Members GZsound Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 A couple months ago I ran sound for a bluegrass gospel show at a church. The church wanted me to use their in house PA system which consisted of eight 2 X 15 EAW speakers in four speaker clumps mounted on the ceiling pointing down at the congregation. The church had extended the stage to a point where the musicians were directly in the focal point of the EAW cluster hanging over the podium. In the show there were three of the four bands that use either one or more large diaphragm condenser mics. Keeping in mind the speakers were behind the musicians, fifteen feet over their heads and pointing down directly at the LD mics, I would be interested in hearing what solutions any of you might have. I simply told the musicians to not expect any real volume and set up cardioid unidirectional LD mics that have the smallest pickup pattern of any LD mics I own. I pointed them down as best I could.. By the way, the bands insist on using those mics. They have their whole show worked around LD mics. I could not set up my condenser instrument mics and ended up using SM57 mics, not my first choice, but they at least didn't feed back like crazy. Oh yeah, the dumbest, most non intuitive Mackie digital mixer I have ever seen.. Contributed to the problems. A true gig from hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IsildursBane Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 Oh yeah, the dumbest, most non intuitive Mackie digital mixer I have ever seen.. Was it a D8B? -Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ATOMICDOG1 Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 Was it a D8B?-Dan. I'm not a fan of the TT24 either. Was there individual zone control in the EAW processor for each hang? you could nerf the output slightly on the center cluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echotraveler Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 right now we are running on fader system instead of running RIGHT AND LEFT we run front and back you would have to lower a lot the back and boost the front....wouldnt really change the situation but would help patch up for the show.... am i the {censored} or what?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GZsound Posted April 16, 2007 Author Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 I believe it was a TT24 board. The church sound guy gave me a twenty minute tour and then left before the gig started. Trying to find and fix EQ anomolies on the fly was simply impossible with the Mackie EQ screen. And I had no information whatsoever on the ability to turn one array down so I just went with what they gave me..which was both clusters at the same level. The next show I am doing in a church is in July and I'm using MY system. I did a show at a theater with a rather spendy Yamaha digital board last summer and just loved the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 6Imzadi Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 Oh yeah, the dumbest, most non intuitive Mackie digital mixer I have ever seen.. Contributed to the problems. A true gig from hell.I believe it was a TT24 board. The church sound guy gave me a twenty minute tour and then left before the gig started. I don't think that is a fair comment. A twenty minute tour of that digital console should have been enough to get a handle on things. You had a lot on your plate at that gig that eq probably couldn't have fixed anyway. I don't think blaming the mixing board is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dogoth Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 Well at least you were spot on when you talked to the musicians (you should have had the same conversation with the church sound guy as well). You did the best you could with the given circumstances. After a few "gigs from hell" I really try to stay out of circumstances like this whenever possible (remember no matter who in managment you warn about potential problems that it's your face that people remember when the sound isn't adequate (it's your reputation to protect)). Often when faced with a situation that I know won't work I do my best to "JUST SAY NO!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 6Imzadi Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 right now we are running on fader systeminstead of running RIGHT AND LEFT we run front and backyou would have to lower a lot the back and boost the front....wouldnt really change the situation but would help patch up for the show....am i the {censored} or what?! I have no idea what this means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echotraveler Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 I have no idea what this means. ok...pretty simple if the group has speakers behind and front you should be able to manipulate how much sound there is in the front and how much sound there is in the back... instead of being LEFT AND RIGHT its FRONT AND BACK like the fader in a car.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 16, 2007 Members Share Posted April 16, 2007 I'm sure this (rear) speaker placement generates a lot of sound localization (directional) issues as well an adding one additional dimension of delay non-uniformity. Maybe your uses and audience can't tell or don't care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echotraveler Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 I'm sure this (rear) speaker placement generates a lot of sound localization (directional) issues as well an adding one additional dimension of delay non-uniformity. Maybe your uses and audience can't tell or don't care? WHAT WHAT WHAT?? your saying that his situation is creating an unbalanced atmosphere...or that the method im suggesting would creat an unbalance... cause logically the fader method does that...compromising sound balance to rise volume in specific areas without feedback ps. thanx for responding to my comments guys, you are a lot of help to my sound understanding, Im still an analphabet on the math of frequency and all that important stuff about waves, but ill get it trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GZsound Posted April 17, 2007 Author Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 I don't think that is a fair comment. A twenty minute tour of that digital console should have been enough to get a handle on things. You had a lot on your plate at that gig that eq probably couldn't have fixed anyway. I don't think blaming the mixing board is the answer. Well, my comparison is with a $20,000 Yamaha digital board..not sure of the model number.. I used last summer. After 