image description


Suggestions for StudioLive 32.
  Forum Index » StudioLive General Discussion 
Author
Message
Gabrisapiens
Presonic
[Avatar]
Joined: 11/04/2011 03:46:08
Messages: 131
Location: Cáceres, España
Offline

I think the mixer need something like a USB Port for many uses, like load/save the scenes out of the mixer if you don have a computer conected...

Would be nice to have an update of the Firewire from 400 to 800 this could be the way to record more than 32 channels?

Would be nice to see the Thunder Bolt port too....if you have more ports better!!!

And dont forget the MIDI ports.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 06/09/2011 09:33:06

[WWW]
Motoko
Baconator
[Avatar]

Joined: 25/04/2009 08:29:34
Messages: 8086
Location: Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Offline

Gabrisapiens wrote:I think the mixer need something like a USB Port for many uses, like load/save the scenes out of the mixer if you don have a computer conected...

Would be nice to have an update of the Firewire from 400 to 800 this could be the way to record more than 32 channels?

Would be nice to see the Thunder Bolt port too....if you have more ports better!!!

And dont forget the MIDI ports.


Well, of course you can add ports for all interfaces and protocols, but the thing is. You will need to make sure the connection can actually support the audio stream and you want to invest in the future. The connections you mentioned have been standard for (mobile) or smaller setups but they do not provide huge I/O, yet the currently supported connect types are already kind of maxed out at 44.1 kHz. 32 channels is still rather limited in regards to audio streams in studio setups, so bigger bandwidth is needed.

And if you look at audio specific connections like MADI, audio over ethernet and even the wireless Audio Video Bridging technologies (USB, FireWire and Thunderbolt are not audio specific) you might want to consider taking the connectivity into a whole new direction. Or not of course. But you cannot simply implement every thinkable connection on there. This is also technically almost impossible to achieve as you will have to double circuitry to be able support those various connection types.
Mac OS X 10.9.3: iMac 21,5" - Core i3 - 8GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.9.3: MacBook Air 13" - Core i5 - 4GB Ram

PreSonus FireStudio Mobile || PreSonus AudioBox 44 VSL || Alesis Active M1 MkII || CME XKey || NI Maschine

PreSonus Studio One Pro 2.6 || Pro Tools 10 || Digital Performer 8 || Ableton Live 9 || Maschine v2

SSL Duende Native || Plugin Alliance Transient Designer, Rack Pro, DrumXchanger || Softube Studio & Mix Bundle || ArtsAcoustic CL1 bundle, Reverb, Big Rock || FabFilter Total Bundle || FXPansion All Plugins || NI Komplete 8 || Synapse Audio DUNE || Tone2 ElectraX || Waldorf Largo || Image-Line Drumaxx || D16 Group Total Everything || Novation V-Synth, Basstation, FX Suite || Camel Audio Alchemy

Motoko || 64 Measures Music || YouTube || Mass Overflow || Manta Tracks
[WWW] [MSN]
MikeRivers
Presonoid
[Avatar]

Joined: 28/07/2010 15:44:52
Messages: 2247
Offline

Motoko wrote:
Well, of course you can add ports for all interfaces and protocols, but the thing is. You will need to make sure the connection can actually support the audio stream and you want to invest in the future. The connections you mentioned have been standard for (mobile) or smaller setups but they do not provide huge I/O

And if you look at audio specific connections like MADI, audio over ethernet and even the wireless Audio Video Bridging technologies (USB, FireWire and Thunderbolt are not audio specific) you might want to consider taking the connectivity into a whole new direction.


Why worry about connectivity? Computers are dirt cheap nowadays. Why not build the computer into the mixer? Then they wouldn't need to worry about compatibility with this or that hardware, other software running on the computer, or operating system updates that mess with the audio. In addition to providing the control interface, it could support networking and streaming audio. Plug a disk drive into a port and take home your live recording. Want to do a quick edit of a track using your DAW? Just access the drive over the network. Want to mix in the box? Just plug the disk drive into your computer and import the files into the DAW of your choice (with the mixer's knobs, buttons, and sliders available as a hardware control surface, of course).

The Mackie x-bus console and the TASCAM X-48 have a whole lot in common (Bob Tudor was the principal designer of both). In fact, one of his early ideas for the x-bus was to put a hard drive port on it so it would become the recorder. And back when Bob was still building BBSs and studying music, TASCAM had the SX-1. Integrated workstations are a good idea for people who want to get work done, and systems that aren't interdependent are good for people who want to get work done, want flexibility, and don't want to have to mess too much with computer things that they don't want to learn in depth.

