The surface-less console evolution

[John Roberts]

I have been predicting the the end of consoles entirely, with their functionality moving into different functional blocks that can't go away (speakers, mics, etc).

I think we are in a early evolutionary stage away from the old school physical integrated console/control surface. With all these handy IPAD or whatever remote controls, it is just a short hop from using the remote control surface to walk the room and using it to mix the entire gig. Once the remote control surface becomes fully functional as an alternate for the expensive now redundant physical control surface, that excess hardware that is adding cost but not adding value will disappear in a NY minute to make retail prices even more attractive.

The logical progression from here is to move the guts into a stage box, but eventually it can be co-located anywhere it fits. just like they put relatively powerful computers into our cellphones these days, it is just a matter of time until we end up with a Mr Microphone and a smart speaker to gig with.

Or not, maybe I am wrong.

JR

 

[Caleb Dueck]

So, walk around with a "Fat Channel" strip around the neck, rack of Soundweb/Q-Sys/etc DSP amps?

 

[Jeff Babcock]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

I think we are in a early evolutionary stage away from the old school physical integrated console/control surface.

I agree. How fast it really happens will likely depend on how progress is with mainstream consumer technologies, which tend to generally drive innovation in our sector.

However, I disagree regarding speakers being immune from this..... I think eventually loudspeakers will go away entirely at concerts, albeit more distant into the future. I can envision technologies like Google Glass (when it gets FAR more mature) or other devices paired with bone induction speakers or earbuds allowing every concert goer to have control over their preferred volume level, and possibly even be given dumbed down controls with group stems so that they can create their own mix balance (envision this as a "premium ticket" add on offering etc). This sort of thing is possible today, albeit at a cost premium and without the mainstream acceptance it would require.

I won't put a guess on timelines....

 

[John Roberts]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

However, I disagree regarding speakers being immune from this..... I think eventually loudspeakers will go away entirely at concerts, albeit more distant into the future. I can envision technologies like Google Glass (when it gets FAR more mature) or other devices paired with bone induction speakers or earbuds allowing every concert goer to have control over their preferred volume level, and possibly even be given dumbed down controls with group stems so that they can create their own mix balance (envision this as a "premium ticket" add on offering etc). This sort of thing is possible today, albeit at a cost premium and without the mainstream acceptance it would require.

I won't put a guess on timelines....

The future hasn't happened yet so all guesses are game.

I was thinking a few decades ago at the height of the walkman craze, that loudspeakers would be supplanted by earbuds and local FM or induction loop distribution, but there is something about live music that you don't get on buds.

In fact if we get into direct wireless transmission of the show audio why do you actually have to attend? (Rhetorical to meet girls, there to meet the band).

I just wanted to comment on this stage of console evolution before it becomes painfully obvious, even to the console makers.

JR

 

[Brian jojade]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

I mixed my first show this weekend without a control surface, using the X32 rack. For the most part, it did work wonderfully. However, I'd still prefer to mix on a device with physical controls. The feedback of physical buttons means eyes free operation is possible. Not so much with a touch screen. Having all of the brains on stage makes sense, and then a surface that does control only would be the ideal solution.

 

[Jordan Lahr]

The jump from anolog to digital for lighting controls didn't make physical faders go away. Why would the audio sector do that?

 

[John Roberts]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

I mixed my first show this weekend without a control surface, using the X32 rack. For the most part, it did work wonderfully. However, I'd still prefer to mix on a device with physical controls. The feedback of physical buttons means eyes free operation is possible. Not so much with a touch screen. Having all of the brains on stage makes sense, and then a surface that does control only would be the ideal solution.

This is why I was talking about VR goggles, long before google glass. Something like google glass with a control interface that can integrate hand movements in context. A very advanced hypothetical version could interpret pointing at a musician on stage as calling up that channel. Now I insert my "squeezing his head" for compression joke.

be patient... early days.

JR

 

[John Roberts]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

The jump from anolog to digital for lighting controls didn't make physical faders go away. Why would the audio sector do that?

Don't tell them that they can mix lights from the same audio remote interface.... (you have to mix lights? )

JR

 

[Dick Rees]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

This is why I was talking about VR goggles, long before google glass. Something like google glass with a control interface that can integrate hand movements in context. A very advanced hypothetical version could interpret pointing at a musician on stage as calling up that channel. Now I insert my "squeezing his head" for compression joke.

be patient... early days.

JR

Please incorporate remote guitar amp volume control...

 

[Jordan Lahr]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

Actually yes, mutli parameter lights use x and y for movement, if you use RGB type fixtures you mix Red Green and Blue for different colors (you arent stuck with just a red a blue and a green).

