Print

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

[Keith Broughton]

You really wonder when a professional manufacturer makes this kind of stuffup! And fixing it is trivial in DSP.

Yes I do wonder and I will contact them and ask "whatsup with that"
Usually there are enough channels left over to duplicate vocals on anothet layer but still, a bit of an oversite in my mind.

[John Chiara]

That inputs to monitor mixes benefit from EQ is no surprise; the surprise would be if the same EQ worked to the benefit of FOH as well.

The gig I do next on Pro 2, I'm going to duplicate the inputs for FOH/mons so I can do a better job at both ends of the snake.  This will totally confuse the other guys that mix in this room so I need to better learn the Midas show/scene/file saving and recall.  I don't want them recalling it and then calling me (dude, you messed up this thing, we can't get the monitors to work!) so it's got to be removed from the desk when I'm done and restored when I use it again.

I always do this. It confuses some.

[Keith Broughton]

However, I was informed, on the Behringer site, that any real "professional" sound person knows that monitor mixes are post EQ!!
Apparently, much to my surprise, if you need to EQ the strip for the house mix, then by extension, the monitor mix needs the same EQ.

You really wonder when a professional manufacturer makes this kind of stuffup!

I should clarify that it was not Behringer that said this, but rather some joker on the X32 forum.

[Keith Broughton]

That inputs to monitor mixes benefit from EQ is no surprise; the surprise would be if the same EQ worked to the benefit of FOH as well.

The gig I do next on Pro 2, I'm going to duplicate the inputs for FOH/mons so I can do a better job at both ends of the snake.  This will totally confuse the other guys that mix in this room so I need to better learn the Midas show/scene/file saving and recall.  I don't want them recalling it and then calling me (dude, you messed up this thing, we can't get the monitors to work!) so it's got to be removed from the desk when I'm done and restored when I use it again.

Make a "new" show file called something like.."not for you" and save a scene in the show file called "this will mess you up"
All the settings, including patching will be saved when you "save scene" "overwrite scene" and click the red "save show" button at the top of the Automation screen.
Restore to the other persons show file after your gig.
My apologies if you know this already but I got royally screwed by not understanding the filing system.
Show files MUST have a scene stored in them or the data is not really there.
Yes...I know....

[Josh Millward]

I guess it depends on what you are trying to do with the EQ, but I have always hated with a red hot flaming passion all the old analog desks that only took the pre fader aux outputs (monitor outs) pre-EQ. Of course, when you switch those same sends to post fader suddenly they are now post EQ, too!

Generally speaking, when I have to mix monitors from FoH, I strongly prefer the pre fader sends to be post EQ because I am using the strip EQ to manipulate the signal from the mic. I use the output EQ to provide the requisite EQ for the actual wedges. I have generally found in my experience that if I have too much 160-200 coming from an SM-58 in the house mix (this happens often), then I'm probably going to have too much of that very same thing in the wedges, too. So, cutting that on the input strip fixes both problems quite nicely.

Where folks often run into trouble, and why I think many people don't like their monitor sends post EQ, is that they end up fixing the FoH sound on the channel strip input EQ's rather than on the output EQ. I know that the times I have made it a point to voice the PA and the wedges as linear as possible, I have had minimal issues with the post EQ monitor feeds, in fact they have always been appreciated so that I could get things sounding as good as possible in the wedges.

These days, thanks to digital, copying an input to another channel is quick and easy. This makes doing slick things like splitting vocals to run monitors from one channel and house from another channel fast and easy without a bunch of Y cables. It is my standard mode of operation these days, so post EQ monitor feeds are even more appreciated.

I always hated pre-EQ monitor feeds and now I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

I guess it depends on what you are trying to do with the EQ, but I have always hated with a red hot flaming passion all the old analog desks that only took the pre fader aux outputs (monitor outs) pre-EQ. Of course, when you switch those same sends to post fader suddenly they are now post EQ, too!

Generally speaking, when I have to mix monitors from FoH, I strongly prefer the pre fader sends to be post EQ because I am using the strip EQ to manipulate the signal from the mic. I use the output EQ to provide the requisite EQ for the actual wedges. I have generally found in my experience that if I have too much 160-200 coming from an SM-58 in the house mix (this happens often), then I'm probably going to have too much of that very same thing in the wedges, too. So, cutting that on the input strip fixes both problems quite nicely.

