| Author |
Message |
Q
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:32 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Phildo" <Phil@phildo.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3s9hf8Fklb3bU1@individual.net...
| Quote: |
"Q" <Q@Q.Q> wrote in message
news:ZFB7f.71806$Fe7.245542@news000.worldonline.dk...
Hmm.. The price is attractive too, even less than I spent on home stereo
stuff a couple of weeks ago :-)..
Looks like I have to order one sometime soon..
Where are you based?
|
Denmark, northern part.....
Cheapest source without having to set myself up as a dealer seems to be
Thomann..
Dealer suggestions ?
/peter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Q" <Q@Q.Q> wrote in message
news:VoM7f.71883$Fe7.245570@news000.worldonline.dk...
| Quote: | Where are you based?
Denmark, northern part.....
Cheapest source without having to set myself up as a dealer seems to be
Thomann..
Dealer suggestions ?
|
Pity, if you were UK or anywhere between Dover and Amsterdam where I could
have dropped it in to you I could have let you borrow mine to check out.
I get back Nov 5th so should be able to mail it to you on the 7th if you
want to try it out first.
As for dealers, yes, Thomann seems to be your best bet but then they are for
pretty much everything these days.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Tim Scott" <timscott18@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote
in message news:3s9h9hFn7odqU1@individual.net
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:-aidnZQu1u74-cLeRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"Bob Cap" <bob@parallel.tzo.com> wrote in message
news:y2z7f.476321$_o.275015@attbi_s71
8 channels in one box, I would have liked to hve seen
an ethernet port on it for pc control - at distance -
would be great for installs in the amp room, or having
in the amp/drive rack, and just use a PC @ FOH, i
think a pc could make control easier with decent
software, to make it easier to get around 8 channels
worth of EQ.
Tim,
It does have midi. I wonder if you can control the EQ
via midi???
The charm of having 8 channels of remoted-controlled EQ
in 1 RU is clear. As you many already know, another
bulkier approach involves 4 units of the 1 RU Behringer
DSP 1124 which gives you 8 channels of eq, can cost less
money, and is said to have software support for remote
operation via a PC.
Thoman have the Alesis DEQ830 at £240.53 (inc VAT ex
delivery)
The DSP 1124 is a feddback destroyer/parametric EQ so is
not really a compareable alternative to the DEQ230
|
True, the DSP1124 has two channels, each with 12 bands of
parametric eq
while the DEQ 830 looks like it has 8 channels of 30 band
graphic eq.
The major point I was trying to make is that the DSP 1124
has available remote control software and doesn't always
cost more. I also pointed out that 4 1RU pieces can be a
*disadvantage* compared to a single 1 RU piece.
| Quote: | - the lowest price Behringer digital graphic EQ is the
DEQ1024
and costs £129.70 (ex VAT+Delivery) , so four of these is
£518.80 with VAT @17.5% is £609.59 (and then you'll have
a delivery on top of that)
|
Slick change of model number noted.
I never said that the Behrs were always cheaper.
Anticipating the usual AAPLS nit-picking, I wrote "...can
cost less money...".
I don't know about you Tim, but every time I have the chance
to pick a 12 band parametric eq over a 30 band graphic, I
end up picking the parametric.
If you do the math, a 12 band parametric has 36 independent
variables while the 30 band graphic only has 30.
Then there's the business of hi-Q equalization, which a 30
band graphic being 1/3 octave, just can't do. Did someone
say something about eq-ing speakers? They don't have
feedback where you live, Tim? ;-)
Usually, it only takes about 4-5 parametric bands to get me
to favor parametric. 12 bands seem like overkill, but for
the price...
This is particularly true when I can use a graphic UI to
monitor the parametric (Behringer's DEQ1024 software has a
graphical UI).
| Quote: | This price is from Studiospares, Thomann doesn't have the
DEQ830 and
Studiospares doesn't stock the DEQ830.
