Neelesh welcome to RO and, tell us more!

------------------
audiokid

Originally posted by audiokid:
Neelesh welcome to RO and, tell us more!

Well, it has a 32 track digital audio recorder / editor with non linear video, a digital mix engine and a surround monitoring panel ! The editor / the non linear video and the mix engine can be operated through their own optional touch screens. There is no mouse or stupid keyboard shortcuts to remember. It has a dedicated remote control surface, which functions just like a normal analog remote. A fader control surface that is totally automated. The NLV is capable of storing video sync points and can also be used to do basic "CUT PASTE " video editing. We can import AND export EDLs to any non linear video format. Surround panning happens by placing the finger on the picture and moving alongwith it. NO JOYSTICK !!!!! Want more.... check out the system for yourself.

Can't wait for my next session !!

ONE VERY BIG CATCH 22!!
How much is it?????????
The DSP station was designed with an entirely deferent market focus then us, (Soundscape) and our competitors PT.
It would be like comparing an MTA console with a Neve VR88 desk!,,,,
BUT

------------------
Joel Gette
Soundscape Digital
http://www.soundscape-digital.com

Hi Neelesh,

>

Believe me, this is not it, not by a long way. It's extremely limited track count (32 trks) makes it completely unsuitable for professional AV Post work. Even as a composer of music for picture 32 trks is insufficient. I'm not knocking the system itself, for all I know it might be excellent. But with only 32 trks it's only ever going to catch on with the semi-pro or aspiring pro market.

Greg

>> It's extremely limited track count (32
>> trks) makes it completely unsuitable for >> professional AV Post work...
>>
>> But with only 32 trks it's only ever going
>> to catch on with the semi-pro or aspiring >> pro market.

I won't comment on music use as it's not my speciality (just a hobby!) but for lots of dubbing use (my speciality) 32 tracks of playback is plenty (many dubbing theatres use systems with fewer tracks than this). I'm currently working with Fairlight MFX3 Plus which has 24 tracks (I've used various other systems, for instance AudioFile (24 tracks), Akai DD1500 (16 tracks)). Post production work is very different to music.

Probably more relevantly though the DSP kit is by no means cheap. Also, I too found it initially impressive but lacking in several areas with more in depth use. Comparing it to something like Soundscape is highly unfair as you could buy a Soundscape several times over for the price.

Pricewise and functionality wise, you cannot compare the Soundscape to the DSP. The DSP is not your small computer "toy". All round DSP are in a MUCH BIGGER league.

Soundscape is not a "Toy"!
I am sorry your ignorance proceeds you

Hi Pete,

>

I can only comment on my experience working with commercial post houses in London, England. I have never worked on a project where in the final dub they used less than about 130 inputs. The biggest project I did used over 200. All of the post houses use DFC style desks with 256 inputs. DAWs just aren't used in this scenario except in edit suites. The inputs are all tape inputs but the material is usually on different media which is sync'ed. Usually several DA88s as well as many tracks on AudioFile for ADR, sound FX, sync tracks, etc.

Greg

Greg,
I don't want to start boring people with details on this one but I'm sure if I jumped in with slightly misinformed comments on music recording you'd feel duty bound to reply.

I work in a post production facility in London, was head of sound in another one before that and before that was at the BBC for 18 years where I was a dubbing mixer and sound technical consultant.

>> I have never worked on a project where in >> the final dub they used less than about >> 130 inputs.
This is not at all uncommon on larger TV drama and is very common on feature films. I never said that you don't end up with that many tracks but they almost never run that many tracks live from a DAW (particularly as in many film dubbing theatres there may not be an in-house system, they'll just use whatever the Dubbing Editor wheels in).

>>The biggest project I did used over 200. >>All of the post houses use DFC style desks >>with 256 inputs. DAWs just aren't used in >>this scenario except in edit suites.
As above for the track count. The DAW comment just isn't true, the dubbing editing would have been done on a DAW (except for the increasingly rare occasions when 35MM mag is used). By the final mix a DAW may or may not be running locked to the theatre as they usually go through a divide and conquer approach where dialogue/ADR, backgrounds, spots and foley are broken down into premixes / pre-dubs. This will be why at the final mix stage there may not be a DAW in sight as it will all be running from hard-disk dubbers such as Akai DD8 dubbers or Tascam DA88 tapes or once again even 35MM mag (and yes there will often be large banks of these running by the final stage).

