you can´t do it yourself, get a tech! and maybe recap the thing. it really is not rocket science! and, i would guess a vintage 80 would be much cheaper then the new one? just a thought...

I'm with you BUT someone has to move on we can't all be buying old vintage consoles and what if this new 82 is the "80c" of my generation ?

I'm being poetic about it (with a smile) but hopefully you get what i'm thinking off. I've been scouting the net for a mint 80b or 80c and then i saw the 82 series and thought "Hmm brand new, with warranty IF there's any issues....an updated version of the 80C"....can't be such a bad idea!

[jeremyglover]

if i could afford it, i would take a new console over an old one any day.

who wants to recap, replace switches, rewire and clean when you could be using the thing.

[littlenemo]

It seems that the Trident series 82 is finally available for order at funkyjunk, and the price is a lot lower than what I expected.