Digital mixer - pros and cons?

[Kevin Maxwell]

Digital mixer - pros and cons?

A church that is a client has asked the question – what are the pros and cons of a digital mixer verses keeping their analog mixer. Their sound people are all for changing to digital it is the leadership that is asking the question. So I am trying to get other opinions on the subject.

This is for the live house/monitor system. They mix monitors from the house console. They presently have an A&H GL4000-48 and we are looking to replace it with an Avid SC48. We have had all of the future expansion discussions and the SC48 looks to fulfill their needs. Also they have no need for recording from the house console, there is a split to the broadcast recording room where they do a stereo mix and a multi-track recording.

Please lets not discuss different mixer solutions in this thread (if you feel that that is absolutely necessary then please start another thread and put a link to it in your response here) this is all about the pros and cons of digital mixers.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

For me, digital is where flexibility comes together with consistancy.

To achieve the same level of control strictly in the analog realm takes far more equipment and thought about signal flow.

 

[Brandon Blakeney]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

It seems like some churches have to have a new console like teenage girls want the latest/greatest cell phone. If the analog console is working fine, all of their staff knows how to use it, and its paid for then why not keep it??

 

[Brad Weber]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

A church that is a client has asked the question – what are the pros and cons of a digital mixer verses keeping their analog mixer. Their sound people are all for changing to digital it is the leadership that is asking the question. So I am trying to get other opinions on the subject.

No disrespect, but if their sound people can't justify what is apparently their preference to their leadership then how is anyone with no familiarity of their needs or situation going to do so?

Rather than address the potential technical pros and cons, some of which are very application dependent, my suggestion is to focus on functionality and supporting the church's vision while avoiding getting into the technical aspects. The church leadership probably doesn't care about preset scenes or onboard processing, the probably do care about supporting their vision and improving the worship experience for the overall membership. So it may help to look at and present everything from their perspective and context rather than from the audio tech perspective and the context of the technical implications. So it may not be that digital console support scenes but how that relates to their goals and vision. That may help better assess the related pros and cons and allow them to be presented in terms the church leadership understands and appreciates.

 

[andrew gissing]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

Rather that a discussion on digital vs analogue, perhaps the church should be discussing the need for a replacement console.

There must be something not good enough with the console they are using now. Plenty of possible reasons some of which could include: cost of frequent repairs, not enough sends, sound quality could be improved to better the sound etc. Perhaps even the size of the console - a smaller one would allow for more room to put X in the production booth.

Once you've established reasons for a new console, then present your preferred choice - regardless of whether it is digital or analogue.

Viewed from this angle, perhaps the only relevant reasons for dig vs ana is smaller footprint, no outboard racks and automation/recall.

Andrew

 

[Greg Cameron]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

What a coincidence. Just took delivery on a new SC48 yesterday to replace my aging GL4000-48. I'm an analog guy. But there were considerations with my situation that made the digital desk the way to go. Here's what I was dealing with:

GL4800 cons:

- I'm a one man army that has to setup and strike the desk and outboard by myself. That's a lot of desk to move by yourself.
- the analog desk is aging and will need faders to be replace soon along with some other fixing
- the analog setup takes up a considerable amount of floor real-estate for our size venue. That's less room for folks.
- setup time with the analog setup is minimum 1 hour for 1 person since full mults were not option. I've got some ELCO (which I hate) but there's a lot of manual patching of processing, snakes, sends/returns, etc. It take time and is a PITA.
- muti-band sound checks: having to change settings and write things down when doing a lot of bands
- not very rider friendly

GL4800 Pros:

- sounds decent, *maybe* better than most digital though that's very debatable
- relatively easy to figure out for the level of mix guys I deal with
- you can see all that easy to read & use outboard gear
- no layers to deal with
- no plugin navigation
- no screen or trackball required
- doesn't have the potential to crash

SC48 Pros:

- super fast setup
- small enough for 1 person to setup and teardown
- takes up minimal floor real-estate, no outboard needed
- sounds decent
- more outputs
- scene recall for saving all band settings
- more processing power than you can shake a stick at, no more going behind the desk to patch inserts
- rider friendly
- 18 ch. ProTools recording (wish it was WAY more)
- remote control

SC48 Cons

- Newbies to digital have a learning curve or may not be able to use it at all
- layers
- can't see all the processing at the same time
- it's a computer, it can crash


For me, the cons were too few to not go that route. So bye bye analog, it was fun while it lasted...

Greg

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

i'm a former pro sound guy that now runs a creative arts department at a church. we've got a gl5000 and i'm looking to replace it with a digital desk. there are a few key reasons why i'm wanting to go digital that apply specifically to a church situation.