Different theatres (and remember material can range from a magazine programme insert to feature films) require/have different approaches too, even different theatres in the same place; for example de Lane Lea ,the largest dubbing theatre complex and individual theatre in London's Soho has large film-type dubbing theatres with huge Harrison MPC automated analog desks running onto banks of Akai DD8s whereas their smaller theatres have automated digital Ams-Neve Logic 2 desks which have 24 track AudioFiles built in, these can still be used with banks of dubbers but on documentary material for instance the whole project would all run from the one AudioFile with ancillary inputs from FX returns etc.

Some London post houses such as Videosonics have tried to encourage keeping as much of the mixing live with as few destructive premixes as possible which will often require 2 AudioFiles (which is what they use) locked to one of their DFCs or Libras.

Sorry to drone on (even this is a very crunched down perspective) but in the long run it helps everyone in the industry to understand the different ends of it, I've often had composers turn up to dubs completely perplexed by what goes on (and I wouldn't pretend to know everything about what goes on in a recording studio before anyone says anything but I'm always happy to learn!).

PS as to the other post that called Soundscape a toy compared to a DSP Postation, this is just childish name calling. The Soundscape is a perfectly good system, all good systems have there pros and cons and I've known good work be done on much lesser systems than this.

Hi Pete,

>

Ah ... but that's exactly where I'm coming from. The only work I do is larger TV Drama and feature films. I compose and produce the music usually providing a 4 or 6 channel surround mix on a DA98. I only get to the dubbing theatre for the final mix and by that time, as you say, there is not a DAW in sight.

Off the top of my head the most recent post houses I've worked with are: Molinaire, DB Post, Magmasters, Video London, Twickenham Film Studios.

I was just challenging the huge generalisation by Neelesh that for ANYTHING to do with audio and picture the poststation is it. I was just pointing out that in certain areas of AV work, say the final mixing of high quality TV Drama and films, I can't see the Poststation having enough power for the job.

Greg

Greg is right. This is why Neve DFCs were built, and Harrisons, and... DAWs are for editing, and are awesome for it. Mixing small format (TV commercials, small films, reels of long films)is fine for A/V, ProTools, Nuendo, PostStation. But look at Enterprise, or Lucas Digital (Skywalker). These places are the tops. They use A/V, ProTools, WaveFrame, Synclav, but for post, not theatre mixing. The DFC or Capricorn is the console of choice. And, btw, the DSP Poststation is over $300k when configured properly for commercial post. See Margarita Mix's web site. DSP is an Aussie company that makes good stuff, at a price. But if there were an absolute best, wouldn't everyone (who could afford it),use it?

>This is why Neve DFCs were built, and >Harrisons, and...
Well definitely AND; of the 5 theatres Greg listed only one has a DFC and one other has a Harrison MPC (the DFC would definitely get my vote as THE best post mixing desk).

>DAWs are for editing, and are
>awesome for it.
I wouldn't disagree with you at all there. When I 'borrowed' a Postation for a week I was at the BBC and it was as a DAW only configuration (I think this is the root of some of the misunderstanding here; I do only think of it as a DAW not a mixing system)though I did later have a demo of the version with the mixer (it was basically remote controlling a Yamaha 02R which I found a complete lash-up though I gather there are now new options which I haven't seen). I was also trying to be polite about it in my previous posts (I didn't really like the system much at all to be honest).

>They use A/V, ProTools, WaveFrame, Synclav, >but for post, not theatre mixing.
Once again, this is not necessarily true. To give a perspective on the way features can be done these days, without me droning on further, I've enclosed a link to an article from AudioMedia.

Coaster

Hi Peter,

>

Not entirely true. At Magmasters, DB Post and Molinaire the desks being used in the theatres I was in were Soundtracks DFC desks. Video London used an SSL Avant and Twickenham has their famous Harrison MPC.

Greg

Yes, entirely true Greg!

>>At Magmasters, DB Post and Molinaire the >>desks being used in the theatres I was in >>were Soundtracks DFC desks.
Nope, Magmasters have Soundtracs DPC II desks, they're nice desks but not DFCs, Molinare the same (plus they have an AMS-Neve Logic 1, Logic 3 & one room even has a Mackie d8b.

DBPost do have an AMS-Neve DFC and a Libra Post too installed recently.

>>Video London used an SSL Avant and >>Twickenham has their famous Harrison MPC.
Yep, a very good friend of mine runs one of the Twickenham theatres and I'm acquainted with the other mixer there.

