Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Junior Varsity
X32 / Core: Dream setup
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Per Søvik" data-source="post: 89097" data-attributes="member: 1285"><p>Re: X32 / Core: Dream setup</p><p></p><p>About separate processing: The way I compress backing singers and small to medium choirs on individual microphones, I can't run that compression into the monitors for several reasons, so if I can spare the channels, I run separate channels for monitors. A Rack or Core will allow me to do this comfortably with a larger channel count, so to me a Core or Rack is a no-brainer for this reason only.</p><p></p><p>Allow me to expand a little on the compression: </p><p>When using individual miking, one often finds oneself in a situation where the choir sounds not like a choir, but like a bunch of individual voices, and trying to make a balanced mix of a large group of singers with varying microphone techniques, varying tastes for how much the want to hear of their own voice in the monitors etc., rapidly gets beyond the scope of any individual soundperson in a live setting. </p><p>Lots of coaching and a lengthy soundcheck does of course help, but that is another story (see my rant in the basement). </p><p>To pull in the choir/backing group I use a soft knee compression going into a ratio of 1:10, with levels and tresholds set in such a way that I generally have 2.5-3 ratio for the normal stuff and only pushing into the full compression for crecendos. </p><p>To encourage the singers to do their own level matching, as well as reducing feedback issues and stage noise issues, I won't use any compression in the monitors, just some limiting to stop one overly loud singer from making the other singers on the same monitor uncomfortable/deaf/annoyed and also to keep a runaway feedback somewhat in check. Having available effects to put a nice room feeling in the monitors is always a plus when possible. Choirs hate the acoustics we like, they want to sing in stone cathedrals/caverns/tiled showers not perfect sound stages wher you could drop a truckload of pins without hearing it.</p><p>Having both a compressed and an uncompressed signal available for post fader, post dca effect sends means one also have an extra way of tailoring the effect to what one tries to achieve ( like David Bowie on China Girl or something around the same time, using compression to keep the vocal from getting overly loud while an uncompressed send to reverb/delay would make the voice sound bigger when he was singing loud)</p><p>Avoiding compression in the monitors of course applies to other musicians as well, one wants them all to control their own dynamics, only smoothing out what is coming through the mains for the audience.</p><p></p><p>It is encouraging that Behringer is thinking in terms of making some integration available, and judging solely from the response to my eq selection highlight post (ignoring the fact that it has probably been discussed and suggested before) ten or so likes from the right group of users on this forum seems to go a long way in getting a positive response from the team <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />~<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />~:smile:</p><p>I'm thinking that first priority for Behringer should be to (fully) integrate a single Core/Rack with the X32 providing remote control via extra layers ( one can select the layers by either pressing two layers simultanously 1-16 and 17-32 would give you 33-48, or holding down the remote button while pressing one of the layer buttons ), scene handling and signal integration. </p><p>There are obvious limitations to what can be done within the limitations of the hardware, and I don't know where those limitations are, but those limitations should only affect what can be done in terms of signal flow and signal integration. Controlling and harnessing the processing power that comes with a Core/Rack should "only" be a matter of firmware design.</p><p></p><p>From a marketing point of view it is a good idea to keep up with the likes of the GLD80, offering integrated solutions that tops the channel counts offered by A&H, Soundcraft & all in their offerings in the same market segment. I don't buy any Midas argument, not wanting to compete with your own brand that clearly belongs in a different market segment is not a viable excuse for not offering maximum punch in the budget segment, a segment where the competition is getting hotter all the time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Per Søvik, post: 89097, member: 1285"] Re: X32 / Core: Dream setup About separate processing: The way I compress backing singers and small to medium choirs on individual microphones, I can't run that compression into the monitors for several reasons, so if I can spare the channels, I run separate channels for monitors. A Rack or Core will allow me to do this comfortably with a larger channel count, so to me a Core or Rack is a no-brainer for this reason only. Allow me to expand a little on the compression: When using individual miking, one often finds oneself in a situation where the choir sounds not like a choir, but like a bunch of individual voices, and trying to make a balanced mix of a large group of singers with varying microphone techniques, varying tastes for how much the want to hear of their own voice in the monitors etc., rapidly gets beyond the scope of any individual soundperson in a live setting. Lots of coaching and a lengthy soundcheck does of course help, but that is another story (see my rant in the basement). To pull in the choir/backing group I use a soft knee compression going into a ratio of 1:10, with levels and tresholds set in such a way that I generally have 2.5-3 ratio for the normal stuff and only pushing into the full compression for crecendos. To encourage the singers to do their own level matching, as well as reducing feedback issues and stage noise issues, I won't use any compression in the monitors, just some limiting to stop one overly loud singer from making the other singers on the same monitor uncomfortable/deaf/annoyed and also to keep a runaway feedback somewhat in check. Having available effects to put a nice room feeling in the monitors is always a plus when possible. Choirs hate the acoustics we like, they want to sing in stone cathedrals/caverns/tiled showers not perfect sound stages wher you could drop a truckload of pins without hearing it. Having both a compressed and an uncompressed signal available for post fader, post dca effect sends means one also have an extra way of tailoring the effect to what one tries to achieve ( like David Bowie on China Girl or something around the same time, using compression to keep the vocal from getting overly loud while an uncompressed send to reverb/delay would make the voice sound bigger when he was singing loud) Avoiding compression in the monitors of course applies to other musicians as well, one wants them all to control their own dynamics, only smoothing out what is coming through the mains for the audience. It is encouraging that Behringer is thinking in terms of making some integration available, and judging solely from the response to my eq selection highlight post (ignoring the fact that it has probably been discussed and suggested before) ten or so likes from the right group of users on this forum seems to go a long way in getting a positive response from the team :)~:-)~:smile: I'm thinking that first priority for Behringer should be to (fully) integrate a single Core/Rack with the X32 providing remote control via extra layers ( one can select the layers by either pressing two layers simultanously 1-16 and 17-32 would give you 33-48, or holding down the remote button while pressing one of the layer buttons ), scene handling and signal integration. There are obvious limitations to what can be done within the limitations of the hardware, and I don't know where those limitations are, but those limitations should only affect what can be done in terms of signal flow and signal integration. Controlling and harnessing the processing power that comes with a Core/Rack should "only" be a matter of firmware design. From a marketing point of view it is a good idea to keep up with the likes of the GLD80, offering integrated solutions that tops the channel counts offered by A&H, Soundcraft & all in their offerings in the same market segment. I don't buy any Midas argument, not wanting to compete with your own brand that clearly belongs in a different market segment is not a viable excuse for not offering maximum punch in the budget segment, a segment where the competition is getting hotter all the time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Junior Varsity
X32 / Core: Dream setup
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!