Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
2022/07/19 at 2:48 pm #108105
I am an operator of a C3500, I am not the owner, but I am the only person who has operated it since it was bought in 2017. Back then the firmware version was 1.42
From the beginning I have always taken care of the equipment impeccably, so it should be noted that there has never been any mistreatment or carelessness.
I am very happy with the sound of these mixing machines, but I have to be honest and question the durability of them, especially when compared to other brands on the market.
After about 240 concerts distributed over a period of 3 years and taking care of the material as much as possible, the faders of the C3500 surface began to fail, most of them remaining tremendously inaccurate. I have never had the feeling that there could be a software/hardware fader failure relationship. After requesting a quote from the technical service, it was €800 + VAT (shipping not included) to change all the faders.My thought is that 240 concerts and taking good care of the material, is not even remotely enough to have to make a change of this magnitude. In any other brand, Digico, Yamaha, this happens, yes, I’m not going to say no, but at least after exceeding the figure of 1000 concerts!
In another order of things, I have also had severe problems with the stage racks, although their operation has been impeccable, they are extremely sensitive to the smoke from the machines that are used to create an atmosphere with the lighting. In the show that I usually operate with the C3500, this type of smoke is used (I clarify that in reasonable quantities and always being of high quality) and also the physical location of the rack is always on one side of the stage and in the back, this way always remains the farthest from the stage. Even so, it seems that the smoke from the show seriously affects the electronics in the racks to the point that it destroys them permanently.
At the end of 2018 a CDM48 was seriously affected by this problem, and all the electronic cards had to be replaced with a high repair cost.
A little later, in 2020, when the pandemic began, the CDM48 system was once again completely unusable due to the same symptom, smoke from the stage that everyone uses for lighting and, consequently, it cost more to repair than to buy a new rack. All of this is tremendously frustrating. The solution was to buy a new CDM64. From then until now, everything seems to work fine.The point is that in any brand I have worked with, Digico, Yamaha, Roland, Soundcraft, Midas, I have never had this type of problem with smoke from the stage and with much higher numbers of concerts!
My experience may scare other users or potential buyers, and it is not my intention, because both the software and the sound of these tables are excellent, but Allen & Heath, in my humble opinion, should reconsider these weak points, so that in the future nobody will have problems of this type.2020/12/12 at 4:06 am #97196@mjcelectronics
With all due respect for your opinion. I will try to be as explicit as possible. Their reasons given are still relative. I want to remember that dLive is in market competition with other well-known brands which have an absolutely complete Midi implementation, or what is the same, total Midi implementation of ALL the parameters of the mixer.
It is not my intention to enter into comparisons, but to cite an example, Yamaha LS9 (in terms of this business it is currently an old table, it was launched in 2006, it has been 14 years!) Has full control of each of its parameters via Midi!
I am a huge fan of dLive, I love its sound and ergonomics, but I must say that I feel a tremendous frustration that I do not have full access through Midi to all the parameters of the console.
In these times where the industry has firmly bet on MIDI 2.0 I think that is the direction in which we must look. The day Allen & Heath implements full access to all parameters via Midi in dLive, it will undoubtedly change the game completely. It will have no competition of any kind.2020/01/21 at 3:40 am #88893Great! + 1
2019/09/20 at 3:06 am #86581This, and select MIX through Midi (as in the iLive) It is fundamental, basic, very important. Please do it now.
2019/09/20 at 2:56 am #86579+ 1
2019/06/20 at 9:42 pm #84741This is a serious problem. In my case I bought the Waves 3 card because technically it is supposed to be able to transmit up to 128 channels at 96 Khz to record. This is a very attractive feature, because in the market there are currently not many options with these characteristics in a similar price range. Of course it is not cheap, but if it does what it promises it seems a good investment.
I bought my Waves 3 card in June 2017, mainly I use it to have assisted dsp in the dLive. Frankly, it’s not that the dLive needs external dsp, but some Waves things are interesting and attractive to me.I must say that to date I will have made approximately 250 concerts with a dLive C3500, CDM48 system and I have never had a clock problem within the dLive system.
