# Safe to go digital on monitor desk?



## Footer (Aug 2, 2012)

After 10 years, several repairs, and a few voodoo dances we have pretty much given up on our Crest Monitor X. It has solo bus problems and has lost routing on channels in the past. Our processing for the rig is all DBX 480's with a 480R. I have never liked that system, would have preferred just a rack of DN360's. 

So, with that we are currently at an impasse. We used to say no digital because half the riders we got say that. Recently it has seemed that requirement has disappeared. There is also the issue that very few companies are actually making a decent large format analog monitor console. So, right now we are wrestling with the idea of going digital in monitor world. Have we finally turned the corner where people will take a digital desk? I know no one is carrying analog anymore... but for the people that have to fill riders are we in the same boat? 

We are looking at going with either an M7 or an AVID console. Digico is way our of our budget.


----------



## DuckJordan (Aug 2, 2012)

All the gigs I've worked or seen the riders don't have any stips on digital boards. So i would say digital is fine. Personaly looking to pick up an X32 for the mid sized band gigs.


----------



## MNicolai (Aug 2, 2012)

Don't write off Digico. We had a Digico FOH+Monitor system priced out as well as a Digidesign package and a Yamaha package. Digico came in at about the same price as everyone else plus or minus a few thousand dollars.

I forget exactly which frames we priced out, but both the TD and I anticipated the Digico solution coming in at 2x what the Yamaha and Avid solutions would be. We were shocked when it came in a very competitive price.

Practically a steal in my opinion considering how advanced the Digico consoles are when compared to the prehistoric M7 technology. At the time we had them priced out, Yamaha had not yet announced their new lineup of consoles. I don't know how pricing between the old line and new line compares but I bet pricing on a helps close the gap between a 48-ch Yamaha CL1 and the Digico equivalent.


----------



## derekleffew (Aug 3, 2012)

Ramsa S840.


----------



## gcpsoundlight (Aug 3, 2012)

I'd go the cl series over the m7, simply because for roughly the same price, you get much more flexibility. For example, you could move the console round without moving the amps. Or put the amps out of the way. Either situation 2 lines of cat5 replace a core.


----------



## SteveB (Aug 3, 2012)

We moved to Digico SD7's (FOH and Monitors) a year ago and I know the audio guys have been very happy. I think we've seen one rental that had a rider with no digital, but the rider was old with the actual engineers now prefering digital. A digital monitor desk is a great tool when you have multiple bands, as you can save the entire setup for instant recall. Big time saver for the deck audio guys.


----------



## museav (Aug 3, 2012)

I think that digital monitor desks are now well accepted. The M7CL is a favorite of many simply because you do not have to deal with layers. The DiGiCo consoles are very nice and might be a good choice if your users are familiar with them but the general view seems to be that people are much more likely to have expeience with a LS9, M7CL, Venue, etc. than with a DiGiCo and the DiGiCo consoles are not the most inutitive to use if you are used to other mixers.

Gerard, you realize that the M7CL-ES and or M7CL with one or more Dante cards offers much the same functionality in terms of CAT connectivity? So might an iLive, iLive-T or several other consoles. In fact, there was a demo at the recent Yamaha Audioversity where they had a M7CL-ES with one of the Yamaha EtherSound interfaces and a Dante card along with a CL5 with an EtherSound card and Yamaha Dante interface interconnected such that any input on any interface or console was available on both the CL5 and the M7CL via the Dante network and/or the EtherSound network. Auvitran, the folks behind EtherSound, were also showing a modular device for which cards are being developed to allow a number of different digital audio formats included several networked audio formats to integrate with one another.

There was also a presentation where Audinate (Dante), Auvitran (EtherSound), Aviom (A-Net16 and A-Net64), Optocore and Reidel (Rocknet) all presented their digital audio network solutions. Conspicuously missing was Cirrus Logic (Cobranet), but it was interesting to see how some developers focused purely on their products while others took shots at their competitors. And Yamaha made it very clear that they are no longer interested in pursuing their own proprietary digital audio network and are instead partnering with digital audio network companies such as those that were present.

