ICON vs Other console for film post

[Bokir]

Okay, I have read so much grin and cheers for ICON. And as far as what I've read and learn--it's something like "the best currently available control surface" for PT. This is truly an exciting development for guy like me that already familiar with PT MITB workflow.

However, I also see (from this forum) that some of you still consider the OTHER big console for whatever reason it give you a preferences over the ICON.

Being unfortunate to not (yet) able to experience to work with such a desk, I couldn't see the advantage, ease of use, ergonomic, sonic accuracy, etc. from the other desk.

Could anybody describe why you still prefer the other big desk instead of ICON? Which feature is not available or can't be done in ICON?

I'm referring the OTHER desk to:

Neve DFC
Harrison Series 12/MPC
Euphonix System 5
Studer D950/Vista 7

Please be ellaborate. Many thanks.

PS: Sorry for my english.

[Henchman]

Well, I haven't used an icon. But I can't see having to byt 2 full Icon's to do a 2 man mix set-up. Yet not having ther flexibility using a console gives you.
I've listed numerous reason why I personally would not favour using a control surface versus an actual console.

[Blake A]

Well, I haven't used an icon. But I can't see having to byt 2 full Icon's to do a 2 man mix set-up. Yet not having ther flexibility using a console gives you

Henchman,

You mention the Euphonix System 5 in many of your other posts. Don't you have to buy two of them to make a true dual operator console?

Why do you keep calling it just a control surface? Would you buy just the surface part of a DFC or System 5 or Harrison MPC? Of course not, you would get the system with DSP engine and I/O converters to go with it, just like you buy the PT HD DSP and HD I/O converters to complete your Icon (except there is a good chance you already own these). It looks like a full blown digital console to me with the same functional blocks as the others.

What added flexibility is it missing? Seems to me that Icon is more flexible in many areas. It has 64 busses, more flexible sends, inserts placed in any order desired, routing and it certainly has much more flexible processing options with all the variety of EQ and dynamics plug ins out there plus its the only one with built in high quality reverbs. No doubt there are a few things the big film consoles have which aren't yet available on Icon but if it is around as long as Pro Control has been it can only get better and if I were a chief engineer, I'd feel pretty safe knowing parts will still be available until I make that final 48 or 60 month lease payment.

Blake

[Henchman]

Henchman,

You mention the Euphonix System 5 in many of your other posts. Don't you have to buy two of them to make a true dual operator console?

Blake

Ok. I'll explain once more.

When using ANY console in conjunction with ANY DAW, 2 Separate DAWS allow you to basically do a 2 man mix, without having to have 2 consoles. The ability to have separate access to the Dialogue session and SFX and BG session is paramount. If I need to mess around with some BG's or SFX on the DAW, I can take it off line and do it without interfering with the Dialogue mixer and his session.

Now with an Icon, you either buy 2, or have a single PT's rig running all the tracks, thereby removign the possiblity of split sessions, and again slwoing things down needlessly.

Yes, having 2 separate consoles is nice if you can afford it, but not necessary.

As far as flexibility, I personally find using a real console with a DAW more flexible than using a DAw with a control surface. I have access to the same plug-ins as well as the console stuff.

Again. that's just my opinion.

[Blake A]

When using ANY console in conjunction with ANY DAW, 2 Separate DAWS allow you to basically do a 2 man mix, without having to have 2 consoles. The ability to have separate access to the Dialogue session and SFX and BG session is paramount. If I need to mess around with some BG's or SFX on the DAW, I can take it off line and do it without interfering with the Dialogue mixer and his session.

Now with an Icon, you either buy 2, or have a single PT's rig running all the tracks, thereby removign the possiblity of split sessions, and again slwoing things down needlessly.

OK, on pretty much every hollywood film stage or long form TV post stage where they mix dual (or three) operator, they do it on a console with a music/dialog side and an fx side, each with full master sections and fader buckets. Same thing with Icon - dual master sections and fader buckets. On an AMS/Euphonix/Harrison you have to buy that extra master section - whats the difference? If you don't buy the extra master then you have two mixers sharing one automation system, and fighting over the global automation buttons in the center and the control for global layering - correct? You certainly can't take one sides automation off line.

With a dual Icon, each side would have its own full P T system just like the other digital consoles. If you need more Pro Tools systems on line, then you bring them into Aux tracks on the desired sides PT system. An Aux track in PT is just like a regular console channel on a DFC/Harrsion/System 5 and I think there are 128 of them in HD Accel in addition to the 192 disk tracks.
You can take any system off line just like a regular console.

As a matter of fact, you could use both sides of the Icons PT systems purely as consoles (not using one disk track on either) with each side having 128 mono/stereo channels (Aux tracks) and you could feed ANY DAW you like into it ( or even 2" machines if thats what's delivered to the mix!) and automate everything from the surface. The Icon is then purely working as a digital console.

[Henchman]

Did you read my post?

Using the Icon you HAVE to have 2 complete systems.
With a console you Don't. I have explained why.

I do dual man mixes all the time won single control section consoles.
Allthough not as flexible as a complete dual console system, it's still easy to do, and each side still has separate acces to their sessions.

Not possible witha single Icon, unless you add racks and racks of I/O's on each system, and feed them into the other System.

I've gone into this in length on othe rposts.

