# Software Audio Console (SAC) in the wild



## Footer (Jul 20, 2012)

We have Dweezil Zappa in today. They are carrying the first use of SAC that I have ever seen. They used to be a 56 input show on a H3k and a 250XL at monitors. They now got rid of both console... and the monitor engineer. They are running about 40ish channels on this system. All input A/D is being done on Behringer ADA8000's. They are running what I would call a server. Connected to that FOH has a HP touchsmart and two behringer fader wings. Each band member also has a tablet and a fader wing to do their own monitor mix. Cat5 connects it all up. It does sound pretty good. These guys are wrapping up a several month long tour with this system tonight... it seems to hold up to the road rather well.


----------



## museav (Jul 20, 2012)

Very interesting to see one in that use. The feedback I've seen regarding the reliability of the ADA8000s seems to vary greatly with some people having no problems but one regular SAC user I kmow refusing to use the ADA8000 after encountering numerous failures. I'm personally not a fan of not having any control or monitoring of the preamps from the mixer, there is a mod for the ADA8000s to provide remote preamp level control but it apparently involves internal rewiring and modifying the rear panel, so not something for everybody. But the ability to relatively inexpensively support multiple personal monitor mixes is nice.


----------



## Footer (Jul 20, 2012)

museav said:


> But the ability to relatively inexpensively support multiple personal monitor mixes is nice.



I think it actually started there and they decided to go full in with the entire system. The ability to not have a monitor guy on tour saves a ton of cash... enough to pay the system off quick. Sure beats the hell out of the XRM18 jammed SL that we see occasionally.


----------



## tk2k (Jul 20, 2012)

Maybe this is me being paranoid, but....problem with software consoles in my book is that they do not run in controlled environments. Yes, many modern consoles run embedded XP or Linux as a subsystem, but it's on a very isolated and stripped down system. I think the majority of computer software is not built well enough for live. I've had protools crash on me before, Logic, and most 'professional grade' software applications. Often? certainly not. More often than I've had a console die on me? Yes. I have never had a console go down by its own accord (beer/problems with the power I tied into aside). And honestly, that's why a lot of digital consoles have a complete second brain bundled with it. 

I agree the price point is attractive. Maybe if they had a way to link two CPUs together, and if one goes down you can just KVM to the other one? So far I haven't seen this implemented well. 




Footer said:


> I think it actually started there and they decided to go full in with the entire system. The ability to not have a monitor guy on tour saves a ton of cash... enough to pay the system off quick. Sure beats the hell out of the XRM18 jammed SL that we see occasionally.




I imagine this is only the case for bands that know each other really well, have full respsoect for one another, and are using their own gear each night? I know several FOH engineers that have toured with ~$12k a show bands (so not household names but not tiny) and their experience has been that you still need an engineer to ring out a system, EQ the monitors, and then keep an eye on the monitor mixes so you don't get competing mixes between band members. The idea of not knowing who is feeding back (since everyone has personal control) is also a little terrifying.


----------



## museav (Jul 21, 2012)

tk2k said:


> Maybe this is me being paranoid, but....problem with software consoles in my book is that they do not run in controlled environments. Yes, many modern consoles run embedded XP or Linux as a subsystem, but it's on a very isolated and stripped down system. I think the majority of computer software is not built well enough for live. I've had protools crash on me before, Logic, and most 'professional grade' software applications. Often? certainly not. More often than I've had a console die on me? Yes. I have never had a console go down by its own accord (beer/problems with the power I tied into aside). And honestly, that's why a lot of digital consoles have a complete second brain bundled with it.
> 
> I agree the price point is attractive. Maybe if they had a way to link two CPUs together, and if one goes down you can just KVM to the other one? So far I haven't seen this implemented well.


I have many of the same resevations but SAC users that I've communicated with seem to have had very few, if any, issues with software instability. There are some pretty good discussions on the SAC forum regarding how to select and configure the machine used. It does need to essentially be a dedicated machine and they do recommend shutting down any unnecessary operations. And you can purchase turnkey SAC systems with warranty, support, etc., although that seems to wipe out the potential cost savings compared to a packaged digital console.


tk2k said:


> I imagine this is only the case for bands that know each other really well, have full respsoect for one another, and are using their own gear each night? I know several FOH engineers that have toured with ~$12k a show bands (so not household names but not tiny) and their experience has been that you still need an engineer to ring out a system, EQ the monitors, and then keep an eye on the monitor mixes so you don't get competing mixes between band members. The idea of not knowing who is feeding back (since everyone has personal control) is also a little terrifying.


