ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 12:33:34 am 
Started by Luke Geis - Last post by John Chiara
There was a time when I embraced anything Midas analog or digital, even though the human interface could, at times, seem just a bit strange. I'm also glad to see that Behringer has produced what appears to be a decent quality series of mixers based on the X-32 design. However, they're all still Behringer products in the end, and my views haven't and won't change, taking Midas off of my short list forever.

And clever is correct. Behringer has taken their own philosophy of "re-engineering" other manufactures products and brought that "re-engineering" in house. Taking an X-32 putting it into a nicer enclosure and using higher quality components may make for a more solid product that can retail for a higher price, but in the end it's still a Behringer X-32. Disguised Behringer product is still Behringer product. Very clever indeed.

Bob,
I know your feeling about Behringer...it's almost a moral/political standard for you. We all need to choose how we live that out in the real world. My world ...in many, many different places...is X32 world...and I have to say for the better since the days of beat up analog boards with minimal or shitty outboard gear. It has become a standard that all kinds of touring bands are familiar with and can interface with, which makes everything easier. If someone else had done it first, it might have been and A+H or Soundcraft...but alas...it wasn't. Local colleges around here chose to go with other digital consoles for their classes...and we get interns who are less than agile in the clubs..which are 90% X32.
It is kind of like curren politicians can...we might not agree with stuff, but the ability to get things done is admirable as a process.

 2 
 on: Today at 12:31:21 am 
Started by Frank Koenig - Last post by Jonathan Johnson
A motor contactor at Mt Wilson



Curious that it has hex nuts instead of square nuts. I'm used to seeing square heads on old electrical equipment.

A little research shows that mass production of hex nuts & bolts was introduced in the mid 1800s, but didn't gain ubiquity until the 1940s, when the advantages of hex nuts became important for arms production for World War II. At least that's what I've been able to gather.

 3 
 on: Today at 12:24:57 am 
Started by Ben Mehlman - Last post by Chris Hindle
Simple and eloquent.... iím gonna steal that line Chris - thanks you.
Have at it Ryan. I stole it myself. 15 or 20 years ago in one of the trade rags.
Still true today....
Chris.

 4 
 on: Today at 12:18:38 am 
Started by Al Rettich - Last post by Al Rettich
So I met a guy tonight who said his in ear monitors were made by DreamEarz.com. Anyone ever hear of them? Have anything from them? Just wondering. 

 5 
 on: Today at 12:07:50 am 
Started by Tim McCulloch - Last post by Scott Holtzman
I am mostly speculating about inside the transmitter but the metal pan should short out the RF fields to each other so prevent the interference getting outside the pan.

Loading the transmitters is more subtle and seems like a little distance could reduce the effective coupling and loading, but this is mostly guesswork on my part.

Have we confirmed that this is real ?  I know that I don't know.

JR

The pan would have to be 1/2 wavelength away for it not to be considered "near field".  That's about 5"


 6 
 on: Yesterday at 11:52:24 pm 
Started by Debbie Dunkley - Last post by Dave Garoutte
It's SOP for stores that are closing to hire a company to sell off everything.
The first thing they do is raise all the 'normal' price tags so the 20-50% off sale seems real.

 7 
 on: Yesterday at 11:44:50 pm 
Started by Ben Mehlman - Last post by Ryan McLeod
Brian, he wants to BUY, not rent.......

"The most expensive wireless on the planet is ALMOST as good as the same capsule on a $35.00 50ft cable."
Chris.

Simple and eloquent.... iím gonna steal that line Chris - thanks you.

 8 
 on: Yesterday at 11:32:26 pm 
Started by duane massey - Last post by duane massey
Keep in mind that this is NOT a situation where there are different bands, different set-ups, etc. The same band, same set-up in most cases, and the same musicians. AND the same mixer, mics, etc.

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 11:12:50 pm 
Started by Tim McCulloch - Last post by John Roberts {JR}
I would wonder, though, if the pan interfering with the antenna is both the cause of the increased current draw and and the desired effect in terms of reducing intermods. All speculation, but it wouldnít surprise me if this was two sides of the same coin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am mostly speculating about inside the transmitter but the metal pan should short out the RF fields to each other so prevent the interference getting outside the pan.

Loading the transmitters is more subtle and seems like a little distance could reduce the effective coupling and loading, but this is mostly guesswork on my part.

Have we confirmed that this is real ?  I know that I don't know.

JR

 10 
 on: Yesterday at 11:02:45 pm 
Started by duane massey - Last post by Tom Bourke
Recently had a band here in las Vegas that was surprised we, the house guys, didn't save their file.  We told them flat out that most likely if they come back things will be different.  Different ops, gear, console, band members, stage, clients.  For us it's much faster to rebuild from scratch than try to remember or figure out what we did last year for them.

On the other hand we also use to have a sound guy that could not mix with out his presets.  He had no clue how to EQ a mic or some other basics.  He had had some one MUCH better than him build some presets.  He kept telling every one how great his ears were.  Boy did he look bad when the consoles got factory reset by the new guy!

In my situation every gig is different and each of the house sound guys tend to set routing different.  That doesn't even take into account the outside opps.  More than once we have gotten a console with some strange routing or setup.  It's faster to just factory reset to a known point and move on.  Having said that, I may build a show file that has my preferred routing in place.   I will still do all my EQ gig by gig.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 14 queries.