The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Hi-end digital mixer vs PT ITB Equalizer Plugins
Old 27th July 2014
  #61
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
The taper on faders and knobs is often different from one console brand to another. I remember back when I worked for Todd AO in the 90's and they had something like five different console makes in their different rooms, all with different fader and knob tapers. You'd mix by muscle memory, i.e. this big of a finger twitch is this big of a volume difference, but when they booked you on a new stage you'd look like a dope because the different fader taper would make your moves sound all whacky. The same was true with the knobs, so many degrees of turn on one knob was a different amount of EQ gain or cut than on another or a different pan position. The one plus was that all those old consoles had a detent at the knob zero position, which none of the consoles have these days and I really miss that.
Old 27th July 2014
  #62
Gear Addict
 
MrChick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bru95bg View Post

Working within a fully ProTools environment -the big difference (PLUS) is that the audio edit + the audio mix to a large extent become combined. Both can be moved around together really easily -as simple as a cut and paste -and will play on a many different systems even if the ProTools controller (console) is not plugged in -This is the major plus..... to be able to mix in a 'mix room' and then have that same mix repeat in an 'editing room' with all the processing, and the option of changing or evolving anything. (or pre-mix in edit rooms and fine tune in a mix room) And its cool that using ProTools with Icon and now S6 controllers can offer many 'large console like' visual feedback, feel and ergonomics.

Bruno
I agree. For Sound desing and postpro protools is the way. But for music I think a hybrid setup with a AFADA SSL you get the better. You can edit the console auto in the DAW so this is my future setup. Depends on the prices I'll get a AWS948 or the little Matrix.
Old 27th July 2014
  #63
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
The taper on faders and knobs is often different from one console brand to another. I remember back when I worked for Todd AO in the 90's and they had something like five different console makes in their different rooms, all with different fader and knob tapers. You'd mix by muscle memory, i.e. this big of a finger twitch is this big of a volume difference, but when they booked you on a new stage you'd look like a dope because the different fader taper would make your moves sound all whacky.
How true :-) I remember sitting behind a Euphonix System 5 for the first time and with its linear fader scales, I wasn't able to do a decent music fade out or dialog ride. That felt very frustrating. Never had that feeling with the DFC or ProTools at the time (even though PT had the non-standard +6dB above zero). I don't understand how console designers at some point think linear is better than the logarithmic and throw away years of experience.
First time using the CL9 remote on a Sounddevices 788T on location, I also had to adapt to its fader scale…

Greetings,

Thierry
Old 30th July 2014
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Does the current version of the System 5 still have linear faders?

Thats seems like it would take quite a bit of time to get used to. Probably even worse if your just starting a mix with only a few days and you figure it out on the first pass.
Old 1st August 2014
  #65
Gear Nut
 

A lot of the top mixers out there still request the DFC or S5. For the productions that approach them for their skills.. they have to appease that request and find somewhere suitable for them. It doesn't stop the PPS questioning why it took 6 hours to build 5 playback rigs from clones (custom OSX, PT and plugin installs), a ~1000 path DFC build with 4 reverb outboard units (half over MIDI control and half via MTC), reassigns to a 6th machine, stem recorder build and picture playback sorted - then bargaining it down to 3 hours at half room rate (?!?). That seems to be part of the reason the lower budget projects make do with an ITB setup that's just install, load and go.

A lot of our top guys here in the UK request a form of control surface along with a DFC. For those FX mixers who bus out to the console and use the D-Command for diving into their buses - it's a dream. We have a wooden cradle that sits on top of our DFC that can handle a 24fader D-command.. and it gets as much use as the DFC itself these days.

I know these consoles have great sounds to them. You can't get faders like the previous gen DFC gemini's on any control surface and the capacity for DSP handled by something other than a mac pro with 90% native plugins is great - and it still delivers great EQ/compression along with complex monitoring and stem metering. For those reasons.. on the feature projects there is no doubt having a console is king. For the lower budget features or broadcast that requires a quick turnaround - control surfaces are the one and only.

