Jump to content

Carvin's now more than ever confusing new mixer!


Recommended Posts

  • Members
If you use the auto-EQ and feedback ferrets to reduce the feedback, then use the 9 band graphic for tone shaping, I'm not sure you could gain much with a 31 band.

Feedback from the mains isn't usually an issue. The 31 band on the mains is mostly used to notch out room modes in bad rooms, not to "tone shape" (but can if needed) or "reduce feedback" . Maybe the auto-RTA could do that but most places I set up at aren't gonna be happy with me running pink noise for the RTA :freak: - and if I was doin' bars they'd be REALLY unhappy :mad:. I assume you can patch the ferrets on the monitor sends but they look like you can't set fixed filters with them? I normally use DBX AFS224 or Sabine 1020+ units on my monitor sends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

pre EQ aux sends is huge for me. without it you are ruining the monitor mix everytime you eq a vocal.


mixwiz is the only small frame mixer that i know of that has this

 

 

 

I got caught off guard using a mixer that I assumed had pre EQ aux sends and didn't.

 

Sax was too bright so I took it down in the mains. Then the sax complained he was loosing top end - then it finally clicked; post EQ aux sends, woops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Sax was too bright so I took it down in the mains. Then the sax complained he was loosing top end - then it finally clicked; post EQ aux sends, woops!

Yah, these mixer guys just don't understand live sound :(. Even A&H went through a couple iterations of the MixWiz before they went to default pre-EQ. It's really cool that most digital mixers can have separate channel EQ for the mains and monitors :thu:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Maybe the auto-RTA could do that but most places I set up at aren't gonna be happy with me running pink noise for the RTA - and if I was doin' bars they'd be REALLY unhappy ."

It's really fast, a couple of seconds at the most. I doubt most would even notice.

"I assume you can patch the ferrets on the monitor sends but they look like you can't set fixed filters with them?"

The ferrets go with the amps. So if you're in Main/Main mode, they are on the left and right signals. If you are in Mon1/Mon2, they are on the monitors. It would be nice if you could just put them anywhere, but that's the limitation of the digital system.


As for the pre/post EQ argument, we've done surveys in the past, it always comes back 50/50. I think I even remember the AH designer say the same on this forum a few years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Maybe the auto-RTA could do that but most places I set up at aren't gonna be happy with me running pink noise for the RTA - and if I was doin' bars they'd be REALLY unhappy ."


It's really fast, a couple of seconds at the most. I doubt most would even notice.

I'd be surprised if that would notch out the room reflections but can't say it wouldn't either :).

"I assume you can patch the ferrets on the monitor sends but they look like you can't set fixed filters with them?"

The ferrets go with the amps. So if you're in Main/Main mode, they are on the left and right signals. If you are in Mon1/Mon2, they are on the monitors. It would be nice if you could just put them anywhere, but that's the limitation of the digital system.

I'd run monitors with the board's amps anyways so that's cool. You didn't cover wheither they can lay down fixed filters or only live ones that will come and go along with the resultant feedback?

As for the pre/post EQ argument, we've done surveys in the past, it always comes back 50/50. I think I even remember the AH designer say the same on this forum a few years back.

I've seen that before and beleive it to be a faulty survey as obviously 50% of the people wouldn't have a clue what you were asking so it should be more like 25/25/50. If you had asked knowledgeable people which way was least likely to get a typical user in trouble you would have gotten a different result. A friend of mine has a degree in Demographics and it is quite interesting as to how hard it is to set up a survey to have a meaningful result :eek:. There are reasons why the MizWiz is so loved ;).

 

Actually to take the heat off of Peavey it's worth mentioning the WTF things about a MixWiz:

 

I'd prefer the monitor sends to be post insert but still pre-EQ.

No talkback channel so only 15 "real" channels.

Loose the post/pre switches on Aux3/4 and add EQ bypass switches :thu:.

Single return level for both fx units in "split" mode - needs separate.

Single fx mute on the two fx returns - separate on sends instead.

Loose the Aux5/6 send knobs that don't work with the internal FX anyways and use those knobs for FX parameters.

Need tap delay for FX.

Needs two digit display for fx not that !@#$ bank switched led ladder :freak:.

Separate control of fx presets without bankswitching - plus ability to preselect and go instead of stepping through them all to get to the one you want RIGHT NOW.

MIDI send so's you can see what you did to the fx you "f"ed up via the blind MIDI in :eek:.

 

See, Peavey got some of those things righter - especially the FX unit :cool:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually to take the heat off of Peavey it's worth mentioning the WTF things about a MixWiz:


I'd prefer the monitor sends to be post insert but still pre-EQ.

