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
What is new SSL idea ? Control Surfaces
Old 11th January 2018
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave View Post

I'd do sell my mum to get a hardware controller for the Duende Channel Strip.
Couldn’t you just use the Nucleus for that? It’ Not exactly cheap, but it would probably be cheaper than putting your Mum Up for sale.



Old 11th January 2018
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave View Post
I use Duende Channel Strip on every channel and X-EQ and X-Comp a lot too.

I'd do sell my mum to get a hardware controller for the Duende Channel Strip.

I can't see it coming as SSL are working with Softtube on the Console One, and it does look great, but I don't want to switch from Duende channel strip, just want a similar hardware controller.

C'mon SSL!!

Do it!!
Lucky for your mum SSL still doesn’t see plugins as the future (yet). Plenty of us handed SSL that idea over 10 years ago since they were in the business of making hardware and needed a replacement for their dsp dongle that would freeze up. A controller/dsp would have been perfect.

Find a used Console 1 and save yourself the money that SSL would have charged you for their name.
Old 11th January 2018
  #33
Lives for gear
 
rectifried's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB872 View Post
Lucky for your mum SSL still doesn’t see plugins as the future (yet). Plenty of us handed SSL that idea over 10 years ago since they were in the business of making hardware and needed a replacement for their dsp dongle that would freeze up. A controller/dsp would have been perfect.

Find a used Console 1 and save yourself the money that SSL would have charged you for their name.
The ssl softube is licensed so they’ll get some backend
Which is cool I think

I use duende as well, love the high end but the gate doesn’t have the snap like my 9k xrack comp did..
I don’t mind the sigma British green
I use the center section and all the dim mute etc as I sold my avocet ..it works as stated “ on the tin”
Old 12th January 2018
  #34
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind-Over-Midi View Post
Couldn’t you just use the Nucleus for that? It’ Not exactly cheap, but it would probably be cheaper than putting your Mum Up for sale.



AFAIK The Nucleus supports the Duende in just the same way as my MCU does - it certainly does not have the kind of controls I would want to see on a dedicated channel strip controllerr.

For reference what I'd be looking for is essentially the center section of the Sony DMX 100 - it would be a perfect Duende Channel Strip controller

Old 12th January 2018
  #35
Solid State Logic
 
Jim@SSL's Avatar
 

There's a number of good reasons why nobody has been able to make one of those, let alone make one at a "Console 1" price. It would be a lovely product, but to make it work with every DAW and every plug-in is a task of mountainous and ongoing proportions. With Avid holding on to the hardware rights for EuCon they are undoubtedly in the best position to offer something *like* this, but even then it would be monstrous to make work with everything. And they choose not to do it themselves.

It is a great idea.
It is what people want.

However, how does one "Low Mid Q" knob talk to the different DAWs channel EQ, say, when each EQ has a different parameter list and different order of parameters? Let alone how that knob then talks to every Low Mid Q control on every plug-in. Avid put some of this in their plug-in spec to map to their own control surfaces and even this was not adopted by all plug-in manufacturers. Knowing the process the Softube guys have had to go through to make Console 1 not only work with all their own plug-ins but also some of UA's (all of which have to go through their framework infrastructure) I'd put the work required to make this product as perfect for everyone as "unachievable economically".

Someone prove me wrong. Hopefully Softube :-)
Old 12th January 2018
  #36
Gear Addict
 
Lupez's Avatar
I think Duende works nicely with my Nucleus...I use them every day.
Duende + Nucleus + Sigma = Hybrid heaven.
Next step: a real console.

PS: SSL pres are great !
Old 12th January 2018
  #37
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
There's a number of good reasons why nobody has been able to make one of those, let alone make one at a "Console 1" price. It would be a lovely product, but to make it work with every DAW and every plug-in is a task of mountainous and ongoing proportions. With Avid holding on to the hardware rights for EuCon they are undoubtedly in the best position to offer something *like* this, but even then it would be monstrous to make work with everything. And they choose not to do it themselves.

It is a great idea.
It is what people want.

However, how does one "Low Mid Q" knob talk to the different DAWs channel EQ, say, when each EQ has a different parameter list and different order of parameters? Let alone how that knob then talks to every Low Mid Q control on every plug-in. Avid put some of this in their plug-in spec to map to their own control surfaces and even this was not adopted by all plug-in manufacturers. Knowing the process the Softube guys have had to go through to make Console 1 not only work with all their own plug-ins but also some of UA's (all of which have to go through their framework infrastructure) I'd put the work required to make this product as perfect for everyone as "unachievable economically".