I guess like most things it comes down to time and money.
Old 1st August 2014
  #66
That's why the S5 is still a good choice: a good Eucon integration (that just got better by the way, with eMix v6)
Old 2nd August 2014
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post
For those reasons.. on the feature projects there is no doubt having a console is king.
Nonsense. Coming from a console background, I disagree 100% with this statement. A console is not king.
Quote:
I guess like most things it comes down to time and money.
No, it comes down to the talent and experience of the mixer.
Time is money. And working on a console is simply slower.
I can do more in the same amount of time, mixing ITB.
Thus being able to deliver a better mix.
Old 2nd August 2014
  #68
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Nonsense. Coming from a console background, I disagree 100% with this statement. A console is not king.


No, it comes down to the talent and experience of the mixer.
Time is money. And working on to console is simply slower.
I can do more in the same amount if time, mixing ITB.
Thus being able to deliver a better mix.
And I agree 100% with Mark's statement.
Old 4th August 2014
  #69
Lives for gear
So talk us through a big feature setup without a console then, specifically with at least 2 re-recording mixers and 4 editors. I am particularly interested in monitoring control, working with the recorder rig, how editors go offline and fix things whilst the rest of the mix continues etc.

I'm interested in a room full of people working together, not a single mixer setup.
Old 4th August 2014
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by londonengineer View Post
So talk us through a big feature setup without a console then, specifically with at least 2 re-recording mixers and 4 editors. I am particularly interested in monitoring control, working with the recorder rig, how editors go offline and fix things whilst the rest of the mix continues etc.

I'm interested in a room full of people working together, not a single mixer setup.
I'm sure Marti will be able to fill you in on that as can Gary Gegan.

I know we do it in TV land all the time with 2 mixers. In fact my FX mixer and I mix Independent form each other the first half of the day, using the same speakers. I go through all the principal dialog and ADR first. Then after lunch we hook up, and I add music and group, and fine tune. This way be basically get 2 passes in the saw, amount of time as just mixing in synch. And we can easily go offline anytime we want.

All the features, T.V. Movies and tv episodic I work on, we print after all the fixes and playbacks are done.
It's much more efficient.
It's quite simple to take any of the rigs offline using sattelite, while the mix continues. And the recorded use pec directs just like a console.

We always work in a room full of people. We don't do one man mixes really that much.
Old 4th August 2014
  #71
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by londonengineer View Post
So talk us through a big feature setup without a console then, specifically with at least 2 re-recording mixers and 4 editors. I am particularly interested in monitoring control, working with the recorder rig, how editors go offline and fix things whilst the rest of the mix continues etc.

I'm interested in a room full of people working together, not a single mixer setup.
Just so we're clear, an ICON is a console, the only difference is where the processing takes place and the automation data is stored.

I have done two man mixes on ICONs that proceeded very similarly to conventional mixes where everyone stayed on line the majority of time and did the work in real time, but those are usually higher budget projects with more time booked and either the other mixer or the client felt more comfortable working that way. For shorter schedules there often is a lot more work done independently with the mixers going off line and working out of sync with each other.

In terms of fixes, if the material is in the session and just needs a quick re-edit or a few clips stolen from elsewhere in the session, I just do it myself, since I am both a mixer and an editor. I will also do simple conforms. If a major re-edit is needed or the material doesn't exist in the session, then we just move ahead while a stage editor does the fixes on a separate fix system while we continue to mix. The editor creates a fix session or consolidated audio files that, when ready, are imported into the mix session and we go back and address the new material when convenient. Only one mixer needs to stop down and go off line for the import, so the other mixer can continue working away. I very seldom have another editor do any editing in the actual mix session. If we're going to stop and go off line anyway I might as well just do it myself, since I am more familiar with all the layers of automation and how they will be affected.
Old 4th August 2014
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
I very seldom have an editor do any editing in the actual mix session. If we're going to stop and go off line anyway I might as well just do it myself, since I am more familiar with all the layers of automation and how they will be affected.
Absolutely. Same here. If I think I can do the edit quickly myself, I do it. If I think it's going to take more than a minute or two, we have the editor do it offline, while we continue on.

