Conference napalm::guitar

RnR uses the PA (depending on the club) to mic everything.  We mic both 
guitar amps, drums and run direct from the bass amp, plus four vocal mics.
Sometimes in smaller clubs we omit the guitar mics and just run with the
stage volume.  Most of the clubs we play are pretty small.

The PA we use most has this stuff:

-16x5 Sound Tech mixer (2 FX loops)

-16x3 Ernie Ball Snake

-Sound Tech PL300 power amp (300wpc into 8, or 600watts bridged)
 (We run it bridged)

-Peavy SP2a's with Black Widow drivers

-Peavy XR600 powered 6ch mixer for monitors

-FX loop 1 has a Roland DEP-3 for Digital Reverb
 FX loop 2 has a Roland SDE3000 for Digital Delay

-Main send runs thru an Ibanez EQ and a BBE Sonic Maximizer
 Monitor send runs thru an Ibanez EQ (dry, no FX)

-We use two floor monitors and two side monitors

For the big venues we use a tri-amped system with 15" front loaded bass bins
(Altec-Lansing), Cerwin Vega dual mid-horns, and Altec-Lansing hi-horns. I have
a LOFT 3way Xover...

Luckily for us, our singer works at a music store and we get to pick and 
choose our power amps and speaker configs.  Next weekend we're playing outdoors
for St. Patty's day, and we're using (3) CS1000's (4)SP2a's and (2)SP4's, plus 
all our monitors and stuff...We'll use my mixer because of the two FX loops..
(a nice feature).

    Good topic! What do you recommend for a 3-piece band doing acoustic
    and acoustic/electric stuff who don't have and don't want a drummer?
    
    -Dave

    
    Our band Westwind,a country,country rock band,uses a 12 channel mixer
    feeding a Peavey compressor/limiter/deesser,to a A/B international PA,
    325wtts per channel in 4ohms,200 wts/ch 8ohms.We use sp-3
    speakers,which are full range. Except for outdoors,we use stage volume
    for our instruments,use the PA for vocals only,and,mix from the
    stage.Our monitor amp is a Peavey 130wt,I am using two 16 ohm spot
    monitors,and,2 100 watt radio shack speakers.
    
    Mike
    

      I agree, good topic. There's a lot of gear out there, so it's
    interesting to see what everyone's using and if they are happy with
    it. I own the PA that my band uses so I'm very familiar with it.
    All in all I'm very pleased with it's performance. I get a lot
    of comments on how loud and clear the system is for it's size.
    I prefer a compact system with premium components over the old
    bulk-box/"bigger is better" approach.
      I recently replaced the front end speakers to get more low end
    out of the fronts. I was using four JBL Cabaret cabs. The low end
    was a pair of 4625's loaded with E140's, the tops were a pair of
    4691B's with E140's and a 2445 horn. I sold them to go with eighteens
    on the bottom, so Boom's system really goes BOOM!
      Here's my present rig:
    
      Mixer: 	Studiomaster 12 X 2 - parametrics on each channel and
    			two effects loops.
    
      Effects:	Yamaha SPX-90 ,Audiologic compressor,and Alesis micro-enhancer
    
      Power and xover: Audiologic X324 crossover
    	    mid/highs- Carver PM1.5 power amp (2 X 600 at 4 ohms)
    	    low end  - Carvin FET900 amp (900 at 4 ohms bridged)
   	    monitors - Carvin FET400 amp (200 X 2)
    	          All in a Mesa-Boogie Sus-4 rack w/wheels
    
      Front-end speakers: Elite M-600 high/mids, one per side each
    			   with two tens and a horn, components are
    			   RCF and it's rated at 600 watts.
     			  Elite SW-600 subwoofers, one 18" RCF rated
    	                   at 600 watts. BOOMer! 
    
      Monitors - Peavey (12 and horn)
    						That's it-
    					        BoOm
      

      Mixer: 	Tangent 1602a (16 channel) - Each channel has a Parametric EQ
                and Effects loop.
      Effects:	Mixer has reverb built-in for each channel.
      Power:  BGW 750 power amp (750wts @ 8 ohms) used to power everything
                  but the monitors.
              BGW power amp (300wts @ 8 ohms) for monitors only.
              Soundcraftsmen 1/3 octave EQ
                  - all in a cheapo 8 space rack
      Speakers: TOAs w/ 15" woofers, midrange, and horn tweeters
      Monitors: Pro Sound wedges with 12" + horn
                Cheapo brand "hot spots"

    I always hated setting up a large PA for duos and trios.  For that reason,
    I'd recommend you acquire a small PA that has the capability to expand
    for larger venues.  Typically, smaller groups, particularly groups
    oriented towards acoustic material, don't need a massive PA with a ton
    of processing.
    
    Check out an Entertainer, made by EV.  This is a very portable 6X2
    powered mixer, with XLR mic inputs and two line level inputs.  There's
    one foldback and one effects bus.  The mic preamps have a very usable
    'auto limiter' so it's nearly impossible to overload the input.  Price is
    (very) approximately $1000.
    
    Two flavors of speakers are available: the S100, which I'd recommend 
    for your group, is pefectly adequate for small acoustically oriented clubs,
    weddings, etc.  The S200 is capable of handling 300w per cabinet, and
    would be more appropriate for a rock band with drummer.
    
    Here's how I've used this rig:
    
                No monitors...the leak from the mains was enough
    Solo:	Entertainer + 2 s100's
    		Two mics (vocal and guitar)
    		One DI
          
    Trio:	Entertainer + 2 s100's
                A BGW250 powering 2 more s100's as monitors.
    		Five mics and a DI
    
    Band:	Entertainer + 2 s200's + 2 15in Thiele boxes
    		(a crossover was used to take the two lowest octaves
    		 into a BGW 750 driving the woofers...the onboard power
    		amp dove the s200's.)
    		Four vocal mics, a bass Di, and a kick drum mic.
    		Much outboard processing
    		Four EV FM1202 floor monitors powered by a BGW 750.
    
    Note there was bno snake or sound engineer in any of these rigs.  If
    your group is at the stage where a sound engineer is a necessity, then
    you've exceeded the utility of this suggestion.
    
    I used to own a fairly component system: four Klipsch LaScala's, mondo
    BGW power, compression and limiting, the works...but it's SOOOO much
    easier dealing with this rig that I've sold off the Klipsch's and BGW's.
    
    Regards,
    John Kelly
    

    My choice hands down is EV (Electro-Voice). They offer super efficient
    speakers that are well worth the money. I've got a pretty basic
    setup but it sounds extraordinary!
    
    2 - EV  SH-1502-ER speakers
    
    1 - CARVER  PM-175  (175W/ch at 8 ohms)
    
    1 - TAPCO 8201B 8-channel stereo mixer 
    
    1 - TAPCO reverb unit
    
    1 - KORG M-1  (8 track multi-timbrel synthesizer w/sequencer)
    
    1 - Digi-Tech GSP-5 Multi-effects rack
    
    3 - AKG mikes
    
    I was a guitar soloist for quite a spell and couldn't find any bass
    players or drummer so I bought the M-1 which I program and then
    accompany with my live guitar playing and vocals. The sound is really
    satisfying! The EV's totally blow away the old Carvin speakers I
    was using! Though you might want to check out the new Carvin line.
    Carvin is located in Escondido, California and makes some high quality
    equipment. They sell directly to you and don't use dealers. They
    pay shipping and your satisfaction is guaranteed. They've got
    everything for a complete PA system, in fact, they offer many different
    systems and package deals as well as guitars and guitar amps.
    
    	I'll never look back with regret on my EV's however! What a
    sound!!!!

    
    
    I might be in the market for a PA within the next couple of months. 
    I'd be looking for a smallish system that could handle
    vocals+instruments.  The volume *won't* be at earth-shaking levels, but
    clarity is important.

    Let's start with speakers.
    
    Cruising through several notes files, including this one, I came up
    with the following.  (Thanks to the original authors...)
    
    
    
    
    
    
MAKER     MODEL           AS DESCRIBED                            PRICE 
                                                     
PEAVEY    358S            The 358S is a 3-way speaker with a      $339
                          15" woofer, 10" mid-range, and a        (list)
                          horn in a cabinet about 24" w x
                          18" d x 30" h. That makes it
                          somewhat bigger than the PV 115H, 
                          and considerably bigger than the EV,
                          but it can still be stand mounted
                          (built in mount adaptor), and can
                          be picked up (side recessed
                          handles) by one person without
                          breaking your back.                    
                                                                  


TOA     380-SE            It's great. 3-way. 15-in                 $300.  
                          woofer. Bi-ampable and                   (used)  
                          tri-ampable. 
                          Very compact in comparison  
                          to the Peavey 
                          SP2A and SP3. 
                                                                
                                                                 

EAW     PM315B            Not biampable, 3 way, even nicer            ??
                          than 380SE 


EV      SH1502            Not biampable but  that's an easy 
                          conversion since it's a two way speaker,    ??
                          real punchy in vocal range but lots 
                          cleaner than Peavey.


