1st SAC live, FOH 5 stars, Monitorworld 2.5

[Trackzilla]

Did my first live show with SAC yesterday, with a small 3 day festival as my test victim. I expected it to be a learning curve and all in all things went extremely well on day 1. I'm happy with everything as a FOH engineer, but I realized as soon as I started soundcheck what had been lurking in the back of my mind all along but not surfacing...the monitor interface.

Monitorworld was completely blind to all mixes save the one currently being adjusted! No big deal if it's all ears, but picture last week: 14 wedge mixes & side fills with only lead vox wearing ears. I'm glad I test fired on an 8 mix show instead. But as things evolved onstage, it was quite cumbersome to need to use the tab at the top to switch between several monitor consoles when balancing changes across several mixes while still unable to see the others.

Is there not a 'master' monitor console--the ocean of auxes that views and addresses all monitor mixes from one console? Is it already in there & I simply didn't manage to find it, or maybe in the 'coming soon' department?
Everything else I looked for is so well thought out, and glorious, that I'm sure there is a better way that I'm just not seeing...

[Naturally Digital]

Monitorworld was completely blind to all mixes save the one currently being adjusted! No big deal if it's all ears, but picture last week: 14 wedge mixes & side fills with only lead vox wearing ears. I'm glad I test fired on an 8 mix show instead. But as things evolved onstage, it was quite cumbersome to need to use the tab at the top to switch between several monitor consoles when balancing changes across several mixes while still unable to see the others.

Interesting... I think I understand where you're coming from. Now, in theory at least, it shouldn't be much more cumbersome than changing layers on a PM5D. That can still get pretty hairy when all but one player in the band wants something adjusted (from what I've seen, not from personal experience)... I'm curious about this situation though. Using your example:

Say you need to bring down the guitar equally in all 8 mixes but you don't want to change the FOH level...

What is the easiest/quickest/most efficient way to do this?

[Wam3]

Dave,

Monitor mixes 2-24 can choose their split from monitor 1 ..... so you could bring down the guitar in 1 and it would come down in all your other mixes.

W

[Bob L]

Exactly... if you want you can set Mon 1 up as a master monitor console... and take the taps pst of that mixer... then adjusting anything in Mon 1 would adjust it in all others... then if needed you could compensate one persons mix by flipping to his console and readjusting the level there.

All in all... in my experience as 8 years on the road as monitor and FOH guy... once the monitors have been properly adjusted, they tend to stay put except for individual requests to bring something up or down in one mix only.

There are some interesting plans to create latched group faders thru all consoles that can be used to adjust a fader on all consoles at once whether the taps are pre or pst... so that will help in some situations.

Bob L

[Trackzilla]

ok, take mon1 as 'master' and take the mixes as post mon 1...that will give me the capability to make global adjustments, but it still will not allow me to see a variety of mixes when cleaning up stagewash or tracing an errant setting before it becomes an issue. I agree that once monitors are setup for an act they need very little revision except for troubleshooting & odd requests, but when I am doing festival scenarios I may have 10-15 acts with 45 min sets & 20 min changeovers. Without a view of the various mixes, it can be a bit tricky to quickly find the mix you forgot to remove; for instance, a line that changed from a 100db onstage hammond to an acoustic with an onboard pickup that turns out to be an internal condensor mic from (when the artist picks it up midway through the set). Even a no frills matrix view of the whole monitor array would accomplish those goals, and allow monitorworld to notice the musician doing something stupid with his mix before it takes over the planet and you have no idea why (eek!). But mon1 being a genuine monitor mixer would still be more comfy IMHO.
Is something like this even possible or would it require a massive revision of the engine? At the very least it would enhance the comfort level for visiting engineers on the rig and make monitor engineers all over the world rejoice like FOH guys & musicians are starting to about SAC

[Bob L]

Well... any setup of multiple bands with little or no rehearsal time is going to be tough no matter what kind of rigs you use... so...

