Print

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

[John Abercrombie]

I would like to have one of the 32 inputs have eq in the monitor channel, but not the others.  Is this done with tap points?  On the tap points, are they located on the 32 input channels or on the buss channels, ie could one mic have a tap point of post eq going to one of the sub groups and the other mics have pre-eq going to that same sub group?

[Scott Holtzman]

I would like to have one of the 32 inputs have eq in the monitor channel, but not the others.  Is this done with tap points?  On the tap points, are they located on the 32 input channels or on the buss channels, ie could one mic have a tap point of post eq going to one of the sub groups and the other mics have pre-eq going to that same sub group?

You are way overcomplicating it, each channel has a send level to the bus in the tab labeled, wait for it, "sends.  I suggest you go to Youtube and watch Drew Bashler's videos before you subject your congregation to anymore audio assaults.  I am sure it will fill in many gaps for you.

[Mike Caldwell]

Splitting that "special" channel into two channels with one of them dedicated to the said monitor mix with that channel send set to post fade would work, you would need to un-assign that channel from the main mix.

[Keith Broughton]

Splitting that "special" channel into two channels with one of them dedicated to the said monitor mix with that channel send set to post fade would work, you would need to un-assign that channel from the main mix.

Just checked the offline editor and it looks like the pre/post EQ mix send option changes all channels.
Unless I'm missing something,(open to correction...) you cannot select only one channel to be post EQ post fader to the same mix.

[Corey Scogin]

The attached screenshot shows the mixer view.

-Select a channel
-Go to the Sends tab
-Flip to the 2nd config page
-Adjust the pick point for the bus for the selected channel.

The buses are set in pairs.

[Brian Jojade]

Yeah, setting the tap points are configured in pairs.  So picking a single channel to route that way isn't possible.

Now, if you're not using 30 or less channels, you can also split the signal into an unused channel and send that to the monitor mix, with EQ settings as needed.

[lindsay Dean]

Just to add
it's usually not the best idea to send the same EQ channel settings to monitor send as is being used in the mains.
because..... if you have to adjust something for the mains the monitor channel eq will change as well and can be problematic

[Corey Scogin]

Just to add
it's usually not the best idea to send the same EQ channel settings to monitor send as is being used in the mains.
because..... if you have to adjust something for the mains the monitor channel eq will change as well and can be problematic

At the risk of a tangent...I disagree with this statement. A monitor mix where the input signals haven't been EQ'd to help them blend or help minimize feedback overall will create a very muddy or troublesome monitor mix. If a vocal is boomy in the house, it'll be boomy in the monitors unless the house and monitor systems are tuned significantly differently. I'd rather cut the boominess on the input channel without cutting it in the monitor bus EQ where it affects all channels. Obviously a dedicated monitor console solves this.

I ran into this issue a couple years ago when choosing whether to send pre- or post-EQ signals to a personal monitor system. The pre-EQ monitor mixes were very muddy . PostEQ was a significant improvement, though not perfect.

[Brian Jojade]

I agree with both Lindsay and Corey on this.  Yes, usually you want separate control of the EQ on the monitors vs mains.  However, it's rare that a NON eq'd signal is going to be ideal for the monitors.  The EQ for the mains is more likely to be 'close enough' to make the monitor sound decent compared to the flat signal, unless you have something way out of whack with the overall system EQ on either the mains or the monitor.

Ideal world, of course, is a completely separate mix for monitors as you have in mains so you can tweak them each to be the best they can be.

[Luke Geis]

I think it is prudent to NOT have a shared EQ for FOH and monitors. Either the monitors are pre EQ or they get their own dedicated channel or console to do said EQ.

I usually copy the vocal channels to unused channels on another layer specifically for the purpose of applying EQ to them that is separate from FOH. My reasoning and technique is probably not ideal for others?

My theory and idea is simple. A monitor will have the sound that it has almost regardless of the amount of EQ you apply to it to fix its acoustic anomalies. You can EQ it to be flat/linear, or you can simply apply EQ to the frequencies that give you problems. I have found that eliminating as much low end as is practical helps greatly at freeing up headroom and getting the mud out. I often end up with a HP filter set to around 140hz or so. I roll it up until it sounds thin and then back down until it sounds natural in the low end. I then apply EQ at the two to three major problem frequencies ( where feedback occurs ), and if I have not used more than 6 filters I may do some EQ for sonic taste if I have plenty of GBF to allow.

Having a dedicated EQ for the vocal mics allows me the ability to relax a little on neutering the low end of the monitor and be a little more aggressive on obtaining GBF because I can still EQ the mic channel to at least be stable and do some beautifying of its sound if need be. A guitar, bass, or kick drum is the least of my worries sonically speaking in the monitors if I don't have a dedicated monitor console. If you are low budget enough that you are running monitors from FOH, you have to focus on GBF and stability; so tasteful EQ is usually out of the equation for most instruments. The vocals are important though, and being able to tweak them is a good thing for you and keeping musicians happy.

[ProSoundWeb Community]