Digital mixing (layer) analogies

[wogster]

Originally Posted by Arlin

This training IS intended for inexperienced audio beginners (which also applies to many of our volunteers). So, I want to start simple with something that they might relate to more easily than throwing a complete console block diagram in their face.
The plumbing analogy is not intended to provide a complete picture of mixer signal routing. It is only a simplified example that demonstrates some of the primary concepts. I could also use a more electrical analogy (wires, switches, rheostats), but I think the average person can visualize water flow more easily than electrical current flow.
I even made a 'quick' 3D model to help me illustrate this: see attached.

BUT, we are getting off-topic here... I REALLY wanted an everyday example of something that uses layers analogous to digital consoles.
The TV remote was a very good example.
Another example is a computer screen where windows can be running in the background.
I don't really like the book pages analogy... once you turn a page, it could, for all intents & purposes, cease to exist and you would not know the difference. The 'mixer' page, on the other hand, continues to be active... it is just not being displayed to the user.

Eventually, I agree, the operators just need to learn it the way it is and think in real terms instead of examples & analogies.
But, I think it is beneficial to start with something simple that just about anyone can relate to.

Thanks for the help!

When I learned how to use a board in the late 1970's, it was rather simple, we stood in the control room, and the operator told us what the control did, and then showed us what it did, by moving a control. Once you had the basics, you could learn more, if you wanted (or needed) to. Some people use every last feature of the board, other people use the basics, and ignore the rest, it doesn't matter as long as the FOH sound is high quality. To teach it, you start with the controls you use the most, fader would be first, gain would be next, monitor would be third, and for some people even a board with a users manual that is 9 volumes of 50lbs each, they have all they are ever going to need. A lot of old timers, that is all they had on their tube based analog boards, and it's all they ever will need.

99% of this stuff depends on the operators ear, so that is where the training should start.

[Brad Weber]

Your sketch is great but is it so detailed that it could lead to someone taking the concept too literally? My experience is that if you rely too much on a specific analogy then people may apply that analogy beyond what you intended. And what if somebody doesn't understand the one analogy you've spent so much time developing?

I'm also not sure how a plumbing analogy could address EQ, high pass filters, panning, subgroups, VCA/DCAs and so on while showing the user controls directly affecting the 'signal' may actually make it more difficult to address aspects such as layers. So plumbing may be a good analogy for some of the basic concepts but I'm not sure you want to apply it in such detail.

Similarly, the TV remote analogy is good in some ways but selecting DVD/TV/Cable/VCR, etc. on a remote allows the remote to control physically different devices, not different elements of the same device, so may that be confusing? I'm not sure how the windows analogy would be different than the book analogy to many people, not to mention that the windows analogy may have issues in aspects such as being able to open and close the windows, not just switch between them. I can just see that causing someone to worry about accidentally closing a layer and not being able to reopen it or thinking they could open a new layer. That's one of the dangers of analogies, they can be very useful but may have unintended consequences. When you are using analogies it may be a good idea to note that you are using them in reference to a specific aspect and that they may not apply to other aspects.

Wogster touched on another aspect I've encountered which is the difference between addressing how a something works and how to use it. To me it's the difference between teaching someone how to use a tool and teaching them how to create something with that tool, both may be needed to do the job but they are two different aspects.

[Tim Padrick]

Originally Posted by Frank DeWitt

The layers are just pictures in an album. Here is a picture of my wife. Here is a picture of my 56 chevy One is the love of my life.

Frank

One of them can't leave and take half your stuff as the other can.

[daver2]

Slight problem with the very beautifully drawn plumbing analogy is one of the water flowing back where it shouldn't. On an analogue mixer desk - all of the mixers would be virtual earth mixers and therefore not interfere with each other. On the plumbing analogy you would have to accept a limitation if someone identified this; or have to complicate the analogy by including a one-way valve in each water control valve.

Dave

[Brad Weber]

Originally Posted by daver2

Slight problem with the very beautifully drawn plumbing analogy is one of the water flowing back where it shouldn't. On an analogue mixer desk - all of the mixers would be virtual earth mixers and therefore not interfere with each other. On the plumbing analogy you would have to accept a limitation if someone identified this; or have to complicate the analogy by including a one-way valve in each water control valve.

That's true, but I would be more concerned about the channel gain/trim, the polarity inversion switch, the high pass filter, the EQ, the main/subgroup/bus assigns, any VCA/DCA or mute group assigns, any channel processing, etc. The sketch is so nicely done and so detailed in what it does show that it may easily be assumed to show everything to that level of detail but is in reality not reflecting some aspects of the signal path that relate to even basic operation.

This may also get into the aspect that with a digital console a fader jockey may not need to understand everything required to configure/program the console. Some operators may not need to understand aux sends beyond that you turn this knob to adjust the level of the associated input to that output, if they even need to know that. So understanding the audience and perhaps having multiple levels of training may be appropriate.

One approach I've used successfully is to train the primary tech personnel and then let them train the rest of their team, perhaps with your assistance. That can have several benefits including their knowing (and controlling) what information is disseminated, their indicating the understanding they have gained (and being perceived by the other team members as knowledgeable on the topic) and their then being better prepared to train others in the future.

[Arlin]

PLEASE STOP focusing on all the shortcomings of (various) analogies and examples. That is not why I started this thread. I realize they all have their limitations & weaknesses.

I only intended this to be a brainstorming session on some ways to teach some complex concepts to beginners in a simpler way that 'mere mortals' could better understand.

I get the feeling that if Jesus asked for similar feedback regarding his PARABLES, we would all shoot them down for not being 'technically & exactly representative of the real thing'. But that is why Jesus used parables... to talk to his audience (us) on their (our) level!

[Tim Padrick]

In the time it takes to get them to understand a complicated and likely convoluted analogy, you can teach them about signal flow, analog consoles, and digital consoles.

[bobbycito]

just use studio manager and have them see as you change when it faders in send it is just controling what is under and you can also have things on so that they can here the differnce between pre and post

do any of these people you are training understand an analog console?

[dmot]

This analogy is obscure so it probably won't help directly but it may get you thinking in a different direction.

I was a coach at a university and had to learn to run the scoreboard. The control unit was designed to cover many different sports and it had a number pad on it along with several other buttons. You had to look through a box of templates for your sport. There was a code on the template that you entered into the control unit and then you placed the template over the buttons.The template had the labels for all of the buttons on the control unit so you would know which one to push. If you changed sports and entered a new code and template the buttons might do completely different things.

It seems like you could do a simple drawing to explain the same thing. Have a piece of paper with some knobs drawn it with no labels. Then have another piece of paper with holes in it where the knobs show through, and has each knob labeled. Then show how you can remove that paper and exchange it for another with different labels. The knobs never change but the labels do depending on what layer you are working with.