A personal mix system is usually used with wired and/or wireless in-ears, so there is no associated ringing out of monitors, competing mixes, feedback, etc. In fact, the musician being able to adjst their own mix often makes them more amenable to using IEMs and thus getting the wedges off the stage completely and eliminating all of the associated issues noted.


Kyle, I have to ask the significance of the picture on the touchscreen that looks like a bear in the woods.


----------



## Footer (Jul 21, 2012)

museav said:


> Kyle, I have to ask the significance of the picture on the touchscreen that looks like a bear in the woods.


I don't know, never discussed it with their engineer. They were also all on in ears. Besides a drum sub and a few amps they had little to no stage volume. 


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## themuzicman (Jul 22, 2012)

museav said:


> I'm personally not a fan of not having any control or monitoring of the preamps from the mixer




I was out with an LCS console for a year and the preamps (Aphex 1788A's) lived with the Matrix300 frames backstage,. I had networked control of the preamps to a computer at FOH which is a nice solution to having monitor and control of preamp levels. Not the most cost effective if a show is trying to save money with a SAC (It feels to me that a SAC solution is a poor man's LCS without the robust sub-cueing/routing/panning/etc.)


----------



## tk2k (Jul 22, 2012)

themuzicman said:


> I was out with an LCS console for a year and the preamps (Aphex 1788A's) lived with the Matrix300 frames backstage,. I had networked control of the preamps to a computer at FOH which is a nice solution to having monitor and control of preamp levels. Not the most cost effective if a show is trying to save money with a SAC (It feels to me that a SAC solution is a poor man's LCS without the robust sub-cueing/routing/panning/etc.)


Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt LCS in six figs territory?


----------



## museav (Jul 22, 2012)

themuzicman said:


> I was out with an LCS console for a year and the preamps (Aphex 1788A's) lived with the Matrix300 frames backstage,. I had networked control of the preamps to a computer at FOH which is a nice solution to having monitor and control of preamp levels. Not the most cost effective if a show is trying to save money with a SAC (It feels to me that a SAC solution is a poor man's LCS without the robust sub-cueing/routing/panning/etc.)


Exactly. There are a number of preamps the support remote monitoring and control, but they cost more and most SAC users seem to choose to either forego the 'digital snake' aspect and put the preamps at FOH or simply preset the preamps levels and live with the results. The idea of setting nominal preamp gain/trim levels and then using digital gain post the preamp and A/D conversion may work acceptably if the sources and input assignments do not vary but I do not seem that being practical for many festival and installed system applications where the sources and what is coming into a channel may vary greatly. And not being able to address the preamps as part of scenes or presets may not be acceptable in some theatrical applications.

A bit of a rant but the lack of preamp control is one area where I have a problem with many of the SAC supporters in that there seems to be an abundance of the "it works for me therefore it should work for everyone" and "I find something acceptable, therefore you should too" perspective. In one discussion on the SAC forum regarding applying the Software Audio Console to live sound there were several experienced live sound people that had some concerns with SAC and were not dismissing SAC, just trying to note things that could be better for live sound applications. The responses from numerous SAC supporters who obviously had limited, if any, experience with live sound was that those experienced system techs and operators "just don't get it" and should change the way they do things to fit the way SAC worked and if you don't agree then you are wrong. At least speaking for myself, I find the attitude of the developer and many of the users of SAC as much of a deterrent to its acceptance in many 'pro' applications than any issues with the product itself. And the lack of preamp control is one area where some SAC users believing that because it is acceptable to them in their specific application means that it therefore should be acceptable for everyone and won't even consider a different perspective seems to be quite prevalent.


----------



## ScottT (Jul 22, 2012)

tk2k said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt LCS in six figs territory?



Close to it.


----------



## themuzicman (Jul 22, 2012)

tk2k said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt LCS in six figs territory?



A single frame of Matrix300 when it was new was $30k, I'm assuming D-Mitri hits about the same price point. That's for a single server with 8 in / 8 out, a single DSP slot filled and a link card. Fully tricked out you'll hit six figures no problems, especially when you want a control surface to use it all.