Someone prove me wrong. Hopefully Softube :-)
I think the part missed there Jim is that people just wanted a single channel strip from the C200 to interface with only the original Duende channelstrip plugin so they could use it like a console.

If I were to try making a controller that interfaced with every plugin it would be a combination of an LCD tablet and encoders that only light up if they’re in use. Kinda like what this guy had DIy’d years back.

fresh approach on DAW Controller
Old 12th January 2018
  #38
Solid State Logic
 
Jim@SSL's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB872 View Post
I think the part missed there Jim is that people just wanted a single channel strip from the C200 to interface with only the original Duende channelstrip plugin so they could use it like a console.

If I were to try making a controller that interfaced with every plugin it would be a combination of an LCD tablet and encoders that only light up if they’re in use. Kinda like what this guy had DIy’d years back.

fresh approach on DAW Controller
No I didn't miss it. While there are some technical reason why doing something like this might be possible it is only possible within some kind of framework of available channels or slots. With the Duende DSP this would have been related to the 32 individual processing slots on the hardware. However one could never be certain which plug-in on which track was loaded in which slot by the DAW - eg DSP slot 1 might be a plug-in on DAW track 3, DSP 2 might be on 17, then you might unload off ch 1 and put DSP 1 on to channel 18. When you re-load the session there was no intelligence between the order in which the plug-ins were loaded in the DAW and the DSP slot on the hardware. Depending on the DAW it was often the case of "lowest channel numbers first" which is no good if what you think is Channel 1 is actually on Track 3 of the DAW. Hence Console 1 having a framework of slots with numbers on the controller and an evolving ecosystem of supporting different DAWs track naming etc. One also has to consider the potential market size for a product to see how sustainable the development costs are - if you have an available market of "all plug-in users" this gives a much larger addressable market for the product, even if only 10% of users buy one. When you do the same calculation for the hardware Duende platform it leaves a much smaller potential market.

Softube's framework allows them to do it, the Duende framework never did.
And before any asks, Softube have excellent E Series and K Series emulations on the platform so I'm not sure there is any particular need to map the Duende Channel Strip to it.

At this point I'm ducking out of further conversation about a product we won't be launching at NAMM this month
Old 13th January 2018
  #39
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No I didn't miss it. While there are some technical reason why doing something like this might be possible it is only possible within some kind of framework of available channels or slots. With the Duende DSP this would have been related to the 32 individual processing slots on the hardware. However one could never be certain which plug-in on which track was loaded in which slot by the DAW - eg DSP slot 1 might be a plug-in on DAW track 3, DSP 2 might be on 17, then you might unload off ch 1 and put DSP 1 on to channel 18. When you re-load the session there was no intelligence between the order in which the plug-ins were loaded in the DAW and the DSP slot on the hardware. Depending on the DAW it was often the case of "lowest channel numbers first" which is no good if what you think is Channel 1 is actually on Track 3 of the DAW. Hence Console 1 having a framework of slots with numbers on the controller and an evolving ecosystem of supporting different DAWs track naming etc. One also has to consider the potential market size for a product to see how sustainable the development costs are - if you have an available market of "all plug-in users" this gives a much larger addressable market for the product, even if only 10% of users buy one. When you do the same calculation for the hardware Duende platform it leaves a much smaller potential market.

Softube's framework allows them to do it, the Duende framework never did.
And before any asks, Softube have excellent E Series and K Series emulations on the platform so I'm not sure there is any particular need to map the Duende Channel Strip to it.

At this point I'm ducking out of further conversation about a product we won't be launching at NAMM this month

Jim, What about the native version? Did it have the same framework limitations? I stopped using the dongle as soon as the native came out because of the freezes.

But you gotta remember these controller request came over 10 years ago....plenty of time to write an “official” 4k plugin from the ground up with the proper framework to make it work.

