Conference napalm::guitar

    
    	Well, I've always been a firm believer in having my amp onstage
    behind me & miking it thru the PA. Even at the smallest gigs, I always
    try to mike my amp. I keep the volume on stage just loud enough to
    hear myself & be able to get the sound I want (all amps have a "sweet"
    region volume-wise where they sound the best) and I let the PA do the
    job of pushing & disbursing the sound out to the audience. I've used
    speaker emulators, too, but I never run direct into the mixer...
    there's just nothing like the sound of a good guitar amp. If I'm
    using an acoustic guitar, though, I usually run that direct into the
    mixer if it's got a pickup in it.
    
    	This is from a guitar player's perspective, of course, so maybe
    you should take it with a grain of salt. I just can't imagine being
    onstage without an amp behind me.
    
    
    Brad
    

> It would seem to me that the ideal would be parallel (or pass-through) inputs to
> both the local amp and the PA, as well as routing of the entire mix to the
> monitors.

	Well, "ideal" is so often dependent on pretty big bucks, especially in
this game it seems.  The best stage/house system I can recall using had direct
lines from the instruments via direct boxes (or amp direct outputs where they 
existed), and/or mic's, which went direct to both the House mixing board and the
monitor mixing board.  The House speakers were well in front of the band and 
could'nt be heard on stage during performance.  The monitor system had a separate
mix for each monitor bank (1-5 speakers per bank) so each player could ask to
have the stage mix tailored to his (or her) particular liking.  I did also use 
my amp on stage (bass amp), but in truth I probably didn't need it.  Obviously
a guitarist would want to use his amp for tonality and mic that (unless the
amp has the "right" direct out capability, even then...).  The stage was large
enough so that most of what I heard was through the monitors (rather than from 
amps).  I was near enough to the drums to actually hear most of them live rather
than through the mix.

	Mark

Re last two:

Thanks both. We could probably do a combination of these techniques, i.e. use
the direct outs on the keyboard and mike the guitar/bass/mandolin. Don't stop
the suggestions, though, if there are more comments out there yet...

Bob

    The big question is: how big a PA have you got?
    
    In order to mike instruments as well as vocals, you need more power and
    speakers that can handle it, both for mains and monitors.  In smaller
    rooms and lower volumes, the vocal-only PA solution works well, as
    volumes come up, well, it works less well but you can still get by. 
    I've done plenty of outdoor gigs with this setup.
    
    Now if you *have* the big PA, you can start miking stuff but then you
    become enslaved to the monitors...some players may not like to hear
    their awesome tone coming out of a floor wedge.
    
    Plenty of pro applications use this method, though.  At Disney World, I
    saw bands using little GK M-series amps on mike stands as "personal"
    monitors, running line outs to the mains.  I've also seen this
    technique used by duos and trios playing in tiny rooms, why use that
    Marshall stack when a Sansamp into the board is close enough?  Ask Tom
    Deroschers about this, he's been playing into the board for awhile now
    in his solo act.
    
    I think most of the problem is players not liking the sound. 
    Unfortunately, we have gotten used to amps in back of us as "our
    sound".  Bassists and keyboard players have gotten used to dealing with
    direct feeds, and realize that their amp is really just a big monitor
    for the benefit of the band.  Guitarists have yet to follow suit.
    
    Two side comments:
    
    1. I once met the guy who designed the Black Widow for Peavey, he was
    also an ex-Altec designer.  In the late sixties he did sound for a
    western MA rock band called Bold.  He tried to get that band to try
    going direct and they experimented with it for awhile but the
    technology at the time wasn't up to it and they abandoned the idea.  So
    it's hardly a *new* idea.
    
    2. Someone once told me the *real* reason tweed Fenders had the
    controls on top and in the back was that they were designed to be in
    *front* of the musicians. The open back design allowed the players to
    still hear themselves OK.  Makes sense if you consider that with lower
    wattage amps, having a bunch of people standing in front of the
    speakers doesn't help the dispersion into the room.  In that sense,
    going to big amps in the sixties may have been a real bad move. 
    Consider that until the SVT and Acoustic 360 arrived, the pro bass rig
    was either a 30 watt Ampeg with 1-15" or a 50 watt Fender with 2-15",
    and most guitar amps were combos of 50 watts and under.  Most people
    wouldn't practice with that today...there have been comments in here
    that a 50 watt combo is not loud enough to play out with!
    