Talking to several people, the general consensus seemed to be that Dante is perceived as having a big advantage in being AVB compliant. EtherSound is not AVB compliant but being Layer 2 could supposedly be made AVB compliant. Layer 3 based Roland REAC, QSC Q-LAN, Wheatstone WheatNet-IP and others could probably be AVB compliant but are currently all proprietary to one manufacturer and that does not seem likely to change. And Layer 1 based Aviom A-Net, AES50 (used by the new Behringer digital audio products) and Rocknet would not easily be AVB friendly. Reidel has joined the AVnu Alliance and is looking at AVB but I believe that is more in the context of their MediorNet products than the Rocknet products.

Added: Just noticed this, http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/5007-h-gld-monitor-board-gig-review.html, and thought it might be relevant.


----------



## DaveySimps (Aug 3, 2012)

Most of the riders I am seeing over the past few years are calling for PM5D's or Avid's. Obviously the 5D is out of the budget range. The SC48 seems like it might be more future proof than the M7 with the new CL boards out there. What are your long term plans for when you have to replace your Midas at FOH? I would figure that into my plan as well, in case you have to worry about stage box compatibility, or other such things down the road. The M7 is more user friendly, in my opinion, for users who are unfamiliar with it compared to the Avid. It sounds like that might play into your consideration as well. In your venue, do you see more groups coming through with their own engineers, or do you provide a house monitor engineer? As IEM's grow in popularity, do you think you will need to be able to support plug ins that an engineer might carry with them?

~Dave


----------



## Footer (Aug 3, 2012)

DaveySimps said:


> Most of the riders I am seeing over the past few years are calling for PM5D's or Avid's. Obviously the 5D is out of the budget range. The SC48 seems like it might be more future proof than the M7 with the new CL boards out there. What are your long term plans for when you have to replace your Midas at FOH? I would figure that into my plan as well, in case you have to worry about stage box compatibility, or other such things down the road. The M7 is more user friendly, in my opinion, for users who are unfamiliar with it compared to the Avid. It sounds like that might play into your consideration as well. In your venue, do you see more groups coming through with their own engineers, or do you provide a house monitor engineer? As IEM's grow in popularity, do you think you will need to be able to support plug ins that an engineer might carry with them?
> 
> ~Dave



One of the reasons the Digico is out is that besides the price for an SD7, it is not a console I want to support for guest engineers. Added to that, none of my guys have used one and I really don't want to tack on the cost of training. Everyone has used the Avid stuff and the M7. Every road engineer out there has touched both of these consoles as well. When my guys have to play system tech, I don't want to have to have them hand hold the entire show. 

I am also not concerned with stage box compatibility. We will never go with a digital snake to FOH. We commonly have to tie in guest consoles at monitors and FOH so we'll be keeping our copper for the long term. 

As far as engineers go, usually when it is our console its our guy on it in monitor world. FOH is usually a road engineer. With the current state of touring where everything has to fit in a trailer that is pulled behind a bus we are starting to see less and less groups carry a monitor rig. Hell, many guys now are just carrying an FOH console & mics... no snake/split/subsnakes. With that, our gear is getting ridden harder than ever. 

Being able to recall settings for an opener/headliner would be nice, but because FOH is staying analog that is going to be a limiting factor no matter what.


----------



## derekleffew (Aug 3, 2012)

/totally off-topic

Has anyone ever seen a Digico SD7 in (sleep/screensaver/standby?) mode? I nearly fell out of the spot basket when I saw that. Totally worth the price just for that "feature." I wonder, can it be disabled (rather distracting when the console is in the audience) ? Anyone have a video of that which to I am referring?


----------



## SteveB (Aug 3, 2012)

Footer said:


> One of the reasons the Digico is out is that besides the price for an SD7, it is not a console I want to support for guest engineers. Added to that, none of my guys have used one and I really don't want to tack on the cost of training. Everyone has used the Avid stuff and the M7. Every road engineer out there has touched both of these consoles as well. When my guys have to play system tech, I don't want to have to have them hand hold the entire show.
> 
> I am also not concerned with stage box compatibility. We will never go with a digital snake to FOH. We commonly have to tie in guest consoles at monitors and FOH so we'll be keeping our copper for the long term.
> 
> ...



I started a long response in defense of the Digico, but actually haven't a clue why our A1 chose it. Thus can only say that you're 3rd reason defeats the 1st, in that if it's house guys on the monitor desk (which is typical), who cares what the road guys ask for. I do know that our guys liked the sound of the Digico over other desks they had used and listened to, so maybe your guys should add that to the criteria.