1. volunteer training. our current analog console with it's rack stuffed with outboard compressors is very daunting for a newcomer. i've got two FOH guys, and the idea of having to train someone to replace either of them fills me with fear and dread. a properly configured digital desk can have a good bit of the routing and processing preset and a new volunteer can concentrate on simply hitting the cues in the service. i know the yamaha m7 is specifically designed to lock out the deeper recesses of the console if necessary to make things even easier to operate. i'm sure other desks can do this as well...

2. consistency. the ability to switch between service types, or music teams, and have all the routing and processing preset cannot be overstated, again especially when dealing with volunteers.

3. real estate. our 56 input desk and double-wide processing rack takes up a HUGE amount of space. replacing that with a digital console would REALLY open things up in FOH.

all the other 'advantages' of digital will go over the heads of anyone other than another sound geek. and in the end, for a church, are probably not that important. i know that the future [really the present] of audio is digital, and that's it's really cool and fun to work with, but i don't bother to mention any of that stuff when i'm discussing this need to the leadership of the church....

 

[Brad Weber]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

i'm a former pro sound guy that now runs a creative arts department at a church. we've got a gl5000 and i'm looking to replace it with a digital desk. there are a few key reasons why i'm wanting to go digital that apply specifically to a church situation.

Brian, your comments are indeed applicable to many churches and I fully agree about addressing church leadership in terms and concepts to which they can relate. However, my concern is that churches vary tremendously in their human resources, their services and the role of music in them, their operations and schedules and so on. What is an advantage to one church may be a disadvantage to another and vice versa.

If this were a situation of having nothing or a dead console then for many churches it would likely be pretty easy to argue that a digital console is the preferred option. But at least in my experience, it is understandably difficult for most churches to justify an expense like a M7CL or SC48 if they already have an analog console that works for them. And that's where I see the challenge in Kevin's request as there is no indication of any existing issues that a digital console might resolve or of any reason for any change.

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

... it is understandably difficult for most churches to justify an expense like a M7CL or SC48 if they already have an analog console that works for them. And that's where I see the challenge in Kevin's request as there is no indication of any existing issues that a digital console might resolve or of any reason for any change.

agreed. in fact, if it wasn't for the growing list of repairs that my current analog desk needs coupled with my aforementioned fear of losing my 2 man FOH mix crew, i wouldn't even be considering it. truthfully far too many churches buy into newer desks than they need because some well intentioned tech person in the church convinces them that they need it. the church i used to attend bought a studer vista 5 when they first came out for their first digital desk. talk about 'go big or go home'. way more desk than they needed, but there was a lack of experienced tech folks there to guide them through the purchase...

 

[Brandon Blakeney]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

we've got a gl5000 and i'm looking to replace it with a digital desk.

a&h ml5000?

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

a&h ml5000?

yes. sorry. ML5000. i get those a&h desks mixed up...

 

[Kevin Maxwell]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

Thank you for all of the responses.

I had written a reply that was about 3 pages long but then I realized I didn’t need to get into it that much.

I was looking for general feelings on the subject but it was interesting to see the replies. I agreed with a lot of what was said.

This church has run out of outputs and the added outs and configureability of an SC48 would be very helpful. They are also trying to be more consistent and the recall features should help with that. They could benefit with the built-in graphics for their monitor feeds, many of them don’t have an EQ on them at all. They only have one reverb unit that is used on anything they want reverb on. The added effects that an SC48 would give them could be put to good use.

We might move their GL4k-48 into the audio for video suite to give them more inputs in there.

It took me a while to get back to replying here because I was busy with shows/events. Things have slowed down again.

That is a quick summery if anyone has specific questions for me let me know and I will do my best to answer them.

I feel like adding here that a long time ago I wanted to build my own mixer because there wasn’t anything available at the time that did what I wanted to do. Then they started to make them that did those things. But I always seemed to want to do more. Now with a lot of the digital mixers I can do so much but still there is always something it just can’t do with the ease that I would like. But many times they update the firmware and add features that get me closer to my wants. And of course those things are many times application specific. There is one thing (functionality) that I want for this church that I haven’t found a way to do yet. And I am not even sure how to put it into a simple explanation. Maybe more later.

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

There is one thing (functionality) that I want for this church that I haven’t found a way to do yet. And I am not even sure how to put it into a simple explanation. Maybe more later.

as another over-thinking sound guy who works at a church, you've piqued my interest...

 

[Kevin Maxwell]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

as another over-thinking sound guy who works at a church, you've piqued my interest...

I don’t work in a church I just sometimes work with churches.

This church that I am working with has 6 singers and different ones take the lead on different songs. They want the mic of whoever that is brought up in all of the monitor sends (8 at the moment) for that part and then brought down again after they are done. They don’t want the monitors to be run post fader because they don’t want to hear the house mix changes in their monitors. A separate monitor mixer would be helpful but they don’t really have a good place to put one and they don’t have enough competent people.

I am trying to make this as simple for them as I can. I want to double assign these 6 mics, ideally without losing preamps. The one input (split) will only feed the house and the other input (split) will only feed the monitors (post fader). But I don’t want the mix person to have to have to bring up 2 faders at once and then remember to return them back to where they were. And the only way that I see to do this using scenes would be awkward and not able to easily have them get back to where they were. What I want is to be able to link the house channel and the monitor channel of the person doing the solo/lead but have it work only in one direction. That would mean that when you want to push a solo if you moved the monitor channel the house channel would follow but if you moved the house channel nothing would happen to the monitor channel.

The other way I can see this working is if I could assign a user defined key to assign both the monitor channel and the house channel to the same DCA and then the mixer (person) would just have to bring up a predefined DCA. Always use the same DCA and when the used defined key is pushed again it would un-assign those 2 channels, thus bringing them back to where they were before the solo. This would chew up 6 used defined keys if it could be done. Or leave the 6 mic channel with their matching monitor channel assigned to 6 DCA channels. And I don’t want to lose that many DCAs.

I personally believe that the problem could very easily be solved if the person taking the lead would just work the mic closer and push a little bit and the other singers should pull the mic back a little bit and drop their level a little bit. I have told them this and they don’t want to hear that, they think it is a technical problem. At the moment the sound people if they remember will bump up the trim on the solos channel and usually forget to bring it back down or have no idea where it was when they started. I told them that if I were mixing I wouldn’t touch the trims once they are properly set.

So I don’t know if this properly gets my point across.

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

I don’t work in a church I just sometimes work with churches.

i phrased my statement poorly. should have said 'as another over-thinking sound guy [who works at a church], you've piqued my interest'. i figured you were working with a church, not at a church. if you're mixing it yourself, these problems are fairly easy to solve. making it volunteer proof is another matter entirely...

fun problem. my first thought is to make it somehow 'additive'. so you'd have your channels split as you said, but rather than having them be FOH and monitor channels, they'd be 'mix' and 'more' channels. use the mix channel as they do now with pre-fader monitor sends. then route the 'more' fader in the same way but make all the sends post fader. bring it up such that it is just under the existing levels of the 'mix' channels and bring all the post fader sends up to just below current levels as well. when the person is singing lead, bump their 'more' channel up and it'll go up in house and monitors. when they're done, bring it back down and the 'mix' fader 'takes over' again...

don't know if that would work, but if i was standing behind a desk that's the first thing i'd try...

 

[Rob Gow]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

It seems like some churches have to have a new console like teenage girls want the latest/greatest cell phone. If the analog console is working fine, all of their staff knows how to use it, and its paid for then why not keep it??

Like a government, they have lots of dollars, and no sense.

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

I don’t work in a church I just sometimes work with churches.

This church that I am working with has 6 singers and different ones take the lead on different songs. They want the mic of whoever that is brought up in all of the monitor sends (8 at the moment) for that part and then brought down again after they are done. They don’t want the monitors to be run post fader because they don’t want to hear the house mix changes in their monitors. A separate monitor mixer would be helpful but they don’t really have a good place to put one and they don’t have enough competent people.

I am trying to make this as simple for them as I can. I want to double assign these 6 mics, ideally without losing preamps. The one input (split) will only feed the house and the other input (split) will only feed the monitors (post fader). But I don’t want the mix person to have to have to bring up 2 faders at once and then remember to return them back to where they were. And the only way that I see to do this using scenes would be awkward and not able to easily have them get back to where they were. What I want is to be able to link the house channel and the monitor channel of the person doing the solo/lead but have it work only in one direction. That would mean that when you want to push a solo if you moved the monitor channel the house channel would follow but if you moved the house channel nothing would happen to the monitor channel.

The other way I can see this working is if I could assign a user defined key to assign both the monitor channel and the house channel to the same DCA and then the mixer (person) would just have to bring up a predefined DCA. Always use the same DCA and when the used defined key is pushed again it would un-assign those 2 channels, thus bringing them back to where they were before the solo. This would chew up 6 used defined keys if it could be done. Or leave the 6 mic channel with their matching monitor channel assigned to 6 DCA channels. And I don’t want to lose that many DCAs.