Time is not a commodity to be wasted on the stage.
Old 4th August 2014
  #73
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
Just so we're clear, an ICON is a console, the only difference is where the processing takes place and the automation data is stored.
With all due respect, I've always considered that to be the defining difference between what makes a board either a console or a controller.

By your definition a Kensington track ball could be considered a console. That just doesn't feel right.

I'm all for Mixers arguing that ITB with a controller (ICON) is the best choice but can't swallow calling a d-command a console.
Old 4th August 2014
  #74
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Nonsense. Coming from a console background, I disagree 100% with this statement. A console is not king.


No, it comes down to the talent and experience of the mixer.
Time is money. And working on a console is simply slower.
I can do more in the same amount of time, mixing ITB.
Thus being able to deliver a better mix.
Talent and experience alone can't get you through high-end feature projects. You need to have good tools and there are invaluable features inside these consoles that just aren't as easily done on control surfaces. There's a generation of mixers who use the DFC/S5/Harrisons that refuse to move on to control surfaces just out of stubbornness but there are very valid reasons behind it. You can't manage 5 playback machines and a recorder easily, especially with proper PEC/Direct and stem monitoring/metering panels. Automating is slower (personally speaking) because I like to be able to see my automation lanes, write to selection etc.. but you can still automate routing, store multiple snapshots of automation in collect touch buffer, and a host of other things you can't do easily on ProTools.. and if you want any monitoring control you need to make use of an XMON, which still doesn't give you the control a DFC will.. and gives you another chunk of analogue circuitry before you hit the CP. There are workarounds sure.. it's just a different way of working.. but for a ~10 man sound team working in unison.. you can't get that workflow with a couple of D-commands.

But that's not to say your workflow is tailored to using those consoles. It sounds like you've got it down for getting through a project quickly but still doing what's needed to make it good.. and that's fair enough. I am much happier on a 24 fader D-command, 1 or 2 protools rig setup if i'm mixing (with a bit of editing) on my own.. plus I can work at my own pace and bullet through it if I want to. But if there's time in there to allow it.. i'd much rather get the full power of a DFC to help me manage and control the mix.

edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
I know we do it in TV land all the time with 2 mixers. In fact my FX mixer and I mix Independent form each other the first half of the day, using the same speakers.
I don't know how you do this mate..!
Old 4th August 2014
  #75
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
With all due respect, I've always considered that to be the defining difference between what makes a board either a console or a controller.

By your definition a Kensington track ball could be considered a console. That just doesn't feel right.

I'm all for Mixers arguing that ITB with a controller (ICON) is the best choice but can't swallow calling a d-command a console.
Every digital console is a controller as well. It simply controls proprietary DSP.
A Fairlight desk isn't a console, it's a controller for the fairlights DSP.
Old 4th August 2014
  #76
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post
Talent and experience alone can't get you through high-end feature projects.
Yes it will. Because talent and experience are by far the number one requirement.
A great console or system won't make a lick of difference.


Quote:
You need to have good tools and there are invaluable features inside these consoles that just aren't as easily done on control surfaces. There's a generation of mixers who use the DFC/S5/Harrisons that refuse to move on to control surfaces just out of stubbornness but there are very valid reasons behind it. You can't manage 5 playback machines and a recorder easily, especially with proper PEC/Direct and stem monitoring/metering panels. Automating is slower (personally speaking) because I like to be able to see my automation lanes, write to selection etc.. but you can still automate routing, store multiple snapshots of automation in collect touch buffer, and a host of other things you can't do easily on ProTools.. and if you want any monitoring control you need to make use of an XMON, which still doesn't give you the control a DFC will.. and gives you another chunk of analogue circuitry before you hit the CP. There are workarounds sure.. it's just a different way of working.. but for a ~10 man sound team working in unison.. you can't get that workflow with a couple of D-commands.

