Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Live Sound > VENUE Live Sound Systems

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-24-2008, 07:01 PM
gilparente gilparente is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 32
Default

Sheldon,

Is there any plan on developing a sort of Digilink Splitter box? I know it hasn't been any issue with using a single system, but for those who always enjoy the extra security of a redundant system, it would be nice.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-24-2008, 07:39 PM
Sheldon Radford's Avatar
Sheldon Radford Sheldon Radford is offline
Avid
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 1,293
Default

Hi,

As convenient as it would be, such an arrangement wouldn't eliminate all of the possible single points of failure so a true redundant rig using a dedicated split and second preamp + Pro Tools system is always recommended for mission critical applications.

Sheldon
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-12-2008, 06:54 PM
bmadix bmadix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheldon Radford View Post
Hi,

As convenient as it would be, such an arrangement wouldn't eliminate all of the possible single points of failure so a true redundant rig using a dedicated split and second preamp + Pro Tools system is always recommended for mission critical applications.

Sheldon
The problem, to the degree that it is one, will be that all of your preamp gains will be different for the two systems. I've seen this done with two consoles live, and the engineer loaded his show from one into the other. Two completely redundant systems in a mission-critical situation. Of course, if he had peaks during the show, changing gain on one console did nothing to sort out the problem on the second record rig.

Maybe that's not the end of the world, but in an age where a single rack space unit can route MADI signal to two separate sets of outputs, it seems there would be a simpler way to record to a back-up system than to bring in an entirely separate FOH rig.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2011, 01:08 PM
bblackstone bblackstone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6
Default Re: Recording to two PT HD systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheldon Radford View Post
Hi Brad,

Great to see you on the DUC. Thanks for contributing!

Well, this is uncharted (and untested) territory but let's go there and see what happens...

In theory, it can be done...with caveats. One major limitation to "Y"-ing the outputs (using a passive BNC T-split connection, I'm assuming) is that it cuts the effective snake length in half. So max 250 feet using high quality cable. Also, the cable on both sides of the T-split needs to be the exact same length in order to minimize reflections (curse you laws of physics and transmission lines!). So even if the backup FOH Rack rack was located next to the Stage rack the same amount of cable is needed as the longest run.

Things would look a little weird on the backup FOH Rack as well. It wouldn't know there's a Stage Rack due to the single-ended snake connection, but it would still get the audio. There'd be no gain control, either, as that's controlled by the master FOH Rack. But in theory it all would work and you'd have a redundant record rig.

An alternate arrangement would be to forego the redundant snake option and simply use the second snake output from Stage Rack to feed the slave FOH Rac, since audio is present on both snake outputs at all times. The advantages to this approach are that separate cable lengths can be used for the main and backup runs, and no T-splits are involved.

Again, all of this is speculative and untested. Do not risk a major recording event (or your career) on it!

Sheldon
Has anybody tried this approach of a second FOH rack for redundant recording? Can a second FOH rack be used as a slave, without control surface attached, to access inputs 1-48 into a 2nd Pro Tools HD recorder?

If I recall I saw a thread earlier stating that while the signal on the digital snake from stage to FOH is not madi, it can be converted to optical and back on an RME madi splitter. So my question is can the RME madi splitter be used to split to 2 FOH racks for redundant HD recorders?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-17-2011, 03:23 PM
dstagl dstagl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 415
Default Re: Recording to two PT HD systems

If you're only using 1-48, the latest VENUE software allows you to do redundant outputs on a second HDx card so that you can record 1-48 on two HD rigs.

Dave
__________________
David Stagl - Mixer | FOH Engineer
http://www.staglproductions.com
http://www.goingto11.com
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-18-2011, 01:44 PM
bblackstone bblackstone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6
Default Re: Recording to two PT HD systems

Ok that is great for 48 inputs.

What if I am using two stage racks and have 96 inputs?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-18-2011, 02:27 PM
Roland Clarke Roland Clarke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 210
Default Re: Recording to two PT HD systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblackstone View Post
Ok that is great for 48 inputs.

What if I am using two stage racks and have 96 inputs?
I think that you can do that with Madi, but you need RME madirouters and the a couple of SSL Madi to Pro Tools converters (two per PT rig). This, of course works out expensive, but I figure if you are in the market to be hired for 96 track projects, the budget is likely large enough to cover it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-18-2011, 03:01 PM
Sheldon Radford's Avatar
Sheldon Radford Sheldon Radford is offline
Avid
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 1,293
Default Re: Recording to two PT HD systems

Note that the VENUE MADI Option Card has two outputs - coax and optical - and both are always active. This means you could run one output to one MADI recorder, and the other output to a second MADI recorder, without needing an additional MADI router/splitter. This assumes that at least one of the recorders is within the 100 meter limit for coax.

Sheldon
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-18-2011, 03:08 PM
bblackstone bblackstone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6
Default Re: Recording to two PT HD systems

Well madi is very convenient to work with, but to buy madi cards for FOH rack, madi splitter, and 4 SSL Delta Link... going to be over $18k.

If it is possible to use a slave FOH rack, a couple grand for an RME splitter and a rental on an extra FOH rack is much more cost effective.

Has anybody tried it?

Also is it possible to use the FOH rack software with just a mouse and keyboard, no control surface, to do routing to the HDX assignable inputs?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-19-2011, 01:35 AM
James Drake James Drake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 592
Default Re: Recording to two PT HD systems

sorry, i haven't read everything but:

RAID is not backup (and anyway PT can't record to RAID)

backup record systems is absolutely a requirement for all live recordings, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

splitting a digital feed to two recorders is not backup, because a glitch somewhere is going to affect both recordings.

you need to a do a split in the analogue domain

absolutely fine to take the master record from the FOH mixer digital outputs direct to PT. but backup does not need to be Pro Tools. you can use any standard multitrack record thing, then if you need to go to the backup record just take the drives and build a session in PT then give to the client.

yes the client may NEED PT sessions for their post workflow, but in 95% of cases the recorder can be anything that makes wav files and you just make a PT session for the client out of these after the gig.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Pro Tools Mbox Personal Recording Systems Avid 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 76 02-15-2013 01:58 PM
New Pro Tools Mbox Personal Recording Systems Avid 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 140 02-02-2013 02:11 PM
echo when recording mostly on intel systems Litemup 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 1 11-11-2008 10:22 PM
OT: best way to feed 2 recording systems? mgbasinski 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 1 05-14-2007 07:21 AM
Lowest recording latency on mixerless non-TDM systems? 6 ms? undertone Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 0 12-31-2002 04:27 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com