I don't have time to google around and find a dealer who
stocks both models.
|
I'll save you the trouble of doing your homework, Tim:
http://www.samedaymusic.com/product--ALEDEQ830
New stock - $500
http://www.samedaymusic.com/product--BEHDSP1124P
New stock - $100
4 x $100 < 1 x $500. This fully supports my claim that 4 DSP
1124 "can cost less" than one DEQ830. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Scott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:47 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Lc-dnT66gt2tBcLeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
| Quote: | "Tim Scott" <timscott18@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote
in message news:3s9h9hFn7odqU1@individual.net
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:-aidnZQu1u74-cLeRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"Bob Cap" <bob@parallel.tzo.com> wrote in message
news:y2z7f.476321$_o.275015@attbi_s71
8 channels in one box, I would have liked to hve seen
an ethernet port on it for pc control - at distance -
would be great for installs in the amp room, or having
in the amp/drive rack, and just use a PC @ FOH, i
think a pc could make control easier with decent
software, to make it easier to get around 8 channels
worth of EQ.
Tim,
It does have midi. I wonder if you can control the EQ
via midi???
The charm of having 8 channels of remoted-controlled EQ
in 1 RU is clear. As you many already know, another
bulkier approach involves 4 units of the 1 RU Behringer
DSP 1124 which gives you 8 channels of eq, can cost less
money, and is said to have software support for remote
operation via a PC.
Thoman have the Alesis DEQ830 at £240.53 (inc VAT ex
delivery)
The DSP 1124 is a feddback destroyer/parametric EQ so is
not really a compareable alternative to the DEQ230
True, the DSP1124 has two channels, each with 12 bands of parametric eq
while the DEQ 830 looks like it has 8 channels of 30 band graphic eq.
The major point I was trying to make is that the DSP 1124 has available
remote control software and doesn't always cost more. I also pointed out
that 4 1RU pieces can be a *disadvantage* compared to a single 1 RU piece.
- the lowest price Behringer digital graphic EQ is the DEQ1024
and costs £129.70 (ex VAT+Delivery) , so four of these is
£518.80 with VAT @17.5% is £609.59 (and then you'll have
a delivery on top of that)
Slick change of model number noted.
I never said that the Behrs were always cheaper. Anticipating the usual
AAPLS nit-picking, I wrote "...can cost less money...".
I don't know about you Tim, but every time I have the chance to pick a 12
band parametric eq over a 30 band graphic, I end up picking the
parametric.
If you do the math, a 12 band parametric has 36 independent variables
while the 30 band graphic only has 30.
Then there's the business of hi-Q equalization, which a 30 band graphic
being 1/3 octave, just can't do. Did someone say something about eq-ing
speakers? They don't have feedback where you live, Tim? ;-)
Usually, it only takes about 4-5 parametric bands to get me to favor
parametric. 12 bands seem like overkill, but for the price...
This is particularly true when I can use a graphic UI to monitor the
parametric (Behringer's DEQ1024 software has a graphical UI).
This price is from Studiospares, Thomann doesn't have the DEQ830 and
Studiospares doesn't stock the DEQ830.
I don't have time to google around and find a dealer who
stocks both models.
I'll save you the trouble of doing your homework, Tim:
http://www.samedaymusic.com/product--ALEDEQ830
New stock - $500
http://www.samedaymusic.com/product--BEHDSP1124P
New stock - $100
4 x $100 < 1 x $500. This fully supports my claim that 4 DSP 1124 "can
cost less" than one DEQ830.
|
Yes, a parametric can be a better option, but I was thinking that for a fair
comparison for an alternative to the alesis digi graph, would be another
digi graph. As Behringer don't do an 8 channel model, then as you pointed
out 4 stereo units could be substituted, but to keep the comparison fair it
would have to be 4 Graph models rather than 4 paras.
Of course I know what feedback is, although not so long ago it was brought
up that you had had problems with knowing the difference in terminology for
feedback and foldback. and as I use a PM1D have parametric EQ on every
output, aswell a good supply of Graphics that I can patch, and the notch
filters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Ocednd87toGGVMLeRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"Tim Scott" <timscott18@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote
in message news:3s9mpcFmej3oU1@individual.net
Of course I know what feedback is,
Didn't get the smiley emoticon, I see.
although not so long
ago it was brought up that you had had problems with
knowing the difference in terminology for feedback and
foldback.
That would be something that someone made up for whatever reason.
|
Not at all Arny. See the end of this post. You are sooooooo BUSTED !!!!!!
| Quote: | and as I use a PM1D have parametric EQ on every
output, aswell a good supply of Graphics that I can
patch, and the notch filters.
