Magnus Söderman Messages: 191 Registered: April 2004 Location: Ludvika, Sweden
Has No Life
Dave,
the company who was supplying it was US LIVE (now Magnet Malmö). They are
the ones led us into the dbx route. since our racks looks the same, we can
subhire rack from them.
Scott Holloway Messages: 24 Registered: December 2004 Location: Indianapolis, IN
Here Often
Bill-
I've been using the Clair I/O's for almost two years now, so I may be able to help you decide whether to get them (the Lake units) for your system. As far as visiting engineers getting around on them quickly, you should be able to set up the modules in a way that makes sense to them on the tablet computer screen. They should easily be able to select a mix to make changes. I would arrange the modules in a fashion that looks like how they are arranged in the rack, and use this as a starting template. Then, if someone has more than just one show with your rig, they could embellish that arrangement to suit their needs. A lot of the FOH guys for Clair and Showco are using Gateway tablets that have a magnetic stylus. It appears to me that it is difficult to make precise adjustments with these, because when you lift the stylus off the surface, your EQ center frequency can shift slightly. I've been using one of their older Fujitsu tablets that doesn't have this problem. During shows, to make adjustments, I can make the changes with my fingernail. I don't even need to get the stylus out. As far as the EQ filters go, they work great. You have a 1/3 octave overlay, which I never use, and as many parametric overlays as you want. Each overlay has 17 parametric filters, which can either be shelving or peaking. If you want to use the mesa filters, that takes up two regular filters. If you are looking for a high end solution that should be usable for many years to come, this is it. It ain't cheap, though. If you are looking for something with programmability that most engineers will be happy with for a one nighter, that is quite a bit cheaper, maybe the EQ station would be better for you. I can't speak highly enough about the Lake product, though. It's been a great tool to have. Hope this helps.
Ville Kauhanen Messages: 40 Registered: April 2004 Location: Helsinki, FINLAND
Should Get Out More
Bill!
Here are some of my observations on this "modern" mon EQ issue.
I just recently did a tour where I had no other EQs on the monitor rig but MESA EQs with wireless tablet PC. I really liked the system in many ways. The overall quality of the hardware and software is excellent.
I've tested TC EQ Station, but not used it on the road, yet. This system is to me the one that I would like to see more on locally provided systems for one-offs. Also TC has had a lot of experience in this field with 1128 and its motorfader unit so reliability shoul not be any issue. And I have to mention that when I first time held the EQStation unit in my hand directly out of the cardboard box (this was something like last March/April, not with fully working software) the first thing that impressed me was the build quality of the chassis of the unit. It is something else. You have to check it out yourself.
And when I putted the power on to the unit I was not as amazed but happy to see a new professional tool. I have not had time to check the unit with the fully working software but I've heard nothing but good about it.
I just recently did also a couple of gigs with DN3600rig with wireless remote control. This system to me is still one of the best. Unfortunately to my knowledge this product is discontinued and "replaced" by Helix. The remote for DN3600 is/was the best remote without faders (and you can make it wireless).
I've used the KT Helix for a couple of gigs. Not for monitors though. And I hate it. But lets not go there. There are/will be some advantages with the ELGAR software when using Helix w/Heritage consoles. I'm not very well informed about the whole ELGAR idea but still i think there are some issues on controlling EQs.
When we are discussing about DSP based stuff for live sound it always comes down to speed and accessibility. Atleast for me that is. Ergonomics are as important as reliablity and overall quality of the product.
This is why the only digital EQ I don't feel any discomfort using for a one-off festival gig for example is Driverack system with the fader remote BUT only when accompanied and properly configured with either SM20 or Series5MON consoles. You push AFL on the group and you have your EQ available. This is how it should be. The problem is that I don't like that much of the Soundcraft consoles. I've used this kind of set up from Magnet Malmö (Sweden) for a few gigs this year and it has done the job it was hired for very well.