 

[John Roberts]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

Actually yes, mutli parameter lights use x and y for movement, if you use RGB type fixtures you mix Red Green and Blue for different colors (you arent stuck with just a red a blue and a green).

Joking... mostly...

JR

 

[Robert Lofgren]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

I'm thinking the minority report where they had this cool 3-d interface.

However I think that the control interface will eventually evolve into something completley different. Instead of trying to emulate the physical interface that we are used to today we will have something totally different.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

Actually that minority report interface is easier to do than what I proposed... because the screen can know what you are pointing at, while pointing at a live image on stage across the room requires object/pattern recognition and at least an order of magnitude more processing power.

But lets not put the cart ahead of the horse. Once we separate the CPU from the keyboard, we can use a mouse, or touch screen or whatever we want.

likewise, I also predict that mixing can evolve into using other paradigms than just turning knobs. but there is no reason people can't have exactly what they want (other than cost). Hypothetically you could even project an image of some familiar physical control surface and interact with it.

But getting back to being able to watch and mix the show simultaneously, imagine google glass projecting your work surface in space right in front of you so you can look through your console at the band.

Maybe not real but ready for science fiction.

JR

 

[John Chiara]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

I mixed my first show this weekend without a control surface, using the X32 rack. For the most part, it did work wonderfully. However, I'd still prefer to mix on a device with physical controls. The feedback of physical buttons means eyes free operation is possible. Not so much with a touch screen. Having all of the brains on stage makes sense, and then a surface that does control only would be the ideal solution.

I use an iPad for some shows, but even on a digital control surface it is difficult to do all I can on an analog console. I am often riding 4 sources at once, if I can. On the iPad I can setup appropriate DCA faders on the screen but as soon as I have to switch screens it is menu city again. Hard to ride the mid sweep on the guitar while riding lead vocal channel and also adjusting vocal fx send...you get the picture. Not what i prefer. If we get virtual control in the air like in movies that would be awesome.
Basically, if a remote app could be 100% configurable..yeah... I could see that.

 

[David Sturzenbecher]

The surface-less console evolution

Basically, if a remote app could be 100% configurable..yeah... I could see that.

On a current state note, I don't know what is holding this back? I have wondered more then once why studio manager won't let me drag and drop stuff to make custom pages.

I can do fancy wiz bang custom interfaces with amps and DSP on a computer or make my own custom ipad screens for these controls...why not mixing consoles. Put the soundcraft line in audio architect and I wouldn't spec any other mixer manufactures again.

Once you have all the control into a computer (yeah yeah some already do) , how many different ways can you control that computer? Do you even need to even go to the show to mix?

 

[Max Warasila]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

The jump from anolog to digital for lighting controls didn't make physical faders go away. Why would the audio sector do that?

Well, digital lighting consoles were designed as an interface for the control protocols of DMX. The physical interface for that control is the product now known as a lighting console, which is added to software designed to give us that control, which makes our job much easier. There are plenty of people out there who run lighting systems off a laptop with a USB-DMX system plus software. But there are a lot of designers who have just found it easier to control several hundred parameters with dedicated hardware. Kinda goes back to the age old argument of flexiblity vs. workflow. ETC's new Cobalt console is supposedly largely based on touchscreen interactions, but there's still a workflow, and many dedicated hardware keys.

The difference here, though, is that most consumer/prosumer lighting products are not controlled over the console. There really aren't too many prosumer control consoles out there in the lighting world, and the ones that are usually frustrate their users (*coughcoughChauvetObeycough*). On the other hand, there is a TON of prosumer audio mixers, which means that there is more crossover between casual and professional users of the products. In the lighting world, many more board-ops are trained personell on good equipment, rather than FoH "engineers," which may be anyone from a seasoned professional to a teenager with a shiny new toy. When lighting isn't controlled and designed, it's just BSed by whoever can get their hands on a USB-DMX product.

I'm just saying there's less crossover between professional and prosumer lighting products than with professional and prosumer audio mixers.


Back OT, I feel as though there is a trend towards the direction of surface-lessness, but depending on the needs of the industry, there will almost always be a dedicated peice of physical control hardware if we need to control our mix easily and efficiently. Which brings us to another quick point- do we mix as much as we used to? I mean this in the sense of a shift from live tracks to recorded tracks, as well as an apparent lack of skilled engineers overall. It seems like there is less and less to do at the console due to less and less going on up onstage. If we still mix as much as we used to, we are going to need those tools presented to us in a quick, efficient manner. Otherwise, the trend towards surface-lessness will likely continue unchecked.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

There is always inertia and over-engineering at the highest level of sound reinforcement, while they like the newest gadgets, they do not like having to depend on unproved technology, so innovation like this will come from the value segment. Where the savings from losing the physical interface will make the largest difference.

