The generation of iPad based mixers...

[revbobuk]

I'm not altogether convinced by this argument from feedback. Sometimes it's caused by walking in front of a main speaker. But sometimes it's a foldback monitor - especially these days, when the band all have iPads controlling their own monitor mix. So I might need to pull down an aux instead of the main volume or a mic fader. And under those circumstances I will probably need to look at the desk anyway. And if it's a digital desk (as it may well be), even if it does have physical faders, I might need to change layers. And I'm not going to do that without looking. So while the tactile response is a very valid point, and having physical faders does make ordinary operation much easier without looking, I really don't think the physical surface is that much better than a screen (once you've got used to it) for rapid changes. Many of the newer apps have view groups - very quick access to user defined groups of faders - and it wouldn't be hard to have one of those set to a 'PANIC' group with key channels in it.

[OneEng]

A little over a year ago, I decided to replace my venerable MixWiz rig and rack with a digital mixer. I mostly do mixing from stage for my own band, but once in a while I do a favor for a friend or relative and provide sound for someone else.

 

I was torn between the X32 Compact, X32 Producer and X32 Rack.

 

Since one of my primary goals was to lighten my load out and load in as well as getting a smaller stage footprint, I finally came to grips with a very nervous decision to go with the X32 Rack.

 

No faders was a HUGE jump for me. I am an engineer and wireless issues terrified me as well.

 

I did everything I could to minimize issues. I have a 5Ghz router. I use a little Android app that sniffs out the 5Ghz channel bandwidth usage at venues, I bring a laptop for a backup that can be wired into my router, and I tested all the failure modes of the mixer before even trying it on a single gig.

 

In my testing, I walked outside away from my mixer until the VU meters started to stutter. I did little fader changes continuously and kept walking until I was out of range. I then walked back into range and continued mixing. This worked flawlessly.

 

I have been gigging and doing shows for over a year now and haven't had any issues at all with the unit. I have become so comfortable with the iPad interface for certain tasks, that I don't really care to do them on a real mixer any longer (adjusting the channel eq is much better on a tablet IMHO.... this is especially true if using the MixingStation Android app which has the RTA display overlaid onto the PEQ curve).

 

I also find that having multi-track recordings to train myself on mixing is a surprisingly efficient way to get a great mix for the band. It is so nice to playback the tracks through the mixer and see how different settings effect the sound of an individual channel, or the entire mix. This feature is also ideal for making audio demos for video clips, or website audio demos. When I mix for others, I offer them a quick mixdown of their show for a little extra money. The raw tracks they can have for free.

 

Now granted, the X32 Rack isn't completely without a physical interface. You can actually get by with what is provided on front, but having used this style of mixing now for over a year, I wouldn't hesitate to use it in any venue.

[Pete McCrea]

It's a skill-set that the lighting world seemed to cope with when they switched from banks of 400 manual faders to computerised desks that completely eliminated any direct corrolation between a fader and a specific light;

But they're still using physical faders to manipulate things. Look at the prevalence of PC wings and the new Avo desk - yes a Computer running an OS and software, but the majority of interaction when in a show is via faders. Maybe I'm limited, but in my experience pretty much every show we've been involved in, from small 6 fixture corporates through to spectaculars in the RAH is using some form of tactile interface to run the show for LX.

 

Audio wise I would be nervous running anything more than 2-3 inputs via a tablet.

 

But then maybe I'm a Luddite.

[ImagineerTom]

Yes, but

1) there's no longer any direct correlation between those faders and specific lights - before they're used the operator first pumps some numbers in to the desk to tell it what he actually wants the fader to do. With even a modest show running 1024 channels there's no way the 6 token practical faders in front of him offer him real control.

2) look how many of those desks also have a mouse or trackpad or touch screen - the lighting world has made the leap to "other" input technologies without the world ending

3) actually watch an LX op driving actual shows and you'll find that the majority of live changes are done using the number pad or touch screen - typing one macro number or hitting one preset button to black out an errant light / bring up a different light because the actor is in the wrong place, etc

 

"Lighting is completely different" I hear you cry, but the point is that there really is no difference at all between the speed, flexibility and control the lighting world needs to have and the speed, control and flexibility the sound world needs to have. I remember many lighting people aghast at the idea of not having the 1:1 fader control and a host of claims that computer based control wouldn't be stable enough; the fact is that in the space of 10 years the entire industry has switched to a completely different way of working, the world hasn't ended and actually by embracing the change to a different way of controlling/operating a whole new world of lighting effects and technologies became available to use.

