image description

Forum Index » Profile for knerr » Messages posted by knerr
AudioBox Public Beta » Mac 10.7.5 and 1.2.2 no mixer window » Go to message
perceval wrote:

Quick question: how long have you had your 1818vsl? ....

24.4.2 » 2 iPhones? » Go to message
Just go to the App Store and search for QMix. Or, here's a link you can open with your phone to take you straight there.
24.4.2 » No surface lights on 24.4.2; Power supply? » Go to message
Presonus determined it need to be sent in.
24.4.2 » 2 iPhones? » Go to message
2 phones is no problem, and you can assign them full control, or control of a single AUX. The 32.4.2 software hasn't been released, but I would assume it will work in a similar fashion. The phones should be able to talk directly to the 32.4.2 when using the included WiFi dongle.
You are correct that there is no SMAART functionality in QMix, although you can do that from VSL as well, but you'd need a computer, obviously.
BTW, if you didn't know, you can install QMix on your phone and "play" with it in demo mode.
Live Sound » Vocal mic + dated outboard effects + midi footpedal controller » Go to message
+[whatever we're up to] The VoiceLive 2 is what you want. Covers everything but Vocoding. And, much handier and easier to use than a rack full of stuff. As you've probably noticed, it will also let you send the engineer a dry signal (although with dynamics and EQ, if selected), along with a separate feed with effects, harmonies, etc.
House of Worship » Help with IEM questions » Go to message
Thanks guys. I have looked at both the PM50 and PM351 but since they do not have balanced inputs, the rep from CCI would suggest these would not be suitable, which is why he spec'ed several of the RA53b's for our church, using each as a single channel amp via the balanced inputs. Just seems clunky to me. I'd be happy using those as 4 channel amps or perhaps several single channel amps, but trying to see if the unbalanced inputs are going to be an issue. Not sure exactly how far the run is, as it goes up through the ceiling. I guess I just need to do some testing.
Thanks again.
House of Worship » Help with IEM questions » Go to message
klarkkentster: were you able to try this, and if so, did you encounter any noise issues?

gadget: Will using the wiring you showed unbalance the signal? Just wondering how critical the balancing is, in practice. Also, how would running a stereo signal down one channel of the snake affect noise rejection, if at all? We are being spec'ed a single RA53b for every musician, so all connections can be balanced, which seems like a waste, but if it's critical, so be it. But, it makes me wonder a couple things:

1. Is there another single channel stereo amp that has balanced inputs that's not a fortune?

2. What are the single channel Rolls units designed for, as they do not have balanced inputs? I was under the impression that these were fairly popular for IEM, and I would guess a lot of these get their signal from returns on a snake.

Sorry for the long post, and thanks for any input.
House of Worship » Fat Channel suggestions » Go to message
Just want to point out that the "dry" signal from the VoiceLive 2 does carry any of the "Tone" processing, if enabled, which includes EQ, compression, gate, and de-essing. So, just be aware of that if you're applying more fat channel processing to it. Or, you can turn it off at the VL2, obviously, by just hitting the "Tone" button. The processing is pretty topnotch, though, even on the "adaptive" (auto) settings. I do prefer a little heavier compression, so I use a manual setting there.
24.4.2 » Optical inputs to 24 4 2 » Go to message
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the audio is already in your computer, I think the best bet is to output it via FireWire straight into the studiolive, even if you don't have the card already.
Otherwise you could output the optical into D/A converters and then into channels on the board, but I can't think of a compelling reason to do it that way.
If there's more to it, please provide some more info and I'm sure someone can get you in the right direction.
StudioLive General Discussion » 32.4.2AI... DUDE!! » Go to message
jakejam wrote:Hardware. I believe the SUB OUTS are wired TS and not TRS.

They are balanced TRS, but I doubt they could be made stereo, nonetheless. I think the best you could hope for is being able to pass the stereo sub mix to the main mix.
StudioLive General Discussion » StudioLive production numbers » Go to message
Thanks Gadget. That's a pretty good chunk.
StudioLive General Discussion » Number of installations allowed for StudioOne » Go to message
PeeVee wrote:Understood, thanks! I think that's fair. I think I will install it on the old E520 then, just to see if and how it runs. My 520 has a (pretty old) firewire 400 PCI card, I read there are compatibility issues with newer firewire (800?) hardware so we'll see. First thing a need is a decent laptop with firewire so that will be installation number 2. I'm not planning on having it on more computers than 2 (like you said). I noticed that laptops merely have a very small (6 pin??) connector that's not included in the box. I reckon that's just a matter of a (conversion) cable?

If I'm not mistaken, the mini connector is actually 4 pin. It lack power, but since the StudioLive has it's own power, it's not necessary. Your biggest concern is a computer or expansion card with a compatible FW chip. There are other threads that can guide you there, or find a mac, which will just work. There are options starting around $500.
StudioLive General Discussion » StudioLive production numbers » Go to message
Just curious, does anyone have any idea how many StudioLives are in the wild?
StudioLive General Discussion » 32.4.2AI... DUDE!! » Go to message
jakejam wrote:Well....

Still seeing the overwhelming responses on adding subs caused me to try to think outside the box. Even if it wasn't an A/B switch for channel/sub, having the option to turn a 36 fader (potentially channel) board into any configurable sub additions up to 12 subs (what has been possibly titled "Phantom Subs") still seems like more of a winner to me under present circumstances.

So if you wanted to have 5 Subs (as the "no A/B" possibility), as soon as you Assigned SUB 5, you'd lose channel 32, but gain a sub. This would only seem to add the need for 12 Assigns, 12 sub outs, and the indicator lights on 25-32. The firmware should be easier from there, imo. Add "linking" to these Phantom Subs and stereo outs, and you've got 6 stereo SUB possibilities, or 12 mono...

Why is this a bad idea? What am I missing???

I don't think it's a bad idea, just kind of a moot point, because I believe it's extremely unlikely they'll change anything physical on the boards.

Just to play devil's advocate, could you basically do this by routing through Studio One? Might add latency, but I wouldn't think too much, as long as you're not processing it a ton. You'd still have the Fat Channel on the channel you routed back to to process it anyway. Just a thought.
StudioLive General Discussion » 32.4.2AI... DUDE!! » Go to message
jakejam wrote:I can sure understand the benefits of active faders based on what you're saying, but I can't see how my "imaginary subs" would almost double the cost of the board... unless you're talking about the added price of "imaginary active faders".

I believe he's referring to the price compared to the 24.4.2, but it's not going to be $5000, as he stated in an earlier post. MAP is $4000, and they will be available for less than that. The 32.4.2 is not the be all, end all, but personally I think it's a pretty significant upgrade for $700 or so. Even just the fact that many people won't have to buy and haul a computer should account for much of that.

All I can say on the matter of the buses is they aren't going to change anything physical on the board unless all it involves a sticker. Phantom Buses sound kind of interesting, but doubling up on the faders is asking for trouble, in my opinion.
Forum Index » Profile for knerr » Messages posted by knerr