Multiple channels for single microphone

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ general discussions Multiple channels for single microphone

This topic contains 11 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of SQuser SQuser 2 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #118928
    Profile photo of Riker
    Riker
    Participant

    Greetings,

    I would like some advice on how best to achieve my objective:

    I need to have 2 separate channels on my SQ-6 coming from a single microphone on stage, times 2 singers ie two microphones on stage and 4 channels on SQ. The reason is I want to have processed channel ie: EQ, compression, pitch correction, analog inserts, reverb, delay etc… and a “clean” non-processed channel, just plain / dry for when singers are addressing the crowd and also for recording to my DAW from the USB-B output.

    The microphones are a mix of dynamic and condenser (48v). One of the singer uses a TC Electronics VoiceLive 3 pedal on stage before it reaches my SQ-6.

    I think I can “copy” an input to multiple channels and have different processing etc. but I’m thinking a Mic Splitter would give me more control and allow me to also bypass the on stage pedal. Something like the ART S8, or S8 3Way, or a Radial box ?? I see most use case for a splitter is to send a mic signal to 2 mixers, broadcast, recorder etc.. I want to send one mic signal to the same mixer, but on different channels with different processing.

    The main objective is to allow me to switch off all the processing between songs when they are just talking to the audience and then quickly switch back to full processed, pitch corrected etc.. during the songs. I would have both faders up on the SQ-6 and just Mute and Unmute as needed.

    Also I need it as a “backup” in case my external gear (laptop running autotune, MADI I/O connected analog gear etc.) blows up or dies I have a very quick way of bypassing all and still get a vocal signal out my mains even if it’s not fully processed.

    I don’t mind investing in additional gear if I need to, just wondering what is the best, easiest and best sounding way to achieve my goal.

    Thank you !

    #118929
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    Either way works. (Splitting signal before it gets to the console, or double patching inputs in the console).

    A quick look at the TC Electronics VoiceLive 3 pedal leads me to believe it already has a “wet” and “clean” output, so you should already be using two different inputs in the console with this device. For example, channel X gets the “wet” signal and channel Y gets the clean signal.

    If you want to have a foot switch on stage that allows the other singers to switch between “wet” and “clean” signals (but process everything in the console) then I would suggest the Whirlwind SelectorXL foot switch. I have tried a couple of different pedals and this one is the only one that I tried that is completely silent when switching between inputs (even when using condensor mics). Others would “pop” a little when switching. This pedal is also allows you to choose between momentary switch (ie the singer holds the button down to use channel 2) or latching (when the inputs switch every time you press the pedal). We have actually used it both ways at different times and having the option to change it is very nice.

    Otherwise the other option is to take the single mic input and use it as the source on two different channels in the console (double patching). This is very commonly done and allows you to process the channels differently, have an FX insert on only one channel, etc. The “downside” to this method is that you have to adjust the faders depending on what signal you want to hear (wet or dry). Obviously that isn’t hard, but it is one more thing you have to worry about while mixing. If you are the only mixer this probably isn’t a problem, but if it is at a facility where other people will be mixing too (church, etc), then this might be asking too much of some people.

    I would not buy “y” cables or other mic “splitter” solutions. There is no reason to do this and it just creates another potential point of failure. Just split the signal in the console itself by double patching the input to two different channels.

    #118930
    Profile photo of mfusa
    mfusa
    Participant

    Posted a reply but see it was already answered with a similar reply by the time I submitted. I agree with the previous poster. Easier to do this in board patching unless there a is a unique driver pushing you in another direction. I don’t see the need for a physical solution here. More equipment and points of failure.

    #118936
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    Maybe I can add to the good suggestions:

    Brain has already recommended how you can use the pedal for singer 1 to ensure that he doesn’t forget to turn off his effect.
    So in this case you have already separated your 2 channels (singing + speech).

    In the case of the other singer 2, you obviously only get the microphone signal and want to split it into 2 channels in your SQ.
    It reads like you don’t know how to do it.
    The clearest way is to do it in the I/O menu (see manual page 19).
    In the attached image you can see in red how input 1 is patched to channels 1 and 2.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #118941
    Profile photo of Riker
    Riker
    Participant

    Thank you guys !

    Double patching on the SQ seems like the way to go. I’m also going to look at the voicelive in more detail and see if I can send out a clean signal like you said.

    I’m also thinking of putting that VoiceLive pedal next to me at the FOH console, because I can’t trust the singer to know when to click it off, or when to engage or disengage Harmony… it’s a long story but basically he’s 70+ so can’t handle much more than singing and playing acoustic guitar. Yes, I’m the only “soundguy” for this one band and I do all their gigs so I’m dedicated to them only at this time.

