192 design change requests

[Captain Crunch]

The 192 is a great sounding box--I've happily sold my Apogee's. But there are a few physical issues with them that really need improvement:

1. calibration is a serious headache--the sockets are very hard to reach under the d-subs when the cables are connected: maybe the calibration screws could be on the front, like the good ol' 888.

2. we need full sized meters on the front--they are truly useless now. There is a lot of usable real estate on the front of the unit--why not give us something to work with?

3. a "soft clip" indicator on the front, showing status for each channel

4. a headphone out with a switch that selects a stereo pair to monitor (like the AD-8000 has)

anybody else??

[PlugInJunky]

I agree...cal is a tru bitch...and this one thing to prove that Digi doesnt really talk to the working engineer...especially the techs that are the ones that have to cal these things...

[JGuth]

If you put all the calibrations on the front, where would you put your big meters or even the current one's?? Design is not so easy. I happen to like the 192 as is and would not like to pay for the extras you mention. I use the meters on screen and actually keep the 192's out of the way as they're in a big iso box to eliminate the fan noise which is the one thing I really dislike. But they just generate a lot of heat...

[Captain Crunch]

look at an 888--the cal screws are right there, under the meters. make the meters skinny and stick them on the front. badabing.

[Barnabas]

I do not need the features you mentioned, but I will defend your right to need them.

[privateIQ]

Originally posted by PlugInJunky:
I agree...cal is a tru bitch...and this one thing to prove that Digi doesnt really talk to the working engineer...especially the techs that are the ones that have to cal these things...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agreed. Calibration is the weakest area of the Pro Tools system. It's been that way for years. In the old days the manuals advocated a test tone at 1,000K! The calibration of PT 5.1 for surround was only approached as an afterthought (and even then with a sub-par product). They apparently had complete confusion of the LFE channel with the "subwoofer" and it's only now that a third party developer will release an add-on that begins to make some sense of PT in self-contained surround applications (i.e, those with no external HW bass management). Unfortunately, the engineering side of Digi doesn't seem to be filled with people who have owned studios that had to open every day with the equipment in good calibration.

In a pro studio, the meters are not that important for users because pros usuallly have outboard pro meters (and pros will never rely on the HD meters), so I can forgive them for opting for the cheap way out there. The trims are another issue. The Mix system seems to drift by a dB fairly often and if you calibrate to .05 dB with a serious meter, it's irritating enough to have to check the drift every day, much less trot to the machine room and deal with the current situation. Calibration needs to be quick and easy on a professional system.

PIQ

[Psyduck]

Captain Crunch and PlugInJunky are right but don't expect Digi to make any design changes.

privateIQ, I agree that the panel meters being useless is of little consequence during a session. At this pro studio, our systems are kept in machine rooms. Calibration is a two man process. Input calibration could be a one man process by attaching a monitor and mouse in the machine room. Output must be checked on the console meters. Plugging PT's outputs back its own inputs and using the internal generator does not account for the reality of the interface between PT, 50' of cable, a patch bay, another 25' of cable and the console. So you wind up with 2 techs on the phone to each other "A little higher... there, no... back down". Oh well, no different than any other recorder. But Digi's putting them on the back panel of the 192 was either stupid or sadistic!
Regarding cal drift, I've dealt withover 50 888/24's and have never had any problem with calibration drift. Any significant (greater than 0.1 dB) drift I've encountered was caused by cable and connectors.

Back to "wish thy would haves" I still can't get over the fact that you can't have 16 analog inputs and outputs on one unit because you can't remove the digital port. I'm only getting 75% use out of the things.
For that matter why didn't they make the box 3U high and have space for 6 I/O port modules so I could have 16 analog I/O's and 16 digital I/O's and select which inputs I want to use with software? With a 3U high panel there would be room for front panel cal controls and a cal meter with 0.1 dB resolution, ref level selector and channel selector.

Well, don't hold your breath

[Andre Knecht]

Originally posted by privateIQ:
The calibration of PT 5.1 for surround was only approached as an afterthought (and even then with a sub-par product). They apparently had complete confusion of the LFE channel with the "subwoofer" and it's only now that a third party developer will release an add-on that begins to make some sense of PT in self-contained surround applications (i.e, those with no external HW bass management).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What have I missed (and clearly I did)?

Could you please expand (or refer me to an appropriate link) on your comment about a third party's impending release of an "add-on"? Thanks.

[privateIQ]

Originally posted by Andre Knecht:

Could you please expand (or refer me to an appropriate link) on your comment about a third party's impending release of an "add-on"? Thanks.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">A pre-AES "rumor" from a source I trust, sorry.

PIQ