Group to Group Routing Please!

[Sound Guy JeffParticipant]

Love my D-Live but I do have a few feature requests that I would LOVE to see.

1. Group to Group Routing – Desperately need to see this feature. I realize the work-around is to route a group back to an input channel and then to another group, but this eats up your channel count and adds additional latency.

2. Pre-Trim Channel Metering – I need to see the input meters pre-trim! I have trims adjusted for best fader resolution, but this creates an issue when setting pre-amp gains. I have no way to accurately judge the pre-amp gain since it’s showing me the meter post trim.

3. Additional Mix Busses – This may be a long shot but if there’s any more DSP under the hood I’d love to see the ability for more available mix busses. I maxed mine out with stereo groups pretty quick.

Thanks so much for your support!
Jeff

[RSParticipant]

To 1. you can route one group into another using ExtIn, but just one. Not sure if that meets your requirements.

I would have loved to see much more “Mix freedom”, that was introduced with firmware 1.7 in 2018. Routing several groups into another could be very helpful for certain mix routines. Even if you would leave the compensated time domain with it and adding latency. (And I don’t think it would work without) But if you know what you are doing it would be a great helper in many ways!

As mentioned, right now you would have to bring them back into a input and go from there. Not exactly what I was looking for either….

[Sound Guy JeffParticipant]

Good stuff! Yes the group to group routing for me needs to be multiple groups to another group. Such as: Kick grp, Snare grp, Tom grp, Drum parallel grps, to a Master Drum Group – and then the Drum Grp to a Master Band Grp etc etc. I have a lot of Group to Group routing that needs to be done!

[tpauldingParticipant]

We’re right there with you on the group routing. It’s amazing how quick you eat up inputs when you do kicks, snares, toms, OHs, etc. to a DRUMS group, then the same with instruments. I do wish we could have more than 64 busses as well, but I assume that’s a pipe dream. When you mix IEMs and mix with groups, they go quickly.

[DaveParticipant]

I do wish we could have more than 64 busses as well, but I assume that’s a pipe dream. When you mix IEMs and mix with groups, they go quickly.

I’d think that allowing more than 64 busses would need a bigger/better FPGA. I might be wrong (I hope I’m wrong). Maybe they can bump it up on a hypothetical “dLive 2” series of MixRacks, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

You’re right that running monitors and FoH from the same MixRack can chew through them quick… adding a DM0 to run monitors doesn’t really increase the cost of the system too much (relatively speaking), but adding another surface makes it a much more expensive prospect.

I’ve got dLive Director running on a computer at FoH, with everything setup so that I run FoH from our surface and monitors from Director. It works pretty well, but most of the band uses ME-1s (and OneMix, in the future once we sort out some WiFi issues), so I can’t comment on what the “full” monitor experience would be. Right now, the plan is get a DM0 at some point, move all our monitors to that, and run it headless.

I wish there was a way to let one surface easily switch between two different MixRacks for situations where you only have one engineer for both roles and Director isn’t a good solution.

[DaveParticipant]

Come to think of it, it wouldn’t matter if you were “switching” which MixRack the surface was controlling… Since the surfaces are just very fancy controllers, they could just show all the channels/mixes/etc from whatever MixRacks they’re connected to. The UI would just need to make it very clear which MixRack’s FX units/scenes/etc you’re messing with.

[Author]

Posts