=====
I am surely repeating myself but I also expect future evolution in how we mix. While too soon to write the last chapter, I can imagine a) systems that learn the music, and/or b) have some intelligence built in to help anticipate possible sources that need attention. An automatic feedback detector is just an obvious one, but a smart mixing system could generally identify unexpected circumstances and bring those controls to the top level, if not authorized to fix the issue itself. In the distant future I expect HAL or SIRI to be mixing more, with occasional corrections if they err.

JR

 

[Jason Lavoie]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

On a current state note, I don't know what is holding this back? I have wondered more then once why studio manager won't let me drag and drop stuff to make custom pages.

I can do fancy wiz bang custom interfaces with amps and DSP on a computer or make my own custom ipad screens for these controls...why not mixing consoles. Put the soundcraft line in audio architect and I wouldn't spec any other mixer manufactures again.

Once you have all the control into a computer (yeah yeah some already do) , how many different ways can you control that computer? Do you even need to even go to the show to mix?

Because it is already available in the form of open architecture DSPs (Q-Sys, Symnet, Mediamatrix...) all can do a nearly infinite amount of custom routing and custom control screens.
The catch is that it takes time and effort on the user's end and unless you're good at it you get an inferior user experience, or maybe something that doesn't even work.
let's not forget that the more you customize the less support you'll have as well. 'when you reset the box to factory default does it pass audio' 'yes' 'well, then I'm sorry we can't help you with your problem'

Why modify product A to be more like product B if product B already does it better? The only difference at the moment is connectors, and the X32 Rack bridges that gap.

My guess is that as soon as X32s stop flying off the shelf faster than they can make them then we'll see some software changes in the direction you're looking for, but I think it will be more along the lines of opening up protocols for smoother 3rd party control.

Jason

 

[John Roberts]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

Because it is already available in the form of open architecture DSPs (Q-Sys, Symnet, Mediamatrix...) all can do a nearly infinite amount of custom routing and custom control screens.
The catch is that it takes time and effort on the user's end and unless you're good at it you get an inferior user experience, or maybe something that doesn't even work.
let's not forget that the more you customize the less support you'll have as well. 'when you reset the box to factory default does it pass audio' 'yes' 'well, then I'm sorry we can't help you with your problem'

Why modify product A to be more like product B if product B already does it better? The only difference at the moment is connectors, and the X32 Rack bridges that gap.

My guess is that as soon as X32s stop flying off the shelf faster than they can make them then we'll see some software changes in the direction you're looking for, but I think it will be more along the lines of opening up protocols for smoother 3rd party control.

Jason

To connect a few long range dots... At some distant future the DSP engines will be completely soft with a standard interface and there will be sundry control environments that talk to the soft DSp engine present. No need for touring types to carry hardware. Think of this like a PC running software, One issue that will eventually have to be resolved is a definition for boost/cut EQ bandwidth so your Neve or SSL EQ interface emulation, actually sounds like you expect when translated by the hardware.

For all the kids complaining that they have nothing to do, maybe design some custom interface software. This is the part that computers can do well... you like a so and so console layout, just ask. Consumers shouldn't have to do a full customization. That is tantamount to designing a console and frankly many are not capable. They just want a vehicle to accomplish a result.

JR

PS: yes, an X32 without the expensive moving faders and rotary encoders, and displays, packed into a smaller box, sounds like a good start. If that's what the X32 rack is, my predictions are catching up with me. :-( Luckily for my reputation I've been predicting this stuff for a very long time. And yes I am more than a little familiar with Mediamatrix and that genre while I haven't been paying close attention for last 10 years or so..

 

[Eric Cagle]

Re: The surface-less console evolution

PS: yes, an X32 without the expensive moving faders and rotary encoders, and displays, packed into a smaller box, sounds like a good start. If that's what the X32 rack is, my predictions are catching up with me. :-( Luckily for my reputation I've been predicting this stuff for a very long time. And yes I am more than a little familiar with Mediamatrix and that genre while I haven't been paying close attention for last 10 years or so..

That is exactly what the X32 rack is and for all the reasons you mentioned and a few more I made the decision to buy one. While I like the sexiness of a bunch of faders and knobs the many advantages far outweigh any reason I had for not buying one for the applications I will use it for. It is not really a transition for me having come from the console less DAW in the recording studio and one of the early SAC digital systems for live sound.