Live sound equipment needs

[subvocal]

I have been playing in an acoustic band for a couple years now and have tried many ways to make our performances technically easy and stress free. Performance lacks if you're thinking about what you aren't getting in a live setting so I've had to tone down what we do live depending on the venue and sound.

Our, or my problems are:
We are cello, acoustic guitar and vocals BUT heavily effected, including several customized delays and reverb settings. Also we are extremely ambient and our vocals are often up in the falsetto range doing ooh ooh girl stuff, which requires us to hear the verbs we are using. I also use stereo delays (acoustic guitar) for a couple songs. In addition my cellist uses different delays from mine AND often we use delays on the vocals.

reverbs go from some to very much.

Monitoring is generally always an issue.

I have considered in ear monitors but don't have ten thousand dollars.

I have considered a stereo acoustic amp that could be mic'd into the FOH thus the monomers would more accurately reflect back to the stage what I need to hear from my delays, reverbs etc.

I am interested if anyone here has the same kinds of live issues going on and if so what are some solutions you have tried.

(I guess the obvious one is, we all need to run delays and verbs through our amps but what about vocals?)

Thank you

SV

[Spock]

I think you would find that you can get in ears for not too much. I use the Shure PSM200 system. Other than getting some E3 rather than the E2s that come with the unit, nothing changed, and never had a problem with them.

We don't use all the things you do on vocals, but we do put a bit of the effect return into the monitor send.

[subvocal]

I think you would find that you can get in ears for not too much. I use the Shure PSM200 system. Other than getting some E3 rather than the E2s that come with the unit, nothing changed, and never had a problem with them.


Just checked prices on ebay. looks like 599.00 gets one set of E2's , a reciever and mixer.


Probably me and my backup singer would most benefit from these.

If I remember correctly, a friend who's band was using an in ear system had molded ears for 5, plus a special mixer that had 6 or 10 "stereo" aux outs, for getting everyone a personal monoter mix. This is probably why I remember in ears being very ‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››, excuse me, I meant to write, expensive


Any ideas on a good true stereo acoustic amp, that I could run stereo effects through and back through monitors?

Thanks for the reply.

SV

[pounce]

i'm a bit scattered this week, trying to post at breaks from gigs, but here is a short reply.

different advice for different scenarios to be sure. were i you guys, i would consider submixing myself and consider in ear monitors. clearly, the fx are so intrinsic to the sound and performance the average sound guy, no matter how good, will not know the material well enough to help. that or travel with the same sound guy all of the time. i'd think you would have the fx processors you need already programmed with the custom reverbs and other fx for the songs. if it were me, i'd have something like a yamaha o1v onstage to mix the stuff, and have it feed some of those mid priced shure in ear monitor systems. the shure stuff works fine, and having something like a nice clean mixer with some fx and compression -might- mean you don't have to lug a bunch of extra crap around to make a particular sound. i would say that since processed sound is part of your unique sound and integrated to the song performance and structure that you should stay in control of that like treating fx as another instrument. i don't know if you use any midi at all, but i'm trying to think of a way to use something like midi to change the mixer and fx processors so that each song has all the right stuff up for you automatically, hence my inclusion of a digital mixer. that kind of recall means you don't spend the show twiddling digital knobs, but instead simply load the correct patch and let all the devices load and configure accordingly. i don't have amp recomendations, but with this configuration it would be less about a stereo amp and simply a regular amp mic'd the way you currently do but run into fx, and monitored in stereo via the shure system and put into the house in stereo from your yamaha digital mixer. that's what i'd do. just some random thoughts.

[subvocal]

i'm a bit scattered this week, trying to post at breaks from gigs, but here is a short reply.

different advice for different scenarios to be sure. were i you guys, i would consider submixing myself and consider in ear monitors. clearly, the fx are so intrinsic to the sound and performance the average sound guy, no matter how good, will not know the material well enough to help. that or travel with the same sound guy all of the time. i'd think you would have the fx processors you need already programmed with the custom reverbs and other fx for the songs. if it were me, i'd have something like a yamaha o1v onstage to mix the stuff, and have it feed some of those mid priced shure in ear monitor systems. the shure stuff works fine, and having something like a nice clean mixer with some fx and compression -might- mean you don't have to lug a bunch of extra crap around to make a particular sound. i would say that since processed sound is part of your unique sound and integrated to the song performance and structure that you should stay in control of that like treating fx as another instrument. i don't know if you use any midi at all, but i'm trying to think of a way to use something like midi to change the mixer and fx processors so that each song has all the right stuff up for you automatically, hence my inclusion of a digital mixer. that kind of recall means you don't spend the show twiddling digital knobs, but instead simply load the correct patch and let all the devices load and configure accordingly. i don't have amp recomendations, but with this configuration it would be less about a stereo amp and simply a regular amp mic'd the way you currently do but run into fx, and monitored in stereo via the shure system and put into the house in stereo from your yamaha digital mixer. that's what i'd do. just some random thoughts.


Pounce, this is very good advise. I have thought about a digital mixer to program scene changes but couldn't quite see it. I often bring a mackie or other small mixer and try to submix and send a stereo feed to mains but this has caused problems depending on the room and how much the sound person is willing to try doing this. I keep thinking, in the end Ill need a mixer with 10 stereo aux sends that can send effected and clean sound straight to the FOH. Thanks very much for your post. I will look into an old yamaha digi mixer. I am using a midi pedal to change effects now but am limited as far as some of the parameter changes I want to make. Seems like i could be set up pretty well with inears and some way to control our sound before the house gets it.

thanks again
SV

[bunnerabb]

What you need... IMHO, is to keep the MIDI.

Sort all of the effects out on MIDI assigns and then do the stage routing and a FOH splitter mix.

Sending a two buss to to line Ins or even mic pres on the FOH desk is cool if you remember to use a DI rig so that you don't lose all that low end. Set your outs to nominal, the ins to nominal, take the hi pass off, flat E.Q. on the channel strips and then see how it sounds.

That way, all your stuff prints to any buss you route it to and also to FOH.

As far as a desk, why not just get a monitor desk?

Something like an old 16 / 10 Yamaha that has 10 aux and returns and a stereo cue mix to drive the FOH?

This way, you have monitor mixes for inputs and effects and you can map your mix for the in-ears and then sum everything out to the FOH on the cue buss or even sending a summed mix to a palmtop and then FOH.

Just an idea.

[pounce]

i don't mind the idea of a monitor desk per se, but i am left with the question - will a sound guy, even a good one, know how to deal with the fx or is it best for your guys to do a substantial amount of submixing on your own?

if you are more or less mixing yourselves onstage, perhaps blending each instrument or vocal and it's fx and sending those affected submixes to FOH, then you'll want a desk that can both feed the in ears and feed something to FOH. this may be a complete mix or some sort of subroups/stems.

depending on how exotic your effects are, the internal fx on a yamaha digital mixer might be fine once you've adjusted the parameters to suit your needs thereby eliminating the need for external gear. kind of two birds with one stone. that, or if you must have particular external gear, at least the digital mixer and the fx will be able to be controlled via midi.

btw- how many vocals are used in the band? there are two instruments, so are there two vocals? dealing with two instruments, two vocals, and their related fx should be too tough for any of the mixers i'm thinking of. i'm using the dm2000, which is bigger than you'd need and perhaps out of budget. however, an o1v96 might be swell. i'm trying to count up the amount of outputs you'd require for monitoring and feeding foh so we can determine if it's right or not. you'd almost certainly need to put in an option card with it to get the extra outs. and depending on how those outs are configured you would likely want to have enough DI's to cover the amount of channels that will go to FOH.

[bunnerabb]

The whole idea of the monitor desk was massive aux routing and a summing buss for a two track drop to the house console.

Not if they have an engineer.

If you're going to do something that cue intensive with an AE on the triggah, shit.. I dunno..write cue sheets and drop the process in the mix spot.

Other than that, the metrics seem undoable unless they set their own effects cues from stage and send a 2 track.

[pounce]

yes, i'm expecting them to use midi to trigger the patch changes on the gear. in the case of a digital mixer, the levels, patching, and fx can all be changed via the mixer patch number so it's an all in one. if it's just stereo out to FOH, than an 01v with the option card provides up to 12 more outs to be used as they see fit, which should be more than enough to feed a in ear system.

[bunnerabb]

That sounds a lot more viable, actually.

How stable are those things?

I mean, it aint a DiGiCo.

[pounce]

i love the yamaha gear, analog and digital, and have done many many shows on most of the models. of course, more recently, i've been on 5d's and a couple of local theatre's have the m7cl. i like the m7cl the least, but the dm1000/dm2000, the 1d adn 5d, and the really little ones like the o2r and o1v are solid. digico is also cool, but innovasun makes the only digital board that -i've- seen lock up at a show so i'll forever be scared of em.

[subvocal]

depending on how exotic your effects are, the internal fx on a yamaha digital mixer might be fine once you've adjusted the parameters to suit your needs thereby eliminating the need for external gear. kind of two birds with one stone. that, or if you must have particular external gear, at least the digital mixer and the fx will be able to be controlled via midi.

btw- how many vocals are used in the band? there are two instruments, so are there two vocals? dealing with two instruments, two vocals, and their related fx should be too tough for any of the mixers i'm thinking of. i'm using the dm2000, which is bigger than you'd need and perhaps out of budget. however, an o1v96 might be swell. i'm trying to count up the amount of outputs you'd require for monitoring and feeding foh so we can determine if it's right or not. you'd almost certainly need to put in an option card with it to get the extra outs. and depending on how those outs are configured you would likely want to have enough DI's to cover the amount of channels that will go to FOH.

Pounce
I am appreciating these ideas very much. It's all getting me thinking again about our live needs.
The internal effects on the Yamaha may work. I'm not familiar. I'd have to look them over. We use three differant effects processors now. One for a general reverb that changes for various songs but other than amounts sent to say cello vrs guitar or vocals, the parameters stay the same. Mostly I need to be able to keep my vocal drier when Im lead and vanesa's really wet, as shes doing a lot of ambient bcp vox. When she leads it goes the other way (and I do the ooh ooh girl stuff) me wetter and her drier.
Cello gets much more verb than guitar always.

The other two effects are used for two differant delays which are used for guitar and vocals or guitar and cello.

We are a three peice band.
vocal 1 / acoustic guitar
cello / keyboard
vocal 2/ keyboard

Basically two vox, guitar, cello and two other keyboards at times.

bunnerabb, your idea sounds good but I'm having a little difficulty seeing it. (the routing stuff I'm not clear about)
I'm going to re read and see if I can get what your saying more clearly.
Thanks to both of you for this very good and needed info. Ill send this thread off to my friend, Scott who has been helping with sound off and on.

SV

[Spock]

Looking up a bit of info on the 01V96r2

Complete console setups can be memorized and instantly recalled via the 01V96 SCENE MEMORY controls. Memory is provided for up to 99 scenes. In addition to recalling scenes from the panel controls you can recall them remotely via MIDI program change messages, providing a handy degree of automation capability. The current scene number – 01 through 99 – is shown on the LCD panel. Additional scene memories can be managed via a computer running the supplied STUDIO MANAGER software

This would tell me that you can have different scenes, one for when you have the lead, and another when the other person has the lead. A midi program change would let you flip.

Or have a scene for each song you do that has all the effects settings you want. So you get the effects return to the aux that you want and the verb and other settings. It might take a bit to get it all setup the way you want, but it should work real slick on stage.

[ggunn]

I have been playing in an acoustic band for a couple years now and have tried many ways to make our performances technically easy and stress free. Performance lacks if you're thinking about what you aren't getting in a live setting so I've had to tone down what we do live depending on the venue and sound.

Our, or my problems are:
We are cello, acoustic guitar and vocals BUT heavily effected, including several customized delays and reverb settings. Also we are extremely ambient and our vocals are often up in the falsetto range doing ooh ooh girl stuff, which requires us to hear the verbs we are using. I also use stereo delays (acoustic guitar) for a couple songs. In addition my cellist uses different delays from mine AND often we use delays on the vocals.

reverbs go from some to very much.

Monitoring is generally always an issue.

I have considered in ear monitors but don't have ten thousand dollars.

I have considered a stereo acoustic amp that could be mic'd into the FOH thus the monomers would more accurately reflect back to the stage what I need to hear from my delays, reverbs etc.

I am interested if anyone here has the same kinds of live issues going on and if so what are some solutions you have tried.

(I guess the obvious one is, we all need to run delays and verbs through our amps but what about vocals?)

Thank you

SV

Have you considered a Bose linear array system?

http://www.guitarcenter.com/shop/product/buy_bose_personalized_amplification_system_product s?full_sku=102465317

IIt seems to me that your act is perfectly suited to one of these. Put it behind you to serve as mains and monitors in small venues, and synch it with the house system in larger ones.

[subvocal]

Looking up a bit of info on the 01V96r2



This would tell me that you can have different scenes, one for when you have the lead, and another when the other person has the lead. A midi program change would let you flip.

Or have a scene for each song you do that has all the effects settings you want. So you get the effects return to the aux that you want and the verb and other settings. It might take a bit to get it all setup the way you want, but it should work real slick on stage.


This seems like the ticket to me. I had heard about scene changes with the Yamaha but haven't messed around with one yet. Didn't know if it allowed for send / return parameter changes from scene to scene, for ex.

I'll have to look into this idea.

Thanks Spock.

SV

[subvocal]

Have you considered a Bose linear array system?

http://www.guitarcenter.com/shop/product/buy_bose_personalized_amplification_system_product s?full_sku=102465317

IIt seems to me that your act is perfectly suited to one of these. Put it behind you to serve as mains and monitors in small venues, and synch it with the house system in larger ones.



WOW!

that looks really weird. Bet the sound is incredible though. I would love to check those out. The price won't work for me today but I love the idea and simplicity of it. Looks as though they're set up behind the performers? Eliminating monitoring?
Pretty cool.

Thanks ggun.

SV

[pounce]

haven't used that bose product, so i can't comment. it does, however, scare the shit out of me. how that would work with respect to getting into the mics and if you would really be able to cover a stage with it?? hhm, i'm more comfortable with in ear monitors, no matter where the band members move they always hear the music the same, stage volume is down, and therefore no bleed into the mics from the monitor thingie. i'm scoring it three points for in ears to 0 for the bose.

[subvocal]

haven't used that bose product, so i can't comment. it does, however, scare the shit out of me. how that would work with respect to getting into the mics and if you would really be able to cover a stage with it?? hhm, i'm more comfortable with in ear monitors, no matter where the band members move they always hear the music the same, stage volume is down, and therefore no bleed into the mics from the monitor thingie. i'm scoring it three points for in ears to 0 for the bose.


I played an outdoor party in Ohio this last Sept (Jerry Fest) and decided to use my headphones to monitor. I FUCKING LOVED IT!

I probably looked pretty stupid (though we were all friends so I didn't care) but all agreed that I played a very good set. My performance was really tight and I stayed with the music entirely. People got wrapped up in the music.

I like the idea of in ears also. I use and play to the effects so much that hearing it all clearly makes a huge differance in my performance. ( i realize many here would say I am altogether not professional enough because of my need to hear myself perform and they're right) but I am what I am...

SV

[ggunn]

haven't used that bose product, so i can't comment. it does, however, scare the shit out of me. how that would work with respect to getting into the mics and if you would really be able to cover a stage with it?? hhm, i'm more comfortable with in ear monitors, no matter where the band members move they always hear the music the same, stage volume is down, and therefore no bleed into the mics from the monitor thingie. i'm scoring it three points for in ears to 0 for the bose.

I have used them both, and they are different. The Bose works very well for acoustic and vocal acts. Because of the cylindrical wavefront it produces, the sound pressure level falls off much more gradually with distance than with a point source/spherical wavefront speaker. In a small hall, the volume in the back of the room is nearly the same as on stage. Also, with a traditional split mains and monitor array, the musician on stage hears the same content from several sources with differing path lengths, and the resultant phase reinforcement/cancellation interferes with clarity of hearing. With the Bose system, there is one source only.

It radiates with a horizontal spread of 170+ degrees, with very little difference in loudness and EQ between on-axis and nearly 90 degrees to the side, so it covers the stage really well.

We have one, and it does all it's touted to do. Its only shortcoming is that with a loud drummer it's hard to get the vocals loud enough through it without it feeding back.

My brother works with the Flatlanders (Joe Ely, Butch Hancock, and Jimmie Dale Gilmore), and they each have one behind them, each with their guitar and mic plugged into it, and that's their entire PA, and they sound fantastic.

FWIW, I have no affiliation with Bose products or anyone who sells them.

In ear monitors have their own set of benefits and problems. I used them for five years in another (much louder) group.

[subvocal]

I have used them both, and they are different. The Bose works very well for acoustic and vocal acts. Because of the cylindrical wavefront it produces, the sound pressure level falls off much more gradually with distance than with a point source/spherical wavefront speaker. In a small hall, the volume in the back of the room is nearly the same as on stage. Also, with a traditional split mains and monitor array, the musician on stage hears the same content from several sources with differing path lengths, and the resultant phase reinforcement/cancellation interferes with clarity of hearing. With the Bose system, there is one source only.

It radiates with a horizontal spread of 170+ degrees, with very little difference in loudness and EQ between on-axis and nearly 90 degrees to the side, so it covers the stage really well.

We have one, and it does all it's touted to do. Its only shortcoming is that with a loud drummer it's hard to get the vocals loud enough through it without it feeding back.

My brother works with the Flatlanders (Joe Ely, Butch Hancock, and Jimmie Dale Gilmore), and they each have one behind them, each with their guitar and mic plugged into it, and that's their entire PA, and they sound fantastic.

FWIW, I have no affiliation with Bose products or anyone who sells them.

In ear monitors have their own set of benefits and problems. I used them for five years in another (much louder) group.

I'd really love to hear this sytem.
Sounds like an easy fix but still kinda ‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€›› (excuse me -expensive)

[ggunn]

I'd really love to hear this sytem.
Sounds like an easy fix but still kinda ‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€››‹‹€›› (excuse me -expensive)

Not really, when you consider the fact that it can be the entire PA system (with a mixer, of course). It does have an onboard 4 channel mixer, so for a solo or duet act, it's all you need.

[subvocal]

So, last night we played here in Madison at the High Noon Saloon and used our little 16 channel analog mixer hooked up with three rack effects near the stage. I used a midi pedal with a 20 foot cable to send changes over to the effects rack/mixer and sent a left/right (only) from our mixer to the FOH. I had our sound guy, Scott, work our board for any mix adjustments, including tweaking reverb sends/returns, gains, eq's etc, for this particular room. While I had no way to adjust our various reverbs for time, density or other parameters, It seemed to work really well. However, I still couldn't hear the delays well enough through the stage moniters (which were now a direct reflection of the what we sent the FOH), so ended up using headphones for those songs. This turned out to be one of the best performances we've given and we recieved excellant feedback (though I looked geeky with my headphones on)

The bose system or in ears sound really really good. Hearing a great mix onstage, increases performance by tenfold (for me anyway)

SV

[pounce]

if headphones was a winner for you, then in ear monitors will be a BIG winner for you. sounds like a plan.

[Bob Olhsson]

The Bose system isn't all that different than Dan Healy's old "wall of sound" rig that he used with the Dead.

When the whole band hears pretty much what the audience hears, the mix tends to take care of its self. I'd love to see people try the same idea with better gear than Bose.

By the way, Beyer M-88 mikes are utterly amazing in this application.

[subvocal]

The Bose system isn't all that different than Dan Healy's old "wall of sound" rig that he used with the Dead.

When the whole band hears pretty much what the audience hears, the mix tends to take care of its self. I'd love to see people try the same idea with better gear than Bose.

By the way, Beyer M-88 mikes are utterly amazing in this application.

I think what you're saying here would be the ultimate for a performer. Can you name some better equip than this bose system?

[Bob Olhsson]

...Can you name some better equip than this bose system?I wish I could but maybe collectively we can put our heads together and find things that are better, as good but cheaper or even cheaper and better. The M-88 is a killer for speakers that face the live side of the mike.

[floodstage]

if headphones was a winner for you, then in ear monitors will be a BIG winner for you. sounds like a plan.


If the look was the only problem with headphones, you can always buy the in-ear monitors and plug them in to your headphone cable, and skip buying the wireless transmitter and receiver. The entry level Shure's are about 100 a pop and that's all you need if you have a headphone rig already. They work great on a cord. You'll be tethered to a cord, but you won't look funny.

Do watch your volume because the wireless belt packs have limiters in them and you won't have that running off a cord

[bunnerabb]

Armar Bose started his company when he went to shop for a hifi rig after getting his degree and figured out that most systems sounded like ass.

I think those line arrays rock.

[macfeedback]

Snip. Because of the cylindrical wavefront it produces, the sound pressure level falls off much more gradually with distance than with a point source/spherical wavefront speaker. Snip.

I see Bose have reinvented physics.

Snip. Also, with a traditional split mains and monitor array, the musician on stage hears the same content from several sources with differing path lengths, and the resultant phase reinforcement/cancellation interferes with clarity of hearing. With the Bose system, there is one source only.

Not really, each one is a seperate source. The guy extreme stage left and the guy extreme stage right are going to have issues.


It radiates with a horizontal spread of 170+ degrees, with very little difference in loudness and EQ between on-axis and nearly 90 degrees to the side, so it covers the stage really well.

Not at all sure what you mean here. Are you saying that 170+ is very nearly 90 degrees to on axis and each side? (I am not trying to be a jackass just trying to clarify the picture in words)

We have one, and it does all it's touted to do. Its only shortcoming is that with a loud drummer it's hard to get the vocals loud enough through it without it feeding back.

It is those rotten physics screwing everything up again.



My brother works with the Flatlanders (Joe Ely, Butch Hancock, and Jimmie Dale Gilmore), and they each have one behind them, each with their guitar and mic plugged into it, and that's their entire PA, and they sound fantastic.


How big a stage and venue?

Does it have balconies? In many venues one has to take vertical dispersion into account.

IMHO these things are all hype. Might be somewhat okay on a small stage in a small venue for a small group. Otherwise save your dough.

[macfeedback]

The Bose system isn't all that different than Dan Healy's old "wall of sound" rig that he used with the Dead.

When the whole band hears pretty much what the audience hears, the mix tends to take care of its self. I'd love to see people try the same idea with better gear than Bose.

By the way, Beyer M-88 mikes are utterly amazing in this application.

On occasion, once a year maybe, I end up with the FOH stacks (Waaaaaay better than Bose) behind the musos and they just hate it.

With all due respect, Bob, you're wrong, the band does not want to hear what the audience hears, nor will they self adjust. Monitors, whether in-ear or floor wedges, are all about creating a personal audio environment for each performer within their space to focus upon, which has absolutely nothing to do with the audience.

[ggunn]

I see Bose have reinvented physics.

Not at all; it's the way linear speaker arrays work. A line source falls off fewer dB per doubling of distance than a point source . It's simple inverse squares stuff, and it's the reason why nearly all the open air venues have gone to (much larger, of course) linear arrays for FOH. And yes, I know, it's an approximation; the model changes from a line source to a point source when the distance of the observation point from the source is very large compared to the length of the line, but the physics behind linear arrays is well established.

Not really, each one is a seperate source. The guy extreme stage left and the guy extreme stage right are going to have issues.

Each one what? We only have one, and in the case I mentioned about the Flatlanders where they use three of them, each of them has only the vocals and guitar of one person coming out of it; it's a single source for each signal.

Not at all sure what you mean here. Are you saying that 170+ is very nearly 90 degrees to on axis and each side? (I am not trying to be a jackass just trying to clarify the picture in words)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. 180 degree dispersion means 90 degree dispersion either side of the axis. 170+ degrees is nearly that.

How big a stage and venue?

Does it have balconies? In many venues one has to take vertical dispersion into account.

300 seats or so, and you're correct about the balconies; linear arrays don't have very good vertical dispersion. Everything's a tradeoff. When they play larger venues they augment the Bose arrays with regular FOH speakers, but the Bose sticks are still their monitors.

IMHO these things are all hype. Might be somewhat okay on a small stage in a small venue for a small group. Otherwise save your dough.

Have you ever used one? I have. We have had ours for about 6 months now, and I assure you that it is not hype; the thing works great. It's not a panacea, but it does some things extremely well. I appreciate your skepticism; the audio world is full of snake oil claims (don't EVEN get me started on Monster Cable), but I have hands-on real world experience with this gizmo, and it works.

[pounce]

mac and i tend to find ourselves in much larger venues. i suppose i immediately imagine trying to use this bose stuff in the size houses that i'm in and it doesn't seem to make sense. might be fine for 300 folks, depending on a lot of other factors. i haven't heard this particular bose, but i am skeptical about claims in general.

[ggunn]

mac and i tend to find ourselves in much larger venues. i suppose i immediately imagine trying to use this bose stuff in the size houses that i'm in and it doesn't seem to make sense. might be fine for 300 folks, depending on a lot of other factors. i haven't heard this particular bose, but i am skeptical about claims in general.

Of course, use the right tool for the job at hand. The OP said he was in an acoustic band and carrying their own gear, which led me to believe that they were playing fairly small gigs. Small and acoustic is what the Bose system excels at. I, too, am skeptical about claims given by audio gear manufacturers, but this system really delivers.

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way commercially affiliated with Bose or any of their distributors. What I have said about this system comes from my own experience and that of my brother.

BTW, the group that my bro runs FOH for sometimes plays larger venues, where they use their Bose sticks as monitors and run lines out to the FOH mains.

[bunnerabb]

For small venues, they are the nazz.

Truly.

Our stage is behind the bar so I put up a set of four Panaray 4/4" mini array bins on swivel mounts for bar downfills. I slap the crap out of these things and they sound great.

[saxplayerz]

haven't used that bose product, so i can't comment. it does, however, scare the shit out of me. how that would work with respect to getting into the mics and if you would really be able to cover a stage with it?? hhm, i'm more comfortable with in ear monitors, no matter where the band members move they always hear the music the same, stage volume is down, and therefore no bleed into the mics from the monitor thingie. i'm scoring it three points for in ears to 0 for the bose.

One of the blues bands I work with uses the Bose rig. It's freakin killer ! If you're doin hard rock covers you may hate it. But for gigs that don't require the bass drum to pound your chest it works really well.

[subvocal]

Hey there
I've been working here in Maui for a few days and just read the new posts here. I really would love to try out the bose system.

We are an acoustic band but are heavily effected.
No drums. lots of vox.

I'm going to buy a Carvin in ear system in a few days. Fairly cheep (239.00) and so far, I've heard they work okay. Anybody know about these.
I've gotten some really good info from this thread, thanks to all.
SV

[ggunn]

Hey there
I've been working here in Maui for a few days and just read the new posts here. I really would love to try out the bose system.



Is there a Guitar Center there? The ones here both have the Bose systems set up for demo, although I wonder how much you can tell about them in a store.

[Jason Phair]

I haven't read any of the replies yet (just the original post) so I may be repeating what someone else has said.



DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT


I repeat


DO NOT CHEAP OUT ON IEM'S!!


I'd suggest nothing less than the PSM600. If you're going for a PSM700, avoid the older ones at all cost (I don't remember what it is that sets them apart visually - I think the knob colours maybe?).


As for the effects...if you're mixing yourself, I'd say check out the O1V96v2. Set your scenes and flip through via MIDI.

[Jason Phair]

A couple PS's after reading through the responses.


First:

Listen to MFB. HE KNOWS HIS SHIT AND IS BETTER THAN YOU. (and as an aside - sorry I couldn't make it out to the BPO gig last month - I literally worked 47 hours straight that weekend, spread out over oh about 6 gigs)

Second:

The Bose product creates an illusion. Much the way my computer speakers here create the illusion that I'm hearing pretty decent fidelity, until I go throw the same thing through a real rig and realise they're actually total shit.

Third:

Monitors should not be your mains, and mains should not be your monitors. As a monitor guy, it is my job not to create the best sounding mix for you, but to build a womb around you in which you are comfortable, and can perform best in. If this means that the vox are ripping at 125db with nothing else, then that's what it takes. How's that gonna sound when that's your FOH mix as well though?


Fourth:

(and another off-topic) Pounce, what was it you didn't like about the M7CL? I too have used every Yamaha digital desk except the 1D, and the new LS-9's they just came out with, and it's right up there with the 5D, for me...and was actually a little quicker to learn (though not QUITE as versatile).

[bunnerabb]

The Bose product creates an illusion. Much the way my computer speakers here create the illusion that I'm hearing pretty decent fidelity, until I go throw the same thing through a real rig and realise they're actually total shit.

If the "illusion" works in the room, what's the diff?

I have to create illusions every night with nothing more than E.Q. and some of the dodgiest mains you ever seen.

[bunnerabb]

and believe me, Armar has enough money. If I thought they blew,Id;say so.

I dont work for that motherfucker, but he works for me.

Limited, yes, but handy.

[Spock]

DO NOT CHEAP OUT ON IEM'S!!


I'd suggest nothing less than the PSM600. If you're going for a PSM700, avoid the older ones at all cost (I don't remember what it is that sets them apart visually - I think the knob colours maybe?).

Jason,

So what exactly is better about the 600s than the lower models. Yea, more frequencies, metal, better built, etc. I use the 200s, but I'm just doing covers on the weekends.

[Jason Phair]

Spock, you just listed them all, buddy!


For a weekend warrior, I suppose the 200 will do. They simply will not stand up to the rigours of the road though. And, while it's a subjective thing, I (And many other guys I've talked to) believe that anything below a 600 just sounds...awfully two-dimensional. I wouldn't necessarily suggest it based on just those opinions, but once you factor in the build quality, frequency diversity, etc...it starts to weigh against them pretty heavily.

[pounce]

(and another off-topic) Pounce, what was it you didn't like about the M7CL? I too have used every Yamaha digital desk except the 1D, and the new LS-9's they just came out with, and it's right up there with the 5D, for me...and was actually a little quicker to learn (though not QUITE as versatile).

maybe i'm spoiled by getting behind the more expensive boards, and by owning a dm2000. on the dm2000, for instance, there is a nice little readout of what the channel is and where it's routed. same thing on the pm1d. i'm not saying the m7cl is bad, but i couldn't get around it as quickly as i can on the other stuff. it seems like it has a different mindset than the other yamaha boards. the last yamaha digital board i was on before the m7cl was a 5d and i can fly around on it.

in a nutshell, it's really about familiarity and speed. i'm not fast on a m7cl yet. i'm pretty fast on the other boards. in a live situation i just want to be behind a piece of gear i can get around real quick, so it's my learning curve i suppose. i bet i'll be fast enough the next time i get behind the m7cl to like it better, so my point will eventually be moot. i would prefer if the channels all had the led readouts, though, to help keep me organized. i'm constantly doing one off shows and such, so i never get to settle in with a show. it's always a fast paced set and go.

the day i was on a m7cl we had unpacked it from the box that day and there was a show in the theatre that night with a full crowd. i didn't have any time to play around. it was a little stressful and all about getting things set up mighty quick. give me a nice relaxed show and i'll give it another chance with an open mind. (but i still think i'd prefer a 5d)

[Jason Phair]

I too, would prefer the 5D, but I found it took me about ten minutes to figure out how to use the M7, and about twenty minutes to get fast on it.


I hear you on the LED labels though. It's annoying to have to look at the screen while I'm jockeying faders on the left hand side of the desk.

[ggunn]

A couple PS's after reading through the responses.


First:

Listen to MFB. HE KNOWS HIS SHIT AND IS BETTER THAN YOU.

Are you talking to me? How do you know that? You have no idea how good I am.



Second:

The Bose product creates an illusion. Much the way my computer speakers here create the illusion that I'm hearing pretty decent fidelity, until I go throw the same thing through a real rig and realise they're actually total shit.

If the illusion works, then who cares?



Third:

Monitors should not be your mains, and mains should not be your monitors.



That is a sweeping generalization and not necessarily true for all cases.

[Jason Phair]

Gordon, regarding MFB...I was talking to everyone.


The truth is, he can't mix a cake, but he knows what he's talking about.

:grin:

[ggunn]

Gordon, regarding MFB...I was talking to everyone.


The truth is, he can't mix a cake, but he knows what he's talking about.

:grin:

So, he's better than everyone in here? He knows more than any of the rest of us?

I don't know the guy, but neither do you know all of us - me, for example - so I don't know how you can possibly make such an assertion, unless it was a joke and I missed it.

If that is the case, I apologize for my denseness... density? Whatever. ;^)

[pounce]

gordon, i am not seeing anything here directed negatively at you. am i missing something?

i know that jason, mfb, and myself regularly work on much bigger systems and we probably have a similar perspective on this. doesn't mean anything about anyone elses talent, and it doesn't mean that the bose is bad in the right venues under the right circumstances. however, i am rarely in a venue sized right for the bose and have no experience with it. mfb is good at what he does and i always found his posts spot on. (plus he's a nice guy in person. he even got my parents tickets to a show he was working!) his experience is in large venues around the world, and that wide experience does count for something. so i do respect his posts. that isn't an attack on anybody!

[ggunn]

gordon, i am not seeing anything here directed negatively at you. am i missing something?


I was referring to this statement, Jason's shouting, not mine:

Listen to MFB. HE KNOWS HIS SHIT AND IS BETTER THAN YOU.

When I questioned Jason on it, he said he didn't mean just me, he meant everybody. I have no beef with mfb; we had a cordial exchange of ideas. We might not agree 100% on the particular point at hand (although we might; he was talking about bigger venues than I was), but that's no thing.

And MFB may indeed be better than me, I dunno... ;^)

Anyway, I apologize if I sounded more pissed off than I actually am, which is to say, not at all.

[subvocal]

I haven't read any of the replies yet (just the original post) so I may be repeating what someone else has said.



DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT


I repeat


DO NOT CHEAP OUT ON IEM'S!!


I'd suggest nothing less than the PSM600. If you're going for a PSM700, avoid the older ones at all cost (I don't remember what it is that sets them apart visually - I think the knob colours maybe?).


As for the effects...if you're mixing yourself, I'd say check out the O1V96v2. Set your scenes and flip through via MIDI.

Back from Maui late last night (20 fricken hours)
A show tonight and just today I happened to find out a good friend was selling his PSM 600 and a a set of customized (larger or better drivers or something) es 5"s
He let me have them for $500.00 so thats what I ended up with.

Ill let you know but my "at home" test sounds pretty good. As good as headphones I suppose...

SV

[Spock]

A PSM 600 and E5s for $500, that sounds like a good deal. Retail on a set of E5s alone is something like $500.

[Jason Phair]

Gordon, sorry if I came off as an ass by saying that. I in fact, know nothing about your skills, and it was said in half-jest. I assumed (you know what they say about that) that since I made such a sweeping generalization that it'd be obvious I wasn't completely serious. My bad, man.

[ggunn]

Gordon, sorry if I came off as an ass by saying that. I in fact, know nothing about your skills, and it was said in half-jest. I assumed (you know what they say about that) that since I made such a sweeping generalization that it'd be obvious I wasn't completely serious. My bad, man.

Ain't no thing. Peace.