# How practical is a PM1D for a church install?



## MasterTech (Jul 3, 2012)

Hi all,

We're installing a new sound system in my church (LCR FOH with fills, several zoned speakers, and stereo subwoofers) and a new monitor system to go with it in a few months. As we look for equipment, we saw a PM1D with two engines for a very reasonable price. Our current system is a PM4K at FOH and a PM4000M at monitor world with a glitchy analog snake (the snake will be removed during the upgrade).

This is my plan if we purchase it: We would use one engine for FOH and another engine for monitor world. The CS1D that it comes with the system would run FOH while a dedicated laptop and iPad would run monitor world. The AI8 units would act as a digital splitter, with FOH having control over the gain and A/B selection; monitor world would use the digital attenuator and gain compensation. One of the AO8 units would handle all the FOH outputs while the other two would handle all of the monitor outputs. A DIO8 installed at FOH would handle all analog insert I/O and the interface to a multitrack recorder. 

What do you all think of a PM1D in a church? Is it practical, considering future expansion? And, how user-friendly is the 1D?

Thanks!


----------



## DuckJordan (Jul 3, 2012)

Well, as a church install you'd need to look at your labor pool, Are they educated enough in digital boards to be able to run it effectively? Its a very powerful board at least from my experiences in a church setting.


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 3, 2012)

This would be our first digital board, but I'd been trained to do sound on a PM5D when I started out. And we have a very large pool of techs to draw from: we have 7 FOH techs, 7 monitor techs, a vice sound tech, and the head sound tech (me). I'd naturally train every one of our techs on the PM1D when we get it.

When you say it's powerful, what do you mean by it is very powerful?


----------



## fx120 (Jul 3, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> Hi all,
> 
> We're installing a new sound system in my church (LCR FOH with fills, several zoned speakers, and stereo subwoofers) and a new monitor system to go with it in a few months. As we look for equipment, we saw a PM1D with two engines for a very reasonable price. Our current system is a PM4K at FOH and a PM4000M at monitor world with a glitchy analog snake (the snake will be removed during the upgrade).
> 
> ...



Unless you need a 1D (High I/O, lots of mixes), get something else. If you're replacing PM4K's, you likely don't need a PM1D. And I certainly wouldn't rely on trying to use Studio Manager for mixing monitors, especially over an iPad.

There are plenty of modern options out there these days that will likely fit your needs better, be supported for longer into the future, and be easier to train operators on.


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 3, 2012)

fx120 said:


> Unless you need a 1D (High I/O, lots of mixes), get something else. If you're replacing PM4K's, you likely don't need a PM1D. And I certainly wouldn't rely on trying to use Studio Manager for mixing monitors, especially over an iPad.
> 
> There are plenty of modern options out there these days that will likely fit your needs better, be supported for longer into the future, and be easier to train operators on.



We sat down and we went through our I/O needs for FOH and I haven't seen many consoles that have the I/O we need: We are going to have LCR mains, aux-fed subs, 4 pairs of delay speakers, 4 zones of ceiling speakers for backup, stereo cry room and nursery zones, vestibule, CD recording capability from either a stereo aux or a stereo matrix, and wireless camera recording in stereo using a spare IEM transmitter and receiver. As it sits, both PM4000's are filled to capacity with inputs, so we'd like additional breathing room for future expansion. 

Like I said about our monitor system, it will be all stereo in-ear monitors, with as many mixes as the console can support; my director is a huge fan of the idea of having 24 stereo in-ear monitor mixes available. Maybe if we go 1D, the control surface can go to monitor world?


----------



## museav (Jul 3, 2012)

The PM1D is a great console and most people would be happy yo mix on it, however I'd guess that your monitor folks may not be so happy with FOH having gain control and their having to mix monitors on a laptop or iPad. And I'm not sure about the latter as I don't think there is a StageMix version for the PM1D and I believe wireless control via the Manager software requires a laptop or PC connected directly to the system which you woud the remotely control via a wireless device and VNC. I think you might really benefit from a second work surface for monitor beach.

Keep in mind that the original PM1D was introduced in 1999 and production ceased at the end of 2009 due to the availability of some key components. Yamaha did keep a service stock of components but just so you know what you are getting.


----------



## museav (Jul 3, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> We sat down and we went through our I/O needs for FOH and I haven't seen many consoles that have the I/O we need: We are going to have LCR mains, aux-fed subs, 4 pairs of delay speakers, 4 zones of ceiling speakers for backup, stereo cry room and nursery zones, vestibule, CD recording capability from either a stereo aux or a stereo matrix, and wireless camera recording in stereo using a spare IEM transmitter and receiver. As it sits, both PM4000's are filled to capacity with inputs, so we'd like additional breathing room for future expansion.


Can you summarize what you need? Is any of the signal routing and distribution you noted handled by a system processor? For example, can L/C/R/Sub and maybe one or two aux outputs to a system processor then be routed, mixed and processed in the system procesor the provide all of the multiple speaker and ancillary feeds? Also consider that with digital consoles you can often have more physical inputs and outputs than you have actual channels and mix buses, using virtual patching to assign inputs to channel and mix buses to outputs.


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 3, 2012)

If we get a second surface for monitor world, is there any real harm in running a dual-engine, dual-console system as two independent PM1D's with one engine each? And in monitor world, the monitor techs would use EQ attenuation as the HA gain knob (Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the EQ attenuation knob essentially Digital Gain?).


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 3, 2012)

museav said:


> Can you summarize what you need? Is any of the signal routing and distribution you noted handled by a system processor? For example, can L/C/R/Sub and maybe one or two aux outputs to a system processor then be routed, mixed and processed in the system procesor the provide all of the multiple speaker and ancillary feeds? Also consider that with digital consoles you can often have more physical inputs and outputs than you have actual channels and mix buses, using virtual patching to assign inputs to channel and mix buses to outputs.



