Just curious / Live sound mixer groups

TCJ

Member
On every large-format stereo sound mixer (with groups / submasters) I've seen and used, the PAN controls on the channel strips are labelled to pan between "ODD" and "EVEN" group numbers, not actual LEFT and RIGHT output channels.
The group strips themselves are actually mono, and each input channel's mixing bus assignment switches always select a pair of these mono groups... typically a locking button to feed the Group 1 + Group 2 mono buses, another locking button to feed the Group 3 + Group 4 mono buses, and a final locking button to feed the master stereo bus (the only case where the input channel pan control does behave as a Left/Right pan!).

Why are they built like this? Why are the groups not stereo, and then on each input channel have a bus assignment button for each stereo group? (And label the PAN control to pan between LEFT and RIGHT on a stereo bus within the assigned stereo group.)

I've even seen this bizarre but ubiquitous trend of mono groups on mixers that have stereo input strips (with BALANCE instead of PAN)! So obviously the mixer's controls (the switches and potentiometers) on these stereo input strips are double-ganged (compared to the mono input strips). Therefore there's no excuse why the manufacturers couldn't use the same double-ganged parts to build the group strips as stereo groups!

Stereo groups would sure make the mixer a heck of a lot more versatile, with 4 "usable" groups that are truly independent! As they are right now with mono groups though, you really only get 2 "usable" groups to work with, since you have to tape the Group 1 and Group 2 faders together and operate them as a stereo couple (with their pans taped full-left and full-right), and then likewise tape Group 3 and Group 4 together as your "second usable group" (with their pans also taped full-left and full-right). :-/

I'm curious what others think, and especially what the manufacturers are thinking for continuing to design their mixers this way.
 
It was done for cost savings. Less switches to install. It also allows for more versatility. There are desks out there that you can assign to group 1 only, group 2 only, etc. Midas Heritage desks did this. I also think the larger framed mackie and soundcraft desks did as well. The sub-groups really are only useful in the studio after you step up to a desk with VCA's and enough mix busses to actually work. It really all is moot anyway because in the modern era of digital desks the mix group is dead.
 
I always figured that it was for two reasons:
1. The use you describe. Sure, the pan is more of an even/odd then, but you get double the groups for no additional cost. True stereo groups would require additional components and busses (and therefore more $). In the mixer you describe in the first paragraph, your dream mixer would only have two stereo groups, rather than four mono groups. Combining them would only lose you faders, rather than gain you more busses. I'd rather have to move two faders at once than lose the ability to split them into extra groups.
2. Outboard gear. Maybe someone makes it, but I've never seen a stereo insert cable.
 
I always figured that it was for two reasons:
1. The use you describe. Sure, the pan is more of an even/odd then, but you get double the groups for no additional cost. True stereo groups would require additional components and busses (and therefore more $). In the mixer you describe in the first paragraph, your dream mixer would only have two stereo groups, rather than four mono groups. Combining them would only lose you faders, rather than gain you more busses. I'd rather have to move two faders at once than lose the ability to split them into extra groups.
2. Outboard gear. Maybe someone makes it, but I've never seen a stereo insert cable.

No no, my "dream mixer" would still have 4 groups... but they'd all be stereo groups. So yes... double the number of electronic components in the groups part of the circuitry; still the same number of knobs and sliders and such on the front panel. (Oh, and 5 buttons instead of 3 buttons for the bus assignment of each input channel strip.)

While I personally don't own a mixer with stereo input channel strips, if I did, it'd be really tempting to modify the mixer and make its groups stereo. Basically rip out its potentiometers on the group strips and replace them with the replacement parts normally spec'd for the double-ganged input strips. And then clone the group circuits on a new "add-on" circuit board, so the original + cloned, together, gives each group two mix buses. For stereo. (It's a lot of work. But it wouldn't be the first time I've redesigned mixer circuits, with modifications that required fabricating my own circuit boards.)

