Print

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

[Kevin Maxwell]

So I've got the annual Youth Fundraiser coming up again at the end of the month. Last year I mixed it on the youth department's LS9 with much success, but I've acquired an XR18 since then and am thinking about using it instead of or with the LS9. The production tends to consist of a number of skits mixed with some of the kids singing. The skits usually end up being 1-6 open mics on stage either wireless headsets or handhelds; I'm wondering if the automixer on the XR18 will be useful in this situation. Thoughts/experiences?


Thanks,
Tommy

I will try to answer some of your questions about automixing in a basic way. If you have 24 people with mics all in the same room and that all has to go into a sound system in that same room then an auto mixer can definitely help. I have had to use sound systems where I was lucky to get one mic working without feedback and adding a bunch more for a panel discussion would not have worked. But with the use of an automixer I was able to do it with no problem.

The way they usually work is the output is always equal to only one mic on. They have a NOM (number of open mic) circuit that drops the overall level as more mics open up. So the system doesn’t go crazy as more people may try to speak at the same time.

To clarify things I am a big proponent of Automixing I use it all the time for the dialog parts of musical and for panel discussions and anywhere I need to have a lot of mics up for speaking. It is so much of a help. But it will make some very bad decisions if you try and let it do music. I know this from personal experience.

[Frederik Rosenkjær]

I don't know the Behringer automixer at all, but the Yamaha implementation of the Dugan I find extremely useful for dialogue on radio mics - as well as singing in musical theatre settings. Singers singing one at a time, that is - not choir/ensemble (where the purpose is blending - the opposite of what Dugan does).

[Kevin Maxwell]

I don't know the Behringer automixer at all, but the Yamaha implementation of the Dugan I find extremely useful for dialogue on radio mics - as well as singing in musical theatre settings. Singers singing one at a time, that is - not choir/ensemble (where the purpose is blending - the opposite of what Dugan does).

How many times do you have just one person at a time singing in musical theater? There is almost always other people singing or at least the pit musicians being picked up on other people’s mics. There may be the rare number with one solo to another but it my experience that would be the exception and not the rule. And when it is a single person singing a solo I only have that one person’s mic up so there is absolutely no need to have the Automixer engaged at that time.

[Mark McFarlane]

FWIW, I used the GLD's auto mixer for a high school musical about a year ago, even though the expert advice said it wouldn't work.  I still rode the faders some, but I don't remember any time that I had to fight what the auto mix algorithm was doing, whether it was talking, solo singer, or ensemble.

I don't remember how much gain reduction I used, and I can't prove that it made a huge difference, but it didn't cause any problems, the director and audience were happy, and I got more gigs from this one.

I suggest trying it at a rehearsal, and learn from your personal experience.

[John Rutirasiri]

A cantor from a nearby synagogue called me because congregants were saying her voice was fluctuating.  Turned out the rabbi was singing along, which caused the automixer (a Dugan card in a DME64n) to split the gain between the cantor's and rabbi's mics.  I could understand what the installer was thinking of, but the outcome was incorrect (from the cantor's perspective anyway.)

John R.

[Tommy Peel]

Lots of good information here. If I end up being able to use the xr18 I may give the automix a try during rehearsal(we'll be having 3 thankfully). At this point though the channel count is looking like it might be to high to run the xr. I still might bring it to use it's great deessers as inserts on the ls9 though and/or as an audio interface for Qlab.

[Keith Broughton]

Lots of good information here. If I end up being able to use the xr18 I may give the automix a try during rehearsal(we'll be having 3 thankfully). At this point though the channel count is looking like it might be to high to run the xr. I still might bring it to use it's great deessers as inserts on the ls9 though and/or as an audio interface for Qlab.

It may be different with the XE but on the M32 and X32, auto mix is not available on all the channels...unless I am missing something.

[Robert Lofgren]

It may be different with the XE but on the M32 and X32, auto mix is not available on all the channels...unless I am missing something.

On the x/m32 there are only eight automix enabled channels and thay are on ch1-8.

On the xr18 all of the 16 mic channels can be automixed.

[John Roberts {JR}]

A cantor from a nearby synagogue called me because congregants were saying her voice was fluctuating.  Turned out the rabbi was singing along, which caused the automixer (a Dugan card in a DME64n) to split the gain between the cantor's and rabbi's mics.  I could understand what the installer was thinking of, but the outcome was incorrect (from the cantor's perspective anyway.)

John R.

Automatic mixing is just a tool, but properly applied could help.

When I designed one (last century), I added a feature where one channel could be assigned extra priority over the others. Dugan has that capability, copies I do not know.

The dominant benefit from AM is reducing the tendency to feedback with multiple open mics. "He who shouldn't be ducked" does not have to be in that same gain shared group. A system that looks like two open mics is better at resisting feedback than a dozen.

JR

[John Rutirasiri]

When I designed one (last century), I added a feature where one channel could be assigned extra priority over the others. Dugan has that capability, copies I do not know.

John, that was the exact issue.   I don't recall there was priority or a way to side-chain on the DME64n implementation (I'd have to check the DME designer programming... the system has since been replaced.)  I believe there was a weight setting, but it didn't do much to help the cantor.

When I observed what was happening, I saw the rabbi would be singing a few words, then stop, then back at it again.  The cantor and rabbi mics were set at the same level.

The installer had every single mic channel, including choir mics, into the same gain sharing.  The cantor was adamant the choir must not be as loud, so I'm guessing that's what made the installer put the choir mics into the gain share.

But the real issue was system had very poor GBF, and the automixer was used to alleviate this.

John R.

[ProSoundWeb Community]