DunedinDragon

I think, generally, you're right as far as most conventional churches which tend to be very "Praise and Worship" oriented in their music programs. But many folks would probably be surprised at the range of styles that are incorporated nowdays into worship music. This is especially true in more specialized ministries that focus on certain types of groups. For example, we play every week at a biker church, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of differences between the styles of songs we play and those played at your typical nightclub. The topic of the songs is different, but not so much the style of music.

I just checked the jobs listing at Line6 and it looks like they have recent job postings for a DSP/Embedded systems engineer, a Software Engineer, and Project Manager. Derive what you will from this, but to me it speaks of maybe a bit better turnaround time on updates in the future. Well...we can hope anyway. ;)

Just a silly thing to check. I just bought a pair of Beyerdynamic DT770 Studio 80 ohm headsets. The first time I plugged them in I was getting some significant clipping even though they weren't very loud. I checked my plug and it appears I didn't get the plug seated all the way in. It felt like I had but it still has a little bit to go. Once I did that they sounded perfect. Just something you should check.

I think all Peter is referring to is the fact that all forums have a certain culture and behavior norms that tend do develop based on the people that frequent the board. This board tends to be pretty well-behaved and not as much joking around or sarcasm (well-meaning or not) as others I frequent. Most people, including myself, tend to take a bit of time at first to better understand the nature of the board before jumping in and drawing attention to ourselves. Whether you meant to or not you certainly clearly distinguished yourself here, and not in a positive way. I'm not pointing fingers or taking sides. The point is there's a lot that can be learned here and probably a lot you can contribute. But starting off with a negative impression won't make that any easier. I think if you take it a bit easier and try to fit in and contribute in a positive way you'll find this to be a pretty engaging and useful forum.

Could someone please plug johnonguitar into the tuner???? :huh:

It totally mystifies me that people have these kind of problems. I can understand it if the band hasn't been together that long, or members are changing a lot. But getting a good consistent mix shouldn't be that hard if everyone is disciplined and you have a consistent approach to your sound. We had lots of problems getting our sound right for the first year or so, but eventually we worked things out as far as managing our stage sound and FOH sound, and we really don't do anything that exotic in our setup. All of our instruments use a traditional setup with amps, or FRFR speakers, positioned behind us. In smaller indoor venues we use electronic drums with their own FRFR speaker and mic'd acoustic drums in larger or outdoor venues, and I use an FRFR speaker. The bass and rhythm guitar both use standard amps. All of us know where out settings need to be and we seldom vary from that. We have monitors but those are only for vocals and the harmonica. We first get all our stage instrument levels working correctly before we add in vocals and FOH. We do use a soundman, but he's still learning. That's okay because we understand exactly where our mix levels and individual EQ's need to be based on the levels that work best from our studio recordings. So all the soundman has to do during sound checks is dial in each channel's gain to that specified signal level (as measured by the signal strength on the meter as he PFL's each channel) and we end up with a set mix on the FOH with all faders set to unity. Each channel has been pre-EQ'd and rarely needs any changes. The only "riding of faders" necessary is typically to lower the vocal channels of the singers singing harmonies on a given song, and occassionally manage the mic of the harmonica depending on if it's on a solo or doing fills. As far as guitar leads, he just sets and forgets my fader because I manage that boost myself. Apparently not obsessing over EQ for each venue seems to work out just fine for us because we constantly get compliments from our audience about how we sound so consistent everywhere we play, and we never adjust anything on the EQ. So it's hard for me to understand why it's so challenging for so many bands to suffer through so many exotic setups and EQ problems to get a good sound. If the stage sound is solid and consistent and everyone can hear themselves and everyone else on stage, it's not a problem blending or in creating dynamics within a song without any interaction from the desk. And it's been that way for 7 years in spite of changing sound men two times.

That depends on the cabinet. Manufacturers will often claim a wide frequency response, but they don't always specify how well they respond at any given frequency. The only way to really gauge such things is by ear, or if the manufacturer happens to provide a frequency response profile chart. Even then it varies depending on the mic and it's placement. It's not just about the range of frequencies, but how well it reproduces at any given frequency...in other words the slope of the response curve.