But that's not to say your workflow is tailored to using those consoles. It sounds like you've got it down for getting through a project quickly but still doing what's needed to make it good.. and that's fair enough. I am much happier on a 24 fader D-command, 1 or 2 protools rig setup if i'm mixing (with a bit of editing) on my own.. plus I can work at my own pace and bullet through it if I want to. But if there's time in there to allow it.. i'd much rather get the full power of a DFC to help me manage and control the mix.
Why would I want analog circuitry in a digital system.

I have my template setup, so I can automate my separate DX busses.
Fact is, you don't need a lot of the things a digital console has, like dedicated reassigns etc., if you set your Pro-Tools mix template up correctly.

And you can manage 5 playback machines and a recorder quite easily. What extensive monitoring options do you need that xmon doesn't have?

Even the majority of my TV clients don't care about anything but the 5.1 anymore.
Old 4th August 2014
  #77
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Every digital console is a controller as well. It simply controls proprietary DSP.
A Fairlight desk isn't a console, it's a controller for the fairlights DSP.
Agreed. An EVO is the best ITB plus controller option available

As far as "every digital console is a controller," is concerned:

In this thread, I believe, a "controller" should be defined as a device that can control a DAW. So yes, there are digital consoles that can be considered a controller because they use HUI or EuCon protocol to write information inside a DAW, but since not all digital consoles can do this I don't think it is correct to say, "every digital console is a controller." I'm not saying you're wrong, a digital console does control proprietary DSP, it's just not a definition of "controller" that IMO should be applicable in a OTB vs ITB debate.
Old 4th August 2014
  #78
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Yes it will. Because talent and experience are by far the number one requirement.
A great console or system won't make. Lock of difference.



Why would I want analog circuitry in a digital system.

I have my template setup, so I can automate my separate DX busses.
Fact is, you don't need a lot of the things a digital console has, like dedicated reassigns etc., if you set your Pro-Tools mix template up correctly.

And you can manage 5 playback machines and a recorder quite easily. What extensive monitoring options do you need that xmon doesn't have?

Even the majority of my TV clients don't care about anything but the 5.1 anymore.
You don't want analog circuitry that's the idea - the DFC allows you to stay digital in to the CP but XMON is analog in only. Avid made a mistake releasing an S6 and not a sup'd up digital XMON.

The XMON won't allow any kind of MME insert for metering or SRing etc. You can create custom folddown settings.. one button and your 7.1 is now a 5.1, or another and it's stereo. Or assign an external machine for your guide tracks. If your director wants to hear what the guide track sounded like for this scene, hit EXT1 and it's done. You can't assign your stems to the monitoring chain as easy as you can on a DFC either.. but you are limited to 12 so that is a limitation of the console.

How would you manage 5 PB machines and a recorder with two surfaces? Genuinely interested as i can't work it out. D-commands have multi mode for independent control of the machines sure.. and they can sync over Satellite but how do you get them all up on the same surface so you can ride a couple of MX faders while riding your DX gang master? How do you manage a recorder - dropping in to your stems and using pec/direct metering and control? I haven't seen a solution that provides all that functionality outside of a console.
Old 4th August 2014
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post
How would you manage 5 PB machines and a recorder with two surfaces? Genuinely interested as i can't work it out. D-commands have multi mode for independent control of the machines sure.. and they can sync over Satellite but how do you get them all up on the same surface so you can ride a couple of MX faders while riding your DX gang master? How do you manage a recorder - dropping in to your stems and using pec/direct metering and control? I haven't seen a solution that provides all that functionality outside of a console.
In this situation, all machines are linked via Satellite, and all of the machines' stem outputs are routed to the recorder where they are recorded and a 6- or 8-track "Printmaster" is created (using this loosely as a Dolby printmaster is another supervised process).

