X32 Discussion

[Dan Mortensen]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

This relates to the graphic eq access and usage:

1) Differentiate more clearly between channels on the Dual Graphic mode. Now, the only difference is one says "A" and the other says "B", which is very subtle when you are in the heat of battle and needing to get there to stop the catastrophe currently underway.

--1a) Best would be the mix bus name on each, in big letters, along with a color difference or something similar so that you KNOW which one you are looking at and don't need to look for anything subtle.

--1b) Make it possible to get to each one with two buttons (one for each side of the dual) in the user definable area. Now you can only get to the "Dual EQ", and you have to further toggle between sides of the dual unit. One button access, please.

2) We could be missing something, but there does not seem to be a way to copy and paste from one side of the Dual EQ to the other. That would be good.

3) Allow FX 3 and FX 4 to have insertable EQ's just like FX 5-8. There doesn't seem to be a way to do that now, even though EQ's are selectable as an effect, but we want them as a bus insert, not as an effect. Am I missing something here as well? (This one resolved by Fiona's post #4984.)

This, plus a solution to the monitor-out whine that I will address separately, would make the X32 into an astonishingly complete monitor console.

And while there is a valid argument to be made about the benefits of parametric EQ's vs. graphic EQ's, the argument stops when the people I need to please in order to be hired again have absolutely no interest in a discussion and want graphics on their damned mixes or they will be demonstrably and continuously and vociferously unhappy.

Thanks!

 

[Dan Mortensen]

Re: Monitor Whine

Any more word on this? I may have simply missed it.
Just got my new console (date code 1208) and it does whine quite a bit. Talked to CS and I'm not too keen on spending sixty bucks and giving it up for weeks in order to make a minor tweak.

Thanks much!

Dave Hone
FOH 10,000 Maniacs

Hi Dave,

First, please confirm to Chase that I didn't coach you to write this question today. :lol:

That said, I have been researching this issue over the weekend, and have info to share. This will be a long post because there is a lot to say.

You should first know that I got 3 consoles in November which have a monitor-out whine. Chase had offered to have them go back to the service center to be fixed, but I wanted to compare them to the 6 consoles that came within the last two weeks (I have a music festival coming up at the end of the month that will be all X32's, 2 on each of 3 stages and 1 on 1 stage plus two spares) to see if there was a difference between old-ish consoles and new ones.

So over the weekend they all were examined with Meyer SIM, and here is the methodology and pictures of data, along with some descriptions of what I think I'm seeing. If you see something different, I welcome your comments.

Methodology:

Meyer SIM was used because that's what I have. Rather than using the Source Independent aspect of it, I just hooked up the monitor output to the line input and looked at "Line Spectrum", which is a single non-comparative analysis as opposed to "Frequency Response", which is a dual FFT comparison of one thing (device output) compared to another thing (device input) to see the device's effect on the signal. Since I wanted to see the output of the console with NO input signal, this seemed like the way to go.

The first test was to see how much EQ would be required to reduce the nasty whine, because I don't understand what a dbV is (the amplitude measurement done by SIM), but am familiar with the db boost/cut on EQ's, and so put a BSS Omnidrive Compact (355) in between the console and the SIM, to reduce the almost pure 6k tone (the highest one visible) so that it was down in the flat area of the frequency response curve.

You should know that the consoles are identified by the IP address that we have assigned, rather than by serial number, and the order of IP addresses does not precisely correspond to age. .11, .12, and .19 are the oldest consoles, and I forgot to measure .19 because I was listening to music through it while doing this. It was measured later, and it's performance is right in with all the others.

It's also important to understand that the Monitor output pot, which is labeled "Min" and "Max", is actually an attenuator and has no gain, so that "Max" is actually Unity rather than any kind of amplification. Therefore the default user position, if wanting that output to mirror the other analog outputs, is actually "Max".

Results:

So the first picture shows what console we are looking at, the second shows the un-EQ'd result, the third shows the result after EQ, and the fourth shows the face of the BSS with the frequency, amount of cut, and bandwidth. (The analyzer doesn't hit 6.00kHz exactly, and it was at its narrowest Q.)



The other consoles were all similar to this one, within a couple db anyway, except for .16, which only needed 5 db reduction to get 6k to flat. (More about .16 in a minute.) And note that I had the overall amplitude too low, so that the trace is not up near the reference line so you could more easily see relative amplitudes of parts of the curve. I realized the mistake and positioned the rest of the measurements more in the middle of the screen.