[Blake A]

Using the Icon you HAVE to have 2 complete systems.
With a console you Don't. I have explained why.

A dual operator 32+32 fader Icon costs way less than a single operator 64 fader large format film console and has none of the compromises you must make in sharing one master section.
Even so, you can do it on a single Icon. You open the fx session on the Icon and bring the additional music/dialog PT session in on Aux tracks. These aux tracks have no less capability than the channels on your regular console - full automation, processing routing. You just have to go to the PT system to edit the music/dialog tracks, just like you would on your regular console.

I do dual man mixes all the time on single control section consoles.
Although not as flexible as a complete dual console system, it's still easy to do, and each side still has separate acces to their sessions

Yes but its a pain in the butt and you know it. With one console, your central global buttons for specific automation functions and layering and building groups etc are shared by both mixers. You can't use preview modes or do a write to start or end without telling the other mixer to hold it for a while because that global mode effects both mixers moves. If you want to build layers or groups the other mixer is twiddling his thumbs until your done. You can't take just one sides automation offline, you can't undo a pass without undoing the other guys last pass too. You can't go back a few passes to try something else because it also goes back several passes on the other side undoing what he did. Join modes affect both sides when you might not want them to. How can you say this is more flexible?

...Not possible with a single Icon, unless you add racks and racks of I/O's on each system, and feed them into the other System.

If your using Pro Tools, you would need less I/O on an Icon setup because your tracks are already in the console, the only I/O's you need are for connecting to outboard- which isn't much with the vast array of plugs, and enough 192D's to cascade the mix buses from one side to the other (maybe 48 busses wide), plus your I/O to and from the stem recorder.
On your big console, you need the same amount or more I/O for your outboard and recorder, but you also need much more I/O to feed your tracks into the console, perhaps 150+ channels ( and not just 150 channels of PT I/O but also 150 channels of console AES inputs to get it into the console).

Blake

[Henchman]

If your using Pro Tools, you would need less I/O on an Icon setup because your tracks are already in the console, the only I/O's you need are for connecting to outboard- which isn't much with the vast array of plugs, and enough 192D's to cascade the mix buses from one side to the other (maybe 48 busses wide), plus your I/O to and from the stem recorder.
On your big console, you need the same amount or more I/O for your outboard and recorder, but you also need much more I/O to feed your tracks into the console, perhaps 150+ channels ( and not just 150 channels of PT I/O but also 150 channels of console AES inputs to get it into the console).

Blake

This has been discussed i anothe rpost. But Let's do the math again. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

To get the 48 track wide busses from one Icon to another you will need 48 cahnnels of I/O on 1 Icon.
Then another 48 I/O to get into the other Icon.
Now, we'll need another 48 additonal I/O to get to your stems into your dubbers. So a minimum of 96 cahnnels of I/O for the 2nd Icon, and that's counting on doing all the processing internal.

I think you will need additioanl I/O's to have monitor outs, and inserts for Dolby encoders/Decoders.

So, a dual Icon with 32 faders for each, becasue you can't get them in 24, is going to cost, if what I've read correctly, a minimum of around $90k. Add the additonal I/O's and see where you are sitting.

There's a reason why large facilitiues are still buying Large format film consoles.

Personnaly, I think the Euphonx approach with the Eucon system allowing control over nuendo directly on the console, in addition to the flexibilty of an actual console is the best.
I still prefer a DAW in conjunction with a console dedicated to one thing. And that's to mix. Instead of a DAW pretending to be a console.

Again, just my opinion. I'm not askign anyone to agree with me.

[Blake A]

This has been discussed i anothe rpost. But Let's do the math again. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

To get the 48 track wide busses from one Icon to another you will need 48 cahnnels of I/O on 1 Icon.
Then another 48 I/O to get into the other Icon.

If you have a total of 48 mix buses, you really don't need to send all of them across, just the ones your Icons side is using, perhaps 24. But lets say you want to send all 48, that total would need 6 192D's at $2495 each. Thats $15K list and less on the street. Both the console and Icon need the same I/O to send to the recorder so thats a wash.
Now lets look at the I/O cost on your console. Can you tell me how much it costs for 150 channels of of AES inputs to get your PT into your console and another 150 AES output converters to get out of your PT? A tad more than the $15K it cost to cascade you mix busses on Icon, I bet.

I think you will need additioanl I/O's to have monitor outs, and inserts for Dolby encoders/Decoders.

Yep, just like your console

Personnaly, I think the Euphonx approach with the Eucon system allowing control over nuendo directly on the console, in addition to the flexibilty of an actual console is the best.

Sounds great, is that shipping now ? And what do I tell all the sound editorial companies who want to book my dub stage and bring in Pro Tools sessions to mix?
You keep talking about added flexibility - give me some specifics. Your single operator console didn't look too flexible to me when you stick two mixers on it - looks like a huge compromise.

I still prefer a DAW in conjunction with a console dedicated to one thing. And that's to mix. Instead of a DAW pretending to be a console.

You mean to mix on a console with one choice of built in Eq and Dynamics, no graphical automation editing, no built in effects. I think I'll mix on the pretender

[Henchman]

You mean to mix on a console with one choice of built in Eq and Dynamics, no graphical automation editing, no built in effects. I think I'll mix on the pretender

Wrong. Because with a console and DAW I get both.