New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Brian jojade said:
The real question is when the SL boards would be a better choice than one of the other low cost digital offerings now on the market. Quality is pretty similar across the major players, so now it comes down to which is a better solution. I can't think of any features that the SL has that the others don't, and the pricing doesn't reflect that the board has less to offer.

The only time I could see the SL as a good choice is for a user that gets easily confused by more features in a board. It's harder to totally muck up the SL with incorrect routing, etc., but other than that, where's the advantage? The 'fat channel' is actually less intuitive than on the other boards, since the functions of the channel change depending on the mode you're in, and the labeling can be quite confusing.

If the price of the SL came in below the other offerings, then it would have a place in the market, but since the price is as high or higher, I can't see where I'd recommend it.
Click to expand...
Brian,

That is what I was eluding to as well although I think you put it better.

A year ago I was ready to purchase a 16.4.2 to replace my MixWiz rig. I spent time on the board both in the store, and sitting in on a couple of live gigs at FOH. Compared to my analog rig, it was really a step up (with the notable exception of the reverb which was not as nice as the M-OneXL).

Then Behringer, Soundcraft, and Allen&Heath all released marketing on their "soon to be released" digital mixers in the 16 channel variety and I put my dollars on hold while I figured out what these new mixers were all about.

I have a feeling that Presonus has a new digital mixer in the works. It may be a ways off though.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Tim McCulloch said:
If they can't tell what is wired to what there are two possibilities: the system owner/engineer has failed to label the device (gee, artist's tape and a Sharpie® are sooo hard to acquire) or the operator is likely incompetent... if he/she can't follow the insert cable from mixer to device he/she probably has no idea what they're doing with said device.

Both say "fail" in large, red letters.
Click to expand...
Tim,

It is my rig. I am usually the only one that runs it. Yes, it is possible to follow the insert snake to figure it out, but it is easier on a digital mixer since you don't have to. Some tape and a sharpie would work for sure.

I fail to see why my post would irk you so. I was simply pointing out that the SL had advantages over the analog boards that it mostly replaced.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Dick Rees said:
Another illustration of why SB made my Iggy List. Why he keeps putting up posts addressed directly to me is a mystery. I only see them when other people quote them.
Click to expand...

Occasionally you post something of value. Unfortunately, you consider yourself above debate of any kind. Putting people that you don't have a good debate against on your ignore list is likely a good strategy as it gives you an out from having to defend your positions.

The most recent example of this is your insistence that the StudioLive wasn't marketed for live sound (which is why it doesn't need the features other boards in its class have). Rather than simply back off your argument, you put people that don't agree with you on "ignore" .... or simply don't respond to their debate.

I personally think it is a shame because you likely have some great experience to draw on in these debates which would be enriching to the entire discussion.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Justice C. Bigler said:
LOL @ Presonus and their stubborn death grip on the belief that a quality digital console shouldn't have moving faders.

Then they shouldn't have even offered a scene menory to begin with. Analog to digital audio conversion and digital signal processing with internal effects if fine. But the point of having moving faders on a digital console is so that you can instantly step through scenes DURING THE SHOW, without having to spend two minutes to realign all of the faders to their stored positions.

And did they ever fix that problem where it would mute the console during the scene recall for like 2 seconds?
Click to expand...

I don't think they have a death grip on anti-moving faders. I just don't think they want to build a product aimed at that particular market segment.

What's important is that the faders don't make a difference until they hit their previous positions on the console. They have to "latch" first. When working with many similar "level" lighting consoles, I don't need my cue lists to update the *48 or so* faders on the surface of the console if I was running a cue list for the show with 10-20 cues for each number. And If want to do something, I can always change it in the manual pages and such. Plus, with HTP or some other logic like that, it basically have the "latching" thing again. If I don't want to mess with every single setting on every single cue, I don't even need to worry about it. Of course, that is in more of a theatrical setting, so many things are pre-done.