PV       SP2A             Peavey SP2A - Spec's are perfect but at     
         SP3              93lbs I think they might be a little riskey 
         115H             for stands, not to mention getting them on 
                          the stands. 
 
                          Peavey SP3 - they're 94lbs and handle less power.   
    
                          Peavey 115H - I don't know what to think about 
                          these, they look too small.  I havn't heard them.  
                          They use the lower power Scorpion speaker.  
                      


    Anything else I should consider in this size and price range?
    
    Kevin
    
                                      

    
    JBL came out with a new line of stuff this summer, so the old 700
    series speakers are now being discounted to the $300 to $400 range.  I
    looked (and listened) to these before buying a pair of Cerwin-Vega cabs
    (V36s, I think, don't remember the number) for $800.  I went for the
    CVs 'cause they have 18" drivers and work real well for bass.
    
    So, check out Cerwin Vega and JBL, for sure.  TOA and Crate both make
    cabinets in this "PA lite" category.  I bought my stuff at Guitar
    Center in Santa Ana.  Insist on listening to the kind of music you'll
    be playing, so you can get some kind of clue as to how these things
    will work.
    

    Re: EAW, EV
    
    The EAW PM315Bs are killer. They are also discontinued.  You can get them
    used at about $6-700 a pair if you shop around.  They are *not* horn
    loaded so they don't project quite as well in *big* rooms or outdoors,
    but they are *extremely* crisp and clean and takes lots of power. 
    Our band just picked up a pair and they are lovely.  Pretty small and
    light as well, definitely stand mountable.  I would recommend trying to
    score a pair of these.
    
    The EV 1502s are nice as well, although larger/heavier.  These can be
    bought new for about $700 a pair.  There are two versions (one might
    actually be 1512 or some such) the difference being whether the 15"
    driver is horn loaded or ported.  The ported version ahs smoother low
    end but the horn version projects better and is a bit louder.  These
    are *far* superior in my ears to tha Peavey SP line.  However, the
    Peaveys are OK, especially if you can get a pair cheap (say $400 or
    less for a used pair).  I used SP3s for years in some C&W bands and
    they are good rugged workhorses.
    
    							Brian

    (I know this isn't guitar related, but the topic is covered in 4
    conferences, and this note already existed, so...)
    
    Great info so far, thanks!!  I'll do some comparison shopping with
    these models.  If the EV 1502s sell for $700/pair new, what do they
    fetch used?  Do they stand a comparison to the 3-way systems?
    
    
    
    Now, on to power amps/mixers.  Is it clear that a separate mixer/power
    amp is the way to go?   Or will a self-contained unit fit the bill?  
    
    I'm thinking that I'll need 8 channels, no more than 12 under any
    condition.  I'd certainly be willing to start off with 8 channels if I
    could expand later.

    The last mixer I owned (a long time ago) was a Tapco, and I liked it
    because it was simple and quiet.  Is Tapco a contender or a has-been?  
    
    I expect the rest of the system to be fairly simple; i.e., one effects
    unit, few if any add ons.  
     
    
    Kevin
    
    
    

    Tapco is now part of EV.  The Entertainer system mentioned in an
    earlier reply is actually marked EV/Tapco.
    
    Separates are not necessarily the way to go but have obvious
    flexibility if your mixing needs (i.e. more channels) change.  Most
    self-contained units have sufficient patch points to plug in extra
    stuff.  My band currently uses one of two 6-channel self-contained
    units ( I own one, the guitarist owns one) together with outboard
    rack-mounted EQ, compression and power amps (all stereo, hooked up for
    mains/monitors).  We could have bought a separate mixer but six
    channels works for our current needs (3 vocal mikes, saxophone mike and
    kick drum mike).  
    
    The advantages to self-contained units:
    
    1. They're good for small gigs standalone (no need to haul the amp
    rack) or for practice.
    
    2. The built-in power can come in handy as a "spare" power amp to drive
    monitors or whatever.
    
    The big problem with them is low power, few can put out more than 200
    watts per side, and that's pretty low power for rock music if you want
    to run instruments as well as vocals.  Or, put another way, you may
    need to add an outboard power amp immediately anyway.
    
    Probably the biggest reason my band uses the units is we already owmed
    them!  I.e. if we were buying from scratch, seeing as how we were
    buying a 1000 watt power amp, we would have probably gone with an
    unpowered mixer.  Of course, if you can get a unbelievable deal on a
    powered mixer (like one I got recently) then it's hard to pass up.
    
    							Brian
    

    Go for individual pieces...more flexibility and friendlier upgrade
    path.  Also allows insertion of processing equipment between mixer
    and amps, e.g. EQ's, comp/limiters, notch filters,...
    
    Tapco was purchased by EV ( who in turn have been swallowed by Gulton)
    so you can't go to your local Tapco dealer anymore, but EV might  have
    something to suit.  Biamp made a nice little 8x2x1 board a few years 
    ago (before they wenmt under) that you could probably find used for
    about $250.
    
    The ultimate 8 channel mixer for my situation would be an 8x4x2x1, for
    
    	8 inputs ( four vox, four instruments [drums use a submixer])
        4 submasters for four individual monitor mixes
    	2 stereo masters for recording 'live to 2 track'
        1 mono (summed) master for the house PA
    
    I still have a Tapco 6100RB which, if it's the same board you remember,
    I agree is a great little simple board.  It provides the drum submix.
    You can occasionally find these units used.  They made an exander
    module called the 6100EB which offered another 8 inputs and had a bus
    connector to attach to the RB.
    
    For speakers, three other suggestions: EV Entertainers, EV S200's, and
    Klipsch LaScala's in the split industrial version.  Forget stands with
    the latter...too big.  If you went the entertainer route, you could 
    consider adding a 15in speaker in a Thiele cabinet on each side and
    running biamped, feeding everything from 120Hz on down to the 15's.
    Again, lotsa flexibilty.
    
    Sorry to ramble on, but what else does one do whilst waiting for long
    'makes' to complete ('compiles' to you VMS types =8^)?

    I'm glad someone mentioned the EV S200's (I thought Brian would). I'm
    pretty happy with the Peavey's I've got, but if I had to upgrade it
    would probably be to the S200's. I can't remember the model on the
    Peavey's I'm using, but they're bi-ampable, with a 12", and 8" and a
    horn (if my memory is correct). They're designed to get extra low-end
    out of the 12", and it's pretty effective. I had been planning to go
    with the 258's, because I liked the bottom end from the 15's, but these
    came along at a good price, and they're slightly smaller and easier to
    move around. I push MIDI sequences through them, including bass and
    drums, as well as vocals, and the sound is pretty good. Granted that
    I don't play real loud, but frankly I don't see why you would need the
    extra low-end just for vocals. What I do for more low-end is drag around
    a Peavey 18" bass cab. But that's only because I'm pumping MIDI bass
    through the system, and I like the punch from the 18.
    
    As far as mixers/amps go, I'm using a Peavey 500W (250 per side) single
    rack space stereo power amp. The price on these is very reasonable (new
    for about $500-600), and it's very clean and lots of power for what I
    do. I use an active crossover (also Peavey), and the bi-amping makes a
    big difference in the sound. Again, if you're just doing vocals this
    might not matter that much. I also use a powered mixer, and use the
    power from the mixer to drive monitor speakers. This gives me a very
    flexible setup. If I just want to go out to jam someplace, or for a
    small gig, I can leave the rack home and just take the mixer.
    
    If you want to come by my place sometime and check out this setup, let
    me know. I did a lot of shopping around before I got this stuff.
    There's obviously a lot of better gear out there, but I paid only about
    $1000 for my whole setup (mixer, power amp, crossover, speakers,
    stands, monitor). I think to do much better that what I've got you'll
    probably have to go way up in price.
    
    - Ram

Definitely check out Biamp rack-mountable boards. I have a Biamp 
RackMax - 12 channels, 2 effects loops, three-band EQ, and lots of 
other bells and whistles all in an 8-space rackmount size. I've gigged 
with it every weekend for the last three years and it still works 
like a dream. Very easy to use, and very effective mixer.

I also have the EAW speakers mentioned earlier, and they're great!

-Dan

    
    What's the asking price new/used for the EV S-200s?  Does that price
    include the S-200 active equalizer system.  Speaking of the active EQ,
    would it be necessary?
    
    Kevin
    

    The S-200s new run about $1000 with the EQ.  The EQ is needed if you
    want the extended bottom octave that it provides.  Not if you will be
    biamping with subwoofers.
    
    						Brian

    
    Not cheap is right!  But, there is a pair of almost-new EV SH1502ERs in
    the WantAds for "asking $600."  I can't free up the $$ yet, so I'll
    have to pass, but that does seem like a good deal, especially
    considering the good things I've heard about them.
    
    Thanks for all the help everybody.  It's been very informative and will
    save me some pain.
    
    Kevin
    
    
    

    Boyoboy Kev !!  Can I make you a deal on a pair of Peavy MB1's !!
    
    18" Black Widow Front loaded, theile ported, brand new shape !
    Came out of the box and slipped under a stage, and right into my
    van....
    
