Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jake Scudder" data-source="post: 41718" data-attributes="member: 195">Re: Matrices on LS9-32First off . . . matrices.Now that that&#039;s out of the way . . . If you have very few inputs and don&#039;t need all other outputs then there is probably no real advantage. If, however, you are using many outputs and creating many distinct zones matrix outputs become very valuable. Let&#039;s say you have several groups (or fixed mix outputs in Yamaha speak) like Vocals, Guitars, Keys, Horns, Drums, Playback. Now let&#039;s say you want to set up a center fill. Now all you need to do is dial in a desired mix of these stems instead of dialing in each individual input. Maybe you want to put vocals and keys in the center fill but not the drums and guitars. Now you are only turning two knobs. What if you dial in the drums but decide you want 5 dB less after listening for a bit? You only have to adjust one send when using a group to send to a matrix instead of backing off each individual drum mic.The only downside to using a matrix is that you typically are required to route to a bus or aux before you hit the matrix. This is not the case with many new digital consoles, however. I know you can route directly from an input to a matrix output on the M7CL. I&#039;m not sure about the LS9.For me, it&#039;s not an option. We simply wouldn&#039;t have enough outputs if we didn&#039;t take advantage of matrix mixing. In fact we only send stems out of the Profile (Principle Vox, Ensemble Vox, Verb Stems, Band L/R, etc) and all of our matrix mixing is done in LCS. Technically we have a 64 input and 50 output matrix, although many of those inputs are Wild Tracks playback and Space Map inputs for spatial imaging of sound effects. Clearly a typical rock and roll gig doesn&#039;t require this level of routing flexibility but I would probably still opt for using matrix outputs because I find it to be a much more flexible workflow.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jake Scudder, post: 41718, member: 195"] Re: Matrices on LS9-32 First off . . . matrices. Now that that's out of the way . . . If you have very few inputs and don't need all other outputs then there is probably no real advantage. If, however, you are using many outputs and creating many distinct zones matrix outputs become very valuable. Let's say you have several groups (or fixed mix outputs in Yamaha speak) like Vocals, Guitars, Keys, Horns, Drums, Playback. Now let's say you want to set up a center fill. Now all you need to do is dial in a desired mix of these stems instead of dialing in each individual input. Maybe you want to put vocals and keys in the center fill but not the drums and guitars. Now you are only turning two knobs. What if you dial in the drums but decide you want 5 dB less after listening for a bit? You only have to adjust one send when using a group to send to a matrix instead of backing off each individual drum mic. The only downside to using a matrix is that you typically are required to route to a bus or aux before you hit the matrix. This is not the case with many new digital consoles, however. I know you can route directly from an input to a matrix output on the M7CL. I'm not sure about the LS9. For me, it's not an option. We simply wouldn't have enough outputs if we didn't take advantage of matrix mixing. In fact we only send stems out of the Profile (Principle Vox, Ensemble Vox, Verb Stems, Band L/R, etc) and all of our matrix mixing is done in LCS. Technically we have a 64 input and 50 output matrix, although many of those inputs are Wild Tracks playback and Space Map inputs for spatial imaging of sound effects. Clearly a typical rock and roll gig doesn't require this level of routing flexibility but I would probably still opt for using matrix outputs because I find it to be a much more flexible workflow. [/QUOTE]

Verification