So, to hopefully be clearer, all the measurements in the above group are the same display position relative to each other and vary only by differences from console to console, and the following measurements are the same way. In other words, for both sets, the female XLR was moved from console to console and the SIM settings stayed the same.

It turned out that dbV on the SIM was pretty much exactly the same as db on the BSS, so the BSS was removed.

The next set of pictures shows multiple traces superimposed upon each other, with all but console .19 visible.



Note that they are quite similar, to the point of being nearly identical, with one glaring exception, and that is .16. The reason that it needed less EQ to flatten the 6k peak was that the noise floor was quite a bit higher than the others, and was audibly noisier, too. When I did the measurements I hadn't yet listened to it, and listening made it clear that it was a defective unit. I also found that its response varied over time, and the next two show it when first powered up (higher noise, stored trace) and after being powered up for a while (lower noise, live trace).



Then it occurred to me to measure the left outputs (output 15) of the consoles to see how the noise compared to the monitor outputs, and to measure it with the master fader down and with it up full travel. .14 was representative of the results:



Nothing like the spikes of the monitor output.


Here are multiple consoles at max master fader travel, again with the outlier .16 which I didn't think to remove yet:




Finally, one console (.18) surprisingly measured exactly the same regardless of master up or down:



I did confirm that it was configured to pass signal. And all the consoles had been recently reloaded with the same program/routing/etc.

The conclusion I get is that the monitor output noise is for all intents and purposes identical from the "old" consoles to the "new" consoles, which says that more research is needed to determine the cause and solution(s).

Chase and Behringer have all these pictures, as well as the rest which I'm not showing because they don't add to the story, and I'm pleased that they will be looking into it further.

It is also important to me to point out that I bring this information not to do some kind of "gotcha", but to try to help solve a problem that we users are aware of and to make a wonderful console even better.

I honestly feel that even if this turns out to be an unsolvable problem (I don't think it will be because the rest of the bus outputs are so relatively quiet, but even if...), the X32 is still a phenomenal value and a wonderful sounding and performing piece of audio equipment, and I am very grateful to be able to use it. The willingness of Behringer to continually improve it and support it is really, really great.

Thanks for reading this.

Fake edit: This software doesn't load the pics in the same order they are uploaded, and the thumbnails made it hard to tell one pic from another; if they are different sizes to you, that is why: I had to make some bigger to see them.

 

[Gunnar Ã…kerlund]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

One of my jobs is as consultant to bands playing without their having an own soundman. Sitting now with my first install for such a band I got stuck. The band is now playing on a 03D sitting in a rack with inear senders, wireless and soundmodules. When switching to X32 they wanted to install one S16 in the "effects/mixerrack" insted of a multicable between the X-32 and the rack. They also have a rack near the drummer were they wanted a S16 for the instruments on the other side of the stage. Fine I thought but now when I´m sitting with X-Control trying to make a good setup for the the band I realize that I got problem with the routing. The band wanted their vocalmics together, gitarrs together and so on. But I can´t mix inputs from console with the 2 S16 as I like. This setup is similar to many of my costumerband so I would appreciate a more flexible routing.

 

[Fiona Hammond]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

This relates to the graphic eq access and usage:
3) Allow FX 3 and FX 4 to have insertable EQ's just like FX 5-8. There doesn't seem to be a way to do that now, even though EQ's are selectable as an effect, but we want them as a bus insert, not as an effect. Am I missing something here as well?

Hi Dan,

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but you are able to use stereo FX slots 1-4 as inserts as well as FX slots 5-8, totaling a potential of 16 insert slots featuring 16 mono graphics.

In the EFFECTS HOME screen, select the first FX slot. Turn first encoder under screen anti-clockwise until Insert reads in the source slot. Click to confirm.

SELECT the mixbus/channel where you wish to insert, navigate to HOME>CONFIG and scroll with sixth encoder to select desired FX slot. Click to confirm. Click fifth encoder to activate the INSERT and bring the FX slot into the chain.

Kind Regards,
Fiona Hammond
CARE EMEA
MUSIC Group
BEHRINGER

 

[Per Søvik]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

One of my jobs is as consultant to bands playing without their having an own soundman. Sitting now with my first install for such a band I got stuck. The band is now playing on a 03D sitting in a rack with inear senders, wireless and soundmodules. When switching to X32 they wanted to install one S16 in the "effects/mixerrack" insted of a multicable between the X-32 and the rack. They also have a rack near the drummer were they wanted a S16 for the instruments on the other side of the stage. Fine I thought but now when I´m sitting with X-Control trying to make a good setup for the the band I realize that I got problem with the routing. The band wanted their vocalmics together, gitarrs together and so on. But I can´t mix inputs from console with the 2 S16 as I like. This setup is similar to many of my costumerband so I would appreciate a more flexible routing.

