Robert_M

From what you wrote it sounds like a definite design flaw. I already have several cases for my instruments and rig components so I've been shopping for a cart to pile everything on. As for the Line 6 bag that's ripped, depending on what the casters/wheels are like, I think I'd try to find some way to remove the rest of the wheels and add a 1/4" plywood reinforcement to the bag, Then, re-attach the wheels through that. I've already decided to have someone sew some slip covers out of heavy canvas to use instead of the branded Line 6 bags.

Using these as monitors is a secondary purpose. They are primarily a PA system with the speakers designed to broadcast high frequency information for a distance. Up close in the vertical position you'll always get an over-emphasized treble component.

With my cameras I always download image files by copying them to a hard drive. (Copying saves some time as opposed to "Moving" the individual files.) After I've saved the files to a storage device, I then re-format the SD card INSIDE the device that will be used to create the new files. This gets rid of everything that's there, including any hidden files that may be lingering around. If you reformat a data card using a computer and then plug the card into a camera or recording device, the newly reformatted card may not be completely compatible with the device it's being used in. That can result in lost data or other types of failures. By formatting inside the device intended for use you avoid potential problems.

I have no experience with the gear you're dealing with. I can't offer any suggestions about any available features such as "auto-trim." - If what's suggested above doesn't clear the problem up, it may be something that you can't do anything about. Try to familiarize yourself with the difference between analog audio equipment and digital audio equipment. In particular, what I suspect may be going on is inherent in recording in the digital domain. Analog gear has a much higher headroom than digital gear. With analog you can get away with transients that exceed 0db without a lot of trouble. Even the distortion that begins to appear doesn't necessarily sound "bad." - Digital equipment is much less forgiving. When a signal exceeds design specifications the distortion totally messes everything up. For that reason, manufacturers deliberately include limiting circuits in the signal path that you can't get around. There are only two things I can think of that might help, and you've already tried one of those - turn down the incoming signal levels at the input stage. The reason that probably didn't work was that you didn't turn them down far enough. Yes, that's a pain to do, but if that's what it takes, that's what you'll have to do. - If you're only recording a drum kit, it's a little more workable. If you're recording drums, instruments, and vocals at the same time, everything else will suffer from the lower recording levels. You have to begin by setting your levels based on the loudest transient. Set that, then bring up the levels on the rest of the inputs so that things sound balanced. - The other thing you can do is to identify which drum input is the loudest and causing the transient spike. (This is why microphones for recording drums come in "kits" with something like 5 different mics. These allow you to process and set levels for the cymbals, snare, bass drum, etc. individually.) Anyway, once you know what is causing the problem try using a compressor on that / those individual mic inputs. Use an outboard compressor(s) for this. The compressor will tame the transients before they get to the digital converters in the interface you're using. With this compression you will be able to raise the signal level of the rest of the drums and any other sources you are recording at the same time. - Once you have the undistorted tracks recorded you can play around with creating a good sounding mix from the individual tracks. - Good luck with it.

Thanks, SiWatt, that helps a lot. Right now I'm reworking my system and working on a project that may wind up requiring 6-8 line inputs. It's a half-baked idea that may go no where. Just have to see what it looks like if it functions well enough to implement. There's time left to make any final decisions.

Just wondering, but is the EQ located in the speaker, or is it located in the mixer? I'm just starting to acquaint myself with the features of the PA system so I don't know how Line 6 designed this. The speakers have a 3-band tone control EQ and a notch filter for the anti-feedback stuff. From an old school perspective an actual multi-band EQ belongs outside of the speaker.

