Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mackie VLZPRO mute mod

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 4:45:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'd like to modify my Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro so that the Mute buttons affect
prefade sends as well as postfade. I use it primarily for live work, and
when I mute a channel, I want it out of the monitors as well as the mains.

Before I ask Mackie for the schematic and figure out a mod by myself, is
there anyone out there who's already done this and would be willing to share
the details?

(I'm competent with a schematic and with a soldering gun. And I've hacked
other mixers before; indeed, I do things like that for a living. It's just
that I'm lazy and don't want to reinvent the wheel if someone's already done
it.)

Thanks!

More about : mackie vlzpro mute mod

Anonymous
October 17, 2004 2:10:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Z6SdnUB91uCxvu_cRVn-qA@speakeasy.net...
<snip>
> (I'm competent with a schematic and with a soldering gun.

Gun? GUN?!?!? Walter, I *know* you know better than THAT. :-)

DO'H
oheareATmagmaDOTca
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 12:29:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Dave O'Heare" <oheareATmagmaDOTca> wrote in message
news:y-2dnW_Sbv-n5u_cRVn-tg@magma.ca...
> Gun? GUN?!?!? Walter, I *know* you know better than THAT. :-)

Pencil. The pencil is mightier than the gun. Uh, "gum". That was it. I
said "gum." I would never say gun. It was my opponent that said that.
Darn those liberative republicrats!

;-)
Related resources
October 18, 2004 11:13:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:<Z6SdnUB91uCxvu_cRVn-qA@speakeasy.net>...
> I'd like to modify my Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro so that the Mute buttons affect
> prefade sends as well as postfade. I use it primarily for live work, and
> when I mute a channel, I want it out of the monitors as well as the mains.
>
> Before I ask Mackie for the schematic and figure out a mod by myself, is
> there anyone out there who's already done this and would be willing to share
> the details?
>
> (I'm competent with a schematic and with a soldering gun. And I've hacked
> other mixers before; indeed, I do things like that for a living. It's just
> that I'm lazy and don't want to reinvent the wheel if someone's already done
> it.)
>
> Thanks!

I'm curious, why not connect the monitors to the post fade aux sends?

Don't you want the monitor gain for each channel to be adjusted by the
main fader also. For example, if the singer starts screaming into the
mic and you back the main fader down for the main feed, would you not
want to back it down in the monitors also?

You can still adjust the relative amount of each channel in the
monitor using the post aux send pots (but I'm sure you already know
that).

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm new to this and I want to
understand the diffrent ways of working this.

Mark
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 11:45:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Z6SdnUB91uCxvu_cRVn-qA@speakeasy.net> walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com writes:

> Before I ask Mackie for the schematic and figure out a mod by myself, is
> there anyone out there who's already done this and would be willing to share
> the details?

I think this is something you'll have to dope out yourself. Even if
someone has done it before, it's not a trivial job to document what
traces to cut and where to put jumpers.

Mackie had a few pages of modifications in the original CR1604 manual,
but their policy today is not to offer enough help to an end user on
anything internal to the box that has the slightest chance of getting
him into trouble. Too much corporate liability. "Do this at your own
risk" doesn't mean much to an angry customer whose mixer needs
expensive repairs because he tried unsuccessfully to follow
instructions given to him by the manufacturer.

For what it's worth, the mute button on many mixers is post-fader,
even some that are commonly used for live sound. It's just the way
they do things - probably no reason for it other than that it makes
guiding a user who is getting no sound out of his mixer through the
process of pushing the right buttons. If you don't mute EVERYTHING,
there's some place you can always look for the signal if it's present
at the input - for better or worse.

You may want to look into getting a different mixer rather than risk
buggering up your present one - and this time you'll know to look for
a mute-everything button.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 12:51:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3367f36e.0410180613.2b2fd265@posting.google.com...
> I'm curious, why not connect the monitors to the post fade aux sends?
>
> Don't you want the monitor gain for each channel to be adjusted by the
> main fader also. For example, if the singer starts screaming into the
> mic and you back the main fader down for the main feed, would you not
> want to back it down in the monitors also?

Absolutely not. Rather, I want the singer to be able to hear he's too loud.
So, I want to compensate for him in the main mix; but I want him to still be
screamingly loud in the monitors, so that at least maybe the bass player
will pitch a beer at him or something. If I turned him down in the
monitors, he'd probably just sing even louder.