And you don’t have to do hard math to figure out that there’s more bedroom producers with a laptop chasing the SSL sound than big name mixers still mixing on a console. But I’m sure you didn’t miss that either.
Old 13th January 2018
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Hi Jim,

I want to jump in and say that my duende native channel strip still crashes PT. I’m on the latest versions of both pt and duende. I run HDX on a 2012 Mac Pro with Sierra OS. The latest duende and pt versions allowed me to at least instantiate the plugin- previous versions were crashing on insertion- but once you turn knobs it crashes PT. The bus compressor seems to work fine. I have had to modify my workflow and just discontinue use of the channel strip- I can use my old rig for old session recall- but it’s very disappointing because I really liked that plugin. I bought it back when duende was a hardware box- I might even still have the box somewhere!- and crossfraded to native.
Old 13th January 2018
  #41
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
I know it’s not what you want or even want to hear, but the only controller that properly maps all of your plugins is a touch screen.
Not all beyond single touch (which is fine with me) because not all plugins and OSes support multi touch yet. But all the plugins work on single touch. A 500 buck touch screen will give you that.
Now some of you will feel the need to tell us how much you hate touch screens and that’s fine, don’t use them.
I’m just telling you that what you want doesn’t exist and will not in the near future. Since we have been idly waiting for it for about two decades, I doubt it will come.

Unless you want to custom map everything, a touch screen is your best bet while you wait, perhaps endlessly.
It may not be what you want, but it’s here, cheap, and you can just manipulate the plugins directly.
It’s not perfect, but IMO the best solution out there.
You may even use one together with a console 1 and only use it where console 1 fails.
Whatever you do, please just consider it.
Discard the idea if you will, but please let’s not have a long discussion about touchscreen vs hardware.
Personally, I prefer single touch control of a plugin’s gui directly, on a large touch screen (say 26” or more) over fiddling with a hardware controller.
You may too or you may not.
Just consider it, for it may be useable for you and make your life easier while you wait.
My €0,02
Old 13th January 2018
  #42
Lives for gear
 
rectifried's Avatar
I’ll play again
Is it...
Xl desk mod?
SOS 2015
“Looking to the future, SSL clearly have development plans for the XL–Desk, even if they’re keeping things tightly under wraps at the moment. Some of the console’s signal switching appears to be overseen by an internal microcontroller of some kind (hence the USB provision for firmware upgrades), the faders operate MDACs, and there are those mysteriously labelled D–subs on the back panel too. It doesn’t seem too extreme to imagine that there may be potential already built into this desk for some level of useful integration with DAWs in a future update
Old 14th January 2018
  #43
MGA
Gear Addict
 
MGA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rectifried View Post
I’ll play again
Is it...
Xl desk mod?
SOS 2015
“Looking to the future, SSL clearly have development plans for the XL–Desk, even if they’re keeping things tightly under wraps at the moment. Some of the console’s signal switching appears to be overseen by an internal microcontroller of some kind (hence the USB provision for firmware upgrades), the faders operate MDACs, and there are those mysteriously labelled D–subs on the back panel too. It doesn’t seem too extreme to imagine that there may be potential already built into this desk for some level of useful integration with DAWs in a future update
16 channel XL Desk expander and MDAC control for both XL Desk an expander? Would be nice wouldn't it!

Other than this production cycle run, I expect SSL to release what they have in the bag now and then there will be a period of consolidation with Audiotonix group of companies before the next product R&D and release. I'm sure whatever SSL will release will be good as all their products are.
Old 14th January 2018
  #44
Gear Maniac
 
REGGAE's Avatar
Yeah.

If SSL would make some sort of X-Desk expansion with 16 mono channels and 4 stereo channels that would be great.

Also, a 19" rackmount E-Series channel strip, that didn't cost more than buying an original E-Series and having it rackmounted, would be nice also.
Old 14th January 2018
  #45
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No I didn't miss it. While there are some technical reason why doing something like this might be possible it is only possible within some kind of framework of available channels or slots. With the Duende DSP this would have been related to the 32 individual processing slots on the hardware. However one could never be certain which plug-in on which track was loaded in which slot by the DAW - eg DSP slot 1 might be a plug-in on DAW track 3, DSP 2 might be on 17, then you might unload off ch 1 and put DSP 1 on to channel 18. When you re-load the session there was no intelligence between the order in which the plug-ins were loaded in the DAW and the DSP slot on the hardware. Depending on the DAW it was often the case of "lowest channel numbers first" which is no good if what you think is Channel 1 is actually on Track 3 of the DAW. Hence Console 1 having a framework of slots with numbers on the controller and an evolving ecosystem of supporting different DAWs track naming etc. One also has to consider the potential market size for a product to see how sustainable the development costs are - if you have an available market of "all plug-in users" this gives a much larger addressable market for the product, even if only 10% of users buy one. When you do the same calculation for the hardware Duende platform it leaves a much smaller potential market.

