Print

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

[Brad Weber]

When time is short, I think it's best to minimize problems. You have four instrument lines and three vocals. Get four, quality, active dis for the instruments and teach them how to plug into the snake.

The instruments are apparently acoustic guitar, bass, keys and electronic drums.  The keys and electronic drums are probably line level outputs, so no need for a DI, just configure the corresponding channels as line inputs.  That would eliminate having an intermediate box for those.  Guitar and bass may want to look at effects/emulator boxes that provide line or mic level direct outputs rather than a DI, maybe even let the musicians use them to practice and get used to working with them.

Get a digital board and save your setting from week to week. If you can afford an ipod, you can even avoid the snake and leave the mixer on stage. Very little should change week to week, including house and monitor eq, so the mixes will be pretty much plug and play. Use the two monitors as side fills instead of floor monitors and feed them a mix very close to the foh. The band can even use the system to practice.

A setup like that will be almost automatic and very consistent. I think an ipad would be well worth the money in reducing setup time.

While wireless remote mixing via a laptop, tablet or even smartphone can be very beneficial for some uses, I am not convinced it is a viable method to handle anything other than a rather minimal FOH mix.  One aspect that seems to often be either overlooked or is simply becoming a lost concept is being able to aurally monitor anything, be it soloing something or cueing up a music or SFX source (of course controlling any pre-recorded sources or the recording of a service may also be factors for remote mixing).  And to use wireless remote mixing you'd also have to connect a WAP and get everything communicating for each use, which seems to likely add to the effort required by the sound team.


I am actually having a difficult time understanding how much would really be gained by the musicians having to setup and connect to an amp versus plugging into a snake.  You're talking about having four people have to connect to a stage box input rather than setting up their own amp along with connecting one powered monitor.  At the same time the power connectivity required for each use seems to be going from connecting three powered monitors to connecting two powered monitors and four stage amps.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

I wonder about three things:
1. How will it sound?
2. Will it save significant time?
3. If the proposed new setup doesn't sound as good to the congregation, is that okay? There seem to be two opinions within our sound/music folks. Some people say that it's okay if the sound is inferior as long as it sounds good enough. Others say that inferior sound takes away from the worship experience--and that we should strive for the best sound that we can practically achieve.

What do you think?

I did the porta-church thing for more than a decade before we finally got a building.

I would try to approach this from the top down by asking the church "What do we want to be when we grow up?"  If you believe that music is important to your mission and makes your church more attractive, then there needs to be a top down (pastor, board, etc.) directive to support a good music program, including making sacrifices in purchasing equipment, finding a way to have setup time, etc.

Church music is very inertial. Every church I've been a part of or witnessed that has good music ended up that way because a couple people (band members, worship director/leader, etc.) had some talent and drive, and the church caught the wave and invested in it.  Other good musicians were drawn in, and the ball started rolling in a positive direction. 

Unfortunately the opposite is also true.  If there's a lack of value for music and the arts or a lack of willingness to do what it takes to have a reasonable system and reasonable time to practice, setup, operate, etc., those that try to be excellent will be discouraged, and ultimately move to another church where they are valued.

As to excellence, there's a subtle difference between excellence and "doing the best we can".  The pursuit of excellence does not require the church hire a band full of professional musicians and an arena class PA system.  It does, however, involve cultivating vision and passion in those involved and challenging them (musicians, sound folks, church leadership, finances) to be better and better as time passes, and figure out ways to do more. 

"Doing the best we can" is ultimately a defeatist attitude where the standard is lowered far enough until "the best we can" is good enough.  Then some other constraint appears - shrinking finances, some other thing that reduces what "the best we can" is, and suddenly you have even a lower standard.

I believe you can find creative ways to meet your setup constraints without giving up what you've worked for with sound.  I also hope that your leadership will choose to value the music you have and find a way around the time constraint, either by opening the pocketbook a little wider, or finding a new place to meet.

Directionally, moving to a digital board will save you time and equipment.  Investing in good cases, multipin disconnects, and in-ear systems instead of wedges will also reduce your setup time, make things more uniform, and in the case of in-ears, make it easier to achieve good sound in an imperfect environment due to less stage volume, which will reduce sound check time and improve the quality of the service.

[Mark Anderson]

becoming a lost concept is being able to aurally monitor anything, be it soloing something or cueing up a music or SFX source

Same way you do it now, with headphones. Plug a wireless set into the headphone jack and away you go.

I am actually having a difficult time understanding how much would really be gained by the musicians having to setup and connect to an amp versus plugging into a snake. 