Just recently when I had this system with H3000 and MESA EQs the sound was more for my taste (compared to Soundcraft/DBX set up)but I want to have faders. This set up is very good for a tour and I will take it again but for tour. But not for one-offs. Even when there is wireless remote control. There's no faders. This might sound stupid to you. I'm all for digital consoles etc. but If the EQ is graphic I want to have faders. Simple as that.
Even there's no way to make TCs new motor fader unit wireless and it's a bit bulky to drag around the stage I would see this as a system for the future. If I would be in your position I would really look in to the TC EQ Station.
Here some of my thoughts about monitor EQs. Happy hunting. When you've decided let us know what you decided and what was/were the reason(s)
Mike Babcock Messages: 1255 Registered: April 2004 Location: Seattle, WA or the road
Has No Life
Ville Kauhanen wrote on Sat, 04 December 2004 21:15
Bill!
(snip)
This is why the only digital EQ I don't feel any discomfort using for a one-off festival gig for example is Driverack system with the fader remote BUT only when accompanied and properly configured with either SM20 or Series5MON consoles. You push AFL on the group and you have your EQ available. This is how it should be.
Thanks for the input, well stated except the quote above. It is possible to have the Driverack configured with other midi capable consoles such as the Heritage series. A friendly competitor uses that combination (H3K and 480) and gets along fine. The remote follows the cue assignment of the console. If needed I could find out how the configuration was done.
Mike
I seem to remember that Bink tested one in the EQ Shootout.
I tested the Lake Contour, not the Lake Mesa, although if the newer Mesa had been in production a year ago it would have been a more appropriate choice for inclusion in the GEQ Shootout as it is primarily an EQ rather than primarily a speaker controller/crossover. At any rate, the Contour and the Mesa are nearly the same box with identical output drivers and input circuits. With the same EQ settings they'll be exactly the same sound. The Contour sounded fabulous and we were treated to seeing Lake's Miguel Hadelich demonstrate a fast and easy expertise at the wireless touchpad. Still, the BE who hasn't seen one will be somewhat daunted by the interface. There will be a small learning curve.
The Shootout website with its rundown of results is offline right now but we ended up liking several EQs for the stage monitor application. There were differences between EQs in the ability to cut feedback vs. return a strong signal to the musos. And there were differences in the ease of interface. All EQs with physical faders were easier to use than those with virtual faders -- and in the monitor application this factor was given a high priority. I think the Mesa could be easy to tweak once you were used to it but wouldn't be the preferred choice for most monitor BEs. As far as sound power and quality it will win handily against feedback since the filter array is so flexible. In the right hands it rules.
For completeness, the other Shootout EQs that performed especially well in the stage monitor application were the Audient ASP231 with its narrow cuts, the BSS FCS-960 in narrow mode, the Rane DEQ60L with its 'Perfect Q' topology, and any graphic EQ which offered additional notch filters, although the dbx 480's notch filters were spaced somewhat far apart at ten to the octave and the TDM 30G's 3 notches were restricted to three separate freq bands. The Lake Mesa offers notch filters centered at any frequency.
Jason McLaurin Messages: 96 Registered: April 2004 Location: Texas
Nothing Better To Do
Mikael Holm wrote on Fri, 03 December 2004 21:57
Jason wrote on Fri, 03 December 2004 02:11
In rigs at that level, Proteas have another drawback that's not as obvious. You're likely to be using monitors that are DSP processed, such as the immediately loveable L'Acoustics 115XT's. The Proteas don't have digital I/O, so you're going through two A/D->D/A conversions in a row, which carries a toll.
But wouldn't you want your monitor eqs to be inserted anyway, so this is a not a problem since you don't go from eq to DSP.
Greetings Miffe,
Being a fellow gearslut, I'm surprised you would overlook this. What if you're using something like an XTA 224 to process monitors? You'll definitely need another unit for EQ.
Unless it's a digital board. There, I would just use the onboard output parametrics. But I don't know if all the monitor guys in regional land would agree with me.