No, we don't use any system processing of any kind except for an EQ and a compressor. The director's idea with the PM1D is that we would use its onboard processing as the system processor; each of those zones calls for a special mix because of how the church is set up. The choir and instruments are set on the left side with nothing on the right side. Fill zones far away on the right side would get significantly more music in the speakers than the zones on the left side, for example. Each amplifier would be connected to its own matrix mix. We would then use one DCA that every input is assigned to for master volume control.


----------



## tk2k (Jul 3, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> No, we don't use any system processing of any kind except for an EQ and a compressor. The director's idea with the PM1D is that we would use its onboard processing as the system processor; each of those zones calls for a special mix because of how the church is set up. The choir and instruments are set on the left side with nothing on the right side. Fill zones far away on the right side would get significantly more music in the speakers than the zones on the left side, for example. Each amplifier would be connected to its own matrix mix. We would then use one DCA that every input is assigned to for master volume control.



This sounds like a bad idea. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you really should look at some modern gear. The 1d will be impossible to get parts for, meaning in 5 years if something breaks you are in a bad place. 

Are you mixing for each of those spaces? If not, use a system processor, it'll allow you to send that feed to multiple locations at different volumes. 

Mixing monitors from studio manager is a bad idea, espfor IEMs which require a ton of constant tweaking 

The kind of io you are talking about is very very available today. Look at an iLive system from Allen and Heath. They scale very very well from 16 to 128 inputs and up to 64 outputs. The new Yamaha CL offers similar io(but it's not as good IMO) although it does feature gain compensation. 

Pretty much everyone here is telling you this is not the way they would advise you to go.


----------



## chausman (Jul 4, 2012)

Can you give a specific number of inputs/outputs/channels you need, along with a budget? I can think of a few possible alternatives that may be easier to use and understand. Soundcraft Vi_ might be an option.


----------



## museav (Jul 4, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> No, we don't use any system processing of any kind except for an EQ and a compressor.


Are you sure there is not any signal processing in a rack somewhere or integrated into the amplifiers? I will often provide basic processing such as an EQ and compressor at FOH that operators can adjust for 'artistic' use but the actual system processing is in a rack where only authorized personnel can access it.


MasterTech said:


> The director's idea with the PM1D is that we would use its onboard processing as the system processor; each of those zones calls for a special mix because of how the church is set up. The choir and instruments are set on the left side with nothing on the right side. Fill zones far away on the right side would get significantly more music in the speakers than the zones on the left side, for example. Each amplifier would be connected to its own matrix mix. We would then use one DCA that every input is assigned to for master volume control.


Typically, the issues you are talking about are exactly what the system processor would address, taking the basic mix components from the console and mixing, routing and processing them to create the different signals required for the speaker system. Unlike touring systems, with installed systems there are limited situations where the speaker system itself needs to change on a regular basis, thus it is usually configured and adjusted for the room and use and then not changed, in fact it is common to make it where typical users cannot make changes to the basic system routing and processing. Basically, let the mixer be used for the things that are changed and/or adjusted on a regular basis and let a system processor handle all the processing, mixing, routing, etc. related to the portions of the system that do not change. Using your example, you would use matrix sends to create different left and right side fills, but once that is done would those matrix mixes then normally be left alone? What if you instead took the same mix buses feeding the console matrix, or at least the ones required, and ran those to a system processor where you then performed all of the mixing, processing and routing that would not need to change?

Perhaps your Director is not familiar with installed systems or at least the system processors used in such systems. Modern matrix system processors are extremely powerful and flexible. The virtual 'devices' available in matrix DSP units often include mixers (simple mixers, matrix mixers, automixers and so on), routing devices (matrix routers, combiners, distribution amplifiers), dynamics processing (limiters, compressors, expanders, gates, etc.), a variety of equalizer and filter options, presets and remote controls and so on. Some processors are 'open architecture', meaning that you can freely use and connect any of the virtual devices available as you see fit, not only allowing you to create processing that is specific to your system and use but also to create more advanced virtual processing devices by combining component devices, for example creating a multi-band compressor by using multiple band pass filters and compressors then combining that multi-band compressor with gain control, high pass filtering, EQ, de-essing, etc. to create a vocal processor device. Some matrix DSP processors can also be linked together or with expansion units to create larger I/O count devices. 

The processing capability and flexibility of such system processors is usually well beyond what is available for digital console outputs and can keep processing such as crossovers, limiters used to protect the speaker systems and so on away from people who do not need to access or adjust them. It sounds as though it may be a good idea to get someone involved who has expertise and experience with designing and installing installed audio systems, they may be able to offer some ideas and suggestions that could be beneficial.


Added: Just to give an example of what you can potentially do with a matrix system processor, imagine a LCR system with underbalcony fills. Take the LCR signals out of the console into the system processor and you can process those signals to the left, center and right speakers. But you can also create a mix for each underbalcony fill speaker that has not only the relative levels of the left, center and right signals that would occur naturally at that speaker location, but also the delay and frequency response that would be related for each of the three component signals. Take the each of the three signals (left, center and right) and delay and EQ it appropriately, then run those three signals into a mixer and adjust their relative level. Now do that independently for each underbalcony fill speaker. That is relatively simple processing for a matrix DSP box but beyond the capabilities of the processing in many digital consoles.


----------



## fx120 (Jul 5, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> No, we don't use any system processing of any kind except for an EQ and a compressor. The director's idea with the PM1D is that we would use its onboard processing as the system processor; each of those zones calls for a special mix because of how the church is set up. The choir and instruments are set on the left side with nothing on the right side. Fill zones far away on the right side would get significantly more music in the speakers than the zones on the left side, for example. Each amplifier would be connected to its own matrix mix. We would then use one DCA that every input is assigned to for master volume control.



This sounds like an extremely over complicated way of doing things, and is likely a pretty bad idea especially if you plan on training other people how to use it. In a church, it's even a worse idea because of the typically high turnover of volunteers. Specifying a highly complicated console, then coming up with an extremely complicated configuration for that console just sounds like a disaster. 

