Big Mixer

garygiles · Post by **garygiles** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:27 pm

I have been doing a load of internet search on Creamware to get some history of the kit. I see there once was a mixer called Big Mixer. This look good on paper, does anyone what happened to it?

Regards

Gary

MD69 · Post by **MD69** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:34 pm

Disapeared when Scope 3 arrived

check here also:

http://www.siegelmusic.de/siegelmusicdevices.html

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:10 pm

It was also lovingly known round these parts as Bug Mixer, i'll let you draw your own conclusions. Mind you, i loved it at the time.

garygiles · Post by **garygiles** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:37 pm

Thanks very much for the info. They are very close to the sort of mixer I have been looing for.

MD69 · Post by **MD69** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:53 pm

Glad it helped you

There have been (1 or 2 years ago) a guy (Sonolive) who have/was going to publish a mixer. I don't remember what happened as I was not seeking for a mixer but some old timers there might recall this

Got it! here:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 1&forum=16

Michel

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MD69 on 2005-12-08 17:15 ]</font>

garygiles · Post by **garygiles** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:54 pm

i really like the look of the big mixer
Why did they stop doing them?

MD69 · Post by **MD69** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:11 pm

There were some bugs issues and they replaced it by the 24/48 when they updated Scope.

Post by **hubird** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:09 pm

and gave it a more professional GUI...

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:35 pm

The STM series is superior - the didn't call the other BugMixer for nothing

garygiles · Post by **garygiles** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:07 am

but these have better routing. 16 Aux's, fantstic. Yes the 24/96 are good and great for studio use, but for live use far too complicated. All I want is loads of inputs and loads of output with individual routing from each channel.

G.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:20 am

congrats!

djmicron · Post by **djmicron** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:32 am

garygiles,
you should think about the free routing capabilities of scope and not just the limitations of a single device.
You can do every sort of routing using for example the modular or the sub mixers.

garygiles · Post by **garygiles** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:02 am

What do you mean by congrats!????

Post by **garyb** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:04 am

congratulations that there is a device that works for your needs. a friendly expression...

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:27 am

@ Gary

When I first saw the BM my computer was equipped with a monitor capable of viewing 800x600. The BM was fffar too large for it and I didn't use it even a time but nowadays with modern monitors... Who knows... Modern monitor and the Big Mixer - what a duo!

garygiles · Post by **garygiles** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:27 am

Well the idea works for me but there not reliable. They, I guess, are designed to work work old version of Scope software. I just prefer the inface on the Big Mixer.

MD69 · Post by **MD69** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:48 am

Hi GaryGiles,

If you have an old pulsar software (v2.4 ) you should be able to find the bigmixer in the devices/mixer directory (You might need to have a pulsar key in your key file in order to run it as it is a pre scope device)

Best regards

Michel Delcant

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:46 am

On 2005-12-09 02:27, samplaire wrote:
When I first saw the BM my computer was equipped with a monitor capable of viewing 800x600. The BM was fffar too large for it and I didn't use it even a time but nowadays with modern monitors... Who knows... Modern monitor and the Big Mixer - what a duo!

Also, the BigMixer's panels don't 'share memory' yet, each next panel selected takes extra memory. At the time I had 384MB, and the BigMixer took 12MB per 8channel displayed, plus 8MB for a cached GUI of each Bus panel. May be overcome nowadays too eh. STM is way more proficient memory wise, it takes like 10%...

Personally I'd not go for that complex mixer and set up a couple of micro-/dynamic mixers for that purpose. To enhance some of the Routing Window, you can name those where their name is displayed on their GUI panel. Another thing worth exploring when working with lots of IO are the (search in Devices folder/manual) External Source/Destination/Effect devices, they can alias IO and double inputs of what would be otherwise grouped and named to default in hardware block representation (ADAT,ZLink,ASIO). Also a lot of cables can be avoided using the External Devices.

There's even a PinkMixer, pink version of the BM, which should be available as free download if you search a bit.

There's options, use whatever works best for you

at0m.

garygiles · Post by **garygiles** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:17 am

i know the newer mixers are much more efficiant on the memory side of things. What I like about the big mixer is 1, the visual you can quickly see whats going on with a mix as you can see all the aux, op routing and Eq. 2, the number of outputs avalible on each channel. Why did they stop having 16 Aux's, did it use up to much memory?

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:18 am

Yeah, it might be DSP-usage related. Each Aux needs its own submixing module, so for 24 mono channels that's 16 x 24, double for stereo.

That would be overkill for the smaller cards, while the STM4896 most likely wouldn't even fit on a 6 DSP card if you make most channels stereo.