Jason Kelly Messages: 60 Registered: April 2004 Location: UK
Should Get Out More
Firstly let me say that I am now working for KT here in the UK, so I am obviously biased. But I did own both a Helix system and the TC EQ Station before I worked for KT.
Have you considered that you would be able to link the solo bus on the H3000 with a Helix system? This is a excellent feature that works incredibly well for monitors. It always means that whichever mix is soloed that that is the one on the screen of the DN9340.
Also the wireless tablet and ELGAR software are now available and are working very well. We have a demo system out doing a tour at the moment here in the UK and everyone is very happy with how the system is working. There will be some new updates in the near future. But you can download the software from the KT site and give it a try without having to have any Helix units connected. The solo buss feature and the tablet can work simultaniously.
As for the touch strips on the DN9340. It is always a good idea to calibrate these for each new engineer who uses the system. There can be a few complaints about the strips but generally these disappear once the strips have been calibrated for the engineers fingers and style of use.
As will all digital equipment the user interface can take some getting used to, but once you have it is very fast and easy to use. Copying eq curves across units is easy and being able to store entire global setups or just individual units is a useful feature.
I hope this helps,
Feel free to delete this if it is not appropriate.
Being a fellow gearslut, I'm surprised you would overlook this. What if you're using something like an XTA 224 to process monitors? You'll definitely need another unit for EQ.
Yes, i would need separate EQ but i would insert it in the mix bus and not inline with DSP.
Of course if it was easy to use the input EQ on DP224 by controlling it from laptop and having the ability for cue wedge's DSP to follow the EQ settings in the input of DSP for the cued mix bus then there would be no need for separate EQ. You following me? This is the same AFL/EQ/MIDI thing that is possible with dbx Driveracks.
Quote:
Unless it's a digital board. There, I would just use the onboard output parametrics. But I don't know if all the monitor guys in regional land would agree with me.
I would do that too if the output EQ changes were heard in the cue bus (like the APL in Innovasons..).
Miffe, gearslut, independent sound engineer, small business owner
Dave Stevens Messages: 1983 Registered: February 2004 Location: 7th Level
Has No Life Anvil of Reality
jasonkelly wrote on Tue, 07 December 2004 13:56
As for the touch strips on the DN9340. It is always a good idea to calibrate these for each new engineer who uses the system. There can be a few complaints about the strips but generally these disappear once the strips have been calibrated for the engineers fingers and style of use.
After a miserable first night with the Helix the next day I read the printed manual start to end instead of the sections that pertained to my application as I had the first day. Nothing about any touchstrip calibration. I just read the downloaded copy of the manual, didn't see it there, either. I would think that a reference to how to calibrate it would be best found in either the sections that explain the strip in various functions or in the section where "clear down" is explained.
I got around fine on the encoders, just like with a DN3600s I've used hundreds of times before, though it's abit slower than direct access. I then went to use the strip and that's when it really started to shit the bed. When I used the strip as indicated in the manual there were two pretty sizable, to me anyway, issues. First, after a bit of use the strip stopped responding to touch. I would touch it to do something, no response. I tried a few moves and nothing. Then a few seconds after I stopped, what appeared to be the moves I just made were executed on the equalizer. Well, I ASSume those were the moves otherwise it was a bunch of spurious movement. I muted the controllers and power cycled the DN9340.
I started to tune the rig again and when I selected a frequency on the strip after I released the strip the frequency went all the way to the bottom. It did that on three sucessive frequencies before I'd had enough and reverted back to the equalizers on the PM5D I was using as I was 20 mins into a 30 min tuning window for the PA from 3:00 to 3:30, line check/ mon check 3:30 to 4:00, band at 4:00.
At first I thought I was in some weird mode that where I touched the screen and the faders dumped. Read the manual, nothing about it though I did see "clear down" and did that to the unit to make sure it was flat, even though when viewed in all the various modes the unit showed as flat. I don't like how there is a "bypass" option in the main screen. It was displayed and my first thought was that I was bypassed, even thought he buttons on the right indicated the equalizer was active. When I hit the button to bypass the unit, it shaded the "bypass" text area in the main screen. I had to listen to it a few times to see which mode was really the bypasssed mode. I ran some tone through the eq and determined it was indeed working.