My suggestion at this point would be to hire a professional company to come in and redesign your system instead of doing it by committee.


----------



## ejsandstrom (Jul 5, 2012)

Are you stuck on a Yamaha board? If not lots of churches that want to go digital are using the Ilive. We have a IDR64 mix rack and a T112 surface. It cost under $20k and I will bet it sounds just as good as the PM1D. We have trained kids to run it, using a limited operator mode, to run a weekday service in an hour or two. The Yamaha looks daunting. For you monitor issue, we duped our inputs and ran a monitor mix off of the FOH. We have a monitor console but we were trying to get away from it. But another small mix rack and an Ipad will get you a really nice monitor set up. You will have separate gains that way. Or you can set it up so the monitor tech has gain control and the FOH has trim.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jul 5, 2012)

fx120 said:


> This sounds like an extremely over complicated way of doing things, and is likely a pretty bad idea especially if you plan on training other people how to use it. In a church, it's even a worse idea because of the typically high turnover of volunteers. Specifying a highly complicated console, then coming up with an extremely complicated configuration for that console just sounds like a disaster.
> 
> My suggestion at this point would be to hire a professional company to come in and redesign your system instead of doing it by committee.



Really its not that complicated once setup, its not as if they are tearing it out of the church and changing systems constantly. Once it goes in, the files are built it will pretty much just be fader pushing after that.


----------



## museav (Jul 6, 2012)

DuckJordan said:


> Really its not that complicated once setup, its not as if they are tearing it out of the church and changing systems constantly. Once it goes in, the files are built it will pretty much just be fader pushing after that.


Which is also one of the justifications for the mixer perhaps not being the best option to handle that processing. If that aspect of the signal routing is something that would be set and left then do you want it accessible where it could be either intentionally or inadvertently be changed, overwritten, etc.? If you have matrix mixes or similar that always remain the same then that can often be a good application of a dedicated matrix system processor.


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 7, 2012)

About the PM1D: 
The director actually tried a PM1D out and he is in love with it; no matter what console I show him, he still prefers the sound of the PM1D. Also, the director is somewhat of a Yamaha fanatic, so the console must be a Yamaha (he won't approve any other brand of console). Is there any other Yamaha console out there worth exploring? We would be purchasing two consoles: one for FOH and one for monitor world, so it would be ideal for the consoles to be identical. Our largest production is the big winter show we put on before Christmas; that calls for 80 inputs, 24 mono in-ear monitor outputs (we actually have to use the FOH PM4K's stereo auxes for additional monitor mixes), 4 effects sends, and the LCR + subs + fills system. We actually have to rent another two PM4K's just to put the show on! On a normal Sunday, though, we generally use between 32 to 48 mono inputs and 12 in-ear monitor mixes: 10 in mono with personal mix and 2 in stereo (we would really like to upgrade to all stereo ears, even for the big winter show). I am yet to find any other console with this kind of I/O and I'd really like to not have to use two consoles in a master/slave configuration for either FOH or monitor world. I apologize for not clarifying our specific I/O earlier.

I can see how a system processor would be greatly beneficial, but is there any way to change the signal routing remotely? The mix that the fill zones receive changes depending on what is going on in the church. During services, we use the fill speakers for speech reinforcement in the left side and music reinforcement in the right side. During concerts, we use the zones as delayed Stereo outputs. All the FOH techs have to memorize the matrix mixer settings on the 4K. I'd really like to be able to sync the processor's presets and the FOH console's presets.


----------



## tk2k (Jul 7, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> About the PM1D:
> Is there any other Yamaha console out there worth exploring? We would be purchasing two consoles: one for FOH and one for monitor world, so it would be ideal for the consoles to be identical. Our largest production is the big winter show we put on before Christmas; that calls for 80 inputs, 24 mono in-ear monitor outputs (we actually have to use the FOH PM4K's stereo auxes for additional monitor mixes), 4 effects sends, and the LCR + subs + fills system.
> 
> I can see how a system processor would be greatly beneficial, but is there any way to change the signal routing remotely? .



I'm not used to working with churches, but does the director normally have that much say over what console you pick?! I would be extremely surprised if you swapped the pm1d for, say, a Venue or iLive system, and he could actually tell a difference in sound quality..... I think you have to make the case to the director that any *replacement parts for the 1D will be over ten years old*, and the chancing of finding replacement parts in the next ten years will be extremely low. It's like requiring all your music to be brought in on vinyl... some people think it sounds better, but really you're just over-complicating things. Also if your 1D ever goes down and needs to be sent out, good luck *renting* a replacement for those two weeks. You'd have to re-train and re-program all your shows for a modern console awyway. 

Anyway, if you have to go this route look at the Yamaha CL serise. They are designed for exactly this sort of distributed system you are talking about. It runs on a distributed mulit-point network, and shares audio with more than one console using gain compensation. The Rio3224-D, which are the 'remote stage box' units, are 32x16, and you can use up to five on your system. The advantage of this distributed audio network also is that you can place them whereever you want. 




Additionally the monitor and FOH console do not need a direct link, only to be connected somewhere in the chain. It's all Cat6 TCP/IP so no expensive networking hardware required. If you want, you can even run fiber and shoot the Dante signal across several miles to a second building or something along those lines. Also since its Dante you can do multichannel recording of everything via an ethernet cable. 

To your last question, YES certainly. LAKE is the big-bucks standard when it comes to system processors. You can access it via any computer/tablet interface, and it's extremely powerful and easy to tweek on the fly, or design presets for. Aka, if yo're only using the bottom level of the church, turn off the top fills and use beam steering (not sure of your mains) to tailor to different room configurations.

Again though, what I would strongly suggest is the system tuning and system process setup be done by a trained lake engineer. Just like anyone 'can do' system tuning, if you have the budget your gear seems to express, it's worth the 2k for a real solid calibration.


