Print

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

[Caleb Dueck]

Personally I don't want to do speaker processing in the mixer short overall system EQ.

High pass, low pass, band pass filters, output limiting, time alignment band pass EQ, ect. all take place in the system DSP's.
If in need to raise or lower the HP on stage wedges I jump to the DSP.

It also keeps the system more or less plug and play for what ever the mixer of choice is.

This right here! 
The console is for input processing; the DSP is for speaker processing. 
A console and speakers/subs is only part of the signal chain. 

I'm a fan of the Xilica QR1 for a tiny, fits-in-the-doghouse DSP that is vastly more powerful than a Driverack type DSP. 

[Dan Richardson]

High pass, low pass, band pass filters, output limiting, time alignment band pass EQ, ect. all take place in the system DSP's.

The mains and downstage monitors come off one stagebox. The drum wedge comes off another stage box. The balcony fills come directly off the board. That's 3 system processors just for high pass, a function which should be available on every output.

A&H finally saw the light and added it to SQ. I'm not holding out hope for Qu, though.

[Russell Ault]

The mains and downstage monitors come off one stagebox. The drum wedge comes off another stage box. The balcony fills come directly off the board. That's 3 system processors just for high pass, a function which should be available on every output.

A&H finally saw the light and added it to SQ. I'm not holding out hope for Qu, though.

I think the point here is that, in a lot of people's minds, a properly-designed and -configured PA (perhaps excluding stage monitors) will be processed and distributed entirely independently of the console. That way, if the console goes down (or a visiting artist brings their own) you just plug the new console in and proceed. So in your example, the console would send all the audience-facing signals (mains, subs, front fills, balcony fills, etc.) to a single system processor, with the outputs from that processor being distributed directly to all the amps and speakers.

(To be clear, I agree that high- and low-pass filters should be available as part of a console's output EQ section, but including true crossover filters like the X/M32 does is a real mixed blessing: they're very useful tools in a pinch, but they also encourage blurring the line between two halves of a sound system that are often better off being clearly separated.)

-Russ

[Wayne Smith2]

I want to thank you all for the replies. I took some more time to look at the situation, also this hodge-podge of stacked eq's as a 'solution. This began in my transition and learning curve from a Mackie 1620 to the QU a few years ago, and the idea of doing it all in the QU.
The rig is/was- front pair EV ZX-3/QSC PLX1804, Danley THMini/Crown XLS2500, (two QSC K10 for monitors). Processing was -a Sabine GRQ2 (but much earlier found wasn't even needed with these better monitors) and a Carvin EQ-430. (It does four ch of graphic, Hi and Low pass and other processing).
I can see now the presumption of getting both out of the rack, the Carvin box at least at this point, silly.

Reviewing the EQ430 last night and noticed, even there I was stacking low cuts on the graphic in spite of and on top having the proper Hi Pass.
I'm glad I posted. I see now I have a lot more 'clean up' and configuring to do here.

[Wayne Smith2]

I think the point here is that, in a lot of people's minds, a properly-designed and -configured PA (perhaps excluding stage monitors) will be processed and distributed entirely independently of the console. That way, if the console goes down (or a visiting artist brings their own) you just plug the new console in and proceed. So in your example, the console would send all the audience-facing signals (mains, subs, front fills, balcony fills, etc.) to a single system processor, with the outputs from that processor being distributed directly to all the amps and speakers.

(To be clear, I agree that high- and low-pass filters should be available as part of a console's output EQ section, but including true crossover filters like the X/M32 does is a real mixed blessing: they're very useful tools in a pinch, but they also encourage blurring the line between two halves of a sound system that are often better off being clearly separated.)

-Russ

This, really hits home here and now for me.

[Dan Richardson]

So in your example, the console would send all the audience-facing signals (mains, subs, front fills, balcony fills, etc.) to a single system processor, with the outputs from that processor being distributed directly to all the amps and speakers.

So what, I run analog lines back alongside the digital lines when I already have perfectly good outputs in all of those locations? Boxes are all self-powered and have internal DSPs except the mains, and that's where my system processor lives. I don't need any of the other functions of a system processor for monitors or fills.