I am considering various custom views to be made available down the road... we'll see what happens... but... with a little practice and little effort, I find it very easy to pick an FKey view of the Wide Mixer and then flip thru monitor mixers easily with the right-click and then select the mixer... I feel i can move thru complex adjustments very quickly and easily... and much easier to visualize than looking at rows of matrix or aux knobs.... give it a try.

Bob L

[ffarrell]

Hi

I've been in the drivers seat on monitors or house for 20 years and in the festival mode people must get over it if they don't bring their own desk.

The Best part of SAC is if a band wants to work with you to make the sound of each song special to each member of the band you can go nuts giving them a great mixs.

The Grab and Go mixing is not what were about at CIA but a turn key solution to not going thru that hassle. The band dials in before the gig and only has to work on the output stage at that point.

thanks
fvf

ok, take mon1 as 'master' and take the mixes as post mon 1...that will give me the capability to make global adjustments, but it still will not allow me to see a variety of mixes when cleaning up stagewash or tracing an errant setting before it becomes an issue. I agree that once monitors are setup for an act they need very little revision except for troubleshooting & odd requests, but when I am doing festival scenarios I may have 10-15 acts with 45 min sets & 20 min changeovers. Without a view of the various mixes, it can be a bit tricky to quickly find the mix you forgot to remove; for instance, a line that changed from a 100db onstage hammond to an acoustic with an onboard pickup that turns out to be an internal condensor mic from (when the artist picks it up midway through the set). Even a no frills matrix view of the whole monitor array would accomplish those goals, and allow monitorworld to notice the musician doing something stupid with his mix before it takes over the planet and you have no idea why (eek!). But mon1 being a genuine monitor mixer would still be more comfy IMHO.
Is something like this even possible or would it require a massive revision of the engine? At the very least it would enhance the comfort level for visiting engineers on the rig and make monitor engineers all over the world rejoice like FOH guys & musicians are starting to about SAC

[Bob L]

And... even after thinking about the possibility of looking at all 24 monitor mixes in one view of any specific chan... like the kick drum... I must say that I doubt I would find myself mxing in that manner...

I do not set up monitor mixes by going thru channels one at a time and attempting to set that channel in all monitor mixes... then on to the next channel... in general... i am setting up an entire mix for each band member one at a time...

So... I am setting a mix for the guitar player... I am therefore looking at his monitor mix for a few minutes scrolling thru the channels and adjusting the mix to his liking... then I am off to the bass player... and so forth...

Looking at 24 kick drum faders in one view would not necessarily be helpful to creating a good mix for each muscician, in my opinion.

But... views like that may be coming in future updates... although that's still up for grabs.

Bob L

[Leadfoot]

I think a one click button per mix would be the best way. Like 25 numbered buttons somewhere labeled, FOH, 1,2,3 etc.. I know you don't want to clutter the display, but I think that clutter would be well worth it. And make the button 'light up' when depressed. That way just by a quick glance, you know exactly what mix you're on and they are in sequential order when you look at them. The drop down menu, as nice as it is, is too many clicks.

Thanks,
Tony

[Bob L]

Discussed the one button click or the number keyboard many times during the development... my concern is that you really need a label... mixer number 15 will mean nothing very quickly compared to mixer - Bass Gtr.

It will be very tough to remember who is on what mixer without label references.

Placing 24 mixer label references onscreen will take up quite a lot of precious real estate... so the dropdown menu list became the eventual choice.

Let go of the concern for the extra click to open the menu and you have the best way of referencing multiple mixers, in my opinion.

Bob L

[Wam3]

It would be really cool if the mixer label could append on to the end of the channel labels in the monitors.

[Bob L]

Where... there is barely enough space to display the chan label itself.

Bob L

[Wam3]

Where you label your channels, kick, snare, etc .......... I guess its the input label?

So in W mixer view the top would read ....

Input 01
Kick -M1 BOB

and the F Mixer would read

K
i
c
k

-
M
1

B
O
B


........