Hi Peter,

Yes, you are correct. DFC, DPC II, Avant, Libra, Harrison. The exact makes and models are not important. In my original post I was just making the point about commercial post houses using expensive, large format desks for final dubbing, and I can't see these being replaced by the DSP Postation, at least in the near future.

If I'd known that there was someone on RO with as much experience of the London post house scene as yourself I'd have been a little more careful with my wording. Although in my defence, I did originally put "DFC style desks" rather than specifically DFC desks.

Greg

It only gets better. It's so good to see you guys here supporting RO.

What a valuable site we are all creating.

cheers!

audiokid

Hi Greg,

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:

Yes, you are correct. DFC, DPC II, Avant, Libra, Harrison. The exact makes and models are not important. In my original post I was just making the point about commercial post houses using expensive, large format desks for final dubbing, and I can't see these being replaced by the DSP Postation, at least in the near future.

Agreed & agreed!

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:

If I'd known that there was someone on RO with as much experience of the London post house scene as yourself I'd have been a little more careful with my wording. Although in my defence, I did originally put "DFC style desks" rather than specifically DFC desks.

True and I didn't want to complain as to be fair you seem more clued up on dubbing theatre operations and requirements than many composers/producers I have worked with: I've had music turn up variously on MiniDisc, out of phase, incredibly low level, on 32KHz dat (that one was fun, we had to buy a portable Dat machine to play it), takes not matching the inlay card listing etc.

Pete Gates

Hi Pete,

>

Thanks for saying so. Unfortunately, my knowledge comes from bitter experience! I've had technical difficulties with dubbing theatres on several occasions. Especially as I record and produce the music in surround. Also, although I've had good experiences with dubbing engineers, I've had some bad ones too.

As a matter of course, I now always have a meeting with the dubbing engineer before I even start recording the final score. Along with technical information I also want to find out if the engineer has any trends, pet hates, etc. The dubbing engineer has more control of my music than anyone, with the possible exception of myself and sometimes the director. I feel it's absolutely essential to "get in with" the engineer and to understand exactly what is going on.

Greg

Cool, you guys came out slugging, yet beers all around after the game. I agree, the relationship between composers/designers and dub/mix engineers is paramount, regardless of DFCs or MP3s. I am a muso turned mix engineer many years ago (don't ask), and if we don't see ear to ear, what's the point? Pete, nice one "a complete LASH-UP" LOL! I'm going to use that one. DSP II seems very cool, but it still needs a (hu)man-sized controller for mixing. NO MORE LILIPUTIAN MIXING CONSOLES! OK, now I feel better.

Through this whole discussion there is one question I find very important and, although touched several times, never developed.
What exactly is film mixing today, how long we're supposed to rely on old techniques and proceedings, where exactly is the frontier between editing and mixing... these are some of questions that everyone seriously involved in film sound post production has to ask himself and to start searching for the answer immediately, as things are changing quickly!
More than a year ago, Larry Blake, Mix magazine columnist, wrote an article "I have seen the future of film mixing" where he describes his experience in mixing a feature film entirely within a ProTools workstation.
We all love SSL, AMS, SONY (I've never worked on a Harrison) and other great mixing desks, but once you experience the full and unlimited flexibility that workstation mixing gives you, it will be very difficult to return to classical approach. Just an example: Some dubbing mixers took years (decades?) to give up the habit of listening backwards, in order to match the level of a track prior to punch-in and many of them continued to do so, even on fully automated consoles!
Please, explain me what's wrong in mixing with ProTools? Track count? Automation? Sound? I'm happily mixing feature films in most contemporary formats (mono, 4-ch, 6ch) for almost two years now, and I like it more and more. My last experience on a biiiiig analog console was running up and down (96 faders!) the desk and asking the director and sound editor to move distant faders. Today, there is a simpler way to achieve these things. I'd like to hear some opinions on this.
Branko

Hi Branko,

>

Or "D", all of the above!

Track count: All of the dubbing theatres I work in have the facility to handle 256 inputs, PT only has half that number.

Automation: While the automation in PT is very good it does have one serious weakness. You can only store and play a single set of automation per song. The large format desks generally allow you to store and return to the whole history of automation passes and/or a number of completely different sets of automation. Very useful for producing different versions of a film, say for different countries.

The Sound Quality: Again PT is good but no where near as good as the Neve's, SSLs, etc.

>

Absolutely, but again in my experience the vast majority of desks and systems in use in the commercial post houses are now digital. AMS Logic, Neve DFC, SoundTraks DPC II, SSL Avant, Neve Libra, etc., all digital. All of these desks are designed to be controlled by a single engineer, unlike the big analog Harrison in Twickenham that's about 27' long!