Holy crap! I'm beginning to sound like Mike!

Wait a minute! I AM Mike! The more responsibility for computer architecture, software, and interfacing that someone takes out of my hands, the better. If there's a need for an upgrade or update, they now exactly what computer that upgrade is being installed on, and how it's accomplished.
Visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com for some useful audio info
"It's much easier to look for a magic solution than it is to adapt to reality." - Allan Sloan
[WWW]
Motoko
Baconator
[Avatar]

Joined: 25/04/2009 08:29:34
Messages: 8086
Location: Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Offline

Huh? Forgive me, but you ask why worry about connectivity, yet you mention network access to and from the console. Which is connectivity in my book.

If this thing needs to go in the studio, I don't want to mess with disks. I want the audio to be recorded somewhere central. Basically there's already a computer in the desk in the form of DSP. Adding harddisk recording options is nothing new and could be a nice optional expansion. But in this case, format is an issue as well. I'd like SSD as moving parts form risks.

I just want it to integrate in my current setup, which I've carefully assembled and paid a lot for. Laptop or desktop or standalone, Windows and or Mac. I need reliability, stability and high resolution recording on a reasonable of channels.
Mac OS X 10.9.3: iMac 21,5" - Core i3 - 8GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.9.3: MacBook Air 13" - Core i5 - 4GB Ram

PreSonus FireStudio Mobile || PreSonus AudioBox 44 VSL || Alesis Active M1 MkII || CME XKey || NI Maschine

PreSonus Studio One Pro 2.6 || Pro Tools 10 || Digital Performer 8 || Ableton Live 9 || Maschine v2

SSL Duende Native || Plugin Alliance Transient Designer, Rack Pro, DrumXchanger || Softube Studio & Mix Bundle || ArtsAcoustic CL1 bundle, Reverb, Big Rock || FabFilter Total Bundle || FXPansion All Plugins || NI Komplete 8 || Synapse Audio DUNE || Tone2 ElectraX || Waldorf Largo || Image-Line Drumaxx || D16 Group Total Everything || Novation V-Synth, Basstation, FX Suite || Camel Audio Alchemy

Motoko || 64 Measures Music || YouTube || Mass Overflow || Manta Tracks
[WWW] [MSN]
MikeRivers
Presonoid
[Avatar]

Joined: 28/07/2010 15:44:52
Messages: 2247
Offline

Motoko wrote:Huh? Forgive me, but you ask why worry about connectivity, yet you mention network access to and from the console. Which is connectivity in my book.


OK, amend that to "real time audio stream connectivity."

If this thing needs to go in the studio, I don't want to mess with disks. I want the audio to be recorded somewhere central.


What's more central than the mixing console?

Adding harddisk recording options is nothing new and could be a nice optional expansion. But in this case, format is an issue as well. I'd like SSD as moving parts form risks.


So then make sure the disk interface is compatible with a solid state disk drive and plug one in.


I just want it to integrate in my current setup, which I've carefully assembled and paid a lot for.


Forget your current setup., We're talking next generation here. You won't get reliability and stability as long as you have a general purpose computer in your system that keeps changing. Get it out of there and away from your audio, at least for recording. If you want to use a general purpose computer for editing, signal processing, and mixing, that's fine.
Visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com for some useful audio info
"It's much easier to look for a magic solution than it is to adapt to reality." - Allan Sloan
[WWW]
Motoko
Baconator
[Avatar]

Joined: 25/04/2009 08:29:34
Messages: 8086
Location: Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Offline

MikeRivers wrote:
OK, amend that to "real time audio stream connectivity."


If I'm going to do the editing, composing, mixing and mastering on my workstation why would I want an extra step in getting the audio from the desk to the computer? I would want an integrated environment, not two islands operating isolated from each other. And I want to be able to comfortably service the entire process, from idea to mastered release.

Having a desk with build in hard disk recording, that will introduce an isolated environment which will force me to physically move disks around. We've had that in the past and the industry has moved beyond that.

Remember the hard disk recording on the Iomega zip drives? So we would go back to that, only replace the zip drives with SSD drives. And let's face it. 260 GB is not much, bigger SSD drives are extremely expensive.

MikeRivers wrote:What's more central than the mixing console?


My DAW is more central then my mixing console. As that is where I'll be doing all the editing, arrangement, mixing and mastering.
The mixer is important, but is is no longer the centerpiece of modern day music production, in my opinion.

