Today's Messages (ON)
| Unanswered Messages (OFF)
| Forum: TestForum |
|---|
| Topic: Test |
|---|
| Re: Test [message #321908 is a reply to message #301482 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 01:30 |
 Tim McCulloch
Messages: 3593
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wichita KS USA |
Has No Life |
|
|
Hi Ernie-
The Congregational Church... is that in Whitinsville, MA, across the street from EAW IIRC?
Have fun, good luck.
Tim Mc
"It's not your fault if he can't play the part. Let him suck out loud."
|
|
| | Forum: LAB Subwoofer |
|---|
| Topic: Lab sub questions (impedance & using 1 per side) |
|---|
| Re: Lab sub questions (impedance & using 1 per side) [message #321912 is a reply to message #321614 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 03:14 |
Walt de Jong
Messages: 125
Registered: August 2004 |
Has No Life |
|
|
If you are using one LAB on each side this probably means the venue is not very big.
In smaller values 2x18" reflex bins ussualy give better results, they are easier to set up, have less interaction with the room and so on. They seem to have more bass up close.
In larger venues, or outdoors, where you really needs lots of acoustic power, the LAB-horns will have the advantage.
Best regards,
Walt
|
|
| | Forum: The Basement |
|---|
| Topic: My Mix this weekend.. |
|---|
| Re: My Mix this weekend.. [message #321910 is a reply to message #321732 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 01:44 |
waldo [Casey Williams]
Messages: 137
Registered: August 2004
Location: sf |
Has No Life |
|
|
What I didn't like:
Get the audience to shut up! Oh, you said the crowd wasn't there yet. I'm guessing the ambient sound overwhelmed the the recording even more as the night went on. Perhaps the mic position over-emphasized the crowd noise.
Some sort of limiting function in place on the camera. The recording mix sounds like it hits some kind of hard limiter, starting around 50 seconds in.
What i did like:
The lyrics are something like "I can't see the light." And the camera position has a dark streamer obscuring the singer's eyes and face for most of the song. +1!! That is very, shall we say, Meta.
You can hear the sax! Another +1.
Even better, when the sax player kicks in, he does not start gesticulating wildly for more in his monitor. You are already miles above my experience with this type of band. +2.
I'd call that success!
waldo
|
|
| | Topic: Too many Brownies |
|---|
| | Forum: LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board |
|---|
| Topic: Review: BOSE personal amplification system |
|---|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321913 is a reply to message #321209 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 03:24 |
Mitch Grant
Messages: 211
Registered: April 2004 |
Has No Life |
|
|
| SteveKirby wrote on Fri, 09 May 2008 10:20 |
| Robert Lunceford wrote on Fri, 09 May 2008 10:04 |
He was named Inventor of the Year in 1987 by the Intellectual Property Owners Association and holds numerous patents in the fields of acoustics, electronics, nonlinear systems, and communication theory.
|
That would be most of his audio reproduction systems? 
My issue with Bose is that for every claimed "proprietary technology" I easily can think of prior examples. And probably those weren't the original art, just obvious examples that I know about. I've never bothered to delve into their patents, but I suspect at the very least they are "improvement" patents, or at worst on very shaky ground. The huge marketing machine they've built gives them the financial resouces to force these patents in spite of their tenuous technical merit.
The second issue is the implementation of these "technologies". KEF came out with a bandpass enclosure in an attempt to gain extended response. Bose then put the principal in a plastic table radio with a high Q so that it faked the impression of bass and sold the ingnorant public that it was some secret proprietary magic. Every "technology" that Bose has brought to the mass market, from "cylinderical wavefront line arrays" to noise canceling headphones, has been such a cut down and cheapened version of established technology that it would probably embarass the offshore copycats who directly counterfeit the higher end implementations.
I really lost it with Bose when they attacked Thiel (a small audiophile speaker manufacturer) for useing the decimal model numbering system. e.g. 3.0, 3.2, 4.5 ect... At the time Bose had just recently begun using this marketing concept that had been successfully used for years by BMW, and thus had a sort of higher end cachet to it. That they felt such a blatent marketing rip off should be exclusively theirs, and that a fringe company who posed no threat to their target market should be enjoined from doing this as well (even though said company had been doing it before them and doing it since the outset of their company) just tourqued my squirel past the breaking point. Maybe it was because Thiel actually sold product with serious engineering into the fringe audiophile market that Bose would like the general public to believe that they own. The primary thrust to Bose's marketing scheme is to convince people who don't know any better, that the folks who are experts in the field, use their stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For instance, as JR points out, the 901's best presentation was for large scale classical music. But the underground audiophiles who Bose would like the general public to belive were all over the 901's hated them. No imaging at all. They were already using "direct-reflecting" speakers. Primarilly dipoles like the Quad electrostatic from the 50's, updates like Sound Labs, and electrodynamic dipoles like Magnapans. Most Bose customers have no idea who these companies are, or what their speakers sound like.
|
Several good points there Steve! I used to work in the "underground audiophile" market for a couple of years, and Bose products are as laughable to real audiophiles as they are to most audio professionals.