Regards,

Greg

Hi Greg!
Someone that never worked on a ProTools system (or any other DAW suitable for editing and mixing) might conclude that the difference in quality between this and large analog mixing consoles is huge. Dismissing one system with arguments you used

Or "D", all of the above!

in this case means overlooking a completely new way of working in dubbing theatre (I don't have enough experience in music recording techniques to be able to discuss that aspect of using DAWs instead of console)
The same way we learned how to use tools of yesterday, we should try to understand the weaknesses of new tools and find a way to overcome them, same way we learned to fight tape hiss, ground loops, dirty jackfields, etc.
Not enough tracks? Throw in another system or two!
Automation pass save? Save session as... and open a new one, then modify!
Sound quality? Use better converters!
The freedom you get by NOT recording your premixes and the ability to reach basic sound elements at any stage of film dubbing compensates for any problem you might experience in other aspects of DAW operation. And I'm sure there's a way to find a solution for any of these problems.
Speaking of 256 inputs, most of us, let's confess it, work on smaller movies, requiring much less desk capacity. At least in Europe. Or at least in Portugal, where I work. Honestly.
And please, don't put Soundtracs together with SSL or NEVE. Add Sony Oxford instead.
Branko

It seems really there are 2 issues here, and both involve mixing. Most guys mixing to pic are comfortable with large format consoles, flavors notwithstanding, and rightfully so, for speed, control,& # of inputs. Most records are done mixing anywhere from 48 to 96+ tracks; films, many more. As a recording/editing system, it is well established, and more & more films are being cut on it. As a complete recording/mixing system, I don't think so. For SDDS and 7.1, PT can't get close. The ramifications of bass management alone put the ProControl on the sidewalk. Not that it COULDN'T get there, but until it IS, it will remain where it is. When it (PT) becomes more powerful than the current dub stages in use, it will prevail. Until then, discussions like these will continue..

Hi Branko,

>

Yes, but then you have to sync them together
and control them separately. It's not a simple or elegant solution and makes for additional complexity when creating a mix.

>

Yes, of course you can do this. However, switching between mixes and opening and closing sessions can be quite time consuming if you've got a lot of tracks and plugins. On the large format desks saving and reverting to different mixes is just a couple of buttons away and just a couple of seconds. Furthermore the mixes are usually stored in a tree structure so you can easily see and revert to your mix history.

>

Certainly by using high quality converters you can improve the sound quality of PT but only up to a point. Ultimately a PT system (with any converter) is not in the same class sonically as a Neve, SSL or Sony.

>

I wasn't listing the SoundTracs with SSL and Neve because it is quite as good but simply because it does seem to be very popular with commercial post houses. Sony Oxford is a great desk but I didn't mention it as I've personally never come across one in a dubbing theatre.

I'm not saying that DAWs aren't any good, they are, I use one all the time. But in a commercial dubbing theatre and particularly for the final mix they not yet of the same sonic quality and they require more time. Not good in an environment with so many time pressures. Lastly, I'm not saying that you will always need 256 inputs, just that if a project comes up that does require this number the last thing you want to have to say to a client is "sorry you'll have to go somewhere else that can handle that number of inputs".

Greg

Hi Greg,
Excuse me for being so stubborn, but , although I agree on your idea of a dubbing theatre, arguments you use to minimize capabilities of DAWs as a mixing and editing system, fail to convince.

....then you have to sync them together
and control them separately. It's not a simple or elegant solution and makes for additional complexity when creating a mix.

In a dubbing theatre, EVERYTHING has to be synced together and I don't see why syncing up 3 PT (or any other DAWs) systems should be more difficult than, say, 8 DA88 machines, which are widely used for pre-mix recording everywhere in the world. Not to mention 35 mm mag dubbers! Syncing DAWs is easy, just give them LTC and word clock, and that's it. As for separate control, I don't see it as a problem, few smaller systems will always work better than one big system, and controlling them separately will actually bring more flexibility to the setup.

...switching between mixes and opening and closing sessions can be quite time consuming if you've got a lot of tracks and plugins. On the large format desks saving and reverting to different mixes is just a couple of buttons away...