W

[Bob L]

Not enough room to fit full labels and the extra maonitor info.

Bob L

[mycorn]

i'v spent the better part of a 3 decade career as a monitor engineer

jus being the devils advocate for a minute
[personally, i like the way SAC is laid out...]
the PM5D offers both an -aux mix on faders- mode
and a -channel selected all auxes on rotery knobs- mode

both have their proponents

i tend toward bob's mindset of a -mix at a time-
but there are kids out there who cant seem to do anything
but the -channel at a time- spin up

but-
far and away most visiting engineers are going to freak out
more at the lack of a familiar control surface unless
like me, they are well versed at yammy's software

and even as comfortable as i am mixing on a notebook
a 20 minute turn around with mic changes and wireah
is not when i'd want to learn SAC

festivals are all about how fast you can make the flip

my company is a one man shop

if i knew there were numerous BEs i was going to
have to appease on a time table i'd hire sombody to babysit FOH
or pass on the gig

like i 'v always done...

fwiw

[Bob L]

The complexities of a 20 min turn-around for festivals and similar gigs should be all the more reason to be in the SAC camp... once learned... nothing is faster and more versatile, in my opinion.

The abilities to quickly duplicate and copy and even have preset session templates ready to go as startups... the abilities to leave most of the current setup intact and simply alter complete scene changes including chan source assignments... etc... all add up to handling the situation with greater capability than with any other current technology.

But heh... that's just my opinion... and now many others who have begun experimenting with the SAC technology.

Change is always difficult for most... but... I believe SAC will very quickly settle in as the new standard... I'm betting on it.

Bob L

[bcorkery]

Sell more SAC and each band can bring their own "prf's" on a flopy and you're good to go! Or am I simplifying things too much?

[mycorn]

Sell more SAC and each band can bring their own prf's on a flopy and you're good to go! Or am I simplifying things too much?

this is, in theory, a great idea

almost all digital consoles offer this concept
and if you have time [rare at a fest] to redo your patch
and make adjustments for head amp and different
mics, amps, speakers, etc. it's great

most times the variables make it just as easy
to start from scratch if you'v been with the artist
for any length of time

in the real world it's not usually as easy as it looks...

fwiw

[bcorkery]

Yeah, so many variables, so little time!

[Trackzilla]

Having finished that festival...and it's accompanying learning curve I have a few more thoughts and comments on the discussion that has continued in this thread.
First, thanks for pointing me towards making mon1 a master and taking the others as a post from it, that saved my brain in the following days and made things infinitely smoother.
Now for the reason I keep harping on about the view I feel is so critical:
The 'build each mix' approach is, I agree, preferred when you have the time and/or know your artists. But in fast turnover and festival situations, many of us do the 'class dismissed' method or similar (as you check each line, everyone raises their hand if they need it in their mix and lowers it when they feel it may be enough.) In that way I can rough in mixes for a completely unknown act with no prior backline as a byproduct of the initial line check that must be done anyway, leaving only minor tweaking for most to be completely comfortable.
Surely this approach isn't some new innovation we've created...every real monitor engineer in this area handles this scenario in this fashion. And with a global monitor view this approach also makes it instinctive to notice and remove unwanted 'leftovers' from the previous act, reducing monitor clutter.
Anyone have another way to accomplish the same result? Or an equally effective solution to this problem? Because this is really the ONLY functional shortcoming to how SAC works that I find...

BTW: P4 2.8GHz, 1.5GB PC2700 is barely enough to run 24-32 ch & 8 mixes with an old MOTU PCI324 system and an ELO touchscreen. lol It ran between 75 & 99% consumption and was a laggy at times...only crashed once but became stable when I increased buffering to 128x3. I knew it would be close, but wanted to test the behavior at lower limits when I had the Yammy hooked up as a 'flip the switch' backup before I started running a more capable box without conventional redundancy...It ran well enough that I have no stability fears about SAC on the 'real' box we are migrating it to this week