@museav - Again, I'm not designing the
system. I'm just recommending a
console based on what I have seen that we need. I've seen that we need more channels, and a better way to get signal from the
stage to the
console. I've seen that sometimes we might need to be able to move the
console to another location in the space. I've seen that it would be handy to have at least one
compressor. (yes we could go outboard) I've seen that we need scene recall. I've seen that we need a better way to get signal back to the
stage (for effects speakers/monitors. I've spent at least 6 hours this year trying to get them to work.) We need a
console that's easy to teach to untrained persons. We need to be able to stop certain people *cough rentals cough* from changing settings. (if it were up to me, I would require that rentals have a
house tech present any time they are using our
system, and not just because it would probably be me. Hopefully that policy will be implemented with the new
system.)
And yes, almost any digital
console will fullfil these needs.
Then I think you answered your own question, apparently almost any digital
console is acceptable.
Making a specific product recommendation actually seems to conflict with your saying that you are not the
system designer as product selection directly affects the
system design. A
console is a component of the overall
system. It has to support the rest of the
system and the physical conditions and functional requirements of the project. I often go through multiple products, including consoles, as a
system design develops. I find myself needing a couple more inputs or realize that you can't fit a connecting cable in the existing
conduit or find that we don't have sufficient space or there is some minor functional requirement that can't be supported or that it is simply too expensive and then I'm on to trying to find another product that can support all the requirements of that specific application.
If you start by defining specific equipment models to the
system designer then the process is different. You have to design around those products and the process becomes not selecting products to support the design requirements by rather developing a design that supports the products. If compromises or changes are required they have to be in the design and the resulting
system functionality, performance, cost,
etc. rather than in the equipment.
So it is great to provide the type of information you did in your response above and there is nothing wrong to offer some product models as a general example of what you are thinking. But you probably do not need to come up with specific products or solutions, that is part of the job of the
system designer, especially if you are not that familiar with the product options available or able to
address issues such as budget.
I'll be very blunt. My last project where the user input was primarily an equipment list with no
clear basis resulted in my telling them that either they could design the
system or I could, but I could not take responsibility for the outcome of a
system whose basis was an equipment list and little else. That project has also languished in limbo for a couple of years now and with the owner and users focusing on the phsyical structure and the things in it rather than what they want the facility to be and do functionally, I am not surprised.