I agree up to some point on this issue, and it's true that PT automayion isn't organized in a tree structure, which is one of the things I hope they will correct soon.... But, I've seen some big desks taking up to 30 mins to load a mix, it is time consuming, isn't it, especially when Director says in the middle of the session: "Let's just go back to previous reel, we have to check something on the end...." THIS is time consuming, and everybody seems to forgive.
Why? Because of such a superior sound big consoles produce? I don't think so. Listen to a 24 bit session in PT, I think it isn't bad, run it through Apogees, it will get even better!
You should definitely read Larry Blake's article in MIX magazine, October 1999. And you should definitely try to work this way, I'm sure you'll like it.
I hope we agree on one point: DAWs are going to take over, aren't they? As soon as they improve some aspects of their operation, or when editors / mixers begin exploring their capabilities with no fear or wrong assumptions. We can'st just sit and wait for that moment, 'cause we're gonna be late!
Branko

Hi Branko,

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your last message! Sure it's straight forward to sync two or three DAWs but controlling them all is another matter. Let take your example of 3 PT systems or 8 DA88s. OK you sync your 3 PT systems you then have to create a submix on each of them and have an additional desk to mix the submixes or you cascade mixes through to one of the PT systems. This is far more complex, inflexible and time consuming than sync'ing all your gear to a single large format desk.

>

Yes, I've seen this happen on those big analog desks but that is not what I'm talking about, all the desks I mentioned previously are digital desks. The desk itself can load a mix in seconds, it takes longer to change all the sync'ed gear like the film, DA88 tapes, etc. That's if you are going from reel to reel. However if you are working on the same reel and just want to try different mixes it takes mere seconds.

Branko, from your arguments it doesn't look like you are willing to be swayed. We can agree that probably the DAW will take over in the future, but if it does happen it's still quite a few years away. None of the big commercial post houses are throwing away their big format desks in preference to a DAW in thier main mixing theatres. Why? Because DAWs can't do the job as well or as fast, yet.

Greg

Nope, Greg! Big desks cost a lot, and it takes a long time to pay the bank loans, so you have to get them working.
What's so complex in routing 4 AES cables (8 ch, that's the width of 7.1 mix stem) from one PT to another? And linking the timecode? Or using Colin Broad's SR3 box?
BTW, it was Capricorn that was loading a complex SDDS mix for 30 mins.
Branko

I'm not a serious ProTools user (I have downloaded and am currently playing around with the free version!) though two friends of mine have 32 fader ProControl/ProTools systems and another acquaintance has a 48-fader ProControl/ProTools system. They are all dubbing mixers in London's West End and it has been interesting listening to their experiences. They all have found that it's better to think of the ProControl as a control surface rather than a desk, this difference is subtle (and hard to define) but pervasive. In a way this is funny as when I started with AMS Logic desks I had to rethink ways of working I'd developed on Neve 55 and SSL 6000 desks in a similar way.
Large desks such as the DFC aren't just monuments to the mixers ego and that idea needs nailing straight away. These systems are very fast and powerful, I can not only grab a fader but also grab an EQ band or an Aux and just adjust it as all the rotaries are touch sensitive - I just can't do that on ProControl where I would have to push a button to first arm that control. The flexibility in monitoring/collapsible predubs etc just dwarf what is currently available on ProTools. The other big problem is that especially with features work you may not be dealing with in house dubbing editors, they may bring in their tracklays on any system which you have to interface to since the ProControl isn't really a 'desk' it isn't designed to mix 'live' inputs. Don't get me wrong, I think ProTools is a great system but it's not necessarily the best solution for everything (though undoubtedly one of the cheapest).

Just going back to the original thread.

The DSP Postation can run on an NT network. Add a digital router and you can have as many tracks as you can afford. A mix can be started while one room is conforming and another is tracklaying.

If you have used a Fairlight for cutting dialogue, then the DSP comes close but has no clip based EQ which is why I prefer Fairlight over PT or DSP for this job.

If you have 30,000 SFX online then you want a good search facility. With DSP it comes stock standard whereas Fairlight has an Audiobase option and PT has Gallery Samplesearch.

Fairlight has real-time fades, EQ, levels etc and DSP has to render them. DSP has superior time based fx then Fairlight. DSP also writes OMF! and has superior EDL software generally.

digressing:

I have PT at home and still prefer a console with faders, panners, dynamics and eq in front of me for mixing. The only thing holding me back from buying PT 5.1 is the terrible history Avid/Digidesign have with supporting their customers. Fairlight and DSP are the "gentlemen" of the DAW business.

BTW Traffic was mixed entirely in PT I hear.

Speaking about Traffic, if it was mixed by Larry Blake (who is usually working with Sodebergh), it is for sure entirely mixed in ProTools.
Any comments?
Branko