The recorder is where the monitor routing is done, allowing you to send into the Xmon, which gives you a 7.1, a 5.1, and 3 stereo inputs, plus headphone cues for someone to work offline on cans. I've run guide tracks into the stereo inputs for quick reference, and can leave an LrTr crashdown on a stereo input so the mixers can check it quickly. While certainly not as flexible as Externals on an S5, there's still a lot of functionality there and you can do a lot with it.

As for surface setup, you can get pretty far with Custom Faders, but you're right in that it becomes difficult mapping multiple machines to a single surface at the same time (multi-mode is an all-or-nothing fader swap). I have re-assigned fader units on a big D-Control to put faders from a second system near the mixer, which worked somewhat well, but was still not as clean as Layouts on the S5.

In terms of recorder control, Colin Broad makes a PEC/Dir panel, the PD-1, that gives you control over Solo, Mute, Input/Direct, and Record Arm/Safe, all via machine control.
Old 4th August 2014
  #80
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
As londonengineer pointed out, it's very easy to create a disk image.
Just a technical point about security: It isn't just about the particular computer you are working on, it is about the whole network. Compromising one system in a trusted secure network compromises the entire network.

I understand where you are coming from. I do my best work in my own studio with access to all my familiar tools but I also understand why such policies are in place at such facilities.

Alistair
Old 4th August 2014
  #81
Moderator
 
matt thomas's Avatar
probably already been mentioned, as I didn't read the entire thread, but:

"As if Pro Tools 10, HDX and AAX wasn’t enough, Avid have also announced a new plugin simply called Channel Strip.

Channel Strip uses the same algorithms as the one found in the Euphonix System 5 console and includes filters, EQ and a dynamics section. You can set the chain how you want, i.e. EQ -> Filter -> Dynamics -> Volume. The dynamics section includes a compressor/limiter and an expander/gate. "

matt
Old 4th August 2014
  #82
Lives for gear
 
dr.sound's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sitbh View Post
You don't want analog circuitry that's the idea - the DFC allows you to stay digital in to the CP but XMON is analog in only. Avid made a mistake releasing an S6 and not a sup'd up digital XMON.

The XMON won't allow any kind of MME insert for metering or SRing etc. You can create custom folddown settings.. one button and your 7.1 is now a 5.1, or another and it's stereo. Or assign an external machine for your guide tracks. If your director wants to hear what the guide track sounded like for this scene, hit EXT1 and it's done. You can't assign your stems to the monitoring chain as easy as you can on a DFC either.. but you are limited to 12 so that is a limitation of the console.

How would you manage 5 PB machines and a recorder with two surfaces? Genuinely interested as i can't work it out. D-commands have multi mode for independent control of the machines sure.. and they can sync over Satellite but how do you get them all up on the same surface so you can ride a couple of MX faders while riding your DX gang master? How do you manage a recorder - dropping in to your stems and using pec/direct metering and control? I haven't seen a solution that provides all that functionality outside of a console.
We did it on "Oz, The Great and Powerful" with 5 machines and over 1200 tracks playing back simultaneously on 2 32 fader Icon D Control’s. They each have the ability to play back and control 4 systems each so for a large session I can have access to 8 systems. Satellite link allows control of up to 12 systems total.
As for monitoring we put in the QSC QSYS. It is the best sounding, most flexible outboard monitor system. I can monitor in any format (and create custom monitor configurations) and are doing so now.
While a console like a DFC is nice, it is astronomically priced and does not have the ability of running as many tracks as I do now. Most of the people who like Traditional Consoles are those at "high end (high priced)" facilities.
It is the center of the way they price their rooms. Budget are shrinking and unless you are in a State or Country that subsidizes Post Sound you need to be flexible, cutting edge and priced well. Our set up does all the above. The balance of talent and technology is what sets us apart. If a client has the flexibility they are used to when they cut picture in an Avid, once they get accustomed to the same flexibility when mixing with us on our Icons, they will never go back to their "Traditional" way of mixing with fixed predubs that aren't as flexible as the virtual predubs we carry all the way through the final till Print Master.
Old 5th August 2014
  #83
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
With all due respect, I've always considered that to be the defining difference between what makes a board either a console or a controller.

