Clever solution to make the best of what you have. If I was shopping for a breakout room solution for myself, at the price point of two DM3-Ds and a standalone Dugan processor, I think I'd be well into used CL/QL territory (which I'd much prefer to this setup). The Dugan in this configuration is still handicapped by the fact that it is receiving the signal pre-fader. You will also need to mute the mics from the Dugan controller instead of using the mute buttons on the console, otherwise a mic backstage could pickup noise that could result in ducking of mics live on stage unnecessarily. Yamaha's omission of an automixer in the DM3 at launch is a huge mistake in my opinion. At this stage, even if it is added in a firmware update, a console like an SQ-5 or Wing Compact offers quite a bit more flexibility at an only slightly increased price - and if Dante is a requirement, it can easily be added with an option card.
@@WalterEKlaus you’re right the mics going into the DUGAN D2 are still pre-Fader but if you had the controller next to you, you could at least toggle channels on and off that you wanted to be affected or unaffected. Again it would be very reliant on the remote. Having Dante on console natively but not DUGAN is just silly.
I like the mad scientist approach to this. But you know you could just use an automixer plugin on a laptop with usb on the console. The RTL isn’t to bad on the dm3‘s usb soundcard especially if you get the buffer size pretty low. I personally like to use the wtautomixer for this application. It has some features that the waves Dugan just hasn’t.
@KINETICPROFESSIONALS I haven’t had that much time one a dm3. And I try to not use Waves plugins. I can only speak about vsts hosted in live Professor which works good.
I'm considering buying a second DM3 instead of a Rio 1608-D2 - because the price difference isn't too bad ($2681 AUD vs $1862 AUD). The idea being that I can place the second DM3 at stage as my physical I/O "stage box" but if I don't need a stage box, I have two separate consoles. Can you think of any reason why this would be a bad idea, or wouldn't work?
This is interesting - I had a Yamaha TF-1 stolen from my church and replaced it with a Yamaha DM3-D - and was surprised that I how had only 22 channels instead of the 40 I had with the TF1. We bought another DM3-D in hopes of getting the channel count back up through Dante. We bought the new TIO 1608D-2 that can also match the DM3-D and function at 96k. We also use Shure ULXD Duos and Quads, so they can work through Dante as well (I have that on my Yamaha QL5/Rio setup in my sanctuary. It looks like the way you're linking the 2 DM3-Ds together is by feeding the output of one into two channels on the other and burning 2 channels on the 2nd one. Could you do that on the 2nd layer of the 2nd DM3-D and not lose 1st layer faders? Also, you seemed to be saying that you stayed at 48k because of the ULX-D mics. Why is that? If they're functioning in Dante, does their clock frequency have to match the DM3-Ds? If so, it would be better to keep them out of Dante and just use analog inputs on the DM3-Ds. I'm trying to keep my DM3-Ds functioning at 96k - otherwise I should have just purchased another TF-1. Our application is musical production for our church's school - lots of wireless mics, musical instrument inputs, and maybe a video track with audio. Thanks!
@@LDBecker yes, master output from one is feeding via Dante to channels 1 and 2 on the other. As stated in the video (you could simply create custom fader layers and not lose 2 faders, your channel count would still be reduced by 2). Also, as stated in the video you could certainly go to 96k as I’m simply taking analog out from the ulxd and not actually taking Dante channels (I did this so I could feed them through the Dugan d2). I kept things at 48k for this video out of convenience only (was already @48k and didn’t want to change it). If I didn’t have the d2 inline and wanted to take the mics input via Dante, I would have still had to stay at 48k because ulxd’s cannot be set to 96k.
@@KINETICPROFESSIONALS So, if I went out of the ULXDs via analog, I could keep everything at 96k, right? I don't have a Dugan d2 or anything else in the mix like that - just the two DM3-Ds and one of the new TIO 1608mkII that runs at 96k.
dugan!
Hats off to you sir. Very clever.
Cool idea, thx for sharing.
