SAC users, what control surfaces are you using?

[Razor]

SAC has interested me. But one thing I'm curious about is what people are using as their control surface, if any.

I'm not really a fan of using a mouse for turning knobs and faders in DAWs, and I feel like I'd be even more annoyed by that mixing live.

I know using a tablet for this sort of thing is becoming the popular thing to do, and I wouldn't mind that I don't think, but I personally really like a tactile surface. I like my knobs and faders. That's why I really like the Behringer BCF2000s.

So, what do you use?

[Doug Hart]

I started out with the Behringer control surface. it works fine, but I found myself using it less and less as I got used to SAC. After about a month, I got rid of it.
My number one hesitation in going with SAC was the tactile surface issue. I don't miss it.

[Razor]

I started out with the Behringer control surface. it works fine, but I found myself using it less and less as I got used to SAC. After about a month, I got rid of it.
My number one hesitation in going with SAC was the tactile surface issue. I don't miss it.

I miss a tactile surface even when mixing recordings, where I don't have to worry about moving quickly. I can't imagine not hating it in a live environment. I don't even like using layers on digital mixers.

[SirNickity]

Ditto.

I think the Behringer is the cheapest thing going right now. Moving faders are not quite a commodity yet. I'm always watching for a good DIY kit, but I don't even think that would undercut it ... though at least you might have a chance of getting 16+ faders on one board.

[Razor]

I've actually toyed with the idea of designing my own control surface, with 24 faders. I have a mock-up in paint.net. Just don't have any idea how I would build such a device by hand.

[BrentEvans]

Building it would be the easy part. SAC has a limited number of surfaces that are supported.

BTW... SAC doesn't have any "knobs" in the GUI. Everything is a slide or click paradigm... it's very quick.

There are some things which work better with faders, though... like crossfades. It's kind of hard to do that with a mouse.

The options right now that give you more than 8 faders are the BCF2000 (up to 32 IIRC, but no scribble strips), the CM Labs Motormix (up to 24, but 3 ganged together for 24 faders isn't quite stable, making 16 the max), and a couple of the templates for digital mixers like the O1V.

SAC is very effective at the use of 8 faders though... it has a chase mode where you click a channel on screen and that becomes fader 1 on your surface.

As much as I like SAC... if you plan to use a control surface for everything, you really should look elsewhere. SAC is designed to be a keyboard-and-mouse operation. If you plan to use primarily the keyboard and mouse, while using the control surface for tasks like multiple manipulation, you'll be fine.

[Haysus]

I use the keyboard the most followed by the mouse/touch pad. I don't really miss faders but it would be nice once or twice a year at my bigger shows. I agree with Brent if you absolutely must have knobs and faders look elsewhere. My particular setup I can have PA & band setup with 16 inputs 4 + mon mixes at an event of 300 or less in an hour and half with a FOH footprint the size of me and a laptop. I get alot of compliments on both sound and lack of a giant desk in the middle of the room.

I have ran the LS9 32 with the IPad. Takes forever to create a mix. iPad surface was alright for basic fader and EQ adjustment but not nearly as powerful remote as SAC with a laptop.

That my $1.00 worth.(inflation)

[Razor]

I wasn't honestly considering getting a SAC system, it's just a really interesting idea. I've been wanting to develop something similar for a long time now, just don't have the coding skills for it yet.

I personally couldn't work without knobs and faders. During a song set I ride the faders pretty much constantly.

[BrentEvans]

I personally couldn't work without knobs and faders. During a song set I ride the faders pretty much constantly.

You'd be surprised what you can get used to. Once you learn how to use processing effectively (comps, gates, VST plugs, etc), the need to ride faders constantly is diminished. This is hard to accomplish with most setups... but simply because most people aren't willing to carry the gobs of gear required to make it happen.

I actually use the mouse very little when mixing... I much prefer using the arrows on the keyboard to adjust volumes. The mouse is for selecting, manipulating buttons, etc... but it's too easy to throw something to +20 unless of course you have the hands of a surgeon.

[Razor]

I personally couldn't work without knobs and faders. During a song set I ride the faders pretty much constantly.

You'd be surprised what you can get used to. Once you learn how to use processing effectively (comps, gates, VST plugs, etc), the need to ride faders constantly is diminished. This is hard to accomplish with most setups... but simply because most people aren't willing to carry the gobs of gear required to make it happen.

I actually use the mouse very little when mixing... I much prefer using the arrows on the keyboard to adjust volumes. The mouse is for selecting, manipulating buttons, etc... but it's too easy to throw something to +20 unless of course you have the hands of a surgeon.

I feel like I understand dynamics processing pretty well, but I still have to ride the faders quite a bit to get a mix that I'm happy with. It's not drastic changes generally. The adjustments I'm making are often less than 3dB + or -. The audience probably doesn't even notice them, which is exactly how I want it.