Softube's framework allows them to do it, the Duende framework never did.
And before any asks, Softube have excellent E Series and K Series emulations on the platform so I'm not sure there is any particular need to map the Duende Channel Strip to it.

At this point I'm ducking out of further conversation about a product we won't be launching at NAMM this month
To be or not to be; that is the question.

If you don't innovate there is plenty of 4000 & 9000 etc. that are being butchered so somebody can own a few channels of the real deal for a few thousand bucks if you go with a hybrid system.

I am playing devil's advocate here saying something that everybody knows; software development in Pro Audio is evolving and improving exponentially FAST.

The competition you are facing on the hardware clone side will probably continue which leaves you with Larrabee sized client base; and everybody knows how profitable the studio market is now days.

To me you've not only dipping your toes in the Pro-sumer market; you're throwing yourself in the swimming pool after drinking a bottle of vodka; hoping that your marketing hype can cover up your product launches.

I know this might sound harsh but that's honestly the way I see it.

Have you seen what is available now days on eBay on the analog front?

You can pick up a huge 8056 G+ for around 70 grand that would look good in one of the bigger Larrabee rooms (with whatever corresponding power supplies it comes with).

A lot of the new smaller analog consoles you offer are not far off from that price point.

It is great that Soft Tubes and others are paying you licensing fees; but it is not like the non-official competition is going to lay it self on its back because of that on the software front.

I might be wrong but I think you might be shooting yourselves in the foot if you do not get back to what made you revolutionary back in the 80's and deliver something that is revolutionary and applicable to today's market instead of "playing it safe".
Old 14th January 2018
  #46
Gear Addict
 
shalimo's Avatar
 

Hi Jim, please revisit the x-patch, I have the matrix.. 16 channel of floating patch point is not enough.
Old 15th January 2018
  #47
Lives for gear
 
ARIEL's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shalimo View Post
Hi Jim, please revisit the x-patch, I have the matrix.. 16 channel of floating patch point is not enough.
Check this out, I think I would rather have SSL spend time on developing plug in controlled hardware units.

Flock Audio Inc | Flock Technologies - PATCH System
Old 15th January 2018
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARIEL View Post
Check this out, I think I would rather have SSL spend time on developing plug in controlled hardware units.

Flock Audio Inc | Flock Technologies - PATCH System
Wow! The Flock looks very interesting, I'm almost sold already, can't wait to see what the pricing will be. Thanks for posting the info.



Old 15th January 2018
  #49
Lives for gear
 

Basically there's mainly one question: analog signal path or digital with maybe analog input limiters.

Digital everything is relatively easy, just a question of how much to invest in what is called the HMI (Human Machine Interface) in other industries. Touch screens is the cheapest and easiest variant to implement as user interface but it has also lots of practical limitations.
Rotary encoders with OLED display at the base of the button can be added (there's even a large rotary button encoder with integrated color matrix display, don't remember if it's OLED or TFT). There are Gray Code linear encoders looking like potentiometric faders as well as, though expensive, individuel pushbuttons with integrated OLED matrix display (pushbuttons with integrated monochrome backlit LCD matrix display have been used in the video/broadcast industry since at least the late 80's). Etc.
It's mostly a question of costs but technically not very complex.
Example of OLED pusbuttons (Esterline acquired the defense/aerospace division of Barco):
OLED Programmable Button Panels & Gaming Controls - Esterline Interface Technologies (Advanced Input Systems)

Analog is much trickier, as I already mentioned it, in theory one could reissue some 4000/6000 with all motorized rotary pots and motorized faders and only illuminated temporary action pushbuttons (i.e. no latching pushbuttons) but that "active" 100 % Total Recall would be extremely expensive, especially also if storing fader and pot motion in real-time with real-time manual override possible any time.

An intermediate option would be an analog signal path with full digital control.

It's way more about the market and realistic costs. SSL would obviously have the required know-how for the discussed options but many concepts are not realistic due to prohibitive costs.

The HMI is indeed probably even the easiest part to design, I've programmed screen-based process control HMI in the industry and it's relatively simple once you master the software tools (SCADA packages or so). Technically speaking one could build a user interface based on industrial PLCs and common PCs with touchscreens, etc. but it would be way too expensive though easier to program and maintain as mainly based on COTS.

