# Digico SD9/iLive Info-seek



## DiscoBoxer (Jan 13, 2011)

I have been looking into the Digico SD9 console and have been pretty excited about the price point compared to their other consoles. 

Has anyone here got to play with one and is the processing speed similar to the SD7? I like that if the control interface looses power, the remote DSP's will remain in their last state so continuity of sound remains. Does anyone here know if the iLive does the same?

thanks,
Disco


----------



## metti (Jan 13, 2011)

DiscoBoxer said:


> I like that if the control interface looses power, the remote DSP's will remain in their last state so continuity of sound remains. Does anyone here know if the iLive does the same?


 
Yes. The way the iLive system works is that the stage boxes are really the mixers and the surfaces and/or you're laptop are just a remote way to control the mixer (plus a bit of I/O in the case of the surfaces). If you lose power or connectivity with the surface, the boxes keep on processing and you could even set it up with a laptop connected in parallel so you can just take over mixing on that until you get the surface up.

I have used a t112/iDR-48 system once on a show and I liked it. I have never used the SD9 but if it has the scene programing flexibility and power of the other Digico models, I would imagine that it would be a good fit for theatre as long as you are good with only 32/16 I/O without buying an expensive second stage box.


----------



## museav (Jan 13, 2011)

DiscoBoxer said:


> I have been looking into the Digico SD9 console and have been pretty excited about the price point compared to their other consoles.
> 
> Has anyone here got to play with one and is the processing speed similar to the SD7? I like that if the control interface looses power, the remote DSP's will remain in their last state so continuity of sound remains. Does anyone here know if the iLive does the same?


I believe that the processing in and audio quality of the SD9 is similar to that of the SD7 and SD8, however none of these consoles use remote DSPs, they combine the work surface and processor into one device with remote stage boxes to increase the physical I/O of the system. In the case of the SD9 the console has local I/O of 8 mic/line in, 8 line out, 2 AES (4 channels) in and 2 AES (4 channels) out and a standard package comes with one D-Rack remote stage rack that has 32 mic/line in and 8 line out. So with these consoles losing connectivity between the 'work surface' and the remote stage box would lose the I/O of the stage box but the console would continue operating. However, if you lose the 'work surface' power then since the 'work surface' is also the processor the system would stop functioning.

As Metti noted, the iLive uses a different approach in that the processing for the related I/O is part of each I/O device with the work surface being a control and limited I/O device. With the iLive you can lose power or connectivity for the work surface and all of the other devices in the system continue operating as they were when the work surface went away. In fact one of my clients often configures the system with the work surface connected and then removes the work surface entirely and mixes from a laptop or tablet or for very simple events lets the users use one of the small wall mount PL remotes that can be used with the system. It should also be noted that before an IP conflict between the iLive work surface and another device on the network, but was not always on, was resolved they had several experiences where the iLive work surface locked up but the system kept running.

The iLive console has expansion ports and the rack is modular. The SD9 console has fixed I/O and the D-Rack expansion is limited to going from 8 to 16 outputs, although you could use an additional MiniRack, MADiRack or DiGiRack for more flexible I/O. I bring this up because if the I/O count and limited I/O flexibility of the standard SD9 package works for you then the iLive-T might be a better comparison rather than a full iLive system. Everything else noted would be the same and I think that in both cases there was a shared concept of reducing the system cost compared to the higher priced consoles they offer by limiting the flexibility of the I/O.


----------



## DiscoBoxer (Jan 14, 2011)

MuseAV, thanks for the correction as I had listed the consoles in reverse order in regards to remote processors. I like that feature on the iLive series as an added fail-over.

Both systems will allow remote interface with a computer/ipad for control. This is a very useful concept when it comes to "dialing-in" a system......and for correcting other volunteer engineer levels.

I have had the opportunity to play on both the SD7 and SD8. I love the power of the Digico consoles and how the "layering" system works in the software with user designated color coding. The other thing I like, in the D-Rack 32x8, is that the channels are all stereo, thus allowing the capability to be 64x16 on the standard D-Rack. From my understanding, you can connect two D-Racks to the unit without expansion cards and get up to 128x32. 

I have lots of experience working on A&H analogs and love them. I have never touched an iLive and I am hoping for my dealer to provide me with a demo over the next few weeks to try it out. I don't know if I would be interested in the T-Series as it has a fixed architecture and the SD-9 is far more flexible. I find this to be very attractive.