Another example of the same idea: I recently did a wedding gig where a
friend of the groom's wanted to play keyboards with the band on a couple of
tunes. Problem being he didn't know most of the tunes, so he selected a
percussion patch and "jammed along on drums." This was NOT something the
audience needed to hear - but I needed to preserve the illusion for him that
he was in the mix.

On the other hand, sometimes a musician switches instruments or something,
something that changes the levels beyond their ability to control. In that
case, I compensate for the change by moving the trims, rather than the
faders, so as to fix it both on stage and in the house.


> I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm new to this and I want to
> understand the diffrent ways of working this.

No prob.
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 12:55:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1098099312k@trad...
> You may want to look into getting a different mixer rather than risk
> buggering up your present one - and this time you'll know to look for
> a mute-everything button.

The thought has crossed my mind - I could use some more channels, and better
EQ. But I could use more money, too :-)

Come to think of it, I can't actually think of any other small mixers that
have per-channel mutes that affect all the sends from that channel. Hmm.

(The need arises from the situation where band members are coming and going
during a show: I want to, e.g., mute the violinist before she unplugs from
her DI, so there's not a pop; but I don't want to mute anybody else. Can do
it by dropping the trim, but then I have to remember where it was when she
comes back.)
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 2:26:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Walter Harley wrote:
>
> Come to think of it, I can't actually think of any other small mixers that
> have per-channel mutes that affect all the sends from that channel. Hmm.
>
> (The need arises from the situation where band members are coming and going
> during a show: I want to, e.g., mute the violinist before she unplugs from
> her DI, so there's not a pop; but I don't want to mute anybody else. Can do
> it by dropping the trim, but then I have to remember where it was when she
> comes back.)

What about using the mic/line switch?
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 2:30:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Walter Harley wrote:
>
>>
>> Come to think of it, I can't actually think of any other small mixers
>> that have per-channel mutes that affect all the sends from that
>> channel. Hmm.
>>
>> (The need arises from the situation where band members are coming and
>> going during a show: I want to, e.g., mute the violinist before she
>> unplugs from her DI, so there's not a pop; but I don't want to mute
>> anybody else. Can do it by dropping the trim, but then I have to
>> remember where it was when she comes back.)
>
>
> What about using the mic/line switch?

Oops--forgot that the Mackies have no mic/line switch. How about a 1/4" plug with a terminating resistor in it? Intert into the 'line in' jack and you've muted the entire channel at the input...
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:59:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <OdCdnSh5m6Lyeu7cRVn-jg@speakeasy.net> walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com writes:

> (The need arises from the situation where band members are coming and going
> during a show: I want to, e.g., mute the violinist before she unplugs from
> her DI, so there's not a pop; but I don't want to mute anybody else. Can do
> it by dropping the trim, but then I have to remember where it was when she
> comes back.)

I understand completely. We do festivals where a band is on for 25
minutes, then they go off stage, we have to set up for a completely
different band in about two minutes, and, while we pull the faders
down, we don't want mic stands thumping in the monitors or pops when
cables are plugged or unplugged. Sometimes I'm lucky enough to have a
mixer that has a mic/line switch (as opposed to simply two inputs to
the same channel). Switching to Line disconnects the mic from the
channel, effectively muting the input.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 1:56:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Walter Harley wrote:

>
> Come to think of it, I can't actually think of any other small mixers that
> have per-channel mutes that affect all the sends from that channel. Hmm.

A&H MixWiz, and at the other end of the market I am fairly sure the Cadac S
type does as well (This last only small compared to say a J type!).
Almost anything designed for live sound as opposed to studio use will have
this.


Regards, Dan.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 1:56:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dan Mills <dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Walter Harley wrote:
>
>> Come to think of it, I can't actually think of any other small mixers that
>> have per-channel mutes that affect all the sends from that channel. Hmm.
>
>A&H MixWiz, and at the other end of the market I am fairly sure the Cadac S
>type does as well (This last only small compared to say a J type!).

No, you can get an S type shortloaded with only 8 channels! That makes even
a Mix Wizard seem big! Unfortunately, as I found out this fall, you cannot
rent a shortloaded S type anywhere for any money. On the east coast anyway.

>Almost anything designed for live sound as opposed to studio use will have
>this.

The Mackie drives me up the wall in that regard. Anything designed for
studio use also ought to have the mute button mute the whole channel in
my opinion. But then, I think every console should have EQ bypass also.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 3:02:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Dan Mills <dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>A&H MixWiz, and at the other end of the market I am fairly sure the Cadac
>>S type does as well (This last only small compared to say a J type!).
>
> No, you can get an S type shortloaded with only 8 channels! That makes
> even a Mix Wizard seem big! Unfortunately, as I found out this fall, you
> cannot rent a shortloaded S type anywhere for any money. On the east
> coast anyway.