Where folks often run into trouble, and why I think many people don't like their monitor sends post EQ, is that they end up fixing the FoH sound on the channel strip input EQ's rather than on the output EQ. I know that the times I have made it a point to voice the PA and the wedges as linear as possible, I have had minimal issues with the post EQ monitor feeds, in fact they have always been appreciated so that I could get things sounding as good as possible in the wedges.

These days, thanks to digital, copying an input to another channel is quick and easy. This makes doing slick things like splitting vocals to run monitors from one channel and house from another channel fast and easy without a bunch of Y cables. It is my standard mode of operation these days, so post EQ monitor feeds are even more appreciated.

I always hated pre-EQ monitor feeds and now I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore.

I'm probably talking out of my league and I don't begrudge anyone wishing for what seems like an expected feature at that level of desk, but I'm in your camp as well.  Maybe the wedges sound a little bit different than the mains, but channel EQ is about fixing input issues and 99% of the time the same general tonal changes will be beneficial to both mains and monitors, assuming your mains and monitors are reasonably well processed. 

Any situation this isn't adequate (other than a maybe a couple specific inputs that could be wye'd) should have separate main and monitor desks.  It seems very impractical to either run wedges with no EQ at all, or to have to sound check them twice for a complete set of different EQ.

[Keith Broughton]

  It seems very impractical to either run wedges with no EQ at all, or to have to sound check them twice for a complete set of different EQ.

I don't quite understand this statement.

For me, I want the option to not have the channel EQ disturb whatever EQ I have done on the aux send for the mix.
Sure, in a perfect world where mains and montors are well sorted, it's probably OK to have the channel strip change the monitor sound. In fact, I have mixed like that on a number of occasions with no ill effect.
But monitor EQ is not always about the "best" sound and can often be about feedback control because the singer wants their voice on stun in the wedges.
Having a channel EQ change that delicate situation can be ...problematic.
In (my) "real" world, I don't always get well sorted sound systems and have found pre/pre for monitor sends to be quite useful, allowing me to use strip EQ to sort out the mix without affecting the stage.

The choice would be nice and, unfortunately,  it is not an option on the Pro 2 at this time.

[John Chiara]

I guess it depends on what you are trying to do with the EQ, but I have always hated with a red hot flaming passion all the old analog desks that only took the pre fader aux outputs (monitor outs) pre-EQ. Of course, when you switch those same sends to post fader suddenly they are now post EQ, too!

Generally speaking, when I have to mix monitors from FoH, I strongly prefer the pre fader sends to be post EQ because I am using the strip EQ to manipulate the signal from the mic. I use the output EQ to provide the requisite EQ for the actual wedges. I have generally found in my experience that if I have too much 160-200 coming from an SM-58 in the house mix (this happens often), then I'm probably going to have too much of that very same thing in the wedges, too. So, cutting that on the input strip fixes both problems quite nicely.

Where folks often run into trouble, and why I think many people don't like their monitor sends post EQ, is that they end up fixing the FoH sound on the channel strip input EQ's rather than on the output EQ. I know that the times I have made it a point to voice the PA and the wedges as linear as possible, I have had minimal issues with the post EQ monitor feeds, in fact they have always been appreciated so that I could get things sounding as good as possible in the wedges.

These days, thanks to digital, copying an input to another channel is quick and easy. This makes doing slick things like splitting vocals to run monitors from one channel and house from another channel fast and easy without a bunch of Y cables. It is my standard mode of operation these days, so post EQ monitor feeds are even more appreciated.

I always hated pre-EQ monitor feeds and now I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore.

I can confidently say you are in the minority here. Sometimes I need to radically modify say a guitar channel in FOH to say compensate for a stage volume situation. If that signal goes to the guitar monitor he's gonna not be happy! Lots of similar situations like this.

[Dave Garoutte]

I can confidently say you are in the minority here. Sometimes I need to radically modify say a guitar channel in FOH to say compensate for a stage volume situation. If that signal goes to the guitar monitor he's gonna not be happy! Lots of similar situations like this.

Or change the FOH EQs to get the instruments to play well together, but the individual monitors have a different purpose.

[Caleb Dueck]

We installed a Pro2 in a church a while back, IEM's, very low stage volume, L'Acoustics system.  Their worship leader said his ears had never sounded so good. 

If the stage levels are controlled,
If the main system is excellent,
Then the EQ changes are to fix the sources.  If a specific source sounds muddy/poor, why not fix it at that input? 

I'll take pre or post EQ on a per channel basis please.  Not every situation needing monitors from FOH has low stage levels, a well tuned speaker system, and IEMs.

[ProSoundWeb Community]