ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 on: Today at 04:03:31 pm 
Started by Isaac South - Last post by Robert Healey
The company I work for wants to get speakers installed in the ceiling throughout the building and they've asked me to do some research.  My experience is in church-audio.  I know nothing about these kinds of speakers.  Your help is appreciated.

Our building is 3 floors.  Drop ceiling throughout.  Running wiring will not be a problem.  I am mostly wanting to get some recommendations on sizes and brands. 

The purpose of the speakers will be simply to play music (radio, XM, etc.) throughout the building.   We are a financial institution and we would like this to assist in our ability to keep someone waiting on side A of the room, from hearing what's being discussed on side B of the room, for example. 

Thank you again.

There are a couple routes you can take - you can do a commercial audio/paging system which is as described above with 70V speakers throughout the building and a central head-end amplifier rack. Atlas, QSC, and JBL all have commercial music systems that would work for this.

The second route would be to use a purpose-built sound masking system that is capable of playing background music. Cambridge, Logison, and several others make systems like that. In my experience the sound masking systems tend to be cheaper.

 on: Today at 04:00:24 pm 
Started by Dan Godwin - Last post by Chris Grimshaw
e904s for me. I think they sound nicer than e604s - bit flatter in the kHz range, and the off-axis seems less coloured.

The e904s are also basically immune from stick hits etc, whereas I've seen some e604s damaged/destroyed by drummers.

I did a bit of a write-up here:,166840.msg1538405.html#msg1538405
They're great little mics.


 on: Today at 03:59:15 pm 
Started by Radoslaw Andruszkiewicz - Last post by Art Welter
Okay, I will say first that I did not have a perfect sound from the monitor, then cranked the amp, and then got feedback issues; what I did is I tried to get as much volume as possible just with the vocals and through the wedge, ended up with weird EQ settings, and then played the guitar amp for comparison.
Why is 31 band EQ not suitable in a vocal chain?

The 31 band EQ can work just fine for notching out a few feedback points, and as a tone control.

You want to hear your vocal above a cranked 2x12", which may be putting out as much as 120 dB with little level change at your vocal mic.
If you don't sing at more than 120 dB, the guitar is amplified as much as your voice by the vocal mic.

Using a single 8" speaker (or an Lpad/ power soak) on the 2x12") could let you crank the amp and loose around 15 dB. The single 8" will give the speaker distortion that's half the sound of a cranked amp.
That gives your vocal a fighting chance to get over the level, as it's hard to hear yourself without around 10dB of difference (sounds about twice as loud) between vocal and instrument level (noise..) at the mic.

You have -15db ear plugs in, which generally mostly cut the highs, which you have turned all the way down on the EQ, so now your ears hear -30dB in the range you need. That's basically like turning the high frequency horn in your monitor off. The single 12" ain't going to compete well against the 2x12".

Your lips are probably right on the mic, so you have a proximity effect boost of around 6-10 dB in the "mud" range of 100-200 Hz. 8 foot ceilings common in small rooms also tend to emphasize this range even more.
So you hear the equivalent of a vocal channel with the bass wide open, and the highs cut completely.

Try the opposite EQ/tone approach, cut everything below 100 Hz, then "ramp up " to around 1000 Hz, bring up level  with your mouth in position till your first feedback squeak (probably around 6 or 8kHz) bring only that frequency down 3-6 dB.
Increase level again, whack the next frequency out, repeat. Three frequencies pulled above 1kHz is near the limit with 1/3 octave EQ if you still want decent sound.
If more than two adjacent bands are hacked, you have probably gone to far, and have reached the limits of gain before feedback.

Try your the other mics with the same routine, each will have their own distinctive gain before feedback pattern. Write down the EQ for each so you can do some comparisons.

Have fun, protect your hearing!


 on: Today at 03:31:13 pm 
Started by Mike Sircee - Last post by Matthias McCready
that's a loaded question for a guy who's not a sound engineer.

Thanks I will be here all day  ;) ;D 8)

Joking aside, perhaps get an SPL meter? And measure what feels good to you. Note you may want to measure C weighted so you can get an idea of how much subbage your are liking.

There was a lot of talk about comb filtering, yet I may have an untrained ear and have a bit of tinitus from years working in the nightclub industry,  after a lot of reading on comb filtering I haven't really noticed it. We will be setting up the system this week and will run several tests to now that I have a better understanding.

If you are not hearing the comb filtering, play some pink noise through the system, and walk the coverage area. You will hear it!  ;D


The bottom line is that more top boxes don't net much of increase in volume, but they do make things sound much worse.

Subs when placed together can work together. Hence why more is helpful.


This all comes down to physics.

The higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength and the lower the frequency the longer the wavelength.

I suggested doing some searching for frequency, wavelength, and com filtering.

Homework questions for you  ;)

1) Why is a subwoofer just as loud 10ft behind it as in front of it? What does this have to do with wavelength?
2) How does the horn size of a speaker affect its pattern control, as relates to frequency?

If you figure out and can answer these questions I think things will start to click into place for you.  :) :)

Have fun!

 on: Today at 03:24:15 pm 
Started by Dan Godwin - Last post by John L Nobile
I really like the sound and ease of placement with these mics

They're more robust than the old AKG "miniD112's" but they aren't indestructible. I got them for a drummer that was careful about them cause he liked how they sounded too.

 on: Today at 03:17:53 pm 
Started by Kris Matthews - Last post by Jason Raboin
I can confirm pricing.  The 5 is a little less than twice the cost of the 3.  1.89 times the cost to be exact.

 on: Today at 03:14:35 pm 
Started by Radoslaw Andruszkiewicz - Last post by Matthias McCready
I assumed that since Super 55 is just a Beta 58 in a vintage looking enclosure it will be okay

The beta 58 is my second least favorite vocal microphone. I do not enjoy what it does do vocals. It is great for rappers and I find acceptable for talking heads. But I avoid them like the plague for vocalists.

