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 => SR Forum Archives => LAB Lounge FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: John Roll on May 31, 2007, 09:31:06 am

Title: Another LS9 question
Post by: John Roll on May 31, 2007, 09:31:06 am
When I was working on my analog console, I would send the vocal channels to a subgroup and compress them there in order not to place compression on the individual channels and what is sent to the monitors. On the LS9 my assumption is that I will send the vox channels to a mix, compress there, then send to the main mix. Does anyone have a better way to do this?
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 31, 2007, 10:31:10 am
John Roll wrote on Thu, 31 May 2007 08:31

When I was working on my analog console, I would send the vocal channels to a subgroup and compress them there in order not to place compression on the individual channels and what is sent to the monitors. On the LS9 my assumption is that I will send the vox channels to a mix, compress there, then send to the main mix. Does anyone have a better way to do this?


You can assign the "input" of multiple channels to come from a single physical "port" and route the outputs of those channels any way you want.

A common way to avoid compressing the monitor send is to use inputs 33-64 for the monitors, taking their inputs from input ports 1-32.  The only control shared between them is the mic pre (head amp, in Yammy-speak).  You'll have independent dynamics and input strip EQ and even FX for the monitors if you desire.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: Rick Stansby on May 31, 2007, 01:15:29 pm
As Tim says, double routing the inputs to the second layer is a great way to keep the FOH dynamics and eq out of the monitors.  It's almost like you get a free monitor board and splitter with each LS9.  

There is also another way which is simpler, but less powerful.  On the "mix bus setup" screen you can set pairs of mixes to be "Vari Pre-eq"   This will make the pre-fade source for those Aux sends come from just before the EQ, after the HPF.  This arrangement is similar to many internal jumpers in analog sound boards which allow you to change the source of the Pre-Fade aux sends.  This method might be better, depending on what you are used to, and how familiar you are with the LS9 and the use of layers.  Of course you will lose the ability to use channel eq and dynamics in the monitors.

When I first got the board I was all gung ho to use the dual layers for monitors.  I was OK with it, but not great.  I went back to the easier method while I got my head around using the board.  Now I have switched back to the dual layer scenario.  
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: John Roll on May 31, 2007, 04:48:34 pm
I was hoping to use compression on all the vocals instead of individual channels, hence my "assigning to a mix" idea. I'm new to this board and until I get my head around it, I want the layout to mimic the analog console as closely as is possible/practical. I usually do multi act shows where having individual comps on vocals isn't practical. Most of the acts have a lead vocal and one to three backups, with no one but the lead, singing lead. I'm still exploring this new toy. Right now, it's sitting on my kitchen table with the manual next to it. Every chance I get, I sit down and play. I realize the test of fire will come in a live situation. I just want my first show with it not to be a horrible experience. Thanks for the input.
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: Jake Scudder on May 31, 2007, 05:24:21 pm
Yes John, you can treat a mix like an analog subgroup and then route it to a matrix or to stereo.
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: Tim Padrick on June 01, 2007, 12:06:05 am
Take advantage of all those compressors.  Individual comps allow you to get the blend right.  When you comp them all together the loudest vocalist is the one that triggers the comp, which messes up the blend.
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: John Roll on June 01, 2007, 04:31:12 pm
Good point, Tim. The mindset is a carryover from the analog rack limitations. I might have to re-think my strategy on this. Thanks.
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: George Gleason on June 04, 2007, 09:30:26 am
Thanks Tim
This is my intent
dual layers ,one Foh, one monitors
then mix foh via wireless ethernet

I take delivery of my ls9-32 in a few hours and I am "very excited"
we there any"gottcha's" I should be aware of when setting this up?

Also is Studio Manager only fully functioning when its hooked to the desk?
I have been pokeing around in SM and it does not seem to respond the way i "expect"

Thanks
George
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: Dave Dermont on June 04, 2007, 11:14:46 am
Tim Padrick wrote on Fri, 01 June 2007 00:06

Take advantage of all those compressors.  Individual comps allow you to get the blend right.  When you comp them all together the loudest vocalist is the one that triggers the comp, which messes up the blend.



Hmmm...

The overall signal level is what triggers the comp, but the entire signal is attenuated by the compressor.

How does this "mess up the blend"?

It would seem to me that compression of individual vocal channels would be more prone to do this by squashing the louder vocals more.

I don't have much problem compressing the vocals as a group, but I usually use parallel compression for vocals.

I find that when mixing, listening really helps.
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) on June 04, 2007, 06:27:53 pm
George Gleason wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 08:30


Also is Studio Manager only fully functioning when its hooked to the desk?
I have been pokeing around in SM and it does not seem to respond the way i "expect"


Studio Manager doesn't do absolutely every function of the LS9, whether or not connected.  One feature that it's missing is the ability to tweak the output port settings - delay, etc.
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: George Gleason on June 04, 2007, 10:37:47 pm
Thanks
I though I was going insane

I have had my ls9 about 10 hours now and I am sure I could get a show going on it except for the internal efx

The owners manual should shade stuff that one doesn't "need" to use the default set-up
such as mounting the efx and eq's
I spent a couple of hours  before I figured out this stuff was already done for me in the default set-up
Thanks
george
Title: Re: Another LS9 question
Post by: Tim Padrick on June 05, 2007, 01:43:50 am
Dave Dermont wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 10:14

Tim Padrick wrote on Fri, 01 June 2007 00:06

Take advantage of all those compressors.  Individual comps allow you to get the blend right.  When you comp them all together the loudest vocalist is the one that triggers the comp, which messes up the blend.


Hmmm...

The overall signal level is what triggers the comp, but the entire signal is attenuated by the compressor.

How does this "mess up the blend"?

It would seem to me that compression of individual vocal channels would be more prone to do this by squashing the louder vocals more.

I don't have much problem compressing the vocals as a group, but I usually use parallel compression for vocals.

I find that when mixing, listening really helps.


I did not state that rightly.  What I should have said was not that a group comp "messes up the blend", but that it cannot help to maintain the blend as individual comps would.

1) Four vocalists, all the same level as each other - perfect blend (in this instance).  The group compressor pulls down 6dB.  Perfect blend less loud.

2) Three of the vocalists are weak on the low notes, and one very strong.    Messed up blend.  The group compressor happens to pull down 6dB here as well.  Messed up blend less loud.

With individual comps, the loud guy's comp pulls him down more than the wimpy guys' comps pull them down.  The blend is much closer to what it should be.