Jump to content

DunedinDragon

Members
  • Content Count

    2,414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

DunedinDragon last won the day on October 24 2019

DunedinDragon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

761 Good

1 Follower

About DunedinDragon

  • Rank
    Power User

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.facebook.com/SalvationSaloonPosseBand/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Dunedin, FL
  • Interests
    Gear: Helix, Yamaha DXR12, Les Paul Standard, American Strat with Lace Sensor pickups, Gretsch Silver Falcon, Epiphone Sheraton II Pro
  • Registered Products
    3

Recent Profile Visitors

1,220 profile views
  1. What you're dealing with are two very different designs even though many people would characterize both as FRFR. But they are designed to do very different jobs and work very differently from each other. The FRFR-112 is, in essence, a powered PA speaker which is designed for projecting sound over a long distance and covering a very wide area. It will generally be the best match and representation of what your audience will be hearing through the PA. The Laney is still a full range and flat response system, but as a cabinet it's not designed the same way as a PA speaker. The sound won't disperse as widely or as far or as efficiently as the FRFR-112 and the cabinet will influence the tone somewhat and give you more of an amp in the room sound rather than a studio or concert sound, so this means you have to make some choices. You can use the tones you set up for the FRFR-112 and tolerate the difference in sound on stage, or you can accommodate two different output tones. One for the on stage Laney, and one to feed to the FOH based on your tone from the FRFR-112. What it comes down to for you is whether appearance is more important than simplicity and effectiveness ...and that's a choice only you can make. I personally have no problem with having my Yamaha DXR-12 on the backline on a half height speaker pole. But I'm more of a "substance over flash" kind of guy. If someone is going to judge my performance based on what my stage setup looks I'm not sure I really care since I might as well be playing though the cheapest amp available since they don't appear to know anything about the tone, so they probably don't know anything about music either. My biggest advantage in my setup is in the case in which we only put vocals through the PA and use our stage sound to fill the venue for the instruments in some smaller venues. With my setup it stays the same but I get better results as my DXR-12 will give me comparable performance as would any decent PA system.
  2. I'm assuming regardless of what you use on stage you'll be also be sending your guitar signal direct to the mixing board for including your guitar in the main speakers. If that's the case I'd personally go with a small powered speaker such as the QSC CP8 for your on stage sound as it will be more representative of the sound the rest of the congregation will be hearing through the main speakers. I own one and have used it as a my stage speaker occasionally at smaller venues and it's more than adequate volume wise and WAY more accurate in representing the output of the Helix than an acoustic amp. It's about the same weight and price of the Fishman mini with a LOT more power and accuracy.
  3. Each Evox 8 stack rates at 128 db SPL which should be more than enough with two stacks if I'm reading their specs correctly. The concern would be with the mixer which only really has 4 standard inputs and two stereo lines. Channels 5/6 could be used for one 1/4" mono input, but channels 7/8 is a low level (-10db) stereo line using RCA unbalanced inputs which I think you'd find to be problematic for instrument or vocal inputs. That only gives you 5 inputs and one is a limited input for 1/4" only. You might want to look into that.
  4. If you can swing it I'd really suggest getting a digital mixing board. You could save some money by getting an analog mixer, but there's so much more functionality built into the new digital boards for doing things like capturing a multitrack recording of your performances, parametric EQ for each channel, and often automatic feedback filtering and so forth that it bears looking at. The number of Aux outputs you need for monitors really depends on how many different monitor mixes you need. If you're still using on stage gear for the instruments, you might not need much more than a single monitor mix for voices only. In any case what you DON'T want is a mixer with an amplifier in it with passive speakers. They're cheap, both money-wise and performance-wise. In short...they're just junk. As far as the columnar arrays, I had a Bose system for a while when i was doing a single. They sound great but they may be too limited in the number of individual inputs you might need. It would probably work better with an electronic drum kit than an acoustic kit. A common decent small gig system might consist of a good quality mixer (analog or digital) with a sub, two front powered speakers and two or possibly 3 stage monitors (if your drummer needs one). The number of monitors has no bearing on the number of Aux outputs you need as they can daisy chain off of one Aux output. Fronts speakers should probably be 12" speakers and you could probably get by just fine with some of the middle of the pack speakers like the EV ZLX-12P or Yamaha DBR-12, or QSC CP 12. Not the top of the line, but more than powerful and decent enough to give you good, clear performances at a good price. The reason you need a sub is to isolate the super low frequencies from interfering with the vocals and guitars as the sub will take the main board signal and apply a high pass filter to isolate frequencies below 125 Hz to the sub and send frequencies above that to the mains. Also, they just add some beef and bulk to your sound. As far as monitors, that's a judgement call depending on how much you want to rely on them. I've seen bands save some money by going to 10's or 8's and be happy with them. But we have LOTS of singers in our band with lots of harmonies as well as a harmonica and sometimes a separate acoustic guitar, so we use 12's as monitors to better keep up and compete with the other instruments on stage. If you tend to have a pretty loud stage sound, it's probably worth it to not try and save money on your stage monitors. I realize that may seem like a lot of equipment and cost, but ultimately your band will be judged by the audience based on how good your PA is, so its pretty much worth it.
  5. For myself I pretty much use the same mic's combinations (R121 ribbon and MD421 dynamic) and generally just play with placements around mid-point between cap and cone on different speakers. That pretty much limits the ones I'll choose to use. Some vendors such as Ownhammer have some pre-configured starter setups that makes selections a lot easier. The best thing is to do some research on the different mic's and the effect of placements and that will help limit your range of possibilities.
  6. To be quite candid, I'm not sure you would solve anything by having a band meeting. Having run live sound since the 70's it doesn't sound to me like there's anyone in the group that has enough expertise to authoratatively resolve this kind of technical issue anyway. In most decent PA situations this type of situation is resolved by isolating very low frequencies on the bass and drums to the subwoofer. In most modern situations the main mixer outputs first go to the subwoofer which then sends the signal to the main front speakers using a high pass filter (generally 120 Hz), meaning that the bass and low frequency drums still go through the mains, but their very low frequencies are isolated to the subwoofer so they don't interfere with the higher frequencies in the mains. I personally go a step further and put high pass filters on everything other than the bass and drums. It has nothing to do with the Helix. I do it the same way with a bass amp which is NEVER mic'd and only uses a direct line outputt into the mixer. Those are the technical details from a live sound reinforcement perspective. What this means is there's no reason you (and the drums) shouldn't go direct to the FOH as long as the FOH has a setup similar to what I described. It also means that your best and simplest approach would be to get a bass amp or FRFR. If the PA has an appropriate setup such as I described you can send the XLR output from your Helix to the board and send your 1/4" output to the bass amp or FRFR. If the PA doesn't have an appropriate setup, you can simply rely on the bass amp or speaker to fill the room.
  7. Personally if it's a small club and especially if it's an older PA and loudspeaker setup, I'll ONLY put vocals through the PA. Typically stage gear is more than enough to fill the room so the PA is irrelevant. However, that also means everyone needs to be disciplined with their volume or it will be a disaster. This is also one of the reasons I always have my Helix hooked up on stage to a FRFR speaker in the backline so there's no problem supplementing a PA like that.
  8. I doubt that seriously. I'm not sure it's using HX models or else it would have the "Helix" tag on it. Sounds more like a rework of the POD stuff, so I doubt it will be compatible with Helix presets, but who knows? The biggest limitation I see is the connections on the back...no XLR outputs.
  9. Hmmmm... I think someone already beat you to it a couple of years ago...without all the fuss. https://helixhelp.com/
  10. THIS may be the key to why I've never run into any of these weird problems. The only time I use HXEdit is just for file type operations (import, export, backup, restore, etc.) Otherwise I totally depend on the Helix editing interface. In the beginning I reasoned that if I might need to do something on my presets and didn't have HXEdit available at the time, I'd better know how to do it with just the Helix interface, and that's why my preset editing have always seemed to be bulletproof....well that and constantly saving my presets during any kind of editing.
  11. Car Buyer: Does this car have cruise control. Car Salesman: No it doesn't. But there are other cars here that do. They're a bit more expensive Car Buyer: No I want THIS car at this price Car Salesman: Well, okay...if you're sure. [Several months later] Car Buyer: I think this car really needs cruise control. Car Salesman: The other higher priced cars with cruise control are still available. Car Buyer: No, I want you to install it on this car for free!!!!! Does this sound familiar??? There is a fix for such things. It's called "due diligence" when making a buying decision.
  12. I've had my unit for over 4 years now and have well over 200 presets and haven't had any problems with corrupt presets...ever. The main difference I see in my approach is that I export each one of my presets after each change to it so that the master version of any given preset exists on my hard drive as an individual preset file. Then when I am preparing for a show I import the presets I'll be using into the appropriate location in the setlist. But I also have to say it doesn't sound like my presets are as complex as yours either. Each of my presets is built specifically for a given guitar, but actually use different guitars and change guitars for them. I've also NEVER copied and pasted a preset which seems to be a consistent theme behind getting a corrupt preset. I've always simply saved a preset to a different location if I need to do something like that.
  13. I'm not sure the article says anything different than what I said. It's making a reasonable guess and exploiting non-processing time (which there is a LOT of in HTML operations). My second sentence distinguishes between the programmatic choice within a browser of what to fetch out of cache and what to guess at for pre-fetching operations (which your article doesn't even deal with). In most modern browsers the cost of prefetching is FAR greater than accessing a page in cache and simply comparing it to decide if the cost of pre-fetching is worth it or even called for. As far as education, I'd suggest you learn a bit more about the differences between simple HTTP and HTML interpretive functions and real-time operations using very specialized DSP-centric operations requiring near-zero latency in pretty much continuous processing interaction with the user. One of these things any 7th grader can understand, and one of these things only a handful of people have experience with because of it's complexity. So I'd take your bet given you clearly can't seem to distinguish between the levels of complexity between the two different types of systems being compared here. Technically this is all kind of silly anyways as we're talking about two fundamentally different architectures such that "prefetch" isn't necessary with the Helix because all presets are always constantly in memory all the time (unlike a web page), but only the active one has any resources allocated to it such as DSP objects or working storage. That's the part that takes the time and that's the part of the system that's limited.
  14. Wrong. Prefetching only works if you know (or can reasonably guess) what preset will be selected next. Even in the case of a page in the browser, it's never "pre-fetched", it's held in cache from a previous visit to the page and checked for consistency when loaded to make sure it hasn't changed. Not exactly "immediate". For prefetching to be immediate on the Helix you would not only need to prefetch the blocks and signal chain setup, but allocate the DSP for the blocks, and there's a limit to the DSP available.
×
×
  • Create New...