Consoles 949A wide and glittering variety of controls have evolved
to suit this requirement, but they all basically have a
row or concentric ring of indicating lights, fluorescent
indicators, or LCD panels disposed around the digital
resolver control knob. Alternatives to knobs, switches,
and indicators such as interactive GUI screens suffer
from an ergonomic disconnect between the physical
operation of the control and from where the relevant
feedback is displayed, unless the control becomes a
mouse-driven widget on the screen. GUIs do, however,
pose a very attractive supplemental display method, if
not primary.
A third modification to the initial rationalization
concerns the many auxiliary mixes found in a console,
whether they be for effect feeds, foldback, or, perhaps
most importantly, multitrack monitoring. Although the
controls for these are traditionally regarded as channel
controls, intuitively they are thought of and operated on
horizontally across the console; if someone’s setting up
a foldback mix they’d most likely be working along the
row of controls for that mix bus (to which they’d also
almost certainly be listening via monitoring) and have
very little interest in any other channel controls at all.
Making the operator select each channel at a time to do
such a routine mix setup is a very retrograde move—it
imposes an unwelcome multi step process that diverts
concentration from the task at hand to the means of
achieving it. Quite sensibly then, any same-function
bus-oriented controls should become accessible
together. This is precisely the rationale behind the
channel faders all being accessible simultaneously.
Ideally, a row of interactive knobs, one per channel
across the console, the function of which follows the
feature of interest (like that foldback mix) is appealing.
Such have been variously called smart bus or virtual
controls. A neat bit of further rationalization comes into
play here; the consolewide set of controls implied in
having parallel access to auxiliary buses (meaning that
in addition to a fader for each channel there would be an
auxiliary bus control also) can be avoided if really
necessary by using the already existent faders. After all,
if we’re busy setting up an auxiliary mix, we won’t be
overly concerned about other mixes, including the main
one. Even if something does need instant attention, reas-
signing the faders to main mix is only a button away.
So here is the essence of control surface rationaliza-
tion. There would be a row of moving faders and
possibly a smart knob, one for each channel, with an
adjacent control select button (ME!) that renders a
singular set of channel controls (whether glass or phys-
ical) operative on that particular channel. We would also
have a row of buttons (with again possibly GUI supple-
mentation) that selects on which mix-bus(es) the fader
row is acting.
Early practical experience with this showed, even
with operators who came to grips with the
single-channel concept readily, that there should be
ideally more than one set of channel controls—it is a
common requirement to play two or more channels
against each other in a mix. Secondarily it was felt that
having a set of controls always set up on the one critical
channel in a mix (the money mic) and having one or
more floating surfaces perhaps represented a better
compromise. This represents the fourth major modifica-
tion to the single-channel concept, although most ratio-
nalized designs still lean to just supplying the one set of
channel controls.
The great beauty of making all controls transient
(i.e., not totally dedicated to any one channel’s function)
is that all console functions are implicitly digitally
stored, recallable, manipulatable, and automatable.25.16.13.2 Commercial Console Control SurfacesThere are, however, very strong reasons for retaining
the single control per function and module strip layout
familiar from big analog consoles of yore over to digital
consoles, regardless of the undoubted temptation to
rationalize.
By way of prime example, Figs. 25-119 and 25-120
show a world-class analog production console, the SSL
Duality, and the corresponding world-class digital
production console, the SSL C200—if you can tell them
apart—which is the whole point. The very sensible
argument is that there is a very large user base familiar
with the ergonomics and accomplished in the use of the
analog console, so why on earth force a learning curve
on them? Both of these consoles are intended to work in
a highly integrated fashion with/as digital audio work-
stations, explored below.
At the other end of the rationalization spectrum is the
Innova-Son Compact, shown in Fig. 25-121. This is as
close to the single-channel concept as it is possible to
get; other than the faders all controls are centralized,
following the ME! button’s activation on the desired
channel. There are some very clever features not obvious
from the photograph: all the faders are moving faders; if
a channel ME! button is pressed, all the group faders
move to represent that channel’s feeds to each of those
groups. If a group ME! is pressed, all the channel faders
move to represent each of the channels’ contributions to
that group. A very impressive surface and fun to drive.
It is not a surprising leap to see that a rationalized
surface such as that can have the input (and output for