True, but I thought the smallest frame size was 12 or 16 slots?

Give the rental houses a chance, the thing only came out last year and it is
a sort of niche market product!


>>Almost anything designed for live sound as opposed to studio use will have
>>this.
>
> The Mackie drives me up the wall in that regard. Anything designed for
> studio use also ought to have the mute button mute the whole channel in
> my opinion. But then, I think every console should have EQ bypass also.

Amen to that! I had assumed that the mute doing the wrong thing was a studio
perversion that mackie had picked up and run with. Seems they just did it
to be annoyingly different.

BTW: Has anyone here had a chance to have a play with the new Cadac M16
multi channel mic preamps yet? If these are as good as I suspect then for
the money (even list) they look like an excellent buy.


Regards, Dan.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 3:02:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dan Mills <dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Dan Mills <dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>A&H MixWiz, and at the other end of the market I am fairly sure the Cadac
>>>S type does as well (This last only small compared to say a J type!).
>>
>> No, you can get an S type shortloaded with only 8 channels! That makes
>> even a Mix Wizard seem big! Unfortunately, as I found out this fall, you
>> cannot rent a shortloaded S type anywhere for any money. On the east
>> coast anyway.
>
>True, but I thought the smallest frame size was 12 or 16 slots?

Right, but some of those slots are holding your "master section" or whatever
the make-up amps for the outputs are called. I think you get some other
nice stuff available too although I don't recall if there is room for an
intercom module.

>Give the rental houses a chance, the thing only came out last year and it is
>a sort of niche market product!

I called the guys in NYC, and they had one of them for their own personal
video suite that wasn't available for rental. They did try hard to get
me in touch with someone who had an older baby Cadac, but we wound up using
a Midas Venice on the gig. Which was okay, but nothing amazing.

>>>Almost anything designed for live sound as opposed to studio use will have
>>>this.
>>
>> The Mackie drives me up the wall in that regard. Anything designed for
>> studio use also ought to have the mute button mute the whole channel in
>> my opinion. But then, I think every console should have EQ bypass also.
>
>Amen to that! I had assumed that the mute doing the wrong thing was a studio
>perversion that mackie had picked up and run with. Seems they just did it
>to be annoyingly different.

Well, ALSO the light on the Mackie comes ON to tell you that the channel
is muted, rather than coming on to tell you that the channel is active and
unmuted like other consoles. I find that another irritation.

>BTW: Has anyone here had a chance to have a play with the new Cadac M16
>multi channel mic preamps yet? If these are as good as I suspect then for
>the money (even list) they look like an excellent buy.

No, I haven't even seen them! Do they have remote control?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 4:10:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Dan Mills <dmills@spambldiscussiono.uk> wrote:

>>BTW: Has anyone here had a chance to have a play with the new Cadac M16
>>multi channel mic preamps yet? If these are as good as I suspect then for
>>the money (even list) they look like an excellent buy.
>
> No, I haven't even seen them! Do they have remote control?

Yep. Not on the website yet, but there was some discussion on the
theatre-sound mailing list.


Regards, Dan.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 9:52:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) >>
<< Anything designed for
studio use also ought to have the mute button mute the whole channel in
my opinion. But then, I think every console should have EQ bypass also. >>

Not just cheap mixer are like that. The Neve 55's I work on every day have
eq bypass. But when you turn a channel off, that doesn't kill the prefade aux
sends on them puppies either.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 1:30:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:2tictlF1vu4seU2@uni-berlin.de...
> Oops--forgot that the Mackies have no mic/line switch. How about a 1/4"
> plug with a terminating resistor in it? Intert into the 'line in' jack
> and you've muted the entire channel at the input...


Or, I suppose, into the insert, unless I'm using the insert. It wouldn't
work for line inputs, but that's the minority case. (I get line ins when
someone gives me a wireless receiver to put by the board; or when there's a
balanced signal from an instrument preamp that can't take phantom.)

Bit of a pain to carry around a dozen or two terminated 1/4" plugs. I still
think that modifying the mute would be a good approach.

I'll be interested to look at the functionality of Mackie's new digital
mixer when it comes out, the one aimed at live use. Hard to imagine
spending that many bucks on a live mixer, though.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 7:47:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Walter Harley wrote:
>Come to think of it, I can't actually think of any other small mixers that
>have per-channel mutes that affect all the sends from that channel. Hmm.