Clever solution to make the best of what you have. If I was shopping for a breakout room solution for myself, at the price point of two DM3-Ds and a standalone Dugan processor, I think I'd be well into used CL/QL territory (which I'd much prefer to this setup). The Dugan in this configuration is still handicapped by the fact that it is receiving the signal pre-fader. You will also need to mute the mics from the Dugan controller instead of using the mute buttons on the console, otherwise a mic backstage could pickup noise that could result in ducking of mics live on stage unnecessarily.
Yamaha's omission of an automixer in the DM3 at launch is a huge mistake in my opinion. At this stage, even if it is added in a firmware update, a console like an SQ-5 or Wing Compact offers quite a bit more flexibility at an only slightly increased price - and if Dante is a requirement, it can easily be added with an option card.
@@WalterEKlaus you’re right the mics going into the DUGAN D2 are still pre-Fader but if you had the controller next to you, you could at least toggle channels on and off that you wanted to be affected or unaffected. Again it would be very reliant on the remote. Having Dante on console natively but not DUGAN is just silly.
I like the mad scientist approach to this. But you know you could just use an automixer plugin on a laptop with usb on the console. The RTL isn’t to bad on the dm3‘s usb soundcard especially if you get the buffer size pretty low. I personally like to use the wtautomixer for this application. It has some features that the waves Dugan just hasn’t.
@@QuadratAugenFresse i had thought about that. Just hadn’t tried it yet. Have you actually tried using the USB to support waves yet?
@KINETICPROFESSIONALS I haven’t had that much time one a dm3. And I try to not use Waves plugins. I can only speak about vsts hosted in live Professor which works good.
I'm considering buying a second DM3 instead of a Rio 1608-D2 - because the price difference isn't too bad ($2681 AUD vs $1862 AUD). The idea being that I can place the second DM3 at stage as my physical I/O "stage box" but if I don't need a stage box, I have two separate consoles. Can you think of any reason why this would be a bad idea, or wouldn't work?
@@JoshSmarty sure why not, we used to joke “buy a dm3 get a free mixer)
This is interesting - I had a Yamaha TF-1 stolen from my church and replaced it with a Yamaha DM3-D - and was surprised that I how had only 22 channels instead of the 40 I had with the TF1. We bought another DM3-D in hopes of getting the channel count back up through Dante. We bought the new TIO 1608D-2 that can also match the DM3-D and function at 96k. We also use Shure ULXD Duos and Quads, so they can work through Dante as well (I have that on my Yamaha QL5/Rio setup in my sanctuary. It looks like the way you're linking the 2 DM3-Ds together is by feeding the output of one into two channels on the other and burning 2 channels on the 2nd one. Could you do that on the 2nd layer of the 2nd DM3-D and not lose 1st layer faders? Also, you seemed to be saying that you stayed at 48k because of the ULX-D mics. Why is that? If they're functioning in Dante, does their clock frequency have to match the DM3-Ds? If so, it would be better to keep them out of Dante and just use analog inputs on the DM3-Ds. I'm trying to keep my DM3-Ds functioning at 96k - otherwise I should have just purchased another TF-1. Our application is musical production for our church's school - lots of wireless mics, musical instrument inputs, and maybe a video track with audio. Thanks!
@@LDBecker yes, master output from one is feeding via Dante to channels 1 and 2 on the other. As stated in the video (you could simply create custom fader layers and not lose 2 faders, your channel count would still be reduced by 2). Also, as stated in the video you could certainly go to 96k as I’m simply taking analog out from the ulxd and not actually taking Dante channels (I did this so I could feed them through the Dugan d2). I kept things at 48k for this video out of convenience only (was already @48k and didn’t want to change it). If I didn’t have the d2 inline and wanted to take the mics input via Dante, I would have still had to stay at 48k because ulxd’s cannot be set to 96k.
@@KINETICPROFESSIONALS So, if I went out of the ULXDs via analog, I could keep everything at 96k, right? I don't have a Dugan d2 or anything else in the mix like that - just the two DM3-Ds and one of the new TIO 1608mkII that runs at 96k.
@@LDBecker yup! You sure could. You would just be feeding a mic or line level signal into the tio at that point. Consoles and Tio could be kept 96k.
i can't believe the Dm3 don't have a Dugan automixer... What a turn off!
Berhinger wing compact all the time !!!