Digital mixer - pros and cons?

[Kevin Maxwell]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

this also made me think of a far simpler solution that i've seen done by a lot of the 'doo-wop' groups i've worked with. of course, they'll probably never go for it, but there you go...

they would just have a designated 'lead mic' that was hotter than the rest in the house and monitors. when someone sang lead, they used that mic. when they didn't, they used one of the backing mics. i remember the first group i came across that did that [national name although it escapes me which one... one of the old motown groups...]. i was all freaking out because they said they traded off leads and i didn't know who was gonna sing what. but they told me to set it up just like i said, and sure enough it worked like a charm. i pretty much just sat there and listened to the show... nicest part was that if i did need to tweak the lead vocal, it was always the same channel. super handy...

like i said, they'll probably never go for this. but it is the best, and easiest, solution....

p.s. i just picked up on this... EIGHT monitor mixes from FOH? seriously? ummm... it's time to talk about a personal monitor system of some kind. in my experience, 4 mixes from FOH was my absolute cutoff, and even that was really difficult to keep track of. 8 is just nutty...

I didn’t think of the ‘doo-wop’ method and it definitely would have some advantages but since they each have their own wireless and they each seem to need different EQ on their mics for their voices I don’t see it working for them. But thank you for the suggestion.

There actually should be 10 monitor mixes to eliminate a couple of shared mixes that would be better if they were separate. At the moment they are all on wedges and there is no way I am going to recommend personal mixers unless they were on IEMs. I also am a big believer that the personal mixer doesn’t work for many people. It only changes who they can blame or what they blame them for. I think that most people just keep adding more to their mix instead of mixing it properly.

I also wanted to add that when I mentioned I didn’t work for the church it was just to clarify my role. I was in the past employed full time for 10 years as the technical director for a church.

 

[Bennett Prescott]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

p.s. i just picked up on this... EIGHT monitor mixes from FOH? seriously? ummm... it's time to talk about a personal monitor system of some kind. in my experience, 4 mixes from FOH was my absolute cutoff, and even that was really difficult to keep track of. 8 is just nutty...

Ditto. Someone needs to rein these people in, probably you, because nobody is being well served right now and you're going to have a heart attack. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Please tell me you're not providing 8 mixes from FOH as a volunteer or for anything other than pretty good pay.

 

[TJ Cornish]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

Ditto. Someone needs to rein these people in, probably you, because nobody is being well served right now and you're going to have a heart attack. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Please tell me you're not providing 8 mixes from FOH as a volunteer or for anything other than pretty good pay.

While I'm not going to defend all of my church brethren since I've experienced some pretty kooky expectations in my time too, I think you guys are over-pigeon-holing a little.

We run 9 ear mixes off our FOH M7 with relative ease. We can't afford a monitor board and don't have labor to run it. Aviom and the like aren't free from problems either. Our biggest issue is wanting compression for FOH but not wanting it in the monitors - my one M7 wishlist item is being able to put the aux sends pre-dynamics. Other than that, we're perfectly happy with our setup.

It's a very different situation when you have semi-regular bands with ear experience than a one-off live gig with 40,000 expectations a minute.

 

[Andrew Broughton]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

Our biggest issue is wanting compression for FOH but not wanting it in the monitors - my one M7 wishlist item is being able to put the aux sends pre-dynamics.

Pre-Eq Sends are also Pre-Dynamics.

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

If it was analog then I might try doing it that way. But with digital even though it isn’t supposed to be a problem combining the same signal, due to the fact that I would have different processing on the 2 channels of each mic I wouldn’t want to have a slightly different propagation delay or strange combining of the 2 differently processed feeds thru the different channels I want to stay away from that.

If you make sure both signal paths have the same "length" you should be fine . What I mean by this is: If one channel needs a compressor and the other doesn't, just insert a compressor in the channel that doesn't need compression and set the threshold so high it'll never engage. And so on. This is common practice when "paralell-bussing" or "New York compressing" or whatever it's called.

 

[TJ Cornish]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

Pre-Eq Sends are also Pre-Dynamics.

Which unfortunately exchanges one problem for another.

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

While I'm not going to defend all of my church brethren since I've experienced some pretty kooky expectations in my time too, I think you guys are over-pigeon-holing a little.

We run 9 ear mixes off our FOH M7 with relative ease. We can't afford a monitor board and don't have labor to run it. Aviom and the like aren't free from problems either. Our biggest issue is wanting compression for FOH but not wanting it in the monitors - my one M7 wishlist item is being able to put the aux sends pre-dynamics. Other than that, we're perfectly happy with our setup.