I could probably micro-manage a lot less and still have a decent mix, but when I'm only adjusting 10 or 12 faders, there's really no reason not to, if it will improve the quality of the mix (even if only by a small measure).

[Tom Smit]

I could probably micro-manage a lot less and still have a decent mix, but when I'm only adjusting 10 or 12 faders, there's really no reason not to, if it will improve the quality of the mix (even if only by a small measure).

Now where did I just recently hear about this? Oh, I remember! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ Listen specifically to the first three and a quarter minutes.

[BrentEvans]

I understand where you're coming from.

Let me tell you a little story.

Once upon a time, I had set up a sound system and we were doing a sound check before the gig. This was pre-SAC for me, so I had a rack of 31-band EQs to do monitors. We rang out everything, had it sounding just the way we wanted (this took an hour).

Ten minutes into the gig, we realized that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "In/Out" buttons on the monitor EQs was "Out."

We HEARD the differences in EQ, even though they weren't being made. We thought about it long and hard, and coined a term for it: "psychic EQ."

Ever since then, I've learned that getting a good mix doesn't require all the piddle changes I used to make. Sure, there are changes... but if the EQ is right, and the dynamics processing is right... the mix cruises along and just needs a bump here or there when the focal lead part changes.

[Razor]

Well, whether the changes are real or just in my head...it doesn't really make any difference to me. If something sounds too loud to me and I turn the fader down 1.4dB or whatever and that fixes it...does it really matter whether or not that's just my brain fooling me?

[BrentEvans]

Well, whether the changes are real or just in my head...it doesn't really make any difference to me. If something sounds too loud to me and I turn the fader down 1.4dB or whatever and that fixes it...does it really matter whether or not that's just my brain fooling me?

I'd say so.. most people can't percieve that 1.4db difference, so it may be that you're only making the mix better for yourself.

Sound and mixing is all about perception. I've learned to ask myself "WHY is this too loud," and the answer usually lies in the dynamics processing or EQ. If that element is conflicting with another element, I try to carve out a space in the mix for it using EQ. If that element is too dynamic, I adjust the compressor. If it's not dynamic enough, likewise. If I don't have enough of something... same process. WHY don't I have enough of it? Is it getting covered up? What's crucial tone of that something can I bring through the mix, and where can I pull back something else to make it shine more....

Once those decisions are made, they tend to be fairly constant (until the guitard player hits another pedal, the keyboard hits another patch, etc). Further, they can be perceived by everyone, which means everyone enjoys the mix.

When I have A2s work with me, they always wonder, and ask me why I touch the controls so very sparingly... but I haven't had a gig yet where I haven't gotten at least a couple of compliments on the sound (and usually more than a couple).

I usually shrug and tell them "I just do what I can..."

[Razor]

Well, whether the changes are real or just in my head...it doesn't really make any difference to me. If something sounds too loud to me and I turn the fader down 1.4dB or whatever and that fixes it...does it really matter whether or not that's just my brain fooling me?

I'd say so.. most people can't percieve that 1.4db difference, so it may be that you're only making the mix better for yourself.

Sound and mixing is all about perception. I've learned to ask myself "WHY is this too loud," and the answer usually lies in the dynamics processing or EQ. If that element is conflicting with another element, I try to carve out a space in the mix for it using EQ. If that element is too dynamic, I adjust the compressor. If it's not dynamic enough, likewise. If I don't have enough of something... same process. WHY don't I have enough of it? Is it getting covered up? What's crucial tone of that something can I bring through the mix, and where can I pull back something else to make it shine more....

Once those decisions are made, they tend to be fairly constant (until the guitard player hits another pedal, the keyboard hits another patch, etc). Further, they can be perceived by everyone, which means everyone enjoys the mix.

When I have A2s work with me, they always wonder, and ask me why I touch the controls so very sparingly... but I haven't had a gig yet where I haven't gotten at least a couple of compliments on the sound (and usually more than a couple).

I usually shrug and tell them "I just do what I can..."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I too tend to get compliments when I mix, I get very few complaints. And the few complaints I've had were never in regard to making small level adjustments throughout the set.

I'm sure a big part of why I mix the way I do is the way I was trained. When I was first trained, I was only taught how to adjust faders. I knew nothing about EQ, dynamics, panning, gain, headroom, SNR, phase, routing, or any of that. The only thing I knew how to do was make things louder or quieter using the channel faders.

I mixed once or twice a week for about a year before I learned anything else. Now I know a lot about EQ, dynamics, etc. But in general, once practice is over and we've gone through the set once, I've got most everything set, and all that's left is to adjust levels to fit each song. Then, I just listen for what needs to be louder or quieter and adjust until it sounds right. Sometimes that's a larger adjustment, but most times it's very small, like 1dB.

I can only mix as well as I can hear.