[Doug Fowler]

This, really hits home here and now for me.

I was approached some time back by a loudspeaker manufacturer contemplating offering their system controller as part of a console.  Hmmm.

Aside from having to accommodate a growing number of consoles, different implementation for each (long list of gotchas here), I told them virtually no one would want it. 

I'm aware of some Broadway/Vegas productions that use staggering console output counts for all those zones (including that _one_ little Meyer box for that one seat lol) but in almost every case it makes more sense to offload all that to a matrix processor.

[Russell Ault]

So what, I run analog lines back alongside the digital lines when I already have perfectly good outputs in all of those locations? Boxes are all self-powered and have internal DSPs except the mains, and that's where my system processor lives. I don't need any of the other functions of a system processor for monitors or fills.

Transport is dealer's choice (i.e. it doesn't have to be analogue), but under the traditional model the answer to your question is "yes". The job of the console (and stage boxes, etc.) is to collect all the signals and mix them together, while the job of the PA (including the processing) is to take what the mixer (any mixer) spits out and distribute it appropriately throughout the space. It means that the PA can be configured, maintained, and (to some extent) operated without having to deal with all the additional complexity a console introduces. Conversely, it also means that the console can be configured, maintained, and operated without having to deal with all the additional complexity (and opportunities for really boneheaded mistakes) PA processing introduces.

{...} I'm aware of some Broadway/Vegas productions that use staggering console output counts for all those zones (including that _one_ little Meyer box for that one seat lol) but in almost every case it makes more sense to offload all that to a matrix processor.

Not sure about Vegas, but every Broadway touring/tryout show I've worked on still runs most of those outputs through half a rack of Galileos in "ampland" before they reach the speakers (even if the speakers are all powered, and even—somewhat strangely—if the PA isn't Meyer). One (massive) system processor means managing all those outputs (and their tuning and alignment, etc.) is kept as straightforward as possible.

-Russ

[Peter Morris]

I’m sure everyone mileage is different, but in this case a Qu is a very simple and basic digital desk design for use with similarly spec-ed speaker systems.  At that price point there is a limit to the DSP power you are buying and what you can expect the desk to do.

If the speakers are all powered then they will have their own built in processing and appropriate HP filters.  If it’s just a simple amplifier powering some passive speakers then just use the HP filter on all the channels for protection as I mentioned above. It does not matter where it is in the signal chain, so long as it protects you from Xmax issues with your subs/LF.

Sure if you have a big complex system that’s not the way to do it, but adding a system processors like a Lake, Galileo or other DSP may well cost you more than the Qu.  If you were going spend that sort of money I step up to a SQ first. They will do every thing you want and sound better in the process.

[Matthew Knischewsky]

Not sure about Vegas, but every Broadway touring/tryout show I've worked on still runs most of those outputs through half a rack of Galileos in "ampland" before they reach the speakers (even if the speakers are all powered, and even—somewhat strangely—if the PA isn't Meyer). One (massive) system processor means managing all those outputs (and their tuning and alignment, etc.) is kept as straightforward as possible.

-Russ

Woah woah woah! We're in the Lounge, are we not?  I'm not just replying to you Russell, there's quite a few advocating for a dedicated system processor, and we're getting pretty far off topic! IMO, it's an oversight to not include at least highpass filters on the outputs of any digital console, and I can come up with a list as long as my arm as to why they're helpful especially at the lounge level. Yeah at the Broadway or touring level, if there's additional consoles coming in with BEs, I agree, get your system processing out of the console and into a dedicated DSP. But for the times when you show up to a small gig and just need some filters to make something happen, HPF/LPF on the outs is very useful to have.

The QU was an OK desk for what I was using it for as my personal small console but lugging around an additional DSP just in case I would need to fix up a poorly/not tuned PA, add a fill, or whatever got to be annoying. The reason why I have my own console is for the times on smaller shows when problems need to be solved, the QU didn't solve enough problems enough of the time.

(I do miss the ease of the USB recording interface)

[ProSoundWeb Community]