Master/My Fader V2.0 Are Here!

[LeeSteel]

I can see a use for that, but two fingers does that already.

Exactly what I said.

[RoadRanger]

I can see a use for that, but two fingers does that already.

Or a DCA. I don't see why we'd need the stereo linking to be different (and more confusing to most) if DCA's are coming - and if not there's always the competition. IMO stereo inputs are mostly for the DJ crowd and to accommodate the stereo FX in keyboards. I'm far more concerned about the lack of width control than having separate EQ and dynamics for the left and right inputs. And the lack of pan controls in My Fader for doing stereo IEM's.

[Jkowtko]

All I am getting out of these posts is that a few are looking to have the volume control be the only thing tied together in the pair, beside that, they want individual EQ and DSP.

From what I understand that is called "fader groups" ... at least that's what Yamaha calls it.   It is not partial to adjacent channels ... you can tie together fader movements of two or more channels together regardless of their proximity to each other, and when you move one, the rest move proportionally.

The problem with fader groups vs DCAs is that with fader groups, if you move one fader in the group you move them all.  Then you have to use an override to adjust just that one fader in the group leaving the others as-is.   You see where this is going ... starts to get complex ... therefore Fader Group Masters (Yamaha's 01v96) and DCAs which allow you to freely adjust any fader in the group, and also provide a group level adjustment.

When I requested the feature from Mackie I termed it "Channel Linking" and "Channel grouping" ... again two different things.

[WK154]

I see that the stereo debate and semantics are alive and well. Let's take a practical example that Timmy displayed before he left on pg 3 of this thread. Look at Pic 1 channel 1 and 2 which Eq would you pick to process the two channels (drums) in stereo? The answer is neither and that's my point. Male and Female singers on stereo channel same problem. This limits the use of what can be passes thru as stereo. So it's use as implemented is only for already spatially adjusted signals (outside the mixer) to pass thru the mixer and loudness control is used for shifting the image. Very limiting and yes stereo linking is a subset of DCA since Mackie's DSP processing of the signal includes EQ settings in the DL and both channels are set to equal processing settings. Best to just shut off the DSP.

[Jkowtko]

wk154, based on your description, which is the need for a simple pair channel grouping, it would make sense that mackie could enhance the channel linking function to allow you to link "fader only" vs "stereo".   

Visually it could do what I do on manual boards -- put a piece of console tape across both faders to lock them together for one-finger operation. 

On the iPad it would appear similarly, as two channels, but with a fat fader knob spanning both channels or a bar connecting the two faders.

Would you go for that?

[nottooloud]

Mackie's DSP processing of the signal includes EQ settings in the DL and both channels are set to equal processing settings. Best to just shut off the DSP.

Oddly enough, what they've done is exactly what I want. Pretty sure I'm not the only one. Stereo channels are for a pair of related signals, typically left and right, which I want to treat identically. I expect rather more people want to plug in their iPod or a stereo keyboard and deal with it with one fader than want to marry a male and female vocal as a unit. I can't imagine why I'd want those two faders tied together.

[WK154]

wk154, based on your description, which is the need for a simple pair channel grouping, it would make sense that mackie could enhance the channel linking function to allow you to link "fader only" vs "stereo".   

Visually it could do what I do on manual boards -- put a piece of console tape across both faders to lock them together for one-finger operation. 

On the iPad it would appear similarly, as two channels, but with a fat fader knob spanning both channels or a bar connecting the two faders.

Would you go for that?

To be clear I need not go back in time to analog when discussing digital. You seem to be enthralled with the word "stereo" which has far reaching implications hence my link to the definition above. It's roots are analog. Please reread today's definition. Allowing the ability to create artificial stereo (most of today's recorded stereo) in the mixer which would have enhanced the DL, is not yet to be. The benefit of reducing the amount of faders especially on the poor UI design of the DL for live work is significant (no movement to get to the faders). DCA or groups would have been even better. Let not loose sight of the real purpose behind requested changes and that is to increase flexibility (broaden the applications for the DL not shrink them and reduce the effort to do live shows). I have no need to go for compromises since I have lots of choices X32 comes to mind. In my book setup takes a backseat to live control at a venue.

[WK154]

Mackie's DSP processing of the signal includes EQ settings in the DL and both channels are set to equal processing settings. Best to just shut off the DSP.

Oddly enough, what they've done is exactly what I want. Pretty sure I'm not the only one. Stereo channels are for a pair of related signals, typically left and right, which I want to treat identically. I expect rather more people want to plug in their iPod or a stereo keyboard and deal with it with one fader than want to marry a male and female vocal as a unit. I can't imagine why I'd want those two faders tied together.

That's simple you don't do what I do. How about two soloists and a choir or instruments. Don't forget in DCA that I would still have individual control of each channel for Vox but for a quick balance adjust for background that would be ideal. Male and female voices typically are eq'd differently and may have different mics. To be sure we all have different techniques for mixing unless you propose that your way is the only way. If Mackie would get their act together on the iPod/iPad for background music we'd all be ahead. For now it's broken.