The Peavey RQ2318 does - and while its routing is simpler, the sound is
competitive with the Mackie. Its also about 1/2 the price.

-lee-
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 12:48:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

So buy a Mackie with the name of Crest! <g> Got both full channel strip
mutes and EQ in/out switches. Of course, it only has direct outs on the 12
mono channel strips, so you've got to give Mackie the nod on that one with
the VLZ 1604.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cl1c6l$out$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Dan Mills <dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Walter Harley wrote:
> >
> >> Come to think of it, I can't actually think of any other small mixers
that
> >> have per-channel mutes that affect all the sends from that channel.
Hmm.
> >
> >A&H MixWiz, and at the other end of the market I am fairly sure the Cadac
S
> >type does as well (This last only small compared to say a J type!).
>
> No, you can get an S type shortloaded with only 8 channels! That makes
even
> a Mix Wizard seem big! Unfortunately, as I found out this fall, you
cannot
> rent a shortloaded S type anywhere for any money. On the east coast
anyway.
>
> >Almost anything designed for live sound as opposed to studio use will
have
> >this.
>
> The Mackie drives me up the wall in that regard. Anything designed for
> studio use also ought to have the mute button mute the whole channel in
> my opinion. But then, I think every console should have EQ bypass also.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:15:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:uuGdnaiG3YJIw-vcRVn-hg@rcn.net...
> So buy a Mackie with the name of Crest! <g> Got both full channel strip
> mutes and EQ in/out switches. Of course, it only has direct outs on the
> 12
> mono channel strips, so you've got to give Mackie the nod on that one with
> the VLZ 1604.

The Mackie's only got direct outs on the first eight channels. Not a big
issue for live work, though - I practically never use any of them.

The main advantages of the Mackie are that it costs <$1k, weighs only a few
pounds, and fits in a 19" rack. (And it's reasonably quiet and clean,
fairly rugged, and all the channels sound the same as each other.) For a
one-man traveling sound reinforcement guy, those are important attributes.
I use a Crest X8 at one of my fixed-install gigs, but if I owned one myself
I'd need a bigger van to put it in, and an assistant to help carry it... and
it would take a lot longer to pay for itself. I'd sure be happy using it,
though!
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 6:20:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Again, it's an XR20, not an X8 or whatever larger frame unit. 16 channels
(assuming you can adjust to the configuration (12 mono, 4 stereo but they
can be used as 4 additional mono inputs sans direct outs), but I do know
that the 1604 VLZ had the available direct outs for 16 full channels as an
option, and the VLZ Pro has a full 16 direct outs standard.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:qrKdnVK1tOuuAOvcRVn-ug@speakeasy.net...
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:uuGdnaiG3YJIw-vcRVn-hg@rcn.net...
> > So buy a Mackie with the name of Crest! <g> Got both full channel strip
> > mutes and EQ in/out switches. Of course, it only has direct outs on the
> > 12
> > mono channel strips, so you've got to give Mackie the nod on that one
with
> > the VLZ 1604.
>
> The Mackie's only got direct outs on the first eight channels. Not a big
> issue for live work, though - I practically never use any of them.
>
> The main advantages of the Mackie are that it costs <$1k, weighs only a
few
> pounds, and fits in a 19" rack. (And it's reasonably quiet and clean,
> fairly rugged, and all the channels sound the same as each other.) For a
> one-man traveling sound reinforcement guy, those are important attributes.
> I use a Crest X8 at one of my fixed-install gigs, but if I owned one
myself
> I'd need a bigger van to put it in, and an assistant to help carry it...
and
> it would take a lot longer to pay for itself. I'd sure be happy using it,
> though!
>
>
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 9:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> the 1604 VLZ had the available direct outs for 16 full channels as an
> option, and the VLZ Pro has a full 16 direct outs standard.

And the Onyx boards have (impedance) balanced direct outs for all channels on DB25's.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 4:04:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:jOGdnQEI77JcMevcRVn-rA@rcn.net...
> Again, it's an XR20, not an X8 or whatever larger frame unit. 16 channels
> (assuming you can adjust to the configuration (12 mono, 4 stereo but they
> can be used as 4 additional mono inputs sans direct outs), but I do know
> that the 1604 VLZ had the available direct outs for 16 full channels as an
> option, and the VLZ Pro has a full 16 direct outs standard.

I dunno about the XR20, I'll check that out.

