How practical is a PM1D for a church install?

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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

7276-how-practical-pm1d-church-install-system_mixer_cl_ph02_pop.jpg


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.
 

Attachments

  • system_mixer_cl_ph02_pop.jpg
    system_mixer_cl_ph02_pop.jpg
    109.3 KB · Views: 1,785
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back