One last thing I just feel I need to add. The CL series was basically built for churches and other permanent installs where you can run Cat6 through the walls to everywhere. That being said, if I was in your place and had the budget, I would go with either an iLive system with two desks linked together and two mixracks (128 inputs 64 outputs, 16fx channels and full dynamics on each channel), or if you had the budget two Venue Profile systems and an analogue split. It's one of the most powerful, yet most intuitive consoles I've ever used.


----------



## Footer (Jul 7, 2012)

You are also falling into the SD9 price range. Digico makes the best sounding digital consoles out there. 

Processing is a must. Either lake or xta are both good ways to go. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## tk2k (Jul 7, 2012)

Footer said:


> You are also falling into the SD9 price range. Digico makes the best sounding digital consoles out there.
> 
> Processing is a must. Either lake or xta are both good ways to go.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2



That's true, does the SD9 allow cascading/ console linking in the same way the iLive and Yamaha systems do? I agree that it's a fantastic theater console, I just wasn't aware it did digital sharing as efficiently? The whole LBB LBR sharing system always felt like it lacked full integration, then again it's been a while since i've used one in this way.


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 7, 2012)

tk2k said:


> I'm not used to working with churches, but does the director normally have that much say over what console you pick?! I would be extremely surprised if you swapped the pm1d for, say, a Venue or iLive system, and he could actually tell a difference in sound quality..... I think you have to make the case to the director that any *replacement parts for the 1D will be over ten years old*, and the chancing of finding replacement parts in the next ten years will be extremely low. It's like requiring all your music to be brought in on vinyl... some people think it sounds better, but really you're just over-complicating things. Also if your 1D ever goes down and needs to be sent out, good luck *renting* a replacement for those two weeks. You'd have to re-train and re-program all your shows for a modern console awyway.
> 
> Anyway, if you have to go this route look at the Yamaha CL serise. They are designed for exactly this sort of distributed system you are talking about. It runs on a distributed mulit-point network, and shares audio with more than one console using gain compensation. The Rio3224-D, which are the 'remote stage box' units, are 32x16, and you can use up to five on your system. The advantage of this distributed audio network also is that you can place them whereever you want.
> 
> ...



Yes, the director has complete power over what sound equipment the church purchases. To get anything that costs over 500 dollars, I have to bring it up to the director and he has to personally sign off on it. If he approves, the pastor will write him a check to buy the equipment. But for things like bulk mic cable, wired SM58's, spare bodypacks and batteries, I can go directly to the pastor and ask him for the money to buy it. 

The CL series looks like an amazing console, but it doesn't look like it can support the 24 stereo ears my director wants; he wants to be able to transition to all stereo ears ("this is the 21st century, not the 70's. Mono in our new sound system is unacceptable for monitors and house"). Personally, I'd love to use a CL5 at least for FOH.


----------



## fx120 (Jul 8, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> The CL series looks like an amazing console, but it doesn't look like it can support the 24 stereo ears my director wants; he wants to be able to transition to all stereo ears ("this is the 21st century, not the 70's. Mono in our new sound system is unacceptable for monitors and house"). Personally, I'd love to use a CL5 at least for FOH.



Your director is insane and needs to get a grasp on reality. If having 24 stereo separate mixes is a must have (and unless you're the set of American Idol, I don't see why it is), a single console is not the way to go. Rent a second monitor console, feed it with a second split, and for the love of god bring on a separate engineer to handle the additional task. 24 st mixes for a one off holiday production sounds like a nightmare. Purchasing a 10 year old console that is out of production and with an uncertain future where parts and support are concerned just so you can make one single holiday show fit is just a bad idea. 

Again, my recommendation is to hire a professional consultant to come in and talk some bleeding sense into your director.


----------



## museav (Jul 8, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> Also, the director is somewhat of a Yamaha fanatic, so the console must be a Yamaha (he won't approve any other brand of console). Is there any other Yamaha console out there worth exploring? We would be purchasing two consoles: one for FOH and one for monitor world, so it would be ideal for the consoles to be identical. Our largest production is the big winter show we put on before Christmas; that calls for 80 inputs, 24 mono in-ear monitor outputs (we actually have to use the FOH PM4K's stereo auxes for additional monitor mixes), 4 effects sends, and the LCR + subs + fills system. We actually have to rent another two PM4K's just to put the show on! On a normal Sunday, though, we generally use between 32 to 48 mono inputs and 12 in-ear monitor mixes: 10 in mono with personal mix and 2 in stereo (we would really like to upgrade to all stereo ears, even for the big winter show). I am yet to find any other console with this kind of I/O and I'd really like to not have to use two consoles in a master/slave configuration for either FOH or monitor world. I apologize for not clarifying our specific I/O earlier.


In the current Yamaha product line, a PM5D with a PM5D-EX expander will support 96 mono and 8 stereo inputs and 48 omni outputs with 24 mix and 8 matrix buses. A CL5 system will support 72 mono and 8 stereo inputs and 27 mix (24 + left, right and center/mono) and 8 matrix buses. Note that the matrix buses on the CL series are separate mix buses and not limited to only mixes of the other mix buses.

Since the CL series uses Dante connectivity to remote I/O boxes, outputs are a factor of the I/O boxes and the 64x64 capability of Dante. For example, a simple system with a CL5 and two Rio3224-D I/O boxes would provide 64 analog inputs, 32 analog outputs and 8 AES outputs at the stage along with 8 analog in, 8 analog out and an AES out at the console, and that is without using any of the three card slots in the console. If you loaded everything to its max for outputs I think you can get 122 outputs on a CL system (64 remote output, 48 console card outputs, 8 console Omni out and 2 console AES out).


MasterTech said:


> I can see how a system processor would be greatly beneficial, but is there any way to change the signal routing remotely? The mix that the fill zones receive changes depending on what is going on in the church. During services, we use the fill speakers for speech reinforcement in the left side and music reinforcement in the right side. During concerts, we use the zones as delayed Stereo outputs. All the FOH techs have to memorize the matrix mixer settings on the 4K. I'd really like to be able to sync the processor's presets and the FOH console's presets.


