Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A
An S16 via AES50 is what does what you want, not a pair of ADA8xxx boxes.
Yes, I am sure you invested in your rig just as most of us at one time invested heavily in our analog desks and outboard. I, for one, moved on.
Heck, I am watching the emerging tech now to see what opportunities there might be to further improve my ability to serve my clients.
I thought that one of the great points of SAC was its flexibility to replace various parts of the I/o subsystem easily?
Oh well, what do I know...
Sent from my iPad HD
SAC has no longevity. Using a bunch of pieces in unintended purposes has no longevity.
Interesting. My SAC rigs work fine, and have never broken. I can't say the same for my 5D, which has had to be repaired twice, since purchase seven years ago. I've had Midas, Soundcraft, Sound Workshop, Tangent, Yamahas (several), Innovason, Behringers (several), and Hill boards(several) in my tenure, and have had issues with EVERY single one, at one time or another. When I built and bulletproofed my SAC rigs, I was apprehensive, skeptical, but found out that they, to date, have never once let me down at a show. Not once. AES has issues. ADAT works great, and is time proven. I hope you've never been in a situ where your digital desks went down and had to be brought up simultaneously during a show, due to AES issues, but I have. SAC works, and works very well, and a cost benefit analysis shows that those rigs earn their return much, much quicker than ALL of my other expenditures. Ask anyone who cross-rents a 5D if they havn't had to adjust the return rate due to the market. I can do amazing things with SAC that would take enormous expense to even test, with any other rig. I can understand writing off SAC, if you haven't had tha "a-haaaa" moment.
The realization that the copper is the culprit led me to reduce my mic lines to absolute minimum runs, which keeps me from grouping my inputs so high. I'm far better off with skillfully placed eight channel devices, than utilizing 16 channel boxes with longer mic runs. The 8200's, with the ability to do the long runs as ether, will suit my needs well into the future. My clients, if they ever express any peeve at all, is that the interface to SAC can intimidate the operator, if they don't have any time on it. Much the same situation when an established band, used to analog desks, and having them on their riders (forever) finally start using digital desks. SAME learning curve to the engineer, although it doesn't take long to realize that zero-latency plug-ins from ALL over, make SAC's abilities FAR exceed every other desk. And when they have time, time to explore the breadth of plug-ins, and not having to purchase one manufacturer's bundled (and very expensive) set, well, hey, if you don't get it, I understand. But I'm not spending my money anymore on the whims of engineers that have time on certain desks, only to have to educate other's that don't. The customer doesn't have the time or the knowledge to determine whether ADAT or AES is best for them. They care that the company performs what they were contracted to do.I'm designing an interface to SAC. I'll release it when it's done, but I'd recommend not closing your minds to it too readily.
Uli, I understand this forum to be a source of feedback and ideas. I'm damn sure not going to be one that decree's that your choice of including the ADAT was in error. Just the opposite. there's a lot of "monkey see" in this industry, as you well know. But some of us are steadfast pioneers that will continue as we've started. And when we reveal new uses based on existing technology, watch the "monkey see" folks grab it and run with it. It happens.
~