20 minutes of instructions on that board I had no troubles whatsoever finding and changing EQ on the fly, etc. The Mackie board had the dumbest EQ system for a live board I have ever seen. A roller ball type adjustment that made precise EQ adjustments impossible without spending a lot of time. Very non intuitive. I had a lot more on my plate in the 2,500 seat theater with the Yamaha board and yet the shows AND the recordings off the board came out perfectly... I don't need more than 20 minutes to know a mixer sucks if it sucks. The Mackie board would be great for setting up and storing settings for each band if there is hours of time to be prepared before the gig. In the bluegrass world that doesn't happen. You get ten minutes to set the next band up and go for it and the bands never show up hours early so you can program the mixer... That Mackie board just simply was not the right mixer for a live sound gig, in my opinion. Which may be why most live sound contractors still use analogue consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GZsound Posted April 17, 2007 Author Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 I'm sure this (rear) speaker placement generates a lot of sound localization (directional) issues as well an adding one additional dimension of delay non-uniformity. Maybe your uses and audience can't tell or don't care? Well.. I don't think the audience was aware of any real problems, but some of the musicians were highly aware of the issues because they were listening to themselves through the EAW cluster over their heads. There was no way I could have also set up monitors on stage. So they knew the sound level was down, but since they had been pre warned, they all worked with me. Again, the biggest problem was with bands that insisted on large diaphragm condensers. Having those overhead speakers pointing directly down into the LD mics was.....interesting...at best. And the problem was exacerbated by that damn Mackie board. I knew where the feedback frequency was hiding, I just could not make fast EQ changes with the idiot roller ball system. Live and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GZsound Posted April 17, 2007 Author Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 [quote=Echotraveler;your saying that his situation is creating an unbalanced atmosphere...or that the method im suggesting would creat an unbalance... cause logically the fader method does that...compromising sound balance to rise volume in specific areas without feedbackps. thanx for responding to my comments guys, you are a lot of help to my sound understanding, Im still an analphabet on the math of frequency and all that important stuff about waves, but ill get it trust me. The church sound guy did not show me how to control the volume of each cluster..just the master volume control. I didn't know if the clusters were run off subs or off the main fader, or what. And again, with the totally confused layout of the Mackie board, I was honestly afraid to change anything except individual mic faders and the overall master fader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echotraveler Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 i think next time you should either get you hands dirty disconnecting everything and reconecting as you pleased..{censored} it! you need what you need to do... or say NO! im not doin it....its my name and my face, bad rep is very difficult to counter ..... 10 people who think wrong is equatl to 100 rumors, and a 100 other people you need to prove your professionalism... you cant escape every situation so hang on! and enjoy the ride of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 What I was commenting about, is that speakers placed in the rear ofthe auditorium would cause audience members seated towards the back to feel like the sound source was behind them even though the activity was in front of them. Also, properly delaying them would be essential to prevent even more problems. IMO, one of the worst ways to set up a performance system for audience satisfaction... then again there's the sound from the back speakers coming back towards the stage which depending on the size of the room could make playing much more difficult. A room that's 100 feet deep would have a delay time from the player's perspective of almost 1/4 of a second. If the level is high enough, it would be a bitch and a half to play against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echotraveler Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 confusing reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 confusing reality Not sure I understand. Maybe that's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GZsound Posted April 18, 2007 Author Members Share Posted April 18, 2007 This was a room about 200 feet deep with two clusters of EAW speakers hung ON the ceiling pointing down. One pointing directly into the backs of the musicians on stage and the other about half way out into the room pointing down into the last half of the audience. Really no delay problems, no coverage problems... Just the fact the mains were pointed directly into the mics on stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 18, 2007 Members Share Posted April 18, 2007 I misunderstood, thinking there were speakers at the rear of the room pointing back towards the stage. There appears to have been a poor translation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted April 18, 2007 Members Share Posted April 18, 2007 This was a room about 200 feet deep with two clusters of EAW speakers hung ON the ceiling pointing down. One pointing directly into the backs of the musicians on stage and the other about half way out into the room pointing down into the last half of the audience. Really no delay problems, no coverage problems... Just the fact the mains were pointed directly into the mics on stage. I see this commonly with mid-level "professional" installs (involving management by committee). 1) Opened ended valuation of aesthetic judgment calls. 2) 3) $100,000+ worth of gear (figuring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted April 18, 2007 Members Share Posted April 18, 2007 4) endless amounts of $100 "black box" bandaids thrown at the resulting piss poor performance. Yes, one of THOSE black box bandaids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted April 18, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 Yet another church with plenty of money spent on an essentially useless system. Seems to be a giant untapped resource for lousy installers to profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.