As for cost, here's an interesting perspective:
I think we can all agree a 4 stereo group mixer would need 8 buses, while a 4 mono group mixer needs only 4 buses. But if one really desired 4 stereo groups... ie. desired 8 buses... what's cheaper? Building the thing with 4 sets of double-ganged potentiometers? Or building the thing with 8 sets of independent potentiometers... and a wider panel to accommodate them? If a customer takes the stance of "Come hell or high water, I need 8 mix buses for what I want to do!", the manufacturer could satisfy that demand cheaper with 4 stereo groups than 8 mono groups.

I want to modify my mixer to have stereo groups. I wonder if I can find double-ganged potentiometers with the same resistance and taper, that still physically fit in the panel and the same chassis mount geometry.
 
"Then you can have sluggish control response, and unpredictable latency / linear time delay in your signal path" is what your post should have read. ;)

While I do agree digital has certain advantages, it also comes with disadvantages. Another disadvantage being that when everything's digital, manufacturers are very tempted to reduce the number of controls on the panel, leaving a small few "multifunction" controls in their place and burying various features inside menus and submenus. I despise such "ergonomics".

Case in point:
Exhibit A:
The mostly-analog radio (digital PLL tuner) in my car has an analog 5-band graphic EQ I can adjust, instantly, at any point in time, practically with my eyes closed. (Or rather, with my eyes on the road, where they belong.) Its EQ sliders adjust tone, and tone only -- never anything else. So whenever I reach towards that particular area of the radio's panel, I know I'm only going to affect tone, and never anything else... even without looking at it. I suspect that radio was built in the early 1990's. (I don't remember how, when, where, from who, or under what circumstances, I acquired it. But I know why -- because it's a good design!)
Exhibit B:
Aftermarket car radios I see these days have the panel space chewed up with nonsense like enormous distracting intense-glowing OLED displays that display animations of dolphins swimming around or "fake VU meters" that have little resemblance, if any at all, to the actual audio. Even stock/OEM radios have panel space hogged by a giant multifuncion screen that half the time, displays other information about the car that's not even related to the radio in any way shape or form! And then if you want to adjust the tone, you have to go 3+ menus deep, spinning the very same knob that at any other time could act as volume... balance... front/rear fader... one of several tone bands... menu item select... and many other item parameter adjusts. Including items and parameters for setting things like whether the dome light comes on or not when a door is opened, and other stuff totally unrelated to the radio. It's an ergonomic nightmare! And with all the legislation and public campaigns these days against "texting while driving", I can't for the life of me see how manufacturers are still getting away with selling this intense-attention-requiring crap (pardon the language) for a device permanently installed in a motor vehicle!

Back to the topic at hand:
I fear the day when digital mixing consoles require delving into a menu or submenu to adjust the tone on a microphone that's exhibiting feedback. Or quickly reducing the gain/trim at the first stage in the audio input circuit, because the guest DJ thinks he's cool by slamming the master output on his little toy to something ridiculous around +20 dBu or higher. Or having to suddenly twist the pan towards stage-left at a fashion show -- to prevent feedback before it even starts -- because the MC decides to walk right up to the stage-right speaker stacks. Or instantly activating one of the auxiliary buses on-cue for a slap-back echo effect on a band's lead vocal mic. For good ergonomic design (in my opinion), any function, really, should be on a dedicated control, in a unique location on the panel, reserved for that function and that function only(!!).
In the world of analog, manufacturers are pretty much forced to adhere to that. But give them the freedom of digital, and they're bound to f--- it up.

Perhaps in a studio setting, digital is the dream. But for what I do (mostly live sound), I think I'd just get more frustrated with digital and what I predict will come of it.

(Manufacturers, are you listening!??)
 
The type of console being discussed here is intended for live sound re-enforcement, not recording or studio use. Those consoles evolved to their present form over decades. Not that many years ago, sound re-enforcement was a purely mono exercise, hence mono group busses. These days, no manufacturer is going to put much effort into innovating with analog consoles, because they don't sell many and the margins are low.