As long as there is a way for the console to trigger the system processor, then most system processors do support some form of presets. And not only can you change the settings for the virtual devices in the processor, you can change the entire processing and routing configuration (although that is often not instantaneous and/or causes an audible 'glitch' so I would not do it in the middle of a show or service). You can also allow user access to the processor via an attached computer and on most processors can create custom interfaces and/or security levels that allow most users to only access certain controls.


MasterTech said:


> As we look for equipment, we saw a PM1D with two engines for a very reasonable price. Our current system is a PM4K at FOH and a PM4000M at monitor world with a glitchy analog snake (the snake will be removed during the upgrade).




MasterTech said:


> The CL series looks like an amazing console, but it doesn't look like it can support the 24 stereo ears my director wants; he wants to be able to transition to all stereo ears ("this is the 21st century, not the 70's. Mono in our new sound system is unacceptable for monitors and house").


Do you know the specifics about the two 'engines' and how everything is configured? A standard DSP1D handles 48 mono and 4 stereo inputs while the DSP1D-EX with the optional input processing board handles 96 mono and 8 stereo inputs. A system with two 'engines' and a single console suggest that it was used for "mirror mode" operation with redundant processing and routing.

I as this because while the PM1D is the only Yamaha offering with 48 mix buses plus a stereo bus, since the Matrix mixes are fed off the mix and stereo buses I'm not sure a single PM1D system would support 24 stereo monitor mixes and the house mixes you require. You would seem to need to have two separate systems to handle all of the inputs and outputs you envision. And if you are willing to consider two separate system with an analog split then that opens up several other possibilities.

Oh, and while it is 2012, unless you developed stereo vocalists, stereo horns and strings and a stereo pastor then I'll be the majority of your sources are still mono.


MasterTech said:


> About the PM1D:
> The director actually tried a PM1D out and he is in love with it; no matter what console I show him, he still prefers the sound of the PM1D. Also, the director is somewhat of a Yamaha fanatic, so the console must be a Yamaha (he won't approve any other brand of console). Is there any other Yamaha console out there worth exploring?


But will the aspects of the 'sound' of the PM1D your Director loved actually matter in real world use? Many times some of the subtle difference in how a mixer sounds are made moot by the effects of the speaker systems and their tuning, the room acoustics, the ambient noise, the direct sound from vocalists and instruments on stage and so on. That is also a factor in any listening tests on which someone bases a comparison, how might those same aspects have affected what was heard when you listened to any particular mixer. There is no denying that different mixers sound different, but there is a very real practical consideration in how that may translate to or affect what is actually heard from the system in normal use.


MasterTech said:


> We're installing a new sound system in my church (LCR FOH with fills, several zoned speakers, and stereo subwoofers) and a new monitor system to go with it in a few months.




MasterTech said:


> Yes, the director has complete power over what sound equipment the church purchases.


Is the same general approach being applied to the rest of the system upgrade including the speaker system? A LCR system requires proper design to function as intended and, quite frankly, the mention of 'stereo' subwoofers in conjunction with an LCR system seems rather incongruous (and possibly not the best idea). With the money the church appears to be investing I sincerely hope someone is doing a lot more planning and design than throwing some favorite brand speakers around the room.


----------



## tk2k (Jul 8, 2012)

Wrote a really long reply before cb shat itself for a day. 

Anyway sd7 is the way to go for your monitor console, but you'll spend 100k on it. Get an analogue split and get a venue profile for front of house. 

Tell your director the 1d is a terrible choice that will haunt your av productions for years to come. Tell him an entire forum of experts told you it was a bad idea. 

Or hire an audio consultant firm, no firm would ever speck a 1d for the theater therefor there's no risk of your director getting what he wants. 

One major question that hasn't been answered, what's your budget?

Hire Brad even

Or call AGI systems in Oregon. Ey are a Christian audio company that works with churches. They have great pricing and "speak the language" unlike me. Tell your doctor it's gods money and you can't in good whatever let him buy the 1d


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 9, 2012)

well, about the budget, we have 200k for everything; we only need the consoles, speakers, cabling, and additional in-ear monitor systems. 

This is just me thinking out loud, but do you all think a PM5D + DSP5D for FOH and a PM1D for monitor world with an analog split would work well? I spoke with the director and he agrees that a 5D would work for FOH since it doesn't need as many mixes as monitor world needs. And from what I've seen, the 5D can be more throughly integrated into the DME64N we're considering for the system processor. Other digitals with as many outputs as the PM1D has are kind of out of the ballpark. 

Would the 1D still be a bad choice in monitor world? From what you all have told me, I really don't want to see the 1D out at FOH.


----------



## museav (Jul 9, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> well, about the budget, we have 200k for everything; we only need the consoles, speakers, cabling, and additional in-ear monitor systems.
> 
> This is just me thinking out loud, but do you all think a PM5D + DSP5D for FOH and a PM1D for monitor world with an analog split would work well? I spoke with the director and he agrees that a 5D would work for FOH since it doesn't need as many mixes as monitor world needs. And from what I've seen, the 5D can be more throughly integrated into the DME64N we're considering for the system processor. Other digitals with as many outputs as the PM1D has are kind of out of the ballpark.
> 
> Would the 1D still be a bad choice in monitor world? From what you all have told me, I really don't want to see the 1D out at FOH.


Since you have a fixed budget my suggestion would be to think big picture. You need a speaker system that will provide the coverage, output, response, etc. desired and you need the basic infrastructure in place to support everything. So start with making sure you have those aspects properly addressed. Then also consider all the cable, hardware, installation, testing, tuning, documentation, etc. costs involved. That may help define the budget you then have for everything else.