Remote-controllable patch matrixes are technically possible but just very expensive, analog signal multiplexers have been around since a long time, either discrete relay-based or with semiconductor (so-called solid-state) switches.

What I mean is that overall it's mainly about knowing which product will be interesting for future markets.

One capital difference will remain: the legendary legacy SSL consoles are based on through-hole technology and most components can still be found (or there's a reasonable work around). Modern consoles rely all on SMT (surface mount technology (components)) which makes them much more trickier to maintain (and IIRC SSL does no longer publish detailed diagrams of such boards as they don't expect them to be easily repaired by 3rd parties) and in addition modern electronics include way more specialized ICs which will be much faster harder to find as spare parts than all common DIL opamps and DIL digital ICs used in the old boards, not even mentioning proprietary or field-programmable ICs.

Modern fully microprocessor-based systems will become uneconomic to repair much sooner than old classic consoles (not referring to the SSL computer which is of course totally outdated as are all computers from the 80's but due to a relative simple design, at least compared to current digital technology, there are some other 3rd party options).
Old 15th January 2018
  #50
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Has anyone ever tested how closely the total recall system recalls a mix? Is it 90% there? 95%? 98%? Surely not 100%, that's unobtainable.
I read that with Total Recall, each individual pot is supposed to recall within +/- 0.25dB which is impressive.
Does that hold up for most pots in an average console today? How does that translate into a percentage when you've got hundreds of pots all offset freely in a half a dB range?

I'd be interested what CLA's guesstimate would be as to how close the recall, with outboard generally is to the original mix.
Does he need to tweak it after the recall to manually nudge it to where it was?
I'd be very interested to see actual measurements turned into a percentage, for the SSL alone. Does it matter how many channels are active, or is the deviation pretty much fixed (0,5dB, which depending on your mix's level, can be calculated into a percentage?)
I wonder. Obviously things will deviate more when outboard's involved.

Personally I felt that for most people, true recall is practically unobtainable in the analogue domain. You can get close, but at what cost (both in money and flexibility)?
I'm glad I'm done with it. I print analogue processing during the recording/production process and mix 100% ITB. That gives me as perfect a recall as is to be expected (up to 100%).
However, save your sessions 100% processing committed too, just in case you find your session doesn't recall 100% in a few years time.

I think that, if you want to mix in the analogue domain, you will have to accept that 100% recall is not in the cards.
The question is, I guess: How close is close enough to be practically useable?
Old 15th January 2018
  #51
Lives for gear
 
djwaxxy's Avatar
a cheaper nucleaus would be nice
Old 15th January 2018
  #52
Gear Addict
 
Lupez's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by djwaxxy View Post
a cheaper nucleaus would be nice
what about a used one?
Old 16th January 2018
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
Has anyone ever tested how closely the total recall system recalls a mix?

I don't know about 100%, I've never thought about it in that way, but back in my jingle house days, we had a 56 input G series console. I've literally done hundreds of recalls of different sessions for television and radio spots so that we could make requested changes (sometimes minor sometimes major) during that time, no one ever complained that the recalls weren't accurate. I currently own an X-Rack with 8 Dynamics Modules, I've never had any issues with the recall accuracy of those modules. SSL consoles with recall are the industry standard, it's the recall that put them in that position, more so than the sonics IMHO.



Old 16th January 2018
  #54
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
So it’s close enough not to give any noticeable difference? That’s cool. I guess it makes sense that it’s the standard then. It doesn’t matter much which percentage it is then.

Did you use much outboard? How did that work? Write it down, polaroids?
How easy was it to get that part close enough?
Old 16th January 2018
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
So it’s close enough not to give any noticeable difference? That’s cool. I guess it makes sense that it’s the standard then. It doesn’t matter much which percentage it is then.

Did you use much outboard? How did that work? Write it down, polaroids?
How easy was it to get that part close enough?
That was the early ‘90’s no plugins yet, everything was either on the console or outboard. We had recall sheets for everything. It usually took about an hour to recall everything. The jingle house that I worked for was very busy at the time, we averaged about 5 sessions a day, maybe 3 of these sessions were ones where we had to make some small change. I would literally spend hours a day just writing down settings or recalling settings. It was a good way to learn audio. The recalls were always very close in sound, that was never really a issue, the time it took to do the recall was always the issue, you had to do things fast.