It would be nearly impossible to modify the current crop of analog consoles for stereo busses yourself. The current crop of analog consoles are low end units with the whole master section on one, big circuit board, instead of a circuit board per buss. Even if you can find one made circuit board per buss, it won't have any physical space left because users demand compact, high density consoles. Maybe it could be done in something like a 35 year old Neptune board, where you could fit your hand between each circuit board (24 channel boards were HUGE).
 
Last edited:
It's true that both analog and digital consoles have their weaknesses and advantages. But we have to face reality that high end analog consoles have gone away. A true professional learns to use the tools available to the fullest extent. Obviously, plenty of professionals are successfully using digital, because the market collectively pushed the manufacturers in that direction.
 
It would be nearly impossible to modify the current crop of analog consoles for stereo busses yourself. The current crop of analog consoles are low end units with the whole master section is on one, big circuit board, instead of a circuit board per buss.
Challenge accepted! :D

I've cut tracks on circuit boards and soldered fly-wires to external boards before. I've drilled holes in chassis parts and installed large stand-offs to hold additional custom-built circuit boards inside suitable cavities in the enclosure. I've drilled holes to install additional I/O jacks, or sometimes "re-purposed" existing ones (that I thought had a rather useless original function) when I don't feel like doing more "creative metalworking" than what's necessary. I've even desoldered/resoldered surface-mount components that require tweezers to hold, and desoldered 40-pin DIPs... though usually with much cursing and swearing accompanying the process :D. I've also had to install ferrite cores around harnesses, or even replace stock unshielded harnesses with shielded ones, due to modifications changing the EM fields inside the device. I've done some pretty crazy stuff, given enough time & motivation. :D Or big enough paycheque, like back when I worked as an electronics design tech. for an ergonomics R&D company. (Typically when they desired custom equipment, on a budget too small to contract a custom engineering/manufacturing company to build from scratch, but large enough to buy a "close enough" commercially-available product and then pay someone to reverse-engineer it and void its warranty...)

Sometimes I've been lucky and discovered manufacturers used a 4PDT switch when they only needed a DPDT, but the 4PDT is so common I suspect it was probably cheaper for them. Those moments are always a blessing, because now you have two extra poles to play with to redesign the signal routing, or add your own custom stuff. :) Sometimes I've also found rotary selectors in commercial products with several "unused throws" that can be "unlocked" by bending away a few more of the "stop tabs", giving the switch a few more positions to which it can be turned... a few more positions for further modification opportunities. :) And sometimes -- through rarely -- I've found they used double-gang potentiometers everywhere (even where a single-gang is good enough). I'm guessing either because it was cheaper to just order one batch of double-gangs and use the same manufacturing process for the whole device, or the single-gang equivalents from the parts supplier have differing physical geometry that would have complicated chassis design or circuit board positioning. When I discover such grand opportunities, it's like the clouds part and the angels start singing from the heavens! :D
 
A true professional learns to use the tools available to the fullest extent. Obviously, plenty of professionals are successfully using digital, because the market collectively pushed the manufacturers in that direction.
Eh, I go by the mantra that "The true professional uses the tools best fit for the job -- regardless of what the calendar hanging on the wall in the factory was displaying when the tool came off the assembly line"

And I don't think the market collectively pushes the manufacturers... rather, the opposite -- the manufacturers push the market.
I think it's more like someone on the design team says "Hey, here's an interesting idea that our competition hasn't done! Let's implement it and show it off at the next trade show, and get a step ahead!".
I think the number of times a single end-user submits a "product suggestion", that the design team of a large multinational company takes seriously... seriously enough to assemble a task force and look into implementing it... is quite low, compared to how ideas tossed around in their own design team's meetings are taken.