Multirack SoundGrid has always worked well, I have not had any serious problems, although on two or three occasional occasions I lost the synchronicity of the Waves 3 card, with the consequent problem that implies. Still to this day I do not know what was the reason for such lost whimsical.
I have recorded up to 40 tracks at 96 Khz in a Mac book pro with OS X El Capitan and up to now everything has always gone well. I have not had problems with drops, clicks or any type of digital artifact. But when I have tried large sessions the thing has changed substantially.
I recently made a recording of a live concert with a dLive C2500, CDM 48, DX168 system. The recording was 70 tracks, at 96 Khz (which incidentally, that’s the fun of having a Waves 3 card), all Cat 6 cables, new and high quality, a NetGear GS-108 switch (the advised by Waves) to do the split and two (to have redundancy in the recording) new PCs with Windows 10 Pro N, OS disks SSD and dedicated discs for recording type M.2 SSD Samsung Evo Plus (currently I do not know anything faster in both reading and writing).
That day the Waves 3 card only provided digital split for recording, there was no assisted dsp processing for the dLive with Multirack.In the SoundGrid Studio settings, the WSG buffer adjusted to the maximum, this is 192 samples and the buffer driver adjusted to the maximum, 1088.
It is simply impossible. (If someone has succeeded, please explain how they have achieved it).
The result is that recording does record, but there are drops (they are like micro cuts in the signal) multiplied in all the tracks in a totally random way without adhering to any type of concrete pattern. It is an absolute failure and totally inexcusable.
I do not know what the causes of all this may be, but the Waves 3 card should not lose the sync so lightly. It is not a product to pass the time.
Some of you included the technical staff of Allen & Heath can tell me how to explain to the client that after hiring a recording service with 70 tracks in high resolution (96 Khz, 24 bits) including a backup system, the result has been an authentic failure and it has not worked ???
Sincerely, it makes you want to catch a plane to Laos…!My main indignation is that in a product of this category should not have any problem with the transmission of data at a massive level because otherwise it loses all its value and effectiveness, plus it is not possible to deal with a multitrack recording service in high resolution (96 Khz, 24 bits) with guarantees of success.
I got in touch with Waves’ support (I must say that they are very well served and they are in for the job), but we have not yet managed to find out where the problem lies. I have been suggested to make a list of several tests, for which I need to almost replicate the situation. Currently, due to my work, I do not have time to do tests and experiments. It will take some time until I can do it.
2019/01/29 at 2:34 pm #81641I am surprised by the vision of some of you. With due respect of course of each opinion. Is it likely that things are being taken out of context?
We all know what a Yamaha SPX-900 sounds like, and yet we’ve worked with them just like the Lexicon PCM 70, 80, 90… for years.
Is someone going to tell me that in those old processors the reverb tails are not remarkable?
I have worked practically with the totality of the digital consoles of the market and all have their characteristics, their particularities, their character, in all one thing or another is noticed. I’m not going to get into whether it’s better or worse, but what I do not have the slightest doubt is that the quality of the SMR of the dLive is more than enough for any type of standard work both live and Broadcast.
And one thing is clear, if life really goes in the result of course there are better resources. Tc electronic system 6000, Bricasti M7… obviously its price justifies the results.2018/06/02 at 6:28 pm #71454+1
2017/11/23 at 4:31 am #66467Some of the proposals listed seem very good!
– Show mute status of channels in the meters.
Great!
– On a stereo channel, the possibility of correcting individual values (Eg. Different gain in a keyboard).
Great!
– Output trim (for correcting levels wihtout using a external processor).
Great! It would certainly be an extreme utility especially when it has no external control or processor. This is a theme that Yamaha has solved very well for many years even in their models of cheaper tables.
– Control Groups (a VCA for monitor sends. This way you could lower the all drums value with one fader instead of lowering 12 faders). (URGENT)
Great! Especially useful when you are using the same table to make P.A. and monitors, all at once.