That shouldn't be a problem at all as long as you can manage to fit the blocks in a reasonable manner, ie. if you can live with the blocks of eight for the number of connections on each S16. Once you have routed your stuff into the X32, lets say 1-16 local, 17-24 S16 left and 25-32 S16 right, you can easily route everything to the appropriate channels ( HOME-confic-source).

 

[Fiona Hammond]

Re: X32 Discussion

- Is there an easy way to solo a channel including FX? For example to hear the snare including reverb? I tried de AFL modes but that doesn't include de FX returns.

Hi Emke,

You have a few options; I will PM you with instructions.

Kind Regards,
Fiona Hammond
CARE EMEA
MUSIC Group
BEHRINGER

 

[Michael Glenn]

Re: X32 Discussion

Hi Emke,

You have a few options; I will PM you with instructions.

Kind Regards,
Fiona Hammond
CARE EMEA
MUSIC Group
BEHRINGER

PM??

This might be of use to others, how bout letting us all in on the instructions?

Mike

 

[Gunnar Ã…kerlund]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

Thanks Per I understand but it limits my organizing of the channels. I would like to see all inputs possible to be routable. I think it´s also wrong that outputs to S16 isn´t as flexible as the routing of the analog outs.

 

[Robert Lofgren]

Re: X32 Discussion

Have you checked out the 'raspberry pi'? You can even connect a hdmi monitor...

I have a chipkit max32 but I'm seriously thinking of buying a raspberry for my x32!

Using lucy it might even be possible to record directly to disk...

 

[Kevin Hunter]

Re: X32 Discussion

Have you checked out the 'raspberry pi'? You can even connect a hdmi monitor...

I have a chipkit max32 but I'm seriously thinking of buying a raspberry for my x32!

Using lucy it might even be possible to record directly to disk...

Ive already got 2, the main problem is that it uses an ARM processor so lots of software will not run on it unless its been compiled for ARM. I requested behringer recompile the Linux Xcontrol for ARM so that would work but I havent heard any thing back yet.

Ive got a few ideas for it but Ive got a backlog of projects already !! :lol:

Kev

 

[Klaus Mock]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

Thanks Per I understand but it limits my organizing of the channels. I would like to see all inputs possible to be routable. I think it´s also wrong that outputs to S16 isn´t as flexible as the routing of the analog outs.

Don't forget that you can for each channel which input should be used. So the blocks of eight are more or less something like submulticores (snakes) in the analog world. The same is for the outs. You can use every output for your sending source (bus or matrix) but you have to keep in mind that you have to assign your outputs in block of eight to the S16s.
So, for example, you can rout main left to output 8 and main right to output 16. asign the first block to the S16 on the left side of the stage and the second block to the right side S16.

Sure, the more routing flexibility the more fun, but until B will chance it you have to deal with it. With a little brain usage it should be managable.

 

[Fiona Hammond]

Re: X32 Discussion

PM??

This might be of use to others, how bout letting us all in on the instructions?

Mike

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your interest.

In this case, I offered workarounds to this particular customer's application, workarounds I wouldn't ordinarily suggest to our X32 community, hence the PM as it's a rather out-of-the-box 'solution' much of you would find no use for.

Lastly, any recommendations will also be placed on our behringer.com knowledgebase, once considered to be valid workarounds useful to X32 users collectively.


Kind Regards,
Fiona Hammond
CARE EMEA
MUSIC Group
BEHRINGER

 

[Dan Mortensen]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

Hi Dan,

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but you are able to use stereo FX slots 1-4 as inserts as well as FX slots 5-8, totaling a potential of 16 insert slots featuring 16 mono graphics.

In the EFFECTS HOME screen, select the first FX slot. Turn first encoder under screen anti-clockwise until Insert reads in the source slot. Click to confirm.

SELECT the mixbus/channel where you wish to insert, navigate to HOME>CONFIG and scroll with sixth encoder to select desired FX slot. Click to confirm. Click fifth encoder to activate the INSERT and bring the FX slot into the chain.

Kind Regards,
Fiona Hammond
CARE EMEA
MUSIC Group
BEHRINGER

Hi Fiona,

I don't think you are misunderstanding at all: I couldn't find how to get 1-4 to be inserts, and you have shown the way.