[Jkowtko]

As soon as Mackie comes up with a cool name for DCAs that sounds at least as good as Yamaha's "Fader Group Master", I'm sure they'll implement it    It's been on the wish list since the beginning, hasn't it?  And it's largely a client side implementation.

[nottooloud]

How about two soloists and a choir or instruments.

One of my regular clients is 5 soloists, a 20 voice choir with 6 overhead mics, and a 6 piece band. There's nothing there I would want linked to anything else.

Male and female voices typically are eq'd differently and may have different mics.

Of course. And different levels, and different dynamics, and different points in different songs that would need to be ridden. That's why they're on different channels. Why would I want them linked?

If the DL1608 is so far from meeting your needs, why ever are you here?

[WK154]

How about two soloists and a choir or instruments.

One of my regular clients is 5 soloists, a 20 voice choir with 6 overhead mics, and a 6 piece band. There's nothing there I would want linked to anything else.

Male and female voices typically are eq'd differently and may have different mics.

Of course. And different levels, and different dynamics, and different points in different songs that would need to be ridden. That's why they're on different channels. Why would I want them linked?

If the DL1608 is so far from meeting your needs, why ever are you here?

Well that explains a lot at least to me. As to why I'm here I have a DL and it will soon be under someones tree. That doesn't preclude me from contributing and not as a fan-boy.

[Jerrylee]

Wk mine won't make it to the tree. It's going to be gone before Xmas. I am just waiting for the right moment to order my rack. Although I do like some of the improvements with the new software. There are just to many things I cannot live with and without. Of course this is all just personal needs. Last band I did sound for I put the dl right by the drummer under one of his cybal stands. It was a perfect location for it. But I could not stand setting the gain levels right next to the drums. The programmable gains in the x32 rack are alone enough for me to move on. The other big one to me is the ability to create a secondary monitor mixer using input assigns. Love that idea. And I also want to be able to use a computer with my system and do full multitrack recordings. There are just way too many extra bonuses to move on. I am sure mackie will be working hard on its next edition of a dl. To me I would love to see a dl2408 that is nothing more than a stage box with a router connection. Imagine just putting it on the floor, plugging in cables (in and out) and power, and a router, then walking away to set everything up. That would be sweet. And being able to link multiples would be even cooler. This is to me what I will be doing with the rack. I am going to have it in a case, throw it on a stage, plug everything in and walk away. But I would still love to see something that is simply a durable stage box containing an full digital mixer. No frills on the outside. Just a solid piece of ins and outs.

[robbocurry]

Wk mine won't make it to the tree. It's going to be gone before Xmas. I am just waiting for the right moment to order my rack. Although I do like some of the improvements with the new software. There are just to many things I cannot live with and without. Of course this is all just personal needs. Last band I did sound for I put the dl right by the drummer under one of his cybal stands. It was a perfect location for it. But I could not stand setting the gain levels right next to the drums. The programmable gains in the x32 rack are alone enough for me to move on. The other big one to me is the ability to create a secondary monitor mixer using input assigns. Love that idea. And I also want to be able to use a computer with my system and do full multitrack recordings. There are just way too many extra bonuses to move on. I am sure mackie will be working hard on its next edition of a dl. To me I would love to see a dl2408 that is nothing more than a stage box with a router connection. Imagine just putting it on the floor, plugging in cables (in and out) and power, and a router, then walking away to set everything up. That would be sweet. And being able to link multiples would be even cooler. This is to me what I will be doing with the rack. I am going to have it in a case, throw it on a stage, plug everything in and walk away. But I would still love to see something that is simply a durable stage box containing an full digital mixer. No frills on the outside. Just a solid piece of ins and outs.

My friend has been using one of these with a laptop for a few years now - very robust
http://www.allen-heath.com/UK/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?catId=iLiveSeries&ProductId=iDR32&SubCatId=MixRacks

[Wynnd]

I know this isn't a very expensive mixer as mixers go, but you guys are treating it like a throw away.  Don't like it?  Don't keep it.  Don't try to get Mackie to configure it for the needs you want and then will toss away.  New versions of MF need to meet the needs of people who want to use the mixer.  It looks like DCA is only wanted by someone who doesn't plan to have this mixer next year.  Now sub groups?  I could go for those.  Got used to them on the CFX-12 mixer board.  (Where you can only send the signal onto the main outs by going through the subgroup.  Most mixers don't force you there.)  I also learned how to live without them on the MixWiz.  (Think they work best when used in like groups.  Horns, drums, vocals......)   And in my house, $1000 isn't money you just toss away on a toy.  I like the DL.  No mixer fills every need, but most do what you can live with. 

[Jkowtko]

Hey, I still want DCAs ... and it's on the Mackie Enhancement request vote list, just not at the top.

IMHO, Subgroups are useful over DCAs only when you need to apply a common treatment to the signal that cannot be done through channel EQ and Dynamics linking.  Otherwise DCAs are the way to go because you have full routing and dynamic independence of each channel and still volume control in groups.   Am I wrong on this?