MikeRivers wrote:
Forget your current setup., We're talking next generation here. You won't get reliability and stability as long as you have a general purpose computer in your system that keeps changing. Get it out of there and away from your audio, at least for recording. If you want to use a general purpose computer for editing, signal processing, and mixing, that's fine.


I cannot forget my setup as that includes an investment of roughly $30.000 dollars or more. Again, I'm not looking at an isolated part of the process, I'm looking at the whole process. And my computer is certainly not general purpose. It has been optimized for audio.

Practical example:
I want to record an idea because I want to produce a song. I have a guitar and a basic vocal track that I want to lay down, so I record that into the desk. Then I have to take the disk and move that to my computer. If I have a desktop I plug it in. If I have a laptop I'll need to attach the drive through, firewire, usb or eSata. I'd rather connect the mixer directly to my computer to have the audio on my system.

I then go and play around with the arrangement and maybe use some plugins to get a basic idea a litle further. Adding drums, bass etc. Then I have to transfer those files back to the desk. But because it would probably only take audio I would need to bounce as the software in the desk probably won't be able to read all the various DAW song / project / session formats.

After that I bring in the band for a recording. So again all the audio is on the disk, moving the disk to the computer (yet again) to do edits and mixing etc. Wait a minute, let's play that guitar part again. Moving the audio back and forth to the desk to have the guitar player re-record his part. Audio back to the computer for further mixing and editing.

When I have the basic mix, I would like to use my outboard gear as I'm not happy with the sound of the plugins I'm using. Back with the drive to the desk, send out the audio, throught the outboard chain and back into the desk. Moving the disk back again to the computer. (repeat as often as you need to tweak the outboard gear to find the setting you like).

Etc, etc. For those that produce music mostly ITB they need a desk as I/O or as intelligent hub to work hybrid (ITB/OTB) having to move disks around feels like going back 10 years in time. When you have a laptop you're in even more trouble.

Now if I would have a desk that has a WiFi connection using AVB or a network cable using Copperlan for example it's al so much easier. Just connect your machine (and any other machine) and just go. Audio storage can be done on NAS or locally or where ever you want it to.

In my humble opinion I'm seeing much more future for that type of system then anything else. My workspace is my DAW, the mixer is an extension to that to provide I/O (pre-amps, conversion) and hopefully tactile control for my DAW. But most of the work is going to be digital. And running around plugging disks in and out isn't really going to improve my 'creative' time.
Mac OS X 10.9.3: iMac 21,5" - Core i3 - 8GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.9.3: MacBook Air 13" - Core i5 - 4GB Ram

PreSonus FireStudio Mobile || PreSonus AudioBox 44 VSL || Alesis Active M1 MkII || CME XKey || NI Maschine

PreSonus Studio One Pro 2.6 || Pro Tools 10 || Digital Performer 8 || Ableton Live 9 || Maschine v2

SSL Duende Native || Plugin Alliance Transient Designer, Rack Pro, DrumXchanger || Softube Studio & Mix Bundle || ArtsAcoustic CL1 bundle, Reverb, Big Rock || FabFilter Total Bundle || FXPansion All Plugins || NI Komplete 8 || Synapse Audio DUNE || Tone2 ElectraX || Waldorf Largo || Image-Line Drumaxx || D16 Group Total Everything || Novation V-Synth, Basstation, FX Suite || Camel Audio Alchemy

Motoko || 64 Measures Music || YouTube || Mass Overflow || Manta Tracks
[WWW] [MSN]
Gabrisapiens
Presonic
[Avatar]
Joined: 11/04/2011 03:46:08
Messages: 131
Location: Cáceres, España
Offline

I said about the ports (MIDI, USB, Firewire 800 and ThunderBolt) just to add more flexibility to the mixer and not always depend of a computer if you dont have it in the Gig.

* MIDI could be use for sync with a ligth mixer....or pedals to control FXs or volumens
* USB to send Stereo Main (or AUX or SUB) to a pendrive, or load/save Scenes or connect other USB equipment or just to charge the ipod XD
* Firewire 800 could be good for better transfer or...i dont know record more than 32 channels?
* Thunderbolt is so new that i can think how use it, but i think thatis so fast that you could connetc other stuff and record video HD and sound from the console or more than 32 channels to a DAW....