The scenes are a great tool for recalling settings from a similar set up from "last show" or something. It was never intended to be for each scene or to change like that on the fly. It's just not part of the console. It's a pretty impressive console for what it does, but

The point of moving faders on digital consoles in particular was NEVER because of scenes. It was because of layers. The scenes came from the older use of them in the studio setting and the attempts at recall in older analog gear.

It's just not a console for you and your market. But that doesn't mean it won't do for another market.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Max Warasila said:
What's important is that the faders don't make a difference until they hit their previous positions on the console
Click to expand...

Ah, but this is definitely a MAJOR flaw in the Presonus non-moving fader design. If you change a fader position, either remotely or by changing scenes, you can go through the locate fader function to re-position the faders. But if you do that, make sure you set ALL of the faders where you want them, because when you leave the locate mode, it's going to set ALL of the channels to where the faders now are.

And if you don't use the locate faders function, and you touch a fader, it's going to snap to whatever position that fader is in. Did you turn down a fader remotely? Well, if you start to move it on the board, it could snap on. It works nothing like lighting consoles that make you slide the fader through their position before becoming active. If they were to fix that at least, that would be a start. That's just software, so no hardware changes would be needed to make it happen.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Max Warasila said:
The point of moving faders on digital consoles in particular was NEVER because of scenes. It was because of layers. The scenes came from the older use of them in the studio setting and the attempts at recall in older analog gear.
Click to expand...
??? Can you point to a poll of digital mixer designers to back this up?

Lighting scenes are a little different in that with shows using hundreds of fixtures, other tools than simple faders have been developed to manage the many parameters, but even in lighting, moving faders are starting to appear.

Let's get real here. The only reason Presonus didn't put moving faders on the StudioLive was cost. Yes, their no-layer approach mitigates that need somewhat; yes you can get a great mix on a StudioLive, but moving faders are better than non-moving faders, even as the StudioLive is implemented with no layers and lots of knobs. Now that the cost advantage has been eroded by the many X32 variants and the A&H Qu-16, it is a harder sell to give up what have now become standard features - moving faders, recallable head amps, touch screens, etc.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

TJ Cornish said:
Let's get real here. The only reason Presonus didn't put moving faders on the StudioLive was cost. Yes, their no-layer approach mitigates that need somewhat; yes you can get a great mix on a StudioLive, but moving faders are better than non-moving faders, even as the StudioLive is implemented with no layers and lots of knobs. Now that the cost advantage has been eroded by the many X32 variants and the A&H Qu-16, it is a harder sell to give up what have now become standard features - moving faders, recallable head amps, touch screens, etc.
Click to expand...
I can't state it as anything more than a personal opinion but from that perspective I agree, PreSonus committed to non-motorized faders in order to offer a mixer that had many potential benefits in multiple applications at a cost lower than their competition. The downside is that it made it a less than ideal option for some applications and that after investing so much in promoting that concept as being an acceptable alternative they are now somewhat stuck with continuing to support it.

I'm always amazed how personal mixer discussions tend to become. A mixer is a tool and you use the one that you can afford while working best for you in your application. Others may have different budgets, needs, experiences, preferences and so on that lead them to make different choices but unless it is simply a poor option for the applications then console selection is greatly a matter of each individual situation and personal preferences. This can actually be one of the more difficult aspects when I'm designing systems for venues with either no specific or multiple defined users as since I will not be the user I have to consider the potential users and watch my personal perspective and preferences possibly becoming too much of a factor.
 
Brad Weber said:
I can't state it as anything more than a personal opinion but from that perspective I agree, PreSonus committed to non-motorized faders in order to offer a mixer that had many potential benefits in multiple applications at a cost lower than their competition. The downside is that it made it a less than ideal option for some applications and that after investing so much in promoting that concept as being an acceptable alternative they are now somewhat stuck with continuing to support it.