However, "there's an ass for every seat", as they say. If you advertise enough, people will even pay dearly for water when they can get it (almost) for free out of their faucets.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321915 is a reply to message #321770 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 03:40 |
Mitch Grant
Messages: 211
Registered: April 2004 |
Has No Life |
|
|
| Tyler Riddle wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:40 |
I really wonder if that system was tuned right. I just Installed 4 MA-12's and 2 MB4's in a spanish catholic church and it was nice for their bass line, guitars and vocals. The MA-12's were able to provide a clear sound across the church even when people were standing.
Yes the MA-12's are middy, but I think that is what makes them work in highly reverberant rooms. They are sure clear, even with spanish speakers.
|
Now THAT is funny enough to make this whole stupid thread worthwhile!!
|
|
| | Topic: Nexo GeoS 12 and sub |
|---|
| Re: Nexo GeoS 12 and sub [message #321916 is a reply to message #321883 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 03:42 |
HarryBrillJr.
Messages: 590
Registered: April 2007 |
Has No Life |
|
|
The only concern we have is that the MODEL has the SAME PATTERN.
The levels in the processor may not be matched, but other than that it's just delay and polarity as far as I can tell. I'll measure the processor next time I get a chance and post the results. Any other processing would be common to front and rear.
As for the Meyer subs, Mapp is 2D, if you stand the subs up so you are looking DOWN on them, you are only going to see the response of a single driver. If you rotate them 90 degrees you will see the response of 2 drivers. Still the drivers are mostly omni at 60 hz, the wavelengths are long, and they couple quite well so in reality it wouldn't make much difference for this discussion.
The 2 deep end fire is really a vastly superior way to achieve a cardioid pattern, and 4 deep is even better, especially if you aren't flying them.
|
|
| | Topic: Digital inputs on DSP and a few other questions |
|---|
| Digital inputs on DSP and a few other questions [message #321922] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 06:09 |
Magnus "Magic" Johansson
Messages: 130
Registered: April 2004
Location: Vantaa, Finland |
Has No Life |
|
|
Hello all
I have the need  to upgrade from a DCX2496 to something better and have been reading a "million" threads about "260 vs. minidrive", "XTA vs. Xilica", "favourite DSP", "DCX vs. DRPA" and learned a lot.
I am leaning towards the BSS FDS336T, Xilica 3060, or maybe DBX 260, but I would like to have the option of aux fed subs, and the DBX is only 2 inputs. I am trying to find these used so the pricerange is quite flexibe, quality is more concern than price.
There are a few questions left:
- how "important" or beneficial do You see the possibility to use digital signals between mixer and DSP? Today I use AES/EBU from the Roland VM7200 to the DCX.
- I have set up the DCX with the EAW recommended Xover-, delay- and EQ-settings for the KF300e's, but read somewhere that DSP's use different algoritms for the same settings, how much could this actually influence the response ?
[Updated on: Mon, 12 May 2008 06:09]
|
|
| | Topic: 1800 Foot cable run |
|---|
| Re: 1800 Foot cable run [message #321921 is a reply to message #321768 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 05:45 |
Charlie Zureki
Messages: 227
Registered: April 2008
Location: Detroit Area |
Has No Life |
|
|
I suppose that they could install a couple of speakers with the 70 volt system and it's volume control, then using the headphones for the firing commands only. Set the speakers directly in front of the operators.
Hammer
Be prepared, you'll need it!
|
|
|
| Re: 1800 Foot cable run [message #321928 is a reply to message #321776 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 07:23 |
Robert Carrell
Messages: 3
Registered: May 2008
Location: Southern California |
Newbie |
|
|
Milt,
Your solution is interesting. I have 70 V amps in my inventory. Using riser rated Cat3 telephone cable at approx $50 / 1000 feet, could work. After all, we're outside, so plenum isn't required. It's only 24 gauge, but using the JW Davis calculator shows 10 watts when using a 100 watt amp. Matching transformers and a headphone amp at the far end provide a level of saftey and volume controls for each headset. I could always double up the pairs to increase effective wire gauge, also.
RDL has some interesting twisted pair audio products, but I can't find a spec for length. They can be piggybacked.
After Doheney Blues Festival (this Sat & Sun,) and a day or two to recuperate, I'll see if I can simulate a few of these ideas in the warehouse. I'll let you all know which seems to work best, but doubt I'll be making measurements other than my ear.
