stereo "problem" with ahm-64. wish for implementation

[ton-juanParticipant]

hello there

we are using an ahm-64 in a concert/disco club installation and ran into a problem.

we are using our wedges as mono returns in concert situations and as stereo pairs for “dj-on-stage” situations, aswell as stereo-fills when dj’s play in our designated dj-booth in the audience area; in this situation 2 wedges are used to fill the stage with sound, which is open for the audience then.
the problem now is: there is no panning function for stereo inputs to mono zones, meaning that the dj-on-stage monitor signal, aswell as the audience-on-stage signal is mono. I think it would make sense to implement this in the x-point routing block.

I am aware of solving this problem via configuring all inputs and zones as mono, but then the input list is gonna get crowded and all the processing has to be done two times, as there is no ganging function implemented (which could be another usable function…).

Another, but a not a smooth one, solution would be the possibility to route different zones to the same physical or digital output. This will use more of the available inputs and zones, and a ganging option would the be kind of mandatory aswell.

A Panning option would be the smoothest variant I think.

or did we just overlook something?

Another wish from our side would be to have narrower Q’s available in the speaker processing EQ (and perhaps also input/Zones EQ). The datasheet from our wedge manufacturer, for example, calls for a Q=14 to remove a speaker resonance at a specific frequency, the narrowest Q AHM-64 offers is 6.

And another thing: One DT168 is connected to the AHM-64 for additional outputs to outfills and barfills. It takes a rather long time for the DT168 to connect to the AHM-64 (>30s). And the connection is then confirmed two times with a fullscale bang from the speakers. Is this a Dante problem?

On the other hand, we are very happy how solid the system performs and how easy it is to program, we are using a dlive system which feeds the matrix via sLink with concert inputs. Nice! Also the remote control options and the custom control editor are good. I think this is a pretty outstanding product at this pricepoint.

I’d be very happy to hear some inputs.
best wishes
s

[SteffenRParticipant]

wouldn’t the use of presets solve your initial problems?

configure some stereo matrix as the outs for your wedges at the bar or at the stage
then you can route the stereo inputs direct to the stereo matrix
and configure mono zones for stage wedges and switch between the two states with presets

[SteffenRParticipant]

ok… no matrix… I meant zones

btw. you can route a zone to a different zone

a panning control is not necessary just a way to define how a stereo input is routed to mono zones
something like “use left only” and then you can send stereo signals to two or mono zones

[ton-juanParticipant]

cool, thanks for the reply.

yes, there even is an IP-1 installed @ FOH. We are still thinking a bit ‘in the box’ at the moment. This solution will work. (We have put the IP-1 there for a reason :facepalm)
but an additional function for choosing which channel of L/R is used or a Panner would still be nice.

Still remains:
Another wish from our side would be to have narrower Q’s available in the speaker processing EQ (and perhaps also input/Zones EQ). The datasheet from our wedge manufacturer, for example, calls for a Q=14 to remove a speaker resonance at a specific frequency, the narrowest Q AHM-64 offers is 6.

And another thing: One DT168 is connected to the AHM-64 for additional outputs to outfills and barfills. It takes a rather long time for the DT168 to connect to the AHM-64 (>30s). And the connection is then confirmed two times with a fullscale bang from the speakers. Is this a Dante problem?

[SteffenRParticipant]

sorry
initially I would answer the missed questions later… 😉

Another wish from our side would be to have narrower Q’s available in the speaker processing EQ (and perhaps also input/Zones EQ). The datasheet from our wedge manufacturer, for example, calls for a Q=14 to remove a speaker resonance at a specific frequency, the narrowest Q AHM-64 offers is 6.

the devices could behave different on the Q values, they are not the same in different context
there are not easy to transfer…
I suggest to measure the wedges and the processing to make your own presets
or to find a conversation table

I put a link to a German article under here…
LINK

And another thing: One DT168 is connected to the AHM-64 for additional outputs to outfills and barfills. It takes a rather long time for the DT168 to connect to the AHM-64 (>30s). And the connection is then confirmed two times with a fullscale bang from the speakers. Is this a Dante problem?

the Dante network introduces some delay here… it takes time to get a defined state
but then it should not produce any “bang” on the outputs
keep your outs muted as long a possible

Do you use a control device for the AHM64?

[ton-juanParticipant]

we are aware of this technical vagueness 😉 thanks for the article nevertheless.
measuring the speakers after processing showed the need for narrower filters.

these fill speakers are on another fuse than the concert system and thus not time controlled (on/off procedure). If we knew this “behaviour” before rebuilding the power distribution, we would have perhaps counted it in. These speakers are sometimes in use without the concert system, so another difficulty there.

We are changing the complete PA system soonish, time delayed output unmute will hopefully be possible from the system amp.

AHM-64 is controlled via an IP-1.

[Author]

Posts