Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Patrick Tracy]

OTOH the rumor is that Mackie is releasing a new firmware at NAMM so if they at least fix the aux tap points most of us will find it usable. Personally I want the tap points to be selectable per-channel...

Why not have the whole signal path user configurable down to the module? I like inserts post eq, but most live mixers want the opposite.

[Ron Kimball]

Or maybe the ones who like post eq monitor sends just aren't spending their time reading this thread (except for me, apparently).

I personally don't mind either - but I would have advised them to do things the way the MixWiz3 does if they want to go after that market. It defaults to pre-EQ and has a master FX mute.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

Or maybe the ones who like post eq monitor sends just aren't spending their time reading this thread (except for me, apparently).

I'm not a Mackie mixer user, but I'm in the camp of post-EQ aux sends as well.  If my FOH and monitor systems are both fairly neutral sounding and well-behaved (which was the goal, last I checked), I've found that most of the tonal changes I want to make for FOH also improve the monitor sound.

There's still a place for Y-ing an input now and then so you can do different intentional EQing, but I can't think of a time in recent memory where no EQ to the monitors was better than what I was doing at FOH.

[Marc Platt]

I personally don't mind either - but I would have advised them to do things the way the MixWiz3 does if they want to go after that market. It defaults to pre-EQ and has a master FX mute.

I think the mw3 is post eq factory default with internal jumpers you can customize for pre eq and some other options as well.

[Marc Platt]

If my FOH and monitor systems are both fairly neutral sounding and well-behaved (which was the goal, last I checked), I've found that most of the tonal changes I want to make for FOH also improve the monitor sound.

The monitor mix is always different then the house mix so even if all else was same speaker wise (which rarely is the case) the different componants of the mix tend to interact in ways that lead me a desire to make changes to the channel eq's seperate for my house mix. 

[Patrick Tracy]

The monitor mix is always different then the house mix so even if all else was same speaker wise (which rarely is the case) the different componants of the mix tend to interact in ways that lead me a desire to make changes to the channel eq's seperate for my house mix.

Of course separate eq is the ideal, but is having no channel eq at all in monitors objectively better than having the same eq as the main mix? I find having the same channel eq as FOH is the better compromise.

[Ron Kimball]

Of course separate eq is the ideal, but is having no channel eq at all in monitors objectively better than having the same eq as the main mix? I find having the same channel eq as FOH is the better compromise.

Last I knew it was about a 50/50 split between those who prefer pre vs post EQ. The MW3 ships pre-EQ because that is less dangerous for the level users that make up the majority of those who purchase one. Most are used to mix from the stage or with a untrained friend pushing faders out front and tend to have their EQ overused .

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

Last I knew it was about a 50/50 split between those who prefer pre vs post EQ. The MW3 ships pre-EQ because that is less dangerous for the level users that make up the majority of those who purchase one. Most are used to mix from the stage or with a untrained friend pushing faders out front and tend to have their EQ overused .

As one moves up in quality/functionality (at least in the old days) one of the features encountered would be selectability of pick-off points in the signal chain(s).  Lower end stuff, not so much.  Now that things are moving into software control rather than hardware, why not just write the stuff so that you have the options that used to require a whole lot more in the manufacturing?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.......

[Tim McCulloch]

As one moves up in quality/functionality (at least in the old days) one of the features encountered would be selectability of pick-off points in the signal chain(s).  Lower end stuff, not so much.  Now that things are moving into software control rather than hardware, why not just write the stuff so that you have the options that used to require a whole lot more in the manufacturing?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.......

+1 and then some...

[Tim McCulloch]

Last I knew it was about a 50/50 split between those who prefer pre vs post EQ. The MW3 ships pre-EQ because that is less dangerous for the level users that make up the majority of those who purchase one. Most are used to mix from the stage or with a untrained friend pushing faders out front and tend to have their EQ overused .

The survey of our audio technicians at Century II Performing Arts and Convention Center says:  PRE EQ, PRE FADER aux sends for monitors.  There are 2 mixers in the basement storage room that nobody uses because the auxes are all post-EQ, although they are pre-fader.

[ProSoundWeb Community]