Old 16th January 2018
  #56
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Yeah, I bet it was a time consuming and tedious affair.
Now of course you can automate the recall in a more modern proprietary system, but the outboard and connections to and from them can be the challenge in modern day recall.
I've seen some apps that help with that etc, there are hardware boxes that are plugin controlled etc.
Still, you can never get to 100% recall. But if it's close enough to not be able to tell the difference and you are able to invest the funds and time to get there, I guess it's still an option.
I guess there's always be a market for things like this, but I expect it to become smaller and smaller.
I used to love mixing on consoles too, but now I'm glad I'm 100% ITB. I stayed away from the hybrid setup because of lack of recall.
If I want to use hardware units during mix time (I hardly ever do anymore) I print them and take a picture of the settings.
That way you only ever have to reach for hardware during a recall when it's hardware settings you need to actually tweak.

I get the impression people will be happier if they just accept things for what they are, use their advantages and not try to turn them into things they are not.
This goes for analogue as well as digital. Consoles vs touch screens etc.
We've been trying to get digital to behave as analogue and now analogue to behave as digital.
I believe these are ultimately unobtainable, although we can get close. Trying to obtain it can become a fool's errand.
Certainly if it keeps you from focussing on the spoils of each system.

Horses for courses of course, I'm sure some people will be very happy with one of those systems.
But isn't the Sigma kind of that? It's just lacking the control surface and processing, right?
I guess you could expand it into a kind of modular Duality.
But then you're kind of in Harrison System 12 territory..... You can probably get those for a good price these days.
Ahhh... I've considered all of these things for a long time. I didn't see it working perfectly enough, so I abandoned it.
Good luck to anyone willing to take on the challenge!
Old 16th January 2018
  #57
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave View Post
AFAIK The Nucleus supports the Duende in just the same way as my MCU does - it certainly does not have the kind of controls I would want to see on a dedicated channel strip controllerr.

For reference what I'd be looking for is essentially the center section of the Sony DMX 100 - it would be a perfect Duende Channel Strip controller



That console has amazing ergonomics! If I where in the business of making controllers and consoles I would pay close attention to consoles like the DMX-R100.
Old 16th January 2018
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
Yeah, I bet it was a time consuming and tedious affair.
Now of course you can automate the recall in a more modern proprietary system, but the outboard and connections to and from them can be the challenge in modern day recall.
I've seen some apps that help with that etc, there are hardware boxes that are plugin controlled etc.
Still, you can never get to 100% recall. But if it's close enough to not be able to tell the difference and you are able to invest the funds and time to get there, I guess it's still an option.
I guess there's always be a market for things like this, but I expect it to become smaller and smaller.
I used to love mixing on consoles too, but now I'm glad I'm 100% ITB. I stayed away from the hybrid setup because of lack of recall.
If I want to use hardware units during mix time (I hardly ever do anymore) I print them and take a picture of the settings.
That way you only ever have to reach for hardware during a recall when it's hardware settings you need to actually tweak.

I get the impression people will be happier if they just accept things for what they are, use their advantages and not try to turn them into things they are not.
This goes for analogue as well as digital. Consoles vs touch screens etc.
We've been trying to get digital to behave as analogue and now analogue to behave as digital.
I believe these are ultimately unobtainable, although we can get close. Trying to obtain it can become a fool's errand.
Certainly if it keeps you from focussing on the spoils of each system.

Horses for courses of course, I'm sure some people will be very happy with one of those systems.
But isn't the Sigma kind of that? It's just lacking the control surface and processing, right?
I guess you could expand it into a kind of modular Duality.
But then you're kind of in Harrison System 12 territory..... You can probably get those for a good price these days.
Ahhh... I've considered all of these things for a long time. I didn't see it working perfectly enough, so I abandoned it.
Good luck to anyone willing to take on the challenge!

I've gotta say that 100% accurate recall was never that important to me, at least as important as it is to some. Many times we'd recall a mix get it close and then, while we were at it, we'd go ahead and make it a little better.

