Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 256 through 264 (of 264 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31493
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    That’s what an appleholic would say. There are more Android phones sold than Iphones. If there aren’t already more Android tabs sold than IPads, they will be sold more in a short time. Android tabs are available starting at 150$. Compared to that you dare to call an IPad “cheap”?

    Also, porting the Windows editor to Windows RT to use on pads won’t do any good. I have a touchscreen display on my notebook, the regular Windiws editor isn’t very touchfriendly… My hopes are that there will be a new, touchfriendly (think about Windows 8 with metro!) editor supporting both GLD and iLive in the same software. I also hope it won’t be done again in java and it won’t be as sensitive to losing the WLAN connection anymore. It’s not a problem losing the connection, but the reconnect time is unbelievably high. Implent something that detects changes between mixrack and device and send only the changes at reconnect if necessary at all!

    #31492
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    Hrmpf. My customers never ask for multiband compression or dynEQs. That’s something I want to have to make my mix possibly better…

    For the rest: v1.9 is not an update, it’s an upgrade. As I said, I understand everyone with modular iLive being upset a bit, but as I also said it was A&Hs decision to bring these features to the iLive platform. They just could have left it the way it was.
    Here is how I see it: The modular iLive buyers are a really small minority since the arrival of the T-series and fixed iDRs. That itself is of course no reason to leave them out. But the hardware is simply older. If T-Series and fixed iDRs would have had the same DSPs as the modularhad before, they wouldn’t even think of bringing us dynEQ, multiband compression and stuff, because it wouldn’t be possible on any iLive available yet. If that was the case, no one could complain. The only thing recent buyers of the modular iDR could complain is that A&H hadn’t upgraded the whole modular platform as soon as they delivered the fixed platform!
    Also, I don’t think your argument about potential customers who didn’t buy the iLive is valid. These customers have already bought something else. If they now see those features they were missing when deciding to go another way are on iLive now, they won’t sell their desks because of that, because they have a desk with these features. And even if their current desk hasn’t these features and was bought because a name with better reputation is on it, they won’t sell it and get an iLive becuase the iLive is an “old” platform now, all the craze and hype is gone already and the customers of those customers want a system that’s talked about a lot and a fresh breeze on the market. People buying iLive now but didn’t before out of specific reasons are a very very small percentage of customers by my guesstimation. All the potential customers I mentioned would rather wait for an iLive2 with all the new features and some more.

    But you are right about the rider acceptance. Do you have ideas how to improve it? :) If this could be done, it would be a win win situation for us and A&H.

    #31464
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    It seems the AES outs replace double the amount of analog outputs (so 2 AES outs replace 4 analog outs, channelwise it’s the same). So an iDR16 would have only 4 analog outs plus 2 AES outs now. Is this fixed or depending on the iDR used? Also, why isn’t it selectable, if it’s an AES or an analog output?
    That said, some AES Ins would have been nice too :)

    #31463
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    Well, the ICE16 only makes sense with at least an iDR48 when used with iLive, since we’d need to use 16 analog outputs for the ICE16 and of course still need some more to do what we are paid for. And we need to place it on stage with the iDR, since we don’t have 16 outputs on the surface. This makes operating the ICE16 pretty hard. This makes the product pretty ununseable for me. It would have been pretty cool, if this thing would have had ACE, Dante or just an ethernet port to remotely control, maybe even from the iLive surface directly with the next FW upgrade. MP3 playback along this would have been nice too, so we would have had a pretty good replacement for the GLDs recorder with even bigger functionality. Maybe you guys at A&H will develop an iLive specific multitrack recorder, that would be great.

    #31462
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    I can understand that iDR10 and iDR0 users are upset because v1.9 probably won’t run on their iDRs. But the facts are: You got a working system with v1.83, and v1.9 will add features you didn’t pay for when you bought the system. You bought it for what it was and not for what it COULD become. If A&H had decided not to bring these features to the iLive, you wouldn’t complain about a mandatory hardware update, because you couldn’t! A&H could instead have announced an iLive2 with these features, they didn’t. Things just get outdated, that’s life. My three years old TV doesn’t do 3D, shall I call the manufacturer now and complain about that? Of courde not. I’d have to buy a new one. But A&H did it the other way, they give you the possibility to swap just the outdated part for a reasonable price. I think that’s a very nice kind of doing business!

    About the new features:
    I understand most of them are running in beta phase in the labs already. The multiband compressor and the dynamicEQ will run as an effect block in one of the eight effects slots, as it seems. But will they make use of the enhanced effects input/output features introduced in v1.8 (IIRC) or will they only be stereo or even mono? That would be a real bummer. To put a multiband on say each of four vocal channels I would need four effects slots. No can do!
    Also, I don’t think I’d need four dynamic EQ bands per instance of the effect. One would be enough for me. Same thing applies here as for the multiband compressor: I hope we can route multiple channels independently to each instance/effect slot. Better yet IMO would have been if the dynEQ would have been an option for the limiter/deesser section per channel (yes, we couldn’t use all the options via the hardware knobs, but I wouldn’t mind. Also one band only, but that would be enough), making it a limiter/deesser/dynEQ section. So the things I ask for would be the whipped cream on the update. I will have fun toying with it anyway :)

    #30649
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    I don’t see a problem with that as long as you don’t use plugins on the monitor signal of percussive instruments. Many people are using plugins via Dante, it seems to work for them. I haven’t tried myself, but I have worked with Waves MixRack on vocals, guitar and bass with a simple USB-audio interface which gave me about 6.5ms system latency, even on “monitored” channels. Nobody noticed a delay, so… why not give it a try? Maybe someone will lend you a Dante card for a test…

    #30634
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    Sorry, this is an issue that only exists in your head. It doesn’t matter in real life if you put the fader on exactly 0dB or +0.2dB or -0.3dB.

    Such dent would have to be programmable. I wouldn’t like to have those dents at the 0dB input/output fader line when in GEQ fader flip. Also I have these situations too, where I need to pull back some outputs for a short time a place them back to were they where, but I never had the feeling “I need dents”. For this problem I would rather prefer other solutions. One would be an “auto scene update when recalling another scene” updating the last used scene if you recall a new scene, so you have stored your last settings. Another would be a “undo scene change buffer” where you can go back to the last settings before recalling a scene.

    #30633
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    The audio sync could be derived from the audio signal itself, it’s just a matter of programming.But anyway, just use Dante with Virtual SoundCard on your PC and the regular Waves MultiRack. Dante is a far better choice as more and more speaker controllers, amplifiers and so on get Dante interfaces too, so you’ll need only a ring of Ethernet cabling some day.

    #30632
    Profile photo of Jens-Droessler
    Jens-Droessler
    Participant

    quote:


    Originally posted by inlinemedia

    … future improvements will be aes/ebu outputs on the mixracks – this can be done by upgrading the pcb or directly when ordering … ;)
    (info from the last gld/ilive workshop i visitied 2 weeks ago ;))


    Is this true?

    If so, please add at least two, better four to eight AES/EBU inputs as well! Many musician use digital equipment, too, like AxeFX or digital wireless mics and I think it would be beneficial to the sound to use their AES/EBU out to stay completely digital.

Viewing 9 posts - 256 through 264 (of 264 total)