I will try it out this afternoon.

Thanks!

Dan

 

[Mick Berg]

Re: X32 Discussion

I do not know exactly what the OP is asking for.................. As I have mentioned before, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I'd like to see Dan keep making money from his Yami plug-in cards a while longer. JR

PS: One of my patents is related to an automatic mixer improvement, but IMO 99% of the benefit related to AM, comes from the basic "Dugan" algorithm.

I'm assuming that I am the OP. When I asked for a Dugan-style automixer all I really meant was that it should work well, and include the gain-sharing function.
I would be quite happy if it ddidn't use any of Dan's design, but as you say that probably isn't possible.
Can one "hack" into the Yamaha software in the same way as one can use OSC with the X32? If not, there will be plenty more sales of the Dugan cards I think. I agree absolutely that Dan deserves as much reward as possible for his amazing contribution to our industry. Mixing an eight-member panel with or without a Dugan is like night and day.

Mick Berg.

 

[Steve Maksim]

Re: X32 Discussion

Yes the original "Dugan" patent is expired (that is the deal for having exclusive use for first 17 years.). He has later improvement patents but I can't even remember what they cover. The basic auto-mixing algorithm is public domain and free to use. I used it in a Peavey Automatic mixer product some 15 years ago.
...
As I have mentioned before, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I'd like to see Dan keep making money from his Yami plug-in cards a while longer. This seems to me like a more appropriate "premium" feature for the more expensive Midas Digital consoles first if Behringer is interested. I am not sure why Yamaha went the plug-in card route, but that isn't my first question about things "other" people do.

I agree absolutely that Dan deserves as much reward as possible for his amazing contribution to our industry.

I think we're forgetting what the purpose of patents is and how the arrangement is supposed to work (not that it always works that way).

Patents exist to encourage innovation, not to guarantee a revenue stream and an easy retirement. Their purpose is to encourage the dissemination of knowledge by rewarding inventors with limited-time exclusive access to sell their innovation.

The alternatives are industrial secrets, hidden formulas, and the potential for a great loss to mankind as a whole. Loss of important scientific knowledge and technical art has happened many times, for example the formulas for medieval stained glass. Imagine if John Bardeen, William Shockley and Walter Brattain had decided to try to keep their methods of doping a Si a secret instead of sharing them with the world? How long would it have taken for semiconductor physics to develop? Herbert Mataré and Heinrich Welker in Europe managed to make the same discovery, but they didn't go anywhere with it; so the possibility of independent discovery is no substitute for dissemination.

Once a patent is granted, it's up to the inventor to capitalize on the invention. If the inventor "blows it," then that's his fault. There can not to be any truly great reward without the possibility of failure. The other option available to the inventor is to not file a patent at all and thus keep their invention to themselves--and don't laugh, because it's worked for Coca-Cola. Still, that's risky business, as history is littered with the stories of people simultaneous discoveries. Famously, Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell filed a patent for the telephone on the same day.

Why should Dan Dugan get a corner on the market of automatic mixing? Sure, he put the first product on the street--good for him! He's had his chance. And as he makes new contributions to the field and files a patent he gets a chance again: a window of time to exclusively bring to market those improvements. That's his reward.

Why should Yamaha get a corner on the market of automatic mixing for digital consoles? If they had wanted to get established in it, they could have done it years ago. If Dugan's MY card had been around in 2005 I would have bought it then for a DM1000 instead of futsing around with gates. The underlying ability has been around for better than a decade.

Dan Dugan's original patent on automatic mixing is trivial and cheap to implement on digital console. Any maker of digital consoles who wants to differentiate themselves from what's becoming a crowded field should implement it and do so with an easy-to-use interface. The manufacturer who does that first, properly marketed and in the correct configuration (form factor, spec, price, etc.), will find themselves in thousands upon thousands of churches, schools, board rooms, courtrooms, etc. If Behringer wants to keep on changing the game, then they'll try to be that manufacturer.

 

[Robert Feldman]

Re: X32 Discussion

Dear Dan,

Let me start by saying thank you for all of the research and your overwhelming support of the X32. You have made quite an investment in our brand and we are happy that you are part of the Behringer family.

I've reviewed the SIM files and would like to mirror the tests on the Audio Precision (the analyzers that most manufacturers use for such measurements). To do this, we'd like have one of your X32s shipped to us here in Las Vegas. Console “16” sounds like a good candidate because of the higher reported noise floor, but any one will work.