I'm always amazed how personal mixer discussions tend to become. A mixer is a tool and you use the one that you can afford while working best for you in your application. Others may have different budgets, needs, experiences, preferences and so on that lead them to make different choices but unless it is simply a poor option for the applications then console selection is greatly a matter of each individual situation and personal preferences. This can actually be one of the more difficult aspects when I'm designing systems for venues with either no specific or multiple defined users as since I will not be the user I have to consider the potential users and watch my personal perspective and preferences possibly becoming too much of a factor.
Click to expand...

It's not that surprising to me; of all the components involved in a PA setup, the mixer is our main interface into controlling all the power available. It's like the smartphone debate multiplied by ten.

While the SL does absolutely nothing for me, I have to agree with Max and Dick. The desk is simply designed for a certain end-user and I'm not one of those people.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Brad Weber said:
I'm always amazed how personal mixer discussions tend to become. A mixer is a tool and you use the one that you can afford while working best for you in your application.
Click to expand...

Wise words. I'm certainly not immune. Image the thousands of forum posts across the web that would vanish if everyone could put that point in perspective.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

TJ Cornish said:
??? Can you point to a poll of digital mixer designers to back this up?

Lighting scenes are a little different in that with shows using hundreds of fixtures, other tools than simple faders have been developed to manage the many parameters, but even in lighting, moving faders are starting to appear.

Let's get real here. The only reason Presonus didn't put moving faders on the StudioLive was cost. Yes, their no-layer approach mitigates that need somewhat; yes you can get a great mix on a StudioLive, but moving faders are better than non-moving faders, even as the StudioLive is implemented with no layers and lots of knobs. Now that the cost advantage has been eroded by the many X32 variants and the A&H Qu-16, it is a harder sell to give up what have now become standard features - moving faders, recallable head amps, touch screens, etc.
Click to expand...

No, I can't, but it's the impression I've gotten from my research into the history of consoles. I'll go back and do more research. I probably missed something.

The lighting consoles of recent years are damn cool- the moving faders are impressive and so is the programming. But the implementation of moving faders is very different, and mostly used for assignable control, including in layers. Not saying it's the same as an audio console. Just saying that faders don't have to move for a product to be a quality console.

And yes, that is the sole reason they didn't put them in, and at the time, they made money off the idea. I'm not sure why they didn't make the jump to a completely different console, instead of just revamping their current line, but all power to them.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Rob Spence said:
Scott
This is not a debate forum. This is a pro audio forum. All I hear from you is bashing folk who have many decades of experience.
You complain that people don't want to debate. That is correct.

You should read more and post less. That way I would not have to skip so many posts.


Sent from my iPhone - now Free
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel that way. I may be a vocal critic of the new StudioLive; however, I am certainly not the only one in this thread, or in this forum, and certainly not throughout the web. I did not mean to offend anyone, although that seems to be easier to do than one would think.

@Max,
I don't think they have a death grip on anti-moving faders. I just don't think they want to build a product aimed at that particular market segment.
Click to expand...

I agree. I suspect they decided to do a quick refresh while they are working on their next generation of consoles. I hardly think the "AI" can be considered "next generation" by any reasonable definition, and I can't believe that Presonus does not understand the market that they themselves created .... therefore I tend to believe that they are working on a new design that isn't quite ready for marketing just yet.

@Brad,
I'm always amazed how personal mixer discussions tend to become. A mixer is a tool and you use the one that you can afford while working best for you in your application. Others may have different budgets, needs, experiences, preferences and so on that lead them to make different choices but unless it is simply a poor option for the applications then console selection is greatly a matter of each individual situation and personal preferences. This can actually be one of the more difficult aspects when I'm designing systems for venues with either no specific or multiple defined users as since I will not be the user I have to consider the potential users and watch my personal perspective and preferences possibly becoming too much of a factor.
Click to expand...


It wasn't my intent to ruffle feathers ;)

It isn't personal at all. It is simply value for the dollar.

I am still recommending the SL16.0.2 to people that need a very small mixer with physical controls, but sadly, pretty much all other requests for mixer recommendations seem to point to a different product these day's than the remainder of the SL lineup.