I cry for humanity if a car driver actually sent a letter to JVC / Kenwood / Pioneer / etc. and said "Those damn graphic EQ sliders are such a pain! I want to see something like animated dolphins swimming around on my dashboard instead!".
 
Eh, I go by the mantra that "The true professional uses the tools best fit for the job -- regardless of what the calendar hanging on the wall in the factory was displaying when the tool came off the assembly line"

And I don't think the market collectively pushes the manufacturers... rather, the opposite -- the manufacturers push the market.

History proves you wrong. I can think of quite a few revolutionary audio products that didn't sell and quickly disappeared because they either didn't sound good or didn't meet the user's needs. i can think of plenty of companies that disappeared for the same reasons.

Please tell us what digital consoles you've used, and for how many hours on each type.
 
And I don't think the market collectively pushes the manufacturers... rather, the opposite -- the manufacturers push the market.
I think the number of times a single end-user submits a "product suggestion", that the design team of a large multinational company takes seriously... seriously enough to assemble a task force and look into implementing it... is quite low, compared to how ideas tossed around in their own design team's meetings are taken.
@TCJ, you sir, once again, are seriously mistaken. Manufacturers, especially in this industry, listen to the people buying their products. They are always looking for ways to improve what they can, and the people that use the product daily are the best place to start. Feedback from users is very important and often influences the next software update, next version of the product, or next new product. However, it isn't always what the market is collectively pushing for. It is sometimes a single user that can make a change. I've lost track of how many times we have modified one of our existing products in one way or another for a single customer. Often it is because they contacted us and said that our product would be perfect if "one thing was changed" or "it did something differently". There have even been several times that we implemented a change into the existing product. That is why there is so much variety available, whether it is sound consoles, lighting equipment, or vehicles. Different people have different needs.
Don't go discounting something because you maybe had a less than satisfactory experience, didn't read the manual, or don't like the idea of it.
 
History proves you wrong. I can think of quite a few revolutionary audio products that didn't sell and quickly disappeared because they either didn't sound good or didn't meet the user's needs. i can think of plenty of companies that disappeared for the same reasons.
I can also think of plenty of products that disappeared because they were too expensive to manufacture, but are still well-regarded these days as solid workhorses, or more versatile than their later-evolved replacements which suffer from missing desirable features (that their predecessors had).

Please tell us what digital consoles you've used, and for how many hours on each type.
Relax, I'm not trying to get confrontational here. But if I may ask, without offense, do represent or work for a manufacturer of digital mixing consoles? Because that's the vibe I'm getting here. Just saying.

To answer your question, I have not used any digital consoles. So 0 hours. But...
It wasn't too long ago (maybe 6 or 7 years ago) I was speaking with a long-time theatre sound technician, and when we got on the topic of mixers, and I mentioned something about digital mixers... she instantly gave me this look of contempt and then said "I hope you're not suggesting they're better than an analog console! Digital mixers are awful!".

And I don't have to put in hours specifically on a digital mixing console to know that scrapping several function-specific controls for only a few multifunction controls instead is becoming a trend. I see it on car radios. I see it on home audio receivers. I see it on synthesizers/keyboards/organs. I see it on effects processors. Show me one digital mixing console, where every knob, button, slider, switch, and every other control on it, is dedicated to doing one function and one function only.

Furthermore, I've done mixing "in the box" (nTrack Studio, Cubase). And I can definitely say that clicking a mouse, or dragging a finger on a touch-screen, to adjust non-tacticle graphical-only "controls", doesn't even come close to manipulating something you can feel. I'll take the analog Tascams, Mackies, Midases, Yorkvilles, Yamahas, Fenders, Allen & Heaths, Behringers, Peaveys, classic-Realistics, and even little "toy" Pyramids any day... pretty much just about every mixer I've used from 32-channel desks to 4-channel DJ toys, compared to some computer programmer's contraption on an iPad irresponsibly chewing up ISM radio spectrum. Or a device that has a clicky detented rotary encoder that could represent one of several parameters/functions depending on the "state" of the machine... and which has a quarter-second delay or more between when you twist it and when the sound actually changes.