Can you explain the iLive recall functions? The digico will allow you to take snapshots of a channel to store and is not limited to a full scene capture like the M7. How is the flexibility with that on the iLive?

Thanks!


----------



## museav (Jan 14, 2011)

DiscoBoxer said:


> I love the power of the Digico consoles and how the "layering" system works in the software with user designated color coding.


The iLive also incorporates user defined color coding, as do the Soundcraft and Studer digital mixers. I find this a great help, especially if some faders switch between different input and output assignments. I also find the electronic 'scribble strips' of the iLive, where inputs are electronically labeled above the fader and where the color coding is applied, a very useful feature. On the other hand, the much larger touch screen of the SD9 is nicer to use than the small screen of the iLive.


DiscoBoxer said:


> The other thing I like, in the D-Rack 32x8, is that the channels are all stereo, thus allowing the capability to be 64x16 on the standard D-Rack. From my understanding, you can connect two D-Racks to the unit without expansion cards and get up to 128x32.


The DigiCo SD9 web site states that "Each SD9 is capable of interfacing with two D-Racks, giving the ability to connect to 64 inputs and 32 outputs on stage." That is for two D-Racks so I believe there may be some confusion relating to physical inputs and outputs not having to directly match the logical channels within the mixer for digital consoles. With the SD9 you can configure two physical inputs on a D-Rack as either two logical mono channels or as a single logical stereo channel, just as you can with the iLive. However, I don't think the actual physical inputs on the D-Rack are stereo, it is a 32x8 (or with expansion 32x16) device. So I believe that the 32 physical inputs on a D-Rack could be configured as 32 mono inputs or as 16 stereo inputs or as 16 mono and 8 stereo or whatever combination you want, but with a total count of 32 audio channels. Similar for the outputs.


DiscoBoxer said:


> I don't know if I would be interested in the T-Series as it has a fixed architecture and the SD-9 is far more flexible. I find this to be very attractive.


Are you addressing internal architecture or physical system architecture? In terms of physical system architecture the iLive-T series includes three work surface options, four mix rack/stage box options, audio interface options for DANTE, RockNet, MADI, ADAT, EtherSound and their own ACE and eight remote control device options (in addition to network control). So probably more flexibility in hte overall system architecture. As far as internal architecture, comparing the iLive-T to the SD9 you have 64 input channels (configurable as mono or stereo pairs) versus 40 mono or stereo channels. 32 buses (configurable as mono or stereo Groups, Auxes, EFX, Matrix or Mains) versus 16 mono or stereo buses along with dedicated LR/LCR and 8x8 matrix. Similar input and output processing (there are differences but most of the same basic functionality). 8 stereo effects racks versus 4. 16 DCA/Mute Groups versus 8. Both use 48kHz sampling rates and both have 24bit A/D and D/A but up to 48 bit processing versus 40 bit floating point processing. Nominal 1.6ms versus 2.0ms latency. I guess it all comes down to which is more flexible for your use. For example, a SD9 could handle up to 40 stereo sources while an iLive would be limited to 32. Conversely, an iLive-T could handle up to 64 mono sources while an SD9 is apparently limited to 40 mono channels. If you have 35 stereo sources or 48 mono sources those could be significant factors.


DiscoBoxer said:


> Can you explain the iLive recall functions? The digico will allow you to take snapshots of a channel to store and is not limited to a full scene capture like the M7. How is the flexibility with that on the iLive?


The scene functionality of the DigiCo is one of its strong points while the iLive scenes were initially a definite weak point, but some of that was misunderstandings and it has been vastly improved in firmware updates (e.g. the ability to select what parameters to recall and the ability to update a Scene). The biggest initial misunderstanding that soem had in regards to the iLive was that it uses both Show and Scene memories where a Show memory is a basic system configuration memory and overwrites everything including Scenes, thus it takes some time to load, while a Scene memory does not address the DSP configuration or user settings and is much quicker. A Show memory is typically used for just that, to load a show file, which then includes Scenes but some people were initially saving and recalling Show files instead of Scenes.

There are definitely some pros and cons to the iLive Scenes but it seems like they have been pretty good at trying to respond to what users want. There are also some physical differences related to Scenes, for example the iLive does not have the physical Scene related buttons that the SD9 has, you have to use the touch screen which can be more difficult and probably a bit more prone to error, however the iLive has a physical "Scene Safe" button that lets you select on the fly any input and output channels to safe. The best idea is probably to try to play with both and also look at the related forums. You can also download the iLive Editor software, which can be run offline, from iLive - Digital Mixing Console System for Live Sound.