It may be good to address some terminology issues, some of which become important in dealing with digital consoles. Unlike analog consoles where there is pretty much a direct relationship between inputs and channels and and between mix buses and outputs, that does not necessarily apply to digital consoles. Many digital mixers, and just about anything in the range you are considering, utilize virtual input and output patching. Basically, you have a central 'brain' that can process a certain number of input channels and a certain number of mix buses. The actual physical inputs to the mixer are assigned to the channels via software input patching, thus you can have more inputs than you have channels and via the mixer configuration software assign the inputs to channels as desired. Similarly, the mix buses are assigned to physical outputs from the mixer by software output patching and thus you can have more outputs than buses with a bus assigned to multiple outputs. I bring this up as the limiting factor for the stereo IEMs seems likely to be in the number of mix buses supported rather than being the number of outputs.

I personally find it difficult to give a specific recommendation regarding the PM1D without knowing more specifics such as the configuration of the system, the condition of the system, the cost and so on. Many people really like using the PM1D, finding it fairly easy to transition to from the analog world. Some of the concerns in some applications include the large physical size, but if you currently have a large format analog console then that may not be a factor for you. It is an older basic design and has been discontinued and while Yamaha is usually very good about parts inventory, it does mean that you may have to look to the used market for many related items. It also uses large 68 pin SCSI cables as interconnects, something you may have to consider in terms of infrastructure and for which there apparently is becoming some difficulty obtaining as people with PM1D systems seem to be holding onto the cables they have.



tk2k said:


> I'm not used to working with churches, but does the director normally have that much say over what console you pick?!


It is rather amazing how much power some Music Directors of Ministers of Music wield. It is also surprising how much politics can be involved in other church leadership hesitating to tell such people "no", I've seen churches go to great lengths to get a good MoM or Music Director only to then find themselves in a relationship where they are afraid that person will walk if they don't get their way. Several times I have found a big part of my role is to be the arbiter between the MoM's goals and the goals of other church leadership. I have literally had a pastor pull me aside after a meeting and thank me for telling the MoM the things everyone else was afraid to say. And just to be clear, this is not a condemnation of the MoMs, it is simply that their goals and priorities do not always coincide with that of the rest of the church leadership and for some reason there often seems to be rather limited or tenuous communication between those parties.

Another common situation for churches, and many other applications, is some parties taking the perspective of it being 'their' system. This is easy to understand and it is good to see people taking such a personal interest, however the reality is that the church is likely going to have an audio system for many years regardless of whether the media, music and tech staff change. Maybe look at it this way, a console decision was made now based solely on the current Music Director's personal preferences, then would the church plan to replace the mixer if next year that individual left and their replacement had a different preference? I have been involved in church projects where all of the primary tech and music worship staff changed between the time the project started and the time it was completed and have find that while the personal preferences of some individuals are important, they often have to be balanced with what may best serve the church in the long run.


tk2k said:


> To your last question, YES certainly. LAKE is the big-bucks standard when it comes to system processors. You can access it via any computer/tablet interface, and it's extremely powerful and easy to tweek on the fly, or design presets for. Aka, if yo're only using the bottom level of the church, turn off the top fills and use beam steering (not sure of your mains) to tailor to different room configurations.


Lake processing is very nice but there are many options. The system processor may also be very dependent on the speaker system as some companies such as d&B and Nexo offer processing, amplification and speakers that are all made to work together as an integrated system.


tk2k said:


> The CL series was basically built for churches and other permanent installs where you can run Cat6 through the walls to everywhere. That being said, if I was in your place and had the budget, I would go with either an iLive system with two desks linked together and two mixracks (128 inputs 64 outputs, 16fx channels and full dynamics on each channel), or if you had the budget two Venue Profile systems and an analogue split. It's one of the most powerful, yet most intuitive consoles I've ever used.




Footer said:


> You are also falling into the SD9 price range. Digico makes the best sounding digital consoles out there.
> 
> Processing is a must. Either lake or xta are both good ways to go.


DiGiCo and Avid/Digidesign consoles are very popular in the tour and theatre worlds, however they are less common in House of Worship applications where Yamaha, A&H, Soundcraft/Studer and even Midas seem to be the more popular choices for larger format digital consoles. A lot of that has to do with user interfaces that are more intuitive for volunteer operators as while the DiGiCo and Venue consoles may be effective to use once you get the hang of them, the general consensus I've gotten from many that are quite familiar with all the options is that they are generally less 'user friendly' for volunteers, a view my experience also supports.

Like the PM1D, the original Lake Processor was discontinued some years ago. Lake is now part of LabGruppen and both their and xta processors are similar in that they are common in some markets but much less so in the House of Worship market where brands like BSS, dbx, Peavey Nion, Xilica, Yamaha, Biamp and some others are much more common. One reason the Lake and xta are probably not as common in HoW applications is that they are rather limited in size and flexibility, they are a fixed rather than open architecture approach and they are limited in terms of the number of inputs and outputs a processor can support. I have designed projects with other processors providing overall system processing that then feeds multiple Lake processors providing the processing for each speaker or array, also applying that same approach for Nexo and d&b systems using their processing. Lake and xta processing is also rather expensive, especially on a 'per processing path' basis, which is a factor for many churches. However, it should be noted that a Yamaha mini-YGDAI card with 8x8 Lake processing is now available that may be a little more cost effective, however it is apparently not compatible with the PM1D (another factor in the age of the PM1D is that many of the newer mini-YGDAI cards may not be compatible).


tk2k said:


> Again though, what I would strongly suggest is the system tuning and system process setup be done by a trained lake engineer. Just like anyone 'can do' system tuning, if you have the budget your gear seems to express, it's worth the 2k for a real solid calibration.


I strongly agree with the importance of system tuning. You are typically spending a lot of money on a speaker system and will hopefully be using it for many years, so system optimization is usually a very wise investment.

I do differ a bit on the qualifications. I think that the party that configures and programs the processor(s) should be qualified to do so, but for the system tuning the important factors to me are someone with a good understanding of the physics involved, who has the tools to help them and knows how to use them and, most importantly, who has a good ear for not only what sounds 'right' but for also discerning when it doesn't sound right and identifying the potential cause. Thus it may be that the person performing the speaker system tuning is not necessarily the same person providing the initial processor programming and configuration to get the system working properly.


