ProSoundWeb Community
Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: anonymous on October 06, 2013, 09:27:54 PM
-
Yes, first post here and already looking for trouble. :)
I hope somebody can get me out of this endless decision loop.
First of all: A big THANKS to Bennett Prescott for his really kind help! What a nice person!
And thanks too to Bob Leonard!
It would be nice if someone else could bring in his experience.
I'm trying to decide between these two consoles. What I need in terms of channel count, EQ bands, aux count, weight, size etc. is covered by both mixers. I need the new mixer for a trio, 6 mono inputs, one stereo, two stereo fx, three monitors, always mixing from stage.
So far I've tested:
Dynacord CMS (ok but only 3-band EQ)
A&H MixWiz 4 (ok)
Midas Venice U 16 (good sound!)
Soundcraft SiEx1 (weird sound...)
The SiEx1 reminded me of the multi amp/cab/speaker/fx/cable/weather digital simulator devices for guitar. You can do EVERYTHING you want, like the whole world in one box. The only problem is unfortunately the sound.
So, digital is not an option for me, at least not in the €-range I can afford. I understand the audio pros that don't want to be hauling so much gear around, of course. I'm just a musician wanting to mix his own little band. My needs are really tiny in comparison.
So far I did like the Venice, although the EQ had something difficult in it. I was easier to set a balanced vocal sound on the MixWiz, but the overall sound of the Venice was warmer and more pleasant, but it took more time to get it as nice balanced as with the MixWiz. So somehow the EQ was a bit less precise, but I could use it.
So now the only option left is the ProRack. Here's my pro/cons:
ProRack:
Pros:
- presumably better sound (it's unfortunately impossible to get to hear one here in Europe)
- presumably better build quality
- slim form factor
- variable HPF
Cons:
- almost double the €-price than the Venice in Europe!
- no mutes on outputs
- no group/aux switchover function for the group faders
- plop sound at power on
- no freq sweep for the low and high EQ bands
Venice U:
Pros:
- almost half the €-price of the ProRack
- mutes on groups and all outputs
- group/aux switch over (for controlling monitors with the faders)
- cinch inputs and level knob for pause music
- sweepable freq on high and low EQ bands
- USB record and playback (this is only a minor pro for me)
Cons:
- bulky
- fix HPF at 80Hz!
- EQ presumably not as good as on the ProRack (?)
I can live with these cons in both mixers (altough the group/aux switchover function on the venice is nice as well as a presumably friendlier EQ on the ProRack). The only thing I don't know yet is....
.... is the ProRack worth almost the double € for a Venice U16? I'd have to pay for two Venices to get one ProRack. Considering what I need: do you think it would be worth the money? Does it sound THAT better than the Venice U?
Thank you very much for you help!!
-
Luis, if the mix Wiz sounded OK and the Soundcraft Expression sounded weird, I can only think of a few possibilities.
1) The Soundcraft was broken
2) The Soundcraft was programmed 'weird'. Weird routing, effects you didn't know where enabled, effects loops that 'feedback' into an aux channel,.. Digital boards allow for a lot of capabilities, and with this power and flexibility comes the ability for the operator to screw things up.
3) The pristine quality of the Soundcraft signal allowed you to hear 'weird' stuff in your signal chain that you never heard before.
4) Your doctor needs to review your current prescriptions
THere are plenty of reasons to prefer an analog solution, but I don't think the SI emitting a weird sound is one of them.
If the 'weird sound' is truly the reason for rejecting the SI, or digital boards in general, you owe it to yourself to re-listen to the board in the presence of an operator qualified and experienced using whichever board you are auditioning. Often that will disqualify the guy at the local music store.
-
As a long time A&H user and a current Soundcraft Si user, I must agree with Mark.
-
Thank you both for your answers!
