Muso seeking live sound advice -- running band direct, in-..

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Brandon Paluzzi" <bpaluzzi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:457aa2be.0411040858.3ab9d963@posting.google.com...
> Hi-
>
> I'm a drummer for a band that is playing out a fair amount (locally
> and regionally). Our instrumentation is somewhat unusual (guitar/vox,
> bass, drums, 2 keys, violin, cello), and we've had consistent problems
> getting a good mix for live shows. A lot of the problem (in my
> opinion) is coming from the string players needing a lot of monitor
> signal to hear themselves over the more traditional "rock"
> instruments. All of that monitor sound is making it into the house.
> We don't have a sound guy, and that's also not helping us get the mix
> that we feel best represents our sound.
>
> After trying a couple different combinations of standard backline
> gear, we've proposed a rather radical (in our eyes) solution -- no
> amps on stage, and very little stage volume at all.
>
> Drums would be replaced by electronic drums, direct to board (6
> channels)
> Guitar runs through a POD and direct to board (1 channel)
> Bass runs from head, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Violin runs into processor, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Cello runs from pickup -> DI, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Keys run -> DI, direct to board (2 channels)
>
> That gives us 12 channels of instruments, and 2 channels of vocals.
> What we'd like to do with the signal at that point is--
>
> Run all signals into band-run mixer -- 12 direct signals run into
> board, then run back out of the board via direct outs. Direct outs
> run to stage box.


I wouldnt recomend this as then your channel gain is controlling the level
being sent to FOH, and any adjustments you make to your channel gain will
affect the FOH mix. Consider a monitor board something like the Crest XRM???
I think its called.



> Vocal mics are split (with transformers) into two signals. One pair
> of splits run to the stage box, the second pair of splits runs into
> the band run mixer.


A monitor board that has an IN and OUT per channel would make this much
simpler, basically you would be spiltting the audio feeds from your stage to
you monitor desk and to your FOH board.
Just check that any Line ins are run thru a DI box into the XLR in on the
board as Im not sure that the LINE IN sockets on the channels are split to
the XLR OUTs on the channels.


>
> Hopefully, this would give us 14 signals (plus a click and ambient
> mic) that we can use to create our own in-ear mixes, which is then
> sent out to 4 in-ear transmitters.
>
> My questions are:
> 1- Is this feasible? Will the benefits (much less stage volume /
> monitor volume, standard IEM benefits -- hearing protection, fidelity,
> etc.) outweigh the costs?

What you are suggesting is feasible but not the standard way to do it as
said above. I have seen acts that run this way and here are somethings Ive
noticed.
Drummer: Along with the IEMs you would would have to consider a throne
shaker. (A unit that vibrates the drummers stool to simulate low
frequencies) as the IEMs cant recreate the lower frequencies too well.
Bass Player: Again the problem here is with the lower frequencies, Ive seem
some using a small riser to stand on with a shaker attached to is. Tho this
is all down to the bass player, some can live without it.
Guitarist: Its very hard to get a guitarist to change from a guitar cab to a
simulator. Again down to personal choice.
Strings: IEMs work well here IMHO
Vocals: IEMs work well here too, tho some singers find them annoying in that
you feel that you are in a cocoon world. And mixing of the ambience mics is
critical here. Insert a gate/ducker on them, with key listen fed by the mix,
so the drop in level when the band are playing and magically reappear when
they stop playing.
Another big concern re IEMs are the quality of the ear buds and whether to
go moulded or standard etc, again all down to preference, Ive seen Bowie
work with Sony walkman type headphones.


>
> 2- What concerns would you, as a live sound engineer, have about
> working with a system like this?


Once Im getting the feeds from the stage and you are happy onstage then Ive
no concerns.


>
> 3- What would be the preferable way to do the splitting of the 12
> line-level signals? Would 1/4"->XLR-M cables (from the board direct
> outs) be acceptable, or would it be better to run the signals coming
> into my board into a bank of DIs, using the DI out (XLR) to send to
> the house, and the parallel out (1/4" ) to patch from DI to the monitor
> desk?