[ImagineerTom]

Yes, but

1) there's no longer any direct correlation between those faders and specific lights - before they're used the operator first pumps some numbers in to the desk to tell it what he actually wants the fader to do. With even a modest show running 1024 channels there's no way the 6 token practical faders in front of him offer him real control.

2) look how many of those desks also have a mouse or trackpad or touch screen - the lighting world has made the leap to "other" input technologies without the world ending

3) actually watch an LX op driving actual shows and you'll find that the majority of live changes are done using the number pad or touch screen - typing one macro number or hitting one preset button to black out an errant light / bring up a different light because the actor is in the wrong place, etc

 

"Lighting is completely different" I hear you cry, but the point is that there really is no difference at all between the speed, flexibility and control the lighting world needs to have and the speed, control and flexibility the sound world needs to have. I remember many lighting people aghast at the idea of not having the 1:1 fader control and a host of claims that computer based control wouldn't be stable enough; the fact is that in the space of 10 years the entire industry has switched to a completely different way of working, the world hasn't ended and actually by embracing the change to a different way of controlling/operating a whole new world of lighting effects and technologies became available to use.

[Oldradiohand]

I might be old school but I was teaching people to use digital assignable desks quite a long time ago. Great for post production (now pretty much superceded) OK for live music (once it's set up a few minor tweaks should be all you need) but a bit cumbersome for other live stuff. Not many of the radio staff I trained were overly keen on assignability - and they had a fader per channel!

Is it like lighting? I don't remember the lighting guy having to continually adjust the lights as their output wandered up and down and I've never seen the output of two lights interfere with each other when they got close..... Yes, I've done some lighting (TV studio) and used modern lighting controllers but I'm not sure how the techniques could be applied to live theatre or broadcast sound.

[OneEng]

Another advantage is that you can have many different graphical interfaces open at one time. Perhaps a PC with the entire I/O meters up, a tablet with just the DCA's, and another PC for the monitors.

 

Being mobile also has very positive advantages. Setting up monitor mixes on stage with the act with an iPad is much better than shouting back and fourth.

[chelgrian]

"Lighting is completely different" I hear you cry, but the point is that there really is no difference at all between the speed, flexibility and control the lighting world needs to have and the speed, control and flexibility the sound world needs to have.

 

Yes there is. Lighting does not have the spectre of feedback, and does not have the same issues with night to night differences in people's voices. In the lighting world follow spots are generally pointed by hand for the same reason.

 

Sound has moved past one fader per channel and it moved to programmed shows with the majority of mixing done on groups of channels, however those groups are achieved. If you had enough money then it did this years ago with the CADAC J-Type and other extremely expensive automated analogue consoles. The great innovation that digital desks brought was bringing this kind of automation and flexibility to a much lower price point and smaller size.

 

Might faders disappear for studio and post production desks? Absolutely, in fact it's already happened in many places the desk has disappeared and it's entirely done via computer.

 

For live sound the desk as we know it is disappearing to be replaced by distributed IO, processing and control surfaces. However while those surfaces will probably get smaller than they are now and have larger screens and have fewer faders I don't think they will disappear entirely just as lighting desks still have some assignable faders and flash buttons.

 

Frankly general purpose computers are not stable enough nor can they make the guarantees about latency required. As far as I know every pro level live sound desk has an audio path which is separate from the control computer and will continue to pass audio if the computer and control surface crash.

[Bobbsy]

Well I might as well toss in my tuppence worth here...

 

I find wireless capability very useful during the set up when adjusting EQs, balancing speaker levels and so on. The ability to make adjustments while "walking the room" is great.

 

However, at least for the sort of thing I do, the lack of a tactile response and the ability to operate more than one thing at a time is a total deal breaker for me.

 

Just as an example, thinking of the last show I did a couple of days ago, I had four mics across the front of the stage, a cast who didn't project and blocking that had people walking back and forth across the stage. I was riding levels the whole time, going up and down on mics to keep the nearest one cranked up and turn down the others. To do this, I had four fingers on faders and my eyes permanently on the stage. Try doing that with a touch screen.

 

As long as there are actors to watch on a stage and more than one thing to control at once, I'm sceptical about the current touch screen fad.