I guess then "weird" was not the right word. English is not my native language and I guess I was just trying to be cool :)
My problem with the SiEx1 was something unnatural in its sound. I tweaked the EQ for hours (it was my first time at a digital console) and managed to get a vocal sound that was ok from the point of view of balance. But it wasn't tasteful. I tried many times during almost one month (I really wanted to like it). The result was always the same: the sound was just *almost* good. Something strange in the high mids or in the highs kept in it. No matter what I did, I couldn't dial it out. I even took it to a rehearsal. After tweaking the EQ again we all agreed: It sounds good from a pure objective point of view. That means, balance, also the compressor worked well, HPF etc. But: it just sounded plain dead.
I guess it is like having a virtual kitchen in which you can do EVERYTHING you could on a 100m^2 real kitchen. The problem is: the soup isn't bad but it isn't tasty either. And it has something strange, something unreal in it.
To me the SiEx1 sounded like a fake. But I'm not an audio pro, I never hear the PA from the other side. It might be true that it's impossible to hear that in a venue. I don't know. I've spent a lot of time in the past choosing my musical instruments because for me it was always very important how they sound. My instant reaction hearing the consoles I have tested until now was: Midas Venice -> nice! SiEx1 -> hmm... what do I have to do to make this thing sound lively?
I cleared the memory of the SiEx1, the unit didn't seem to be broken. Everything worked well.
If the SiEx1 allows me to hear strange things coming from a mic, and the Venice doesn't: why should I use the SiEx1? I don't understand the idea that the signal coming from a vocal mic (for example) has to be the 'right' signal to be amplified. As I see it, the musical instrument in this case begins with the singer and ends just before the summing device, not before the preamp of the mixer. So why would I want a mic channel on a mixer so reproduce the mic signal exactly? It did sound nicer on the Venice, that's what counts, I think.
I don't drink and I'm not taking any pills :) I can't explain myself why so many audio pros think the SiEx1 sounds good other that this way: a musician sees sound from the point of view of a gourmet, a audio pro sees it from an engineering point of view. So the audio engineer says: "this tool reproduces accurately what comes in and has this and this very valuable technical properties". But if you think in terms of "too much 200Hz" or "lower compressor ratio" it might be more difficult to focus on something like "soft highs that sound natural". How do you measure that?
Ok, I will give this digital units one more shot. Unfortunately I can't ask anybody to set it up for me, so I will have to try alone or with the band. In three weeks the QU16 should arrive, I will post here my impression.
By the way, I contacted my old college professor for recording & arrangement and wrote him what I heard from the SiEx1 which he did recommend me in the first place for it's huge functionality and sound being "good enough". His answer was: "That's the price you have to pay for digital!".
So, I'm not so alone with my feelings about this simulated stuff. Why not the real thing? Ok, it's heavy. Being a audio pro that could mean like a truck full of gear. For me that argument doesn't weight so much because my setup is really small.
Thanks again for you replies!
-
I'd love to know what you and your old college professor are hearing. Do you use digital delays? Digital speaker processors? Do digital recordings sound "weird" to you?
-
Thanks Luis for taking the time to explain, you seem like a thoughtful and intelligent guy. Although I've never worked on a Venice, it's not unreasonable to believe that a particular analog console colors the sound in a way you find desirable, and the fixed EQ points may be to your liking.
However, depending on your setup, the final sound to the audience may depend on channel processing, bus processing, effects, maybe different effects or bus processing for different songs,... Digital recall makes all this a lot cheaper and a lot easier.
If your processing needs are simple, and you are happy with the Venice, be happy.
FWIW, I own some costly analog processing, like an EQ that cost as much as the SI Expression, various compressors with tubes and transformers, fancy shmancy preamps,.. I don't miss any of these in a live venue, where speed, flexibility and recall are much more important to me than perfect sound that people are usually talking over, or the wind is blowing, or the room reflections are messing up the high end,...
One last point. If you are always mixing from the stage (as stated in the OP), it is impossible for you to hear what the audience is hearing, so no matter how great an analog chain you put together, the sound is going to suffer from your inability to hear what the audience hears, how the room changes over the night as people come and go, how temp and humidity changes effect the highs, how background noise changes,... Digital wont help here either, but a mix-from-stage approach makes the quest for 'perfect' less meaningful.