It's a matter of consistency. Amps have knobs that get twiddled and bumped. Line level signals with on desk processing stays consistent from show to show reducing the sound check and setup time. Four people bringing in amps will never sound as good, be as consistent or have the FOH coverage of a line in setup.

Look at the setup. 4 speaker poles, two per side, placed in the same place each week. One power drop per side. 2 channels per side, main and monitor. Vocalists come in, pick up their mic and know they plug into to 1,2 and 3. They know where to stand. Keyboard grabs a ProD2 and plus into 4 and 5. Guitar and bass grab their countryman's and plug into  6 and 7 respectively. Drummer, if they show, goes into 8 and 9. Recall the last setting and bring the main fader up. Done. EQ might vary a bit because of humidity and temp, but not much. Each week you can get it sounding better instead of spending time stamping out artist and amp related problems.

[Ryan M. Fluharty]

One of the things the OP did not mention is whether or not the instrument amps would have to be purchased, or whether they are already available.  Certainly there would be better options to purchase that would make setup go more quickly rather than investing money in amps.

[Gordon Waugh]

One of the things the OP did not mention is whether or not the instrument amps would have to be purchased, or whether they are already available.  Certainly there would be better options to purchase that would make setup go more quickly rather than investing money in amps.

Good point. In fact, we would have to purchase the instrument amps. By the way, we do have the Listen Technologies Hearback in-ear monitors, but the musicians stopped using them and prefer floor monitors. I suspect that was largely due to the cheap earphones we used. I recently purchased one decent set of earphones (Shure 215), but we have not tried them out yet.

[Brad Weber]

Same way you do it now, with headphones. Plug a wireless set into the headphone jack and away you go.

I'm not sure what wireless headphones you are addressing but assuming you could get wireless headphones to work in the physical environment involved, I just don't see how adding wireless networking and a wireless headphone system helps simplify things or reduce the time required for setup.  It wouldn't change the actual connectivity at the stage end or at the console except for adding additional connections at the console for the wireless systems.  It adds having to worry about batteries.  And if it was like many churches where a computer or laptop at FOH is also used as a source and/or for recording, then you'd also have to remote control of those computers.  The only potential simplification seems to be possibly reducing the time to unroll and pack up the snake by reducing the snake length.

On the rest, perhaps you misunderstood or misread my comments as I was not advocating using the instrument amps, in fact quite the opposite.

[Mark Anderson]

[quote author=Brad Weber link=topic=5161.msg27264#msg27264 date=1316266627
On the rest, perhaps you misunderstood or misread my comments as I was not advocating using the instrument amps, in fact quite the opposite.
[/quote]

You are correct sir. I mis-read it. I'm glad we agree amps are a bad idea.

Yes, I have an aversion to snakes on a floor. They take time to roll out, have to be covered and are still a trip hazard. I was also thinking about how to most quickly execute a system. Speakers on poles will be slightly quicker than setting up scaffolding. Sidefills will be slightly quicker than floor wedges. DI's will be a whole lot quicker than amps in both setup and sound check. With all of that done, running the snake and power in and out is likely to be the most time costly measure. I was looking at how to eliminate that as well.

Assuming an i-Live R72 is out of the budget, a tablet to a 16.4.2 seems to be the next best thing. It's a school gym and that's a piece of cake for any 802.11g transmitter. The in-ears could be more problematic and more money, you're correct, but this system seems rather static and soloing may not be needed after the initial setup.

Anyway, a fun system to think about. It also opens up the idea of outreach programs to the malls. Quick in and quick out.

[Gordon Waugh]

Yes, I have an aversion to snakes on a floor. They take time to roll out, have to be covered and are still a trip hazard.

In our case, the snake mostly runs alongside the projector's (for lyrics) power extension cord and video cable. So, the snake is not adding to the trip hazard.

Our budget is very limited, so the i-Live R72 is not an option at this time.

[Mark Anderson]

In our case, the snake mostly runs alongside the projector's (for lyrics) power extension cord and video cable. So, the snake is not adding to the trip hazard.

Our budget is very limited, so the i-Live R72 is not an option at this time.

Sure, makes sense. A presonus 16.4.2 or 24.4.2 will still make your life easier, sound better, and cost less than individual amps. Check back and let us know how it goes.

[Gordon Waugh]

Sure, makes sense. A presonus 16.4.2 or 24.4.2 will still make your life easier, sound better, and cost less than individual amps. Check back and let us know how it goes.

I'm sorry, but I'm unclear what the Presonus digital mixer (compared to our current 24-channel analog mixer) has to do with individual instrument amps.

[ProSoundWeb Community]