----------



## Footer (Aug 3, 2012)

SteveB said:


> I started a long response in defense of the Digico, but actually haven't a clue why our A1 chose it. Thus can only say that you're 3rd reason defeats the 1st, in that if it's house guys on the monitor desk (which is typical), who cares what the road guys ask for. I do know that our guys liked the sound of the Digico over other desks they had used and listened to, so maybe your guys should add that to the criteria.



It is not always the case that a house guy is on monitors. Its happening more recently, but at least a third of shows have a road engineer on monitors and they are on our rig. The other issue I have is we have a rotating pool of A2's. I barely have enough work to keep one audio guy around. So, with that it I have 4 guys that can swing in behind monitors when I need it. I don't want to have knowing Digico to be the deciding factor on bringing a guy in. Everyone knows Yamaha. Most people know Avid. 

Finally, I don't want to have a better console at monitors than I do FOH. I don't want to get into a situation where someone wants us to flip our FOH and monitor consoles. 

I do agree though that the digico sound blows the other options out of the water... and that is why you have them.


----------



## SteveB (Aug 3, 2012)

If budget allows, it's useful to get 2, this way the A1s and 2's can switch as needed, but not likely the facility will swing for the money. We got ours on a City Arts Council grant, as well as a lot of supporting gear. Probably $200,000 for Audio alone. From observing, the leaning curve is not that steep and we have 6 guys, including the head that run the desks and learned it all this year. We don't typically have a visiting monitor engineer, but 1/3 of the events will have a house guy, but I've not seen too many issues either. Possibly there are more Digico's down this way for rental, can't say though.

But does it save time ?. Oh Yeah. Plus a ton of extra processing gear is now gone, it's all in the desk, and that makes it all easier to learn as well. Not to mention the entire monitor land setup is smaller and cleaner, set's up/strikes faster as well. I don't see any negatives to the system and it went in reasonbly smooth and has been very reliable with no crashes.


----------



## tk2k (Aug 3, 2012)

I'm a huge fan of the Venue Profile as a mix surface for monitors. I find the sc48 layout limits me, sorta like mixing on an m7 vs 5d n

That being said +1 for ilive


----------



## museav (Aug 4, 2012)

DaveySimps said:


> The SC48 seems like it might be more future proof than the M7 with the new CL boards out there.


The CL uses virtually the same Centralogic approach as the M7CL and anyone that is familiar with a M7CL will quickly feel at home, so the CL may actually make the M7more future proof. And Yamaha is commited to mini-YGDAI cards for integrating current and future networked audio protocols so that is probably more future proof than products that rely on a particular, much less any proprietary, digital audio network.

I'm not sure why but I'm also a little uncertain about the future of Avid audio consoles. Several consecutive years of corporate layoffs and restructuring is not reassuring. And whiel the recent sale of Avid's consumer products may a good thing in that regards, could a continued narrowing of Avid's focus potentially affect the audio console products? Great products and still very popular but for some reason I just can't shake the feeling that Avid's focus for the future may be elsewhere.


----------



## DaveySimps (Aug 4, 2012)

I was referring more to the availability of parts and such for the M7 down the road.

~Dave


----------



## themuzicman (Aug 4, 2012)

If you're going to go Yamaha I'd get a CL series console, just for future-proofness. The M7 is the "standard", and the CL builds upon it. Plus if you need a better FOH desk the CL has more DCA's and more functionality/routability overall. 

If you go the Avid route, go with the Venue. Like TK2K said, the SC48 is fairly limiting even if it is slightly analogous to the M7. Layers = suck.


----------



## tk2k (Aug 4, 2012)

museav said:


> I'm not sure why but I'm also a little uncertain about the future of Avid audio consoles. Several consecutive years of corporate layoffs and restructuring is not reassuring. And whiel the recent sale of Avid's consumer products may a good thing in that regards, could a continued narrowing of Avid's focus potentially affect the audio console products? Great products and still very popular but for some reason I just can't shake the feeling that Avid's focus for the future may be elsewhere.



I can tell you for 100% certainty that in the near future you will not feel this way.


In terms of the profile, I don't mind the layers I mind layers for dynamics. That's why I mix on an ilive with everything accessible all the time


----------



## TimmyP1955 (Aug 6, 2012)

Other than the stated advantages of the M7 and CL there's the ability (in theory, anyway) to convert PM5D and LS9 files to work in the M7 and CL.

