Last week I noticed a gang can only contain 16 channels.
I had 18 wireless mics so that made it rather clunky to gang certain features.
I had to work in 2 gangs and copy over information over when necessary.
I’m not sure if there’s a practical justification for this 16 channel limit, but here’s my vote to see it lifted.
In my opinion, this is a case for “normal” groups, to which you can assign any number of channels.
May I ask why you want to use ganging for this?
Ganging is more intended for, for example, one instrument with multiple outputs.
1 Like
Or a group of similar instruments, like instrument groups in an orchestra.
And I wouldn’t gang the faders in such a scenario.
Just some processing and routing.
Obviously there is no right or wrong way to use ganging. That being said, I think my work flow matches SQuers.
If I have a bunch of similar inputs, I’ll tend to use a group instead of a gang. So if I had 18 matching lav mics, I would use a lav mic group and send all of the individual lav mic channels to the lav group. The group processing would allow me to quickly ring the mics out and get a base EQ set, set basic compression, etc across all the lav mics while still leaving the individual channel processing available so that I could further dial in each lav mic for the particular speaker/user. In other words, the group processing acts as my “fix the issues with the lav mics themselves” while leaving the individual channel processing to further “dial in the sound of each individual speaker/user”.
Obviously it depends on what elements I choose to “gang” together, but duplicating processing on every lav channel through a gang isn’t as flexible as using the group work flow IMHO.
Like SQuser, I also tend to use ganging when I want a single source to go to several channels/outputs. For example, if I have duplicated my vocal channels so that I can have compression on one channel but no compression on another channel (usually to send the uncompressed signal to that singer’s monitor and the compressed channel to the other musician’s monitors and FOH), I would use ganging to ensure the channel EQ stayed the same on both instances.
Why would you ever want singers eq to be the same as eq to mains ??
Thanks
Well, compressing 18 channels with the same settings will not yield the same result as bussing them together and applying a compressor with identical settings to the group. They are two different approaches with valid reasons with pros and cons. Indeed, there’s no right or wrong. It’s about having sound reasons for doing what you’re doing.
I’ve been a professional recording, mix and live engineer for about 25 years.
I’ve got a quite clear grasp on when and why I want to process individual tracks as opposed to bussed groups. I’ll do whatever I think will make it easier for me to control what I want to control.
In this case I used both bussing and ganging, all for different reasons.
I ganged identical ambient mics to be able to easily apply identical processing settings to all of them (such as expander and compression settings, while keeping individual control in other settings like EQ, mute and level.
I also had 18 wireless headsets for which I had no time to do substantial individual sound checks, nor was there much point to that as many of the headsets would be shared between different amateur actors during the show.
I decided it would be more manageable if I ganged the expander and compressor controls on the individual channels, using the gains on the fly to compensate for differing input levels.
That way I could process each mic individually but control processing that I’d want on an individual level, but with identical settings applied to all and changed applied instantly to all members.
Ganging seems like the best way to achieve that.
What ganging may or may not be originally intended for, is if no concern.
Sound engineering and indeed the sonic arts are moved forward by people using their tools in unintended ways. 
That’s the fun part.
Regardless of what gangs were intended to do, I find them useful for some things I want to achieve and I’m wondering why there’s a 16 channel limit to them, which seems unnecessary to me.
I’ve other gripes with gangs too, for different applications. Like why you can’t gang different types of mixes together, but I digress.
Can anyone think of a good reason why gangs should be limited to 16 channels, regardles of why I would want to gang more than 16 channels?
Thanks for the explanation Yves. I was thinking in terms of live context. For my own purposes I have yet to utilize ganging to any great extent but appreciate others experience without changing Yves initial enquirey.
Truly an unconventional approach, and especially in the case described, it wouldn’t be my choice.
Nevertheless, I’ll think about it.
After all, there are many ways to Rome.
The reason is certainly, as always, a design decision by the engineers.
In the SQ, for example, there are only 12.
Well it’s a live theatre application.
I wouldn’t soon use ganging on channels in a live band situation for example.
I do use ganging on the EQs on my matrices going to the PA.
That way I can easily apply an EQ curve to the whole PA, as if I was using an EQ on the master. This perhaps also unconventional method has advantages too.
In general ganging offers me a way to link the controls of processors and this can be useful. I hardly ever gang the faders or mutes.
