I just went and watched the video and now it all makes sense.
 
Its primary use is for live mixing on panel discussions.
 
I'm upgrading from my initial rating of WTF to 5-Star-Must-Have!!!
 
If you provide production services to live panel discussions this thing is easily worth full price.
 
 

settle down folks... Dan Dugan's Gain Sharing Auto-Mixer is not intended to mix music, and in fact I think it would probably not do a very good job of it. Gain Sharing Auto-mixers are designed to help manage multiple microphones in a conference setting, or possible in a very controlled speech reinforcement setting where there is no need for multiple speakers, e.g. a house of worship.
 
The original auto-mixer dates way back, and it used gates on all the inputs. In addition to turning a specific input on or off, it provided a logic signal to tell the 'brain' the status of each microphone. The brain would allow a fixed number of microphones to be on, and they were either on or off. Some had the ability to prioritize microphones, so the chairman or other designated position could override the rest of the microphones.
 
Gain Sharing auto-mixers do not turn channels on and off, but rather assign a specific gain to each channel as it is used. The concepts of "number of open microphones" and "chairman microphone" and even microphone priority are all still supported?
 
Why is all this necessary?
 
In any given space where speech is reinforced there is a limit to how much gain can be applied to a voice before the system becomes unstable (can you say feedback?) For each open microphone this total gain before feedback is reduced, by 6dB. So if the total gain before feedback is 60 dB, and you have ten open microphones then you now have 0 dB of available gain. As you might guess, that's a problem.
 
So the Gain Sharing Auto-mixer solves this problem by limiting the number of microphones that are 'open', and limiting the gain available to any open microphone.
 
Make sense?

Yes.
 
;-)
 
However, I am having difficulty with this idea
 
"In any given space where speech is reinforced there is a limit to how much gain can be applied to a voice before the system becomes unstable (can you say feedback?) For each open microphone this total gain before feedback is reduced, by 6dB. So if the total gain before feedback is 60 dB, and you have ten open microphones then you now have 0 dB of available gain."
 
because I have worked many events with 32 open microphones and don't remember being stuck at a 0dB ceiling before feedback. (Although I came close at the rainbow Sitar Orchestra with 48 mics out there once. Yikes!!!)
 
There must be more to this idea. I am assuming that there must be some specifics that need to be applied.
 
For example; Perhaps you are speaking of conditions in a room that has ceiling speakers every where and a, more or less, omni directional distribution?
 
It took me a while to figure out what it was for but as soon as I did I realized a value in it. ^
 
In my mind the chief benefit is the reduction in tedium that panel discussions present to a board operator. In my experience panel discussions are brutally tedious as you have to pay attention looking for feints from people preparing to speak and reacting to interruptions by people who have joined the discussion after periods of inactivity. It's hard to staff a gig like that because most people who could do something more interesting do it, and so I often find that an inexperienced operator has been left to babysit the rig. Unfortunately it's the kind of gig that actually takes experience so things like feedback and inaudible presentations can happen while attendees look around hoping someone can help. Yuck.
 
It took me a while to figure it out, but I meant it when I commented that I think it is worth every penny.
 
One thing I didn't figure out at first is that it's really meant for real time live use rather than as a post production tool. I think that helped me appreciate what it was really for.
 
all the best,
mike

48 mics?
 
That's 96 white socks, no?

wst3
settle down folks... Dan Dugan's Gain Sharing Auto-Mixer is not intended to mix music, and in fact I think it would probably not do a very good job of it. Gain Sharing Auto-mixers are designed to help manage multiple microphones in a conference setting, or possible in a very controlled speech reinforcement setting where there is no need for multiple speakers, e.g. a house of worship.

No wonder I didn't know what was going on. As a musician, I've always depended on the sound guy and as an actor, well... I just raise my voice.

We occasionally do multi mic panel discussion stuff and pre-taped "radio call in" shows and this will come in very handy...when it goes on sale;-)

Darn... I still gotta learn how to mix my music...

Vastman
Darn... I still gotta learn how to mix my music...

 I know what you mean. I still haven't gotten past reasonably-good EQ settings yet.

How are you guys liking my Auto-Forum-Poster software so far?
 
You're probably unaware that "bapu" is a fictional character representing the AI-generated output of this groundbreaking application. 55,000 postings and the operator can still maintain a full-time day job. Now that's what you call a productivity-enhancer!
 
I'm still working out the bugs, though. At times the AFP-generated text comes out wonderfully profound and thought-provoking. Other times, it makes no sense at all. I have faith, though, that eventually it'll be a money maker. Next up: Auto-Tweets.

Saw something the other day that said only 38% of internet traffic is human generated, the rest is bot generated.
 
Bapu is the majority of the internet now.