Then the PM1D differs in the negative direction from the smaller Yammy
digitals that have parametric eq and dynamics processors built into all
the of the input channels in addition to the major outputs?
|
Oh dear, Arny has just proven he knows nothing about the yamaha digital
desks. Parametric and dynamics on ins and outs. You really don't think there
is anything on the smaller desks that is better than the PM1D Arny? Face it,
the PM1D is the flagship. Just because you will never get to use one while
those people who delight in showing you to be a total dumbass are at a level
where they work on them all the time doesn't mean you have to try and find
things wrong with the PM1D at every opportunity. Oh dear, Arny has a bad
case of desk envy !!!
Phildo
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:3ZSdnWMxaNDjBHTdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
| Quote: | "Phildo" <Phil@phildo.net> wrote in message
news:2ksu4pF5717hU1@uni-berlin.de
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:J9CdnTzsZ6Oj3XTdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
You seem to have forgotten the most important considearation - what
do his mixes sound like to you?
Try reading his post again Arny. He covered that part already:
quote> I mean, the quality of the mix is okay, but its not great.<end
quote
Oh, it was such a weak statement that it shot right under my feet.
It sounds to me like he's obsessing over something that someone else might
be doing well enough. It also seems like he doesn't know how to do the
thing
that he's judging. If he thinks that he could do a better FOH mix himself
by
other means, then he should know it and say it.
People are saying strange dogmatic things about FOH mixes. For example:
"Not a good way to Mix - I always Tell people that the headphones are for
troubleshooting only. Mixing through headphones as you realise means that
you are not mixing what people are hearing."
Obviously, this writer is not considering the possibility that the FOH mix
is being listened to over IEMs. There's a pretty good chance in a 21st
century church that the music director IS onstage performing, directing
and
listening to the FOH mix over a headset. So, now its always bad to mix
with
phones when the mix is going to be listened to, particularly by the boss
man, with phones?
The next possibility that is not being considered is the possibility that
the FOH mix is being done by someone who isn't in the same sound field as
the performers. In fact, this is pretty likely unless the FOH mixer is one
of the performers.
Let's be real, the FOH sound is not usually all that consistent over the
whole stage. It's not like there's just one mix that is going to make
everybody happy. If there's just one FOH mix, it's a pretty thoroughly
compromised thing, anyhow. For example, how is it that I have two stage
mixes? Well the piano is at stage right about 5' from the performers on
the
right of the stage.The performers at stage right feel they are getting
blasted by piano if there is piano in their mix, so they get a mix w/o
piano. Then, the clav is at stage left about 5' from the performers over
there, and so on.
If there's a dedicated FOH mixer, then he's not likely to be at the BOH,
but
why are people saying such categorical things when in general, there's a
pretty good chance that the FOH mixer is a one guy doing it all, and in
the
BOH (more usual) or mid-hall (on a good day).
I'm a bit amused by such a simplistic situation that there is just one FOH
mix. I have to manage 4 FOH mixes - left stage, right stage, choir loft
and
pianist. The only one that is in any sense optional is the choir loft.
Now,
exactly how I do a reasonble job of monitoring 4 separate FOH mixes from
the
BOH without headphones?
Another thing to consider is the fact that the FOH mix should be a
relatively static thing. It's purpose is to give the performers feedback,
and if someone is changing gain all the time, the performer's don't have
consistent feedback.
Finally, why are people presuming that nobody can translate what they hear
over phones into a good FOH mix? I guess they think that since they can't
do
it, nobody can.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:39 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Phildo" <Phil@phildo.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3s9ps3Fn4cchU1@individual.net...
| Quote: |
Pity, if you were UK or anywhere between Dover and Amsterdam where I could
have dropped it in to you I could have let you borrow mine to check out.
I get back Nov 5th so should be able to mail it to you on the 7th if you
want to try it out first.
|
At that price I feel I can afford an experiment ( if I dislike it for some
reason I can get rid of it in an install somewhere :-), but thanks for the
generous offer!
| Quote: | As for dealers, yes, Thomann seems to be your best bet but then they are
for
pretty much everything these days.
|
Some guy emailed me about buying some stuff to supplement an install a while
ago...
Ofcourse he knew about Thomann and their prices and expected me to match
them...
If I had chosen to match the Thomann pricing on the 2000£ order I'd have
made around 100£ to cover shipping, handling, accounting and the time I
needed to spend placing the orders at 3 different distributors.... Ended up
telling the guy to order the stuff from Thomann..
Service ofcourse is slightly more complicated than using a local dealer, but
generally it wont be a problem..
/peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:19 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Tim Scott" <timscott18@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote
in message news:3s9mpcFmej3oU1@individual.net
| Quote: | Of course I know what feedback is,
|
Didn't get the smiley emoticon, I see.
| Quote: | although not so long
ago it was brought up that you had had problems with
knowing the difference in terminology for feedback and
foldback.
|
That would be something that someone made up for whatever
reason.
| Quote: | and as I use a PM1D have parametric EQ on every
output, aswell a good supply of Graphics that I can
patch, and the notch filters.
|
Then the PM1D differs in the negative direction from the
smaller Yammy digitals that have parametric eq and dynamics
processors built into all the of the input channels in
addition to the major outputs?
Is it your intent to use these equalizers with the PM1D? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Scott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:30 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Ocednd87toGGVMLeRVn-jA@comcast.com...
| Quote: | "Tim Scott" <timscott18@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote
in message news:3s9mpcFmej3oU1@individual.net
Of course I know what feedback is,
Didn't get the smiley emoticon, I see.
although not so long
ago it was brought up that you had had problems with
knowing the difference in terminology for feedback and
foldback.
That would be something that someone made up for whatever reason.
and as I use a PM1D have parametric EQ on every
output, aswell a good supply of Graphics that I can
patch, and the notch filters.
Then the PM1D differs in the negative direction from the smaller Yammy
digitals that have parametric eq and dynamics processors built into all
the of the input channels in addition to the major outputs?
|
The PM1D also has parametrics on the inputs, aswell as gates/comps. The
outputs all have comps on them too.
Just because I didn't mention them in my earlier post does not mean that I
don't about them, or they do not exist.
The discussion at hand was about Graphic EQs, and so my thoughts were on
their usability on outputs, although i obviously realise you can you graphs
in other places.
| Quote: | Is it your intent to use these equalizers with the PM1D?
|
no need to as there is more than plenty stuff built into the PM1D to not
need outboard.
I am just discussing a useful and well prices piece of kit, that is
interesting, and may prove useful to me in the future when/if PM1Dless |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob Beech
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:12 am Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Lc-dnT66gt2tBcLeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
| Quote: | "Tim Scott" <timscott18@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote
in message news:3s9h9hFn7odqU1@individual.net
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:-aidnZQu1u74-cLeRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"Bob Cap" <bob@parallel.tzo.com> wrote in message
news:y2z7f.476321$_o.275015@attbi_s71
8 channels in one box, I would have liked to hve seen
an ethernet port on it for pc control - at distance -
would be great for installs in the amp room, or having
in the amp/drive rack, and just use a PC @ FOH, i
think a pc could make control easier with decent
software, to make it easier to get around 8 channels
worth of EQ.
Tim,
It does have midi. I wonder if you can control the EQ
via midi???
The charm of having 8 channels of remoted-controlled EQ
in 1 RU is clear. As you many already know, another
bulkier approach involves 4 units of the 1 RU Behringer
DSP 1124 which gives you 8 channels of eq, can cost less
money, and is said to have software support for remote
operation via a PC.
Thoman have the Alesis DEQ830 at £240.53 (inc VAT ex
delivery)
The DSP 1124 is a feddback destroyer/parametric EQ so is
not really a compareable alternative to the DEQ230
True, the DSP1124 has two channels, each with 12 bands of
parametric eq
while the DEQ 830 looks like it has 8 channels of 30 band
graphic eq.
The major point I was trying to make is that the DSP 1124
has available remote control software and doesn't always
cost more. I also pointed out that 4 1RU pieces can be a
*disadvantage* compared to a single 1 RU piece.
- the lowest price Behringer digital graphic EQ is the
DEQ1024
and costs £129.70 (ex VAT+Delivery) , so four of these is
£518.80 with VAT @17.5% is £609.59 (and then you'll have
a delivery on top of that)
Slick change of model number noted.
I never said that the Behrs were always cheaper.
Anticipating the usual AAPLS nit-picking, I wrote "...can
cost less money...".
I don't know about you Tim, but every time I have the chance
to pick a 12 band parametric eq over a 30 band graphic, I
end up picking the parametric.
If you do the math, a 12 band parametric has 36 independent
variables while the 30 band graphic only has 30.