----------



## MasterTech (Jul 9, 2012)

> Since you have a fixed budget my suggestion would be to think big picture. You need a speaker system that will provide the coverage, output, response, etc. desired and you need the basic infrastructure in place to support everything. So start with making sure you have those aspects properly addressed. Then also consider all the cable, hardware, installation, testing, tuning, documentation, etc. costs involved. That may help define the budget you then have for everything else.



The speakers we're really considering as the QSC KLA series with one subwoofer on top of the L and R stacks. They've got the coverage we need, especially in an LCR setup. Also, our budget is 200k, but if we need more, we can get it no problem. Our pastor is also excited to get the new system!


> I personally find it difficult to give a specific recommendation regarding the PM1D without knowing more specifics such as the configuration of the system, the condition of the system, the cost and so on. Many people really like using the PM1D, finding it fairly easy to transition to from the analog world. Some of the concerns in some applications include the large physical size, but if you currently have a large format analog console then that may not be a factor for you. It is an older basic design and has been discontinued and while Yamaha is usually very good about parts inventory, it does mean that you may have to look to the used market for many related items. It also uses large 68 pin SCSI cables as interconnects, something you may have to consider in terms of infrastructure and for which there apparently is becoming some difficulty obtaining as people with PM1D systems seem to be holding onto the cables they have.



We located a PM1D that has been babied since the day it was purchased; the only problem I can see with it is rack rash from having been installed in the rack for so long. The engine is a DSP1D-EX so it can do 96 channels. It's got 6 AI8 mic boxes; it's got the A/B mic pres. It's got 2 AO8 analog output boxes. It costs about $40,000 and includes all cables, including the redundant connection between CS1D and engine. I think it would be perfect for monitor world. 

For FOH, I'm seriously considering PM5D + DCU5D + DSP5D and a 56-channel analog snake with a rackmounted mic splitter. My idea is this: To match the PM1D's 96 + 8 input capability, we will use the PM5D's integrated inputs and the DSP5D's inputs and outputs, giving us the 96 + 8 inputs we need. I can then install any processing card in the DSP5D. If we go this route (PM5D gets 1-48 and ST 1-4 while DSP5D gets 49-96 and ST 5-8), are there any advantages between a base 5D and the RH model? 

In the "engine room", we would install 14 8-channel mic splitters. Installed below the splitters are the AI8 units, DSP5D, and the analog snake connection back to the PM5D. The splitter direct out goes to the AI8s while isolated outputs 1-56 go up the analog snake to the PM5D at FOH. Isolated outputs 57-112 then plug into the DSP5D. FOH is then output from the DSP5D only; the Mix Out connectors on the PM5D itself would then be repatched for things like direct outs. 

We would run two cables from the engine room to the monitor position, where the AO8s are installed. The AO8s then connect to the IEM transmitters behind the monitor engineer's back. 



> It is rather amazing how much power some Music Directors of Ministers of Music wield. It is also surprising how much politics can be involved in other church leadership hesitating to tell such people "no", I've seen churches go to great lengths to get a good MoM or Music Director only to then find themselves in a relationship where they are afraid that person will walk if they don't get their way. Several times I have found a big part of my role is to be the arbiter between the MoM's goals and the goals of other church leadership. I have literally had a pastor pull me aside after a meeting and thank me for telling the MoM the things everyone else was afraid to say. And just to be clear, this is not a condemnation of the MoMs, it is simply that their goals and priorities do not always coincide with that of the rest of the church leadership and for some reason there often seems to be rather limited or tenuous communication between those parties.



I agree with you on that; I also find myself as a mediator between the church higher ups and the DoM (being DoA myself). The way that we do things at church, the Music Ministry and the Audio Ministry are two completely independent, yet interdependent groups; much like how the Federal Reserve is independent of and interdependent on the federal government. For any major projects, however, the DoM and DoA must come to a consensus. Our DoM is a really nice guy, but he's just a little stubborn. I was just able to convince him that a PM1D isn't the best idea for something that's mission critical and instead push him in the direction of the PM5D. 

If we get the DME64N and connect it to the DSP5D, would that make speaker processors like a SP2060 redundant? Also, in terms of processing, what can speaker processors and Lake processing do that a DME64N can't? If it makes a difference, I'm planning to install an AES card in the DSP5D, use that to connect to the DME64N and then go analog out from the DME to the speakers.


----------



## museav (Jul 10, 2012)

MasterTech said:


> The speakers we're really considering as the QSC KLA series with one subwoofer on top of the L and R stacks. They've got the coverage we need, especially in an LCR setup. Also, our budget is 200k, but if we need more, we can get it no problem. Our pastor is also excited to get the new system!


I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the speaker system proposed. Nothing against the QSC KLA system but given the mixers being considered and some of you DoM's comments, I expected to see Meyer, d&b, Nexo, Danley, Martin or something like that. What led you to selecting the KLA arrays and did you get an opportunity to demo them in your space? Just curious as while I have heard the KLAs in limited demos, there seems to be minimal reviews of them in real world use so I'd be interested in your comments on them.

I am surprised to see you considering just one sub on top of only the left and right arrays. I take it you are planning on aux fed subs as otherwise with an LCR system having no sub for the center channel would cause the sound to vary when you pan, but given the mixer requirements and apparent complexity of the system I'm still a bit surprised that you would be considering just two single 18" subs.

I don't know anything about the size, shape or acoustical environment of your space but I'm not clear regarding the "They've got the coverage we need, especially in an LCR setup" comment as in an LCR system all three channels have to each individually cover all of the seating, thus the speakers that work well for a LCR configuration would inherently also work for a center array mono or stereo configuration. The KLA are a simple constant curvature array with a nominal 90x18 pattern for each box (i.e. an overall array pattern of 90x18 for one box, 90x36 for two, 90x54 for three, 90x72 for four boxes and 90x90 for five). That may work well for your space but has anybody performed any predictive modeling or similar for the system? And just a suggestion to assess the power and structural loads related to the KLA arrays before getting too far along in the system planning, I've seen well developed plans completely upset by unexpected and costly issues related to power and/or structural aspects associated with the speaker arrays.