After the band did their thing, I manually copied my settings from the PM5D eq to the Helix. I then proceeded to compare them. The difference was quite noticable and did not favor the Helix. I thought I was in some wierd mode or some such. I read the manual again and stepped through the unit. I couldn't find anything I was doing errant, so I chalked it up to a dodgy unit and flagged the unit for repair. I've been using these sorts of devices for more than a decade and have never had this kind of trouble.
If the issues I was having with the strip were due to calibration, that could be potentially problematic in everyday use. Consider a one off mon app where there is a system tech and band mixer. Typically the mixer will go onstage and bark while the tech drives. Then the mixer would do his own tuning. Having to recalibrate a primary interface element between users would not be optimal. The term we use on tour is "it would suck". Imagine what would happen at a festival with a couple of techs and several band mixers. Same for FOH, it's not uncommon for a couple of guys to be yanking on the same device over the course of a performance. Consistent behaviour of a user interface element regardless of the particular user is paramount in the operation of professional audio equipment.
Dave======================================
Revenge of the Chick Car...
A Barking Dog Goes Road Racing in 2011 http://www.roaddog.com/racing/
Dave Stevens Messages: 1983 Registered: February 2004 Location: 7th Level
Has No Life Anvil of Reality
I'd like to apologise to my fellow LABsters, particularly Bink and those that particpated in the EQ shootout.
As some of you know, there were some issues with servers at Roaddog Manor while I was on tour this year. When I transfered the static content last month, I had a case of Head in Ass Disese and didn't properly reference the EQ site to new server config. Simple case of me not paying attention.
I'm with you completely, Dave -- I've had the same sort of luck with the touchstrip. I immediately changed to using the twirly knobs to the right side of the touchstrip in order to step sideways from filter to filter and to raise or lower filters. Not ideal but much more reliable and pretty fast in FOH terms though too slow for mon world. However, I hear on the grapevine that there was a recent upgrade to firmware related to the interface and that many if not all of the issues have been cleared up. I have yet to experience an upgraded Helix so I can't report on the success.
Jason Kelly Messages: 60 Registered: April 2004 Location: UK
Should Get Out More
Ouch! Dave can you cook me some more! lol!
The latest version of the Helix firmware is V3.03. I think there will be another update at the end of January, this will also affect the ELGAR shell.
I am recalling this from memory and I dont have a unit to hand to double check this. The touch strip calibration was really designed as a service tool. I have just found it useful when engineers have had problems in the past. If I remember correctly you should power down the unit and then power it up again holding down the HOME key. This will bring up some service tests. I think the touch strip calibration is the 3rd or 4th menu. Again its been a while and I dont have a unit to hand to refresh my memory. But I hope this is of some help.
The problems you had with the Helix once you had transfered your eq settings from the PM5D are very interesting. I would be really grateful if you could go into more detail when you have the time. What effect was the Helix having on the audio, if at all. Its difficult to come up with some ideas with the short description you have given. Which eq sections were you using. Just the Graphic or Parametric or both. Any T-Deq?
I understand your point regarding the different engineers and techs using the Helix at the same time. That is one of the reasons the tablet software was developed. ELGAR allows you to eq the mix in situ. In the same way as you have probably used the DN3600 remote many times before. The advantage with the tablet is that you have the full power of the Helix available not just the graphic section.
Dave Stevens Messages: 1983 Registered: February 2004 Location: 7th Level
Has No Life Anvil of Reality
As I was proofing the reinstallation of Bink's EQ shootout ( http://www.roaddog.com/bink ) earlier today I had to ask myself "what the hell was I thinking?"
One can't really copy settings of different graphic eqs back and forth and expect similar results on the same system. The variations and interactions of the filters make that pretty much impossible if one is expecting similar results. Just another case of Head in Ass Disese...
