Members Marko Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 I know some basics, and I think I know the answer to this question (being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jwlussow Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 The board has built in FX. You can use that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marko Posted June 7, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 It has compressors, but no FX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jwlussow Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 You are right. I misread the cutsheet. Looks like another FX unit is the best solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dennis a Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 Monitors should be on a pre aux send. FX should be on a post aux send. Return FX to a stereo channel. Send that stereo channel to your monitor aux send and you will have that FX unit in your monitor mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoadRanger Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 Just return the FX unit to one of the stereo channel strips instead of a stereo aux return and you can send FX to the monitors - that's how the big boys do it . EDIT> Oops - "dennis a" beat me to it . EDIT> Make ABSOLUTELY SURE you don't turn up the aux send on that stereo channel that feeds the fx unit - you will get the worst feedback you EVER heard and most likely blow out all your HF drivers and maybe your LF drivers too . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tomm Williams Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 A word of caution, at least in my experience, adding FX to monitors also caused feedback issues. Something to consider. TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phil Clark Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 The simple answer is "don't ever send FX to the monitors" as it almost always results in dramatically lower gain before feedback thresholds. So give your people a choice, loud monitors or FX in the monitors. Because you cannot have it both ways. No sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marko Posted June 7, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 Yeah, wiring it up without a separate FX unit will just invite problems, especially with less-than-professional operators, and even with a separate unit, it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dennis a Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 So give your people a choice, loud monitors or FX in the monitors. Because you cannot have it both ways. No sir. So I am guessing if that is the answer that you give the singer of the national act you are doing monitors for when he asks for FX in his mix, you will abruptly find yourself on a Grayhound headed back to MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marko Posted June 7, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 So I am guessing if that is the answer that you give the singer of the national act you are doing monitors for when he asks for FX in his mix, you will abruptly find yourself on a Grayhound headed back to MO. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoadRanger Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 One system I've helped put together has 8 monitors on 4 feeds with 6 vocal mics and in an untreated two car garage has no real issues with getting plenty loud with some fx in them. But they are under 105dBa stage volume - plenty of bands seen to run 115dBa or so on the stage and that's just stoopid . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phil Clark Posted June 7, 2010 Members Share Posted June 7, 2010 So I am guessing if that is the answer that you give the singer of the national act you are doing monitors for when he asks for FX in his mix, you will abruptly find yourself on a Grayhound headed back to MO. Firstly, it is a HUGE assumption that I have or ever will do sound for a national act. The biggest I have done for so far have been Bill "the Sauce Boss" Wharton and Mac McAnally (who performed solo for a local Parrot Head Charity Event). So that hasn't been a big concern. If we ever do sound for a large national touring act, that would involve more than just me and Jerry setting up and running both monitor and mains from FOH. It would involve a huge system, with a splitter snake and a FOH position and a Monitor World position. And in that context, if the act wants FX, give them FX. But for small local bands, many running sound from stage, putting FX in the monitors is a recipe for disaster. Even when we do sound for them, we generally say "it can't be done" because it creates too many problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DBR Posted June 9, 2010 Members Share Posted June 9, 2010 IMHO EFX and monitors should be mutually exclusive = feedback disaster...Experienced this for myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phil Clark Posted June 9, 2010 Members Share Posted June 9, 2010 Of course... this bring up another point... a question actually. Do the big shows use a separate effects processor for each channel? Or do they use only dedicated processors for certain people? I mean, we have one reverb unit and one delay unit, and everything that needs those effects gets run through those two units. But do the big shows split them between several units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.