Print

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

[Dave Stevens]

Joe, my issue with Prof Alexander's piece has more to do with his take on stage monitors.  I'll reserve for another post the questionable method of micing the rear of the enclosure to eliminate room interaction as well the the practical implementation issues in the real world of portable sound reinforcement.  I'll look forward to the AES paper on the subject and any supporting documentation.  I'd like to see more peer review from persons not directly involved with the project.  In fact, see if you can replicate this in the United Center.  Get back to me and let me know how that worked.

I feel much of the discussion involving stage monitor requirements and implementation Alexander is, for lack of a better term, talking out his ass.  With all due respect, of course.  This might work with some student bands or local bands used as test subjects, but in the real world of portable sound reinforcement the assumptions made are not at all what the job in the real world requires.  I'd have to question if anyone involved in this noble little experiment has any actual experience mixing stage monitors on anything more than a casual. local level.  

Of the many wildly inaccurate statements made with regards to stage monitors, the claim that "Normally you ditch everything under 200hz in the center wedges" is one of the worst generalizations.  While the good professor may indeed employ that method, those of us that have actual expericence mixing stage monitors for discriminating touring artists will beg to differ with that approach as a "normal" practice. That is, unless we wish it to sound like an AM radio with broken speakers.  In some applcations that may indeed be a suitable solution, though I wouldn't call it "normal".

The professor's take on the use of ear monitors and hybird ear/wedge combinations leads me to believe that these are mearly regurgitated statements repeated second hand.  One point I see missing in the article relates to the intended purpose of stage monitors.  That is, to provide an environment where that artists are comfortable and are able to provide the best performance and/or show.  The statement that "the artists will hear the same mix as the audience, instead of being insulated in a monitor bomb shelter"  would be absolutely hysterical, if not for the fact it does not relate to what many would like to hear onstage.  When a player is playing an instrument (or sings), they hear the balance of the monitor mix different than the mixer or others listening to the mix.   IOW, they might not wish to hear the balance as it is at FOH and need something tailored to an enviroment they wish.  Not necessarily what the sound guy wishes it to be.  

While I'm skeptical of the application, I think that offering these specific generalizations regarding the application of stage monitors as being an absolute is not an appropriate way to train young sound persons.

Dave

[Jason Phair]

Thanks, Dave.  I'm glad I'm not the only one who was thinking along those lines regarding the monitor mix philosophy!

[Guest]

[Joe Nino-Hernes]

Dave wrote on Mon, 11 April 2005 16:35

Joe, my issue with Prof Alexander's piece has more to do with his take on stage monitors.  I'll reserve for another post the questionable method of micing the rear of the enclosure to eliminate room interaction as well the the practical implementation issues in the real world of portable sound reinforcement.  I'll look forward to the AES paper on the subject and any supporting documentation.  I'd like to see more peer review from persons not directly involved with the project.  In fact, see if you can replicate this in the United Center.  Get back to me and let me know how that worked. I feel much of the discussion involving stage monitor requirements and implementation Alexander is, for lack of a better term, talking out his ass.  With all due respect, of course.  This might work with some student bands or local bands used as test subjects, but in the real world of portable sound reinforcement the assumptions made are not at all what the job in the real world requires.  I'd have to question if anyone involved in this noble little experiment has any actual experience mixing stage monitors on anything more than a casual. local level.   Of the many wildly inaccurate statements made with regards to stage monitors, the claim that "Normally you ditch everything under 200hz in the center wedges" is one of the worst generalizations.  While the good professor may indeed employ that method, those of us that have actual expericence mixing stage monitors for discriminating touring artists will beg to differ with that approach as a "normal" practice. That is, unless we wish it to sound like an AM radio with broken speakers.  In some applcations that may indeed be a suitable solution, though I wouldn't call it "normal". The professor's take on the use of ear monitors and hybird ear/wedge combinations leads me to believe that these are mearly regurgitated statements repeated second hand.  One point I see missing in the article relates to the intended purpose of stage monitors.  That is, to provide an environment where that artists are comfortable and are able to provide the best performance and/or show.  The statement that "the artists will hear the same mix as the audience, instead of being insulated in a monitor bomb shelter"  would be absolutely hysterical, if not for the fact it does not relate to what many would like to hear onstage.  When a player is playing an instrument (or sings), they hear the balance of the monitor mix different than the mixer or others listening to the mix.   IOW, they might not wish to hear the balance as it is at FOH and need something tailored to an enviroment they wish.  Not necessarily what the sound guy wishes it to be.   While I'm skeptical of the application, I think that offering these specific generalizations regarding the application of stage monitors as being an absolute is not an appropriate way to train young sound persons. Dave

I assure you, Mr. Alexander is not talking out his ass. His resume is very very long. About his statement about ditching everything below 200 in the wedge. Anything else I would put in the side fills. Putting low end into a wedge wastes amp rail. Would you rather have powerfull low end coming from side fills or distorted sound coming from the wedge? Also, when the amp runs out of power, you lose the power in the mids (2-3k), and if the vocalist cant hear himself, he will go nuts!

[Jason Phair]

The pictures in the article look like XW15's.  If putting anything below 200 is taxing the amps, then they're awfully underpowered, and that's a problem that needs to be remedied.

[Andy Peters]

Joe Nino-Hernes wrote on Mon, 11 April 2005 17:38

About his statement about ditching everything below 200 in the wedge. Anything else I would put in the side fills. Putting low end into a wedge wastes amp rail.

Yeah, if the amp is underpowered.

Quote:

Would you rather have powerfull low end coming from side fills or distorted sound coming from the wedge?

If you've got pro-quality wedges and proper power, there's no reason to expect distortion.

Quote:

Also, when the amp runs out of power, you lose the power in the mids (2-3k), and if the vocalist cant hear himself, he will go nuts!