The audible difference of what I feel is now a flawed comparison, is that the Helix sounded like it had the life sucked out of it. The highs were more dull, the lows had less impact. While the equalizer settings were set with encoders, the graphic representations were anything but similar. I've done a fair amount of shows on a PM5D and though I would need to see a transfer function to be sure, to my ears the graphic representation of the EQ is nothing like I would expect. Though the values were the same, the graphic representation as well as the audio tonality was noticably different. My experience with the DN3600 is the graphic representation of the EQ is pretty good. I would have thought it would be the same in the Helix. The Helix did not seem responsive to what I was trying to do. Had I been able to tune the system initially with the Helix, things may have been different. The only real way to compare them is to tune the system with each EQ and running some transfer functions of what is happening wouldn't hurt.
I understand there were (still are?) issues with the strip and that's too bad. I think that's one of the best potential features of the device. If working as expected, I think that's a great way to interface digital graphic eq. The tablets are cool but you can't expect rank and file regional PA companies to employ them. I think integration, and to a certain extent price/performance is going to be the deciding factor for these companies. It will be the difference between integrating something, or getting something that is already ready to rock, like EQ Station is, or like it is when you get a DN3600 remote.
Based on my near quarter century postitive experience with KT equalizers I'm willing to give Helix another try. Though this time, I'm going to want to knock it around in the shop for a few hours.
Dave
======================================
Revenge of the Chick Car...
A Barking Dog Goes Road Racing in 2011 http://www.roaddog.com/racing/
Jason Kelly Messages: 60 Registered: April 2004 Location: UK
Should Get Out More
Dave,
One thing that does come to mind when you talk about the sound of the PM5D eq curve and the Helix is the type of filter used. The Helix system has various types of graphic eq filters. If I remember the DN3600 only had 2, the DN27 and DN360 types. The Helix has various types that can have their Q's adjusted as well. I hope when you try the Helix system again that you have more time to delve into it. There is so much more power under the bonet than the DN3600 and in my opinion than the EQ Station which I have also used by the way. But I also accept that all the power in the world is useless unless you can harness it.
The touch strip is a feature that has not been easy to fine tune. Mainly because every engineers fingers are different and everyones expectations of how it should work are also different. When you get the chance please try the calibration idea and see how you get on. I would be very interested in your opinions. And if there are things that can be implemented in future software I will do my best to get them in there.
When it comes down to it its the end users that make or break a piece if equipment.
Jason McLaurin Messages: 96 Registered: April 2004 Location: Texas
Nothing Better To Do
Mikael Holm wrote on Tue, 07 December 2004 14:18
Jason wrote on Tue, 07 December 2004 20:09
Being a fellow gearslut, I'm surprised you would overlook this. What if you're using something like an XTA 224 to process monitors? You'll definitely need another unit for EQ.
Yes, i would need separate EQ but i would insert it in the mix bus and not inline with DSP.
Of course if it was easy to use the input EQ on DP224 by controlling it from laptop and having the ability for cue wedge's DSP to follow the EQ settings in the input of DSP for the cued mix bus then there would be no need for separate EQ. You following me? This is the same AFL/EQ/MIDI thing that is possible with dbx Driveracks.
True. But if we're talking digital EQ and digital crossovers... inserting the EQ requires that there be two A/D -> D/A steps instead of one. I'd prefer something like TC EQ Station -> XTA 224, with AES/EBU between the two units, and the MIDI-AFL-EQ-follow setup.
I've found a lot of benefit to sticking to one A/D -> D/A conversion. Two or more in the signal path really eats away at the life of a signal. In my current gig, I go PM5D -> Omnidrive digitally. It makes a big difference to my ears. If you're going to go digital, might as well convert after the mic pre and keep it at 96KHz until the amp!
I agree with your minimalist approach. I've used MediaMatrix windows as my FOH EQ without blinking. But not in a festival sitiation.
Forum Home
Login
Forum Search
Register
FAQ