    :)

                  Id like to use this note to gain some knowledge
    about other equipment as well. I soon will be in the market for
    a mixer and some PA speakers. As I read through ad's for equipment,
    I see thing like 12x8x2 mixer. What is this refering to. What is a pan
    adjustment. Are powered mixers better/worse than unpowered. Thanks
    again.

    12x8x2 is a way of describing the mixer configuration.  In my
    experience, the first number refers to the number of microphone
    inputs.  Subsequent numbers refer to outputs, of which there are a few
    types.  Some examples might help:
    
    	8x2 :== 8 inputs, 2 outputs (stereo)
    
    	8x2x1 :== 8 in, 2 stereo outputs, 1 mono output which is the sum
                  of the 2 stereo outs....as though you connected a Y-cord
                  to the stereo outputs.
    
        8x4x2x1 :== 8 in, 4 submasters or groups, 2 stereo outs, 1 mono
                    sum.    
    
    A pan adjustment lets you vary how much of each input goes to the
    left or right (stereo) masters.  It's usually a potentiometer
    knob located on the input chain.  If you leave it in the center, then
    equal amounts of the guitar, say, that's plugged into that input will
    go to the left master and the right master.
    
    Powered vs. unpowered mixers: Depends.  Powered is simpler and usually
    cheaper than buying a separate board and power amp, but some might
    argue that quality and modularity suffers with an integrated unit. 
    IMHO, if you're getting started I'd recommend an integrated mixer amp.

Man, I didn't know when I bought my last mixer how important a 
batch of SUBS can be.  Lets look  at your typical mix at a show:

Band:  1 drummer, 2 guitarists, one bassist

-Channels 1-10 are drum mics.

-11-12 and 13-14 are your stereo guitar mics

-15, 16, 17 are backup vocals
 
-18 is lead vocals
 
-19 is bass guitar.

Now, thats a lot of sliders to mess with.  But, if you use SUBS (to sub-mix)
you mix up the drums, and SUB them to "A".  You mix up the GUITARs (including 
bass) and SUB to "B".  You mix up the backing vocals and SUB to "C", and lead 
vocals SUB to "D".  (or something like that).  Now you have four levels to 
watch...  Need a little more drums in the mix ?  Crank up "A" (as opposed to 
cranking 1-10, and blowing your mix.  See how cool they are ?

Also, most SUBs have outputs that can go right into each track of a 4 track.
Presto - instant demo tape.

jc (Who wished he had subs on his mixer...)

    -1
    
    4 mics for guitars, and 1 vocal mike?
    
    That is NOT a band *I* wanna see!

    re: Buck
    
    Who's note you reading?  Coop's example (a real world one), had four
    vocal mikes, not one.  See?
                  
>-15, 16, 17 are backup vocals
> 
>-18 is lead vocals
    
    As I've always maintained, I still say that stereo for a single guitar
    signal is a total waste of time, equipment, and effort in a live
    situation.  In fact, I'd even say that a stereo mix period is usually a
    waste of time when playing live (except in a very large place). 
    
    Problem is that only the people right in front of the PA will hear any
    appreciable stereo seperation, everyone else just hears a bad mix
    because certain things are panned away from them in the PA.
    
    re: .22
    
    Would you PA guru types seperate up the submix like that?  I wouldn't
    do it that way for a 4-track submix, maybe it'd be ok for live. I was
    thinking the bass would go with the drums, not the guitars, and maybe
    all the vocals should go together. 
    
    What think ye?
    
    Greg

We used to play in alot of college theaters and auditoriums. Our band 
consisted of: 

  1 Drummer              (who used 8 channels) 
  1 Keyboard player      (who used 2 channels - stereo)
  1 Lead vocalist        (Used 1 channel)
  2 Guitarists/vocalists (ran mono - so thats 4 channels for them)
  1 Bassist/vocalist     (that's 2 more channels)

  We also used 2 channels for a stereo tape deck (preconcert music)

  Our board was a 24x4x2.

  The 4 subs were direct inputs to our 4 track.  Also spliced off of the 4
  subs, 2 were used to process the bass and drum effects (stereo), and the
  other 2 processed the vocals, guitars, and keyboards effects (stereo).
  These effects consisted of Compression, noise reduction, and other similar
  effects.  You can see the need for compressing and eqing the bass and drums
  differently from keys and vocals.

  2 other effects units were used for the vocals.  One was patched into the 
  lead vocalist's channel only and the other was patched in all the other
  background vocalist's channels.

  Stereo eq's were used coming out of the stereo outputs of our board and from 
  there went into our power amps. 

  This setup gave us the most flexibility for a band our size.  Greg, I ran 
  stereo a few times and loved it, but the majority of our audience didn't
  pick it up.  Only during an all alone guitar solo.  The toms of the drums
  were split stereo and that sounded great (especially during his solo).  The
  keyboards also sounded great stereo.  But again, theres only a handful of
  musically literate people in the audience that will pick this up - so you
  have to ask yourself is it worth it.
 
  Hope this helps.   /marc

I think stereo is pretty hip...  Providing you have the equipment for
it !!  Greg is right that in that respect - it takes twice the gear to 
do stereo.  As Tom and I both have stereo guitar rigs, it sounds *really*
bitchin'...  Of course, our sound dood has "top shelf" gear all the way 
around, and more power amps than he knows what to do with (he got 8 blown up 
BGW 1000's for a pair of CS800's - eeeeesh).

We just gotta teach him to mix a metal band with AUTHORITY !  :)

Rehearsals are strictly mono (about 800wts), and strictly vocals.

Hey Scary, remember we used to mike everything for rehearsals ??
Wagagagagaaa...

RE: Buck

We are definately heavy on the vocals dood.

jc (who barks)

    I still don't see how using stereo in your PA is going to give the best
    sound to everyone in the place.  Oh sure, it's nice for people
    sitting/standing right in front of the whole PA system, so that they
    can hear both sets of speakers, but what about the poor folks on one
    side or the other?  Half a stereo signal usually sounds pretty odd! 
    Those people only get to hear half the toms (if they're panned across
    like that), half the guitar signals, half the vocal sound (or even
    weirder, only a delayed vocal sound on one side if you split it like
    that for a bigger sound).
    
    So it seems to me that you give killer sound to the third of the people
    in the middle, and inferior sound to the two thirds on either side.  I
    just don't see how that's very productive.
    
    (AND on top of that, it probably cost you more then twice as much in
    gear to do this and a lot more setup time)
    
    Greg

Greg,

If we're talking pa equipment, I don't think it costs twice as much to run
stereo.  Of course it depends on what you have before you switch to stereo,
but most boards have stereo outputs and most power amps have stereo inputs
and outputs.  Now if you use half of your power amp to power the hi/mids and 
the other half to power your lows, then you're going to have to purchase
more equipment.  Before we switched to stereo we had a power amp for our hi's,
a power amp for our mid's, and a power amp for our lows.  They were bridged.
Making the switch meant buying extra cables and flipping a switch.

For individual players making the switch, it may or may not be that much more.

For guitarists without combo amps it might mean buying 1 more mic and 
cable.  For our keyboard player it meant buying another direct box and cable.
The drummer didn't need any new equipment.

Depending on the size of the room we angled the house speakers to hit the 
majority of the audience.  The speakers were generally angled in towards the
center.  We never had any complaints about stereo (but then again not too
many people noticed it either).

    If you're using a combo, or keybords ... why go stereo ?  Ya take 1
    signal, split it, amplify it, send it to both sides - OR - take 1
    signal, amplify it, send it to both sides.  Stereo is for the home/car.
    In a club environment, I doubt Joe Q. Clubgoer could tell, or would
    even care.  And yes, it is more hassle.
    
    Scary

>    If you're using a combo, or keybords ... why go stereo ?  Ya take 1
>    signal, split it, amplify it, send it to both sides - OR - take 1
>    signal, amplify it, send it to both sides.  Stereo is for the home/car.
>    In a club environment, I doubt Joe Q. Clubgoer could tell, or would
>    even care.  And yes, it is more hassle.
   

Nit !   Nit !!

Stereo isn't for the car.  *Some* guitarists LIVE for a stereo rig...
I, for one, feel like I play better, because I *sound* better coming
out of the speakers...  Jimini - a stereo rig sounds like <insert your
favorite album here!>.  It's cool to play a Metallica song and sound JUST
like the record (including the stereo panning, 'verb etc...)

    Wearing your BVD's just a tad tight will yeild the same results ...
    
    8^)
    
    Scary

>  If you're using a combo, or keybords ... why go stereo ? 

I wouldn't with a combo.  But some keyboards are awesome stereo.  Our 
keyboard player had a Roland D50 and S50.  The D50 had some stereo effects
built in with each preset.  If you didn't run stereo it wouldn't sound nearly
as good.  He's the one who actually drove us to go stereo.  After that we
started recording all our shows in stereo on the four track.  Worked out
real nice.

/marc

    re: Marc
    
>    If we're talking pa equipment, I don't think it costs twice as much to run
>stereo.  Of course it depends on what you have before you switch to stereo,
>but most boards have stereo outputs and most power amps have stereo inputs
>and outputs.
    