On paper, I like a lot of the features of the Digico units, but I cannot comment on how friendly they are to one who's mixing monitors on them.


----------



## museav (Aug 6, 2012)

themuzicman said:


> If you're going to go Yamaha I'd get a CL series console, just for future-proofness. The M7 is the "standard", and the CL builds upon it. Plus if you need a better FOH desk the CL has more DCA's and more functionality/routability overall.
> 
> If you go the Avid route, go with the Venue. Like TK2K said, the SC48 is fairly limiting even if it is slightly analogous to the M7. Layers = suck.


If layers suck then wouldn't that favor the M7CL over the CL?


I find the 'future proof' aspect interesting for digital consoles. Like computers, while software and firmware development and support affect the practical lifetime, so does the underlying physical technology. And also just like with computers, they seem to be seen as having ever shorter useful lifetimes before being considered technically obsolete. However, there is a difference from computersin aspects such as market penetration and tech riders. Many people would probably have no problem accepting a Yamaha CL today but it will probably be some time before most of those people have show files for one and before it appears in tech riders. Conversely, if the LS9, M7CL, PM5D or Venue were discontinued today people would still be routinely encountering them for years, there would still be a large community of people with show files for them, and they would likely still appear in tech riders for some time.

There is also the potential impact of government regulatory changes. Complying with the mandatory requirement for OBD-II led to then end of production for several cars where the sales numbers did not justify the related costs for compliance. And more directly, I think many people underestimate the impact RoHS had on electronics. Talking to manufacturers, it was simply not economically viable for manufacturers to make some products RoHS compliant or to obtain RoHS compliant components, which in turn affected the lifetime of the products. Who knows what future regulations could affect current or new products?

A somewhat similar issue can also apply to software, not necessarily the console software but any supporting software. As operating systems come and go manufacturers must decide whether it is worth investing the effort to verify and possibly adapt their software for new operating systems or to continue to support and develop it for older operating systems. I've been through the experience of having to search for a laptop running an obsolete OS in order to work with a brand new digital mixer, a factor that made that nice new product much less "future proof" unless the manufacturer decided to eventually make their software and firmware compaitble with new operating systems. How do the manufacturers balance continuing to support and develop software for older operating systems and products that are already out there with also continuing to develop software for newer operating systems and products?

Then there are related technology advances. If a new networked audio or digital audio format becomes popular, can an existing product support those and what is involved in doing so? I think AVB is showing this as you have some older consoles that could be readily adapted to support AVB while you also have some newer consoles that would require external devices to convert AVB, or any other new signals, to a format the console supports.

Also relevant, how will manufacturers prepare for and support end-of-life products? Does end of production mean end of support and/or development? What about parts stock and service? These seem critical factors in determining the potential practical life after production ceases and not all manufacturers may apply the same approach to them. And I don't think we know what to expect from some manufacturers.

And when does a mixer cease being useful? I've used analog mixers in some clubs and community theaters that were long past their useful life for their original applications but that still had usefulness in those other applications. Will a LS9, SC48, iLive-T, StudioLive, M-480, etc. potentially have such a second and possibly third life? Or will digital mixers become more like computers where there is no market for used equipment that is more than a couple of years old?

The point is really that simply being newer does not necessarily relate to being more "future proof" and "future proofing" for digital consoles seems a potentially complex issue that could involve factors both within and outside of a manufacturer's control as well as hardware, software and practical factors.


tk2k said:


> I can tell you for 100% certainty that in the near future you will not feel this way.


I hope so but only time will tell and it will take some time.


----------



## BNBSound (Aug 6, 2012)

Take a look at the Soundcraft Vi series and the Midas Pro2. The Soundcraft is a dream to use and nobody is going to turn their nose up at it. It's also pretty easy to get acquainted with on short notice. The Midas is a small (tiny) footprint model at a lower price point but it's currently out doing monitor duty on a huge tour or two.


----------



## chausman (Aug 6, 2012)

BNBSound said:


> Take a look at the Soundcraft Vi series and the Midas Pro2. The Soundcraft is a dream to use and nobody is going to turn their nose up at it. It's also pretty easy to get acquainted with on short notice. The Midas is a small (tiny) footprint model at a lower price point but it's currently out doing monitor duty on a huge tour or two.



