EBS_freak

[quote name='CameronJ' timestamp='1506941952' post='3382088'] Is your singer unable to look where she's walking? Surely the rest of the band shouldn't have spend money on a technical solution when the simplest and easiest workaround is for your singer to have a bit of spatial awareness. If you play on particularly dark stages then maybe use lighter coloured cables or tape them with fluorescent tape. Any more effort than that is lunacy. [/quote] Man - have you tried walking in heels? You'd be lucky to stay upright! Maybe the singer is one of those jumps around everywhere and the visuals would be compromised if she didn't? Nothing looks crappier on stage than a load of different coloured cable everywhere... just my opinion.

With regards to a - depending upon what wireless unit you choose to use, you may get results which are/are not acceptable to you. For example, two line 6 units used in this manner will give you less overall latency than say just one single smooth hound wireless unit. Whether you can cope with additional latency depends upon you as a player - and what other digital pedals are in play that will add latency. Its a shame that the latency on the smooth hound is bad - thats the sort of form factor you'd like hanging out the last pedal in your chain. With regards to b - shouldn't be a problem but the additional capacitance will lead to a loss of highs, a decrease in signal strength and an increased chance of additional noise being added to your signal path. Have you thought about having one of those rubber cable protectors that you find in offices to put over the top of the cables to protect them? Think they look a bit ugly... but at least it will save you on cables. What are you doing with regards to power to your board by the way? Are you battery powered - or is there still a mains cable going to it?

[quote name='KingPrawn' timestamp='1506890878' post='3381871'] Great to read your comments. After 20 years of lugging around subsI'm ditching them. Ive bought a pair of RCF 745's. I'll be selling all the sub tops and stands. Happy days. Cheers BC'ers [/quote] Do be sure to report back!

I kinda like the looks of these things... but those are some serious prices that would buy you some serious gear. I doubt those 4x10s have the internals to justify those pricetags.

Do you need subs? No. Are subs good? When used correctly, absolutely. Subs add lows to the mix that you just can't get with tops. As mentioned before however, if you aren't good at mixing and dont know how to use gates and hpfs you are probably on a hiding to nothing. As Pete says, a set of 735s or 745s will do a better job than most other speakers due to the large VCs on the horns that enable the woofer to take care of more of the low frequencies - which in laymans terms, for a lot of people will be enough for you to ditch the subs for the average pub or club gig. They are also light and easier to carry around than a pair of tops with one or two accompanying subs. Do a search on 735s and 745s - there's been a lot of discussions on their merits when used to replace other setups that did have a sub(s).

Sounds interesting. Silent rehearsals are also a bizarre - but somewhat rewarding experience. Being able to hear absolutely everything certainly makes mistakes come to the limelight very quickly! Nowhere to hide! Hope you manage to get a band established. Startups are always the most difficult!

[quote name='Bigwan' timestamp='1505894589' post='3374971'] Received a set of used UE900s the other day from another forum user. These things are a revelation! Haven't tried playing bass through them yet, but listening to music I'm familiar with (I thought!) I'm hearing detail I've never heard before. Most impressive... [/quote] So what's that plan now? Use them for gigging?

Now try with IEMs and see where your 8ms wireless latency combined with digital fx pedals (typically 2-4ms each) and digital desk (the best are around 2ms and under) (and maybe digital plugins - depends upon plugs in transport to and from your desk to the processor) gets you. And that statement that "most" wireless units are between 5ms and 8ms is woefully wrong... try sub 3ms. If any device is reporting 8ms latency, it would be wiped from my purchase list as a wireless is not having 80% of my latency allowance. Anything over 10ms direct into the ear is unacceptable -. Ive said it before, Smoothhound with its 8ms latency is flawed from the word go. Yes, it may get you through your pub gigs OK - and thats great, especially considering their pricetag - but beyond that, the specs on the latency front are beyond awful. Recording with wireless can be pretty useful - especially if your recording environment is noisy on the EMF front. You may say that a decent recording environment is going to be shielded against that - you'd think. I've just recorded at Universal where the operation of the buildings lifts causes noise in the studio. Acoustic treatments was excellent though

I was praying that it wasn't DOA... I think that would have been the nail in the coffin! Glad it's arrived. Looking forward to hearing your views about it!

More UE900s arrived to my friends... straight off to be reshelled. I'm still pondering over a Rednet PCIe to supercharge my Dante solution plans... Hmm... Im just pondering over the latency - OK for front of house.. but defo concerned about inears performance when using Multirack. Im going to be right on the cusp of 5ms... which may be a bit cack for IEM...

FR800s for visual aspect?

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1504694294' post='3366587'] sounds cool, great playing too! When you say they're better than the stuff you get as standard in DAWs, which DAWs have you tried? And do you think you're just finding it easier to get the result you want with the Waves plugins? As in it would be possible to do with the built in VSTs but it might take you longer? I stopped adding VSTs to my system a couple of years ago as I found I was messing about too much switching between different EQs or different Compressors, rather than just using the tool in front of me to do what I want. I do love the idea of SSL channels in my DAW though [/quote] Primarily protools and logic - and I agree with what you say, the stock plugins are very capable and there's some amazing mixes out there done on just the stock plugins. The SSL plugin is something I've become really familiar with and having all the gate, compressor, eq in one strip makes the process very quick. So yes, you are right - the results are probably achievable with a lot more work. Some algorithms are defo better than others though - not that I would use it live, but check out the multi band compressors and especially limiters compared to the stock offerings...

"Ex pro" Maybe there's a reason behind the ex...

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1504693245' post='3366576'] we played in a small club with it's own PA the sound guy came out with a comment I'd never really thought about before, "we'll mic up the kick, no need for the rest the vocal mics will pick up the drums anyway" edit, we had a really good sound as well [/quote] Yup, it's a real thing. And it's a right pain to deal with. Can't EQ it out because the vocals sound weird. Can't gate on lead vocals as it sounds pants... especially when there's talking and singing going on... and stuff with lots of dynamics. As stated above, bleed into vocal mics and concurrent use of overheads on the drums may be the recipe for a disaster in a small or reflective venue! With my band, I never sit up with the kit in the centre of the stage - I always have the kit on the far side of the stage... it looks different and gets people talking - but above all, as I tend to mic the kit, I do it to minimise bleed into the vocal mics. It was actually seeing Counting Crows that turned me onto this... the support band (I forgot who they were now) had their kit mid stage and I remember hearing the obscene amount of cymbal noise coming through the lead vocalist's mic. Cut to CC and because the drums were on the far left of the stage, the difference was immediately apparent.

One of the biggest problems with kits in enclosed areas in general is cymbal bleed into the vocalists mics. Micing up with overheads makes this even worse and you get a summing of really nasty high frequencies. Try and EQ them out and the vocalist sounds weird. A great drummer in such situations switches his fills to a motown vibe rather than splashing all night! I am musing the idea of perspex screens for some venues that we do - but from what I've read, this is a horrible environment for a drummer unless they are on inears - due to the sonic power just being reflected straight back at them!

You download Waves Central and log on to your Waves account. Once in that, that application then licenses the plugin to your machine and will prompt you to install the plugins into your DAW. Waves Central is the application that controls the installation and licensing of your bought plugins. 9.91 is the latest version of Waves - think of it as Waves Central 9.91... so if you were running Waves Central 8, you couldn't use the plug in.

[quote name='dood' timestamp='1504609673' post='3366003'] Am I right in reading that you can't just buy that plug in, you have to have the waves package to house it? - I'm on a small screen at the moment lol! [/quote] Historically, you have to buy the SSL suite... but they are selling the G Channel separately at the moment. http://www.waves.com/plugins/ssl-g-channel ^ link to the individual channel. http://www.waves.com/bundles/ssl-4000-collection ^ the suite it normally comes part of.

[quote name='itsmedunc' timestamp='1504566944' post='3365792'] A mate of mine has a studio in a Belgium and always seems to be well informed on Waves stuff. I'll ask him tomorrow if he has any input. He works closely with a producer from Brighton who probably gives him the insight. I'm impressed! [/quote] It really is a step up in quality from the standard stuff that you find in the DAWs... not that they aren't good in their own right! I'm really taken by the SSL pack though... so versatile, both live and in the studio. Never been so chuffed with my bass sound either (Kemper straight into PA with SSL G Channel!)

[quote name='itsmedunc' timestamp='1504566331' post='3365787'] +1. Sound separation sounds pretty good to me. I'll be checking the software out myself! [/quote] Just after shelling out on the SSL pack, I see that Waves have got the G Channel on special offer...! [url="http://www.waves.com/plugins/ssl-g-channel"]http://www.waves.com...s/ssl-g-channel[/url] - Typical!! Highly recommended - the majority of the above is on G Channel.

Pretty pleased with the results... I can see this getting expensive on the plug in front now... The EQs are so more musical than the ones built into the desk. FOH sounding amazing when I was out front at soundcheck. Well, to me anyway.

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1504546545' post='3365600'] If the snare is a Ludwig Black Beauty def do not mic it up, as it will already be at least 27 times louder than everything else in the room anyway. [/quote] Aw man, they are like the best snare ever. Needs to be miced so they can hear it in the next [s]county[/s] country.

Hotcovers every time. Thicker, more robust, perfect fit with every order that I've had... and amazingly quick turn around. Roqsolid for me, are more like a thinnly padded amplifier slip... conversely, hot covers are the fully padded version.

The BC IEM team is kicking ass! RE: Helix talk, anybody that knows me will know that I progressed from the Microbass2 to a Kemper quite a while back and it was a revelation. I have pushed a friend down the Kemper/Helix route too (he's looking at both but is probably going to go Helix - because to be fair, it's more friendly to edit)... and his trio runs a XR18 that I've recently split (routing wise) for him so half the XLR inputs are for front of house and half are strictly for monitoring purposes. They only tend to use 7 or 8 inputs (depending what they do with the snare) for FOH so that mixer lends itself nicely to doing that. It means (and I think I have talked about this earlier in the thread) that you can run monitors completely independently and run separate processing like EQs and fx etc per channel . I'm at the other end of the scale where I am now looking at getting another 32 channel desk and connect via Dante so I duplicate the inputs to get the extended band on stereo IEMs - so effectively having a FOH and Monitor mixer... but all auxes are used for monitoring (can tap in direct to Dante network for Waves Multirack too!). I can do 7 stereo mixes at the moment, so the ability to do another 7/8 stereo mixes would be great. (4 singers, guitar, bass, drums, percussionist, keys, 3 horns). Or I could sack off Multirack and get separate feeds to the drummer's stool and nice kinetic feedback platform for me... Hmm... In some ways, my IEM is better than front of house - I run all the instruments in stereo, whereas they are mono (deliberately) out front. Anyway, I used to be a non believer in this modelling stuff... but I have to say now, this isn't the same gear as days gone by. Even when I first tried the Kemper it didn't do it for me... but now, 5 firmware revisions down the line, I would call anybody a liar who says that they can tell the difference. You can't say that you've tried a POD so you are not interested in a Helix. Completely different beasts.