-
My problem with the SiEx1 was something unnatural in its sound.
If you use in ear monitoring or headphones, the latency inherent in the digital console will make your own voice sound "weird" and unnatural.
Lack of latency and good sound are the reasons Bono of U2 uses a Venice for his monitor mixes, even though they use Midas XL8 in the house and for other mixes.
As far as "color", the Venice has a better sound when clipping than the Mix Wiz, which may be an advantage mixing from stage.
I have not heard the APB, but I wouldn't pay double the cost of a Venice for it even if it sounded a little bit better.
-
You are the only person I've ever known to speak badly of the sound of the Si series. There has been a lot of discussion about them on this forum, but I don't ever recall that complaint. I have had an Si compact for some time now, and I consider the sound one of its best qualities. I find the compressor to be excellent, specifically. It is my understanding that it uses the same preamps as the Vi1, a much more expensive and well regarded desk.
Bob recently switched from an APB to a Soundcraft and was very satisfied with the sound. That's a pretty big endorsement, I think we all take Bob pretty seriously around here.
I agree that is something about the Venice sound tickles your fancy and it fits your needs, go for it. But, I have to chime in on the Si. I don't mean to be rude but I can't help but wonder how your expectations played into what you heard. We've all been victim to that before.
-
Thanks Luis for taking the time to explain, you seem like a thoughtful and intelligent guy. Although I've never worked on a Venice, it's not unreasonable to believe that a particular analog console colors the sound in a way you find desirable, and the fixed EQ points may be to your liking.
However, depending on your setup, the final sound to the audience may depend on channel processing, bus processing, effects, maybe different effects or bus processing for different songs,... Digital recall makes all this a lot cheaper and a lot easier.
FWIW, I own some costly analog processing, like an EQ that cost as much as the SI Expression, various compressors with tubes and transformers, fancy shmancy preamps,.. I don't miss any of these in a live venue, where speed, flexibility and recall are much more important to me than perfect sound that people are usually talking over, or the wind is blowing, or the room reflections are messing up the high end,...
One last point. If you are always mixing from the stage (as stated in the OP), it is impossible for you to hear what the audience is hearing, so no matter how great an analog chain you put together, the sound is going to suffer from your inability to hear what the audience hears, how the room changes over the night as people come and go, how temp and humidity changes effect the highs, how background noise changes,... Digital wont help here either, but a mix-from-stage approach makes the quest for 'perfect' less meaningful.
Mark, thank you so much for such a eye-opening post. I think I did know all that, but somehow it is clear now. What I'm trying to do is a bit of a contradiction. Best possible sound (thinking as a musician) but no audio tech at the console... Nobody hearing what the audience is hearing...
I think you are absolutely right. You wrote it so clear, I fully understand. It looks to me like I got a bit lost in this new matter, approaching it the same way I do music.
If your processing needs are simple, and you are happy with the Venice, be happy.
Yes, the only obstacle to that happiness is the option of the 'perfect' :) But...
but a mix-from-stage approach makes the quest for 'perfect' less meaningful.
I'm really blown away by the clarity of your arguments.
Thank you very much for this post!
-
Yes, the only obstacle to that happiness is the option of the 'perfect' :) But...
There is nothing even remotely close to perfect in live sound. Speakers and microphones have an order of magnitude more impact on sound quality than the mixer, cabling, DIs, DSP, or other doodads.
Lots of folks think the Venice sounds great, but it is a fairly limited board functionally, and makes a number of compromises that I find a poor value, particularly in the last 2 years when several other great options for the same or less money have presented themselves. Take a look at the A&H Qu-16 as well before deciding.
-
If you use in ear monitoring or headphones, the latency inherent in the digital console will make your own voice sound "weird" and unnatural.
I didn't even think that could be a factor. I tested a lot of the time with different studio headphones! Only a few times in the rehearsal room.