This would get very messy, use either a split multi, where all the mic ins
on the stage box are split to two sets of male XLRs, one for MONS and one
for FOH, or take the cheaper route and get a monitor board that has XLR outs
on each channel. So you sould take your line out for the kick lets
say...into a DI box (ideally once channel of a 2 quad DI units in a nice
rack beside you.:-) this would give you 8 channls of DIs leaving you with 2
spare for your kit) into your monitor board (via a mic lead or a line on a
nice 8way loom to go from your DI rack to the monitor board) then the venue
would come out of your monitor board on the kick XLR out and into his
system. This means that you have to carry all the mic leads for your band,
and the DI boxes, and you might aswell buy yourself some nice Audix mics
and mic stands, meaning that you own all the kit onstage. Now what you have
is a complete system, you can rehearse in complete comfort.


> Any other suggestions, criticisms, or ideas? I searched for similar
> topics, and wasn't able to find anything exactly like this, so I
> apologize in advance if this was in fact covered.

I see there are 6 of you in the band, have a look at the dual channel IEM
systems that are out there, the Sennheisers being one system I know, you use
one transmitter to two recievers, the recievers have to be in mono mode for
this to work, This way you can create 6 seperate mixes from 3 transmitters.
Again your singer my like a stereo image for depth perception. That would
mean using a single transmitter for his pack alone.
I gotta run, food calls. Shout if you wanna hear more

Dave W..



Glukk


>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Brandon Paluzzi

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve White" <steve@sjNOSPAMTAVERYMUCHwhite.plus.com> wrote in message
news:418a8133$0$3991$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> For some reason I didn't see the original post, except carved up in a
reply.
>
> Anyhow, my band plays without backline and with electronic drums and it
> works very well for us. Our setup is different to your suggestion as we
have
> on-stage monitors. For simplicity we have the FOH mix coming through all
> monitors. This helps me a lot because I can hear a reasonable
approximation
> of the FOH mix without distractions from acoustic drums / guitar amps /
> other mixes.
>
> The benefits to us are:
> (1) immediate control over stage volume
> (2) rock / folk / electric / acoustic instruments all play on equal terms
> (3) improved sound quality / easier mixing
> (4) no additional fancy gear required
>
> I should add that I'm not a pro sound engineer. Also, some more
experienced
> people here have pointed out that mixing FOH from behind the main speakers
> is always a compromise regardless of the setup. However, it works for us.
>
> We have contemplated in-ear monitors as this would speed setup and reduce
> the kit we have to carry. If the prices were lower we'd have done this
> before now. We still might but aren't moving on this yet.
>
> I hope this helps.
> Cheers,
> Steve W

Hey Steve, If it works for you then it works.
Re moving to inears from wedges, do try it out before you make the jump, its
a different world in IEM land.

Glukk
Dave W.

>
>

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Brandon Paluzzi wrote:
> After trying a couple different combinations of standard backline
> gear, we've proposed a rather radical (in our eyes) solution -- no
> amps on stage, and very little stage volume at all.
>
> Drums would be replaced by electronic drums, direct to board (6
> channels)
> Guitar runs through a POD and direct to board (1 channel)
> Bass runs from head, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Violin runs into processor, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Cello runs from pickup -> DI, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Keys run -> DI, direct to board (2 channels)

> Hopefully, this would give us 14 signals (plus a click and ambient
> mic) that we can use to create our own in-ear mixes, which is then
> sent out to 4 in-ear transmitters.

I'm not 100% sure why, if you don't have a sound guy at all, you
need to do this with two separate mixers. It seems like you would
then have one on stage (for monitors) and one off stage (for FOH),
but that there would be no one there to operate the second one.

So, basically, if you are only going to use 4 in-ear monitor mixes
and you don't have a sound guy, why not just do everything with one
mixer on stage that has (at least) 4 aux sends? I'm not saying this
is necessarily the best solution, but I'm just trying to understand
why having the complicated setup your describe would be better.