    True enough about using what you have already, but if you're starting
    from scratch, the difference is pretty substantial.  Even from a mono
    system base, you're *usually* talking about extra power amps, and
    requiring a lot more channels on the board.  Stepping up to a larger
    board is expensive, usually more then twice the price.  You're board
    should have a stereo effects loop (many don't, especially older ones)
    to take advantage of it too.  It takes more mikes and cables too.
    
    For instance:
    
    Take Coop's example band (his); 2 guitar players, bass, and drums with
    three of those people singing.
    
    To babble a bit and show the differences...
    
    For a minimal Mono rig you'd need:
    
    o 10 mikes (4 for drums, 2 for guitar, a direct box or mike for the bass,
           and three vocal mikes).
    o Two mono power amps or one stereo (one for monitors, one for mains)
    o Monitor speakers (to taste)
    o One full range main speaker (ok to be fair it'd probably be two, but 
           I've seen people set up just one for small clubs)
    
    With this you'd need at least 10 channels on the board, so given
    packaging constraints that would be a 12 channel board.
    
    For a minimal Stereo rig you'd need:
    
    o 12 mikes (4 for drums, 2 for each guitar, a direct box or mike for the 
           bass, and three vocal mikes).  And to be fair, you'd probably
           add more drum mikes so you could pan the toms
    o One stereo power amp (mains), One mono power amp (monitors)
    o Monitor speakers to taste
    o Two full range main speakers 
    
    Given this setup, you could still squeek by with the 12 channel board,
    but if you added drum mikes you'd have to upgrade to at least 16
    channels, possibly 24.  That's a pretty big difference in cost (esp.
    for 24).
    
    So the difference is (minimally), a stereo power amp instead of a mono
    one, two mikes, and a full range speaker for the mains.  I guess that's
    not all *that* much.  I figure the big cost would be adding power amps
    and a bigger board if you were running an existing mono rig, as most
    people will have enough speakers to do it anyway.
    
    Greg
                                                                     

Just a nit here, Greg:

Saying that stereo in a club is no good unless you "right in the middle"
is like saying you have to sit on the couch at home, right between the
speakers...Else the stereo is moot ??  Hmm, I dunno if I agree with that.
The stereo field is about as good as the dispersion of your speakers me
thinks.

Also, with two guitarists you don't necesarily need two mikes each.
One each would do, probably.  With us, we have tons of mikes and don't wanna
waste any (wagaga) so we mike everything.

Also, in your mono-example - *4* mikes for drums ??  Two kicks, a snare, and
a overhead ??  I think we uses a minimum of about 8 mikes on Skips kit (but
I'm not sure).

	The Coopster - making some good points!  I like the "everybody
	on the couch" listening to stereo analogy.  I hadn't thought of
	it that way.

I hate when I get logical...  :)

jc

>Saying that stereo in a club is no good unless you "right in the middle"
>is like saying you have to sit on the couch at home, right between the
>speakers...Else the stereo is moot ?? 
    
    If you're standing off to the side then you don't here a stereo image. 
    You only hear a stereo image right in front of it, right?  If you take
    one speaker of a stereo system and run a long cord and take it outside,
    where you can't hear the other one, the music sounds like crap because
    you lost what was in the other speaker.
    
    The situation is different in a club (in my mind) because of the
    relative volumes involved.  The way most people run a PA at a club, if
    you're standing near one set of speakers, they're so loud that you
    couldn't possibly hear the other set.  Most people would never run a
    home stereo that way...
    
>Also, with two guitarists you don't necesarily need two mikes each.
>One each would do, probably. 
    
    Right, depends on what you do with the stereo image.  If the guitar
    players involved are generating a stereo image (which I assumed in my
    example) then you have to have two mikes apiece, if not then one would
    be fine, and you could just do stereo panning of them.  Of course,
    panning them to opposite sides accentuates the problem of people close
    to either speaker not hearing the other one well...
    
>Also, in your mono-example - *4* mikes for drums ??  Two kicks, a snare, and
>a overhead ??  I think we uses a minimum of about 8 mikes on Skips kit (but
>I'm not sure).
    
    I said it was a "minimum" workable setup.  I assumed a standard drum
    kit, not one with double bass.  I figured, kick, snare, and two
    overheads.
    
    Greg

Well, to me, the trick is to keep the speakers away from the crowd -
Facing in slightly towards the dance floor.

Anyway - to each his own...  I think big-watt stereo PA's with good
engineers are way-happenin'.  They just seem to accenuate the sound
off the stage better (to me anyway).

jc

    I agree with Greg - and most soundmen do as well because stereo is
    actually quite rarely done in concert.
    
    Some things work, some things don't.
    
    *I* would not, for example, use stereo in concert to pan instruments
    to the left or right.  It means that very few people in the audience
    are getting the right mix, and for very little benefit to those who
    are.
    
    On the other hand, the RIGHT kind of stereo delay sounds awesome if
    you somewhere between the two speakers and not-much-worse-than-mono
    if your not.  Same with stereo reverb.
    

    
    	If we took this discussion to an extreme (allow me), we could
    	say that orchestra members should be mic'd and mono'd because 
    	the audience can't hear half the instruments.  
    
    	half serious,
    	-pat

    RE:.39
     Gotta stick in my 2� worth..........
    
     Right on!!!The rarest thing in the music world ( including big-
    name shows ) is a good sound man ( engineer-thanks for the term ).
    Lotsa hot musicians but what counts is the SOUND ( and the material,
    but that's another topic ).  I agree basically that stereo effects can
    be lost in some areas in the typical nightclub, but a clever sound
    man can convey SOMETHING of the desired effect even with an 
    unbalanced delivery.  The ( main ) key is simply to not overwhelm
    the system.  This is what makes high-power P.A.s so potentially 
    useful.
    
      For the record, I'm an old-timer that is disappointed in the current
    trend of letting the "mains" do all the work.  If you're using a
    100-watt marshall, let the audience hear THAT ( directly ).  Or
    as in my case, hook up the SVT and give 'em some REAL bass....
    
      I guess I just contradicted myself, but, really, I think that the 
    PA should be >> 50% vocals and most of the rest drum reinforcement.
    Beyond that, they might as well spin records....
    
    				- Kent ( late 60's type of guy,
    					 leastwise those were 
    					 my band days  *sigh*)

    
    
    After looking around for main PA cabinets for a while, I bought a pair
    of used JBL G632's, which look like the precursor to the G732's.  It's
    an extremely efficient full-range system with a 400-watt 15" E140
    (upgrade) and a compression driven horn.
    
    I plan to mike most of the band through the PA, and the 632's should
    easily be up to the task.  These are *very* punchy speakers!
    
    The down side is the weight; I haven't put one on a scale, but it's got
    to be 100+ pounds.  Stand mounting is out, so I'll have to put
    them on tables to get them off the ground.  Two of them easily fit in
    my small station wagon.  Actually, they both fit in the back seat of an
    old Ford LTD, which is how I got them home!
    
    They were a WantAd special.  Not a mark on 'em.  $500 for the pair.
    
    Kevin
    

Kevin,

I wouldn't say stand mounting is out...  I've seen some stands kicking around 
that will raise the speakers to 8 feet that were rated at 200+ pounds...And I
*think* they were made by PV !  Of course, you'll need three men and a small 
boy to get the speaker UP there, but...

:)

    
    Really, 200 pounds?  I wonder if the mounting hardware for the bottom
    of the cabinet is also available?
    
    I'd consider getting the stands if they were real solid.  I would not
    want to be anywhere near those 632s if they came down.....
    
    Kevin
    

    
    	Oh yeah, did I mention that I picked up an Acoustic model 870
    	6 channel/170w powered mixer last week?  Absolutely mint condition
    	for $175!  Trouble is, now I need speakers.  I'd love to own a pair
    	of JBL enclosures (Kevin, you lucky dog!), but they are pricey.
    	The Carvin 852 speakers (15" w/ horn) looks good and cost about
    	$279 (+ ship) but are 8 ohm impedance.  The Acoustic is 4 ohm.  
    	Should I look for 4 ohm speakers or do I have other options here?
    
    	Thanks,
    	-pat

    Re: .46
    
    The Acoustic is solid state, the 4 ohm rating is *minimum* impedance. 
    Two 8 ohm speakers in parallel (remember your amp is *mono*) will give
    you 4 ohms.  A pair of 4 ohm speakers will give you 2 ohms....smoke
    city!!
    
    You might be able to get something better than the Carvins used if you
    do some looking.  I.e. Kevin only paid $500 for two JBLs, my band
    recently got a pair of EAW PM315s for $600...both speakers are miles
    beyond the Carvin in tonal quality.
    
    							Brian

    
    Good deal on those JBLs!  Do be super-cautious about how you mount
    them.  You definitely don't want to be responsible, or liable, if some
    drunk knocks them over on an innocent bystander, customer, or prized
    axe...
    
    You can probably work up to mounting these by yourself - just start out
    with a Twin and gradually increase the reps.
    