Do you have personal experience with this effect? Do you know why it doesn't happen (or count) when using a floor monitor? According to Soundcraft the SiEx1 has a input-to-output latency of less than 0.8ms. That's not much compared to the time that sound needs to travel from a floor monitor to your ears. But I haven't noticed such an effect anywhere else. Also not when recording with headphones through an Avid Rack 003 (in low latency mode). But I have never expected it to sound like live gear anyway, so maybe I just didn't care until now. In case you have a source for an explanation of why this effect isn't noticeable using a wedge, it would be nice if you share it.
I found this comparison on a german page:
Original recording (http://www.beschallungs-tipps.de/Ansage_0p0-Millisec-delay.mp3)
Original overlapped with itself with a delay of 0.5ms (http://www.beschallungs-tipps.de/Ansage_0p5-Millisec-delay.mp3)
Original overlapped with itself with a delay of 1ms (http://www.beschallungs-tipps.de/Ansage_1p0-Millisec-delay.mp3)
I'm not sure if that's the kind of unnaturality I heard. The impression I remember is "this thing sounds plain dead". Unfortunately the SiEx1 is back at the vendor, so I can't compare again. But I think that could be one explanation. Why the others in the band heard it the same? They could have been already biased by myself since they knew what I think about the console before I took it to the rehearsal. Hmm.
As far as "color", the Venice has a better sound when clipping than the Mix Wiz, which may be an advantage mixing from stage.
I have not heard the APB, but I wouldn't pay double the cost of a Venice for it even if it sounded a little bit better.
Thank you!
-
I don't mean to be rude but I can't help but wonder how your expectations played into what you heard. We've all been victim to that before.
Well, that is of course possible. I was actually already sold to this unit, even before I had it. Just because my prof said it was good enough for live work. I told him what I'm planning, he recommended me the SiEx1 and the QU16 as well as two Kv2 EX10 loudspeakers that I already have and sound fantastic. I started testing other consoles only because of the higher price of these both. Then the SiEx1 came...
But who knows. The unit felt also unreal to me. Plenty of room to think I heard how the unit felt.
We would need a double blind test to know the truth. But as I already wrote, I tested it for almost one month. I tested it side by side with a Dynacord CMS for example. The latter has only three EQ bands, so the SiEx1 easily won in EQing. But the sound had a completely different... hmm... let's say flavor or... character. It just meant something different. I'm sorry, it's very difficult for me to put that in words. If it was something measurable it would be easier to say. But you know what Einstein said about things that count but can't be counted :)
Anyway, you could be of course right.
-
Lots of folks think the Venice sounds great, but it is a fairly limited board functionally, and makes a number of compromises that I find a poor value...
Would you mind elaborating those compromises?
-
I recently picked up an allen & heath gl2400 for less than a grand - and for an analogue budget mixer I think it is pretty decent- just my 2 cents - I just thought that it might be a good board to be included in your analogue desk list FWIW
-
I recently picked up an allen & heath gl2400 for less than a grand - and for an analogue budget mixer I think it is pretty decent- just my 2 cents - I just thought that it might be a good board to be included in your analogue desk list FWIW
I agree. That is a great choice for someone who wants to go analog.
-
I recently picked up an allen & heath gl2400 for less than a grand - and for an analogue budget mixer I think it is pretty decent- just my 2 cents - I just thought that it might be a good board to be included in your analogue desk list FWIW
Thank you for that. I just rechecked its features and it looks nice. As far as I could see, it doesn't offer anything really different from the venice (apart from the HPF freq). It has rather more of the same, but it's also a bit bigger, a bit heavier and a bit more expensive. But other than that it is sure also a good board! Or did I miss something?
-
Latency is not an issue because we expect latency from floor monitors, and they are not inside of our head.
On the floor monitors already have 5-15+ ms of latency because they are that far from your face! Scoot them a foot farther or closer and you are increasing or decreasing the latency 15% more than the Si Ex does. It's in IEMs where it's summing with you hearing yourself through your head and bones much closer to the signal inside your head. It bothers some people, not others. It's more of an issue on higher latency desks. I've run IEMs on my Si Compact, no complaints. I can understand how for a huge act, why not have an analog rig if there are 1000 crew members to carry it?