I hear you, SiWatts. I'm sure you saw my disclaimers about not being familiar with the quality of Behringer's current gear. I wholeheartedly agree with you on two points. First, using the Line 6 mixer with the Line 6 speakers can be a valuable asset even when other mixers are available that look like they have better specs on the manufacturer's cut sheets. Having an integrated system that includes control options designed to match the operating equipment is worth a lot. There's a similar dynamic that comes into play with all types of Consumer-based technology. It's especially rampant when it comes to photographic equipment. People who like taking pictures with real cameras get real personal when it comes to their cameras. On the one hand if you tell a photographer your brand/model out performs theirs they will defend their selection tooth and nail. Then, when the manufacturer introduces a newer model that has two or three bells and whistles added, they'll sell their beloved camera for a 50% loss and rush out to buy the new toy. In the end they enjoy no improvement in picture quality with the new gear. Me, when I spend the time and the cash to figure out what works for me I tend to stick with that for quite a long while. With the possible exception of British made automobiles, most manufacturers go through cycles where they claw their way to the top by offering quality and innovation. Then, they enter into a cycle where they rest upon their laurels and look to improve the profit margin by cutting corners. Profits do improve, but quality begins to fall off. The reputation gets them by for a time but eventually someone else steps in to take their place. That's what happened to Mackie, as I recently found out. When they started manufacturing their stuff in China the quality dropped. From what I've recently gathered, that's when A&H became an important force in the U.S. market. Years ago I had a larger Mackie in my production studio. When I dismantled the studio that mixer was sold off along with a bunch of the other gear. That's when I picked up my current and smaller 1402-VLZ for performance gigs and home use. With more time on my hands now I'm looking at doing more recording. I picked up an A&H Zed R-16 for a decent price and it's a great piece of equipment. The design's been around for some time, but was one of those innovations I mentioned when introduced. There still doesn't seem to be anything comparable today at it's price point that will accomplish what it does. For me, I get the benefits of an analog mixer with a nicely designed digital recording interface. Depending on how my new pedal board turns out, I may pick up one of the small Zed's. My Mackie's good, but large and heavy in comparison to the small Zed's for a solo gig. That's our second point of agreement. The A&H analog mixers work for me because of what I'm doing with them. If I were looking for a digital mixer I'd much prefer the Allen & Heath to the Behringer, and that is apart from any lingering doubts I still have concerning the quality of Behringer's current gear.

Regarding the gear litesnsirens hooked up, someone mentioned that speakers do not draw their max requirement continuously. In the same vein, I doubt that all the gear mentioned was being used at the same time. 2 keyboards? Were there 2 keyboard players in the group? Did one musician play both at the same time? When a piece of equipment gets turned on there is a bump in current draw, then that level out. If the circuit is open but the equipment is just sitting there, very little current will flow through that circuit. - On another note, it seems like someone taught me long ago that it's a good thing to hook up as much gear as possible to the same circuit. Not that you want to test and see if you can overload the capacity, but by using the same power source you cut out a lot of the potential issues with ground loops that can arise from using outlets that operate on different circuits that are not in complete phase with each other. Then again, that must have been so long ago that could be confused and just plain wrong.

A Line 6 dealer should be able and willing to install any updates at no charge. Any justifiable charge (other than shipping costs if required) should be paid by Line 6 to the dealer doing the work as part of Line 6's Customer Service program. Then again, as already noted, most potential updates will provide functionality most Owners will never miss.

As for your question about 100% wet or dry, it sounds like you are getting started, which isn't a bad thing. Type the words "Mackie 1604 manual" into your browser's search box. When I got started with all this stuff nearly three decades ago it seemed pretty confusing to me. That's the mixer I settled in with. It was a great piece of gear. And that manual Mackie wrote to go along with it is an even greater resource for anyone who wants to learn about mixers and how to use them. Another great resource are the archives created by Rane, another audio/electronics company that produced a lot of great gear. The archive is collected under the heading of "Rane Notes." Lots of good info there about equalization, and interconnects for sorting out ground loops between different pieces of audio gear, and such.