By your definition a Kensington track ball could be considered a console. That just doesn't feel right.

I'm all for Mixers arguing that ITB with a controller (ICON) is the best choice but can't swallow calling a d-command a console.
It a distinction without a difference. There is no audio going through a Neve DFC or a Euphonix S5, the faders and knobs are merely controllers that you use to give the processing unit instructions, just as an ICON is used to give instructions to a processor. What difference does it make whether the DSP is handled by a Sharc card, and HDX card, or the internal processing of a Mac or a Wintel machine? BTW both the DFC and the S5 require a conventional computer for the faders and knobs to interface with the DSP cards.

It's a specious argument that just because ICONs also provide editing functions like editing that they are not consoles. These days all consoles are just a piece of hardware with faders, knobs and buttons that control separate processing units. Some just have more features than others.
Old 5th August 2014
  #84
Lives for gear
 
nzl62's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt thomas View Post
probably already been mentioned, as I didn't read the entire thread, but:

"As if Pro Tools 10, HDX and AAX wasn’t enough, Avid have also announced a new plugin simply called Channel Strip.

Channel Strip uses the same algorithms as the one found in the Euphonix System 5 console and includes filters, EQ and a dynamics section. You can set the chain how you want, i.e. EQ -> Filter -> Dynamics -> Volume. The dynamics section includes a compressor/limiter and an expander/gate. "

matt
Channel strip doesn't sound exactly the same as S5 though.
Not sure why but prob due to internal headroom. But whilst the s5 is massivelyexpensive and its dsp is locked down, the ITB box will continually get better and better and the workflow is far superior
Old 5th August 2014
  #85
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
It a distinction without a difference. There is no audio going through a Neve DFC or a Euphonix S5, the faders and knobs are merely controllers that you use to give the processing unit instructions, just as an ICON is used to give instructions to a processor. What difference does it make whether the DSP is handled by a Sharc card, and HDX card, or the internal processing of a Mac or a Wintel machine? BTW both the DFC and the S5 require a conventional computer for the faders and knobs to interface with the DSP cards.

It's a specious argument that just because ICONs also provide editing functions like editing that they are not consoles. These days all consoles are just a piece of hardware with faders, knobs and buttons that control separate processing units. Some just have more features than others.
Fair enough, so an ICON is a console. A console that only works with Pro Tools.
Old 5th August 2014
  #86
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
Fair enough, so an ICON is a console. A console that only works with Pro Tools.
Yeah, they would probably very quickly become obsolete if another platform took over, although you can easily feed in tracks from another system using digital inputs and mix conventionally, in which case it would operate the same as a DFC or S5, but that kind of minimizes its strengths.
Old 5th August 2014
  #87
Lives for gear
ggegan is bang on the money.

I might be a bit pig ignorant about this, but I feel that Fairlight's own systems evolved in this way:

Build a hardware digital mixer, utilising a PC with processor cards to process everything, with remote control for your tape/hard disk recorder. We got built in dynamics, built in EQ, flexible stems/bus management, what else do we need?
OK, let's add a multitrack recorder as a software feature within the console for your stems.
While we're at it, let's let people put their own recordings into our own recorder and play it back as if it were a tape.
Let's add some VST plugin support for the mixing.
Let's install our Pyxis engine along with it so you can play back video without an external machine.
Maybe people will want to edit too, let's add some editing features.
Add more features...
It's a DAW with a control surface.

At what point does the Fairlight then stop being a digital mixer and ends up being a fully featured DAW? You can still use Fairlight as purely a mixer (just only use Live tracks as opposed to audio tracks) - and you still get all the bus routing, reductions etc. etc.