If you have these kind of preferences for console sound, you have to listen to every single one. Not much we can do to help.
-
Would you mind elaborating those compromises?
Short faders, limited aux sends, limited routing, etc. Many fewer features compared to the digital choices in the same price range. Most consider sound quality to be at parity, but YMMV.
-
Thank you for that. I just rechecked its features and it looks nice. As far as I could see, it doesn't offer anything really different from the venice (apart from the HPF freq). It has rather more of the same, but it's also a bit bigger, a bit heavier and a bit more expensive. But other than that it is sure also a good board! Or did I miss something?
More expensive, are you sure? There are some great deals out there on GL Series boards . If you decide to get an analog board, I think the A&H GL series offer the most bang for the buck!
-
Short faders, limited aux sends, limited routing, etc. Many fewer features compared to the digital choices in the same price range. Most consider sound quality to be at parity, but YMMV.
All the reasons I tossed the Venice off of my short list when they first came out, even though people were climbing all over them like dogs on a meat wagon.
Luis,
We've shared a few PMs and I'm very surprised to read you dislike the Soundcraft Expression. I can't judge for you but if you've heard bad sound from an Expression there has to be something very wrong with the rig or configuration. Of all the digital and analog boards I tested from Yamaha, APB, Toft, Soundcraft, Roland, Behringer, and anyone else in the $2K - $10K class only the APB and Soundcraft boards had the pristine sound I was looking for. The exception being the Midas Pro series. However, I've posted many times that at this stage of my game a $10-20K board didn't make good sense to me at the time.
I also mix from stage when not supporting another band, hence the reason for a quality rack mount board. That search led me to APB, and now that I'm a recovering analogolic, to the Expression 1. The sound is on a par with the APB, the format is perfect, and it's a very easy to use full featured digital board. Construction is outstanding, quality very high, and they use the same proven chipset as is used in the rest of the Soundcraft line.
As stated above mixing from the stage presents it's own unique set of challenges that need to be overcome. What you hear is not often what the audience will hear, and in my world (old guy world) resolving issues requires thinking outside the box. If I send a mix to a larger board and another engineer when working a large venue, I place my trust in that engineers hands and expect that they give the audience what I have given to them. For smaller gigs of up to 1000 people I run my own system, a dual PA, and will often place the entire backline and FOH BEHIND the band. However, it's a technique that requires some pretty precise sound skills, cabinet placement, etc.. I'm anal about the sound of my overall presentation knowing full well that it is the system as a whole that will make or break the performance quality. I relied on APB, and now I rely on an expression to give me the quality sound from the board that I demand. It's been a pleasure working with either the APB or the expression, but now it's time to move on from the APB and utilize the features and enjoy the benefits of a great entry level digital board.
-
Quote from: Art Welter on Yesterday at 11:23:24 am
If you use in ear monitoring or headphones, the latency inherent in the digital console will make your own voice sound "weird" and unnatural.
I didn't even think that could be a factor. I tested a lot of the time with different studio headphones! Only a few times in the rehearsal room.
Do you have personal experience with this effect? Do you know why it doesn't happen (or count) when using a floor monitor? According to Soundcraft the SiEx1 has a input-to-output latency of less than 0.8ms. That's not much compared to the time that sound needs to travel from a floor monitor to your ears.
I'm not sure if that's the kind of unnaturality I heard. The impression I remember is "this thing sounds plain dead". Unfortunately the SiEx1 is back at the vendor, so I can't compare again. But I think that could be one explanation. Why the others in the band heard it the same? They could have been already biased by myself since they knew what I think about the console before I took it to the rehearsal. Hmm.
Thank you!