Then there's the business of hi-Q equalization, which a 30
band graphic being 1/3 octave, just can't do. Did someone
say something about eq-ing speakers? They don't have
feedback where you live, Tim? ;-)
which is why i use the deq2496 for monitors (aswell as FOH). yiou have the |
graphic and the parametric. Best of both. plus you can store settings. and
do all the other stuff. (i use the dynamics functions when using IEM's)
if you can't quite pick out exact frequencies. go into para mode select a
frequency and cut it by its maximum level on its narrowest setting. provoke
the feedback and alter the frequency of the para until it disapears..... i
trust you'll aim for roughly the right area before you fine tune....... and
i dont mean the right area of the room... although......
(this of course is merely following up from the previous posts about
graphic/para rather than making a suggestion for the OP. the deq or rather
4 of them would be a better choice for eq but is not what is being looked
for)
Rob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:48 am Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"mcsteve" <mcstevex1350@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QKU7f.9104$SH6.5733@trndny08...
| Quote: | "Phildo" wrote:
Arny wrote:
Another thing to consider is the fact that the FOH mix should be a
relatively static thing. It's purpose is to give the performers
feedback,
and if someone is changing gain all the time, the performer's don't have
consistent feedback.
This is too pathetic. Beyond "funny", well past "sad". Just pathetic.
Anyone who'd write this, on a forum dedicated to professional live
sound, should be embarrassed to ever appear here, again.
Their best move would be to STFU, and GTFOOTNG (<almost a palindrome!)
|
What gets me is that Arny had been posting here and trying to pass himself
off as an expert for several YEARS and he still didn't know where FOH was
!!!
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob Beech
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:39 am Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
Gets me every time.
Rob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcsteve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"Phildo" wrote:
| Quote: | Arny wrote:
Another thing to consider is the fact that the FOH mix should be a
relatively static thing. It's purpose is to give the performers feedback,
and if someone is changing gain all the time, the performer's don't have
consistent feedback.
|
This is too pathetic. Beyond "funny", well past "sad". Just pathetic.
Anyone who'd write this, on a forum dedicated to professional live
sound, should be embarrassed to ever appear here, again.
Their best move would be to STFU, and GTFOOTNG (<almost a palindrome!)
--
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Steve M
(remove "x" from email addy, to contact directly) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Shorter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
Phildo wrote:
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Ocednd87toGGVMLeRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"Tim Scott" <timscott18@nospamplease.spamarrest.com> wrote
in message news:3s9mpcFmej3oU1@individual.net
Of course I know what feedback is,
Didn't get the smiley emoticon, I see.
although not so long
ago it was brought up that you had had problems with
knowing the difference in terminology for feedback and
foldback.
That would be something that someone made up for whatever reason.
Not at all Arny. See the end of this post. You are sooooooo BUSTED !!!!!!
and as I use a PM1D have parametric EQ on every
output, aswell a good supply of Graphics that I can
patch, and the notch filters.
Then the PM1D differs in the negative direction from the smaller Yammy
digitals that have parametric eq and dynamics processors built into all
the of the input channels in addition to the major outputs?
Oh dear, Arny has just proven he knows nothing about the yamaha digital
desks. Parametric and dynamics on ins and outs. You really don't think there
is anything on the smaller desks that is better than the PM1D Arny? Face it,
the PM1D is the flagship. Just because you will never get to use one while
those people who delight in showing you to be a total dumbass are at a level
where they work on them all the time doesn't mean you have to try and find
things wrong with the PM1D at every opportunity. Oh dear, Arny has a bad
case of desk envy !!!
Phildo
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:3ZSdnWMxaNDjBHTdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
"Phildo" <Phil@phildo.net> wrote in message
news:2ksu4pF5717hU1@uni-berlin.de
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:J9CdnTzsZ6Oj3XTdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
You seem to have forgotten the most important considearation - what
do his mixes sound like to you?
Try reading his post again Arny. He covered that part already:
quote> I mean, the quality of the mix is okay, but its not great.<end
quote
Oh, it was such a weak statement that it shot right under my feet.
It sounds to me like he's obsessing over something that someone else might
be doing well enough. It also seems like he doesn't know how to do the
thing
that he's judging. If he thinks that he could do a better FOH mix himself
by
other means, then he should know it and say it.
People are saying strange dogmatic things about FOH mixes. For example:
"Not a good way to Mix - I always Tell people that the headphones are for
troubleshooting only. Mixing through headphones as you realise means that
you are not mixing what people are hearing."