MasterTech said:


> If we get the DME64N and connect it to the DSP5D, would that make speaker processors like a SP2060 redundant? Also, in terms of processing, what can speaker processors and Lake processing do that a DME64N can't? If it makes a difference, I'm planning to install an AES card in the DSP5D, use that to connect to the DME64N and then go analog out from the DME to the speakers.


The DME64N is an open architecture, expandable matrix system processor. There is probably nothing the SP2060 can do that the DME can't, although the inverse is not true. What the DME can't do that some dedicated, manufacturer specific speaker processors can do is have presets for common assocaited system configurations or provide interactive speaker monitoring and protection. It seems that in your case that someone will have to program, configure and adjust the DME for your specific system and application.

Lake processors are known for the 'transparency' of their Raised Cosine EQ and 'linear phase' crossovers, their Mesa EQ that allows asymmetric filtering with different slopes for each side of the filter and their advanced LimiterMax limiting that combines RMS limiting, peak limiting and other processing. With some other digital signal processors now also employing FIR filters, and in some cases the option of FIR and/or IIR filters, as well as the ability to create complex limiters, etc., some of that functionality is no longer as exclusive a capability as it once was. Lake processors are also known for their intuitive user interfaces, although that may be most relevant to touring applications where the processor has to be adjusted on a regular basis.


----------



## maestrobranson (Sep 10, 2012)

I agree with the previous posters...it seems like you have your cart before the horse sonically speaking. I think that maybe you need to reevaluate what needs the money and where. I haven't heard the kla series, but I have heard everything else qsc puts out....hmm. I had to design a system for theatre company that I worked for and had a budget half of that. I had speced an m7 (the sc48 came out after our new pa was installed) and the director called full compass for everything else. When I got their design, they had speced 40 channels of Shure UHF-r and three vrx boxes a side with one sub a side. I changed that completely with a Meyer pa (properly designed) and 20 channels of ulxp. Would I have loved uhfr? Yes, but the properly designed pa was worth it's weight in gold.

*jump off of soap box*

The pm1d is a great desk, I would just be very wary of using one when there are great choices that are current and currently supported/built. I think that two 5ds would work, or many of the other desks listed. And does the music director really need 24 ST ear mixes? It seems like extravagance. But, if you have the money...go for it. 

Alas, it seems like I didn't really add to the discussion at hand very much. I just had to chime in with my experience and throw in my weight with the previous posters.


----------



## chausman (Sep 10, 2012)

maestrobranson said:


> I haven't heard the kla series, but I have heard everything else qsc puts out....hmm.



If you were to finish that thought, what would you say about everything else QSC makes? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mstaylor (Sep 10, 2012)

I am a QSC fan but as with any speaker or manufacturer, there is no one size fits all solution. What sounds great in one room could be horrible in another. The same goes for line array vs clusters, depends on the room and structure. I have no experience with the 1D but unless you had one laying around it seems a bad idea to base a new system on old technology, no matter how nice the layout.


----------



## Talley (Sep 16, 2012)

So what did you end up doing?

And how is it working out for you?


----------



## JohnySmith (Jun 7, 2013)

First off... Mixing 24 stereo IEM from FOH and Mixing FOH is the very definition of INSANE!!! Your Music Director will discover what a bad idea it is on sunday Number one when the entire soundcheck is complete and utter chaos and everyone is hatting life!!!

Alright.... the PM1D WAS the BEST Church digital console.... My church owns 4 of them across 4 locations... All mixing monitors..... Killer control surface. Still my #1 option for a monitor board where speed is the #1 priority....

But the boss seriously hasn't listened to any modern consoles if he thinks the PM1D sounds good... Cause it really doesn't... The Midas wins on sonics, and digico is #2... However reliablity and ease of use for volunteers makes them a bad idea for a church who runs on volunteers....

PM1D is old now and you won't be able to get parts for it so its a REALLY BAD IDEA to go buy a used one....
My advice? Buy the CL5 as suggested. 1 for FOH, and 1 For Monitors.....They technically do 88 channels each (64 over the built in dante interface, + 8 more monos, + 8 more stereos = 88inputs). Adding 1 dante card gets you up to the desired channel count of 80 inputs..... You can also multi track your services easily on a CL5, which allows you to play each recorded channel back into the console for training with volunteers...... Or your "director" can come in during the week and play back the services and listen to what the band actually played.... He can solo each singer/musician to here if they are doing what he wants.... Also, you can install Dante Virtual Soundcard on any computers you need audio from and keep it digital the whole way (IE- Video Playbacks from PPS or PVP, or BGM at FOH).... 

Sounds like 32 busses (16 stereo IEM) will get the job done for the entire year except for the christmas show....

Yamaha is probably the most common digitial console manufacturer on the planet..... Come christmas time you just need to hire 1x additional CL5 surface and maybe some extra I/O and one of the monitor guys on your normal rotation can mix the extra sends on it...You'll end up with 2 monitor boards each doing 16 stereo ears..... For all of our major events/conferences we have 2x monitor guys... One does all the singers, the other does band.....

DONE..... Also, having the same board at FOH and MONs is a big win because you only have to teach 1 system to all the volunteers so the team can easily jump between FOH and MONITORS as needed.....


Also... NO I don't work for Yamaha... I'm a church audio guy full time.....

Hope this helps!


----------



## Chris15 (Jun 7, 2013)

JohnySmith said:


> My church owns 4 of them across 4 locations... All mixing monitors...



And assuming it's the church I think it is, originally there was a PM1D at FOH, but that's like 10 years ago when the building was first opened and a PM1D was state of the art...


----------