+1 to this. My local roadhouse just bought the vi4 for FoH and a vi2 for backstage. They absolutely love it. And tours must not mind it, as almost all touring shows will use it in conjunction with their system.


----------



## tk2k (Aug 6, 2012)

chausman said:


> +1 to this. My local roadhouse just bought the vi4 for FoH and a vi2 for backstage. They absolutely love it. And tours must not mind it, as almost all touring shows will use it in conjunction with their system.





The pro2 scares me still. The fault tolerance went down by a factor of 10 when Music Group bought Midas. Long story short, it'a first generation console from a new company, and personlly I'd wait a bit on it. Also it's very layer heavy but it doesn't have real layers, it's got 'scrolls' where you can't jump from 2 to 4 without going through 3.

Also maybe their digitals are different, but the soundcraft analogue boards are some of my least favorite to use.


----------



## BNBSound (Aug 7, 2012)

tk2k said:


> Also maybe their digitals are different, but the soundcraft analogue boards are some of my least favorite to use.



I would agree with that, I always liked the big A&H desks or a Midas when I could be so lucky. I'll tell you though that six years ago when I saw the Vi6 when it was rolled out, it was the first digital desk that made sense to me. Everything is right there. It takes so little time to get comfortable on one and not much more time to get really fast on it.


----------



## Footer (Aug 9, 2012)

Has anyone here actually touched a CL yet? Just got some rough numbers on one, they come in about the same price as a used 5D...


----------



## museav (Aug 9, 2012)

Footer said:


> Has anyone here actually touched a CL yet? Just got some rough numbers on one, they come in about the same price as a used 5D...


Had a chance to play with one a little bit and get a very abbreviated version of the planned training just last week. If you've ever used an M7CL you'll probably be able to jump right on a CL. If you've used an M7CL and a PM5D you'll probably see it as an M7CL UI with some of the features of a PM5D added, for example gain compensation for multiple console systems.

As I understand it through rumors and hearsay, Yamaha was working on a new flagship digital console but decided it might not be the best time economically to introduce it. So they took some of that development along with the now common Centralogic interface and put them into a console whose price point made it a more financially viable product in the current economy.


----------



## tk2k (Aug 12, 2012)

Footer said:


> Has anyone here actually touched a CL yet? Just got some rough numbers on one, they come in about the same price as a used 5D...


 The CL has its pluses and minuses. It doesn't have many busses as I'd like, and I find the configuration of the remote io very one size fits all, but inflexible. 

The software is still very new and a lot of the features are 4/5ths baked (like scene management)

Also,my personal opinion is that gain compensation is highly overrated, and no substitute for good communication between monitors and foh

That being said everyone knows how to use yamaha. I don't think you'll ever find an engineer who says its their first choice, but I also don't think you'll ever meet an engineer disappointed to find one at a venue


----------



## museav (Aug 13, 2012)

tk2k said:


> The CL has its pluses and minuses. It doesn't have many busses as I'd like, and I find the configuration of the remote io very one size fits all, but inflexible.


I think an often overlooked factor for mix buses is not just the number of buses but also how they can be used. For example, can you assign channel direct outputs and inserts directly to physical outputs or do you have to use a mix bus? What signals are available to matrix buses? And are any mix buses dedicated pre-fade, dedicated post-fade or dedicated internal EFX sends?

With the Rio3224D and Rio1608D the CL series remote I/O is at least two sizes fits all and that approach seems fairly common for digital consoles in that price range, I think it may be a case of where you can offer a limited number of models that will work for the vast majority of situations more effectively than offering a multitude of options or a modular approach. I am surprised that the CL remote I/O boxes do not have a mini-YGDAI slot, there may be a reason that is not practical and I am guessing it may ba a cost factor to support slots in both the console and the remote I/O.


tk2k said:


> Also,my personal opinion is that gain compensation is highly overrated, and no substitute for good communication between monitors and foh


While I agree that gain compensation may not be the best solution in many applications, I also don't think that communication between two operators is necessarily a practical solution either and I generally prefer to physically split the inputs when possible.


tk2k said:


> That being said everyone knows how to use yamaha. I don't think you'll ever find an engineer who says its their first choice, but I also don't think you'll ever meet an engineer disappointed to find one at a venue


I think a PM1D or PM5D might be a first choice for some, it remains to be seen if the CL falls more on that side or the LS9/M7CL side.