Another comment I have: if you go with no stage volume (esp. from
drums), then it's going to become much MORE critical to get good
monitor mixes. This is partly because of the reduced stage volume
and partly because the in-ear monitors block out other sounds. If
it's not in the in-ear mix, then the musicians won't hear what they
need. Imagine, for example, that you forget to turn up the violin
enough in the violinist's ears. Then the violinist must either
play without hearing what they're playing, or they have to take
the in-ears out and give up on them. So, if you go this route, I
think it'll be important to work hard at getting a good mix in
everyone's ears. Expect to spend more time working on getting
everything right before a show, because you will need it.

- Logan

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

"Brandon Paluzzi" <bpaluzzi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:457aa2be.0411040858.3ab9d963@posting.google.com...
> Hi-
> A lot of the problem (in my
> opinion) is coming from the string players needing a lot of monitor
> signal to hear themselves over the more traditional "rock"
> instruments. All of that monitor sound is making it into the house.
> We don't have a sound guy, and that's also not helping us get the mix
> that we feel best represents our sound

I think that this statement is your main trouble spot here. Your getting a lot
of the string (Cello and Violin) players monitor's in the other mic's on the
stage that are going to the PA because they have to crank it up so they can
hear themselves, right?
Did you try a sound shield around them? You know, one of those clear plastic
things that you see around a live drum kit, that is the same reason they use
them for live drums so it may just work for your set up to. You may have to
have one made for you as I don't know how much room they need but that's what I
would think about doing. And by the way it would be cheep as hell to have one
made!

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<JVxid.17419$IE1.821@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
> Brandon Paluzzi wrote:
> > After trying a couple different combinations of standard backline
> > gear, we've proposed a rather radical (in our eyes) solution -- no
> > amps on stage, and very little stage volume at all.
> >
> > Drums would be replaced by electronic drums, direct to board (6
> > channels)
> > Guitar runs through a POD and direct to board (1 channel)
> > Bass runs from head, direct out to board (1 channel)
> > Violin runs into processor, direct out to board (1 channel)
> > Cello runs from pickup -> DI, direct out to board (1 channel)
> > Keys run -> DI, direct to board (2 channels)
>
> > Hopefully, this would give us 14 signals (plus a click and ambient
> > mic) that we can use to create our own in-ear mixes, which is then
> > sent out to 4 in-ear transmitters.
>
> I'm not 100% sure why, if you don't have a sound guy at all, you
> need to do this with two separate mixers. It seems like you would
> then have one on stage (for monitors) and one off stage (for FOH),
> but that there would be no one there to operate the second one.
>
> So, basically, if you are only going to use 4 in-ear monitor mixes
> and you don't have a sound guy, why not just do everything with one
> mixer on stage that has (at least) 4 aux sends? I'm not saying this
> is necessarily the best solution, but I'm just trying to understand
> why having the complicated setup your describe would be better.

Sorry if I wasn't clear before -- we don't have a sound guy that tours
with us. The clubs we're playing at always have a house engineer (and
often a separate monitor engineer, who we'll unfortunately be
bypassing).

> Another comment I have: if you go with no stage volume (esp. from
> drums), then it's going to become much MORE critical to get good
> monitor mixes. This is partly because of the reduced stage volume
> and partly because the in-ear monitors block out other sounds. If
> it's not in the in-ear mix, then the musicians won't hear what they
> need. Imagine, for example, that you forget to turn up the violin
> enough in the violinist's ears. Then the violinist must either
> play without hearing what they're playing, or they have to take
> the in-ears out and give up on them. So, if you go this route, I
> think it'll be important to work hard at getting a good mix in
> everyone's ears. Expect to spend more time working on getting
> everything right before a show, because you will need it.

Understood. As I'm currently using in-ears, I understand the need for
a good mix -- right now, I can sort of cheat, as there is still
backline that leaks through the in-ears. If we go strictly in-ear,
with no live instruments on stage, it'll be even more important.
We'll be bringing the monitor desk, so in theory (isn't that always
the way ;-)), it should be the same mix, from rehearsal to club to
club.

Thanks!
Brandon

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I'm a drummer for a band that is playing out a fair amount
> (locally and regionally). Our instrumentation is somewhat
> unusual (guitar/vox, bass, drums, 2 keys, violin, cello),
> and we've had consistent problems getting a good mix for
> live shows. A lot of the problem (in my opinion) is coming
> from the string players needing a lot of monitor signal to
> hear themselves over the more traditional "rock" instruments.
> All of that monitor sound is making it into the house. We
> don't have a sound guy, and that's also not helping us get the
> mix that we feel best represents our sound.