Many thanks to Ivan, Mac and Charlie, too.
Robert
|
|
| | Topic: Who will be at the QSC demo in Chicago May 20-21 |
|---|
| Re: Who will be at the QSC demo in Chicago May 20-21 [message #321930 is a reply to message #321893 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 07:28 |
|
QSC World WideLine Systems Tour
Multiple Line Array System Demos
System Hardware & Software Training
Hands On "Live Mixing" Sessions
Upcoming Event Date:
Chicago, IL. - May 20th & 21st, 2008
McAninch Arts Center at College of DuPage
425 Fawell Blvd.
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
(630) 942-2800
http://www.cod.edu/ArtsCntr/index2.htm
Scott Flaws
K.C. Audio
708-906-4765
Systems and FOH Engineer
|
|
| | Forum: LAB Lounge |
|---|
| Topic: Microwedge Use for Ensemble |
|---|
| Re: Microwedge Use for Ensemble [message #321914 is a reply to message #321877 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 03:38 |
waldo [Casey Williams]
Messages: 137
Registered: August 2004
Location: sf |
Has No Life |
|
|
As usual, the answer is...it depends.
The MW has a 90° conical dispersion. Easy to picture that. On stage it behaves...just like that! The pattern is fairly tight and the drop-off, as you move off axis, is fairly pronounced. That's a good thing, and it's why i have them on my small stage.
I think the optimum position is with the talent 2-5 feet from the wedge. If your ensemble is farther back than that, then yes, you will need to prop the monitor up.
IMO, 2 wedges for 6 singers is pushing it. It depends on how close they stand together, and what the stage volume is like. If the singers are miced and don't need tons of level, then the microwedges are probably your friend. if they are just getting a band mix and move around a lot, then the coverage may not be wide enough.
Hope that helps a little.
waldo
|
|
| | Topic: Design flaw of a Dual 18" Cabinet? |
|---|
| Re: Design flaw of a Dual 18" Cabinet?Here we go again [message #321917 is a reply to message #321899 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 04:03 |
Josh Billings
Messages: 489
Registered: May 2004
Location: Orange County, CA |
Has No Life |
|
|
| Tim Duffin wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 21:09 |
Bob has the right answer.
That driver is not really a subwoofer driver. Get better drivers and all your problems will be solved. Try something that actually moves (has excursion capability). I had the same problem with an older RCF 18" driver that was not designed to have any type of excursion and kept asking "what did I do wrong?" when the answer is that the "woofer" was not designed to be loud at low freqs.
I bet if you threw a couple B & C or JBL woofers in there it would sound nice.
T
|
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
|
|
| | Topic: Vocal Balancing |
|---|
 Re: Vocal Balancing [message #321919 is a reply to message #320995 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 05:02 |
Lenny Wehrle
Messages: 5
Registered: May 2008 |
Newbie |
|
|
|
Just wanted to thank everyone for their advice. I've used most of it and it's working very well. The next step might be to invest in some better equipment, but for now, the vocals are more "real" and blend better with my tracks. Thanks again!
|
|
| | Topic: GL2400 Matrix Routing |
|---|
| Re: More info please [message #321909 is a reply to message #321891 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 01:32 |
Eric Hassler
Messages: 220
Registered: January 2007
Location: Minnesota |
Has No Life |
|
|
| Mike Caldwell wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 22:05 |
Just a late night thought....could ypu make use of the external inputs directly into the matrix mix for your CD routing.
Mike Caldwell
|
Thanks, Mike. As stated in the original post, I was thinking of splitting the CD player into the matrix mix via the mic outs from the channels. Unfortunately, the mic output on the stereo channels doesn't pass the TRS inputs. I'm thinking in order to meet my needs I may wye the CD player L&R to a signal combiner, and then into the matrix. This will allow me to have complete control of the FOH and remote volume. Thanks for your input!
|
|
|
| Re: More info please [message #321924 is a reply to message #321848 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 06:29 |
Brad Weber
Messages: 1142
Registered: December 2005
Location: Marietta, GA |
Has No Life |
|
|
| Quote: |
The signal to my PA at the desired volume barely registers on the main output meters.
|
Sounds like you need to adjust your gain structure and maybe turn down the overall level at the amps rather than with the console output. If your L/R outputs are much lower in level than the groups then that would cause the problem noted and may be an indication of a less than optimal gain structure.
Brad Weber
muse Audio Video
|
|
|
Pages (2): [1 ]
Current Time: Mon May 12 07:41:05 CDT 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01925 seconds |
Forum Home
Login
Forum Search
Register
FAQ