    Was looking at the Radial JS2 to split before the VoiceLive so that I don’t have to take care of turning off the voicelive AND move faders / mutes at the same time between every song of a 35 song show. But, like you said, more points of failure etc..

    Thanks again guys

    #118944
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    > Was looking at the Radial JS2 to split before the VoiceLive
    Why are you thinking about this?
    Brain already said it was unnecessary.
    Even if the pedal was on stage and didn’t have a dry output, they could make it happen.
    1. You connect the mic directly to the SQ on the 1st input.
    2. You send the same signal back to the stage to feed into the pedal.
    3. You get the FX mix again from the pedal on a 2nd input.

    #118946
    Profile photo of Riker
    Riker
    Participant

    so essentially use the INSERT point on the SQ to use the VoiceLive pedal. I could have one channel with insert on (pedal) and one channel with no inserts. I guess that would work as well. I’ll try the suggested scenarios and recommendations and see which way I prefer.

    Thanks again.

    #118947
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    I just read the manual for the Helicon Voicelive 3 pedal and confirmed it is possible to set it up in mono mode where the left XLR output jack carries the summed (with effects) mono vocal & guitar channel signals and the right XLR output jack carries the mono vocal signal without effects. (Page 147 of the manual: https://mediadl.musictribe.com/download/software/tchelicon/tc-helicon_voicelive_3_reference_manual_english.pdf). This means the singer doesn’t have to turn on/off the vocal FX on the pedal. You will have two inputs/channels set up – one with FX and one dry – and “mix” them the same way you would mix a double patched input.

    However I have been under the assumption that they are only using the pedal for vocal FX. If they also have a guitar plugged into the pedal and also run guitar FX through the unit, there isn’t anyway to get a clean/dry vocal channel AND separate vocal and guitar channels with FX. I would definitely say it is best to have separate vocal and guitar outputs, so if this is the case the singer will either need to manually turn on/off the vocal FX when needed vai the pedal switches, or you need to stop sending the vocals through that pedal and begin to add FX the same way you add them on the other vocal channels (using internal console FX, or sending them externally to a FX processor using inserts, etc, etc, etc).

    #118948
    Profile photo of Riker
    Riker
    Participant

    Thank you again Brian for digging into this, it is very much appreciated. The singer only uses the VoiceLive for reverb, pitch correction and the harmonizer on some choruses. The acoustic guitar is not connected to the VoiceLive, it is connected to a L.R Baggs Venue DI pedal to make the acoustic guitar sound better than simple DI.

    So, in this case, if I understand correctly I would have a wet signal AND and dry signal coming from the VoiceLive to the SQ on 2 separate channels. That way I would simply have to mute / unmute / adjust faders between the wet channel and the dry channel and not worry about the current “state” of the pedal. Well, other than the Harmonizer being left on during the songs LOL :-). But this would definitively allow me to “flip” between wet vocals during song and dry vocals between songs.

    Awesome.

    Thank you so much Brian, as always you are an incredible source of knowledge and expertise on this forum. !!

    #118950
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    Sorry for getting in touch again.
    If the singer also creates the reverb via his pedal, it would of course be a shame to only have it in mono.
    And the harmonizer also probably produces a stereo sound image.

    In this respect, if I were you, I would prefer to send the microphone directly to the SQ.
    So you’ve got it dry on the console.
    This signal I would send completely unprocessed back to the stage, where it feeds the effects pedal.
    Now you can send the two inputs of the pedal back to the console, ideally to a stereo input.
    So you have the original microphone signal in mono and separated the sum with all of the pedal’s FX in stereo.

    #118978
    Profile photo of Riker
    Riker
    Participant

    Hi SQuser,

    You bring up a very good point πŸ˜‰ I did not consider the stereo imaging of the pedal. I think that for this one specific singer the Radial JS2 splitter would be a good option for a couple of reasons. First, I would be able to send one mic signal to my on stage AB168 for the un processes signal on it’s own channel, and a second signal to the voicelive pedal which would then connect to AB168 on stereo input on it’s own channel. This would allow me to switch between wet and dry channels and also if the pedal malfunctions or whatever, I can take it out of the equation completely and go to un processed channel.

    Given that I’ll be running a fairly complex setup, I want to have redundancy / backup signal paths as much as possible, just in case. The other lead singer does not have any pedal on stage, for her I will double patch her mic input and have one channel with INSERT processing and another channel without inserts / processing.

    I think this scenario gives me the most flexibility, better sound and most of all, a quick “way out” if sh*t hits the fan !!!

    Thanks again

    #118980
    Profile photo of SQuser
    SQuser
    Participant

    Ok, that is of course an argument for a splitter, because the 8 outputs of the AB168 fill up quickly.
    So you will prohably buy a splitter.

    Given the price, if I were you I would probably think about changing or adding the stage box. πŸ˜‰

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.