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
Off Topic
The Basement
The surface-less console evolution
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="Max Warasila" data-source="post: 107942" data-attributes="member: 3845"><p>Re: The surface-less console evolution</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I'm just saying there's less crossover between professional and prosumer lighting products than with professional and prosumer audio mixers.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Max Warasila, post: 107942, member: 3845"] Re: The surface-less console evolution 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
The surface-less console evolution
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!