Summer 2009 - IATSE Local 695 Quarterly

PSC Solice EVALUATION
The current trend toward multi-track recording
makes heavy demands on the small mix panels
traditionally used on location. Where a four-input
Sela was once more than enough, today, even a
six-channel Cooper can come up short. There are
two responses to this challenge: one can use one
of several very capable panels made for the music
market or choose one of the new generation of
mixers made especially for film production. Only
two contemporary film designs are readily available
today, the Sonosax SX-ST (about $20,000+)
and the PSC Solice (about $10,000). The primary
competition, the Yamaha O1V96, can be
purchased in any Guitar Center for only $2,700
and offers a blizzard of routing and configuration
possibilities. It’s not hard to understand
the attraction of the digital panels—indeed; my
co-editors in this journal are both proponents of
the Yamaha.
I continue to favor purpose-built equipment, even at premium
prices. There are distinct advantages including: a smaller footprint,
lighter weight, efficient energy use and a premium look
and feel to go along with that premium price.
At 16 inches x 16.5 inches and three inches tall, the Solice is a
full-size panel and almost an exact size match to the Sonosax
SX-ST. It’s considerably smaller than the Yamaha and, at 15
pounds, less than half the weight of the digital panel.
LIMITERS
A good limiter enhances the recording and provides considerable
peace of mind for the operator. Signal-to-noise ratio is improved
if one can record a little hotter, secure in the knowledge that the
limiter will smoothly control any unexpected peaks.
Ron Meyer believes in using test equipment to precisely calibrate
limiters so there are no external adjustments on the Solice.
Adjustment pots are available on the circuit board for those with
the expertise to use them.
We listened to passages at normal levels and then at levels of
outrageous over-modulation to test how limiters coped with hot
signals.
Friends! Romans! COUNTRYMEN! LEND ME YOUR EARS!
Settings for each channel precisely match the others and the
action tamed sudden spikes without any audible clamping or
pumping.
Comparing their performance to the Soundcraft and the Mackie
1642 was quite simple. These panels have no limiters. Advantage:
Solice. While some recorders, like the Deva and the Sound
Devices, have their own capable limiters, it is still useful to have
that facility at the mixer. One sometimes must feed signals to
components, like video cameras, that either have no limiters or
limiters that cannot be relied upon.
Listening to the same overloads with a Cooper, the results were
very similar to the Solice. Levels were well controlled without any
obvious clamping. While the difference was subtle, the Cooper
seemed to produce a slightly livelier recording while still controlling
the overloads. The Cooper does not enjoy a great reputation
for its limiters but these were set up in accordance with Glen
Trew’s recommendations and that does seem to produce a better
result than the factory default setting.
With a maximum draw of only 20 watts (and typically less than
Comparing the Solice with the Sonosax SX-ST I found, at first,
that the Solice produced a more pleasing result. While both
14 watts) to the Yamaha’s 75 watts, it is easily four times as smoothly controlled overloads, the Sonosax seemed to use more
efficient. Many are dismissive of this sort of advantage. After compression. This is counter to expectations so I went back to
all, 75 watts is no more than an ordinary light bulb and movie
sets usually have enough power to light up the sky. If one only
works in series television or major pictures, power might not
be an issue. But I have found myself working smaller projects—
still large enough for a sound cart and a panel mixer—where I
was expected to operate on batteries. In one example, we were
re-test. The Sonosax has a panel-mounted threshold control.
When set at mid-point, the limiter tended to engage too hard;
results were better when it was backed off a bit. With the limiter
in the Sonosax optimally tuned, the results were slightly better
than the Solice. Overloads were seamlessly controlled and
dynamics were maintained.
on a horse ranch in Thousand Oaks, California, shooting avail- Since optimal threshold settings are, to some extent, interrelated
able light, and often without power for three or four hours. In with channel gain and with the amount of overload, the ideal set-
that environment, the extra 50 watts demanded by the Yamaha ting is a constantly moving target requiring operator familiarity
plus the extra 18 pounds are a burden. Since the Yamaha with the settings. Still, the Solice employs a “soft-knee” limiting
requires AC power, there is also the matter of an inverter to circuit rather than a “brick wall” style limiter, like the Cooper,
by David Waelder
run it from a battery. Heavier mixer + bigger battery + inverter
+ stronger battery tray on the cart all produce a very much
heavier package. Lighter weight and greater efficiency are the
payoffs of purpose-built equipment.
and I thought it could do better. I made some A-B comparisons
for Ron so he might appreciate the differences and he immediately
set about re-tuning the Solice limiters for a more gentle action.
Reviewing the results, I think the Solice limiters are now as good
as anything I have heard. They catch the occasional surprise and
still allow a lively track. The action of limiters is a very subjective
matter and Ron’s commitment to making them work to an opera-
12
tor’s preference is as important as any particular setting.
13