32.8.2 with 12 or 16 AUXs, 6 FXs AUXs

Something that i would like is to see the EQ in the screen for precise tone shaping, is more "easy" to understand when you see what are you doing.
[WWW]
MikeRivers
Presonoid
[Avatar]

Joined: 28/07/2010 15:44:52
Messages: 2247
Offline

Motoko wrote:
If I'm going to do the editing, composing, mixing and mastering on my workstation why would I want an extra step in getting the audio from the desk to the computer? I would want an integrated environment, not two islands operating isolated from each other. And I want to be able to comfortably service the entire process, from idea to mastered release.


Why go to your computer at all? Why not have the computer and recorder integrated into a single product, engineered by someone smarter than you or me, who makes sure that all the parts work together and that you won't go adding things that screw them up. You can call it a computer. You can call it a workstation. But get it as an integrated system that's designed and maintained by a single manufacturer that isn't you. But I'm dreaming here. You're not going to do that because it'll cost too much and won't let you add this and that to it.


Having a desk with build in hard disk recording, that will introduce an isolated environment which will force me to physically move disks around. We've had that in the past and the industry has moved beyond that.


You see it as a disadvantage, I see it as an advantage. I don't have to do all the work in the same place, it simplifies my recording, and it simplifies my mixing if I have the optimum tools for each, with no excess baggage. Besides, you don't have to physically move a disk drive, it can be on a network.


Remember the hard disk recording on the Iomega zip drives? So we would go back to that, only replace the zip drives with SSD drives. And let's face it. 260 GB is not much, bigger SSD drives are extremely expensive.


So you want to lose all of your projects when the disk fails? I use the smallest drives I can find with my Mackie hard disk recorder. A 40 GB drive is about right for a large project and I can put it on the shelf like a reel of tape when I'm done with it. If it some day becomes unreadable, I haven't lost the 20 or 30 projects that I could put on a cheap 2 TB drive. But that's just my experience talking. You can manage your assets however you choose.

Obviously you and I work differently and you'll need to solve your own problems.


I want to record an idea because I want to produce a song. I have a guitar and a basic vocal track that I want to lay down, so I record that into the desk. Then I have to take the disk and move that to my computer.


Why do you need to record something that simple to a computer? Doesn't that tie you down when you're trying to be creative? Get a $300 digital PortaStudio. Take it out in the back yard. Take it to the beach. Take it to your buddy's house. Record your song idea. Plug it into your computer and transfer the files when you're ready to start filling it out. You're doing two different kinds of work here. Why should you force yourself to work in the same environment.


After that I bring in the band for a recording. So again all the audio is on the disk, moving the disk to the computer (yet again) to do edits and mixing etc. Wait a minute, let's play that guitar part again. Moving the audio back and forth to the desk to have the guitar player re-record his part. Audio back to the computer for further mixing and editing.


This is why you need an integrated workstation. I think we're basically talking about the same concept except that you look at it as a computer that you buy and hang stuff off of so you can record with it. I'm talking about buying something that was designed to do all those jobs and works all the time, doesn't crash, doesn't get viruses, and doesn't change every time you update it with the same software that people use to watch YouTube videos and go on Twitbook.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know how you make hits. But there are better tools, or there could be, than the home made recorder and mixer that you have built out of consumer grade computer parts.

But you can't buy that now, so go ahead and do what you want. I'm just looking to the future, and for me, the future is an integrated workstation that I don't have to build and maintain myself. I want someone else to do that kind of thinking for me so I can concentrate on making music, not making workstations.

Visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com for some useful audio info
"It's much easier to look for a magic solution than it is to adapt to reality." - Allan Sloan
[WWW]
Motoko
Baconator
[Avatar]

Joined: 25/04/2009 08:29:34
Messages: 8086
Location: Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Offline

MikeRivers wrote:
Why go to your computer at all? Why not have the computer and recorder integrated into a single product, engineered by someone smarter than you or me, who makes sure that all the parts work together and that you won't go adding things that screw them up. You can call it a computer. You can call it a workstation. But get it as an integrated system that's designed and maintained by a single manufacturer that isn't you. But I'm dreaming here. You're not going to do that because it'll cost too much and won't let you add this and that to it.
...
This is why you need an integrated workstation. I think we're basically talking about the same concept except that you look at it as a computer that you buy and hang stuff off of so you can record with it. I'm talking about buying something that was designed to do all those jobs and works all the time, doesn't crash, doesn't get viruses, and doesn't change every time you update it with the same software that people use to watch YouTube videos and go on Twitbook.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know how you make hits. But there are better tools, or there could be, than the home made recorder and mixer that you have built out of consumer grade computer parts.