Comparing the details of digital consoles often involves personal preferences and simply what makes more sense to the individual. I've seen someone struggle to grasp a console that I took to very easily and then have those perspectives reversed with a different console. We could both learn to work on either, it's just that for each one of us a different console better fit how we thought. That is one reason why it can be much easier to select a digital console for you to operate than it is to select one to be operated by others and particularly by a wide variety of users. I find that in some cases you have to somewhat temper your personal preferences with how well those probably also reflect the preferences of other potential users.


----------



## DiscoBoxer (Jan 19, 2011)

Museav, that's a lot of info that I will have to explore. I appreciate your input very much!

Fixed architecture in regards to group/sum mixes limitations vs how the SD9 will allow for a more flexible assignment. But that may be what I interpret thus far.

Great news, I have an iLive112 coming for demo on Thursday! Rep will deliver and go over some bells and whistles and then leave it with us for a couple weeks. I will update you as to my thoughts.


----------



## bishopthomas (Jan 19, 2011)

We had an iLive T112 for a couple of months. It was a nice console - sounded great (big step up from M7CL), easy to use, many configuration options, digital snake... We went through several consoles though, and ended up selling it and going back to the M7CL (this time the ES model with digital snake). The entire faceplate is a big sticker. It would bubble up and peel in the sunlight. The main reason, however, we got rid of it was because we couldn't get it to work reliably with a computer connected. This is a HUGE thing for us as we often do not have a real FOH position. The console goes on the side of the stage where one guy runs monitors, and the FOH engineer goes out front with a tablet PC. We never had a single issue with Yamaha consoles but could never get the iLive setup stable. The final straw was when the surface locked up completely and the computer wouldn't work either just before a gig. We ended up having to go back for a different console and that was the last time we used the iLive.

Maybe the bugs have been worked out by now but it was very unstable for us. It sounded MUCH better than the M7CL but we just couldn't rely on it, especially when trying to use it with a computer. Let us know what you think when you get your demo.


----------



## DiscoBoxer (Jan 19, 2011)

Bishopthomas, how long ago was this? I read about a similar issues in another forum that seems to have been resolved by a patch that A&H put out. I will make sure I test this feature when the console is in place. Maybe I can request an update list from the dealer as well that describes the fixes that were addressed.

Since you and MuseAV have some experience with this console, could you fine gentlemen take a moment to let me know what are my options for post audio mixing to an outboard PC? This is one key area we want to improve on since right now the audio quality is sub-par, due to limitations of our current console and config.


----------



## bishopthomas (Jan 20, 2011)

It's been a while ago, probably in August since that gig was a college graduation. I would think (hope) they have released several firmware updates since then and all the glitches are worked out.

What are you trying to accomplish with the mixer/PC setup? Are you wanting to use the console as a software controller for your DAW? I'm not sure if the iLive will function like that (MIDI control?). What is your current setup and what about it makes the audio quality "sub-par?"


----------



## DiscoBoxer (Jan 20, 2011)

Currently, we are sending a final mix out of our FOH on a stereo aux to a Boss digital recorder. Any audio mastering we do is usually done on a PC running Adobe-CS4 Soundbooth.

I would like to generate tracks from all channels and produce a post production master. I have no understanding of how to interface with the iLive at this point. I'm sure that the rep will tell me tomorrow, but I like to be somewhat prepped so that I can ask neccesary questions.

If we do end up purchasing a new console this year, we will likely be looking at also including new options for the DAW and editing. However, I do not want to spend $10k on it (in addition to console pkg) if I don't have to and still produce a great track. My gut feeling is that we could do it for under $1000. Any suggestions are appreciated.


----------



## museav (Jan 20, 2011)

I should start by saying that my experience is much more with the iLive than the iLive-T, but they are supposedly the same basic hardware and software, just in more fixed configurations.

On the networking side, A&H recommends not putting the iLive on a network with other devices, although one of my clients has had an iLive on a network with all the other audio and comms gear (DSP, wireless mics, Clear-Com matrix, Lab Gruppen amps, etc.) and it has been pretty stable. However, we did encounter major problems, including the work surface locking up, when there was an IP address conflict and some instability when the audio subnet was tied to the campus network. On the positive side, when those problems occurred A&H went out of their way to help, even sending out a tech with a completely new iDR rack and spare parts.