The "weird" vocal sound caused by short latency times when listening to your own voice through headphones or in ears is caused because the sound of your voice through your ears is blocked by the phones, leaving the sound of your voice through nasal passages and bone conduction summed with the delayed signal through the earphones. The delay causes a series of notches, shorter delays can be more annoying as the primary notch maybe in the middle of your vocal fundamental range.
Occlusion (the sound you hear when your ears are plugged) and latency are two different but related issues.
Both can be overcome with level, but for my taste, the latency issue would cause me to want to listen at far too high a level.
Listening to floor wedges the sound of your voice is not occluded, so no issue- the added time of flight and latency is akin to "singing in the shower", most like a bit of echo/reverberation.
Even with analog gear I can notice my voice sounds "odd" sound in the headphones when polarity is reversed.
Though I by no means have "golden ears" and would not profess to hear "absolute polarity" on someone else's voice, I found mics wired with reversed polarity "sound crappy" when I talk through them in headphones.
Polarity can be an additional issue with in ear monitors, between mic, transmitters, and earphones a polarity reverse can easily happen.
If most of your (and your fellow musicians) testing of the board consisted of talking in to a channel, messing around with EQ while listening to yourself in headphones, the "weird" sound probably was due to the latency issue rather than the sound of the board itself.
If you are not planning to use in ear monitoring or headphones for recording, the latency of a digital console won't be a sonic issue.
It seems there are a lot of folks that have "grown up" with, or simply grown accustomed to the issues caused by latency.
Art
-
Luis -
These comparisons are probably the best examples of phase interaction I have ever heard. I would suggest everyone listen to the 1 ms example first, then clean. It's the essence of what live sound is all about - living with imperfection and compromise.
-Tim T
"I found this comparison on a german page:
Original recording (http://www.beschallungs-tipps.de/Ansage_0p0-Millisec-delay.mp3)
Original overlapped with itself with a delay of 0.5ms (http://www.beschallungs-tipps.de/Ansage_0p5-Millisec-delay.mp3)
Original overlapped with itself with a delay of 1ms (http://www.beschallungs-tipps.de/Ansage_1p0-Millisec-delay.mp3)"
-
For smaller gigs of up to 1000 people I run my own system, a dual PA, and will often place the entire backline and FOH BEHIND the band. However, it's a technique that requires some pretty precise sound skills, cabinet placement, etc.. I'm anal about the sound of my overall presentation knowing full well that it is the system as a whole that will make or break the performance quality.
This is also my preferred deployment of choice with my own projects. It does take a leap of faith and if implemented well, works like a charm. I have even started going back to vocal and unamplified instruments only support where I run a single mono speaker behind the band in line with the backline. It has proven to work well, be super efficient and the instant feedback given to the band is a plus. If you can't hear it, no one else can either.
Back to the Op topic. I think it could also be possible that your ability to play with too much may be skewing your results with the Soundcraft Si mixer? It's the only mixer that you can set delay, HP, compression, gating EQ and more on EVERY channel. This ability to play has bit me in the butt once or twice. With so many choices we can't help but to keep twisting the knobs only to find we never get what we think we should find. With a less optioned desk you only have a few things to which you can play with. This lack of options means you get what you get and either like it or you don't? With all forms of sonic creation turned off, you may find that it sounds great simply ran more like an analog mixer? Something I tell people on occasion " too much of a good thing, is still too much ", usually followed by " less is more " and " if you can hear yourself at all, your already too loud " : )
-
Short faders, limited aux sends, limited routing, etc. Many fewer features compared to the digital choices in the same price range. Most consider sound quality to be at parity, but YMMV.
Short faders... you maybe mean an older model? I'm new to this part of making music so I only know the actual Venice. That one has the same fader length as the other consoles I came to test. And do you mean with 'limited aux sends' the limited number of aux outputs?
-
More expensive, are you sure? There are some great deals out there on GL Series boards . If you decide to get an analog board, I think the A&H GL series offer the most bang for the buck!
The 16 channel GL costs here in Europe 100€ more than the small Venice. But it offers much more than that small price difference, that is true! Thank you for your recommendation.