But you can't buy that now, so go ahead and do what you want. I'm just looking to the future, and for me, the future is an integrated workstation that I don't have to build and maintain myself. I want someone else to do that kind of thinking for me so I can concentrate on making music, not making workstations.


An integrated work system will a be a good thing for some, but I'm pretty sure that there is only a small market for it. There aren't many chip manufacturers out there. Which is basically why Macs are exactly the same hardwarewise as PC's nowadays. So if you build that integrated system you will need an OS to run it. Which isn't going to be Mac OS, but probably some embedded Windows version. Everybody who has been working on a Mac should then convert to Windows in order to use this. Which will also render the unit useless to anybody who has been working on Logic or Digital Performer etc.

My computers aren't build from consumer grade computer parts. And where's the difference anyway? If I order my audio optimized machines from RAIN they're not consumer grade parts. I mean Core i7 CPU's from intel are in all sorts of devices and a military laptop will have the same CPU as my MacBook Pro and my Dell corporate laptop.

The thing is, nobody is going to build and maintain a proprietary system, look at AudioLabs for example. I'm not sure what their sales figures are and they make wonderful products, but it's a very small market.

Now I'm not saying there is a need for it, rather that it is a very specific and very small market to operate in, which isn't likely to be a very profitable one. And developing that kind of device that you describe will cost a lot of money to produce and nobody makes products that cost money, you only make products that make you money.

MikeRivers wrote:
You see it as a disadvantage, I see it as an advantage. I don't have to do all the work in the same place, it simplifies my recording, and it simplifies my mixing if I have the optimum tools for each, with no excess baggage. Besides, you don't have to physically move a disk drive, it can be on a network.


So tell me, how does this differ from using a laptop? The optimized tools for recording, mixing etc are right here at my fingertips and is called Studio One. For others it might be Pro Tools, or Logic. So you would actually want to move me away to an integrated recording desk (which offers nothing extra is this particular case as you record to network) and then move to my laptop?

I'd rather be at my laptop all the time. Plug in the desk, take the audio and move on.

MikeRivers wrote:
So you want to lose all of your projects when the disk fails? I use the smallest drives I can find with my Mackie hard disk recorder. A 40 GB drive is about right for a large project and I can put it on the shelf like a reel of tape when I'm done with it. If it some day becomes unreadable, I haven't lost the 20 or 30 projects that I could put on a cheap 2 TB drive. But that's just my experience talking. You can manage your assets however you choose.

Obviously you and I work differently and you'll need to solve your own problems.


I don't have any problems, not sure why you are assuming I do. My disks can fail, sure, but I have backups in the cloud and on a RAID system. I don't use cheap harddisks and people that are serious about audio probably wouldn't either, but I have backups in various places. How about if one of your HD's fails? Where are your backups? I mean you only have a single copy right?

MikeRivers wrote:
Why do you need to record something that simple to a computer? Doesn't that tie you down when you're trying to be creative? Get a $300 digital PortaStudio. Take it out in the back yard. Take it to the beach. Take it to your buddy's house. Record your song idea. Plug it into your computer and transfer the files when you're ready to start filling it out. You're doing two different kinds of work here. Why should you force yourself to work in the same environment.


Well, because I want to record it. I don't want to buy extra hardware. I have my laptop right here, plug in an audio interface, hit record and go. The audio is in the right place in the right resolution etc. Why do I need to fiddle with yet another device. I'm aware a lot of these units are being used and they work fine. But for a lot of people an laptop is an even better device.

Look, my point is that you seem to be reasoning everything towards the ideal situation for your workstation to be the ideal situation, but I don't this that this situation will apply to many people. So although I'm not against the idea, I don't think is a very interesting one businesswise.

Computers, wheather you like them or not are a big factor in the audio industry. They have slowly replaced the console as the center of the universe (not saying consoles aren't important). And the fact that I can construct my optimal working environment, with the tools I need and that fit my workflow best is something not many people are willing to give up. If I like this mixer, I'll get that mixer. If I like working in Logic, I work in Logic. If I like plugins from this company, I'll use those.

Having a single integrated workstation sounds nice and handy, but recording is basically nothing more then transferring audio from the source to disk. And yes there is a lot involved, but in terms of what part a computer plays in that, it's very minimal. So it seems like a very expensive move (in time and effort for the end user) to separate the process of recording and everything else and revert back to how things worked before we had mixers with build-in audio interfaces.