 

 

yeah but with it the way it is i can put compression on vocals and not effect the singer on stage at all. that is a huge plus for multiple reasons. i can't think of why i would want it the other way around really unless the singer wanted to hear the compression or maybe so that if someone wants snare in the monitor they would hear it with gates or something.

 

 

also i really view the FX on the mixwiz as utility and i think they do their job just fine for that. if i needed more flexibility i'd go with an external unit.

 

 

 

i have to hand it to peavey. they really do seem to listen to the needs of those of us out here with a lot of their products. i really love my peavey FLS EQs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
yeah but with it the way it is i can put compression on vocals and not effect the singer on stage at all.

I don't compress vocals but would use limiters on a couple and want them to be limited in the monitors too. One is less than perfect mic technique occasionally blasting the channel and the other is a mic used for "guest singers" (aka drunk screamers ;)). Right now I also use a compressor before the board for the keys (badly matched patches and crazy with the swell pedal :freak:) and want that compressed in the monitors for sure - I'd insert it instead if I could. Also use a limiter inserted on the kick but as that is never in the monitors it doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"You didn't cover wheither they can lay down fixed filters or only live ones that will come and go along with the resultant feedback?"

The auto-eq is actually a 2 step process. The first is for tone correction, the second sets a couple of fixed feedback notches. You can do both steps or either one individually.

In addition to this, each channel has a couple of roaming filters for random feedback.

As far as pre/post goes, we probably asked our dealers and they told us what their customers want. That's why I also mentioned the AH designer relaying the same results. I'm pretty sure they didn't ask the same people we did. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

haha...it's funny how this thread went from a rant about a badly designed carvin product(and really aren't they all generally?) to sound man defending/explaining his own companies design decisions.

 

and i really do enjoy my peavey gear. i just don't buy the stuff that isn't intended for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's why I also mentioned the AH designer relaying the same results.

So, why did A&H change their default to pre-insert pre-eq if their surveys told them otherwise? Maybe they told you that to !@#$ yous guys over and you fell for it :lol:.

 

I'm joking I think :confused:.

 

In any case as I said I highly doubt yous guys asked the right question in the right way. It ain't as easy as you might think...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If the search feature was working, I'd dig it up for you. Who knows why they changed...

Does it really matter, if it's switchable anyway? I could change any board we make in 30 minutes, or less. If it's your preference, you do it once and it's done with, right?


"YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!!! "

I actually thought that while I was typing it, lol.


"to sound man defending/explaining his own companies design decisions."

It doesn't feel like I'm being defensive. I understand there are only a couple of people reading this that even come close to understanding all the thought/processes that goes into one of these designs. I'm just giving you a peek at the other side, hopefully. It's educational, for all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


"to sound man defending/explaining his own companies design decisions."


It doesn't feel like I'm being defensive. I understand there are only a couple of people reading this that even come close to understanding all the thought/processes that goes into one of these designs. I'm just giving you a peek at the other side, hopefully. It's educational, for all of us.

 

 

understood. and we do appreciate that insight. we also appreciate being able to communicate with someone that could have some influence and help get our needs met.

 

it really is frustrating using tools that do the job well up to a certain point. the church that i play at has a soundcraft LX7ii. not high end but a very decent board. monitors are controlled on the board and every time an EQ adjustment is made for the house it effects the monitors due to the pre aux eq. really sucks. i guess i should check to see if that can be changed internally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

APB ProRack.

I'd take one of those over a MixWiz any day :thu:. Last I talked to one of the "letter" guys ;) they are still about 2 years out on their first digital mixer. They sure do make the most beautiful (and best?) analog mixers though :thu:.

 

To be fair the ProRack is only a 12 "real" channel mixer - plus break music, talkback, and two more stereo channels for the FX returns (none on-board). I can get 15 channels on stage with a MixWiz :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
If there isn't a statute of limitations on designers/product managers being blamed for products released (MANY) years after their employment tenure ended........there should be!
:lol:
:lol:

Naw - in engineering we always blamed the guys that weren't there anymore ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
As far as pre/post goes, we probably asked our dealers and they told us what their customers want. That's why I also mentioned the AH designer relaying the same results. I'm pretty sure they didn't ask the same people we did.
;)



That's pretty much what I've found too. There are times when monitor sends post eq is actually better... if something's too bright in the mains then generally it's going to too bright in the monitors too. I personally prefer pre-eq, I'm genetally not using a ton of eq to correct for lack of skill and making good judgements with mics, placement and operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...