I'm not sure willjrock actually read much of the OP's actual post as he seemed to give more of a global response geared more toward a high-gain environment and made statements about not knowing the style of music and what instruments were involved...both of which were pretty clearly stated by the OP. The reality is in most worship style music pick attack is rarely something one concerns themselves with, and competing with a (typically) vocal heavy environment consisting of drums, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, keyboard, and violin in a church setting with often a lot of live ambient resonance presents some very unique issues that most people that are used to playing in clubs seldom encounter. It really all comes back to one thing in this case: If the mix is good on the in-ear monitors, then what is the difference between that and the FOH mix? Figure that one out and it will all be fixed.

Exactly!!! In order to avoid the type of situation HonestOpinion is alluding to, it all starts with stage volume management. It's garbage in, garbage out. The problem is when people focus on hearing themselves rather than blending with the other people on stage. If you aren't blending on stage there's little to no chance any mix is going to make up for that. For me, I start with gain staging the input signal level to the relative level it should be in the mix based on what I've found sounds best in the studio mix, with ample headroom for boosts. This leaves all the faders at unity so it's easy to find "home" where the proper mix is. Then you just vary as needed depending on who's singing lead, versus harmonies, and things like the harmonica whether it's doing fills or a solo. However I do vary a bit, as does everyone, in how I target a good live mix. I prefer a more lively drum in a live mix. Since drums tend to be instantaneously peaky, I'll target their peaks at about the same level as the vocals (except for cymbals which are fairly low), which keeps their resonant volume tamed, but very much present to drive the sound. As far as guitar, I prefer to handle the boost myself between 2 or 3db, but that's still below where the vocals are. Actually fairly close to where backing vocal volumes are. That way once the mix is set, it's one less thing for the sound man to manage. He's got his hands full with other folks that can't manage their volume as precisely like harmonica or backing vocals/lead vocal mixes.

Personally, I think EQ and spatial positioning tends to be more important in recording than in live in order to create space for everyone. Although I'm not saying EQ doesn't play a factor in live, it has less impact simply because the acoustics of the venue plays such a big role in the outcome, and you're limited in how you can spatially arrange the sounds since most people don't run stereo outputs in a live environment. The biggest single issue I run into in live performance is sound men not understanding the appropriate relative levels where each instrument needs to live so that all can be heard and nothing is overwhelming. The voices "float" above the music, and the leads and fills and drums are easily identifiable but never dominate the mix. EQ is just a part of this process in that EQ is just another specialized volume knob. It changes the volume within a certain area of an instrument, but it does affect volume..either up or down.

The problem most likely comes from your configuration of the DAW software in that you have it set to monitor the live feed rather than monitoring the Helix hardware output. it's explained here in the Helix manual: Hardware Monitoring vs. DAW Software Monitoring Use of the Helix default "Multi" settings for both the Input and Output blocks provides hardware monitoring, which allows you to hear your live input signal at all times, independent of your DAW software's monitor settings. Hardware monitoring can be desirable since it allows you to hear your live guitar or mic input with Helix processing added and essentially "latency-free," since the monitor signal is not routed through your DAW software. In some DAW recording scenarios, it may be preferable to utilize your recording application's "input monitoring" or "software monitoring" feature, which routes your live input signal through the armed recording track, thus allowing you to monitor the input effected by any plug-ins you may have inserted on the track. The one downside of DAW software monitoring, however, is that your live input signal will be delayed slightly due to being routed through the software and back to the Helix outputs, which is referred to as "latency." Helix is designed to provide very low latency operation - see "ASIO® Driver Settings (Windows® only)" for info and settings. When a DAW track's software monitoring is active, you'll likely not want to simultaneously hear the Helix hardware monitoring signal. To achieve this, you can set the Helix Output block to USB Out 3/4 or 5/6. These Output block options will route your Helix-processed, stereo signal out to your DAW software without also providing the Helix hardware monitoring to USB 1/2. You'll then need to set your DAW track to receive from the same selected Helix USB Out to record the Helix-processed signal into the track - or, you can optionally set the DAW track input to Helix USB 7 or USB 8 to record a dry DI signal - see the next section. NOTE: Keep the Helix Input block set to "Multi" and your DAW software's main, Master output to Helix USB 1/2 to also hear playback of your full DAW mix.

