David Morison

Yup, that's exactly it 👍

Yeah, it's a little counter-intuitive, for sure. Your last line has it right - basically, all of the input channels feeding each mix can be pre-fade, but as the FX come post fade before they reach the IEM mix, they would remain post fade. So, if you turned up the vox in the main mix, the level of the dry vox would remain the same in the IEM, but the level of the vocal reverb would still increase in the IEM. Given that you hopefully don't need to make massive adjustments to vocal levels once the show is underway, and that the preferred reverb level is hopefully several dB lower than the dry vocal level in the first place this is unlikely to be a deal breaker, but it's an easily overlooked quirk that's worth being aware of. HTH, D.

Hi Al, That's not quite the full picture re reverb in the monitor sends. You're right the send to the reverb unit will be post fade - that's because we generally want the relative level of reverb & dry signal to stay the same when we adjust the fader for the main mix. However, each monitor output can still be set to pre-fade - so normal input signals will stay at the same level even when the main mix is adjusted. This does throw up the slight complication that the reverb that is being sent to the monitor will still be post fade, as that is where the FX unit is getting its signal in the first place, so if any big changes to the vox levels are made in the main mix, those will result in the amount of reverb in the monitor send changing too.

If you're only using one mixer, then the faders' main function is to control the main mix (desks with fader flip notwithstanding). As we usually don't want out monitor mix changing every time we tweak the FOH mix, pre-fade is the default for monitor sends. If you don't have a dedicated FOH engineer, and you rely on your monitors to get an idea of what the main mix is sounding like, then you might be better with post fade.

I only had a brief look, but I'm pretty sure the CQ doesn't have traditional, analogue style insert sockets. Agreed on the potential downside of using the Aux Output EQ to do your "de-clanking" - you might be able to make the bass sound better, but as you said you were happy with the tone of everything else in the IEM mix back in your original post, you risk making everything else sound worse in the process. It is however, free and quick to try, so no harm in giving it a go before buying/making a splitter for the inputs.

Sort of. I believe the OP used the term "pan" to refer to a continuously variable blend between 2 sources prior to sending the signal to the transmitter, rather than the more common sense of panning in stereo. The issue with this is that doing it with a hardwired combiner can electrically stress the outputs of the desk, which makes finding a solution based on working with the tone of the input(s) more important. Splitting the bass into 2 channels on the desk is the easiest & most reliable way of doing this, IMO. As @Chienmortbb has confirmed the CQ can't do that internally, a hardwired solution such as This for less than four quid is all it takes, assuming a spare input channel is available.

Hi Ian, Many devices do not like having their outputs mixed with other devices' outputs via a simple hardwired joiner (essentially, a Y-cable used backwards) as the outputs can interfere with each other. There's a good tech note on it called "Why Not Wye" from the former Rane company Here if you want to dig into a possible way of alleviating that problem. A simpler solution, if you have a spare input channel on your desk, is to split the bass input into 2 channels - EQ one for FOH and the other for IEMs, and only include the latter in your monitor mix. Many desks can do this kind of double patching internally, so you might not even need any external hardware; check the manual for the CQ to see if this would work for you. If the desk can't do it internally, then a simple y-split of the cable going into the desk would still be cheap & easy. HTH, David.

Looks to be perspective - if you scan across from the speaker mounting point on the ceiling to the brick pillar far right, it seems a little in front (downstage) of the front of the pillar, and even the back of the pillar appears to be a little in front (downstage) of the lectern, per the line of hazard tape.

Hi, thanks for sharing this. I've never had a mixer with such presets (or felt the need, having learned the hard way on analogue mixers) so it may help me and perhaps others to get a bit more info about how well they work please.... How different were the results from the presets vs setting up each channel manually (assuming you did that too)? Are the presets "black boxes", or can you see what they're doing in terms of EQ, compression & effects etc? If you can see "under the bonnet" as it were, are there any gotchas to be aware of such as EQ boosts or compression that would raise the risk of feedback in a live situation? Ta muchly, David.

To be fair, the D112 is one of the less heavily contoured of the typical kick mics (only about 6dB before accounting for proximity effect), so better for other instruments than say, a Sennheiser e902 with over 20dB of shaping built in.

Fs, Qts and Vas are all higher in V3 vs V2, so in a given cab & tuning, there will be a more prominent upper bass hump and less low bass.

I mean, given we're talking about 90's era Trace, it's probably just a typo and they really meant 47 tonnes rather than kg, right?

Sorry, just realised it was the 1528 that dclaasen was asking about, that 47kg was for the 1524 from the previously linked ebay auction, my bad. FWIW, while the same catalogue does show the 1528, it doesn't include specs. The 1248, which was the same size as the 1528 but with 4x12's was 45kg for the version without an HF driver; I'd imagine the 2x15 would be a few kg less than that.

47kg according to the 1998-99 catalogue I have.

To Heat. You forgot the 2 most important words... 😉