    
    							Brian

    Thanks, Bri.
    
    This is a decent-sized PA, with excellent main speakers. The monitors,
    though, are vintage Rube Goldberg, bought for almost nothing and just
    about worth it. The trouble is that we have as many as nine folks in
    the group at once (quite an extended family!), and it's just about
    impossible to position the main speakers so that they're effective at
    doing their own job *and* providing semi-monitor capability to the
    instrumentalist.
    
    I have *zero* problem with using the amps as one-channel monitors,
    though I personally prefer to hear myself "in balance" with the overall
    mix. I'm just hoping we can avoid having the amps serve as the main
    source of sound to the audience as *well* as to us, so that we can't
    turn up the sound independently of the monitor. By our next gig I hope
    we can have better monitors and try using them for both vocals and
    instruments.
    
    Thanks again for the input (about output <g>).
    
    Bob

     The main reason that bands go with their own amps and a monitor
     mix for vocals is because it's the cheapest way to go. Like
     someone said, a monitor system that gives everyone their own mix
     would cost alot, and probably more than a new car. Sure, one monitor
     mix isn't ideal, but with decent gear, an overall good sounding mix
     (with some compromise) can be achieved. 
     I use the Left main output on my mixer for the mains, and Right for
     monitors. On stage, we hear what the audience hears. I pan most every-
     thing straight up, but if we don't need something in the monitor mix,
     I pan that a little or all the way left, so it's not in the monitors.
     It helps if the main spkrs and the monitor spkrs are the same brand
     and a closely related model. You can also experiment with 2 monitor cabs
     off to the sides on tables facing in, as well as 1 or 2 on the floor.
     
     Neal
     

>     The main reason that bands go with their own amps and a monitor
>     mix for vocals is because it's the cheapest way to go. Like
>     someone said, a monitor system that gives everyone their own mix
>     would cost alot, and probably more than a new car. 
    
    Well, I'm not sure I agree on the cost.  I got a little used monitor
    mixer (8x4) for under $100 a couple of years ago.  It won't do efx (no
    sends), but with 8 mike splitters, a pair of stereo power amps and 4
    monitors, you could get a pretty decent cut at 4 seperate monitor
    mixes of most of your vocals and instruments.  I'd estimate the total
    cost for such a system to be under $1500 if you bought used.  
    
    Even if you couldn't find a little used board like that, a lot of the
    new PA mixers have a bunch of prefader sends on 'em (4 is not uncommon)
    which could be used for seperate monitor mixes if you had the requisite
    power amps and monitor speakers.  I've seen boards like this selling in
    the $1000 range, which really isn't all *that* costly.
    
    You seen the prices on new cars these days?                            
    
    Greg

     Yabbut Greg,

     Bob said...

>    about worth it. The trouble is that we have as many as nine folks in
>    the group at once (quite an extended family!), and it's just about

     I think he was talking about more than four mixes, and that's what
     was responding to. You did pretty good on your system, but I dunno
     if everyone can make the same deal. I have seen used 16x6 Peavey
     monitor boards pretty cheap though. Six mixes needs three stereo amps
     and six monitors. How cheap is that gonna be?

     Are we in a rathole yet?     
     Neal

somebody, rocktron I think, makes a 6 or 8 channel power amp for monitors. I 
don't remember how much it costs

It's kinda funny we (my band) got into a big discussion last night about when
a gig made sense and when it didn't. a large part of the discussion regarded
the PA setup (we don't have our own at this time and have been renting). One
side of the discussion wanted to put together a small but adequate PA, the 
other side wants to rent larger systems and essentially mike everything (it
takes 14 mikes to do Al's drum set alone...) and pass on any gigs that were
to small, room size, or paycheck size for that type of setup...not that we
resolved anything.