It may simply be that I am failing to understand a particular use model where the remaining SL lineup would be preferred to the competition and where the value for the dollar makes sense. There have been several references to such a use model, but I am unclear to what usage that would be.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Rob Spence said:
This is not a debate forum. This is a pro audio forum.
Click to expand...
Yes.

I'm not here to debate one point over another point. I'm here to discuss pro audio. Now, there are an awful lot of opinions about pro audio, and sifting the opinions from the facts can be challenging at times.

Regardless, I try my best to NOT engage in debate on this forum. Rather, I try to encourage the discussion of pro audio.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Moving faders are just the physical manifestation of WYSIWYG in console automation.

The early motorized faders were something like $375 each (from P&G)... And big dog consoles still used them.

Over the years the prices has been cut to around $10 or so (? IIRC) from Alps.

Behringer rolled his own because even $300+ at raw material BOM level makes the faders a serious nut to deal with when hitting a value price point.

It will take time to determine wether Behringer's DIY motor faders stand the test of time, but so far so good (I think). Even if they are less robust, if they are cheap and easy to replace it could still be OK. Over time any weak links can get refined.

The SL looks like a bridge product to ease analog guys into the world of digital consoles. That is not a secure long term position in the marketplace. As digital console features become more in demand and entry price points for full featured digital consoles drop.


Debate happens, but arguing about peoples behavior on the internet is colossal waste of time... man up, and or ignore. I figure a lot of people must be ignoring me since I find myself repeating the same answers over and over... :)

JR
 
John Roberts said:
I figure a lot of people must be ignoring me since I find myself repeating the same answers over and over... :)

JR
Click to expand...

9 out of 55 posts in this thread are from the same source saying the same thing. Yes that is 16%.

There is repeating yourself and then there is...whatever you call this.

Even if this were a debate forum, typically you only get one chance at rebuttal in a debate.

Given the information from other posts in other threads, I think this poster has made more negative posts about this piece of equipment in this thread than he has mixed complete shows on it.

This is almost starting to sound like an employee of a company trashing any post about a competitors product.
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

Max Warasila said:
The point of moving faders on digital consoles in particular was NEVER because of scenes. It was because of layers. The scenes came from the older use of them in the studio setting and the attempts at recall in older analog gear.
Click to expand...

The point of moving faders on ANY console was always 'scenes'. In fact the word scene is a big clue to their original intended use. :razz:

As an aside, when consoles started being made that could track and playback VCA or flying fader automation in sync with timecode there was a major shift in the quality of audio for films... Super interesting topic in my opinion.

The concept of layers or banking/nudging tracks came around much much later in console development.

Check out the early moving fader consoles.... I think the first one was a Neve design from the 70s.

Anyone know if there is an active patent for motorized faders like the Harrison patent for motorized joystick panners?
 
Re: New line of StudioLive AI mixers announced.

The earliest motorized linear faders that I recall were Penny and Giles a British company so look there for a patent. I suspect there were rotary servo motors on normal rotary pots long before that. Later (80-90s) I recall some linear motor fader approaches, but all the modern cheaper stuff is some combination of linear fader with rotary motor, pulley and belt or string or whatever to convert rotary motor operation to linear slider movement.

There have been some interesting (old) variants involving quasi-virtual fader using visual indicators where the gain control was done with (analog) VCAs and not actually performed by the physical fader. The modern Behringer appears to be just using the mechanical fader as an input/output status display device with actual gain control performed digitaly or digital controlled analog (like in mic pres).

Of course i still think control surfaces will evolve into a holographic image projected from my I-watch but i may be a little early on that. :) Kind of like the querty keyboards projected onto a flat surface. If there are no actual mechanical faders there is no need for motors to move images of slider knobs, ... :). Hey, maybe SL needs to leapfrog the industry and go straight to a soft virtual interface? Should be cheap when technology finally gets here.

JR
 
Top Bottom