Print

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

[Thomas Le]

Preface: Catholic Church setting, this could also go in the install forum, feel free to move if necessary.

One of the churches I volunteer at is finally coming to their senses and is now in the planning stages of replacing the FOH rack, specifically:


- the failing Shure P4800
- Allen & Heath Mixwizard 16:2 DX (this is still working but will be moved to the choir area where they can run their mix there, long story on why its in the rack...)
- Lectrosonics AM8 (auto speech)
- Shure SCM810 (more auto speech expansion)

All of this is what I am hoping to consolidate to a single rackspace or two because too many hands were touching this and it got messy. It was decided to lock it down basically. Keep in mind that all of this was original to the church when it was built in 2001! To show how ancient they were operating, they are still using ULX-P systems(!) albeit in the upper 500 band, this is an automatic "time to upgrade" to QLX-D.
Needs are that we want the speech to be locked down and no tampering since it will be a daily usage with no soundguy (basically me) present. The choir will be the mixwizard mono out to the DSP taking up 1 channel on weekends. Basically we are looking at the following channel layout on the DSP:


- 4x wireless (speech automix)
- 4x floor pocket podium XLR (speech automix)
- Aux RCA in sum to mono
- 1x outside wallpanel XLR
- 1x choir mono in
- 1x TRS wallpanel

Output at the minimum:
- Sanctuary
- Vestibute/Foyer
- Sacristy
- Cry room/infant care
- Upstairs L
- Upstairs R
- Outside
- REC to RCA

A little single switch to turn on/off the outside XLR channel and outside output. Some form of monitoring would be nice, iPad would be cool.

Now to the DSP's, what would be a good fit? Of course there's a budget, but I don't know the numbers yet, just looking for something reasonable. I've played with the offline editors and the BSS Soundweb London seems to check the req's with the BLU-100. I've downloaded the Symetrix Composer but haven't played with it yet, I'm thinking the Radius 16x16? I have not looked at Biamp's lineup because I don't know what's what in their website. Not sure of RANE either. QSC Q-SYS looks way too expensive.

Thanks!

[Mike Caldwell]

An Allen & Heath Qu Pac would give you everything you need on the input control and routing side and can be locked down with different levels of access security.

What is the speaker system, how is it powered, does it need specific DSP processing?

[Thomas Le]

An Allen & Heath Qu Pac would give you everything you need on the input control and routing side and can be locked down with different levels of access security.

What is the speaker system, how is it powered, does it need specific DSP processing?

I'm ruling out digital mixers because we want no interface on the rack, this is purely an install job.

The speaker system is what I believe to be a distributed 70v system of JBL 15-inch ceiling coax drivers (I think the 2152H) for the sanctuary, Atlas commercial "paging style" for the infant care and upstairs, and EV SX100 for outside. All are powered by QSC CX.

[Mike Caldwell]

I'm ruling out digital mixers because we want no interface on the rack, this is purely an install job.

The speaker system is what I believe to be a distributed 70v system of JBL 15-inch ceiling coax drivers (I think the 2152H) for the sanctuary, Atlas commercial "paging style" for the infant care and upstairs, and EV SX100 for outside. All are powered by QSC CX.

The QU Pac has no faders, only a touch screen and can be fully locked out, The QU Pac has front panel buttons that can be used for preset recall.

 They also make the QU SB version that is just a box with connectors.

Either one of those will give you more input output processing for less money than many rack mount install DSP's and easier to set up in many cases.

The biggest difference would be interfacing them with existing control interface hardware with RS232.....if that would even be needed at all.

[Thomas Le]

The QU Pac has no faders, only a touch screen and can be fully locked out, The QU Pac has front panel buttons that can be used for preset recall.

 They also make the QU SB version that is just a box with connectors.

Either one of those will give you more input output processing for less money than many rack mount install DSP's and easier to set up in many cases.

The biggest difference would be interfacing them with existing control interface hardware with RS232.....if that would even be needed at all.

The church has remote switches for turning on the outside input and output, so I assume it's using the GPIO, and yes they use it. Also that would mean I would have to solder XLR connectors, all connections right now are phoenix/bare wire.

[Erik Jerde]

Q-Sys core110f is more expensive than a blu-100 but the qsys comes with aec baked in and a great auto mixer.  It’s also expandable over Ethernet so you don’t have to pull more cables should you want additional IO elsewhere in the future.  UCI development is super easy and the scripting is great too.  IMO having worked with both you get a lot more bang for your buck with qsys.  Also, you don’t have to buy their touch screens.  iPad, phone, android tablet all work great.  With flex inputs you’ve also got room for future inputs if needed without buying more hardware.

[Nathan Riddle]

Q-Sys or Xililca DSP offerings. I used to say Ashly, but it quickly becomes not cost effective if going over 8 inputs/8 outputs (that and the fact it can't do it).

I like the QU-Pac/SB, but lack of proper HPF's make it annoying to perform xovers (they can be made using the PEQ).

[Mike Caldwell]

I like the QU-Pac/SB, but lack of proper HPF's make it annoying to perform xovers (they can be made using the PEQ).

I'm one for not having system DSP / crossovers as part of the mixer for day in day out live sound use.

Dedicated install DSP's units of course if they have the needed IO.

How are you making a true HPF on the outputs of a QU by using the PEQ?  The inputs do have an 18 db per octave HPF.

[Brian Jojade]

To show how ancient they were operating, they are still using ULX-P systems(!) albeit in the upper 500 band, this is an automatic "time to upgrade" to QLX-D.

As long as you're working in legal frequencies and the equipment is good working order, there's nothing wrong with the ULX-P system.  Except for the fact that it works on 9v batteries which can be expensive, they can be very good sounding mics.  In fact, in some scenarios, I'd even go far as to say they sound better than the QLX systems that I've replaced most of my inventory with.

So if budget ends up being a concern, the mics are not something I'd put in the automatic must upgrade category.

[Nathan Riddle]

I'm one for not having system DSP / crossovers as part of the mixer for day in day out live sound use.

Dedicated install DSP's units of course if they have the needed IO.

How are you making a true HPF on the outputs of a QU by using the PEQ?  The inputs do have an 18 db per octave HPF.

I agree, but DSP's that have lots of IO become prohibitively expensive compared to a rackmount mixer. (If the goal is zero control or iPad only) if putting wall controllers and GPIO then there are other factors...

---

There is a post with an equation for doing it somewhere.

I figure making one using SMAART wouldn't be too difficult.

I have wanted to make an excel that does the calculations for you for A&H mixers as a resource for the community. Just haven't gotten around to it (I'd need to teach myself some filter equations first).

[ProSoundWeb Community]