-
The "weird" vocal sound caused by short latency times when listening to your own voice through headphones or in ears is caused because the sound of your voice through your ears is blocked by the phones, leaving the sound of your voice through nasal passages and bone conduction summed with the delayed signal through the earphones.
Now, that is indeed an explanation! Thank you! Art, I think you could have solved my problem with digital consoles. I somehow don't like digital gear, I think this digital stuff makes everything so unreal. Like a fantasy world taking over. But I too would like to have everything in one box if it just sounds good.
Occlusion (the sound you hear when your ears are plugged) and latency are two different but related issues.
Both can be overcome with level, but for my taste, the latency issue would cause me to want to listen at far too high a level.
That's something I have been wondering for a long time. Why do I have to hear myself so loud when (digital) recording? (I always use headphones when recording)
I definitely have to do some tests about this latency issue.
Listening to floor wedges the sound of your voice is not occluded, so no issue- the added time of flight and latency is akin to "singing in the shower", most like a bit of echo/reverberation.
Even with analog gear I can notice my voice sounds "odd" sound in the headphones when polarity is reversed.
Though I by no means have "golden ears" and would not profess to hear "absolute polarity" on someone else's voice, I found mics wired with reversed polarity "sound crappy" when I talk through them in headphones.
Polarity can be an additional issue with in ear monitors, between mic, transmitters, and earphones a polarity reverse can easily happen.
Thank you for this explanation. I will do more tests about this effect as soon as the QU16 is here (end of this month...). With that unit I could record my voice and play it back as if I was talking to the mic. No other unit involved for recording and playback. The latency issue would then be ruled out and I could hear the unit alone without any interferences.
-
Luis,
We've shared a few PMs and I'm very surprised to read you dislike the Soundcraft Expression. I can't judge for you but if you've heard bad sound from an Expression there has to be something very wrong with the rig or configuration. Of all the digital and analog boards I tested from Yamaha, APB, Toft, Soundcraft, Roland, Behringer, and anyone else in the $2K - $10K class only the APB and Soundcraft boards had the pristine sound I was looking for. The exception being the Midas Pro series. However, I've posted many times that at this stage of my game a $10-20K board didn't make good sense to me at the time.
I also mix from stage when not supporting another band, hence the reason for a quality rack mount board. That search led me to APB, and now that I'm a recovering analogolic, to the Expression 1. The sound is on a par with the APB, the format is perfect, and it's a very easy to use full featured digital board. Construction is outstanding, quality very high, and they use the same proven chipset as is used in the rest of the Soundcraft line.
As stated above mixing from the stage presents it's own unique set of challenges that need to be overcome. What you hear is not often what the audience will hear, and in my world (old guy world) resolving issues requires thinking outside the box. If I send a mix to a larger board and another engineer when working a large venue, I place my trust in that engineers hands and expect that they give the audience what I have given to them. For smaller gigs of up to 1000 people I run my own system, a dual PA, and will often place the entire backline and FOH BEHIND the band. However, it's a technique that requires some pretty precise sound skills, cabinet placement, etc.. I'm anal about the sound of my overall presentation knowing full well that it is the system as a whole that will make or break the performance quality. I relied on APB, and now I rely on an expression to give me the quality sound from the board that I demand. It's been a pleasure working with either the APB or the expression, but now it's time to move on from the APB and utilize the features and enjoy the benefits of a great entry level digital board.
Bob, thanks again. After reading from so many highly skilled persons that something must have been wrong, I'm beginning to believe that something must have been wrong. I don't think I was biased by my dislike of digital, but who knows. I can't do other than trust what I heard. But I do trust also on what you and others hear. So I will get another SiEx1 back and will start my test and comparison from the beginning, this time using a Venice, a SiEx1 and the QU16 (if it should really arrive here somewhen this year). And feeding the consoles from a recorded source, not doing it on the fly.
And thanks also for your insight about your speaker positioning. I thought putting the PA behind the band was a no-go. It's good to know that it works too.
