ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 21 
 on: Today at 07:44:03 pm 
Started by brian maddox - Last post by Samuel Rees
I'm still planning on starting a mini rant thread after my latest experience with the latest AVID offering, but before i do that i'd like to take a moment to appreciate the things that they got Very Right on this desk.

And the first one is the gain sharing.

When my ME and i found out we were doing gain sharing on our s6l combo for a festival, we were not super happy, since we've never had a truly positive experience in the past with other company's implementation of this idea.  But the gear provider told us to try it.  So we hooked it up in the shop.

Low and behold, it Just Works!  Set one desk to master, the other one slaves.  Then just Forget About It!  My desk was the slave, but the mic pre controls acted as if there was no other desk involved in the process.  It was just totally seamless.  Color me impressed.  We used it for an entire 2 day festival and i was able to completely forget about it and act as if we were on a passive split.  Very impressive.

So, first of all kudos to AVID for implementing something that just works.  Second of all, HOW?  How does it work?  I can guess at some ways that this could be accomplished, but i'm super curious to know exactly how it is accomplished on this system.

Iíd like to hear more about your experience as well. My experience with gain sharing in Yamaha world has been pretty good, Iím curious how this compares.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 22 
 on: Today at 07:31:49 pm 
Started by Bob Charest - Last post by Bob Charest
...This might be a silly question, but, has anyone here experienced that the algorithm for calculating intermod could be affected by using user-defined models?...

Forget about this question. I just tried doing an intermod calculation using the frequencies that are part of the Sennheiser Bank/Channel & Shure Group/Channel models I'd created. I got the exact results that I got when using my user-defined models.

It must be something else... :-(

 23 
 on: Today at 07:30:55 pm 
Started by Gian Luca Cavalliini - Last post by Henry Cohen
made some tests yesterday with two LPDA trasmitting same signal from Shure Combiner PA421A in a little arena (4 PSM 900). Out of combiner to passive splitter to 2 RG58 (3m) connected to 2 Wisycom passive LPDA pointed opposite ways (2 meter apart). Result: better overall signal stability in the far corner of location.
Question: is that usually done in big large spaces also without wall significant RF separation between zones?
I have to do a big show with request for more than 70m large IEM talent moves, and only place where I can put Helix antenna is in the back of the stage, do you great RF guru think it should be a good idea to use two Helix, pointed to SL and SR, maybe with a RF booster (10 dB) to compensate split and cable loss (about 30 meters RG213)?

Having multiple TX antennas [when needed] to provide the necessary coverage is a fairly common practice. The key is to find the best compromise between minimizing overlapping coverage area, yet provide strong/stable and continuous coverage throughout the desired area(s). This can be tricky to obtain and generally requires a number of walk tests and repositioning of antennas to get the best performance.

I would strongly suggest sending the RG58 and the RG213 to the recycler and replace it with double shielded (braid over foil) low loss coax, such as Times Microwave LMR series, PWS S9046, Belden 9913F7, Belden RF240 / RF400, or Eupen EC series. Not only will there be less coaxial losses, but less RF radiation from the coax possibly affecting other audio equipment, desensing receivers, or having physically adjacent transmitters causing additional IM products due to the other carriers back feeding into the final stages [internally].

 24 
 on: Today at 07:18:29 pm 
Started by Luis_Marquez - Last post by Luis_Marquez
Thanks for all the input. So what I get is use what I have. Get Smaart and a decent mic. Read and get some training on Smaart. Powered is the way to go in this day and age. Wait for a year or two for the new model powered boxes run wild in the field.

With that sorted, looks like I may need a few amps/ processing for the just in case situations for this one man operator. Do I need a second VENU360 and amps for redundancy or get amps with dsp? Was looking at low cost like a couple of inuke 6000dsp for mains/subs. The plx3402 is set up for the mains and the nu4-6000 for monitors.

 25 
 on: Today at 07:06:43 pm 
Started by brian maddox - Last post by Scott Mullane
I'm still planning on starting a mini rant thread after my latest experience with the latest AVID offering, but before i do that i'd like to take a moment to appreciate the things that they got Very Right on this desk.

And the first one is the gain sharing.

When my ME and i found out we were doing gain sharing on our s6l combo for a festival, we were not super happy, since we've never had a truly positive experience in the past with other company's implementation of this idea.  But the gear provider told us to try it.  So we hooked it up in the shop.

Low and behold, it Just Works!  Set one desk to master, the other one slaves.  Then just Forget About It!  My desk was the slave, but the mic pre controls acted as if there was no other desk involved in the process.  It was just totally seamless.  Color me impressed.  We used it for an entire 2 day festival and i was able to completely forget about it and act as if we were on a passive split.  Very impressive.

So, first of all kudos to AVID for implementing something that just works.  Second of all, HOW?  How does it work?  I can guess at some ways that this could be accomplished, but i'm super curious to know exactly how it is accomplished on this system.

That is definitely nice to hear. I would also love to know how it is implemented.

 26 
 on: Today at 06:47:49 pm 
Started by LeVan Moxley - Last post by Alec Spence
I've also read about some noise issues and other problems with the Ui's.  I'm not sure I could trust one of those either.
The UI 12/16 were the ones with the problems, along with network and stability issues.  Wouldn't touch them with a bargepole!