Similarly with Pro Tools:

Sound Tools, a stereo sound file editor.
Let's let people edit more than just a single stereo sound file!
Add some (software) faders.
Add plugin support.
Add support for those faders and plugins to be automated.
Add auxiliary & master channels so you can pretty much route anything to anything.
Support control surfaces via HUI.
Support your own control surfaces like the C|24. Pro Control, Icon etc.
Add support for Eucon.
Add add add add...

It's a console that has a DAW (Pro Tools) powering the back end.

What's REALLY the difference here?
Old 5th August 2014
  #88
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post
We did it on "Oz, The Great and Powerful" with 5 machines and over 1200 tracks playing back simultaneously on 2 32 fader Icon D Control’s. They each have the ability to play back and control 4 systems each so for a large session I can have access to 8 systems. Satellite link allows control of up to 12 systems total.
As for monitoring we put in the QSC QSYS. It is the best sounding, most flexible outboard monitor system. I can monitor in any format (and create custom monitor configurations) and are doing so now.
While a console like a DFC is nice, it is astronomically priced and does not have the ability of running as many tracks as I do now. Most of the people who like Traditional Consoles are those at "high end (high priced)" facilities.
It is the center of the way they price their rooms. Budget are shrinking and unless you are in a State or Country that subsidizes Post Sound you need to be flexible, cutting edge and priced well. Our set up does all the above. The balance of talent and technology is what sets us apart. If a client has the flexibility they are used to when they cut picture in an Avid, once they get accustomed to the same flexibility when mixing with us on our Icons, they will never go back to their "Traditional" way of mixing with fixed predubs that aren't as flexible as the virtual predubs we carry all the way through the final till Print Master.
Totally agree on hard predubs.. i'm not a fan of those at all and they stick you in the mud too early on in the process. And you are right about the money issue. There are still and always be a client base that prefers to spend a little extra and get a pair of mixers and a DFC - it's got such a reputation for being used on the big budgeters as it's workflow is known to all the big guys at Skywalker/fox etc. and prior to HDX.. it held sonic benefits as having 40bit floating point processing and summing system (vs 24bit TDM).

I'm really interested in seeing your workflow used on Oz though.. For the cost of the kit it does sound like it gets you a similar workflow for perhaps 2/3 the price of a similar suited DFC - like you guys we run a 1120 input DFC with usually 5 playback machines. Were you guys ever console-based? I should save some of this discussion hopefully for when i swing by the Dub Stage in a couple weeks..


Quote:
Originally Posted by insomaniac View Post
In this situation, all machines are linked via Satellite, and all of the machines' stem outputs are routed to the recorder where they are recorded and a 6- or 8-track "Printmaster" is created (using this loosely as a Dolby printmaster is another supervised process).

In terms of recorder control, Colin Broad makes a PEC/Dir panel, the PD-1, that gives you control over Solo, Mute, Input/Direct, and Record Arm/Safe, all via machine control.
I'll have to check out the PD-1.. i've only ever seen one in my time and still don't know how they function. Thanks for the link!

I'm confused about the stem output routing though. To get all machines an output to the single stem recorder - are you just racking up 192's/HD IO's and AES patching directly into the stem recorder? Summing multiple machines to a single machine has never been neat in ProTools land imo
Old 5th August 2014
  #89
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

the thing that needs to be recognized is that the PT sessions are carrying the automation- and what happens when we carry those PT sessions through a desk which has the 1000+ channels of input is that we are looking at an enormous difference in cost- as you are spending exponentiall more in order to get all your dubber tracks PLUS the large format i/o that is required to mix them- there is simply nothing more economical when dealing with that than an HDX system and an AVID control surface-


mixing in PT also removes the desk from the equation if there is a need to move the sessions from room to room.


ps- am I the only one seeing "C|24" being inserted for the leading character "c" in my text? it is really annoying....
Old 5th August 2014
  #90
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
ps- am I the only one seeing "C|24" being inserted for the leading character "c" in my text? it is really annoying....
Nope I'm seeing it in your post. Are my C words also being replaced with C|24 too?

Cost Courier Chris Console... Cautomation
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump