ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: January 21, 2020, 11:31:11 pm 
Started by Steve Litscher - Last post by brian maddox
Hi Steve,

To clarify, do you want to bundle 13 mic cables of varying length?

For my use, a braided shield is more important than quad cable.

Take a look at Gepco XB401.

Good health,  Weogo

^^this

I've experienced actual benefit from quad cable exactly zero times [admittedly that i KNOW of], but man has it made my life more difficult quite often.  There was a time when it offered significant potential benefits, but i think that time has passed.

 92 
 on: January 21, 2020, 11:21:28 pm 
Started by Steve Litscher - Last post by Weogo Reed
Hi Steve,

To clarify, do you want to bundle 13 mic cables of varying length?

For my use, a braided shield is more important than quad cable.

Take a look at Gepco XB401.

Good health,  Weogo



 93 
 on: January 21, 2020, 11:08:31 pm 
Started by Steve Litscher - Last post by W. Mark Hellinger
A 13 channel snake cable will be difficult to source... the next up likely channel count snake would be 16ch... which will likely be cumbersome. I'll suggest two snake cables... maybe an 8ch and 6ch.

I suggest sourcing snake cable that has individually jacketed channels for ease of assembly... otherwise you'll be adding a lot of shrink tube, and shrunk-down shrink tube generally is considerably less flexible than typical jacketing.  A textured foil shield snake will likely be the best for noise rejection, but spiral shielding on the individual channels will likely be the best to work with.

And I suggest just making one 8 ch. for now and see how you like it... over individual mic lines... as I suspect there's a good chance you'll opt to go back to the individual mic lines... maybe... depending.

 94 
 on: January 21, 2020, 10:22:00 pm 
Started by Steve Litscher - Last post by Steve Litscher
I've been browsing through legacy PSW posts about bulk microphone cable, drum looms, and whatnot, but I haven't found the answer I was looking for.

I realize that looming cables for drum kits is a polarizing subject... that said... I'm looking for some bulk microphone cable that offers:

- Flexibility/Pliability
- Excellent RF rejection
- Fairly easy to work with
- Durability
- Smallish total OD

I need to make a drum loom that will allow me to quickly/easily connect 13 drum mic cables to my DX168 stage box. I have a Whirlwind Drum Drop, but I just bought a DX168 and want to park it behind the drum riser, run a CAT5 to my DM32 and call it good.

I'm comfortable with the soldering iron so no worries there, but I've never dealt with Quad cable before. Of all of the mic cables I've built, every single one has used Mogami 2549, which I think is just a tad too "thick" (overall OD) than what I'd like to use for this scenario.

Flexibility, pliability, durability, and small OD are my biggest wants.

What should I be looking at?

 95 
 on: January 21, 2020, 09:32:06 pm 
Started by Steven A. White - Last post by Steven A. White

Show express is great for installs.  It is near impossible to busk on.  There is no concept of a focus palette to quickly refocus a show for a room.

Something I don't have any awareness of at this point.  I understand your point and agree it's something that would be really needed.

Any recommendations?

Thanks for comments.

 96 
 on: January 21, 2020, 09:02:23 pm 
Started by Rolando Saenz - Last post by Rolando Saenz
I'm sure there are other drivers that would work well in a push-push opposed sub, but it would probably pay to use hornresp to optimize the box a bit around the chosen driver.
I've found hornresp sims very close, other than the triangular ports measure/act a little longer than what hornresp predicts for a given port length.

Yep, there is more bracing inside...not alot ...mainly 5/8" x 1.5" struts running around, cutting down uninterrupted spans.  Brace to taste !

I use duratex which is decent paint and very easy to use.  It does kinda grey a bit though, and stick box to box when left packed.
I would not DIY bedliner...tried that.  The behr stuff looks promising imo.

Must admit I do pay attention to driver rotation on the push-push...budget demands it :)    But all it takes is flip the boxes over or lay them down.
And although sag has to be real, as physics demand it, I don't think too many folks think it's much of a problem. I mean, look how horizontally inclined a driver in a tapped horn is...I've never heard a mention of cone sag there....

I like the 18sound sub you linked. 
The B&C looks very port constrained.

both 18 sound and b&c have many designs in their web page , there are 1 horn in each webpage , many bandpass single and double drivers and reflex also
plus tops cab plans
http://www.eighteensound.com/en/resources/suggested-designs/

https://www.bcspeakers.com/resources/suggested-designs/

lol by the way they name their webpage structure maybe they are parent companies


 97 
 on: January 21, 2020, 08:54:12 pm 
Started by Sean Kent - Last post by Caleb Dueck
In your opinion what makes the QLXD worth the price difference? If price wasn't an issue I'd buy them with KSM9 mics :-)

Overall I'm a Sennheiser fan, I like the sound of their capsules better.  With that said - EW100 is (quite good) analog with a low yet still present noise floor, while QLXD/ULXD is silent.  I'll defer to others that have looked at both through a spectrum analyzer to see how well they play nice with other RF.  The little I've played with analog and digital wireless together (Sennheiser and Lectrosonics) - the analog sounded slightly 'soft' while digital was more 'accurate'. 

The main reason for the switch from Sennheiser Evolution/2000 to ULXD/QLXD/AD?  It's 'Digital' and it must be better, so clients ask for 'Digital'. :)

Capsules - if you use dynamic, the E935 really is worth the cost over E835.  If I have to use a dynamic mic, I'll take an E935 or E935, thank you. 

If you use condenser, the SM86 is surprisingly good, not a fan of B87, KSM9 is great.  E965 is very good (very warm sounding, not as detailed HF) and KMS105 is extremely detailed.  I haven't used the d:facto capsule, but friend tried one and they then upgraded all their KSM9's for them.

Maybe someday I'll get EW100 beltpack and QLXD, same mics, and do a real comparison.
 

 98 
 on: January 21, 2020, 08:52:26 pm 
Started by jason yach - Last post by Mark Cadwallader
There were two different PRX 618 speakers. The 618 sxlf was/is decent; the other was "disappointing", to say the least.

 99 
 on: January 21, 2020, 08:21:06 pm 
Started by jason yach - Last post by Tim McCulloch
600 series yes. Pretty sure they were the 18", but could have been a 15" model. In either case, they were working really hard to go nowhere.

I think these comparisons also hinge a great deal on what the listener/users accustomed to hearing and using.

 100 
 on: January 21, 2020, 08:07:39 pm 
Started by jason yach - Last post by Luke Geis
600 series yes. Pretty sure they were the 18", but could have been a 15" model. In either case, they were working really hard to go nowhere.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]


Page created in 0.024 seconds with 18 queries.