Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
Marc Lopez of Yamaha Commercial Audio Q&A
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marc Lopez" data-source="post: 117987" data-attributes="member: 7061"><p>Re: Marc Lopez of Yamaha Commercial Audio Q&A</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't believe there is an optimal "one-size fits all" approach to a digital mixing system. Different applications/production levels/technical requirements have different needs. Yamaha historically has had three main classifications of mixing systems - modular (PM1D), remote I/O (CL, M7CL-ES) and all-in-one (PM5D, M7CL, LS9). There are some models that fit in more than one category - for example the new QL is an all-in-one that offers users to start with an analog snake and then progress to a network remote I/O system - or the option use both onboard and remote I/O.</p><p></p><p>With a modular system, the benefits are flexibility in topology or scale, module redundancy, potential for upgrades on certain components, etc. Modularity will typically result in a higher cost for the system, and flexibility typically results in complexity (requiring a higher skilled system tech/designer). A modular system will need to be specified and built for an particular application and decisions need to be made on how it will be packaged for deployment. System maintenance and troubleshooting becomes more complex since you have to now account for the integrity of the interconnect between the individual modules.</p><p></p><p>With a remote I/O system, cost goes down, flexibility of a modular system is somewhat reduced but you have the option for I/O placement that typically results in cost/efficiency/sound quality improvements (shorter analog runs, lighter truck pack, etc.). It's easier to specify/design a system than a modular system since you are essentially just deciding on how much I/O and where to place it.</p><p></p><p>An all-in-one system will be the least expensive of the three to produce (manufacturing efficiencies, SKU management, engineering time, etc). Less variables in the system means simpler to specify and package, and quicker to deploy and set up.</p><p></p><p>It may be very difficult to create a modular system that is inexpensive, although it is quite possible to produce a high-end all-in-one system, and I would argue whether that level of application would actually want the reduced flexibility.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is mostly correct - Up to 4 consoles on the network can have control of the pre-amp by default (nobody "owns" the preamp gain). This is typically not the best way to set up multiple consoles sharing the preamp. We have a very effective Gain Compensation system for shared I/O. For a good explanation of it, see these videos:</p><p></p><p>[media=youtube]e6fr69hnXQA[/media]</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6fr69hnXQA" target="_blank">Yamaha CL Series Console: Head Amp Sharing with Gain Compensation</a></p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3EZJJEFqis" target="_blank">Yamaha CL Series Console: Head Amp Sharing with Gain Compensation: Practical Application</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>This model seems to suit the current trends because of the wide selection of microphones available. Shure makes the ULX-D wireless receiver with Dante, and I can certainly imagine a Dante-based POE microphone or a powered speaker with a Dante port.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marc Lopez, post: 117987, member: 7061"] Re: Marc Lopez of Yamaha Commercial Audio Q&A I don't believe there is an optimal "one-size fits all" approach to a digital mixing system. Different applications/production levels/technical requirements have different needs. Yamaha historically has had three main classifications of mixing systems - modular (PM1D), remote I/O (CL, M7CL-ES) and all-in-one (PM5D, M7CL, LS9). There are some models that fit in more than one category - for example the new QL is an all-in-one that offers users to start with an analog snake and then progress to a network remote I/O system - or the option use both onboard and remote I/O. With a modular system, the benefits are flexibility in topology or scale, module redundancy, potential for upgrades on certain components, etc. Modularity will typically result in a higher cost for the system, and flexibility typically results in complexity (requiring a higher skilled system tech/designer). A modular system will need to be specified and built for an particular application and decisions need to be made on how it will be packaged for deployment. System maintenance and troubleshooting becomes more complex since you have to now account for the integrity of the interconnect between the individual modules. With a remote I/O system, cost goes down, flexibility of a modular system is somewhat reduced but you have the option for I/O placement that typically results in cost/efficiency/sound quality improvements (shorter analog runs, lighter truck pack, etc.). It's easier to specify/design a system than a modular system since you are essentially just deciding on how much I/O and where to place it. An all-in-one system will be the least expensive of the three to produce (manufacturing efficiencies, SKU management, engineering time, etc). Less variables in the system means simpler to specify and package, and quicker to deploy and set up. It may be very difficult to create a modular system that is inexpensive, although it is quite possible to produce a high-end all-in-one system, and I would argue whether that level of application would actually want the reduced flexibility. This is mostly correct - Up to 4 consoles on the network can have control of the pre-amp by default (nobody "owns" the preamp gain). This is typically not the best way to set up multiple consoles sharing the preamp. We have a very effective Gain Compensation system for shared I/O. For a good explanation of it, see these videos: [media=youtube]e6fr69hnXQA[/media] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6fr69hnXQA"]Yamaha CL Series Console: Head Amp Sharing with Gain Compensation[/URL] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3EZJJEFqis"]Yamaha CL Series Console: Head Amp Sharing with Gain Compensation: Practical Application[/URL] This model seems to suit the current trends because of the wide selection of microphones available. Shure makes the ULX-D wireless receiver with Dante, and I can certainly imagine a Dante-based POE microphone or a powered speaker with a Dante port. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
Marc Lopez of Yamaha Commercial Audio Q&A
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!