-
So I will get another SiEx1 back and will start my test and comparison from the beginning, this time using a Venice, a SiEx1 and the QU16 (if it should really arrive here somewhen this year). And feeding the consoles from a recorded source, not doing it on the fly.
And thanks also for your insight about your speaker positioning. I thought putting the PA behind the band was a no-go.
Feeding the consoles from a recorded source is not a valid way to compare the mic pre amp interaction with actual microphones, though it will be helpful for comparing EQ and effects. To compare the preamp you really need a consistent vocalist to sing through a mic while at levels up to and above clipping. Recording the output of each console can give you a better chance to A/B those differences without wearing out the vocalist.
Positioning the PA behind the vocal line is possible, but requires precisely cutting out feedback frequencies.
The amount of gain before feedback is reduced, and stepping away from the vocal mic opens it up to feedback.
The EQ needed to eliminate feedback will not sound good on a recording, though with some digital consoles you can provide different channel EQ on different outputs so that problem could be avoided.
Using sensors to turn off the vocal mics (either switch mats or infrared proximity sensors) would be a good idea if you do plan to put the PA behind the vocal line, especially if the vocalists are not loud singers.
If you can eliminate floor monitors by placing the PA behind the band, the room sound can be better, but in ear monitors and placing the PA outside of the microphone pick up pattern would be preferable from a sound quality stand point.
Costs more and takes longer to set up though...
-
Feeding the consoles from a recorded source is not a valid way to compare the mic pre amp interaction with actual microphones, though it will be helpful for comparing EQ and effects. To compare the preamp you really need a consistent vocalist to sing through a mic while at levels up to and above clipping. Recording the output of each console can give you a better chance to A/B those differences without wearing out the vocalist.
Thank you for that advise! You saved me a lot of bad testing, I wouldn't have considered that!
Positioning the PA behind the vocal line is possible, but requires precisely cutting out feedback frequencies.
The amount of gain before feedback is reduced, and stepping away from the vocal mic opens it up to feedback.
The EQ needed to eliminate feedback will not sound good on a recording, though with some digital consoles you can provide different channel EQ on different outputs so that problem could be avoided.
Using sensors to turn off the vocal mics (either switch mats or infrared proximity sensors) would be a good idea if you do plan to put the PA behind the vocal line, especially if the vocalists are not loud singers.
Do you know of any special switches or sensors for usage with a mic? I did a search in the net and could only find DIY projects, which are nice, but I don't have the necessary time... If there is something ready to be bought, that would be better.
...but in ear monitors and placing the PA outside of the microphone pick up pattern would be preferable from a sound quality stand point.
But then you need an analog mix for the singer, I guess. At least if the assumption is true that what I heard from the SiEx1 was caused by latency plus IEM...
Thank you for you valuable input!
-
If you can eliminate floor monitors by placing the PA behind the band, the room sound can be better, but in ear monitors and placing the PA outside of the microphone pick up pattern would be preferable from a sound quality stand point.
Costs more and takes longer to set up though...
Yes and no really. If the floor monitors are something you don't already own, buying a mid level in ear would cost about the same as a decent conventional 2 speaker monitor rig. This is especially true if you buy used. The average in ear is about 800 - 1000 new for a pretty good entry level system. A comparable conventional rig would be about the same cost. At about 300 - 500 for each speaker, 500 for a decent power amp and another 150 - 300 for a dual 31 band EQ, your actually better off with the in ear. You would even have a little money to put on another set of ear buds! With the in ears EQ could be optional if desired, but of course optimal if it was part of the system. With a digital desk the external EQ could be optional anyway?
For set up time, again in ears would win. With a digital desk and only having to patch signal to the transmitter your already done. no speaker placement, no cable running and no need to ring them out. The digital desk can have an EQ setting saved for the in ears and once saved there should really never need to change it except for flavor of the day. Even with an analog desk the set up time would be reduced. The only difference would be setting an analog EQ to taste if knobs get bumped?