Print

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

[Chris Penny]

It is located in a room that oversees the congregation from above and behind the congregation. There is a window that is open that the sound guy can hear through, but it really is not representative of what it actually sounds like downstairs.

While all the talk about mixers etc is interesting, it sounds like this is actually the main problem.  Would it be possible to move the sound mixing position down onto the main floor?

[Daniel Leebrick]

While all the talk about mixers etc is interesting, it sounds like this is actually the main problem.  Would it be possible to move the sound mixing position down onto the main floor?

There are a lot of good thoughts in this thread. Thank you everyone. I think I'm going to sit back and re-evaluate for awhile.

This decision isn't mine anyway. I'm just helping on the research process. As long as we make a decision that isn't going against what God's plan for us is, I'm happy.

[Corey Scogin]

This decision isn't mine anyway. I'm just helping on the research process. As long as we make a decision that isn't going against what God's plan for us is, I'm happy.

God's plan is for all FOH positions to be in the audience where the engineer can hear what the audience hears. 

[Tommy Peel]

God's plan is for all FOH positions to be in the audience where the engineer can hear what the audience hears. 

+1000

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Kent Thompson]

I know your probably still deep in thought on this but, thought I would throw out a couple of things that were partially eluded to. iPad control is nice for a lot of the reasons posted. I would as a sound man have concerns with someone else having "veto" power with an iPad on my mix unless I explicitly trusted that person. I am sure your sound man probably would feel the same way. The iPad should be a tool for him to use.

It is a great tool and I have used one on occasion to mix from but, I like having the faders in front of me it is much faster and on occasion have had wifi issues that would have been a show stopper if I was depending on them.

We use iPads for monitor control of in ear monitors but, I would never allow them for a monitor speaker unless it was me or another trained sound person doing it.

[Daniel Leebrick]

Kent, that is an excellent point.

Everyone who has helped with this thread, I wanted to thank you again. I mentioned the possibility of moving the sound system into the sanctuary either in addition to or instead of the other changes we were considering. The pastor said that would potentially fit in perfectly with some other possible construction projects in the church.

I may start another thread with some pictures of our sanctuary and the proposed sound FOH location to see what you guys think later on. One concern that I know will potentially affect things is how far a snake can run without causing problems. If we pursue that route things may be quite difficult from a wiring standpoint. Is there a rule of thumb on how far a snake can reach without having problems?

Thanks again for the help everyone.

[Rob Spence]

Kent, that is an excellent point.

Everyone who has helped with this thread, I wanted to thank you again. I mentioned the possibility of moving the sound system into the sanctuary either in addition to or instead of the other changes we were considering. The pastor said that would potentially fit in perfectly with some other possible construction projects in the church.

I may start another thread with some pictures of our sanctuary and the proposed sound FOH location to see what you guys think later on. One concern that I know will potentially affect things is how far a snake can run without causing problems. If we pursue that route things may be quite difficult from a wiring standpoint. Is there a rule of thumb on how far a snake can reach without having problems?

Thanks again for the help everyone.

An analog snake can be run a considerable distance. 200-300' is not uncommon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Tim Padrick]

To keep it simple:

Con: Learning curve.

Pro:

Mix from where ever you want via iPad, so you can hear what you are doing.  (At church, this allows you to sit with your family.  And train your kids how to mix.)  (Presonus requires a computer for this.)

Much better channel EQ than any comparably priced analog board.  (= better sound if you know what you are doing.)

Compressors, gates, and FX built in.  (As above.)

Output EQs built in.

Ability to store and recall setups for different bands or services.

And more.

[Keith Shannon]

Our church is in the process of studying how we should proceed on a sound system upgrade. Our sanctuary can hold 200 or so. The mixer is the primary objective at this point. It is located in a room that oversees the congregation from above and behind the congregation. There is a window that is open that the sound guy can hear through, but it really is not representative of what it actually sounds like downstairs.

You're definitely right to want to get the engineer out of the sound booth and into the house. This is a common mistake, made for all the right reasons (gets the board out of sight, increases seating area), but if the engineer can't hear what his mix sounds like in the house, he can't produce a good mix. The problem is that you can't give him the best seats in the house, either, cause you'll get complaints. I haven't yet seen a permanent sound system installation for a church that I'd call "optimal" in the board placement; they're either in booths, in lofts, under ledges, or so far off to the side that the speaker system on the other side of the house might as well not be there at all.

We currently have a Mackie CFX 20 mixer that is maxed out in terms of both inputs and aux sends. We would like a few more channels (probably 32 but would probably settle for 24) and would really like some more aux sends to enable in ear monitors with individual mixes sometime in the future.

If you're thinking of going for IEMs, might I recommend going one step further, to personal monitor mixers? Individual monitor mixes from the board is a noble goal, but it's hard to accomplish, especially as the band grows; no matter how many auxes you have, eventually you end up giving multiple performers one monitor mix if for no other reason than to reduce the number of auxes you have to deal with. A PM system would put that control in the hands of the performers, reducing the lag and back-and-forth inherent in having you do it for them. But, they're an additional expense on top of the IEMs themselves, and aren't conducive to a "clean stage" look of all-wireless sources (though if a proper sound check is performed, the mixers can be moved out of the way for the service).