That's really only the case if you're running wedges with passive crossovers and you're severely underpowered.  (Sense a theme here?)  

I'm sure that any of a number of us here could take a pair of Rat Microwedges with proper power and part your hair -- with little EQ applied, no feedback and pretty much full-range response.

-a

[Geri O'Neil]

Joe Nino-Hernes wrote on Mon, 11 April 2005 19:38

I assure you, Mr. Alexander is not talking out his ass. His resume is very very long. About his statement about ditching everything below 200 in the wedge. Anything else I would put in the side fills. Putting low end into a wedge wastes amp rail. (Geri's note: SAY WHAT????) Would you rather have powerfull low end coming from side fills or distorted sound coming from the wedge? Also, when the amp runs out of power, you lose the power in the mids (2-3k), and if the vocalist cant hear himself, he will go nuts!

What horseshit. Now you're the one talking out of your ass. How about using a big enough wedge that won't distort when its asked to do its job? Or amps big enough that won't run out of power when they are asked to do their job? And it's okay with you that while everything over 200hZ is arriving a the singer in ohh, about 3 or 4 milliseconds while everthing under 200hZ is arriving 20 to 30 or more milliseconds after that?

AES member, resumes, so what? That doesn't make for a license to kill, which is what you're doing to common sense. Recording engineer? Oh, yea, that'll give you much creedence around here. Give it up, dude, yer way over yer head in here.

Please, just go away, okay? You're done here.

Geri O

[Charles Johnson]

Dave wrote

Joe Nino-Hernes wrote Of the many wildly inaccurate statements made with regards to stage monitors, the claim that "Normally you ditch everything under 200hz in the center wedges" is one of the worst generalizations. About his statement about ditching everything below 200 in the wedge. Anything else I would put in the side fills. Putting low end into a wedge wastes amp rail. Would you rather have powerfull low end coming from side fills or distorted sound coming from the wedge? Also, when the amp runs out of power, you lose the power in the mids (2-3k), and if the vocalist cant hear himself, he will go nuts!

While I have yet to take the time to read the entire article (when I got to the section that talking about "ditching everything under 200Hz in the center wedges", I moved on), my experience has been that lead singers very often want the kick drum in the wedges (after all, I think it safe to say that the kick drum is the "heartbeat" of the band, particularly when it comes to timing!) - something that would be pretty much impossible to do, even with the 80hz boost that I think Prof Alexander mentioned adding back in! Alternately, what about a lead singer who plays keys? When I worked with Mark Shultz (for example), who was doing the "IEM in one ear, wedge on the deck for the other ear", I fed quite a bit of keys to his wedge.

Your argument about using the sidefills to fill in what's missing in the DSC mix falls apart (IMHO) pretty quickly since the DSL, DSC, and DSR mixes can often vary quite a bit and thus you'd end up with a nightmare of compromises, since your DSL and DSR mixes would really be a combination of the sidefill and wedge mix, thus making it next to impossible for the ME to listen to the mix in his/her cue wedge. There's also the problem of situations where you can't get enough of something DSC via the sidefills without making life unbearable for the folks DSL and DSR. And this is all assuming that you have sidefills!

As for sending LF frequences to wedges, if the system is powered properly, there should be no problems at all. I distinctly remember one outdoor show (mainly b/c it was 25 degrees F and none of the promised space heaters worked worth a darn! ) that I did, using the Radian co-axial 12" wedges. The lead singer was DSC with the band on risers in a semi-circle of sorts behind him. I had 2 wedges DSC (which got kick, bass, some keys I think, and I think a bit of lead vocal) for supplementary LF for the lead singer (who was on IEMs), 1 wedge for supplementary LF for the elec gtr player (who was on IEMs), 1 wedge for the BGVs, 2 wedges for the bass gtr, and then 1 wedge for the keyboard player - I was going to use 2, but since he brought a home-brew wedge that was driven from his (powered) sub-mixer, I nixed 1 wedge. The drummer was on IEMs with a Meyer PSW-4 sub to "help out" () for those low frequencies. Remember these were all 12"+2" wedges...and, IMHO, the stage positively vibed to the beat (the stage was concrete, so it wasn't vibration-induced vibes). Oh, and no side-fills were employed either.

I plan on reading the article at least once in its entirety before rendering an Official Opinion, however, I felt compelled to go on and chime in about the DSC monitor statement, since that is, well, ludicrous! You say the singer will go nuts if he/she can't hear themselves - that is true...but if they ask for kick and just get the MF/HF component of it, they'll not be happy campers, either!

Respectfully,

Charles Johnson

[A Man]

NO, don't go away! This is just starting to become very humorous.

Quote:

we were able to successfully make the room disappear.

I'd really like to see this applied to the Congress Theatre in Chicago, I swear you could still hear the show that was in there the week before us.  

Try a pair of those double 15 Clair or RAT "L" wedges if you want some thump on the deck.  

[Mike Babcock]

The guy should not be teaching or writing articles, let alone mix. IMNSHO

Perhaps if you are that close to him you can persuade him to show up and answer ALL of the items questioned.

Anyone can place a few words on a page and call it a resume, anyone can send money and call themselves an AES member. There are so many unrealities in his article, I shudder when I think there may be some that actually believe it. Especially about the monitor mix stuff.

If I wrote down all the names of the acts that I have mixed over the past 15 years, you'd see the history of music as we know it. Many others can say the same thing. Resumes are rarely taken too seriously, references are what counts. So far we've got the article, and you as his references and it ain't looking too pretty for him.

Let's hear you make the Coliseum in St Pete go away, how about the Eagle's Ballroom in Milwaukee.

Mike "Been making wedges thump for a long time"

[ProSoundWeb Community]