The studio I worked at also had a Harrison Series 10 and a Neve VR with recall, the Harrison was cool, but I personally never liked the sound of that board, maybe the Series 12 sounds better? Doesn't matter, one of the reasons to buy the new SSL stuff is to get NEW STUFF, that's currently supported. I like new gear, I most cases, not all for sure, but in most cases, I'd prefer to own reissues as compared to originals because its new and usually in much better shape, and repair parts are in ready supply. I totally except things for what they are, I love the old gear, I love the new gear, I love touch screens, and I don't see anything wrong with asking our gear manufacturers to build gear with features that enhance our modern workflow. If SSL wasn't already doing this we wouldn't have products like the Matrix or the Sigma or the X-Rack modules, what on earth is wrong with encouraging our suppliers to move further with this progress? I don't really understand why some are so negative and imply that we'd be better off just excepting things as is, none of the tools that we use today would exist if that approach was taken.

Digitally controlled analog is not in any way a new concept, it's proven and has been proven for a long time. Euphonic did this very successfully in the early '90's. I've never been one to disparage in the box mixing, it's cool. If I were still in the jingle business I'm sure I'd be completely in the box, no doubt about it. But now I do this stuff for my personal gratification and want to use what I want to use, It's my money and I prefer to spend it how I want, nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.



Old 16th January 2018
  #59
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind-Over-Midi View Post

Digitally controlled analog is not in any way a new concept, it's proven and has been proven for a long time. Euphonic did this very successfully in the early '90's. I've never been one to disparage in the box mixing, it's cool. If I were still in the jingle business I'm sure I'd be completely in the box, no doubt about it. But now I do this stuff for my personal gratification and want to use what I want to use, It's my money and I prefer to spend it how I want, nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.



Totes. You are right. Remember the Trident Di-An? Pretty cool desk too.
Sure, digitally controlled analogue has been proven.
It's a cool concept. Pricy but cool.

I for one am not trying to discourage developers, let alone potential buyers.
Alls I'm saying is it's tricky business getting recall right in the analogue domain (hell it's even a little tricky in the digital domain). I think we can all agree that if it's not done right, it's of limited use.
It's just a 'buyers beware' kinda thing.
If you're looking for total recall, and you're not willing to invest the dough and the time into getting your recall system right, you might want to reconsider.

It can take considerably less time to get right nowadays than it did in the 80s, but it's still tricky business.

For those who are willing: go for it and I hope people create the tools you seek.
Definitely share some pics and info on your setup once you get it up and running!



I'm all for automating and organising myself. If I were still mixing in the analogue domain, I'm sure I'd be interested in it too
Old 16th January 2018
  #60
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind-Over-Midi View Post
I've gotta say that 100% accurate recall was never that important to me, at least as important as it is to some. Many times we'd recall a mix get it close and then, while we were at it, we'd go ahead and make it a little better.

The studio I worked at also had a Harrison Series 10 and a Neve VR with recall, the Harrison was cool, but I personally never liked the sound of that board, maybe the Series 12 sounds better? Doesn't matter, one of the reasons to buy the new SSL stuff is to get NEW STUFF, that's currently supported. I like new gear, I most cases, not all for sure, but in most cases, I'd prefer to own reissues as compared to originals because its new and usually in much better shape, and repair parts are in ready supply. I totally except things for what they are, I love the old gear, I love the new gear, I love touch screens, and I don't see anything wrong with asking our gear manufacturers to build gear with features that enhance our modern workflow. If SSL wasn't already doing this we wouldn't have products like the Matrix or the Sigma or the X-Rack modules, what on earth is wrong with encouraging our suppliers to move further with this progress? I don't really understand why some are so negative and imply that we'd be better off just excepting things as is, none of the tools that we use today would exist if that approach was taken.

Digitally controlled analog is not in any way a new concept, it's proven and has been proven for a long time. Euphonic did this very successfully in the early '90's. I've never been one to disparage in the box mixing, it's cool. If I were still in the jingle business I'm sure I'd be completely in the box, no doubt about it. But now I do this stuff for my personal gratification and want to use what I want to use, It's my money and I prefer to spend it how I want, nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.



I agree a 100% with your comment regarding consumers expecting more from hardware manufacturers in order to propelled progress forward in pro audio.

I understand why you might prefer new gear instead of used but I think alot of the offerings designed to bridge the gap between digital & analog fall short.

Companies like Audient, API, Focusrite and SSL got their solutions out there but regardless of how much they try their efforts leave me with that meh feeling; which have me looking at all the analog gear floating around eBay regardless of the headaches they might bring.

SSL needs to make the equivalent of the Neve BMC 10/2 mk2 with better routing/automation and plenty of AUX'es in my opinion.

Nothing wrong with commiting and printing your analog stuff if you're using what's available now but manufacturers should be able to do better.
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