I personally believe that the problem could very easily be solved if the person taking the lead would just work the mic closer and push a little bit and the other singers should pull the mic back a little bit and drop their level a little bit. I have told them this and they don’t want to hear that, they think it is a technical problem. At the moment the sound people if they remember will bump up the trim on the solos channel and usually forget to bring it back down or have no idea where it was when they started. I told them that if I were mixing I wouldn’t touch the trims once they are properly set.

So I don’t know if this properly gets my point across.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think you might be overthinking this.... Can't you just:

Split all singers into two channels:
One channel is the "normal channel" with prefade aux mixes and is also used to feed the PA:
The other channel is the "extra monitors for solo channels" and has the auxes set to post fader.

Solo time: Bring up the "extra" channel and the sound is distributed to all monitors. Solo is over, bring it down and everything is back to normal. How hard could it be for the operators to remember this?

 

[Rob Gow]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

This church that I am working with has 6 singers and different ones take the lead on different songs. They want the mic of whoever that is brought up in all of the monitor sends (8 at the moment) for that part and then brought down again after they are done. They don’t want the monitors to be run post fader because they don’t want to hear the house mix changes in their monitors. A separate monitor mixer would be helpful but they don’t really have a good place to put one and they don’t have enough competent people.

Without a seperate monitor mixer, and a separate person to mix, they are asking for a lot.

I personally believe that the problem could very easily be solved if the person taking the lead would just work the mic closer and push a little bit and the other singers should pull the mic back a little bit and drop their level a little bit. I have told them this and they don’t want to hear that, they think it is a technical problem. At the moment the sound people if they remember will bump up the trim on the solos channel and usually forget to bring it back down or have no idea where it was when they started. I told them that if I were mixing I wouldn’t touch the trims once they are properly set.

So I don’t know if this properly gets my point across.

Nothing like a place full of clueless wanna-be divas. I would tell them what you did, learn to sing properly & work the mic as needed, step forward, take your lead then back off. But like you said...

They think this...

They think that...

What they think or want isn't always the case, or possible. Of course most stupid ideas can be accommodated given enough time and money. I would personally walk away and work with actual professionals.

Ahhhhhh churches, ya gotta love them, a nice place to visit, but they wouldn't have enough money in their budget to get me to sit behind the desk.

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

this also made me think of a far simpler solution that i've seen done by a lot of the 'doo-wop' groups i've worked with. of course, they'll probably never go for it, but there you go...

they would just have a designated 'lead mic' that was hotter than the rest in the house and monitors. when someone sang lead, they used that mic. when they didn't, they used one of the backing mics. i remember the first group i came across that did that [national name although it escapes me which one... one of the old motown groups...]. i was all freaking out because they said they traded off leads and i didn't know who was gonna sing what. but they told me to set it up just like i said, and sure enough it worked like a charm. i pretty much just sat there and listened to the show... nicest part was that if i did need to tweak the lead vocal, it was always the same channel. super handy...

like i said, they'll probably never go for this. but it is the best, and easiest, solution....

p.s. i just picked up on this... EIGHT monitor mixes from FOH? seriously? ummm... it's time to talk about a personal monitor system of some kind. in my experience, 4 mixes from FOH was my absolute cutoff, and even that was really difficult to keep track of. 8 is just nutty...

 

[Kevin Maxwell]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

fun problem. my first thought is to make it somehow 'additive'. so you'd have your channels split as you said, but rather than having them be FOH and monitor channels, they'd be 'mix' and 'more' channels. use the mix channel as they do now with pre-fader monitor sends. then route the 'more' fader in the same way but make all the sends post fader. bring it up such that it is just under the existing levels of the 'mix' channels and bring all the post fader sends up to just below current levels as well. when the person is singing lead, bump their 'more' channel up and it'll go up in house and monitors. when they're done, bring it back down and the 'mix' fader 'takes over' again...

don't know if that would work, but if i was standing behind a desk that's the first thing i'd try...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think you might be overthinking this.... Can't you just:

Split all singers into two channels:
One channel is the "normal channel" with prefade aux mixes and is also used to feed the PA:
The other channel is the "extra monitors for solo channels" and has the auxes set to post fader.

Solo time: Bring up the "extra" channel and the sound is distributed to all monitors. Solo is over, bring it down and everything is back to normal. How hard could it be for the operators to remember this?

If it was analog then I might try doing it that way. But with digital even though it isn’t supposed to be a problem combining the same signal, due to the fact that I would have different processing on the 2 channels of each mic I wouldn’t want to have a slightly different propagation delay or strange combining of the 2 differently processed feeds thru the different channels I want to stay away from that.