----------



## bishopthomas (Aug 15, 2012)

I'm a big Soundcraft fan, personally. We now have a VI1, 2 SI Compact 32's, and an SI Compact 16. That's in addition to the M7CL-es and LS9-32. After using the Soundcrafts the sound alone is heaps better than the Yamahas. Not used a CL yet, but would like to check one out.


----------



## museav (Aug 15, 2012)

Footer said:


> We are looking at going with either an M7 or an AVID console. Digico is way our of our budget.


Have been following some other discussions and speaking with some people, there are now a number of good digital console options in the $20,000 to $30,000, and even the $20k to $25k, range. If you're thinking an SC48 then I believe the DiGiCo SD9 and Midas Pro2 are in the same range, although you'd have to confirm the I/O meets your needs. And then you have some, such as the A&H GLD80, that may be perfectly acceptable for many applications available for well under $20k.

The other thing that came out of the discussions was that there can be a factor of what experienced techs like perhaps differing from what best serves less experienced techs. A specific example was someone pointing out the variable low and high pass filters on the Midas Pro2 where you can select frequency and slope/order for both filters. That's a great tool for someone who knows how to effectively apply it, but for those who don't it's more settings they have to think about, more places to perhaps pick the wrong settings, etc. and such people may be better off with a simple fixed high pass filter in/out button. What is perceived as an advantage by one person may be perceived as a disadvantage by another and vice versa. The M7CL is also a good example of this as well as I see some people commenting on how it has been obsoleted by newer technology and products, but it is the only digital mixer that lets you deal with that many channels without using layers and to some that alone offsets everything else. It's all what matters to you. Unfortunately, you are facing the same challenges I always face, that it is not for you and your normal use, it is for a variety of users and uses. That makes it difficult to to assess the value of capabilities and functionalities that may be affected by personal preferences.

One thing I see being a potential factor in a direct replacement for your Monitor X is the mapping of outputs to fader banks. Many digital consoles use 8 fader banks and some of the consoles in the $20k to $30k price range have a limited number of faders. You have 12 monitor plus 4 matrix and 2 main mixes so if you have to map in banks, for example all inputs or all outputs to a bank, that could be interesting. Another factor may be that your existing console has integrated hardwire splits on the inputs. If that is how you tie in the monitor mixer then you'd also have to factor in adding dedicated splits since I don't know of any consoles in that price range that have physical splits or sufficient outputs for virtual splits.


----------



## tk2k (Aug 16, 2012)

museav said:


> Have been following some other discussions and speaking with some people, there are now a number of good digital console options in the $20,000 to $30,000, and even the $20k to $25k, range. If you're thinking an SC48 then I believe the DiGiCo SD9 and Midas Pro2 are in the same range, although you'd have to confirm the I/O meets your needs. And then you have some, such as the A&H GLD80, that may be perfectly acceptable for many applications available for well under $20k.



We just spent $20k on an Allen and Heath iLive idr48+t112+flight cases, cables, etc. 
I was getting pretty universal quotes of 
sc48 ~19500
sc48 remote ~23500
Pro2 ~21000
M7 ~18000

So honestly theres a huge amount in that price range. 

Personally, the SD9 and Pro2 were disappointing based on their larger siblings (in terms of usability at least, functionality was as expected) which is why we went with an iLive.


----------



## chausman (Aug 18, 2012)

The Women of Faith "tour" is currently using a Yamaha CL5 for FoH and for monitor world, but I'll try and find out.


----------



## Footer (Aug 18, 2012)

chausman said:


> The Women of Faith "tour" is currently using a Yamaha CL5 for FoH and for monitor world, but I'll try and find out.



Ya, but they have the lord on their side to make sure things go OK. No so much for woodstock era rockers and Austin hipster groups.


----------



## chausman (Aug 18, 2012)

Footer said:


> Ya, but they have the lord on their side to make sure things go OK. No so much for woodstock era rockers and Austin hipster groups.



Well, they might have had that, but they didn't have Yamaha tech support, who told them that they didn't even have a console to help troubleshoot with yet.

The tech I talked to may come join, and share his opinions. But he basically said the biggest complaints he had were software based, and could be fixed with firmware updates later on. That some functions were odd, but over all, it was a classic Yamaha digital. Almost too identical to the M7CL, but anyone who used the M7 could probably walk up to one, and learn it fairly quickly.