Here's the problem as I see it. If the mix sounds good to you through your in-ear monitors, but you guitar gets lost in the FOH mix, there's a problem with the FOH mix. You can add all the mids you want, but you can't compensate for a guitar not sitting correctly (volume-wise) in the mix. Where I would start is to find out what's different between your monitor mix and the house mix, primarily focusing on volume levels. Many old-time worship oriented sound people tend to focus a lot on the voices and the keyboard as that's what they've traditionally heard. If you can get the sound man to understand the in-ear monitor mix tends to sound better than the recordings and the live mix you may stand a chance he'll correct something.

I think the general approach is to use some sort of DMX scene control unit and just use the Helix to send MIDI commands to select the scenes. Should be relatively simple.

Unless you enter them in IdeaScale and people vote it up, it's probably not likely to be in there. That's what they use to see what the popular needs/wants are.

The driver should have been downloaded as part of the Helix Editor I believe. As far as EZDrummer, that's serial number protected and registered, so I doubt you find anyone willing to "share" their copy. However, Addictive Drums does have a downloadable demo version you can try out I think for 30 days. Personally, I used to use EZDrummer until I got a copy of Addictive Drums as part of the package I bought with Sonar Platinum. It's a much more comprehensive drum plug-in. You can download the demo at: https://www.xlnaudio.com/addictivedrums

I'm not sure if I'd refer to that rig as "professional" or "ego-maniacal gearhead". It's real simple. With that rig can you decide to place the compressor post amp for a song then back to pre amp for the next? How about increasing the depth and/or rate of the chorus during a song using one of the pedals? Better yet, how about switching the speakers from Celestion G12H's to Electro-Voice EVM-12L mid-song? Now to me...THAT would be "professional" abilities.

Pretty much all FRFR powered monitors are ply covered by high density plastic. I suspect the difference between the two has nothing to do with that other than the way their each designed to project sound. I suspect the Friedman, being designed more as a cabinet, projects in much the same way in all directions. Typical powered speakers are designed to project wide but not tall in order to prevent the loss of energy into floors and ceilings. A lot more direct sound energy out of the front of a FRFR speaker. The thing is, it's the same projection being employed on the FOH so it really depends on how well you want your stage rig to reflect the sound characteristics your audience is hearing.

I think the reason they're free is because it's someone in the basement creating an IR and the only mic they have is a SM-57. I have to admit I felt somewhat like you do until recently. It seemed like every IR I tried wasn't much of an improvement over what I could get with the stock cabinets until I downloaded the free OwnHammer Mesa 4x12 and started experimenting with it's different variations and setups. Actually most of the reputable folks doing this have a range of mic's, mic mixes and mic placements. One of the reasons I've gone with the OwnHammer IR's is that each cabinet pack contains a ton of various configurations with different types of mics. Yeah, they have a SM-57, probably because it's the most used, But they have a nice range of other mics as well in dynamic, condenser, and ribbon designs that are used in different combinations in various placements on the cabinet. I've pretty much been able to unload myself from all of the EQ'ing once I found the configurations that worked for me. Because the variety is so large, it takes a while to run through them and audition them, and I've come to the conclusion I may be adding variations over time if I feel I need it for some patch or another. But I honed mine down to about six variations right now across 5 different cabinets that seem to meet most if not all of my needs.

We run two stacks basically. Each stack has a KW181 base with two KLA12's pole mounted on top. And you're right. It's a LOT to setup. But we have a stage crew of about 4 guys that help set things up, so it goes pretty fast and everything is in rollable cases so moving them isn't too bad. With the type of wattage we're talking about with these guys we end up running the top units (that targets the rear of the room) at about 3 o'clock and the bottom units for the front of the space at 1:30. Of course this means we rarely run very high on the master fader. Even at large outdoor events we've never had to go any higher than -30 below unity, or about 1/3. We probably need to adjust that one of these days to get better range on the master fader, but it seems to work fine so we've never messed with it. At least I know the signal has more than enough headroom to never have to worry about hitting the limiter on the speakers. As far as gain staging the individual channels, we pretty much follow the levels we've found work best in the studio mixes, so that keeps the channel faders all set at unity with a close to ideal mix with all the instruments and voices. We have a total of 7 people in the band. Drummer, bass, lead and rhythm guitar, harmonica/singer, and two female singers. Not the easiest group to move, but we've been together for about 7 years so we kind of have it down to a science.

I'm not sure what you mean my "mic normally", but I'm still of the opinion based on what I heard of your demo that the mic should be placed further out on the speaker to get away from the harshness. Probably some hi-cut might be appropriate around the 6-8000 hz range. My experience with 3 Sigma is they don't give you a lot of flexibility in mic type and placement. If you want to have a few more options in that regard, try downloading the free Mesa 4x12 IR from OwnHammer and see if you can't find a good mic and placement mix that will alleviate a bunch of tweaking of EQ and such.

Yes, I was very impressed with the OwnHammer IR's. I actually found that I've been able to ditch pretty much all of the EQ tweaking I had been doing to get my sound dialed in for the PA once I started using the OH IR's. It takes a while to go through all of the various mic, mic mixes, and speaker variations, but it's been well worth it. I still expect to have to do some more of that, but by and large I've settled on about five IR variations that seem to serve my needs so far. Deluxe Reverb 1x12: C12R OH2-05 which is a Jensen speaker using a Telefunken MD-421 and a Royer 121 ribbon mic at about the speaker mid point. Vox 2x12 : Blue OH1-05 which is the Celestion Alnico Blue speakers using a SM-57 and a Royer 121 ribbon mic at speaker mid point. Mesa 4x12: V60 SP2-05 which is a Celestion Vintage 30 speakers using a multi-mic configuration at speaker mid-point Marshall 4x12: EV-MIX SP2-05 which is blend of Electrovoice speakers in a multi-mic configuration at speaker mid point Marshall 4x12: EV-MIX CUT-05 which is the blend of EV speakers with an on-axis and an off-axis mix of SM-57's at speaker mid-point. I've used these variations in combination with Hi-Watt, Deluxe Reverb, Tweed Bassman, Roland Jazz Chorus, Marshall Plexi Bright amp models using a Les Paul standard, Strat, and Gretsch Silver Falcon all with excellent results. My rig consists of a Yamaha DXR-12 stage monitor and direct out to the band PA which is a QSC KLA-12 line array system with KW-181 subs. Just to give you some reference points. Hopefully you'll find that info useful.

Personally I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to free downloadable IR's. Even some of the more well known vendors of IR's don't do a very good job of capture or even document the process by which they captured it. To me the test of a good IR is how little you need to tweak it to get the sound you want. If the creator of the IR has the right equipment and dedicates the right amount of time and energy to creating all the various mic and placement options on a cabinet, and capturing them into indvidual IR's, you should be able to find a variation that requires little more than tweaking of the bass, middle, treble and maybe presence to get you what works for you. The thing is that IR's aren't magic. They're only as good as the care that was taken in setting up the mics and placement for capturing them. No single mic and mic placement will fit every situation or preference.

Actually since he was using the 3Sigma Mesa IR he could probably fix a lot of what you're talking about with a different mic and a different placement more toward the outside of the speaker cone. He was also using the PV Panama amp, which a little bit of gain goes a long way on that one....

You know this may simply come down to the way one uses FRFR speakers for building patches. I'll be the first to admit that getting used to dialing in presets with an FRFR speaker isn't initially intuitive. You can easily be deceived when standing in close proximity to the speaker due to the way these speakers are designed to project sound, especially when compared to a room sound you get from those same speakers. I know I have to take great care in moving about the room a bit when I'm dialing in a patch to get a realistic feel for how it's going to sound through the live environment, because it can change things pretty dramatically. Whatever is the case, if you find what works for you..that's what you stick with.

It's kind of hard to gauge which of the presets being demo'd are the one's you want to emulate, but I assume the preset starting somewhere around the 1:26 mark tends to be the closest to what your demos were. Unfortunately I don't see anywhere in the demo where he's exposing what base amp he's using, but somewhere around the 2 minute mark he starts toggling the Tube Screamer off which exposes the raw sound of the amp. To my ear it sounds a bit like an Orange, but without knowing what the cab and mic parameters are, it's hard to tell. Whatever it is, I'd suggest using that part of the clip in which he's basically using the amp and cab by themselves to find the best amp, cab, and mic setup that comes closest to that sound just using the default settings. Once you're close you can tweak the EQ/cab/mic to refine it. From there you can add the Tube Screamer and adjust it along the lines of what's displayed in the video. It looks like he was using it to add some tight low end to the sound. I wouldn't bother with any other effects until you get the base sound pretty close. Bear in mind there may be some differences due to the guitar and pickups he was using.