I am trying to set up some old equipment and a few new pieces that I recently came across. Currently in my PA system are:
Numark PPD 1775 - mixer
BSS 402 - Comp/Limiter
Bss - 960 Graphic eq
BSS - 336 minidrive
BBE - 822
2 Crest CA 18's (Subs)
1 Crest Pro 9001 (sub duty when proper power is supplied)
1 Crown macro tech 36x12 (high & mids)
Newly acquired equipment:
1 - Crown pre amp straight line two
1 - DBX 1BX III with impact restoration
Subs - 4 EAW SB 128z
Mids -Double 12" Electro voice Cabinet
Highs - 2 Pyramid PRO TW57 & 1 Timpano TPT-DH2000 2" Compression Driver
My issue is where do I put what in the signal chain starting with my mixer?
(Eventually I will get back my audio control series 3 richter scale to add back to my rig but not just as yet; seeing that its currently being serviced)
Also some newer equipment that I have been looking at to swap out from the BSS era and walk into the Empirical Labs Lil FrEQ and ditch the 960 graphic eq; also swap the 402 for the Empirical Labs EL8-X Distressor with British Mode (not sure of a compatible DSP to replace the BSS 366 minidrive that will flow well with the E-Lab components).
My hopes is to create a unique sound to my mobile PA equipment that will be noticeably delightful to the public when I play out.
I am well aware that my EAW subs are pretty much not the best to start with but eventually I'll grab 4 srt 828s to feed the new rig which are relatively cheap in today's market.
Thanks in advance
(I've been been following this forum for decades and was certain this is where I'll gather some reputable responses)
Hello Eddie,
I am not quite sure what your goals are, but I think it is fair to say the age of rolling your own PA (subs, lows, mids, highs); matching various amps while cobbling together limiters, crossovers, and dsp, and achieving better results than what the engineers can do at most brands has come and gone - I think it safe to say we are 2-3 decades past that. You will certainly not be able to recreate and make something better than what the top brands are doing.
Not saying that you cannot achieve some desirable results with what you have, but I would be realistic about what your gear is capable of vs. what the current manufactured systems are capable of - any effort into a cobbled-together system is probably not going to yield great results for how much time, money, and effort you are putting into it - which you may be ok with. However, if you haven't come to terms with that though, doing so may save you time, money, and effort.
---
It may be worth separating the pieces of equipment you have into two categories:
The sound system: A good one is linear - it outputs, what you put into it. Think accuracy, rather than color or tonality.
Input processing: this is the filtering, tonality, saturation, and dynamics decisions you are making on the front end, which your system then reproduces.
---
From your statements and equipment, I am guessing you are doing DJ work?
I am going to make the leap, and guess you are not mixing/looping samples and are instead working with pre-recorded music - in which case additional compression is probably not beneficial to it "sounding better" most music is already compressed enough and does not need more.
Unfortunately, expansion is also not likely to be a helpful tool either - as it will have different settings than the original compression used on the various songs - not to mention most music has many layers of compression - compression is kind of hard to undo.
Will an expander change the sound? Sure, in a positive way? Probably not.
For DJ work, EQ can be helpful to tonally balance what is coming out and to help tracks feel more similar to each other, a good parametric EQ would probably be more useful than graphic EQ or a fixed band EQ in that instance.
It looks like you have a LOT of front-end processing - processing can be fun, but the mistake that is easy to make with it - is to insert it without gain-staging it (hint hint some metering on the output - post equipment - will give you a good reference). Often adding in processing means the signal is louder - and louder usually sounds better, the net result is that you can end up with a signal that has many shades of processing and is louder, but that does not sound better.
And hardware, which is fun to collect, and looks cool/sexy, also costs cash - which means you want to feel that it is making things better - whether or not it is.
Different and unique is not necessarily better.
One good, objective way to test this. Select a few tracks to play (the same one's, with the same volume out of your DJ mixer), if you don't have one go pick up a cheap interface and go direct into it.
1) Record the dry output of your DJ mixer.
2) Go hog wild with all of your processing, and record that.
3) Use half of your processing equipment, record that.
4( Use the other half of your processing equipment, record that.
Phone a friend, and have them gain match the files (so they are of equal loudness) and mix up the naming so you do not know what file is which. Play those files back on a few different systems and at different volumes, and then rank the files from best to worst sounding- then ask your friend for the "key" as to which file is which.
---
All these items you have are tools, you will get better results if you know what you are looking to do with each tool, and how to use it - if are not sure it is time to start learning and digging in - manuals and experimentation are great way to learn new things.
As an overall funnel for this equipment, would be the question, "
What is the source missing that you feel you need to change?"
If you are not sure I would slow down, more hardware and gear without a clear end-goal can be a long and expensive path.
---
Not sure if that is the answer(s) you wanted, but that is my $.02.
MATH