The Super 55 is my absolute least favorite vocal microphone. It is a dreadful sounding mic. I encounter more of them in the wild than I care to. It takes a LOT of processing work to get it sounding acceptable.


I don't think microphone quality is our biggest problem here though.

I'm reading now here on the forums, that many of you find the ZLX somewhat limited in volume

As a wedge it should have plenty of volume; as the entire system that is another story.

I don't think getting a different speaker is going to fix your problems. You have already hit feedback, so louder is not the answer.

Why is 31 band EQ not suitable in a vocal chain?

A 31-Band EQ is usually used to ring-out a mic. This is done when necessary for wedges (less and less common); and this usually takes place after the vocal chain proper; ie on the output to a wedge.

For a vocal chain a parametric EQ will serve better.


It sounds like your main problem is feedback.

The loudest noise at your mic wins. If that is your voice great, if that is your wedge you will get feedback.

If you getting feedback now, getting a larger and more powerful speaker will not help this problem.

Sure some microphones have more controlled pickup patterns, but this will not change your fundamental problem.

The problem is, as I see it, that your voice is not as loud as your cranked guitar amp. In a small space even a high quality microphone or wedge won't eliminate this as problem.

It should be noted that "ringing" out something with a graphic EQ usually only give you another 3-10dB before feedback. You are just wanting to grab those first 3-5 frequencies that feedback. After you grab those first few frequencies you have done what you can, as MANY frequencies will start to feedback (ie pulling down the entire top end on your current graphic EQ). This is happening because it is not frequency problem, it is a volume one.

It is also worth noting that even with a great mic, every single cut with a graphic makes things sound worse not better. Even a great mic can sound terrible with the wrong EQ. EQing for feedback is not EQing to make a mic sound more better or pleasant, it is trying to eek out the last ounce of volume when conditions are not ideal at the expense of quality.

The real influencers for feedback are:
1) System deployment (you are in small room with a wedge... this is not ideal).
2) Overall volume (competing with a cranked 2x12 is not setting you up for success).


How you rehearse sets the stage for how you will perform. And for most groups (yes not all) having a super cranked 2x12 is not ideal; even in a 3,000 seat arena the wash from a cranked 2x12 can cause issues, and I am thinking you are wanting to play smaller venues than that.

I would highly suggest looking into ways to minimize amp volume or to get rid of it all together (as suggested by others Two Notes Torpedo, IsoCab, Kemper Etc). When you are working on your own is the best time to experiment and to cultivate your ability; before having to have a difficult discussion with band mates, or having a show be a flop.

Note that there are ton of crappy amp replacement options that are dreadful (avoid those), but these days there are quite few great ones to choose from.

Most professional guitarists that I currently work with have made the switch, as tone is the same, and it is less equipment to lug around; not to mention less wear on that custom boutique amp.

If you have not, I would highly recommend checking out an IEM solution for yourself. For the amount you are spending on your wedge(s) you could probably get a pair of custom molded IEM's and a basic digital mixer, and have things sound drastically better.

Some benefits for you of IEM's:
You could choose a mic that works well for voice, rather than one for its pickup patter.
You could be EQing it to sound its best rather than EQing to feedback points out (making it sound awful).
You can hear your actual mic technique (a good set of ears will tell you exactly where you are on a vocal mic).
You can have your guitar tone, with killing anyone or your hearing.
You can have your own personal volume at whatever you want without pissing off band mates, or destroying the mix for the audience.
You can have your own custom mix.

 on: Today at 03:12:22 pm 
Started by Kris Matthews - Last post by Kris Matthews
Looking at PM3 vs PM5 and it looks like the PM5 surface is nearly double the price.

As far as I can see, except for the two additional screens, the only real differences between the two are the AES i/os and an additional headphone o/p.

Anyone have any further insight?

 on: Today at 03:03:18 pm 
Started by Kelly_Dodge - Last post by Guy Holt
That's awesome info Guy! 

Sounds like a perfect solution for this scenario.  But then I searched for the price for the equipment you listed.  Ouch.  Yeah, not something I can just causally throw into a gig bag!

You can only rent the film versions of the Bender and Littelfuse GFCIs. The Shock Stops are for sale or rent. (Full disclosure: we are a dealer for Shock Stops).

Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip

 on: Today at 02:48:10 pm 
Started by Mal Brown - Last post by Russell Ault
Am I good if every entry in the list is marked 'Bad' ?  There are 24 discreet channels listed between 7 and 36.  All marked bad, some with a few different stations listed on the same channel multiples on ch 24 for instance.

Are you planning to use this equipment anywhere other than your current ZIP code? If yes, make sure to check those ZIP codes too. If no, (i.e. if all the locations you're planning to use this gear in have literally zero over-the-air TV stations with a "poor" or better signal) then I'd say "yup, you're good", and it doesn't really matter which band you pick as far as available spectrum goes.

Of course, the follow-up question is: do you have any other wireless equipment that you'd like this new stuff to play nice with?


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 19 queries.