If that's acceptable to you, we can arrange the shipping via your email (just to keep your information confidential). Also, please feel free to PM me to coordinate the shipping via the forum.

Thank you again, Dan, for your continued support.


Kind regards,


FELDMAN Robert
Supervisor, Care Depot
MUSIC Group

 

[Dan Mortensen]

Re: X32 Discussion

Dear Dan,

Let me start by saying thank you for all of the research and your overwhelming support of the X32. You have made quite an investment in our brand and we are happy that you are part of the Behringer family.

I've reviewed the SIM files and would like to mirror the tests on the Audio Precision (the analyzers that most manufacturers use for such measurements). To do this, we'd like have one of your X32s shipped to us here in Las Vegas. Console “16” sounds like a good candidate because of the higher reported noise floor, but any one will work.

If that's acceptable to you, we can arrange the shipping via your email (just to keep your information confidential). Also, please feel free to PM me to coordinate the shipping via the forum.

Thank you again, Dan, for your continued support.


Kind regards,


FELDMAN Robert
Supervisor, Care Depot
MUSIC Group

Cool!

Thanks, Robert, I'd be happy for you to take console .16 and to be done with it, as long as another one is on its way to replace it. I sent a note to Starin yesterday about beginning the RMA process for .16, but haven't heard back yet.

I'd rather do email than PM's here, as that removes one more link in the communication process.

Regarding the Monitor Whine Problem, I found a work-around that completely solves the problem for monitor mixers:

Go to the Monitor live view section.

Scroll down "Solo Options" to select "Use Master Fader"

Go to Routing, "Analog Output"

Select output 15

In Category, select "Monitor"

In Output Signal, select "Monitor L"

Repeat for output 16 and "Monitor R"

Tap is Post Fader.

Now you are completely bypassing the nasty Monitor min/max pot, and the output is as quiet as all the other analog outputs. You have replaced using the rotary pot with using the master fader.

All is good.

This solves it for me, and for my monitor engineers, but I doubt it solves the problem for the recording guys who want to control their control room monitors. Maybe it does solve their problem, but it for sure solves mine.

Fiona's post jogged my thinking to figure out other ways of routing, so credit there, too.

Thanks,
Dan

 

[Dan Mortensen]

Re: 2.0 Feature Request

Hi Dan,

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but you are able to use stereo FX slots 1-4 as inserts as well as FX slots 5-8, totaling a potential of 16 insert slots featuring 16 mono graphics.

In the EFFECTS HOME screen, select the first FX slot. Turn first encoder under screen anti-clockwise until Insert reads in the source slot. Click to confirm.

SELECT the mixbus/channel where you wish to insert, navigate to HOME>CONFIG and scroll with sixth encoder to select desired FX slot. Click to confirm. Click fifth encoder to activate the INSERT and bring the FX slot into the chain.

Kind Regards,
Fiona Hammond
CARE EMEA
MUSIC Group
BEHRINGER

This worked a treat! Thanks, Fiona!!!!

And here's a picture of what the EFFECTS screen looks like when set up this way.



It is definitely different than FX 5-8, and I frankly never would have thought of this.

Thanks again,
Dan

 

[John Roberts]

Re: X32 Discussion

I'm assuming that I am the OP. When I asked for a Dugan-style automixer all I really meant was that it should work well, and include the gain-sharing function.
I would be quite happy if it ddidn't use any of Dan's design, but as you say that probably isn't possible.

During the duration of Dan's original patent, a number of competitors came out with automatic mixing products that used different strategies to get around his protected IP, (like first arrival, etc). In my judgment these were (are) inferior to the simpler, elegant Dugan gain sharing Algorithm.

You "can" use the now public domain Dugan algorithm, you do not have to do anything. Operating with digital decision making you can skin the cat a number of different ways (if you like skinless cats).

Can one "hack" into the Yamaha software in the same way as one can use OSC with the X32?

I don't know and don't care to know.

If not, there will be plenty more sales of the Dugan cards I think. I agree absolutely that Dan deserves as much reward as possible for his amazing contribution to our industry. Mixing an eight-member panel with or without a Dugan is like night and day.

Mick Berg.

Yes, I strongly advocate Dan's algorithm for AM. In my judgment most alternate approaches are work-arounds for the gold standard technology that has been public domain so free to use for some 15 years..

Be patient. It will happen sooner or later. Let's let Dan make some more money for now, maybe Dan should sell a plug-in. He could throw in a free X-32, if you pay full price for his plug-in...

JR

 

[Robert Lofgren]

Post number 5000

I just wanted to do #5000