----------



## BradJones (Feb 26, 2013)

One of the things that separates Software Audio Console and SAWStudio from most other Windows based apps is how it is written. It's all assembly language, not the C## or .NET or other flavors of the day. This means it has no hooks into Windows and vice versa. It is really small code and really fast. The Executable it only 1,127 kb in size. My whole SAC directory with VST plug-ins and the like is only 43 meg. 21 seconds from power button to live mode (If I was smart enough to save the mix!) I like it.

The most processor utilization I have seen to date was about 40 % and that was 30 channels in, Stereo Outs and summed subs with center fill, 8 stereo monitor mixes while recording the 30 channels live. 

I built a 32 channel SAC rig and because I am a IT guy by trade I built a second rack CPU, that is identical the the one I started with, ready to go and it has been in the box 2.5 years. I have probably done 300 shows my rig and have not had the first issue with it. At first I would take all of the analog stuff with me too but, 5 or 6 shows in I realized that it wasn't necessary. With the SS dives in drive sleds and 2 screws to get to the RME Raydat I could have the system replaced and booted in about 10 minutes. How quick could I get a rental dropped off if any other console tanked? An hour? Two? I know it doesn't happen often but I just saying. 

I also use 2 Behringer faders one parked over the AUX returns & Mains and one that I can move around. I have found it just as easy to use the mouse and keyboard but there was a learning curve as there is with anything. (Remember the first time you saw an LS-9)
The thing that attracted me to SAC was it's layout was more "analog like" which being and old analog guy was a little more comfortable the way the channel strips are laid out. 

If there isn't a monitor guy the FOH guy can get to all 24 monitor mixes by hitting two keys. You can set the solo function to follow you so you can hear whats going on that quick too.


----------



## sgreatwood (Mar 9, 2013)

Nice looking setup there OP. Have I missed something though? How does the server with SAC actually talk to the ADA8000s? I have a couple at work and they connect via ADAT to a PreSonus Firestudio to handle extra ins for the studio. For those using SAC with ADA8000s, what interfaces are you using to get high track counts?

Thanks,

Simon Greatwood


----------



## museav (Mar 10, 2013)

sgreatwood said:


> Nice looking setup there OP. Have I missed something though? How does the server with SAC actually talk to the ADA8000s? I have a couple at work and they connect via ADAT to a PreSonus Firestudio to handle extra ins for the studio. For those using SAC with ADA8000s, what interfaces are you using to get high track counts?


Typically something like RME: HDSPe RayDAT, but it seems that the available ADAT Lightpipe interface options are becoming more limited.


----------



## Footer (Mar 10, 2013)

sgreatwood said:


> Nice looking setup there OP. Have I missed something though? How does the server with SAC actually talk to the ADA8000s? I have a couple at work and they connect via ADAT to a PreSonus Firestudio to handle extra ins for the studio. For those using SAC with ADA8000s, what interfaces are you using to get high track counts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Simon Greatwood



It has been awhile since this rig was in, it was out with a tour... we were just a stop. From what I remember they had some sort of PCI card that interfaced the ADAT interface. That is pretty much all I remember.


----------



## museav (Mar 11, 2013)

Footer said:


> It has been awhile since this rig was in, it was out with a tour... we were just a stop. From what I remember they had some sort of PCI card that interfaced the ADAT interface. That is pretty much all I remember.


And in that interim you have had new products like the Behringer X32, Roland M200i and Soundcraft Si Expression be released or announced. With expandable I/O via networked stage boxes, wireless control from multiple iPads and in some cases integrated support for networked personal monitor systems at a significantly lower cost than previously available these create a much different comparison for SAC in terms of cost and multiple monitor mix support. For 16, 24 and 32 and even some 48 channel systems there are apparently now console options available for less than what turnkey, packaged SAC systems cost, so the potential advantages seem to be more in things like VST plug-in support and any cost savings obtainable through you putting together and supporting the system yourself.


----------



## BradJones (Mar 11, 2013)

museav said:


> Typically something like RME: HDSPe RayDAT, but it seems that the available ADAT Lightpipe interface options are becoming more limited.



That is exactly what I use. That work very well.


----------

