Print

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

[Kenny Deal]

 and Ashly GQX3102 units.   

This is the one I have been looking at. Are Rane eq's any good ? I have a Rane dual 31 band right now I was using for FOH but thinking I could buy the Ashly and use it for FOH and retire the Rane to monitors.

[Bob Leonard]

This is the one I have been looking at. Are Rane eq's any good ? I have a Rane dual 31 band right now I was using for FOH but thinking I could buy the Ashly and use it for FOH and retire the Rane to monitors.

Rane's EQs, depending on the model, are as good as any and better than most. The M60 is a fine EQ similar to the DBX 2231 but with fewer features. Just stay away from the cheap crap from people like Alesis, Behringer, etc. You should also note that band pots with short travel can be a problem when adjusting frequencies. Longer travel pots make all the difference in the world and that generally eliminates 1U units in my case, although I do use 15 band 1U DBX units for monitors. For FOH and backline I use DBX2231s.
 
A small point I'll make concerning the overall system sound. Take the time away from the job to ring out the system. Start by eliminating or bypassing any and all effects, EQs and compressors. Get a feel for what your channel strips can do by themselves, get the best sound you can get, and work from there.

[chuck clark]

The female voice is different! (the resonances are generally about an octave higher than male) I run 58's and 835's mostly but I've discovered the Beta 58 is a little warmer for high pitched females. Watchout, betas have a hotter output signal than a reg. 58 so you'll want to turn the input gain down on the beta channel to match levels w/ 58's & 835's. That might fix your feedback problem right there.
Rane eq's are pretty decent. Ashley GQX are among the very best. I've gone to DBX 1232's as they sound very similar and I was having trouble with the short thow faders on the less expensive DBXs. Small fader movements were making big differences which can be troublesome on monitors.
I like the monitor sends pre eq so I can make the channel sound good in front of house without worrying about causing feedback in the mons or screwing up the mon mix. I've found it's very helpful to get there early enough to wear the monitor guy hat for about 20 minutes and get the vocals sounding good in the monitors. Then concentrate on FOH. Any recurring feedbacks should be addressed on 1/3 oct eq's as the channel strip eq's are much wider and you end up throwing away too wide a chunk of sound just to get a zing or hum out. Best of luck!
Chuck

[Kenny Deal]

Thanks. Actually, I did do the monitors first but I did not do them right. I will spend more time on them next time. It's hard to run back and forth to the board. I loosely toyed with the idea of putting the monitor eq in the rack with the Monitor power amps that goes on stage. Bu then if I need to adjust during the show that would be an issue.

[Tim McCulloch]

Thanks. Actually, I did do the monitors first but I did not do them right. I will spend more time on them next time. It's hard to run back and forth to the board. I loosely toyed with the idea of putting the monitor eq in the rack with the Monitor power amps that goes on stage. Bu then if I need to adjust during the show that would be an issue.

Kenny-

You can move the EQ if it's in a rack bag or otherwise not mounted in a rack with a bunch of other stuff.  I did this years ago when I had to ring monitors in a club, by myself.

I used XLR connectors, so all I had to do was remove the EQ at FOH, plug the input and output XLRs together and take the EQ to the amp rack on stage.  I took the input line from the snake to amp and plugged it into the EQ, and used a short mic cable from the EQ to the amp.  Use the EQ's "gain" control to slowly bring up the level until the monitors start to ring, find that band and lower the level until the ring stops.  Repeat for 3 or 4 distinct rings or until you get simultaneous feedback at multiple frequencies.  Turn down the power amp, repatch the input to it and take the EQ back to FOH.  Set the EQ's gain back down to something "nominal" and patch it back in line.

[kristianjohnsen]

Duane,

I can see this being the case for just a Monitor board, but my opinion and preference is for any board that handles both FOH and Monitors to be Pre-EQ so that the channel strip can be saved for tweaking FOH.  An insertable EQ or processor should be used for the monitor mix in question.

THe dbx231 works, but I would recommend looking for used Symetrix 533E and Ashly GQX3102 units.  You might even be able to find some Klark Teknik DN360/370 units for a good price.  If you're comfortable with digital and don't need the "grab it now" sliders, there are a number of multichannel DSP units that would do a good job.  I'm sure others will recommend some.

I know this is one of those discussion like analog vs digital so I probably won't be able to "make you see the light".  I will, however, present the other side of the equation for other readers:

If you have a monitor system and a PA system that both sound decent it is beyond likely that EQ adjustments appropriate for the mains will work for the monitors, as well. 