It's a very different situation when you have semi-regular bands with ear experience than a one-off live gig with 40,000 expectations a minute.

actually, in this circumstance i think ear mixes are far easier than wedges. i wouldn't love mixing that many ear mixes at FOH, but i would be VERY unhappy if i had to do that many wedge mixes. as soon as you introduce feedback issues, and volume war issues it's just a bear to try to deal with that from FOH.

as to your compression issues, i'm assuming the biggest issues are with vocals. i'm also assuming you don't have enough free channels available to just split them.

i totally agree that avioms are not a panacea. in fact, i've moved our personal mix system from an aviom rig to a system of 01v96s controlled via BCR2000 midi remotes so that i can have all the processing and channels i want and can customize different types of mixes for different needs. i run 15 stereo ear mixes all with individual on stage control. it was also cheaper, but that's another thread altogether....

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

If you make sure both signal paths have the same "length" you should be fine . What I mean by this is: If one channel needs a compressor and the other doesn't, just insert a compressor in the channel that doesn't need compression and set the threshold so high it'll never engage. And so on. This is common practice when "paralell-bussing" or "New York compressing" or whatever it's called.

i was gonna say this too... but it seems better when someone else is 'defending' my idea...

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

There actually should be 10 monitor mixes to eliminate a couple of shared mixes that would be better if they were separate. At the moment they are all on wedges and there is no way I am going to recommend personal mixers unless they were on IEMs. I also am a big believer that the personal mixer doesn’t work for many people. It only changes who they can blame or what they blame them for. I think that most people just keep adding more to their mix instead of mixing it properly.

i totally agree that avioms and wedges don't mix. i DO think that personal mix systems with ears can work very well, provided that there is an appropriate amount of time devoted to training everyone how to use them. i did this with my team about 2 years ago. wasn't the most pleasant month of my life, but things have been smooth sailing ever since.

i'm not saying that personal mix systems with ears are the solution for this church. but a hybrid system [where maybe the band is on avioms and the singers on wedges or vis versa] may be worth considering. i do agree with bennett that it may be time for some reining in. this church seems to have a bad case of 'expectation creep'. delivering 8-10 wedge mixes from FOH with expectations of fluid changes to those mixes during service is just not realistic, especially if you want/need a volunteer crew to be able to deliver it consistently. they need to seriously consider a separate monitor rig, or they need to scale back their 'needs'. and getting a more capable FOH console, digital OR analog, is not going to make this situation any better...

 

[Rob Gow]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

By having them sing properly, moving up for the leads, their level would also rise in the monitor mix....

 

[Greg Cameron]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

Our biggest issue is wanting compression for FOH but not wanting it in the monitors - my one M7 wishlist item is being able to put the aux sends pre-dynamics. Other than that, we're perfectly happy with our setup.

How about running the vocals to a group and then applying group compression? That will leave the monitor mixes compression free but post EQ.

Greg

 

[Josh Millward]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

This church that I am working with has 6 singers and different ones take the lead on different songs. They want the mic of whoever that is brought up in all of the monitor sends (8 at the moment) for that part and then brought down again after they are done. They don’t want the monitors to be run post fader because they don’t want to hear the house mix changes in their monitors. A separate monitor mixer would be helpful but they don’t really have a good place to put one and they don’t have enough competent people.

Okay, as others have said, this is completely ridiculous. They are at the point where they need to either start scaling back their diva "needs" or they need to start paying someone competent enough to put up with their diva "needs". Expecting a volunteer to deal with 8 monitor mixes from FoH (?!?!?) is completely out of control. I will regularly do 4 mixes from FoH and be happy about it, and I've done up to 6 when it was actually necessary (and I was getting PAID to do it), but a volunteer I would not expect to do more than TWO. Did you see that??? TWO! If they want to do "big performance" stuff, they need the technical staff and equipment to support it. Otherwise, they need to work with what they have and be happy with it. Obviously they have plenty of people who want to get up on stage and perform, they need to find the rest of the people to populate the positions of monitor engineer and ego fluffer, and the equipment to go along with it.

I personally believe that the problem could very easily be solved if the person taking the lead would just work the mic closer and push a little bit and the other singers should pull the mic back a little bit and drop their level a little bit. I have told them this and they don’t want to hear that, they think it is a technical problem.

