GLD-80 Monitor Best Practices

Forums Forums GLD Forums GLD general discussions GLD-80 Monitor Best Practices

This topic contains 9 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of j.hester j.hester 6 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44485
    Profile photo of j.hester
    j.hester
    Participant

    Hey all,

    My church is currently running the GLD-80 at FOH and we use 9 mono aux sends which are controlled by each band member via iPads stocked with the GLD One Remote.

    We’ve been having issues with setting and establishing good IEM mixes and it seems like the mixes and levels in the bands ears are changing mid service when the FOH engineer is adjusting things but isn’t adjusting the gains.

    I’m wondering, how do you all set up you monitoring systems so that the FOH adjustments aren’t affecting the aux sends for each band members IEM’s. Also, we’re thinking of switching to utilizing a monitor world with a dedicated monitor engineer instead of having unexperienced band members mix their own ears and always complain that it’s not mixed well. What system would you recommend? Would using a Qu-16 or 24 with a Cat5 send via M-Dante from the GLD-80 work?

    All in all, I’m trying to figure out the best way to have our band’s ears mixed without the FOH adjustments messing with what they are hearing. I’m thinking a monitor world is the best direction to head but for now we have the iPads and any suggestions are helpful.

    Thanks!

    #44486
    Profile photo of Chris93
    Chris93
    Participant

    Make sure the aux sends are pre fade. If the aux send pick off point is post EQ or post compression then any level changes from those would effect the aux mixes too, even if set to pre.

    Chris

    #44487
    Profile photo of j.hester
    j.hester
    Participant

    Yeah, we recently checked that but they are all set to Pre Fade with the pick off point set to Post Delay.

    I have also noticed that certain things will still cut through the IEM monitor mixes even when they are turned all the way down on the GLD One Remote. It’s not til I turn down the effect returns in the GLD One Remote that the level of that particular instrument is completely turned off. Is there perhaps an effects send issue here?

    #44489
    Profile photo of cornelius78
    cornelius78
    Participant

    Looking at the block diagram, a post-delay tap point means anything your FOH engineer does to the processing before the delay (which on the GLD includes the hpf, gate, insert, peq and comp) will affect the sound in the monitors. This would account for some of the sound changing. There are two ways around this. One is to set an earlier tap point. The other is to do a virtual (or physical) y-split of channels (if you’ve got enough spare) and use (eg) ch1-22 exclusively for FOH and ch23-44 exclusively for monitors.

    If you have fx returns routed to the monitors then the way they sound will be affected by the fx sends. By default the mix-return FX are post fader. This means that even if a channel is down in the monitors, but it’s still up in FOH, it’s still going to be sent to the FX engine, the FX engine will still process it, it’ll still be returned, and you’ll still hear it in the IEMs.

    The Qu series isn’t Dante-compatible, so it won’t interface with a GLD unless you go via another converter, eg a DAW (Mics-AR2412-GLD-Dante out to DAW-DAW returning to Qu inputs via USB-B, Qu XLR outputs to monitors.) This requires the DAW to be capable of taking inputs from one interface (Dante,) routing them directly to its outputs, and feeding those outputs to a separate interface (Qu.) I’m not sure how many, if an DAWs can do that. Even if they could, I’m not sure the latency would be acceptable for monitors, especially if they’re IEMs.

    An easier solution would be Dante+a separate monitor console that is compatible with Dante (eg another GLD.) A less costly solution would be having someone with a laptop running Editor doing monitors. Further to that, if you can run multiple instances of GLD Editor connected to the same console, the ME could run a separate instance of Editor for each monitor mix, which might be easier. Of course you’d have to figure out PAFL and TB with FOH.

    #44495
    Profile photo of j.hester
    j.hester
    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?

    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.

    Thanks again for all the help, this has been super helpful so far!

    Josh

    #44499
    Profile photo of jcarter
    jcarter
    Participant

    Editor doesn’t require Dante. I believe Cornelius was saying that you could use a second console connected with Dante *or* a computer running editor, on the same network as the console, to control your monitor mix.

    Reverbs in the IEMs will be challenging since the sends are going to work best for FOH if they’re post-fader. If you don’t have an ambient mic set up, that might help, both in terms of adding reverb-ish sound as well as making the players on IEM feel less isolated from the congregation.

    #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

    #44503
    Profile photo of Chris93
    Chris93
    Participant

    I have various different FX sends and returns dedicated for FOH use, and separate FX rack slot, FX send and FX return channel dedicated to monitors. If someone wants reverb in their monitor I send their channel into my monitor FX send and turn up the MON FX return in their mix.

    Chris

    #44516
    Profile photo of Dr. Rick
    Dr. Rick
    Participant

    IF you are thinking about spending $ on a QU or some other solution for the monitor mixes, you should consider the ME-1. 9 of them would cost about $4500, but soooo worth the investment. FOH would not affect them at all as they are all direct out each player can save their settings on a flash drive, so the next time you set up, it wont matter which ME unit they sue, they just load their saved settings and go. Can’t say enough how great the ME’s are, especially for in ear via ear buds, but they can control floor monitors as well. You can use a $150 network switch with POE, connect all the ME with Cat5 cables. Saves using all the auxes and costs for iPads. Very slick. My 2 cents.

    #44517
    Profile photo of j.hester
    j.hester
    Participant

    Thanks all, this has been really really helpful and insightful. I think we’re def gonna look into assigning different FX for FOH and monitors until we can go with getting a separate monitor world.

    If you guys think of anything else let me know and thanks again for the help!

    Josh

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.