Split your SQ in two (FOH/Monitor)

[Andre S]

Hi guys and girls,

wanna know, how to digitally split your SQ Mixer, to do FOH and Monitor Duties at the same time?

Take a look and avoid the mistake I made:

[tofu]

This is great! It’s like having a Y splitter, so you can set one gain level for FOH and another for the Mons. I’ve been wanting this!

[volounteer]

@AndreS

Why not just tell us in words what you did.

[Mike C]

That same trick will work with the QU series if your using an external stage box
for the inputs.

Actually it will work with about any digital mixer with multipoint IO routing .

[Andre S]

That´s right Mike. It´s actually more about the concept, than the device.

[Mike C]

Back in the ole days it was taking a hand full of Y cables and plugging then into the back of you analog mixer if you had the channels to spare.

[Andre S]

Hi volounteer,

here is written summary of my video for you:

I have a band that gives me 16 inputs to my SQ and for a long time I used the usual way of mixing monitor: take the inputs, lowcut/eq/compress/ them for the main P.A. and send a certain amount of that signal to the musicians wedge until he says, it´s enough.
Since more and more guys use IEM, I find it nessesary to eq indiviual channels differently for IEM than for the mains. One example would be: playing in a big party tent where all the HF is reflected back and a lot of low end ist lost. In that scenario I often have to take out all the highs from the snare and try to boost it´s body to get workable sound on the dancefloor right in front of the stage.
I go to Inputchannel 17 and select Slink socket 1 as source, for Inputchannel 18 I select Slink socket 2 as source, etc pp. Now I have can process those signal completely different. I unassign them from the main mix, so that they don´t mess with my P.A. sound. Mix 1 (stereo) is now fed from those copys, and not from the channels I use for my main sound.
In the video I also talk about a mistake I made when set it up. I couldn´t get any FX in my IEM mix. I simply had forgotten to raise the faders on channels 17 to 24. Those do not disturb my FOH sound, because they are not assigned to the LR mix. But they need to be up because all FX send are POST faders. And of course I know that…but I didn´t think about it in that situation. Steffen and Keith hinted me in the right direction.

I hope that helps you volounteer?

Cheers and take care!

[volounteer]

@AmdreS

Thanks for that.

My old XP PC would not play the video.

[Hugh]

The A & H protocol to deliver cue mixes to performers is about as good as it gets. The IEM “more me” folks have personal custom mix control with the devices A&H has available for that purpose and wedges can have isolated outputs with custom mixing available to suit most any need. This is one of the great advantages digital processing has delivered to the live performance music world: it aint rocket science.
Hugh

[Saddler]

Great video!

[Matty]

Can you do it into 3 like in a church for monitors FOH and streaming?

[Andre S]

Yes of course, as long as you don´t go over the 48 Channels. Remember: you only need to copy channels, that will have a different processing. If you are satisfied with how an input sounds, you can send it directly to a mix (exactly like a monitor mix) and send that mix into your streaming device.

[Hugh]

The initial process Andre raised in this thread deals with FOH distribution vs cue monitoring. There are two very important factors that need to be understood and delt with;
1) Venue size and it’s natural reflective properties. A church choir practice room will almost always offer much better acoustical reflection than their sanctuary. A band shell will help, but it will never be as good as the acoustical resonance of the practice room.
2) There is a huge difference between acoustical vs pop performance. Providing suitable IEM cueing for the “more me” musical generation eliminates a very critical element of musical performance: The ability for a given musician to control their own dynamic range by carefully finding their synergistic placement in the ensemble performance. With todays ‘Hot back line” stage volume, sealed IEM cue monitoring is generally required that delivers to the console both House SR as well as the performer cue requirements. In this senario the collective console management becomes, in many ways, more important than the stage performance.
Proper analysis of room proclivities and performer skill levels will dictate the SR/cue monitoring possibilities.

The third rail of this thread “Streaming a church service” is an interesting subject. We first need to stipulate the critical difference between two entirely different listening environments. From a visual perspective todays video gear afords an amazing real time capture of the subject event, however the packaged audio seldom if ever meets the “bar of acceptance” of the broadcast market. IMO the following recomendation should be considered to level the playing field.
I have an SQ5 and DX32 with primeI/O and D-Live pres. I run the house and wedge monitoring “mono’ thru the auxes, and the streaming mix thru the main LR in stereo. The panning, FX assignments and post production mixing protocols are really beneficial for the listening environment most internet over the ear or close speaker alignment affords. These are lessons I have learned over a 50+ year career in recording audio for CD s and for video production.
Hugh

[Simon2]

@Andre S: Thank you.
It is a really obvious idea but (as often) one i didn’t come up with. 😁
And a really cool one too!!

We have patched all 48 channels in our standard setting (= easy/patchfree usage for less experienced volunteers). But we practically never use more than 24 channels simultanously at a single event.
So we can’t use this ‘trick’ in our standard scene but it’s really helpful for advanced users.

It’s less the monitoring that challenges us than the streaming, that could profit from a different processing than FOH. At least for SOME instruments (drums, bass, vocals, …) – and that’s another beauty of it: You don’t have to double ALL the signal – only the ones that are critical.

BTW: I’m not sure if different EQing would be a good idea when working with wedges (we don’t use IEM). In a smaller Venue it could lead to a rather inhomogeneous sound…

Bye

Simon2

[Hugh]

Andre’s split mix for house SR and a different cue monitor mix is a no brainer: this has been a universal SOP for most all of my 50 YEARS in SR. As a minimum a cue mix will need to HP filter out the low frequency on stage bass bloom that comes from the back of the house speaker stacks. Trying to deliver a uniform stereo mix to most any venue is fools gold. Achieving a uniform coverage with a mono mix is a far better goal for sound reinforcement. However just the opposite is the case with a streaming mix. This is where full stereo panning, FX assignments and several other post production embellishments are truly beneficial. For these reasons I usually deploy the auxes for SR and cue monitoring and reserve the Main L&R for, a totally built from scratch, stream mix!
Hugh

[Author]

Posts