    I am trying to maximize the PA sound out of what we currently own.
    Better/more will come in time, for now this is it.  That is, we don't
    have analyzers/compressors/whathaveyou for now.  So far, it sounds OK
    and no better. 

    The PA is used for vocals only

Assume the following equipment:

	6-channel board with 3-band eq (bass knob, mids knob, etc) 
        for each channel.

        board also has a 6 band on-board graphic eq

        separate 15 band graphic eq  

        DSP 128+ fxs processor

        Crown Micro-tech 1200 power amp

        JBL 2-way passive crossive PA cabs.


What would be the best approach to EQ'ing the system?   I was thinking of:

      1. Start with everything flat.  
      2. Adjust the bass/mids/treble for the 6 channels to taste.
      3. Leave the mixer's on-board graphic eq flat, basically relying 
         on the 15-channel one.
      4. Turn up the volume to where I want it.
      5. Adjust the 15-band eq to eliminate feedback/pings.
      6. Fine-tune the sound with 15-band eq 
      7. When I get the sound I want, then add DSP delay/verb

Does this sound reasonable?  

What would the EQ *generally* look like for  vocals?  Boosting the mids and
some-highs  with the lows flat?  I'm looking for a place to start.


            o o o o o o o 
          o               o   
        o                   o
o-o-o-o-----------------------------


Kevin   





     

 
    

    I'll see if I can help.

>What would be the best approach to EQ'ing the system?   I was thinking of:

      >1. Start with everything flat.  

    Yeah. Flatten all EQ's, channel, and graphics, inboard and outboard,
    turn down main, monitor, and effects masters. Bring down all the faders,
    and with the channel EQ still flat, have someone check into the mic as you
    bring up the channel volume, and the master, until you're at the
    approximate playing volume. If the mixer has input attenuators, set them
    to "0" (unity).

      >2. Adjust the bass/mids/treble for the 6 channels to taste.

    No. Leave the EQ on the channels flat for the time being. At this point,
    adjust the 15 band EQ on the main mix while someone is still checking
    into the mic until the vocals are reasonably defined and natural.
    It's difficult to say exactly how you should EQ your system without hearing
    it, but below is what you might get with a system like yours. You shouldn't
    have any reason to boost the midrange. That is the sure path to soundman
    hell, especially with JBL's. If anything, you might soften the midrange
    bite in the ~1K-4K bands by -1 or-2 to make vocals sound more natural. Also,
    you might boost the top 2 or 3 bands +1 or +2 to add a little sibilance.
    
    
        o   <------\      Not this dramatic	    /--->	o
            o   <------- just +1 to +3 or so -------->      o
     		o  <--/	   		       \-->	o
     0 >------------o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o------------< 0
       If too boomy --> o   o...o...o...o...o <-- -1 or -2 if too bright
    			    	
       \___bass___/\_boom__/\__howl_/\__MIDRANGE__/\treble/\sibilance/

        |   |	|   |	|   |	|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
       25  40  63  100 160 250 400 630 1K 1.6K 2.5K 4K 6.3K 10K 16K

    Check it with the other vocalists to make sure you're in the ballpark with
    all of them. Now you're free to use the channel EQs to fine tune each vocal.
    Also, it helps alot to have all the same model vocal mics.
    
      >7. When I get the sound I want, then add DSP delay/verb

    	Yeah, and if you have a free channel, bring the effect back through it
    	instead of the effect return. That will let you EQ the effect, if
    	think it would help.

    Hope this helps
    Neal

    
    
    Thanks, Great Info!  I'll give it a try at this week's rehearsal!
    
    Kevin
    

    
    
    We gave the eq settings recommended in .50 a try at rehearsal and it
    made a big improvement in the vocal sound!  We still have to do some
    tweaking, but we're way ahead of where we were.  We also put an
    acoustic guitar into the PA and got an absolutely *killer* acoustic
    guitar sound.
    
    I need to know more about using delay.  It seems that if I add enough
    delay to make singing sound good, we really notice the effect when
    talking....when talking...when talking.  Is that the usual state of 
    affairs?  Also, does a delay time of 330 milliseconds sound reasonable?
    (I'm pretty sure that's the DSP's setting...)
    
    Kevin 
    
     

    >I need to know more about using delay.  It seems that if I add enough
    >delay to make singing sound good, we really notice the effect when
    >talking....when talking...when talking.  Is that the usual state of 
    >affairs?  Also, does a delay time of 330 milliseconds sound reasonable?
    >(I'm pretty sure that's the DSP's setting...)
    
    330 is an ok setting.  I usually use around 500-700 or so for me, but WTF,
    you know?  I like it somewhat longer.  My recommendation is to return
    the delay into a channel...that way you can EQ it, put it in the
    monitors if you want, AND pull the fader down on it between songs, so
    that there isn't delay on the talking...talking...talking, you know?
    
    It's harder to control overall when returned in an fx buss.

Yeah Kev, what Buck said...

We use 500ms delay on our 128, and run the return into channel 16.
EQ'ing the effected signal allows you to get some more snap out
of it before feedback kicks in...  Also, the LP filter on the DSP128+
helps quite a bit.  If you want, I can jot down our favorite preset
tonight and send it to ya...
jc

    
    
    OK, I'll give 500ms+ a try!  Neal had also recommended returning the
    DSP into a spare channel, but we won't have a spare channel to do it.

    I was thinking of using the DSP's bypass footswitch to nuke the effects
    while we chat with the crowd.   
    
    Sure, send me the DSP preset, JC!
    
    Kevin
    

Kev, if you don't have a channel, then that LP will be especially useful
me thinks...
jc

    Make a channel for it!

I'm no techno-weenie, but rule of thumb...

Don't skimp on you're speaker wire.  Use MONSTER Cables.  Big stuff not
only lasts longer, but there is much less signal loss.  But be a cheap-skate
like me - buy a giant roll of the stuff, some banannas, some big ole 1/4" plugs
and make 'em yourself.

However, I've always wondered if there was a rule about signal loss/foot
with certain gage wire...  Help?
jc

    
    
    
    
                    Big wire, good!  Little wire, bad!
    
    

    If you have lots of power passing down the speaker cables, you want
    thick ones to avoid overheating due to the resistive losses.  Ideally,
    for amps running over 200 watts, you should be looking at 14 or 12
    gauge cable. The longer the run the thicker the cable should be, since
    resistance in wire is proportional to distance.
    
    As far as using audiophile cables like Monster Cable, if you have very
    good components *all the way* through your system, the difference *may*
    be audible.  If you're running a 100 watt Peavey powered mixer, it's
    probably not worth the investment...the stuff is not cheap.
    
    As far as the other interconnects (i.e. patching mixer, efects,
    crossovers, power amps, etc. together) high-tech cables (like
    oxygen-free types) have started to come on the market.  I may buy a
    couple to try out and see if the hype can live up to the $$.
    
    						Brian

    Sorta adding to what's been said, there's an additional factor:
    damping.  If you have skinny wires, meaning a higher resistive load,
    the amplifier driving the load has less damping.  Amplifiers need
    damping to properly reproduce low frequencies.  A rule of thumb I've
    used is 16g for low power (200 watts or less), 12g for anything higher.

    
    
    JC, we tried out the DSP 128+ vocal patch (Guido's), and it sounds
    great!  We copied it into location 1 for easy reference.  It will be
    our main vocal patch for now. 
    
    It also turns out that the buttons on the FS300 footswitch can be
    assigned to specific locations, instead of scrolling up and down.  So,
    we assigned button 1 AND 2 to location 1.  Button 3 remains bypass. 
    This way, we can quickly use the footswitch to nuke the fxs if we need
    to chat with the audience.  It's now buttons 1 or 2 for on, button 3
    bypass.
    
    
          
      

    
    	I agree with .63 on gauge vs wattage.  Think of heavy wire as
    	being headers on an engine.  Better flow.

RE: .65

Yeah, or more appropriately, an expansion chamber on a KDX200.  :)

RE: .64

Great Kevin !!  Glad I could help !!  Ain't that flanger way-cheesy 
though ?? Perhaps I should post the preset in the DSP128 topic...

jc

    If you're ever in Stoneham, MA., stop in at New England Speaker and pick up 
    a free cable chart from the literature rack on the left as you walk in the
    door. It explains cable length/gauge/power ratings for spkr applications.
    	I use 12/2 SO cable for mains and monitors. Its black, rubber-like
    neoprene jacket is waterproof and protects it from damage better than 12g
    zip. Also, good connectors make a BIG difference. The small contact area
    between the �" plug tip and the jack tip spring isn't good enough for high
    power applications. Also, they break down. I found out the hard way......
    during a gig.
    	I discovered a ~shorted �" plug and some other plugs that measured a
    few hundred ohms between the conductors. On a few, the small insulator ring
    beween the tip and body was falling apart. These were all Switchcraft plugs,
    too. Stuff like that can cause loss of headroom, funky frequency response,
    and basically make you're system sound like $#!t, which is what prompted me 
    to suss the thing out in the first place. I replaced all the bad ones, but
    eventually built all new 12g cables with Neutrik Speakons on the spkr end
    and MDP banana plugs on the amp end. The difference was like night and day.
    All my spkrs cabs, both main and monitor have both Neutrik Speakon
    connectors as well as �" jacks. I still have 14/16g cables with �" plugs
    for spares. 
    	You can get 14g SJO at Spags for ~25�/ft, 16g for ~20�/ft, and banana
    plugs at Rat Shack for $2.99 (274-717). If anyone has a good source for
    those fat �" Switchcraft plugs, (# ?) I'd be interested. They're still very
    good for low-to-medium power applications. Neutrik Speakon plugs/jacks are
    available from Newark Elect. and listed in catalog #111 or #112.

    Neal

    Adding to what Neil Orsi said, I've used Switchcraft XLR connectors
    for speaker connectors.  One leg is removed on the male plugs and I
    fill the corresponding hole on the female plugs.  This makes it
    impossible to connect a power amplifier output into something that's
    looking for millivolts.  If I was doing it again I'd use the Speakons:
    tres hip and they 'latch' like the XLR connectors.
    
    My only complaint against using 12/2 SO for speaker lines is that 50ft
    of it weighs a lot and takes up a lot of space.  I use PVC jacketed
    12/2 or 16/2 depending on the application.

The band I do sound with wants to run the PA in stereo.

I'd like to know the pros and cons associated with a 
stereo mix (especially the cons.. ;^) )

We have:

2 SP-2A Cabs
2 118 Sub Bass Cabs
2 CS800 Power amps (with "can" crossovers)
PV MD-II 12 channel mixer (12x2)

Normally we runn 1/2 a cs800 to each speaker (thru the crossovers) in
Mono.  (BTW, I know 400W is too much power to be sending to an SP2,
but you work with what you have.. ;^) )


All instruments go thru the board:

2 guitarists 
Bass
Keys 
5 vocal mics
drums

FX are submixed and returned directly to the L/R aux inputs. 


We don't have any stereo amp rigs to contend with.

So... 

Why stereo? (They haven't told me why they want it, so I want to be
able to tell them why they *don't* want it.. ;^) ;^) )


Thanks,

-Tom

    Stereo? Like yourself, I wonder why...
    
    Run it in stereo and only folks in the "sweet spot" are gonna hear
    the "correct" mix. Unfortunately for your patrons, your sound man
    is going to sitting right at that spot. Those off to the sides are
    going to get a horrible sound.
    
    Edd

Wow.  This could be a can of worms.

Edd's right about the sweet spot - But I don't know if I'd say the other
patrons will hear anything horrible.

The band I'm in has been using a 3 way stereo rig for a while, with mucho
sucess...  It lets the true sound of any signal processing work - lets face
it - stereo signal processing sounds bitchin'.

You must be careful though, FWIW, of cross-stage cancellation.  The trick,
Point your speakers away from each other - dont' aim them at a sweet spot.
Letting the walls due the reflection stuff works well.

Stereo is expensive.

Also, FWIW - I think Mono PA works great too, but in smaller rooms I like
stereo.  We used mono in Pueblo this past week and it sounded fine too.

We use a two way stereo rig VERY similar to what you described for rehearsal 
and smaller places - PV118 subs, CV (passively X'd), SoundTech PL600 and BiAMP
TL240 power amps with a Audiologic Xover.

Aren't those 118 subs cool ??
:)

jc 

    If your use of the stereo field is to pan instruments to one side or
    a' t'other, then I'd say it's not a good idea.
    
    However, many stereo effects work just if all you get is one side, but
    are simply the most dramatic in the "sweet spot".
    
    I'd love to run stereo using my RCE-100.

    
    
    In the FYI department, there is a pair of JBL G-732s in this week's
    Want Advertiser for $500.  It's a full-range 1-15" + horn system.
    
    From personal experience, these are great speakers and the price is
    right.
    
    Kevin
    

FWIW -  I don't the brand/features, but I discover recently that 
it sure is cool if you can by-pass the passive Xover in those
speakers so you can bi-amp.  I wish my CV's were like that...
(Now I gott rewire the pups :(

    
    
    A friend of mine is interested in buying an fx unit for vocals/acoustic
    guitar.  He does a solo act and wants something to fatten up the sound
    through the pa, basically reverb and delay.  He will most likely find
    one setting he likes and never change it again, so foot
    controllers/midi/whathaveyou aren't an issue.  Rack mount preferred.
    
    With that said, is there a good unit available used in the $100+ range? 
    
    Kevin
    
    
    

    I'd recommend a used Alesis MidiVERB II  -  Only does one effect at
    a time, but has nice verbs, delays, and modulated FX.  I recently
    snared one for $100.
    
    jc

    
    
    Thanks, JC.  I'll scout the WantAds and see what I can find.
    
    Kevin

No problem Kevin!  Talk to Neal Orsi also - He has a MVII 
*and* a digital delay you could get a package deal on...Or 
maybe just snare the MVII.  He mentioned to me yesterday that
he might post the MVII, and knew I was a fan of 'em...

FWIW - The chorus and flange in those MVII's are REALLY nice
also !!   A lot of bang for your buck(s).  :)

Just to recap - MVII's are NOT programmable, so your stuck with the 
(99) presets.  They also only do one effect at a time.  However, out of 
those presets, there are some real nice patches !!  I beleive they do 
"MIDI MAP" though - probably not a concern, just make sure your bud knows
he will need to remember his favorite numbers.  :)

jc (Who loves his!)

    I have a 197? vintage Shure P.A. (the one with the (2)-6' speakers)
    that I used many years ago for acoustic amplification. 2 guitars, 2 
    voice mikes.  I have held onto it all these years in case the youngster 
    ever wanted to start a band....
    
    I understand that this stuff is old and outdated but...for a bunch of
    10 year olds, it will come in pretty handy. Here's the question.
    
    A friend just borrowed it the other day and then let one of his friends
    borrow it.  The second guy wants to buy it and is willing to pay $400.
    I am not in a negative cash flow so..the bucks are not really
    important.  He really wants this dinosaur and would also be willing to
    trade it for a Peavy guitar amp that has 2 12" speakers in the cab.  I
    know nothing about the Peavy except that it is 3 years old.  My son
    plays guitar in his band and will use the shure. 
    
    The dilema is that the Shure has 6 inputs. The other guitar player and
    the bass player do not have amps. I know that a PA is not supposed to
    be used for amping electric equipment, but...it's better than nothing
    for these kids. 
    
    Should I sell the Shure, add a little bit of cash, and buy something
    else, or just continue as planned.  
    
    Any help would be appreciated.
    Pc
                                      

    The Pa you described sounds like the old VocalMaster.  It's really not
    worth very much, $150-$175 probably.  There's no problem running
    instruments through your PA, many people do that (sometimes miking
    cabinets, and sometimes running direct).
    
    Greg

    	Isn't this considered a "vintage piece".... :^)
    

    Some sort of "piece" anyway...  ;^)
    
    I still have one kickin around my house somewhere, at least the head. 
    Not a wonderful thing, but certainly functional.
    
    Greg

    A question for the technical
    
    	I have a small PA thru which I run Sequenced backing,Guitar and
    Vocals. The two front of House bins are 15" 8 ohm 124watt speakers.
     The amp is 150W per side into 4 ohms. I need more power. I was
    thinking of maybe getting 2 x 15" 200-300watt sub bins and a crossover
    and another 200 or 300 watt amp.
    	What do you reckon?  And where in the desk - amp - speaker chain
    does the crossover go? Is it pre amp or post amp.
    P.K.

    Re -.1: A crossover goes after the pre-amp, before the power amp.  If
    you're running in mono, you need a two way crossover (highs and lows).
    
    JMO, but won't you then be toting around the 15in spkr in your current
    boxes for no purpose?  If you use the crossover to take the bottom 3 or
    4 octaves and send them off to your new power amp and woofers, your
    original 15's will see very little signal.  BTW, what else is in your
    current 15's and do they have connectors for bi-amping; ie, what's on
    the connector panel for the speakers?

    Never plug anything between power amp and speakers, please.  It
    could be very messy.  :)
    
    You might could do quite nicely with a pair of power amps, a two way
    Xover, you're 15" lowers and a pair of "typical 12xhorn" combo cabs.
    Cross the bassbins at 400cycles and let the active Xover in your
    "combo cabs" give you (essentially) a three way system, with two power
    amps.
    
    jc

    re: .84/.85
    
    Of course, this only applies for active crossovers.  A lotta cabs have
    passive crossovers built into 'em which are designed to take speaker
    level signals without cookin.  Of course they're not very efficient, so
    the better way to go is with a line level crossover and seperate power
    amps & speakers for each output.
    
    Greg

Yeah, thats what I *meant* to say - Use a two way *active* and a pair of amps,
and cross over the active at 400cycles...Send the low (sum?) to one power amp
in bridge mode, and send the highs to the other (in stereo if you want).  The
passive Xover in your speakers will cross over the mids and highs and you'll
get the triamped effect without the triamp gear (3 power amps).  This is how 
I've got my practice rig set up:

Board_out ---->L/R Xover inputs (400cycle out)-->SndTechPL600 amp--->18"bins
				(HI out L/R)  -->BiAmp TL240     --->CV V29's

The SndTech amp is bridged running 600wt's into my PV 18" bins.
The BiAmp TL240 runs in stereo and powers the Cerwin Vega (CV) V29's.  The 
V29's have 15" midrange driver and a 1" throat horn thats passively crossed
over.  For practice or a small club, this system will slay.  :)  Give it a 
shot!

    Please excuse my ignorance on this subject I have never used a
    crossover.
    
    	My current set up.
    
    Soundtech 12 ch desk
    	|    |
        L    R
        |    |
      Power amp 150 w 4 ohm
        |    |
    	L    R
    	|    |
    Speakers 125 watt 8ohm
    
    
     What I was thinking of doing (which I think is what coop is saying 
    with the exception that I think coops subs signal is mono)
    
    desk
    |   |
    L   R
    |   |                   _________
    X over--- high L------ |power amp| ------ L 15" driver 12" horn
          --- high R------ |power amp| ------ R 15" driver 12" horn
    |   |                   ---------
         ----- low L-------| Power amp| ----- L 15" driver (sub)
         ----- low R-------| Power amp| ----- R 15" driver (sub)
         
     Now is this a workable system?
    My understanding (limited I admit) is that the crossover acts as a
    filter sending the higher frequencies to the top boxes and the bass
    or lower to the bottom or sub boxes.
    
    	I thought this would be a good way of maintaining our stereo sound
    and increase penetration of the sound throught the venue.  I intend to
    put the 15 and horn boxes up on stands and have the subs on the floor.
    
    	What is the difference between active and passive? I assume active 
    is powered but if you A B'd them what would be the difference.
     
    To answer someone question my speaker cabs have two 1/4 inch jack
    connectors in parallel on them.  I have seen top and sub boxes just
    chained together, but doesn't this sound worse than using a crossover
    and means I would have to have a *larger 2 channel amp* than I do now.
    P.K.

    Okay, so you're running in stereo and the speakers you currently own
    don't have any biamping capability already built in.
    
    Your diagram about where the xover goes and your assumptions about its
    function are correct.
    
    You'll need a stereo two way xover, since you're running in stereo.
    
    Passive xovers sit *after* the power amp, *before* the speakers.  If
    you popped open one of your cabinets, you'd find some electronics:
    coils, capacitors, and resistors.  This is a passive xover (so called
    because you can't adjust anything).
    
    Active xovers are the type shown in your diagram.  They typically give
    you the ability to adjust the xover frequency (the dividing line
    between highs and lows) and the relative volume of the two bands
    
    BTW, what do you consider to be a subwoofer?  15's are already pretty
    muscular when it comes to lows.  Also, I'm a little concerned that
    you'll be toting those 15's around for nothing, since the signal you
    feed to your current cabinets will have practically no lows in it:
    
    Now:   desk--->poweramp--->passive xover--->highs
                                           |
                                           +--->lows
    
    Proposed: desk--->xover--->highs--->power amp--->passive xover--->highs
                          |                                      |
                          |                                      +--->lows?
                          +--->lows---->power amp--->new subs
    The signal that's sent to the passive xover in the 'proposed' diagram
    has already had the lows sucked out of it by the active xover.
    
    Hope this isn't too long winded.

    
    Passive, when applied to electronics/speakers/tone circuits means that
    there is no gain given to the signal. For example in most guitars the
    tone circuit is basically a pot and a capacitor, the pot simply allows
    you to cut the signal level, this is a passive circuit.
    
    Active means that the signal level can be boosted. For example active
    tone circuits not only allow you to cut levels they will also boost
    levels. To do this you need some sort of power source.
    
    Active/passive is not related to whether or not you can twiddle
    something around. In general if the circuit needs a power source it can
    be consider to be an active circuit otherwise it is passive.
    
    Helpfully,
    
    Chris

     John Kelly is right. But if you go with the subs, set the crossover
     to 150Hz. That will take the lowest frequencies out of the top
     cabs without making them sound too different from the way they do
     now. Most 2-way cabs aren't very efficient below 150Hz simply because
     of their design. Subs will be more efficient below 150Hz.

     Neal     

    
    Neal,
    
    Seeing as how our notes collided I take it that you statement "John
    Kelly is right" is related to his diagram (which is quite right) not to
    the definition of passive/active, otherwise I'd like to know your full
    definition of passive/active.
    
    Chris

    The reason I mentioned a SUM output on the Xover is cuz thats what I 
    use, with a bridged power amp.  There isn't much stereo seperation
    at 150hz, so I figure why waste the muscle - use the amp in mono mode
    and get twice the horsepower.  :)  You still get stereo in your
    mid/highs.  Try it both ways, but I'd be impressed if you could tell
    the difference.
    
    jc (Who's glad he's not the only one who likes stereo PA!)

    Yup, Chris is right: passive means no gain boost available at the
    device, active means gain boost available.

     Coop,
     In regards to....

    >at 150hz, so I figure why waste the muscle - use the amp in mono mode
    >and get twice the horsepower.  :)  You still get stereo in your

     Whoa, you can't get twice the horsepower. Power is still divided between
     the 2 subs. Whether you have 150 watts per 8 ohm cab X2, or 300 watts
     (bridged) divided by two 8 ohm cabs. Another thing..........most amps
     don't bridge into 4 ohms well, which means each channel is operating at
     2 ohms...which will mean a LOSS in power output. It's a general miscon-
     ception that an amp will put out more power as the load impedance drops.

     NOT!!!

     Especially in bridge-mode. Unless the amp is designed to drive a less
     than 8 ohm load bridged, don't do it. VERY few amps are. You can't get
     something for nothing. Oh, and one other thing about bridge-mode, the
     damping factor suffers, and if you're using subs with 18" spkrs, you'll
     need all the damping you can get. 18" cones have more mass and don't damp
     as well as smaller cones.

     Chris,
     John is right on in his drawings and descriptions. Like I said in my
     previous note, set the crossover point at around 150Hz. If you set it
     to 400Hz, the 15" wouldn't be doing very much and probably wouldn't
     sound very good. The 2-way cabs operate much more efficiently
     when the low-freq element is removed. They have a passive x-over built
     in and when things start cranking, the 15" will suck up the most power
     trying to do the low stuff and it may sound like the horn ain't cutting
     it. So, if you eliminate the 2-way cab from doing the lows, they will
     get louder (+3dB) and cleaner. Let the subs do the low stuff.

     Re - Passive crossovers
     	In a decent 2-way cab, the x-over almost always includes a built in
     pad (attenuator) circuit on the Hi output to balance the horns output,
     which is hotter, with cone driver output. The pad consists of 2 power
     resistors, one in series and one in parallel with the horn driver. Values
     are calculated for a specific drop in output in dB. Also, passive x-overs
     usually account for a 20% power loss, which means your amp becomes smaller.
     This effect is much less pronounced as they go up in x-over frequency. As
     they go down in frequency, they get worse and thats where the active
     x-over really makes an impact.

     Re - Active crossovers
     	The way to go when adding subs to your existing system. Chris, to
     answer your question...Yes, you can boost, but, you have to take into
     account the maximum input to the amp from the x-over that will make the
     amp clip. It's finite, the limits are defined by the headroom of the amp
     fed by the x-over. Low frequency sound reinforcement is difficult with
     small amps. If you will be using 300 watts, get a 400 watt amp.

     Neal

    Thanks for all the input.
    
    
    	I agree with coop that you won't be able to hear stereo out of my
    proposed subs, but it doesn't seem to have any advantage to run in mono
    and parallel the speakers.
    
    	I still have the problem in that I would have to get this into one
    car,so, I think the solution is to upgrade my P.A.
    	
    	How does this sound....2 Boxes that contain 2 X 12 " + horn 4 ohm
    rated at 300 Watt per side Stand Mounted.
    
    				Carver amp 300 w perside into 4 ohm.
    	No subs.
    I have heard these speakers and they are OK.
    
    	P.K.
    

    Another guy looking for free advice...  I'm putting together a sound
    system for a bluegrass band. I've gotten a used Biamp powered mixer,
    which sounds great (with the speakers the former owner had... which 
    were not for sale), and puts out 150 watts per side. For speakers,
    the advice I've gotten (some of it from this note):
    
     - buy a pair of EV S100s
     - buy a pair of EV S200s
     - buy a pair of EV 2 ways with 15" for better low end
    
    I've been watching the Want-ads and the net for used stuff. Budget
    dictates 'used is better.' I've gone and listened to some duds.
    One specific question: Recently saw used Sonic and Ross 15" 2-ways
    listed. I've seen these in a mail order mag, but have no idea of
    their reputation. Worth a drive?
    
    Another Q: What about a system of 3 boxes - one with a 15" (not
    necessarily a true sub-woofer), and a couple of smaller stand
    mounted speakers? Can this work well if the speakers weren't
    designed as a system? I assume I'd have to buy an external
    crossover.
    
    Any other advice welcome. Criteria, in addition to the 150 watt
    power handling, are mainly portability (we play SMALL places,
    and they must fit in my hatchback, and be carried by one person),
    and cost (I'd sure like to stay under $400). And, of course, they
    must sound perfect.  8^)
    
    Tom

    Tom,
    
    My experience with the EV speakers is that they just plain sound better
    than the "generic" stuff.  Some Sonic cabs are loaded with EV drivers. 
    These are OK.  Watch out for cabs using piezo drivers for the tweets,
    these don't sound that great.  A real tweeter or compression driver is
    a must IMHO.
    
    Daddy's Junky today will sell you S100s for $700 a pair new (I think
    this is a sale price for March only, though).  Throw in $125 for a pair
    of stands and you're all set although $825 poorer.  Finding them used
    is a pain although I do know a source of a used pair of S200s for $500,
    only hassle is that one woofer blew and was swapped with a Peavey
    driver (contact me off-line if you're interested).  Still not too bad a
    price since these go for about $1K new.  Most owners seem to hang onto
    them forever.
    
    You don't need a woofer bigger than 12" unless you plan on going for
    real deep bass.  The S100s are real standards among sound contractors
    for acoustic acts.  For example, the Old Vienna Kaffehaus in Westboro,
    MA uses them for both mains and monitors.  Among contradance bands in
    the Boston area they are the speaker of choice as well. The S200s are
    nice if you have the $$ since they handle more power (300 watts vs. 100
    watts per cab).  The add-on EQ lets you get more output and depper bass
    from the S200s if you really need some oomph.
    
    These cabs are *super* portable.  You won't find any other cabs that
    compare in this respect, period.  That along with the sound is why I
    bit the bullet and went with them.  Oh yeah, you can also use them for
    monitors (using an included screw-in foot) and they sound great that
    way, too.
    
       							Brian

    
    
    I just ordered a pair of EV S-152s (pretty sure that's the model #) 
    for $740 delivered, including 25-foot speaker cables.  That was the 
    best mail order price we came across.
    
    Nice sounding speakers and 1/2 the weight of the JBLs I just sold. (The
    JBLs did sound great...)

    re -1 
    	What are EV S-152's (?).  I have a set of EV S-200's that we
    use for foldback, are they the same as those? How many watts?
    
    P.K.

    Actually I think it's 15*0*2, Kevin?  Two-way, 15" plus a horn.  Comes
    in horn loaded and bass reflex versions (SR and ER).  
    
    Actually, the S-200s with the optional EQ are speced as having deeper
    bass and higher SPL than the bulkier 1502s, as they should since they
    cost more.
    
    							Brian

    
    
    No, it's not the SH-1502-ER or SH-1512-ER, it's smaller.  I'll have 
    to check on the model number, but it is a 15" and a horn.
    
    Kevin
    

    EV blows JBL into the next county - I have a pair of EV floor wedges
    that could easily double as mains... :-)

    I'm in need of a 12-16 channel mixer and am soliciting input on what's
    out there these days.  Any recommendations would be appreciated.
    
    Required features:
    
    XLR/mike preamp on each input channel
    Min. 3 aux sends "  "    "      "   , at least one prefader
    Min. 3 band EQ   "  "    "      "
    Phantom power
    PFL/Solo bus with headphone out
    Durable and reliable (no cheesy plastic junk)
    Quiet (ie, noise floor in the -85db range)
    Selling price < $1000
    
    
    Other Desirable features:
    
    Channel inserts
    Good metering (ie, more then 2 little LED strips)
    Selling price ~ $600-$700
    100mm faders
    
    
    There seem to be a lot of boards selling in the $450-$600 range (new)
    that have *most* of the required characteristics, but are lacking one
    or two of them.  Stuff like DOD, AudioCentron, Alesis, aren't going to
    cut it for this application (a church sound system run by a number of
    different people, some inexperienced) because of the reliability factor
    (if for no other reason).  I'm basically looking for something that's
    solidly built, clean and quiet, and fits the price range.  Anyone got
    any good ideas?
    
    Thanks in advance,
    Greg

re: .105

Until you said "more than 2 little LED strips" and "100mm fader", I was
ready to say "get a Mackie CR1604 with the XLR10 expander".  You still 
might want to consider one, as the performance/price ratio is very high.
The 1604 has 6 aux sends (4 at a time per channel), 1 pre-fader.  It has
four stereo aux returns.  The stock 1604 only has mic preamps on the
first six channels, but for $150 or so you can add the XLR10 expander
module which gives you mic preamps on the other 10 channels.  You can
get the base mixer for $800-850, so that still makes your price limit.
It only has channel inserts on the first 8 channels, which may or may
not be a problem for you.  It doesn't have PFL, but it does have stereo
in-place solo to headphones or (optionally) the mains.  It doesn't have
meters on each channel, but when you solo a channel the main meters (LEDs)
show the level for that channel.  The faders aren't 100mm, but they're
not bad.  It's *very* durable...all-metal construction.  It's *very* *very*
quiet...90dBu S/N ratio at +4dB.  It's got tons of headroom.  You have
to really work at it to make this mixer distort.

I use a Mackie 1604 in my home studio, and I'm *very* pleased with it.

-Hal

>Until you said "more than 2 little LED strips" and "100mm fader", I was
>ready to say "get a Mackie CR1604 with the XLR10 expander".
    
    Note that those two things weren't in the "required" list, just the
    "desirable" list.  I'd be willing to purchase a good mixer that fit the
    other qualifications even if it didn't have the "desirables".
    
>The stock 1604 only has mic preamps on the
>first six channels, but for $150 or so you can add the XLR10 expander
>module which gives you mic preamps on the other 10 channels.  You can
>get the base mixer for $800-850, so that still makes your price limit.
    
    Interesting.  I'd discounted the 1604 because I thought it was too
    expensive.  I was thinking in the $1200 range with the extra preamp
    module.  That's good to know, I'll consider it again.
    
>It doesn't have
>    meters on each channel, but when you solo a channel the main meters (LEDs)
>show the level for that channel.
    
    That's good enough to qualify under the "good metering" dept as far as
    I'm concerned.  I've been looking at boards where the only options were
    to look at left and right and maybe the aux sends or something like
    that.
    
    Greg

    
    	FYI, I picked up my Mackie CR-1604 from Audio Video Research in
    Watertown, MA and paid between $700-750 (I honestly can't remember
    the exact ammout I paid-- it's pretty sad when you spend that much
    money and forget the details 2 months later...)
    
    
    	I'm very happy with the mixer & I'd recommend it highly; I thought
    AVR had about the best price around and they do mail order... call 'em
    at (617)924-0660.
    
    
    Brad
    

re: .108
    
>    	FYI, I picked up my Mackie CR-1604 from Audio Video Research in
>    Watertown, MA and paid between $700-750 (I honestly can't remember
>    the exact ammout I paid-- it's pretty sad when you spend that much
>    money and forget the details 2 months later...)
    
Wow, that's the best price I've ever seen for a 1604!  Didn't you
also by an Alesis ADAT at the same time?  Maybe that's why you got such
a good price. :-)

-Hal

    The Mackie has one serious gotcha for live work (already discussed in
    the HOME_STUDIO note on mixers), and that is that while it has plenty
    of sends, none of them have a master gain control.  
    
    This is an issue when running monitors live; unless some other piece in
    the monitor chain, like an EQ, compressor or power amp has an easily
    accessible gain control, you can't turn all the monitors up and down
    together, you need to tweak the send on each channel!  
    
    Since you mentioned many people (some unfamiliar with mixers?) would
    use it, this is something to think about.  Other than that, the Mackie
    is a good standard to judge other mixers against.  
    
    							Brian

    	Yeah, I did buy the ADAT at the same time I bought the Mackie, but
    I'm pretty sure they're regular price tag on the mixer is $750. Their
    prices really are excellent. Considering the fact that their price tag 
    on the ADAT was $1000 less than my usual music store (that happens to
    have good prices too), I couldn't resist the temptation to buy it.

    	AVR also has a real helpful, knowledgeable staff; all around,
    they're a great outfit to do business with.
    
    
    Brad
    

    re: Brian
    
    Yes, I remember you saying that over there.  In this particular case, I
    don't think the lack of a master monitor send would be a problem since
    the monitor amp would be mounted near the mixer and it has an
    attenuation control on it (which people have been using for years
    instead of using the monitor send control on the current board, go
    figure).  In light of this, perhaps the lack of a monitor send control
    would actually simplify the use of the system.
    
    Plus it's a permanant installation where things change very little, so
    what get's sent to the monitors is relatively static.  Also a very
    non-monitor-intensive environment, the primary use of the monitor
    system is for people to hear the tapes they sing along with, most of
    them don't even want their voice mixed in...
    
    So, it sounds like the Mackie is a good contender at this point. 
    Thanks for the tip on the source, Brad!  That's the best price I've
    seen on that one too.
    
    Greg
                         

    Ugh...
    
    Upon further discussion with the other people involved, it appears that
    our funding may be too lacking to consider the 1604.  Is there anything
    in the < $700 range that anyone would recommend?
    
    Thanks,
    Greg