No thanks.
Do not want.
 
@TCJ...Manufacturers, especially in this industry, listen to the people buying their products. They are always looking for ways to improve what they can...
...Don't go discounting something because you maybe had a less than satisfactory experience, didn't read the manual, or don't like the idea of it.

I once wrote a letter to Technics (Panasonic), back when turntables were ubiquitous. I told them 4 things:
1. I told them for turntables with AC power synchronized stroboscopes, in 50Hz countries, the dot pattern for 45 RPM records is inaccurate. (Do the math -- you'll see the platter speed is not an integer multiple of the lamp flash rate)
2. I told them if they triple the pattern density (3x as many dots), a 100% perfectly accurate stationary pattern will then appear when the platter is rotating at exactly 45 RPM, with the turntable connected to AC power at exactly 50 Hz.
3. I told them the only thing they need to change about their product manufacturing to improve the design, is to mill a new die to be used in their platter casting process.
4. I told them for their turntables with quartz-crystal oscillator stroboscopes that change the flash rate for the selected speed, they should do away with the classic "quad-band" pattern (which historically, was really for 50 & 60 Hz @ 45 & 33+1/3 RPM, but which they now treat as "percentages above and below target speed"), and they should cast a 5-band dot pattern instead that is 100% accurate to the published percentage numbers, with one band centred on-target, and four more bands for symmetrically offset (+/-) speed deviations (2 above, and 2 below), at two different absolute magnitudes.

The response I got back was ridiculous.
They said something along the lines of "It does not matter, because it does not affect the quality of the sound, in today's world of digital". As if the person responding had an IQ resembling that of the AC power line frequency, and does not even know what the world "digital" means. He was pretty much tossing it around like a marketing buzz-word that's synonymous with "high-fidelity". In other words, they either had no idea what I was even talking about, or simply didn't give a flying you-know-what. The rest of the response letter was filled with typical "form letter" nonsense of the company patting itself on the back, gloating about how great Technics is. Etc. etc.

That's when I realized, no one cares.

And then with the crap I've seen at trade shows, I realized ergonomics is totally neglected too.

Switch on a modern Lowrey organ, or power-up a modern Pioneer USB DJ interface. Tell me those sequences of "chasing lights" mean what they imply. Or those ridiculous flashing patterns that trigger when the device has been untouched for several minutes also mean what they imply. (ie. When every single one of those individual LEDs lights up, logically it would mean that function is activated, and then when it goes dark, that function is deactivated again.) Do you think having all those functions activate and de-activate in sync with the "light chase" is what the operator really wants? Do you even think those functions really are activating and de-activating in sync with the "light chase"? I don't! Basically, I think those indicator lamps are lying when they do that crap.

It's all about "being flashy" and "glowing blue" to "impress" people, like racoons running towards blinky lights. It's ridiculous.

Over-intense distracting OLED displays on car radios, glaring way too bright at night, showing swimming dolphin animations, where tone controls could have been (and were, in older products). There's NO WAY that was implemented because a customer preferred it over instantly-accessible controls that are actually usable and practical. No way.
Yet that's what you see at car shows, trade shows, retailer demonstration setups, etc.
 
Last edited:
I should also add to this:
My objection to the linear time delays introduced by the ADC, input-buffering, DSP, output-buffering, and DAC of every digital process, holds true. Those of you who are design engineers and technicians should certainly recognize this.

Maybe if you want a "flanger" type effect by combining a linear-delayed signal with a virtually-undelayed signal, a digital signal chain is great. Maybe if you want a time delay for reinforcement speakers placed far from the stagefront speakers, digital is your cup of tea. And for these applications, I actually support digital processing!
I've taken advantage of this very phenomenon several times when tweaking T.C. Electronic or A.R.T. or Alesis effects processors! But that's just it... I want the delays to be where I want the effect, in a little box I can control! ...Not in the entire audio signal chain from microphone diaphragm right to speaker cone!!!