Re the VLZ Pro, are we talking about the same mixer??? I'm looking at a
1604 VLZ Pro right now, and at its schematic, and it's got 8 direct outs.
The schematic says so too. Maybe other VLZ Pro units had the full
complement? The 1604 VLZ Pro definitely only has 8, although it has 16 mono
ins (and the tape in). (Not that it actually matters, since I don't use
'em...)

-walter
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 4:39:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:51:05 -0700, "Walter Harley"
<walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>> Don't you want the monitor gain for each channel to be adjusted by the
>> main fader also. For example, if the singer starts screaming into the
>> mic and you back the main fader down for the main feed, would you not
>> want to back it down in the monitors also?
>
>Absolutely not. Rather, I want the singer to be able to hear he's too loud.
>So, I want to compensate for him in the main mix; but I want him to still be
>screamingly loud in the monitors, so that at least maybe the bass player
>will pitch a beer at him or something. If I turned him down in the
>monitors, he'd probably just sing even louder.

But the postfade sends still have level controls on each channel. The
monitor mix can still be different to the FOH. It's just that you're
starting from the basis of the main mix rather than creating a new one
from scratch. Isn't this mostly what you want - show the performers
what's going out, but be able to tweak things if required?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 5:55:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:51:05 -0700, "Walter Harley"

> But the postfade sends still have level controls on each channel. The
> monitor mix can still be different to the FOH. It's just that you're
> starting from the basis of the main mix rather than creating a new one
> from scratch. Isn't this mostly what you want - show the performers
> what's going out, but be able to tweak things if required?

In general NO!

Consider that it is very common to have more available
GBF in the front of house system then you do in the monitors and also
consider that you will need to make fairly large changes to the FOH mix as
the room tempeture/humidity/occupancy changes.

In any case, the mix most of the talent needs in nothing at all like what is
going out front as even with a well behaved guitarist (as if!), the vocalist
will need lots more of themselves then you are likely to need for a balanced
mix, but will probably not need guitar or bass drum in their monitor at
all!

Similarly the drummer is likely to be interested in guitar/bass/possibly a
little keys but is quite happy with out the snare drum in his mix
thanks....

The FOH mix is POSSIBLY an acceptable starting point for a sidefill mix but
is not a useful starting point for general monitors!

I can think of a few occasions where I have had things in monitors that were
not present AT ALL in the FOH mix, sort of difficult with post fade sends -
think singing (tone deaf) drummer! (And yes, the accident with the mute
button was on the bands instructions).

Regards, Dan.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:42:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1htdn0plm04298668ogrvjckq092qomlsb@4ax.com> l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk writes:

> But the postfade sends still have level controls on each channel. The
> monitor mix can still be different to the FOH. It's just that you're
> starting from the basis of the main mix rather than creating a new one
> from scratch. Isn't this mostly what you want - show the performers
> what's going out, but be able to tweak things if required?

It depends on the performers. Folk musicians (say they) want to hear
what the house mix sounds like because they don't trust you and want
to be sure that you do it right. Stage musicians want to hear
themselves louder than anything else so they can groove on it (and
probably some other reasons, too).

But nobody likes to hear the monitors change noticably. If you decide
something is too loud and turn it down (or too quiet and you turn it
up) they think something has just gone wrong with the sound. Also, if
you have the monitors wired post-fader and turn something up in the
house, you might generate feedback through the monitors because of the
increased gain in the monitor path.

Monitors are evil and the person who made them necessary should be
shot. But they're a necessary evil for performing large music in a
large venue to a noisy crowd, and that's how musicians make enough
money to keep performing. The worst part is that in places where
monitors aren't really necessary, the musicians want them anyway.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:26:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:55:14 +0100, Dan Mills
<dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> But the postfade sends still have level controls on each channel. The
>> monitor mix can still be different to the FOH. It's just that you're
>> starting from the basis of the main mix rather than creating a new one
>> from scratch. Isn't this mostly what you want - show the performers
>> what's going out, but be able to tweak things if required?
>
>In general NO!

There's a philosophy of sound design that treats the performers as
egocentric fools who can only be rescued by the sound operator and his
banks of complicated equipment. I exaggerate, but not ALL that
much :-)

This would be all very well, except that it demonstrably doesn't work.
Or very rarely does.

In a studio, it's possible that the producer/engineer combination is
the best musician on the gig, and understands the music best. On a
live gig, this isn't going to be very likely :-) At a live gig, the
sound is generally poor. When it isn't, you're probably listening to
a recorded track.

