Foh or Mons first?

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions Foh or Mons first?

This topic contains 41 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of [XAP]Bob [XAP]Bob 5 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47431
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    Since the channel gain (trim) control and EQ is common to both Foh and monitor sends,I’m just curious what you experienced guys do:

    1) Set up the Foh mix first with main LR and channel faders at unity (or some like -5) and adjust chan gain to suitable hearing level (and not overdriving into the red). Then mix the stage wedge monitors using the faders and EQ, not touching the gain.
    OR
    2) Set up the stage wedge monitor mixes first,keeping the channel gain as low as possible to reduce feedback and adjusting the monitor mix faders to suit the musicians level requirements. Then attend to Foh mix,adjusting the chan faders for the required listening level.

    At church I tend to do the monitors first to get the musicians set up to practice,then tweak the Foh as they play. But given the time (say for a concert) i’m thinking the first approach may be best. The trouble is that say if you tweak EQ to colour the sound to taste in the Foh it could adversely effect the monitor mix into feedback.
    Hope you understand what i mean

    #47432
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    Just to clarify, I’m talking about where you have just one common desk for both Foh and monitors (in my case a QU-24),not having separate monitor desk at the stage like they do at big venues.

    #47438
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    Afterthought…was thinking for instruments that are prone to feedback onstage from wedges, i could use two mics (or a mic and pickup),one just for FOH and one for monitors. That way you have independent gain and EQ for FOH and monitors. Because last week during band rehearsal i was getting feedback from double bass from wedge monitor. And so i had to scoop out a lot of mids on PEQ, but the drawback of this was a less lunchy bass out in FOH

    #47439
    Profile photo of eotsskleet
    eotsskleet
    Participant

    Hey gilly! Well I think the “stabdard way” (if it exists) is to setup a good gain structure! So Setup Gain first to suit the needs of the specific mic (condenser not as hot as dynamic mics) the channel EQ should be used first to correct the difference caused by the used mic and then for smoothening it to the mix! For Most instruments it might be ok to use the same EQ settins for monitors as for FoH! In case of lead vocs and some
    Special occasions a channel-split would be helpful!
    However.. If the monitors and the main PA is as good as possible EQed (flat) then you shouldn’t face too much feedback problems!

    #47440
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    Hmm, for such setups I normally don’t care EQing individual channels for the monitors at all, they’re fed pre-EQ from the channel for simple reason that when I’m modifying the EQ for FOH I do not want to run into problems from the wedges.
    Maybe I see this too pragmatic, FOH is for sound and monitors for musicians to hear each other well enough. IEMs may be a different story.

    #47442
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    But Andreas in the QU24 i thought the routing to Groups and Mix sends are post EQ, no?

    #47443
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    I just tested it. PEQ effects monitor mixas i thought

    #47444
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    Depends on what you select as source for each Mix. Default is post all, thats correct.

    #47447
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    …and, if that’s not already clear, I prefer to feed the monitor mixes pre-fader as well, so changing the channel’s volume on FOH does not affect volume on monitors.
    Saying that, you need to understand that if you get some sort of feedback from the monitors, turning the channel volume down on FOH does (probably) not stop the feedback.
    Groups are a different story, they’re always fed post-fader and do not have an individual mix per channel. They’re basically intended to be routed back to LR to simplify management of a group of channels (i.e. drums, backing vocals etc.).

    #47460
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    Generally I’ll set up monitors first – then the musicians are happy, and I can get on with FOH.

    I’ll do gain structure, try to get the ‘loudest’ down to -18dB or so (where 0dB is digital full range) for decent headroom. [desperately trying to remember what the scale is on the QU – peaking into the yellow]…

    Then monitors and FOH play after that… Musicians first, audience next (since they’re not there yet)

    #47492
    Profile photo of jet1968
    jet1968
    Participant

    My monitor mixes are all set to ‘pre-eq’ If I need to EQ the wedges, theres a PEQ and a GEQ on each output and hopefully in a future upgrade we may get HPF’s ? (please)

    #47523
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    Sorry Andreas yes the mix sends are selectable pre or post EQ. But why would you choose to elect for pre EQ as if there is a problem with some instrument feeding back at a certain freq in a monitor then u have no way of dealing with this other than reducing the fader in the mix which reduces all the level and not just that troublesome frequency. (Im sure u have a good answer).
    What do u think of the idea of two mics for feedback prone instruments, one for FOH and other for monitor mix…and dont say “not a lot” …

    #47526
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    As I’ve already stated I’m somewhat pragmatic with sound and do not want to trade FOH sound for Monitor feedback. I’m using the channel PEQs for FOH sound only, emphasising distinct frequencies or generally reducing mids for overall clarity. Coming from some progressive bands with sometimes difficult arrangements I’ve learned to focus on the overall sound not how individual musicians want their instruments to sound. After the concert normally all agree, not necessarily during soundcheck… 😉
    Sensible feedback frequencies from the monitors are dealt with the PEQ of the mix (or GEQ in analog days). I generally rip off the low end from the monitors completely, since these are normally not required for the musicians to play well (may depend on music, though) which removes mud from the stage as well.
    And, to address the original question: I indeed normally start with a somewhat coarse FOH sound, leveling instrument by instrument, monitors still off at that point (but already pre-EQed regarding feedback and placement). When I have that particular instrument well on FOH a little will be send to the assigned monitor (and only that one), so the musician is happy.
    When everything is settled that way, we start a short rehearsal to see, who additionally needs which other instrument on the monitors, and they only get those. With this approach I rarely have real feedback issues…
    Again: Monitors are not necessarily to generate hifi sound but for orientation.
    You may try additional mics, but from my experience, more of them does not necessarily reduce feedback issues…

    #47527
    Profile photo of MarkPAman
    MarkPAman
    Participant

    + one for all that Andreas says.

    On the 2 mic issue – no need – and does not work well with singers! If you want one channel to run FOH & another to feed the monitors, then just split the signal. You can do this with a simple splitter cable, or the patch function if you use the dSnake.

    #47528
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    And, to address the original question: I indeed normally start with a somewhat coarse FOH sound, leveling instrument by instrument, monitors still off at that point (but already pre-EQed regarding feedback and placement). When I have that particular instrument well on FOH a little will be send to the assigned monitor (and only that one), so the musician is happy.
    When everything is settled that way, we start a “sound check” to see, who additionally needs which other instrument on the monitors, and they only get those. With this approach I rarely have real feedback issues…

    Depending the the band, whom is the band, venue inside outside, time restriction,
    This is exactly what I do

    Sensible feedback frequencies from the monitors are dealt with the PEQ of the mix (or GEQ in analog days). I generally rip off the low end from the monitors completely, since these are normally not required for the musicians to play well (may depend on music, though) which removes mud from the stage as well.

    Yes its all about removing the mud, (But not to much though)
    However being as ancient as myself I still use GEQ. (old habits die hard)
    Although I have noticed a slight change in what I myself have been doing regards this and started using PEG for groups and other fold back issues.
    Different bands often require different Fold back EQues.

    Bands and I am talking wedges here, (depending on whom and venue/ type of event and instruments) can often hear themselves go out of the FOH mix (depending where speaker placement is and how much back wash from FOH speakers) etc
    Since owning the QU’s, I have found I Equalise way less than external Equalisers from the past era.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 42 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.