Yes, you are exactly right, it is NOT a technical problem. This is a problem of people who do not know how to perform together as a group. Take the microphones away from them at rehearsal. Take the band away from them at rehearsal. Make them stand around a piano and sing together as a GROUP. They need to learn how to perform together as a TEAM, not as a bunch of people all singing the same song. They need to learn how to listen to one another and to understand how they all fit together to make a mix. FAR TOO MANY people performing in their churches do not have any concept of how this is supposed to work. Instead they have a very myopic "ME" vision of everything, hence your EIGHT monitor mixes.

Ooo... here's a fun idea!!! Beg, borrow, or rent a really nice omni-directional or figure-8 microphone, gather the singers around it so they are all in the pattern. Put studio headphones on them (Sony 7506's or Sennheiser HD280 Pro's would be ideal) Take that one microphone, mix in a little bit of tracks so they have something to sing to, and make them mix themselves by stepping closer to or farther from the microphone. The point of this exercise is to try to get them to understand where they and their part fit in the mix. Perhaps you will be able to convince them with a little bit of this training that they can all live together with one monitor mix and by choking up on the mic when it is their turn to lead, everything will sound great in the house because they are singing together as a group instead of in spite of one another. This might also help bring the overall level down a bit, if it is currently objectionably high or almost objectionably high.

Yes, the talent does need to be encouraged and nurtured, but by helping the performers become better musicians, the overall experience of the entire church will improve.

 

[Kevin Maxwell]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

Okay, as others have said, this is completely ridiculous. They are at the point where they need to either start scaling back their diva "needs" or they need to start paying someone competent enough to put up with their diva "needs". Expecting a volunteer to deal with 8 monitor mixes from FoH (?!?!?) is completely out of control. I will regularly do 4 mixes from FoH and be happy about it, and I've done up to 6 when it was actually necessary (and I was getting PAID to do it), but a volunteer I would not expect to do more than TWO. Did you see that??? TWO! If they want to do "big performance" stuff, they need the technical staff and equipment to support it. Otherwise, they need to work with what they have and be happy with it. Obviously they have plenty of people who want to get up on stage and perform, they need to find the rest of the people to populate the positions of monitor engineer and ego fluffer, and the equipment to go along with it.



Yes, you are exactly right, it is NOT a technical problem. This is a problem of people who do not know how to perform together as a group. Take the microphones away from them at rehearsal. Take the band away from them at rehearsal. Make them stand around a piano and sing together as a GROUP. They need to learn how to perform together as a TEAM, not as a bunch of people all singing the same song. They need to learn how to listen to one another and to understand how they all fit together to make a mix. FAR TOO MANY people performing in their churches do not have any concept of how this is supposed to work. Instead they have a very myopic "ME" vision of everything, hence your EIGHT monitor mixes.

Ooo... here's a fun idea!!! Beg, borrow, or rent a really nice omni-directional or figure-8 microphone, gather the singers around it so they are all in the pattern. Put studio headphones on them (Sony 7506's or Sennheiser HD280 Pro's would be ideal) Take that one microphone, mix in a little bit of tracks so they have something to sing to, and make them mix themselves by stepping closer to or farther from the microphone. The point of this exercise is to try to get them to understand where they and their part fit in the mix. Perhaps you will be able to convince them with a little bit of this training that they can all live together with one monitor mix and by choking up on the mic when it is their turn to lead, everything will sound great in the house because they are singing together as a group instead of in spite of one another. This might also help bring the overall level down a bit, if it is currently objectionably high or almost objectionably high.

Yes, the talent does need to be encouraged and nurtured, but by helping the performers become better musicians, the overall experience of the entire church will improve.

They actually do very well with the 8 monitor mixes from house. I don’t think any of the instruments has their own on stage amp. That is why all of the mixes, they get themselves so they can play and what ever else they need. They had electronic drums but didn’t like them; the drummer is behind a shield. They are all spread across the stage it is a lot wider then it is deep. I don’t think they would have a problem handling the 10 mixes it will likely become.

They aren’t being a pain about the boosting up of the lead but I have heard the request. I talked to a friend who used to do monitors for some very big name acts and he said that he has been asked for the same thing from some of those acts. So I realized it wasn’t totally out of line but I think it is more then they should expect unless they are willing to spend a lot of money on a console that can do what they want with ease. I just haven’t found what console that would be yet. If I were to mix them I would just ignore the request. They like what they hear when I have been at the mixer for some rehearsals while trying to help train their people.