Obviously, this writer is not considering the possibility that the FOH mix
is being listened to over IEMs. There's a pretty good chance in a 21st
century church that the music director IS onstage performing, directing
and
listening to the FOH mix over a headset. So, now its always bad to mix
with
phones when the mix is going to be listened to, particularly by the boss
man, with phones?
The next possibility that is not being considered is the possibility that
the FOH mix is being done by someone who isn't in the same sound field as
the performers. In fact, this is pretty likely unless the FOH mixer is one
of the performers.
Let's be real, the FOH sound is not usually all that consistent over the
whole stage. It's not like there's just one mix that is going to make
everybody happy. If there's just one FOH mix, it's a pretty thoroughly
compromised thing, anyhow. For example, how is it that I have two stage
mixes? Well the piano is at stage right about 5' from the performers on
the
right of the stage.The performers at stage right feel they are getting
blasted by piano if there is piano in their mix, so they get a mix w/o
piano. Then, the clav is at stage left about 5' from the performers over
there, and so on.
If there's a dedicated FOH mixer, then he's not likely to be at the BOH,
but
why are people saying such categorical things when in general, there's a
pretty good chance that the FOH mixer is a one guy doing it all, and in
the
BOH (more usual) or mid-hall (on a good day).
I'm a bit amused by such a simplistic situation that there is just one FOH
mix. I have to manage 4 FOH mixes - left stage, right stage, choir loft
and
pianist. The only one that is in any sense optional is the choir loft.
Now,
exactly how I do a reasonble job of monitoring 4 separate FOH mixes from
the
BOH without headphones?
Another thing to consider is the fact that the FOH mix should be a
relatively static thing. It's purpose is to give the performers feedback,
and if someone is changing gain all the time, the performer's don't have
consistent feedback.
Finally, why are people presuming that nobody can translate what they hear
over phones into a good FOH mix? I guess they think that since they can't
do
it, nobody can.
|
Don't be so mean and nasty to Arny. It isn't nice to burst someone's
bubble. He's probably built up a nice cosy kingdom for himself where
he's the fount of all knowledge and his underlings wait with baited
breath on his every word (you can't blame them, Arny has been appointed
by God and who are they to question his word).
P.s. Arny, if you want to create you own little world at least take
some tips from an expert such as Terry Pratchett and don't get it
confused with reality. You can blend the two but make sure you don't
lose yourself somewhere between.
--
Regards,
David Shorter
Any errors in tact, fact or spelling
are entirely due to transmission error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"George Gleason" <Bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_XL7f.504333$5N3.247189@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Which I now own.
| Quote: | the displays gets washed out even in the shade and I found the 1/4 inch
in/out connectors unsuitable for pro live sound.
I belive it has been installed somewhere and the constants reseating of
the
1/4 inch connections and thier dodgy contact may not be such a issue in
its
new homw
do not get one for a portable rig
|
Actually George that is exactly where your old one is now living. A friend
of mine has it in one of his racks but he put an XLR panel on the back of
the rack so the unit doesn't have to be plugged up every time. Works like a
charm and he loves it. He never works outside so has not had a problem with
the display.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cap
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject:
Re: EQ question |
|
|
"George Gleason" <Bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_XL7f.504333$5N3.247189@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: | "Bob Cap" <bob@parallel.tzo.com> wrote in
news:z_x7f.514726$xm3.172884@attbi_s21:
Does anybody have any personal use reports of the Alesis DEQ-830? I'm
thinking the lightpipe interface could be useful. The going price is
pretty cheep for eight graphic eq's.
Yeah I know you usually get what you pay for. But many items coming
down the digital pipe are fairly inexpensive.
Thanks
Bob Cap
I owned one
it did not work out for my live rig
I wanted to match it to two of my powersoft 3204's and have a 8 mix
monitor
rig in a 3 rack space 45 lb package
the displays gets washed out even in the shade and I found the 1/4 inch
in/out connectors unsuitable for pro live sound.
I belive it has been installed somewhere and the constants reseating of
the
1/4 inch connections and thier dodgy contact may not be such a issue in
its
new homw
do not get one for a portable rig
|
George,
Thanks for the comment. You know you see a piece of gear....hope it is what
it really is....and then you see it for what it is.
PS. I knew this thread would not stay to the subject and would turn into a
shit fest.
Bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in