On the other hand we have landed a steady (monthly) gig that is paying more
each month ($50 a weekend raise for the next 6 months) that will satisfy the
"large, full production show" advocates. Gotta love it, steady work! But as
I understood it, the club manager had no choice, the owner specifically told
him to hire us once a month because our on our first gig there we doubled his
best take at the bar in 5 years of owning the place. There were 30-50 people
waiting in line to get in almost all night. So knowing that we stuck him up for
more money.

dbii

>     Yabbut Greg,
>
>     Bob said...
>
>>    about worth it. The trouble is that we have as many as nine folks in
>>    the group at once (quite an extended family!), and it's just about
    
    True enuff, I missed the numbers involved.

>     I think he was talking about more than four mixes, and that's what
>     was responding to. 
    
    Well, I personally think that even 4 monitor mixes is a luxury.  As a
    performer, I've never personally felt even a minor need for more than 2
    monitor mixes, and have done all the gigs I've ever played with just
    one (but I haven't played anywhere that "matters", just parties and
    stuff, and I don't play with prima donnas or sound freaks).  I don't
    honestly understand why someone would have a valid *need* for more the
    2-3 monitor mixes (yeah, lots of people want things they don't
    necessarily need).  The Beatles did their classic Live at the Hollywood
    Bowl recording with *NO* monitors, and their harmonies are POINT ON.
    
>    You did pretty good on your system, but I dunno
>     if everyone can make the same deal. I have seen used 16x6 Peavey
>     monitor boards pretty cheap though. Six mixes needs three stereo amps
>     and six monitors. How cheap is that gonna be?
    
    I didn't say it was gonna be cheap, just that it wasn't gonna cost as
    much as a new car (which I pedantically pulled from your note).  A good
    used car maybe...  From what I've seen, about the cheapest car you can
    currently purchase here in the good old USA costs about $6000-$7000 and
    you shouldn't have any trouble getting a fairly substantial monitor
    setup for less then that.

>     Are we in a rathole yet?     
    
    Yep.  8^)
    
    I think the bottom line is to define your requirements before doing a
    lot of shopping/spending.
    
    Greg
                                                                        

I'm not sure if there is a *best* answer for your questions, since it's an
equation that includes money available, what each players wants vs. what they 
can live with, size of the room, etc. But I'll do a quick rundown of how
See No Evil does their monitors/mains, and hopefully that might help a bit.

In small rooms, ie. 50-100 people, we tend to use stage amps for guitar,
bass guitar and drums, while sending vocals, acoustic guitar and keys 
direct through the main PA. The keyboard player will also have an amp onstage 
for personal monitoring. We only have one monitor mix, which changes each 
night depending upon the situation. Here, we would probably only have the 
vocals and acoustic through the monitors, with everyone hearing the all 
the instruments from stage mix.

In a bigger room, we'll mike the guitar and kick drum, go direct with the
keys, bass guitar, acoustic guitar and vocals. Everything will go through 
the main PA. In the monitors, we'll have vocals, keys, acoustic guitar, and 
maybe a little electric guitar (depending upon how loud Dave is playing that 
night! 8^). Bass and drums are almost always loud enough so that we don't 
have to send them back through the monitor mix. The guitar, when miked and 
sent into the PA, should be just loud enough onstage for the guitarist to 
hear it himself, and let the PA do the rest of the work.

Ideally, it would be nice to have a second monitor mix. If we did, I would
have one for myself as lead singer that would contain mostly lead vocals, and
probably little else (maybe just a touch of the background vocals and keys). 
At the same time, in the other monitor mix, I would have my lead vocals in
the background and the backups vocals in the foreground, allowing them to
hear themselves cleaner without me stomping all over them; and some keys and
guitar if needed.

> The lead guitarist is hot on having each instrument run only through its own
> amp, which would be situated *behind* the player. He maintains that this is 
> a standard arrangement which has been the norm in every band he's been in. 
> I'm a bit reluctant to have to blow my own ears out in order to get the 
> sound level up where the audience can hear it; 

One suggestion is to put your amp behind you on the ground. That way it will 
be blowing out your knees instead of your ears, yet will still project out 
front fine.

> It would seem to me that the ideal would be parallel (or pass-through) 
> inputs to both the local amp and the PA, as well as routing of the entire 
> mix to the monitors. That way, individual players could hear their place 
> in the full mix and/or emphasize their own sound, as preferred. 

I dunno if that's such a great idea - I wouldn't think most player would
want their monitor mix to be the main mix (I know I wouldn't). I want to
be able to hear myself nice and clear above everthing else. I'd be afraid
if you let everyone adjust their own relative volume in the mix, it could
quickly lead to a volume war (ie. the guitarist can't really hear himself,
so he turns up a bit; in return, the keyboardist then does the same, etc.).
Trust me - individual players are not always the best judge of where they
should be in the mix!  8^)  (Haven't we all been through those kind of
gigs/jams/practices?)

alan

Thanks all for your interest. I wouldn't say the replies put this thread into
rathole status as of yet- at least half of 'em actually pertain to the original
question!!! 

We did OK the other night. The lead guitarist (who was the one getting picky
about using unmonitored amps for all instruments) replaced the speakers in the
monitor cabinets with some better ones, and we used them *and* a PA system the
school owns as monitors. The (single) monitor mix was separate from the PA mix,
but we did have only a single monitor mix.

It was at times a *bit* hard to hear my own instrument (guitar or keyboard),
but manageable. I think it might be worth a try at using individual amps and
feeding a (prefader) direct out to the PA mix. (Not sure if all amps in question
*have* such a direct out, but I know mine does.)

One comment made by a lot of folks was that vocals were pretty unintelligible
for anyone sitting halfway back or further. Anyone think that putting the PA
speakers on stands would help with this at all? I thought perhaps the folks in
front were absorbing enough of the critical frequencies to mess up
intelligibility. Also, I've heard that a touch of delay applied to vocals only
helps make them more intelligible- can anyone confirm/deny this from experience?

Thanks again-

	Bob

    Vocal intelligibility sometimes is improved by raising the speakers. 
    Other things that help:
    
    	1. work with the EQ, if the low mids or bass are too strong, it
           turns the vocals to mush
    
    	2. take it easy on the delay and reverb!
    
    	3. get the singers to work the mikes, if possible staying 6" or so
           away (it may not be possible due to feedback)
    
    	4. get better mikes; an EV 757 makes *me* sound clearer than an
           SM58 does
    
    							Brian

    re singers 6" from mikes.
    
    	Brian, I have always found this a major no no, My rule has
    always been "Eat the mike" get as close as you can, you should
    pull clarity out of the EQ.  Get as much level into the desk before
    clipping, and go for it.  
    
    	P.K.

    Re: .14
    
    Well, the issue here is gain before feedback.  If I sit on top of the
    mike and scream, well, the amount of gain needed at the PA is less, so
    when I'm *not* singing, the mike is less apt to feed back. So in
    situations where feedback is a real problem, eating the mikes may be
    the only choice.
    
    The problem I have with eating mikes is that most mikes used for live
    vocals are cardioid and have a proximity effect (where the bass gets
    boosted the closer the mike is to the source).  OK, that helps fatten up
    your voice, but for *clarity* I've found being further from the mike
    helps.  
    
    Ever wonder why the mikes often used on drums are these big mamas? It's
    because they have larger diaphraghms, which means less distortion
    when excited by loud sounds...like you get 1" from a drum head at a Ted
    Nugent show.
    
    Try this at home...hook up your favorite mike to a tape deck and sing
    while eating the mike, tthen again with the mike 6" away.  Adjust the
    levels to be equal, then listen.  With many mikes, especilly cheaper
    ones, the "eaten" recording will sound much more distorted.  
    
    If you like that sound, swell.  I just find staying further away form
    the mike gives *me* a crisper sound.  I can also work with dynamics
    better, because I can move in or out to adjust my volume when
    needed...when you eat the mike you can only go *down* in volume by
    backing off.  Thus the common mid-set "thumbs-up" gesture to the
    soundman  8^)  8^)
    
    								Brian

>    Thus the common mid-set "thumbs-up" gesture to the soundman  8^)  8^)
    
    As opposed to the more common mid-set "middle finger-up" gesture to the
    soundman?
    
    Dave

    re -2
    
    	I see what you are saying and I agree, the closer you get the
    fatter you get.  Different strokes as they say, but being 6" off
    the mike at a live gig...do you get much problems doing that, bleed
    etc because the gain on your desk would be pretty cranked wouldn't it.
    
    	I guess it would work well if you gated it.
    P.K.

    
    I've just recently sussed what was wrong with the sound in my band's
    setup,as we suffered badly with high-frequency feedback.It's an
    acoustic band,using condenser mikes for instruments,and dynamics for
    vocals.
    	As Brian said,most mikes have a bass proximity effect,and we used
    to get rid of this boominess by eq'ing it out.This meant the mixer was
    high-end biased,and was very susceptible to high-frequency feedback.
    	Now that we've started moving back from the mikes ( takes a lot of
    guts!) we find the mixer is set much flatter,and we can get the volume
    without feeding back.The sound is much cleaner,and an added bonus is
    the way you can control the dynamics by having more room to move in and
    out.
    	Might not be every blues-rockers cup of tea,tho'. 8-)
        
    				Jim (Ex- Linda Lovelace impersonator)

    Re: .17
    
    Well, it depnds on a lot of things...in some rooms it's impossible, in
    others it works just great.  The problem is that the feedback problems
    vary from room to room so you never know until you're sound checking
    what's going to happen.  Of course, the lower the stage volume, the
    easier it is to crank the mikes.  Carefully locating amps so that you
    don't have a Marshall stack aimed right at your vocal mike, etc. can
    help.
    
    In my experience, gating doesn't work that well live if there is a lot
    of ambient noise.  I recall one room we used to play where every time
    the drummer hit something, all the vocal mike gates would open.  Trying
    to set the gate level higher made some of the vocals get chopped off...
    
    Another problem in really live rooms is that the audience noise may get
    reflected into the vocal mikes, so no matter how loud you crank the
    monitors, the balance between your vocal and the crowd noise stays the
    same.  This one baffled me for years in a room we played regularly
    until one day between sets I heard how much crowd chatter was coming out
    of our monitors!
    
    So let me rephrase it...in situations where you *can* move back from
    the mikes, do it.
    
    							Brian

    
    I've always felt that you need only the vocals thru the monitors
    (or an acoustic instrument, if needed). In my band, we mike the
    guitar amps and drums and I run a direct line from my bass rig.
    We set up the amps for a "stage" mix so we can hear ourselves and 
    let the soundman do the rest with the board/effects. I could care 
    less about hearing guitar/bass/drums thru the monitors. All I care
    about is hearing the vocals.
    
    "Eating" the mic has it's place, but you should not mix your vocals
    in this way. I've found that staying about 2" away from the mic and
    then singing very loud is the best way to set up your vocal mix. 
    That way, you can get a bit more gain when you want it by getting right 
    on the mic or backing away if you need to belt it out to hit a note 
    without it punctuing eardrums of the folks in front of the stacks.
    
    My 2 cents,
    
    Billy_K

    
    	This is interesting stuff.  I have not been doing this for any
    great length of time ( I have only set up maybe 150 times) and you
    learn (I do anyway) just about everytime.
    	For me the best part of the gig (apart from the beer and pizza
    afterwoods 8^)...) is the sound check.
    
    	It is always a challenge to get the sound right.  Like on 
    Saturday night the only sound check I got to do is to check everything
    worked, I had to do it on the fly during the first couple of songs.
      
    	It is amazing what small changes of EQ do for the sound.
    
    	Sound is a very difficult area, and I guess something that really
    only comes with the experience of doing it alot.  I even tried to do
    a *live * mixing course but, no one runs one over here.
    
    
    
    P.K.

    I am a freelance soundman with a 5000-6000 watt system ( mains and
    monitors combined ) and here are a few of my observations.
    
    To build a good monitor system, you gotta be willing to spend the
    bucks. Being that I don't always know what I am getting into when I
    take a booking, I thought I should buy equipment that the whole band
    ( including drums and bass ) could all run through and not cause a
    problem. I had all kinds of complaints with my old monitor system
    ( a Peavey )
    
       I have for monitors:
    (4) Community CSX38 wedge monitors- 15" and a horn
    (1) Community CSX58 wedge monitor- 2 12's, midrange and a horn
    (1) JBL MR805 monitor- 15" and a horn
    
    I power these with (2) QSC MX1500 and MX1700 amps. Amps are 330 watts @ 8
    ohms. 500 watts @ 4 ohms.
    
    I have a Peavey Mark VIII 16x8 monitor mixer. I have found that trying
    to drive monitors off of my main board ( Ramsa WRS-4424 ) that the 
    monitors run out of juice real quick. The Peavey monitor mixer really
    makes them come alive. Having the 4 band EQs on each channel helps
    alot, most times, I don't need to run outboard EQ.
    
    I also have (2) Yamaha Q2031 graphic eq's, a stereo compressor/limiter,
    etc. that I use just for monitors. I can do 4 monitor mixes with eq,
    6 if 2 mixes don't have qraphic eq.  
    
    The speakers were new, the amps, mixer and EQs were used. The whole
    monitor system cost me about $5K. 
    
    The most monitor mixes I have had to do is when I work for a Boston
    based 11 peice GB band called Moments Notice.
    
    I do one mix for the lead and backup singers. I also put some keyboard
    and a little bass in this monitor.
    
    One mix for the keyboard player and guitar player. This one has vocals,
    keys, guitar, and bass.
    
    And one mix for the drummer and percussionist. This is a headphone mix
    and has all instruments including drums and percussion in it.
    
   Any questions, just ask.
   Ed   
    
    
    

    >Having the 4 band EQs on each channel helps alot, most times, I don't
    >need to run outboard EQ.
    
    This is one big drawback to most PA mixers.  
    
    I often get complaints about monitor EQ.  If there is only one send,
    everyone gets the same EQ. So when singer wants more mids, one wants
    more highs and the other wants more bottom, you can't please anybody! 
    Good argument for having matched mikes and wedges!  At least that way
    you don't have to go nuts notching out lots of oddball resonances
    because of mismatched gear. 
    
    If there are multiple sends, you can have each send have its own EQ,
    but that's not as nice as being able to have *channel* EQ.  Of course,
    you have to provide those EQs outboard in most cases.
    
    I have yet to work at a club that had a separate monitor mixer.  Half
    the time you're lucky if they have any kind of PA... I played one palce
    recently that had a Mackie board with no monitor master level
    control...to turn the monitors up or down required twisitng six knobs!
    
    It's also an expensive proposition for bands carrying their own PA to
    have the second mixer.  No wonder everybody bitches about monitors all
    the time  8^)
    
    							Brian

    
    HMMM......
    I play in from previous notes what seems to be a weird sort of band.
    As a guitarist I need my on stage amp to be at the right distance/level
    to enable "nice" feedback. i.e. loud enough to get octave feedback,
    but not so loud it feeds back uncontrollably like a mike.
    so I use a Converted Peavey Backstage30,(converted to 60W RMS,with 100W
    speaker)On the floor usually leaning back against something at 45
    Degrees-ish. I use a Roland GP8(8 Boss pedals in micro controlled box)
    which has 2 pairs of stereo outs,I send a mono of one pair to the 
    little peavey for feedback/monitoring,and the other pair to 2 chanels
    on the Vocal mixer.this mixer has my 2, and 4 mics for us all.
    The output is sent to a general mixer,and to 2 small powered monitors
    in front,pointing mostly at the the 2 main vocalists(me and the K-bd
    player hear enough from these and Front of house to manage)
    The keyboard player/sequencer op mixes his k-bds/drum module with the
    send from vocal mixer and stuffs the result Bi-amped 1600W to EV top
    and botton speakers. He also sends his k-ds etc to a monitor amp,and 
    through 2 small 200W moni cabs behind us all,this makes it sound a 
    bit more like a "real" band on stage. As well as the sequenced drums
    The male vocal plays a Roland drum module via Simmonds and roland pads
    mostly snares and toms,with some added rides/hats. this helps reduce
    the clinical sequency feel,and as he stands up,it helps the visuals too.
    As the resulting stage level is pretty low,the small 100W ish Vocal
    monitors are adequate,and with the guitar and the "band" monitors
    behind,it feels fairly real.
    I wouldn't dream of using a big "stack" to try and project into
    an auditorium, let the PA do that,just make sure it's tough enough.
    Generally I feel the less level you can have on stage the happier
    people,particularly vocalists are. If the guitarist can get the
    critical level as discussed in previous art's,then that's your
    biggest prob solved. If you've got acoustic drums,and a bass player
    as well they will need to be accomodated as well but usually The 
    axemen are the noisiest!
    I'm not entirely happy with the sound I have through the PA so I
    will experiment with not DI'ing the Guit,and try miking the amp
    Though I like the wide stereo chorus I get with cleaner sounds DI'd.
    Swings and roundabouts?
    
    Matt.

    
    	I'd venture a guess that the reason you're not happy with your
    guitar sound direct thru the PA is that by tapping into the guitar
    signal BEFORE it reaches the guitar amp, you're not getting the
    coloration your amp provides. 
    
    	I'd suggest either buying a direct box (like a H&K RedBox) and
    using that to tap into your signal AFTER the amp. Or, since you really
    like your stereo outputs, you could pick up a rackmout preamp, run that
    into an ADA MicroCAB, and send that signal to the PA. The MicroCAB is
    a stereo unit, as are most rack preamps, so that should get you a
    real nice stereo "amp sound" thru the PA without having to mike your amp.
    
    
    	Brad
    

    Just for thoroughness, I'd like to mention that the band I do sound for
    uses those little mike-stand mounted monitors, rather than the more
    traditional floor monitors.  This is a 4 piece C and Dubba-Yew band,
    and the lead singer (ultra good voice) is very picky about the monitor
    sound, and refuses to use floor monitors anymore.  I send one monitor
    mix to the lead guitar and Lead singer/bass guitarist, and a second
    monitor mix to the keyboard player and drummer.  All instruments are
    miked or direct to the board, and use stage amps as well; drums are
    miked.
    
    Draw backs of the stand type speakers is that you are stuck in one
    place when you sing, and they clutter up the stage.
    
    The Peavey 16 channel board I use has two monitor mixes; one monitor
    loop drives a 200w amp, the other 120w.  200 watts isn't too much, even
    for the dinky stand monitors.  The mains are driven by a CS800.  
    
    Carl

    In our band (a 5 piece R&R outfit) we use a 16-2 desk with 4 aux...
    
    1 aux feeds an SPX90 whilst 2 others feed vocal monitors & keyboard
    monitors (also for acoustic guitar APX6).  None of the traditional back
    line is usually miked, but if the place is very large... then we di
    from the amps, and mike the drums.
    
    To drive the monitors we use a CAM800, whilst out front is driven by a
    C-AUDIO 1200 through numerous different cab configs. (depends largely
    on the hall)
    
    This isn't the best set up, but until we can afford to have someone mix
    the sound off stage....
    
    Bonzo

    HELP!!!
    
    We just got a dual channel compressor/limiter.  Where would you put
    this??  Before/After the EQ?  How do these things work?????
    
    thanks,
    robert

    
    Why did you buy something you had no idea how to apply?
    
    One assumes the unit came with a manual... read it. It should
    answer your questions...
    
    -b

    >Why did you buy something you had no idea how to apply?
    
    Same reason I bought a guitar,, I wanted to learn how to play it.
    
    >manual... read it
    
    I just thought that there was a lot more information available in this
    notes file than the manual.
    
    Thanks,
    rj

    
    	In a round-about sort of way, Brian was suggesting that you
    	take a look at the manual to get the basics of the equipment
    	and connections, try it out, and THEN come back here for any
    	extra info and/or helpful hints you require, such as fine-
    	tuning, etc.
    
    	Brian can be a little too "to the point" sometimes.  And other
    	times he can spend 7 or 8 paragraphs telling you how to plug
    	something into a wall outlet.
    
    	8^)
    

    Easy, easy...
    
    Here's my principles in a nut-shell.  Pay no attention to that other
    guy - he's got a PV board for gawd sakes.  :-)
    
    ALWAYS get the sound sounding good before you squish it.  Ergo, EQ it
    BEFORE the compressor/limitor.  
    
    FWIW - I would NOT set this thing for heavy compression.  You'll be 
    squishing the dynamics out of your band and adding noise - bad idea.  
    It WOULD, however, be a good idea to limit the mix.  Plosive "P's"
    will annoy, and a dropped mike will destroy a speaker system.  Limit
    it.
    
    Compressors should be run on individual channels (again, in my humble
    opinion); like on the inserts.  Other cool things to do would be
    compress "Sections" in your sub-mix (assuming you have subs).
    
    Remember - compressors aren't something that I'd consider an EFFECT.  
    It's not like a flanger or a chorus or a delay that you hear as
    something special...but there are  nifty "special effects" (but much
    more subtle) things you can do like run an EQ in the insert (or 'side
    chain') of your gadget, but these are probably more suited for the
    studio than live apps.  A cool example is compressing a kick drum and 
    running a gate in the side-chain, then equalize the gated AND
    compressed kick in the side chain of THAT (whew!).  Sounds like a lot of 
    work, but the effect is you'll NEVER lose that kick sound in the mix, and 
    it will thump your chest and stop your heart (I like that).  Compressed
    sound is the coolest!
    
    Opps - Anyway, EQ before compress.
    
    :-)
    

    >	Brian can be a little too "to the point" sometimes.  And other
    >	times he can spend 7 or 8 paragraphs telling you how to plug
    >	something into a wall outlet.
    
    Oh man, did you hit the nail on the head! :-)
    
    -b

    Try
    	just compressing the vocals,(if they need it) try -10db threshold
    2:1 - 4:1 compression.
    
    	Take your time compression is something that is working correctly
    when you *cant* hear it, It can take a while to learn to drive.
    
    	If you compress the whole mix (as opposed to Limiting..which
    is extreme compression,say for speaker protection) the bass or kick
    drum may cause the whole mix to pump, if you are using to much.
    
    
    	P.K.
    
    	there are some good tips in some of the old issues of EM.

    It would help us out if we know what you wanted the comp/limiter for...
    
    Some of youze pro-type guys might wanna correct me on this one, I'll still a
    newbie on all the nuances of this stuff too...
    
    Do you want to run a single vocal channel so that your singer sounds
    like recorded Mariah Carey (Screams are compressed, and you can hear
    her breathing loud and clear...ie very litte dynamics)?
    This can be accomplished by setting a low threshold, high output level,
    high ratio, and attack/release to taste, so you're not 'pumping'...
    
    Do you want to use it to limit the peaks to keep from clipping and
    potentially damaging speakers? In this case, the comp/limiter should
    be the last unit before the power amp (post EQ), the threshold should
    be rather high (near unity gain), and the output level should be just a
    few db below the clip point. The ratio should be pretty well maxed out 
    (maybe infinity), and the attack should be rather quick, assuming you
    want to stop the clip quick, but this could lead to 'pumping' if your
    dynamics stay up at unity level most of the time. A longer delay time
    would allow the extra gain for a longer time before limiting it,
    thereby allowing the dynamics to briefly exceed the set max, thus
    preventing 'pumping' during a loud passage, but still providing speaker 
    protection if someone were to SCREAMMMMMM into the Mic. However, too
    long an attack time will not provide protection in the event someone
    drops a very hot mic.
    
    Think of in terms of this next scream...
    
    SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!   (no limiting, speakers smoking, etc..)
    
    SCREEeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaam.   (fast limiting, good overall
                                         protection)
    
    Screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaam.   (very fast limiting, good for protection)
                                         probably would help in the
    	                                 'dropped mic' category
    		                         but could easily lead to...
    
    ScrEEeeEEeeEEeeEEeaAAaaAAaaAAaam.   (pumping as a result of fast
    					 limiting because that scream is
                                         right at the threshold, or release
    				         is too quick)
    
    It all depends on what you require from the unit, how your dynamics
    work, how much headroom your PA has, how you set everything else...
    
    Experience is the best teacher, and RTFM. 
    
    I just recently got a unit that automagically controls the attack and 
    release as it sees fit for given program. I must admit, I'm impressed.
    
    Larry