The musicians have to accept responsibility for the music. It worked
from prehistoric times until a generation ago, and still works in
"classical" music. It can work in popular styles as well.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:50:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Damn, you're right. I guess I was thinking of the VLZ add-on that gives the
full complement of direct outs. At least as far as I recall. I don't own
one, but JoVee and I work often together and have occassionally used his
1604 VLZ (we've pretty much decided that the XR20 is the mixer of choice
between our multiple mixer choices (I have two different mixers and so does
he)).

On the XR20, I use the 12 direct outs for the first 12 tracks of two DA38s
and then use the bussing for the final 4 inputs as mono (each is a stereo
input with mono summing or simple center panned for the mono buss or...).
The nice thing is that the last 4/8 inputs provide phantom (all channels
provide phantom individually).

But there's also a stereo aux bus on 1/2 that offer the ability to run a
pair of room mics to two tracks, thus giving some abilities not normally
provided by the likes of the Mackies or the A&H.

Of all the small/rack mount mixers I've run across, the XR20 is the most
well thought out mixer I saw. I'm still learning all the possibilities, but
JoVee could probably tell you more about the flexibility, however (APPLAUSE)
John JUST BOUGHT A HOUSE (his first). Unfortunately he doesn't have his
computer hooked to the internet yet, but I think congratulations are in
order. I'll be glad to print them off and give them to him as I'll see him
Saturday morning (borrowing equipment - AGAIN! <g>)


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Nd-dnQJMRqsXwurcRVn-3Q@speakeasy.net...
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:jOGdnQEI77JcMevcRVn-rA@rcn.net...
> > Again, it's an XR20, not an X8 or whatever larger frame unit. 16
channels
> > (assuming you can adjust to the configuration (12 mono, 4 stereo but
they
> > can be used as 4 additional mono inputs sans direct outs), but I do know
> > that the 1604 VLZ had the available direct outs for 16 full channels as
an
> > option, and the VLZ Pro has a full 16 direct outs standard.
>
> I dunno about the XR20, I'll check that out.
>
> Re the VLZ Pro, are we talking about the same mixer??? I'm looking at a
> 1604 VLZ Pro right now, and at its schematic, and it's got 8 direct outs.
> The schematic says so too. Maybe other VLZ Pro units had the full
> complement? The 1604 VLZ Pro definitely only has 8, although it has 16
mono
> ins (and the tape in). (Not that it actually matters, since I don't use
> 'em...)
>
> -walter
>
>
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:55:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Not only do the musicians not want to hear a change, but often one can hear
it from the FOH position or at least from the front part of the crowd. I
even have some smearing and phase problems because I inadvertantly changed
the monitor setup during a performance and luckily got it back to where it
was supposed to be. Sounded mighty strange, though. And on an outdoor gig
I was trying to match what the musicians needed with the amount of stage
noise they were creating themselves, and from 75 feet back I could virtually
SEE the soundstage change dimensions. Outdoors.

So it's kinda important to get the musicians what they want and leave it
like that, unless they absolutely request changes. If they are making
changes into the second set, you're doing something wrong in the first
place.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1098323909k@trad...
>
> In article <1htdn0plm04298668ogrvjckq092qomlsb@4ax.com>
l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk writes:
>
> > But the postfade sends still have level controls on each channel. The
> > monitor mix can still be different to the FOH. It's just that you're
> > starting from the basis of the main mix rather than creating a new one
> > from scratch. Isn't this mostly what you want - show the performers
> > what's going out, but be able to tweak things if required?
>
> It depends on the performers. Folk musicians (say they) want to hear
> what the house mix sounds like because they don't trust you and want
> to be sure that you do it right. Stage musicians want to hear
> themselves louder than anything else so they can groove on it (and
> probably some other reasons, too).
>
> But nobody likes to hear the monitors change noticably. If you decide
> something is too loud and turn it down (or too quiet and you turn it
> up) they think something has just gone wrong with the sound. Also, if
> you have the monitors wired post-fader and turn something up in the
> house, you might generate feedback through the monitors because of the
> increased gain in the monitor path.
>
> Monitors are evil and the person who made them necessary should be
> shot. But they're a necessary evil for performing large music in a
> large venue to a noisy crowd, and that's how musicians make enough
> money to keep performing. The worst part is that in places where
> monitors aren't really necessary, the musicians want them anyway.
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:40:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dan Mills wrote:

> I forget who has the sig about putting the lions share of the money
> out in front of the mic paying off but it applies just as much to live as
> it ever did in the studio.


Bob Olhsson

--
ha
!