My point is, you seem to be reasoning everything towards the ideal situation for your workstation. I'm trying to think of how this works
in real life.
Mac OS X 10.9.3: iMac 21,5" - Core i3 - 8GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.9.3: MacBook Air 13" - Core i5 - 4GB Ram

PreSonus FireStudio Mobile || PreSonus AudioBox 44 VSL || Alesis Active M1 MkII || CME XKey || NI Maschine

PreSonus Studio One Pro 2.6 || Pro Tools 10 || Digital Performer 8 || Ableton Live 9 || Maschine v2

SSL Duende Native || Plugin Alliance Transient Designer, Rack Pro, DrumXchanger || Softube Studio & Mix Bundle || ArtsAcoustic CL1 bundle, Reverb, Big Rock || FabFilter Total Bundle || FXPansion All Plugins || NI Komplete 8 || Synapse Audio DUNE || Tone2 ElectraX || Waldorf Largo || Image-Line Drumaxx || D16 Group Total Everything || Novation V-Synth, Basstation, FX Suite || Camel Audio Alchemy

Motoko || 64 Measures Music || YouTube || Mass Overflow || Manta Tracks
[WWW] [MSN]
MikeRivers
Presonoid
[Avatar]

Joined: 28/07/2010 15:44:52
Messages: 2247
Offline

You clearly have what you believe is the ideal system for you. Good luck, and happy troubleshooting.

I could reply point by point but your mind is made up to think inside the box. I'm thinking outside the box. There's no need to use existing computer hardware or software. Sure, off the shelf components make it easier for both users like you and manufacturers as well to make a functional product at a low price that can be enjoyed by the masses. But there are a lot of loose ends that come along with using off-the-shelf parts because those parts are designed to serve a lot of needs, not just the special needs of a small class of users.

What's wrong with a laptop? Well, technically nothing if it works. So far I've been pretty lucky (and I consider it luck, not skill) in that just about every piece of hardware that I've had come through here has worked well enough with my computers so that I could use it as much as I wanted to (which, admittedly, is probably much less than you would). If I wanted to put 40 DSP-intesive plug-ins on a mix I probably would bog down my minimalist but reliable computers.

However, right now I have two USB 2.0 audio interfaces in my shop that I just can't get to work click-free or crash-free on my "travel" computer. I're read all the articles (wrote a few myself) about optimizing a computer for audio, and I haven't spent countless hours, just a few, on it, but at this point I's not that important to me that it works. I'm not expecting it to record anything but a single stereo track - something that the computer does reliably using its built-in sound card. I can get 100% reliable results with less fooling around using my Korg MR1000 recorder, which is actually smaller and lighter than the computer, has decent quality mic preamps with XLR inputs and phantom power, and, should I want to edit that recording on the computer in the field, I can connect them with a single USB cable and transfer a 2 hour concert to the computer in less time than I can drink a cup of coffee. It's who I am and what I do.

In the studio, of course, I work differently. I don't record myself, I only record other people. I want to face a console and not a computer screen. I want to move faders, not a mouse, to adjust the mix that I'm hearing and what the musicians in the studio are hearing. It would be nice to have buttons to control the recorder (which is out of sight) right there on the console, but I'm happy with having the small remote control box next to me, on my lap, or on top of the console. When I press Play, I don't have to press any other buttons to hear what I just recorded. When I mix, I'm working with the same set of controls as when I was recording, the set of physical controls that make me feel comfortable. My console has a meter bridge so I can always see levels, though once I've set things up, I only glance at the meters for confidence, but they're right in front of me all the time. My view doesn't change because I had to open another window.

Now I could do all of that with a computer, but unless I wrote the software or knew the application programs so well that I could customize them to the look and feel that I wanted (and some will never get there) I pretty much have to live with the decisions made by programmers who have tried to accommodate the widest user base possible.

I want someone else to make those decisions for me, someone who understands how I work, recognizes that it's a good way of working, and builds a system that works the way I want to work, not a system that I have to learn, or learn how to beat into submission.

If I was making money at recording, I'd certainly be willing to pay for it. But I'm not, and probably you aren't either, so we take what we can afford and learn to make the best of it. Clearly there are practically no technical limitations to what we can do with the hardware and software that we have available today, but the one thing that we can't easily buy is system integration. And I mean this in a different sense than that Studio One (or whatever DAW you choose) integrates recording, mixing, editing, signal processing, and mastering.