That actually ties to your other question as in that case the IP conflict turned out to be from the recording system side. For that project we physically split all the mics; FOH to the iLive (and some mics to a small automixer for simple use), Monitor to a snake for portable gear and Recording to an SSL AWS 900+ SE tied to a Pro Tools HD rig. It was the default fixed IP adresses of the SSL and the iLive work surface that conflicted, the iLive would be cruising along and someone would turn on the SSL and the iLive work surface would lock up (the SSL was unaffected). Changed the IP address on the SSL and no related problems since then. But that is one reason why you have to be careful of putting the iLive on a network, if another device on the network takes one of the fixed IP addresses of the iLive when the iLive is off or if another device on the network has the same fixed IP address then that can cause real problems.

I would guess that they will probably suggest an optional MADI card or Dante card in the MixRack Slot B along with a matching card, either real or virtual in the case of Dante, in the recording computer to create a digital split for whatever inputs and outputs you decide to route to it. Either of these options would be more than $1,000, especially by the time you add in the DAW software and any controller. The iLive MADI card is around $1,300 and a RME PCI MADI card is around $1,500-$1,600. The Dante card for the iLive is apparently around $1,600 and supposedly comes with a permanent license for Dante Virtual Soundcard (regularly $150). You could also look at the iLive MMO card and an ADAT card for the computer, that might be a bit less expensive as the iLive card is around $700 and a PCI 24 channel ADAT card also around $700, but it would also be limited in channel count compared to the 64 bi-directional channels available with MADI or Dante.


----------



## bishopthomas (Jan 20, 2011)

I would definitely look into the MADI suggestions that Brad has mentioned. When I was doing more location recording I was working on building a rig based on essentially what Brad is describing. This would be a great way to get your multitracks going, and pulling fiber lines is a lot more fun than multicore.


----------



## DiscoBoxer (Jan 21, 2011)

Well, I got my hands on the console today and spent the afternoon learning the unit and in the evening using it for rehearsal.

The console is very sweet and the sound is even more impressive than our current GL3800. There are too many things to list that I like over our current config, but the flexibility is probably my number one.

Tonights rehearsal went reasonably smooth for my first time use, thus giving credit to A&H on the intuitive layout. There are some minor issues that I saw like when setting up the console and making changes to config, sometimes you will see an "apply" button to confirm a change and sometimes you don't. There doesn't seem to be a logic to when it's there and when it's not. For me being a first time user, this adds some extra time wondering if the changes I made are applied or if I need to look closer at the steps I have taken for confirmation.

Another goofy thing was accessing an aux-fx(example layer B). The pan knob will become your level control to the aux and that part is great, but when I switch back to a layer that has my mains/groups (example layer A) and then select a strip, the pan knob continues to control the fx level until I hit the "mix" button and then it returns back to "PAN" control. I would expect "PAN" to return when I select the strip as it does in other functions. This is likely a flow issue I will have to get used to but that did not seem like logic that flowed natural to me.

We discussed output for post-mixing and the suggestions that MuseAV mentioned are what were brought up. The majority of our services run about 32ch or less, so I have some flexibility I can do on the "all channels" statement I made earlier, by phisically patching what we will actually use.

I am hoping that we have configured it in such a way that will make it very easy for my lesser experienced volunteers. One of them arrived at rehearsal and picked up on it fairly quickly. It took me a bit to explain to him the difference between VCAs (that we are used to) and DCAs, but all in all, he got it. I will keep you posted as I "experience" this console and I appreciate all the input you have provided thus far!


----------



## DiscoBoxer (Jan 24, 2011)

So, today I figured out my issue with going into an FX-aux and the "PAN" control on the surface. The error was mine in that when I select the mix button to send the channel through the FX, I have to deselect it or it will not release the "PAN" control until selecting mix for another channel/DCA.

I have to say that I am very impressed with this console. The audio quality, processing, routing flexibility, build quality*, as well as the intuitive layout.

*On the build quality, my only complaint is that the faders feel "cheap". I assume that a lighter fader had to be used to keep the motion control function budget friendly in this competetive market. Other than that, the control surface and mixrack seem quality built and solid like a tank.


----------



## bishopthomas (Jan 24, 2011)

I've never used the "non-T" series, but I understand that it is a more solid console, as far as sturdiness goes, and the T series they made it more "plasticy." I agree that the faders seem a little loose, certainly not P&G's.


----------