The UI 24, however, appears to be a completely different kettle of fish, and appears stable and performant.  They're not for me, but are very popular.

Back to your needs, though - what's the channel count you're after?  That could help narrow down the field.

 27 
 on: Today at 05:35:18 pm 
Started by Bob Charest - Last post by Bob Charest
Hi all,

I've sent a support request to PWS, and I'm sure they will respond pretty quickly as they have in the past, but I also thought I might get some input from those on the ProSoundWeb forum.

We use PWS IAS for our RF coordination. We play mostly in Maine where the RF environment is not overly complicated (now that we've vacated the 600Mhz range.)

We have Shure ULXD (G50 band Ė 470-534Mhz) and Sennheiser G2 (A band Ė 518-554Mhz) for our In Ear Monitors, one EW365 mic, and one SKP100.

We are using the Shure supplied Ĺ wave antennas with the ULXD4 receivers. We are using the Sennheiser ľ wave antennas for the EW365 & the SKP100.

For our IEM setup, the IEM transmitters feed a Shure PA821A. The output from the PA821A feeds a PWS helical antenna.

We work on fairly small stages (24í across, 12í deep) usually. When my singer is center stage, he experiences classic intermod interference (whoosh with a pronounced thump at the end.) When I am at center stage I have the same thing happen to me. It is not always in the exact same place, but is quite common. Iíve used my TTi PSA1301T scanner to ensure that no frequencies not accounted for are present. When this interference occurs, there is no activity on the meters at the board, so this suggests that whatever is happening is occurring after the IEM mixes are sent to the transmitters.

In the past, Iíve used a user-defined Bank/Channel model for our EW365 mics, the Evol G2 IEM devices, and the SKP100. When we first got the ULXD equipment, I also created a user-defined Group/Channel model. I had some problems with that model (couldnít create a simple coordination with just a small number of Shure devices) and corresponded with Jason Eskew about it. I ended up just using the IAS supplied model for a while after that.

Iíve since created another user-defined model for the ULXD gear, copying the IAS supplied model, and just inserting Group/Channel comments according to the Shure documentation.

Today, after having had interference issue on the past two gigs, I created a new coordination using only the IAS supplied models, and got quite different coordination results. I havenít yet been able to test the results in the field.

This might be a silly question, but, has anyone here experienced that the algorithm for calculating intermod could be affected by using user-defined models?

I examined the properties (bandwidth, 3rdís Spacing, 3 TX 3rdís, 5thís Spacing) for both the IAS-supplied models and the user-defined models, and they are identical.

Iíve sent PWS support the IAS coordinations using my user-defined models and the IAS-supplied models and also my user-defined models.

Iím going to be unloading the van to get at the PWS helical antenna so I can check for any possible internal damage. We take very good care of our equipment, but one never knows.

All input welcome, as things should be really squared away but appear not to be.

Best regards,
Bob Charest



 28 
 on: Today at 05:20:25 pm 
Started by LeVan Moxley - Last post by LeVan Moxley
While the SoundKing meets your size ask, it's a bit of a trust question as an "unknown" brand.  While I mentioned it, I probably would be shy of buying one!

X12 with faders - would probably be priced out of its target market, sadly.

Where the control-less mixers really win is the fact that you need no snake with them.  You simply pop them by the talent & FOH speakers.  No snake, short cable runs - a real win for the tech fitting everything in a small van/car.  If compact is important to you, then think further than just the desk size - there are other bits of the package you can eliminate.  At that point, as others have observed, the drawback of not having physical controls can be hugely outweighed by other benefits.
In the end, it's a balancing act between all the products and their funcationality/usability/cost.

The UI24 has more inputs than the XR18, but also costs more.  The OP's needs are likely to be more like the XR12/16 level, based on the Xenyx comparison.

Always budget on getting an external router/access point.  While some mixers have better ones than others (and the XR series access points stink, where the UI24 is rather better), an external access point is better still, and allows you to position it much more optimally.

And both XR18 and UI24 support multi-track recording, to set the record straight...
*Used to be* indeed - there's a reason why I moved mine on!  Great solid mixers, but today's products have way more functionality and better usability.

Yep Alec, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.  I'm in total agreement about the advantages of the "stagebox" type mixers.  I'd have a tough time dropping $1100 on an a Soundking for the reasons you stated.  Heck, I can get an X32 producer for that price.  I've also read about some noise issues and other problems with the Ui's.  I'm not sure I could trust one of those either.  +1 on going with an external router. 

 29 
 on: Today at 03:44:29 pm 
Started by Thomas Le - Last post by Mac Kerr
So I'm trying to convert the WL50 to an inline version and Shure has 3 different preamps available: RK100PK, RPM626, RPM628.
Which one do I choose?
Bonus question: anyone use this for violins?

The RK100PK is the one Shure specifies for that mic, as well as their other lavs. the other 2 are for the microflex series and the beta 91 and 98 series.

Mac

 30 
 on: Today at 03:37:56 pm 
Started by Michael Lawrence - Last post by Mac Kerr
Any idea what apps he is using in the video?

If you follow the links under "show more" you get to a Wikipedia page which is a transcript of the video. At the bottom of that page is this disclaimer:


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 14 queries.