I'm talking about integrating all of those things into my chosen work environment. I want a knob for every function, not a group of knobs that I can (and must) assign to whatever function I want to use at the time. I want a visual picture of the whole system, not a slide show of pieces. I want tactile controls. Some of these things are available, some are not. At one time I said I would be happy working on a DAW if I had a monitor as large as my console work surface. That's possible today, and not outrageously expensive - I can buy a computer, software, and a 50" display for about the same as my console cost 25 years ago. But while I can buy a control surface that approximates the control surface of, say, a StudioLive, for a couple of grand, the only thing that comes close to the functionality of my console is the SSL AWS-900 series that's about $100,000. Not for me, at least not this year.

Now if PreSonus could make something like that for, say $15,000, would anyone buy it? Probably a few, but probably not enough for it to be worth their while to develop. Maybe not even enough for them to start on the market research, simply because most people who want to record today have a background and mental picture of how it works that's similar to yours. So it's profitable for them to develop products that fit that model, not my model.

My concept is just as flexible as yours, probably more so. But it's also more expensive because someone else is doing the engineering that you have to do yourself (or take what you get and learn to live with it).

But I can dream, can't I?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 07/09/2011 15:39:13

Visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com for some useful audio info
"It's much easier to look for a magic solution than it is to adapt to reality." - Allan Sloan
[WWW]
Motoko
Baconator
[Avatar]

Joined: 25/04/2009 08:29:34
Messages: 8086
Location: Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Offline

Thanks for the reply, but I'm sorry to read that you seem to think I'm thinking inside the box and you are thinking outside the box. When actually I'm not hearing anything new, the system you describe is already on the market and has been on the market in various stages for many years, think Tascam, Yamaha and others. You might take a look at the Tascam 2488 NEO HD Recorder if you haven't already, or go for a Midas and Klark combination if you want true top of the line.

There's even solutions that allow you to store stuff on a NAS directly from the board.

I don't have the ideal system yet and I never said I did, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to make remarks about 'troubleshooting'? I have three perfectly stable systems that haven't had a single problem since I started using them and that are rock solid. Custom software / hardware will also have it's quirks and need maintenance, even more then standardized and trialed and tested stuff.

40 processing plugins? Come on, I mean with todays processing power I can easily fire away 300 SSL channel strips in a single session and still have enough power over to do a regular session with all the other plugins I need. Seriously, on a Core i7 machine it's no problem to re-create a fully working SSL C200 digital console with 300+ stereo channels. I have exactly such a setup sitting comfortably in my studio. It's based on a AMD quad core CPU, a mere 2GB of memory and Windows 7 and is it a 128 channel SSL C200 in a box, which is running as stable as it can. Never had an issue.

Nobody is telling you to face a computer screen. In fact I'd rather not when recording. But I want that audio to be available on my machine when I'm going to do the editing. The mixer is only a transfer device (as I've mentioned earlier) and tactile controller, who cares where the audio is, I just want it available at all times.

But what you seem to be after is a totally custom build solution and sure you can dream about it. But you make some assumptions in your story, that simply aren't true. Or that are far from practical. You talk about thinking forward and trying to think outside the box, but these products already exist so I'm not truly seeing the innovative thought behind it.

But then again, that's probably just me.

Anyway, you seem to take a more traditional approach to the process and only focus on one aspect of it. While I'm looking at the process as a whole sound design, composing, recording, mixing and mastering. The fact that I have to transfer audio files between various systems with each their own interface and workflow puts me off. And a lot of people with me, as is proven by history.

Anyway, I hope you keep dreaming the dream and doing what you do the way you want to do it. It seems it's a little hard to have this discussion online and really dig deeper into the reasoning behind certain aspects and reply to some of the doubts I've expressed. So let's leave it at that and agree to disagree.
Mac OS X 10.9.3: iMac 21,5" - Core i3 - 8GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.9.3: MacBook Air 13" - Core i5 - 4GB Ram

PreSonus FireStudio Mobile || PreSonus AudioBox 44 VSL || Alesis Active M1 MkII || CME XKey || NI Maschine

PreSonus Studio One Pro 2.6 || Pro Tools 10 || Digital Performer 8 || Ableton Live 9 || Maschine v2

SSL Duende Native || Plugin Alliance Transient Designer, Rack Pro, DrumXchanger || Softube Studio & Mix Bundle || ArtsAcoustic CL1 bundle, Reverb, Big Rock || FabFilter Total Bundle || FXPansion All Plugins || NI Komplete 8 || Synapse Audio DUNE || Tone2 ElectraX || Waldorf Largo || Image-Line Drumaxx || D16 Group Total Everything || Novation V-Synth, Basstation, FX Suite || Camel Audio Alchemy

Motoko || 64 Measures Music || YouTube || Mass Overflow || Manta Tracks
[WWW] [MSN]
SwitchBack
Presonoid
[Avatar]

Joined: 17/02/2011 01:10:03
Messages: 1428
Offline

Ah, Studio vs. Live?