If you need to roll off a bunch of LF on a vocal mic due to proximity effect in the house, why would you want that 12-15 dB LF boost in the monitors?  This makes no sense to me. 
If you use the monitor graphic to slash all the LF below, let's say, 300 Hz to make the vocal mic "sound right", what about something like an acoustic guitar?  It will sound super-thin and the fundamentals will be hard to hear.

[Robert Weston]

Almost anything but an e835 for women.  That damn thing has the "ice pick in the forehead" sound if their lips get off the grille.  The SM58 is also more forgiving off-axis.

The nicest "average priced" mic for most lady singers I've found is the SM-86.

I get that "ice-pick" when women use those 58's!  One of the bands that I mix for uses 58's; it's a struggle to EQ her voice to get her to sound like she should.  She has used a Beta-58 (a lot better sounding), but it wasn't her mic.

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

I get that "ice-pick" when women use those 58's!  One of the bands that I mix for uses 58's; it's a struggle to EQ her voice to get her to sound like she should.  She has used a Beta-58 (a lot better sounding), but it wasn't her mic.

I take the ice pick out as part of the system setup and tuning.  I don't want it in anything....except maybe for making drinks.

[Kenny Deal]

I know this is one of those discussion like analog vs digital so I probably won't be able to "make you see the light".  I will, however, present the other side of the equation for other readers:

If you have a monitor system and a PA system that both sound decent it is beyond likely that EQ adjustments appropriate for the mains will work for the monitors, as well. 

If you need to roll off a bunch of LF on a vocal mic due to proximity effect in the house, why would you want that 12-15 dB LF boost in the monitors?  This makes no sense to me. 
If you use the monitor graphic to slash all the LF below, let's say, 300 Hz to make the vocal mic "sound right", what about something like an acoustic guitar?  It will sound super-thin and the fundamentals will be hard to hear.

That is kinda my concern about the graphic eq being the only way to eq the monitors but on the other hand it's rare in the stuff I do to put anything but Vox in the monitors except keys and sequence. I was more of the concern of the difference in the singers voices. Funny all the talk about a Beta 58. I had just lost an auction on a pair of them before the job. I was thinking about grabbing one.
So this is probably taking it further than most might in a small sound venue but what about aux out to a sub mixer like a 6 channel and then use that to individually eq each mic in the monitor mix without effecting the FOH ? I actually could get her to sound good if I brought up the lows and mid lows but everytime I tried the second she stopped singing I got a low/mod feedback and for the life of me I don't know why. I know it was her channel as I muted it when I could to see if that eliminated the feedback. I think the speaker placement was actually best for her. She had the whole sub stage to herself and she was behind the FOH. I'm missing something. I do like that idea of bringing the Monitor eq to the stage and then back .
Let me ask the age old question....
When you get feedback, it's most likely the monitor right ? When you are back behind the mixer how can one tell what the monitors even sound like ? In other words I could cut frequencies to try and kill the feedback but be at the same time making the monitors sound awful and I would not know it.
How do you guys approach that. when I do sound from the stage it's alot easier because I can hear them.
I've been thinking hard all day about the other night and it seemed even when I brought up the lows a bit in the FOH main eq I was aggravating the problem. Now that I reflect back, The whole mix was thin even though her channel was exceptionally thin.

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

I know it was her channel as I muted it when I could to see if that eliminated the feedback.

Maybe so, maybe not.  Feedback from stage is a matter of ALL the open mics.  Yes, if you kill one of them and the feedback goes away, it has something to do with the problem.  But it could well be a more complex interaction with one or more of the other mics on stage.  If you're lucky enough to have a mixer which has polarity flip available on every channel, the first thing to do is simply flip the polarity on the (apparently) offending mic.  That will usually help if not cure the problem.

Forget about needlessly complex things like the sub-mixer.  That's not the way to do it.  If you're wanting to EQ the vocal mics separately for the monitors, split the mic inputs to the two boards if you must.  But the best bet is just to get a decent EQ for each monitor mix.  I prefer parametrics with at least 5 bands.  Rane PEQ, KT DN410 or the like.  In a pinch you can make something like a Behringer FBX1100 do monitor duty, but it's a bit labor-intensive to set up.....but it does give you 12 filters per mix rather than 5.

Try the EQ on the mixes first.  Save the complicated stuff for later........ 

[ProSoundWeb Community]