And a further addition, since there was talk in this thread of modifying existing equipment:
I say to everyone else, good luck attempting that on digital gear! That, is pretty much impossible. (Unless maybe you can unlock the microprocessor's boot loader, read its NVRAM, or replace the whole processor altogether if its code is locked inside inaccessible memory. And then actually write code that works with all the devices on the system's I/O ports and however they've been factory-programmed. Nevermind attempting to reverse-engineer raw machine code. (Compare with tracing an analog circuit board!) And if you think obtaining official schematics from the device's manufacturer is tough, wait 'til you see their response when you ask them to hand over their trade-secret copyrighted microprocessor code!)

90% of the time, digital is NOT more versatile than analog. Far too many things are locked out of modification potential on a typical digital product. In analog, the world is at your fingertips. In digital, you're stuck with what you bought.
 
Relax, I'm not trying to get confrontational here. But if I may ask, without offense, do represent or work for a manufacturer of digital mixing consoles? Because that's the vibe I'm getting here. Just saying.

To answer your question, I have not used any digital consoles. So 0 hours. But...
It wasn't too long ago (maybe 6 or 7 years ago) I was speaking with a long-time theatre sound technician, and when we got on the topic of mixers, and I mentioned something about digital mixers... she instantly gave me this look of contempt and then said "I hope you're not suggesting they're better than an analog console! Digital mixers are awful!".

And I don't have to put in hours specifically on a digital mixing console to know that scrapping several function-specific controls for only a few multifunction controls instead is becoming a trend. I see it on car radios. I see it on home audio receivers. I see it on synthesizers/keyboards/organs. I see it on effects processors. Show me one digital mixing console, where every knob, button, slider, switch, and every other control on it, is dedicated to doing one function and one function only.

Furthermore, I've done mixing "in the box" (nTrack Studio, Cubase). And I can definitely say that clicking a mouse, or dragging a finger on a touch-screen, to adjust non-tacticle graphical-only "controls", doesn't even come close to manipulating something you can feel. I'll take the analog Tascams, Mackies, Midases, Yorkvilles, Yamahas, Fenders, Allen & Heaths, Behringers, Peaveys, classic-Realistics, and even little "toy" Pyramids any day... pretty much just about every mixer I've used from 32-channel desks to 4-channel DJ toys, compared to some computer programmer's contraption on an iPad irresponsibly chewing up ISM radio spectrum. Or a device that has a clicky detented rotary encoder that could represent one of several parameters/functions depending on the "state" of the machine... and which has a quarter-second delay or more between when you twist it and when the sound actually changes.

No thanks.
Do not want.

First, any professional desk will have a dedicated control for everything... and have functions that it took racks of outboard gear all in one surface. They also allow for side chain stuff and inserts that we dreamed about doing on analog.

Second, 6 to 7 years in the world of digital consoles is an eternity. Your comment was coming from the DM1000, O2R, 5D, and M7 days. Back then digital did suck. The clock speeds were low and the software sucked. We are now in the world of 96khz and 192khz desks. Preamps/desks that sound as good as the XL4 and Heritage are possible. Four years ago I never saw the day coming where I would rip out my Heritage 1k, BSS 404's, and put in a digital desk. Two years ago that happened. We bought two Midas Pro2's and we have never looked back. The DN360's don't get touched anymore (they are still there though). Occasionally an engineer will use D-Two instead of the onboard stuff. However, everyone uses it. Everyone loves the flexibility you get. Did you ever try to mix a 50 input show on an analog desk? You know how big of a pain in the ass it is to leave the desk, bend down and try to find the one comp of 20 that is over-compressing the lead vocal or the gate that is not opening correctly?