In summery they (musicians and tech people) do a decent job and a lot of what they want is just to make it better. And they are looking for consistency. I think that is a really good thing to strive for. I am a technical consultant for them I am not a musical consultant, so it is very hard for me to tell them what they should be doing vocally. I can push it and I can tell them they are not performing right and that they need to listen to me. And then I can go looking for more work else ware because they will tell me to take a hike if I act like that kind of jerk. I tried to make the suggestion for them to sing what I think is the right way to do it and the leader (paid position) didn’t want to do it that way. And I must repeat, they are musically pretty good but they could be better.

I actually have heard these volunteers mix much better then what I have heard at other places that are using paid staff or even at church events that are using what is supposed to be a professional sound company.

 

[brian maddox]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

it sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on where they are. but i still think that you're dealing with a case of 'expectation creep' and at some point there is going to need to be a change of how things are done in order to meet those expectations.

'expectation creep' is actually totally normal and happens in just about every fixed performance space, especially churches where the music program is growing and improving. of course the problem is that usually we can continue to be able to provide every small increase in expectation without any significant change in method or equipment, until it gets to a critical juncture. then we suddenly 'need' a whole new monitor rig or what have you and the non-tech folks can't understand why we would need all this extra stuff to just do this one more little thing. but truth is, if expectations are rising, this point will ALWAYS be reached eventually. of course, with cash strapped organizations like churches this tipping point usually occurs about half a dozen 'expectation increases' later than it probably should.

i think this church is hitting this tipping point. it's entirely possible that their current requests can be met with just another console and some different mixing techniques. but eventually someone is going to want another mix. or someone's gonna want in-ears on top of their wedge. or something. and then they're just gonna have to bite the bullet and change something fairly dramatically.

of course, if i was in your shoes i'm not sure i would want to be the one to try to force that issue. you would like to have their repeat business after all. but then again... if you get their repeat business you're gonna be stuck pushing the same point later...

and that is why i never did consulting for churches...

good luck and God speed...

 

[Kevin Maxwell]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

it sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on where they are. but i still think that you're dealing with a case of 'expectation creep' and at some point there is going to need to be a change of how things are done in order to meet those expectations.

'expectation creep' is actually totally normal and happens in just about every fixed performance space, especially churches where the music program is growing and improving. of course the problem is that usually we can continue to be able to provide every small increase in expectation without any significant change in method or equipment, until it gets to a critical juncture. then we suddenly 'need' a whole new monitor rig or what have you and the non-tech folks can't understand why we would need all this extra stuff to just do this one more little thing. but truth is, if expectations are rising, this point will ALWAYS be reached eventually. of course, with cash strapped organizations like churches this tipping point usually occurs about half a dozen 'expectation increases' later than it probably should.

i think this church is hitting this tipping point. it's entirely possible that their current requests can be met with just another console and some different mixing techniques. but eventually someone is going to want another mix. or someone's gonna want in-ears on top of their wedge. or something. and then they're just gonna have to bite the bullet and change something fairly dramatically.

of course, if i was in your shoes i'm not sure i would want to be the one to try to force that issue. you would like to have their repeat business after all. but then again... if you get their repeat business you're gonna be stuck pushing the same point later...

and that is why i never did consulting for churches...

good luck and God speed...

You make a good point about the expectation creep. That is one reason I am of the mindset of buy the best that you can (that fits you needs and hopefully future needs) because when you live with it for a while the better it is the longer it will be before you are dissatisfied with it.

Now as far as cash strapped. Yes there are a lot of cash strapped churches but I find there are more that are trying to be too frugal. I don’t know the exact finances of this church but this church (organization) is only about 20 years old. They own a lot of property and there is no debt. That’s right they don’t have any mortgages on anything. I have always said that property is one thing they aren’t making anymore of so if you can buy it do it. Especially anything that goes up for sale any where near the church because if you ever want to expand, you are your neighbors. This is a smart bunch of people. So I wouldn’t call this church cash strapped.

 

[Caleb Dueck]

Re: Digital mixer - pros and cons?

You make a good point about the expectation creep. That is one reason I am of the mindset of buy the best that you can (that fits you needs and hopefully future needs) because when you live with it for a while the better it is the longer it will be before you are dissatisfied with it.

Now as far as cash strapped. Yes there are a lot of cash strapped churches but I find there are more that are trying to be too frugal.

Great example of headroom; it's not just a technical issue, it's long-range planning.

Frugal is good, and we love to help with that; cheap for the sake of short-sightedness and not understanding issues at hand, which often leads to unethical behavior - we have plenty of competitors to inflict you onto