'Studio' will be looking for a system which can be configured to personal preference, 'Live' will be looking for a system which is reliable straight out of the truck. Eventually the wish lists will tick the same boxes, but in different order. The current StudioLives are a bit of both and the selling price seems to reconcile both camps.

I wonder if that's still the case if the selling price of the 32 goes over 5k...
tysonviolin
Presonic
[Avatar]

Joined: 13/02/2011 06:07:21
Messages: 343
Offline

I think presonus should keep on the track they are on. A laptop is a great companion to the SL. I do see the usefulness of thunderbolt, however. Look at the new apple cinema displays. They have a thunderbolt connection that goes to the computer but also include a hub of sorts providing usb and firewire to daisychain drives and other devices. The bandwidth just makes sense here. Are we going to see windows machines with thunderbolt?

If the new SLs can have thunderbolt and, say, firewire 800, that would be fantastic.
TROPO.BANDCAMP.COM
SL24
SL16
Apogee
Studio One Pro
Logic
Ableton
Mac Book Pro
UA
Vintech

[WWW]
Motoko
Baconator
[Avatar]

Joined: 25/04/2009 08:29:34
Messages: 8086
Location: Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Offline

tysonviolin wrote:I think presonus should keep on the track they are on. A laptop is a great companion to the SL. I do see the usefulness of thunderbolt, however. Look at the new apple cinema displays. They have a thunderbolt connection that goes to the computer but also include a hub of sorts providing usb and firewire to daisychain drives and other devices. The bandwidth just makes sense here. Are we going to see windows machines with thunderbolt?

If the new SLs can have thunderbolt and, say, firewire 800, that would be fantastic.


Yeah, and USB 3 for that matter. But one of the things I'm hearing a lot lately is the lack of 'professional' interfacing with the unit. Lack of ADAT, MADI, AES etc. has kept some of the people I know from actually getting a desk. And as I've mentioned before there's a couple of new connection that are slowly getting industry support that should get bigger in time, like Copperlan / AVB. I hope at some point we'll be able to use more then the standard computer connections.
Mac OS X 10.9.3: iMac 21,5" - Core i3 - 8GB Ram
Mac OS X 10.9.3: MacBook Air 13" - Core i5 - 4GB Ram

PreSonus FireStudio Mobile || PreSonus AudioBox 44 VSL || Alesis Active M1 MkII || CME XKey || NI Maschine

PreSonus Studio One Pro 2.6 || Pro Tools 10 || Digital Performer 8 || Ableton Live 9 || Maschine v2

SSL Duende Native || Plugin Alliance Transient Designer, Rack Pro, DrumXchanger || Softube Studio & Mix Bundle || ArtsAcoustic CL1 bundle, Reverb, Big Rock || FabFilter Total Bundle || FXPansion All Plugins || NI Komplete 8 || Synapse Audio DUNE || Tone2 ElectraX || Waldorf Largo || Image-Line Drumaxx || D16 Group Total Everything || Novation V-Synth, Basstation, FX Suite || Camel Audio Alchemy

Motoko || 64 Measures Music || YouTube || Mass Overflow || Manta Tracks
[WWW] [MSN]
tysonviolin
Presonic
[Avatar]

Joined: 13/02/2011 06:07:21
Messages: 343
Offline

I can see including an 8 channel adat in (i know i could use his to connect my outboard preamps) and there is no reason there shouldnt be adat outputs to match the framesize. I wouldnt use these, but many people would. Im not sure presonus shoud add channel to channel digital ins though. One of the beauties of the SLs is their simplicity and functionality. I dont want to see a complex in and out routing matrix.

But...... Long but

There could be a switch in the software that flips from adat digital i/o to computer digital i/o. This would help include the standalone digital recorder people.

Another long but........

Why include a dying protocol

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 07/09/2011 18:44:57

TROPO.BANDCAMP.COM
SL24
SL16
Apogee
Studio One Pro
Logic
Ableton
Mac Book Pro
UA
Vintech

[WWW]
 
Forum Index » StudioLive General Discussion
Go to: