Different between a console for music and a console for broadcast?

[ecolleno]

Do you know the difference between music and broadcast in a console?

Has it the same sound?

thanks

[FossilTooth]

Depends on what consoles you're comparing to each other.

To dumb down the answer, it basically comes down to routing options.

[vernier]

Recording studio mixers are complex, with lots of channels and lots of circuitry for eq and routing. Broadcast mixers are simple, a few channels and no eq. Early recording studio mixers were broadcast mixers, or modified broadcast mixers. After that, studio mixers were custom built from off-the-shelf parts, mainly volume pots and eq ..and over the years grew and grew in size.


Capitol Records, early 50's

[PhilE]

Originally Posted by vernier

Recording studio mixers are complex, with lots of channels and lots of circuitry for eq and routing. Broadcast mixers are simple, a few channels and no eq. Early recording studio mixers were broadcast mixers, or modified broadcast mixers. After that, studio mixers were custom built from off-the-shelf parts, mainly volume pots and eq ..and over the years grew and grew in size.

Not so sure that is always true. Neve broadcast consoles often had the same EQ modules in them and just different routing options.
Faders are often upside down too.
A well converted broadcast console can make a great studio desk, esp. for tracking. Often the conversion doesnt need to be much more than direct outs.

[Lionman]

Hi "ecolleno". The answer to your question is and isn't a simple one. If you look at the evolution of audio boards for both recording and broadcast, there are a number of features where they are similiar, and some where they differ, but they both have a common ancestor in the earliest of audio mixers. Within the broadcast world, the needs on a TV board are generally more demanding than on a radio board. With so many boards going digital now, the lines are often blurred between the live/broadcast/recording boards because of the flexibilty inherrent to a digital console.

Before I dive further into my answer, allow me to give some background and basis from which to qualify my response. First, I work with Creation Audio Labs (makers of the Mk 4.23 Boost Pedal, the Redeemer, and the Michael Wagener MW-1 Studiotool) Creation Audio Labs Pro Audio Repair & Restoration. I've done all the music at the Tennessee Titans coliseum for 8 seasons and I do all the music for the Nashville Predators (NHL) at their home games. I've mixed for nationally syndicated radio shows and done 5.1 mixes for HD satellite feeds. My other big gig is I'm the audio engineer at NorthStar Studios in Nashville, Tennessee. NorthStar Studios, a full service television production studio, Nashville, Tennessee .I've been here almost 14 years, have worked both in the studio and remotely for broadcasting and recording of concerts, CD's, DVD's, infomercials, talkshows, live surgeries, sports of all kinds, the Olympics, Acadamy Awards, etc.., and I've even worked in the White House. I've been fortunate enough to have worked on all sides of the board so to speak in broadcasting, live, post, and recording.

NorthStar just purchased 3 Digidesign D-Show systems,(2 Venues and 1 Profile), to replace aging Wheatstone and Mackie boards. I regularly mix for post on Pro Tools. In addition I have worked on Calrec, SSL, Harrison, Neve, Soundcraft, Sony and Yamaha boards in a broadcast enviroment.

The simple & generalized answer is usually the most noticeable difference is that they differ in their routing and I/O options. At this point in history with new boards, the sound "quality" is generally going to be excellent across the spectrum, be it broadcast or studio designs, with the subjectively deciding factor most likely being pre-amps, eq flavors, options, and flexibility.

Traditionally a board designed to be strictly in a broadcast facility, was not going to have tape returns into every channel or direct outs from each input, but would have the ability to do multiple mixes using what's called a mix/minus. Basically a true mix minus takes an input signal and flips it 180 out of phase before introducing it into a mix going down a phone line. It's different from your polarity reverse switch at the top of your channel strip because it doesn't reverse the signal to the whole mix, but rather just to a specific mix bus output. Generally it's used to send a MIX back to a reporter in the field or a caller on the phone MINUS their own signal so they don't hear the their own voice delayed on the return mix coming to them. It's different than a mix made off of auxes in that it's usually a "program" mix, minus the incoming signal of whoever is going to have the mix returned to them.

Often on a broadcast board there are fewer auxes, as it's generally thought that there won't be a large number of mixes needed, for instance monitors, in-ears, etc.. The EQ section may not have as many options or handles, the metering is commonly less detailed and may not indicate level per channel/return, there's usually a tone generator on a broadcast board for setting a level for tape machines and sources receiving the mix so an agreed upon "zero" level can be established. Often broadcast boards in the past didn't have an insert on each channel, but on many you could set a fader to start a cart machine, record player, video tape player, etc., when the fader was brought up to a certain level. Some broadcast radio and TV boards have a detent mode so if you have the fader all the way down, you can pull back on it a little more and it will send the input of that channel to a CUE speaker so you can hear what is coming in on that channel before you bring it up.

The Digidesign boards that I'm using now were originally designed as a live board, but with their flexibility, and Pro Tools direct integration, they work perfectly here and cover all of my needs if I'm doing a broadcast or a concert while recording directly into Pro Tools as the show is happening. And with their coming 5.1 upgrades, they'll be perfect for HD and surround for a long time to come. Their routing options, ability to be upgraded and remotely controlled, the stand alone software that can be pre-programmed without the board, the TDM plug-ins, dynamics and EQ on every channel, and ergonomic layout are fantastic for the facility because we regularly cover broadcast, live, and recording in the same show. Not to mention the co$t to benefits ratio compared to other boards is exceptional. Digidesign | Products | VENUE

If you go to Euphonix - Digital Audio Mixing Systems & Controllers you can see that they split their boards beyond just music and broadcast. They split them into BROADCAST, POST, MUSIC, & LIVE. Their stuff is amazing, and you pay accordingly. You can go on there and compare the stats and you'll see how different features are offered depending upon their intended use.

Studer, Lavo, Calrec, Harrison, and Wheatstone also make fantastic sounding broadcast boards and each approaches them with a slightly different philosophy and offers different feature sets.

Hope that helps add to the confusion a little.

[vernier]

Soundwise, a broadcast console should be much better (I'd put money on it) ..there's simply way too much going on in a recording mixer, at least ones built after 1967 or so.

[Bryan Talbot]

Originally Posted by vernier

Soundwise, a broadcast console should be much better (I'd put money on it) ..there's simply way too much going on in a recording mixer, at least ones built after 1967 or so.

Unless it's a Speck LiLo

[vernier]

Unless it's a Speck LiLo

Funny you mentioned the LiLo cause my console is a line mixer too.

[Lionman]

I know what you mean about broadcast mixers should sound better than a recording board because of all the gack inside of a recording console. Unfortunately, those simple boards that sound nice and warm and open are rare. Modern broadcast consoles, like FOH, and recording consoles run the full range of sound quality. You can find cheap garbage or pure diamonds. While the idea that less is more in regards to signal flow and electronics usually holds true, in the modern broadcast world, the option of having less is usually only reserved to the simplest radio boards. Most modern consoles are loaded with everything they can fit under the hood. In the ever competitive world of broadcast pro-audio, selling the number of functions and the board's physical footprint, easily rivals, if not surpasses, the importance of the sound quality when purchasing decisions are made. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but just how it seems to go from my own personal observations. There's only so much room in the audio booth in a remote truck/trailer, or in the audio room built as an after-thought with no consideration of what would actually go in the room in the future.

So, more often than not in TV Land, the simple audio specs are not as much a determining factor as size, cost, and flexibility. Knowing that, in the broadcast world, some audio board manufacturers have cut costs by using pre-amps with less head-room and EQ's that just don't seem "musical" in nature. For many news stations, that's not a problem. The noise floor isn't generally considered as critical by many broadcast engineers (as in the fix it/install it engineers with pocket protectors), because they reason that the signal will be squashed, compressed, probably end up slightly out of phase, and coming out of miniature home speakers that most people don't have set up correctly in their house. That is the argument I have run up against most often. I always disagree based on the fact that if you know your sound is going to be shredded on it's way to the end user, the better it starts out, the better the signal left after it goes through all of those different deteriorating steps. Bean-counters don't usually see it that way. :(

On the other hand, I personally have found the people that work on the music recording side of the industry to be much more critical and demanding, as they aren't competing against video for money, and what is heard is all that matters. Speaking from my experiences, the demand for audiophile specs are far greater in the recording world than the live or broadcast world. Again, I am only speaking from what I've experienced. I'm sure you could find people who've had the exact opposite experience.

In general I have found that in the TV/Video broadcast world, audio is the step-child to video. Even though psycho-acoustic studies show that people are more willing to watch a less than perfect picture with good audio, over watching a perfect picture with bad audio, most bean-counters that approve purchases at broadcast facilities are 100 times more likely to approve a fancy video monitor, that only the video crew will see, than to approve a great mic or pre-amp that the entire audience will hear. So to get the board with more bang for the buck, sonic quality is often sacrificed.

As for the actual "sound" of the board, that is often a matter of taste once you get past the specs on paper. There are many great sounding boards for broadcast, however I would be more inclined to think that on any given Sunday, if you walked into a good recording studio and a typical broadcast facility, the sound coming out the other end would more often than not be better from the recording studio.

Regarding audio boards, both broadcast and recording, it seems to me kind of like our cell phones. At first all they did was make calls without wires. Then they started text messaging, then somebody added color screens, then a camera, then a video camera, then somebody else made it sync to your computer, and it plays music, then movies, GPS, etc., etc., etc.... Everyone has to one-up the other. The idea of a simple, pure board, is a very rare idea, as functions and frills are big selling points.......... well, at least up is still louder.... usually... :-)

[vernier]

Interesting stuff, Lionman.







.

[RadioMoo]

Originally Posted by vernier

Soundwise, a broadcast console should be much better (I'd put money on it) ..there's simply way too much going on in a recording mixer, at least ones built after 1967 or so.

There was a time when they were closer in sound to each other. Nowadays, most broadcasts consoles are digital with so-so converters.

The best modern analogue broadcast consoles IMHO are Wheatstone and its cheaper line Audio Arts. I still don't think they'd quite live up to a recent Neve, but they're certainly no Behringer, either.

If you go back a few years, Pacific Recorders and Engineering made great sounding consoles, and RCA - well, need I say more?

[Dom & Roland]

My Studer 89 is a great broadcast mixer ,has great pre's and sounds ....er....great
and i ain't broadcasting nada!

I just realised this has nothing to do with the question...

[Future One]

You going back to working with some analogue Dom?

[mltamisin]

I've got a Broadcast board. An Amek BC3. Main difference is there's no solo buttons on the channels and mine has no direct outs.

[Reptil]

Please also regard the German, Swiss, Danish, Dutch and Austrian broadcast and FOH consoles, up till the early nineties. (when most companies closed the production lines of analogue broadcast gear) Quality was consistently high, in most cases. Most stuff ended up in recording studios later. take out the broadcast filters and you'll have a lovely machine.
Interestingly (at least, to me LOL) a few companies survived the onslaught and continued to manufacture analogue. ADT-audio and Monitora (they're called differently now) notable exceptions to the rule in the digital age.

[Spook]

I am using a early 70's Raindirk broadcast desk, mono with 4 busses , 4 f760 comps
Its great!

[Spook]

Another pic

[vernier]

Yep, I was thinking the old days, like this ..I could mix on this one no prob.

[vernier]

And add these and be able to make the worlds best recordings.

[RadioMoo]

Originally Posted by vernier

Yep, I was thinking the old days, like this ..I could mix on this one no prob.

I did!

[Dom & Roland]

Originally Posted by Future One

You going back to working with some analogue Dom?

I never stopped

[Kronos147]

Does anyone know anything about the Wheatstone TV-600 Audio Console? There is one for sale in my area and I was thinking I should check it out.

Thanks,

Eric

[huub]

Errrm, music console more complicated??

music is quite simple really, flexible routing to multitrack, and that's it..
I hate doing broadcast on a music console because they're too simple..

Our lawo's have 32 groups, 32 masters, 64 auxes and 192 input channels,
all with inserts, eq, gate, expander,compressor, limiter and direct outs, that's because sometimes you need to make two surround mixes, 4 stereo mixes for 4 different countries, separate mixes for 5 presenters and 2 announcers, a separate mix for the P.A. feed..All simultaneously, live..

Music is for pussies ;) ...

Oh, and also, most broadcast consoles are mighty fine music consoles..

Broadcast mixers digital with so-so converters?? Dude, have you looked at the specs and price of these studers, lawo's and ssl's?

huub