Reply To: GLD-80 Monitor Best Practices

Forums Forums GLD Forums GLD general discussions GLD-80 Monitor Best Practices Reply To: GLD-80 Monitor Best Practices

#44500
Profile photo of cornelius78
cornelius78
Participant

To run monitors off of a laptop with editor we’d need to send the signal from the GLD via Dante? How would you set that up?

No. Editor is just a remote control for the console. It communictes with the console using TCP/IP over the network (wired or wifi.) You go console>router (probably the wifi one you’re already using)>laptop. The laptop itself doesn’t actually pass any audio, it just adds another control option to the console (in the same way that the iPads you’re using don’t pass audio, they just remotely control the console.) You can have one person at the console running FOH, and someone else using the laptop running monitors. The only awkward bit is getting a PAFL/comms signal for the ME. Alternatively your could put the GLD console in monitor world and have your ME use the console with its physical faders and buttons, and have FOH run from a laptop. This would probably be my preferred method: IME it’s easier to mix 9x separate mixes (your monitors) with physical faders and have to mix only one mix (LR) with a mouse\iPad rather than the other way around.

Using 2x Dante cards and a separate console would mean you could do a digital split of the channels. (Apart from the preamp gain sharing) this means you could have 48 channels for FOH with their own processing and 48 channels for monitors with their own processing. It also means that each console (assuming they’re both GLDs) would each have their own buses/mix outputs and FX processors: you’d gain 9x mono auxes at FOH you could use as subgroups, FOH FX sends etc, because the monitor console would be using its own 30/20 mixes for monitors and monitor FX. It would also get you half way (just need a switch and a laptop) to doing multitrack recording and virtual sound check. While more flexible and arguably easier to mix with (extra console means FOH + ME get their own physical faders to mix with,) this option costs a lot more than just grabbing a laptop and using Editor.

Also, if you only had a GLD-80 and iPads running GLD One Remote for each band member to control their mix how would you, in an ideal mixing world, set that up so that the band person still gets a nice “live sounding” wet mix without any interference from FOH changes and vice versa.

I’d firstly move the tap point for the auxes from where you’ve got it to being earlier in the signal path, definitely before compression (having makeup gain kick in from multiple channels at seemingly random times based on FOH’s compression settings would get annoying.) I might do it post-eq if I knew the FOH engineer was the set-and-forget type and didn’t play with channels eqs a lot mid show. If he did play with eqs a lot, or it was an eq I didn’t like, I’d set the tap point pre-eq so the eq changes didn’t affect the monitors. This will help cut down on the effect FOH operation has on the monitors.

My first thought for getting a “live sounding” mix to the monitors was to put up a couple of room mics and route them to the monitors, providing you can sort out placement and delays.) An alternative to that would be to route LR to the auxes via the ext-in (not sure if the trim control is available on one-mix though,) or using a spare pair of input channels and routing LR them, and routing them to the monitors. This would get your live sound in the monitors, but as it’s based on LR, anything your FOH engineer does to LR will affect the sound, which doesn’t fit your requirements.

Getting a wet mix can be awkward, often because what sounds good in FOH (especially delays on vox,) are actually counter-productive in monitors, especially IEMs. It really depends on which channels you’ve got in your IEMs to start with, which channels you’ve got feeding which fx, and which fx returns you’ve actually got in your IEMs.

Unless you go crazy with y-splits and routing auxes to auxes, (you’ll soon find you run out of auxes, especially if you already need to feed 9 separate mixes + LR from the one console,) it’s probably easiest to just tell your musos to keep an eye on their FX returns, or to just not have FX in monitors. You could just insert a verb across each aux so the musos don’t feel quite so isolated, but youve got 9x auxes and only 8x fx processors, and that’s not counting any FX processors needed for FOH.

As a compromise, I’d probably un-assign all FX returns from the monitors, and figure out which channels actually need FX on them in their IEMs (it’s probably only going to be a touch of verb on the vocals.) I’d then send the vox channels pre-fade (or whatever tap point is appropriate, not post-fade) to a spare FX unit (configured as a reverb,) and send the return from this FX unit to monitors (not FOH.) Individual musos can then control the level of that return (vox verb) in their own mix. As the channels are tapped pre-fade, FOH adjusting levels of those channels won’t affect the verb. If musos want “more me” in their monitors, they can adjust the send levels of the dry channels to the monitor directly, without affecting the verb level for others. Really though, running 9x IEMs + LR with only 8x FX engines and 20x mixouts leaves you with only a certain amount of flexibilty when you’re trying to get different wet mixes for everyone without treading on each others’ toes.

Finally, If your IEMs themselves don’t have an in-line limiter, I’d ensure I was dialling up the GLD’s compressor on those 9x auxes to essentially act as a limiter. Your musos only have one set of ears, and if there was a power spike etc that sent a really loud crack or squeal through the system, it’s not as though your musos can just step away from the wedges.

HTH

Edit: typos and Beaten