----------



## tk2k (Aug 18, 2012)

chausman said:


> Well, they might have had that, but they didn't have Yamaha tech support, who told them that they didn't even have a console to help troubleshoot with yet.
> 
> The tech I talked to may come join, and share his opinions. But he basically said the biggest complaints he had were software based, and could be fixed with firmware updates later on. That some functions were odd, but over all, it was a classic Yamaha digital. Almost too identical to the M7CL, but anyone who used the M7 could probably walk up to one, and learn it fairly quickly.



Having poked one at a tech demo, I was left with basically the same impression. I'm not really sure what the 'point' of the console is. At this point the software isn't fully baked (most of the cool features are 'summer 2012' which is almost over). Yes, it's got 24 mix busses (up from 16) and 16 DCAs (up from 8) but the effects rack is still behind the industry, and the signal delay is still 2.5ms (same as m7) Even stranger, the RIO and HA boxes are all compatible the M7 and 5D with an add on card... 

As an LS9 replacement It's thrilling, but at 15k for the CL1 (used M7 territory) , 20 for the CL3 (sc48 territory) and 27 (3k below used pm5d territory) for the CL5, I really can't see there being much of a market for this thing.... esp seeing all those prices are without any of the remote units.


----------



## MNicolai (Aug 20, 2012)

Footer said:


> Has anyone here actually touched a CL yet? Just got some rough numbers on one, they come in about the same price as a used 5D...



Got one coming into the shop next week for a demo. Any specific questions anyone wants me to ask or features they want me to poke at?


----------



## museav (Aug 21, 2012)

tk2k said:


> Having poked one at a tech demo, I was left with basically the same impression. I'm not really sure what the 'point' of the console is. At this point the software isn't fully baked (most of the cool features are 'summer 2012' which is almost over). Yes, it's got 24 mix busses (up from 16) and 16 DCAs (up from 8) but the effects rack is still behind the industry, and the signal delay is still 2.5ms (same as m7) Even stranger, the RIO and HA boxes are all compatible the M7 and 5D with an add on card...
> 
> As an LS9 replacement It's thrilling, but at 15k for the CL1 (used M7 territory) , 20 for the CL3 (sc48 territory) and 27 (3k below used pm5d territory) for the CL5, I really can't see there being much of a market for this thing.... esp seeing all those prices are without any of the remote units.


The CL series is apparently intended to slot between the M7CL and PM5D with an updated version of the now common Centralogic interface and integrated stage box support via a non-proprietary audio network.

Yes, Summer 2012 is almost over, which could be looked at as meaning the updated firmware and software should soon be available. Also consider that while the CL5 and Rio3224-D were released earlier this year, the CL1, CL3 and Rio1608-D were always set for a late Summer release thus it makes some sense that the final 'production' version of the software and firmware would also be released at that time.

The analog input to analog output latency is "less than 2.5ms", which is also the same as the PM5D and seems to compare to the "typical" 2.0ms of the DiGiCo SD9 and the 2.3ms of the Venue SC48. If you want much lower latency you probably need to move up to 96kHz sampling, which has its own tradeoffs including in terms of any digital networking.

With the right cards the CL series are also compatible with the AD8HR and the SB168-ES, but I see that compatibility across the line as a potential advantage.

You seem to be mixing street and list prices in the comparison. You also seem to compare prices for new and used equipment, which is not always applicable, for example used gear is usually not an accepted or viable option in most of my work. I personally find that the only way to make accurate cost comparisons is for a specific application, otherwise one or two additional or fewer inputs or outputs, multitrack recording and playback, particular digital audio network support and so on can often make a significant difference in the resulting costs for different consoles.


I find digital console comparisons interesting since they are so easily affected by the reference application(s) and personal preferences. And people often seem to focus on factors that may not not relevant to every application or that won't or shouldn't matter. I remember a discussion where one person suggested everyone avoid a particular brand of consoles because of how the preamps sounded when clipped until somebody pointed out that the goal should be to not clip the preamps in the first place and how well you could avoid clipping them might be more relevant than how they sounded when clipped.

I also think it is great to have more options available. No one analog or digital console is going to be the answer for every application. Factors such as the use, the users, the budget, physical constraints, the rest of the system, the procurement process and so on may all vary and each combination may be best served by a different solution. I think it's nice to have more options so you can better select the 'best fit' solution rather than trying to make one of a more limited selection work.


----------