Several of us think that iPad/iPhone control would be really nice so that the sound guy could actually be in the sanctuary sometimes to be able to hear how things really sound. It looks like some of the current boards also allow the people on stage to mix their own aux channel for the monitor they use which would be really nice as well. Finally, it would be nice for the sound guy to be with his family if there wasn't anything complicated planned for a particular service.

You're totally correct on all counts; most modern digital boards allow multiple mobile workstations to be working on different areas of the board at once, even with role-based access control to turn an iPad into a PMM. Contrary to some, I think most such systems and apps are relatively intuitive, provided the user is at least somewhat familiar with the board itself (or with mixing in general). It could require some training for on-stage users mixing monitors.

One thing not mentioned yet is that remote mixing pretty much requires the sanctuary to have a good wireless system, well-protected against "casual use" by congregants. Keep the WPA2 key strong, secret, and change it often. Network availability, bandwidth and latency become critical aspects of your mixing environment, and if you skimp on these components or their administration, you can easily lose control of the board.

The biggest thing preventing us from going to a digital system that would allow iPad control would be that the current sound guy has really invested himself in the sound system for years and has truly done a great job. He is a little older and as is common in that situation, he would prefer to stick with what he's a little more used to. I believe he is interested in a 32 channel analogue Mackie board. I have the greatest respect for what he has done and what he is still doing so I'm not trying to rock the boat, but there are quite a few people (board members, worship team members and pastors) who want to at least know the pros and cons so I'm trying to research it a little.

This situation is common in churches, primarily because most churches run (and grow) on volunteer work. One or two interested volunteers are consulted, help build the system and end up running it. Your scenario doesn't sound as bad as some I've seen, where the guy who built the system becomes convinced he's the only guy who knows how to run sound or design a sound system. In one particular case, the guy in question did indeed have a long history of sound mixing... in the broadcast arena, where if it wasn't miked it wasn't heard. He was also quite deaf from a 40-year career in pro audio. In that more extreme scenario it's extremely difficult to get any changes made, regardless of how badly they are needed.

In your situation as in many, I might look at a board with a shallower learning curve, one that doesn't rely so heavily on digital tricks for its basic operation. The PreSonus line is pretty good on this score; you have a head amp and a fader for every channel, with EQ and aux assignment being combined into a single control set, and no fader layers on the main fader bank, so the single biggest thing to get used to with a board like this is that the common controls above the faders work on the "selected" channel or channels.

As a counterexample, I see a lot of pro audio guys hawking the Yamaha LS-9 for its small footprint, feature set and relatively low cost; while these are indeed advantages of the LS-9, the problem is that this combination of advantages causes some severe disadvantages in many areas of user experience. For instance, while the LS-9 uses the same basic OS as the larger M7CL, it lacks a touchscreen, instead using a cursor controlled with directional arrow keys. As the OS was originally designed for a touchscreen, including features like a virtual keyboard for channel/scene naming, this limited method of navigation is a huge frustration. The LS-9 also lacks a full common control set, requiring multiple button pushes just to navigate to the EQ band or mix send that you want to use the one set of adjustment knobs to tweak. Lastly, the LS-9 virtually requires the use of fader layers, and therefore their understanding, in order to use the board. It has four layers, two for the full set of channels the board is capable of mixing (the board only has enough actual inputs for one layer), a layer of mixes, and a customizable layer. Intuitively getting used to the fact that a fader doesn't always control the same thing is the single biggest thing I've seen analog board guys struggle with.

The M7CL has a fader and head amp control for every channel it can mix, like the Presonus, limiting the "layers" feature to a set of 8 faders normally used for mix/matrix control, but that can also mirror any set of 8 channel faders on the mixer surface (which is useful as half of them are on an upper level and can be hard to reach). It has a full control set with touchscreen, with a knob for every EQ control (fully parametric treble, high mid, low mid, and bass) and mix send that the central display shows. Now, the M7 is not without its own disadvantages; it's gy-mungous, first of all, the largest mixer with its capabilities I know of. Compared to the StudioLive 32.4.2AI at about $4k, this board is also very expensive, at about $20k for the 32-channel XLR version.

Really the only digital boards I've done much research on have been the Presonus boards. The fat channel makes a lot of sense to me but it sounds like there may be somewhat of a love/hate relationship there for some people. I'd be interested in both opinions on whether iPad control is even a worthwhile factor in a decision flow chart and I'd also be interested in other digital boards that would allow that kind of remote control. Really any thoughts at all would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

In short, the availability of a tablet or laptop remote application that provides live control over the system is a definite plus to any digital board; not all of them have one, and some that do are very basic, giving level and EQ control but requiring you to be at the board for routing assignments or effects. The ability for remote control is even more important if you plan on keeping the board itself in its booth.

If you're looking, I'd call every dealer in your area and have them bring in every model of digital board they think you'd be interested in for a demo in front of the entire media team (however small that may be).

[Brad Weber]

If you're looking, I'd call every dealer in your area and have them bring in every model of digital board they think you'd be interested in for a demo in front of the entire media team (however small that may be).

I would only request that that you do so only for mixers that you are seriously considering and only if you actually intend to purchase from one of the dealers involved.  Expecting local dealers to provide upfront sales or subsequent technical support and then purchasing from someone who did not invest in such support is unfair to the parties who do make that investment.  People using local dealers or reps for equipment demos and then instead purchasing the equipment from other parties such as online mass retailers makes it more and more difficult for the local dealers and reps to not only justify continuing to provide such support but to even stay in business. 

[ProSoundWeb Community]