Working with DCAs

[GCumbee]

I know this has been discussed a few times. I did a show last night where I knew setting up a few DCAs would make things easier. I really wish that the DCA would move the individual channel faders it is controlling. I first noticed that on my first GLD before I got a QU. In the old days with a Digidesign Pro Control which I still have, you were able to group several channels like drums. In touch mode if you moved just one of those faders they all moved relative to the mix you had set. So any one was a master for all others. If you needed to adjust the mix you could hold down a key like control or option. Can’t remember. Then you could tweak the mix.

I wish the DCA faders worked like that. It is just hard to get a feel for what’s really happening. If you top or bottom out the individual faders they would flatten out then if you pull the DCA back down the mix would come back as it was. That was how Digi did it. If this is at all possible I think it should be implemented. The larger the console the more relevant.

This same request applies to GLD.

[GCumbee]

Or maybe like Digi have a new function called FADER GROUP. Like ganging but several not just odd or even. And not same level. Moving any fader moves them all in the mix. And some key will release them temporarily to tweak the mix.

[dcongdon]

I enjoyed this feature on the Mackie TT24 digital mixer as well. Not sure if I would like to see it as a function of the DCAs or as a feature selection on GLD ganging. I lean towards the latter, but would miss it on a QU.

A&H, is there potential for seeing this feature?

[Anonymous]

Ganging is quite different from DCAs in many respects – what happens when you drag a fader to -inf?

Or push a relatively low fader up to +10dB?

[airickess]

I’d vote no on having DCAs move faders assigned to it.

[GCumbee]

Maybe not the DCA then but fader grouping. This worked great on the Pro Control.

[dcongdon]

I agree that DCAs don’t seem like the right place to put this feature… and terminology would need to be considered a little more if adding a standalone menu option. “Fader groups” could be confused with “Groups,” so it would need to differentiate itself more from other grouping options. I still think your request sounds most like GLD ganging. In the Gang menu, I would add an option for each gang, called “Relative/Absolute Fader”. This way you can choose if you are ganging faders to mirror each other (absolute) or move in relation to each other’s value (relative).

[GCumbee]

I would be ok with that. Would still need a release more to adjust one or more faders to change the mix.

Would like to see this on both QU and GLD. I am sure i and dLive folks might like it as well.

[Anonymous]

Sounded like a soft key feature.

[GCumbee]

Dittos Bob.

[harerton]

Just like on my old Yamaha 02R: group some faders, move one of them, all of them move along. Want to move just one, do it while holding the select key for the channel.

I believe this would be simple to implement.

Harerton

[airickess]

I still don’t see the purpose of this request, other than it was something you liked to see. Can any of the advocates for this explain why they would like to see this? Personally I’d much rather see the console memory allocated for something more useful, like a multiband compressor or de-esser.

[Andreas]

…maybe since moving faders look cool… 😉
For me this would be a third variant to have some gang operation on the Qu, next to classic groups and DCA control, it just does not need another control (Group resp. DCA fader) to adjust the overall level.
As I already stated in the other discussion on this topic, I personally see several problems with a real implementation, like Bob already said.
If the ganging operates relative in dB, turning down a “lower level” fader won’t make “higher level” faders to mute.
If the ganging would operate multiplicative (like DCA and Groups do), moving a “lower level” fader would accelerate movement on “higher level” faders.
I know other desks had something like this, but with DCA and Groups I can’t see a real requirement.

[Dick Rees]

There are a lot of other features I’d rather see first.

DOWNWARD EXPANSION option for the gates would be HUGE. I gate one channel, maybe two, but I’d use downward expansion on quite a few. Cleans up a mix like nobody’s business…auto fader-ride.

[GCumbee]

Everyone has their opinions. That’s fine. If you haven’t ever used it then I can see where you think it uneccessory. I have and used it a lot. Sure I can live without it just thought it would be a nice feature.

[Author]

Posts