We all develop our own methods for different reasons of course but I wonder how you could achieve what I want in another way on Avantis.
Of course, this depends a lot on the character of the piece, e.g., whether it’s classical theater, where the voices only need a little support, up to something musical with vocals, where the PA can or must be heard and even stage monitors are used.
And, above all, how high the risk of feedback is.
I would certainly have created several groups, such as women, men, changers, and main actors, and probably dynamically filtered out mainly annoying frequencies there, and not just on Avantis.
I probably wouldn’t have risked mixing with the gains - ok, perhaps careful in connection with the Mixing Station.
So, apparently, a completely different approach.
This was a musical by a primary school.
Normally I avoid using headsets on amateur theatre on our stage and rely on ambient mics. It’s not ideal, but more easily manageable than a bunch of wireless mics on amateurs.
Since this was a musical, I couldn’t really avoid it.
But, there was no budget for wireless mics for each actor, I had to deal with many changes and even a blend with ambient mics for some actors without mics.
Since this was a primary school I expected a lot of chaos.
I did what I could to keep things as easily manageable as possible without getting into too much detail that would be a fools errand since neither the actors’ performance or their mic placement would likely be consistent.
Luckily feedback wasn’t a huge issue.
Anyway, I always gang certain controls on my ambient mics, in this case it made sense to me to gang certain controls on the wireless channels too, certainly as a starting point.
Adjusting the gains on the fly was no issue and the best way to adjust to changeing situations. It’s important for the auto mixers to work well too.
I’m not entirely sure if that question is directed at me, but I will answer it as if it was…
First, I likely would never gang channel processing like EQ to a buss (like the Main output) because the audio on the buss would likely be different than the channel (ie the buss would have more audio sources summed into it). I would usually only gang two channels that share the same source and so obviously the audio would be exactly the same on both channels in that case.
Furthermore, if my system is set up correctly any EQ needed to make corrections on a “per output” basis is done at the buss level. This means that any EQ being done at the channel level is because of some correction I need to make based on the source, without regard for the output the source is destined for. Therefore the channel EQ corrections being done would be applicable for both FOH and monitors because it’s the same musician using the same mic/instrument that’s being send to both FOH and monitors. This means if I have duplicated a channel for some reason (like having different compression settings for monitors vs FOH), I generally want the channel EQ to match on both instances and therefore I would likely use a gang to make sure the processing matched on the duplicated channels.
Now that is just my general practice. Obviously there might be times where a singer/musician requests a specific EQ correction on a specific source that I don’t want in the FOH mix (and the other musicians likely don’t want in their IEM either). If that occurs, the easiest solution is just to duplicate the source on another channel and use the dup for the person’s monitor send. I wouldn’t gang the EQ in that case obviously.
That being said, it is rare for me to get those type of requests. It is normal to have to EQ the entire monitor send for a musician due to their specific IEM model, some sort of hearing deficiency, the musician’s idea of what sounds good, etc. But that would be done at the buss level and not the channel level.
Also, don’t forget that “groups” can only being sent to one destination. Groups set up for FOH use can’t also be sent to the monitors. This means that by using the group processing to “ring out” the lav mics for example, I am only affecting the FOH signal. The monitor sends would only be affected by the channel EQ which I would use to correct something about the individual speaker/singer/source using the lav mic. Again, I would want those changes to affect all the outputs. For EQ and other processing that I only want to hear on the PA and not in the monitors, I would use the group processing.
You can use Mixing Station to work around this limitation. I just tried and it allowed seemingly limitless MS Channel links (63 channels works). As long as MS is connected to the mixer and active it will keep settings you select linked between all chamber in a MS Ch Link.
Not my typical use case, but it would allow as you desire.
2 Likes
Thanks! That’s a temporary workaround at least.
FWIW I don’t subscribe to this line of theoretical thought.
Even with a correctly set up monitor, your mic/instrument signal gets reproduced through it in an acoustic environment and is often picked up again by said mic or instrument.
Any EQ corrections needed to avoid feedback, I’d ideally do on the split channel of that instrument.
Applying the same curve to the FOH or even the other sources going to that monitor, seems like nonsense to me.
If I need to, I’ll do it, it if I’m free to avoid it, I will.
One of the main reasons I use split channels on vocals is to have different EQ curves on the FOH and Mon channels.