Yes, cheap digital does suck (though that really can't be said anymore since the X32 came out and most of the consoles that followed it). Digital really sucked 7 years ago. It was not usable. However, we now live in the world of the Midas Pro series desks, the Digico SD line, and the Venue series (though the Venue series needs to fade into the sunset). I replaced my FOH that cost 110k in 2001 with a console that cost 20k, gained a ton of functionality, and the sound quality did not change.

Analog is dead. The only people who are still using it is either the people who can't afford to upgrade or the people who can afford to keep it running. Sonicly and operationally there is no reason not to go to digital.
 
I don't work for a manufacturer, and your criticisms aren't entirely wrong, but I think they are way, way overstated. Digital consoles have more of a learning curve than analog consoles do. It takes working with a certain model for awhile to be really efficient with it, but after that, it doesn't take any longer to grab the key controls. That's why I was asking how much play time you've had. The ergonomics of the current crop is really quite good, and there are approaches to fit almost anyone. Latency is pretty much a non-issue now.

I've been using analog audio gear for almost 4 decades, and I was very hesitant about digital consoles. The early ones were dreadful and I could not wrap my head around why anyone would buy them. But, the older I get, the less I want to haul around tons of equipment, or spend my life wiring patch bays. I do a few live, remote radio broadcasts a year. What used to take a pickup truck worth of equipment now fits neatly in the back of my Subaru, and can be lifted by one person. Digital runs circles around in terms of capability and flexibility. I still love analog for certain things, but not for remotes.

I have been shopping for a console to use in a live-music radio studio. We go live to air with nationally known jazz artists, and the sound checks are often less than fifteen minutes. It can be a very high pressure situation. One of our guys is not yet convinced he wants to use a digital console, and I have to respect that. The problem I am having is finding a new analog console worthy of buying for that kind of use. APB Dynasonics is about the last of the breed.
 
Last edited:
The problem I am having is finding a new analog console worthy of buying for that kind of use. APB Dynasonics is about the last of the breed.

That was my issue as well. Getting the good outboard is also difficult. More importantly, techs that can keep this gear running are starting to disappear. My old heritage is sitting in the basement collecting dust because it developed a noise problem that was going to take at least 5k to fix. Simply was not worth it to keep going. In my smaller room I'm one compressor failing away from scrapping that entire rig and putting in an M32.
 
...Not that many years ago, sound re-enforcement was a purely mono exercise, hence mono group busses...
Can't believe I missed this. Hah.
That explains my frustration when I first moved to this city and took the job here. Little back-story:

One of the senior guys (now gone) used to always set up the systems as mono. Every time. When I asked him why he doesn't go stereo, he brushed it off with "No point, not worth it, that just complicates things, and the crowd won't care anyways." I was just a junior at the time, so I had to contain my dissatisfaction and just go along with it.
After he left and I moved up the ranks... the racks were reconfigured for stereo! :)
I remember at one variety show soon after, there was a particular female vocalist who had the most amazing voice I'd ever heard in a long time among non-big-ticket performers. During rehearsal, we tried a few various reverbs and chorusing effects, all with stereo returns. Found a perfect setting that, I think all of us at the show could agree, did her voice justice. When I pushed in the MONO switch (just to see how it compared), it totally killed the ambience. (Of course the hall's natural acoustics provided some reverb, but not much -- the place was lined with acoustic tiles all along the sides.) The mono vs. stereo difference at that event -- well, that event's rehearsal -- was like night and day. "Crowd won't care" my arse! :D
 
I challenge you to sit down at one of the digital consoles mentioned and actually learn it. Listen to it. And then make an opinion. Left and rights aren't really used out side of studio or theater. Sure there is a little bit of panning in some live mixes. But very few large format performances use stereo. The reason for it is when you are in a 13k seat arena you are closer to one speaker or the other. You will only see true stereo in very few places. If you had walked around with stereo on you'd find your coverage uneven and inconsistent.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back