– Gang faders without having them all in 0dB. (more like a relative ganging).
This would be like a DCA? I do not quite understand Gang with values of fader relative… can you explain a little, have I missed something? In what concrete application would this be useful and interesting?
– Solo in Place (URGENT)
Great!I miss it many times…
– Scene preview (for editing a scene while the console is working with other one). For example during a festival with one band on stage and the operator from the other band doing corrections to his scene wihout taking out audio).
Let’s hope that as @steffen said, for the next update, this one is already implemented.
– Show sent values for channels on rotaries. (Eg. show how many “dB” does a matrix has, or how many dB of FX does the channel has on the rotaries.
Great! very useful!
– Gain Tracking for peaking signals (a procedure to automatically lower the gain a few dB when it peaks. There are sometimes when a band can’t do a soundcheck and just jump and play. This feature will ensure not to have distortion initially).
Great! very useful! That can be on/off as a general option.
– Routing a group to another group.
Great! I think someone already proposed this at some point…
– This one would be like a nirvana… Some shows use many inputs and too many outputs. 62 outpus may be not enough for some shows due to its complexity (eg. we have a show with 25 singers and a 6 guys band and also FX). The possibility for exchanging inputs for outputs would be great. This way you could have more than 62 outputs or the possibility for using them as FX.
Great! This would be the personified flexibility!
I’m already a very fan of dLive, but if they grant us all these requests, I’am tattoo Allen & Heath it on the forehead!
2017/11/20 at 8:55 pm #66424Thanks for the warning, although I already know that. The problem is that it is still very dangerous for a user with limited permissions to access with MixPad and have total control.
2017/11/19 at 8:55 pm #66382+1
In my mind it is a necessity that user permissions work correctly in MixPad. It is a good way for the musician to only have access to the auxiliary levels of his mix. Please fix this as soon as possible, otherwise it is totally useless.2017/09/24 at 4:16 am #65394Thanks for the reply Nicola.
I am trying to program a table bench for plugin control functions in Multirack.
The current situation is a bit chaotic because I have not yet managed to create a layer that is functional and usable to do this in a show in the field of production.
On the one hand, I have created a layer with Midi strips and I have been able to assign faders and knobs using the Multirack editor, but in no way can I assign the Mute, Mix and Pfl buttons since the “not allowed” message appears in the Multirack editor screen.Although I’ve managed to get Multirack to change the snapshots at the same time that there are scene changes on the table, I’ve come across a big problem that happens when I’m moving some faders into the mix (audio channels) since these faders are sending midi data to Multirack by varying the values of the parameters of the focused plugin! When you see something like that, you get the panic!
With this situation I encounter a problem of a great magnitude and makes totally unusable the possibility of controlling Multirack from a bank with Midi strips. How can I solve this situation? Have I really missed something important?2017/09/13 at 1:52 am #65235Hello,
I spent some time trying to connect the mixer to the Mac using the midi controller to control Multirack. I understand the tunnelized through TCP / IP but I do not get any way to make the connection.
The Waves 3 card works correctly without errors. I understand that the data that travels on the card is in layer 2, so the anyone IP it has on the Mac, works correctly.
My question is, why can not I connect to the midi controller to control Multirack ?? What am I missing? Can anyone provide a schematic, IP configuration on how to do this?2017/05/29 at 6:41 pm #63642Hello, I also use El Capitan and to work in Director with the trackpad on the scalable screens (in my case recall filter, safe…) is crazy or a little less than impossible. It can not be more uncomfortable and imprecise. With the mouse it is a little better but still being very careful with the movements and the selection. I would like this to improve in the future. All the best that comes with v 1.5 are good!
2017/05/19 at 1:56 am #63431After several weeks trying to register at the end it seems that the website is working properly and I have been able to do so. Great!
I just installed director 1.50 on my windows 10 and surprise! It only runs on a 64-bit system!
Why not have made a version for 32-bit systems …? It would be very good, like so far. -
AuthorPosts