Congratulations. You are alreadhy ahead of the game by reckognizing how
much your monitor system affects your FOH sound. =)

> After trying a couple different combinations of standard
> backline gear, we've proposed a rather radical (in our eyes)
> solution -- no amps on stage, and very little stage volume
> at all.
>
> Drums would be replaced by electronic drums, direct to
> board (6 channels)
> Guitar runs through a POD and direct to board (1 channel)
> Bass runs from head, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Violin runs into processor, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Cello runs from pickup -> DI, direct out to board (1 channel)
> Keys run -> DI, direct to board (2 channels)
>
> That gives us 12 channels of instruments, and 2 channels of
> vocals. What we'd like to do with the signal at that point is--
>
> Run all signals into band-run mixer -- 12 direct signals run into
> board, then run back out of the board via direct outs. Direct
> outs run to stage box.
>
> Vocal mics are split (with transformers) into two signals. One
> pair of splits run to the stage box, the second pair of splits runs
> into the band run mixer.
>
> Hopefully, this would give us 14 signals (plus a click and
> ambient mic) that we can use to create our own in-ear mixes,
> which is then sent out to 4 in-ear transmitters.
>
> My questions are:
> 1- Is this feasible?

Yes...

> Will the benefits (much less stage volume / monitor volume,
> standard IEM benefits -- hearing protection, fidelity, etc.)
> outweigh the costs?

Properly implimented you will notice a bing impact. And, by having your
own monitor system you will notice a great improvement in consistancy on the
stage for the band members.

> 2- What concerns would you, as a live sound engineer, have
> about working with a system like this?

The #1 concern would be to make sure that the monitor system is
completely isolated from the FOH. That way any changes you make to will not
affect the FOH mix.

> 3- What would be the preferable way to do the splitting of
> the 12 line-level signals? Would 1/4"->XLR-M cables (from
> the board direct outs) be acceptable, or would it be better to
> run the signals coming into my board into a bank of DIs, using
> the DI out (XLR) to send to the house, and the parallel out
> (1/4" ) to patch from DI to the monitor desk?

Idealy you would want a transformer isolated spliter with a ground lift
switch for each channel. The problem with a direct out is that even if it's
a pre-fader output it can be affected by monitor board adjustments (trim
changes).

> Any other suggestions, criticisms, or ideas? I searched for
> similar topics, and wasn't able to find anything exactly like
> this, so I apologize in advance if this was in fact covered.

I have built a couple of in-ear monitor systems for local bands. Each
was a dedicated rack that had a rack mount mixer in the top with a rack
underneath. In the rack was the various in-ear transmitters, wireless mic
receivers, storage drawers and a splitter. For use, the stage was wired
into the rack and a snake from the rack feeds FOH.
My recommendations would be as follows (in no particular order):
#1 - Get a couple of wireless mics for the vocals. You can mount the
receivers in the monitor rack so there is no need to string cables between
the rack and the front of the stage. Makes for a faster, simpler, cleaner
setup and allows you to hide the rack in the back of the stage out of sight
and closer to the majority of your inputs.
#2 - Use a transformer isolated split with a ground lift. This give you
the maximum isolation between FOH and monitors and prevents problems with
ground loops (hummmmmm). Check out the Whirlwind MLTSP1X2
(http://www.whirlwindusa.com/split.html) as an example.
#3 - Include space for a drawer in the rack. This allows you carry your
wireless mics, in-ear receivers and batteries all in the rack for convince.
#4 - Spend money on a good quality rack. Going cheap here will cause
you problems later. Get the rack with front and rear rack rails. This
allows you to put the transmitters in the front and all the cabling
connections in the back for a cleaner look.
#5 - Include a 25ft snake to feed the FOH snake. If the rack is setup
right, you should be able to leave the rack end plugged in. This makes for
faster setup as you only have to plug in one end.

Mike Borkhuis