Great advice above. I must be getting further on in years than I realize. I keep having these old sayings come to mind. In this case it goes, "Less is more." In other words, just because there are "toys" available like audio effects, it doesn't mean we have to play with them. Another old adage along the same lines went, "Cut before boost," in reference to how to properly EQ a signal going into a mix or out of speakers. To me, the only processing needed on nearly all vocals is EQ and compression. Everything else seems like an attempt to cover up something that's lacking. The one effect that might be useful is some of the pitch correction stuff if your vocalist isn't as accurate as you'd like. As with all effects don't overdue that. Digital processing in that domain always introduces artifacts. The more processing that gets done, the greater the number of artifacts that show up and the more noticeable they become. As quadcabby notes, thickening a thin sounding vocal can be effective. I spent a bunch of time last year auditioning pedals for a new analog pedal board to replace my rack mounted multi-effects. The one I came up with one that intrigues me most and doesn't get used is called the Luxe by DigiTech. It's essentially a chorus pedal that was designed without any modulation circuitry included. It simply detunes whatever passes through it by a few cents as per the parameter the User sets with the knob. I'm pretty sure it's this detuning that causes a chorus effect to work on vocals. If you set the modulation rate to zero on a standard chorus effect you wind up with the same thing. Whatever you decide to do, take it easy. When I use modulation on my acoustics I usually set things us so that the effect sounds good to me. Then I back it off so that the modulation fades into the background. When I can float a phased chorus out through a room so that those listening have to concentrate to perceive what it is they're hearing, that's often when the effect becomes the most effective.

Your question isn't as straightforward as it appears on the surface. For one thing, I suspect what you love about the Line 6 gear is the sonic quality of the speaker output. When it comes to electronic equipment of all stripes there are issues with compatibility. One of the rules/laws that applies is that if you put a crappy piece of equipment in-line with a bunch of expensive gear, the expensive gear is going to behave more like that crappy item than the expensive components contained within the rest of your signal chain. I haven't kept pace with the changing reputations of manufacturers for a long time. Neither do I have experience with the Behringer mixer your thinking of getting. I do know that 20+ years ago Behringer did not have a great reputation for producing gear that produced the best results. I have a vintage Mackie analog mixer that I have no problem hooking up to modern gear. That's because back when Mackie manufactured my mixer they were at the top of the heap and their stuff could hold their own to a reasonable degree against the much more expensive custom built gear used in high end recording studios. Behringer, at the time, wasn't in that league. Move forward to today. My guess is that if you insert a Behringer mixer into your audio feed you will be effectively downgrading the performance of Line 6 PA system. As for the issue of updates for the Line 6 mixer, what is it that you find lacking in your Line 6 mixer as it operates today that you feel needs to be updated? That's one of the fallacies I see running rampant in our society today. They used to say, "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." That was true then and it's still true today. If your present gear works for you today, why are you anticipating that it won't work for you tomorrow? Sure, someone's going to invent fancy bells and whistles tomorrow; you might want to be able to use those bells and whistles when they come along. My old mixer is a good example. Some might say it's obsolete because it's old and plenty of more modern options have come along since it left the assembly line. Trouble is, the modern gear based on digital technology has a hard time duplicating the performance of the old analog equipment. That's the same principle behind the current fad of wanting to listen to vinyl records as opposed to CD's "because the vinyl sounds better." Those are my thoughts.

Jeff, The answer to your question is no. The Line 6 system isn't equipped to process digital data conforming to the standard AES/EBU protocols.

I'm in a similar position to JSTA... I should download the manuals and try to digest how this system works. I do a lot of solo work and sometimes get together with others to do a gig here and there. For the past several years most of my stuff has been pretty much acoustic. Last year I got around to dusting off my studio gear to plug in and do some recording once again. I upgraded my effects units by swapping the rack gear out for an assemblage of really nice analog pedals. I'm loving that. It's time to upgrade the PA system. I have a trusted 20+ year old 14-channel analog Mackie mixer that still works without a hitch. Gives options for mic's on solo instruments and vocals, and handles an ensemble of 3-6 players/vocalists. For me, I've always enjoyed plugging into a stereo rig and that's my intention here. With either scenario I'll be feeding the PA system with a 2-channel stereo mix 90% of the time . The efficiency of using one L3t with one L3m, or one L2t with one L2m, works for me. The acoustic anti-feedback feature of the "T" models is important to me. If I feed a stereo mix into the L3t then feed the 2nd channel to a L3m, will both channels pass through the feedback filter and permit me to pass the processed signal of channel-2 out to the L3m, or will that not be possible? If the latter is the case, I'd probably be better off with two L3t's. If I went with two separate L3t's, would it make the most sense to simply run the two output channels from the mixer to the two PA's independently and forget about connecting the two cabinets together? Thanks