EBS_freak

935 - cardioid, dynamic 945 - super cardioid, dynamic 965 - cardioid/super cardioid (switchable), condenser I guess your choice between 935 and 945 depends upon your singing style and any monitors that you may use. Either 935 or 945 will do but chose considering on this - cardioid (935), offers less off axis rejection than super cardioid but will reject sound from directly behind it better than a super cardioid. So what this really means, is if you sing with a wedge directly behind the mic/mic stand, this is the one to go for super cardioid (945) offers greater off axis rejection than cardioid but will punish you more if you dont sing directly on the mic. It also doesn't have half as good rejection in the monitor wedge situation (so you should always have your monitor wedges more to the side of you than directly in front of you. For anybody else who is reading this, if you have say backing singers that are behind a row of amps or something (maybe on a platform, go for cardioid to avoid bleed entering the rear of the capsule). condenser (965) the 965 can switch between the two patterns... HOWEVER, condensers tend to be a right pig to work with on smaller stages because they tend to be a lot more sensitive in the highs. This means you tend to get more problems with feedback and you tend to have to start notching problematic frequencies quite aggressively. If your stage is big enough and the rooms are not problematic, they sound great - but in reality, a lot of environments are not like this. I gave up on condensers for live use because they bring with them a lot of problems that increase setup times. Great when they don't give you any headaches though! Compared to the Beta 58, the matching mic pickup pattern mic is the 945. If you are aware of the need to singing directly onto the mic, the 945 is great. If you are a bit lazy with mic technique and tend to sing around the capsule, than the 935 will be the better choice to keep output volume more consistent. Pay attention to this bit - Sennheiser wireless analogue mics are very sensitive out the box and people tend to freak out because they will literally pick up everything in the room. (they seem to be setup for podium use where speakers can be half a meter or so from the capsule - the worst thing for a stage environment as you can imagine!) The key to working with any analogue wireless mics is the following... First up, THE most important thing - and this should apply to every mic: 1. when singing, your lips should be on the grille. This does a number of things - greatly reduces the bleed into the mic. (Other stuff on stage but particularly drums if you have drums). 2. It also makes the voice sound richer and deeper - this means that you can get a lovely low end (the proximity effect!) without having to resort to boosting the low mids that can lead to an increased risk of feedback. Remember, you can always cut EQ - but boosting EQ tends to bring with it problems. 3. It gives a more balanced output. The drop off as you pull away from the mic, particularly on Sennheiser mics, is quite dramatic. This is a good thing - as long as your mic technique is in check. Second, set the sensitivity of the mic transmitter as low as it can go. This also encourages good mic technique and keeps bleed lower. You can add the makeup gain on the receiver prior to going into the preamp on your desk. This helps keep the mic calm and not too lively to be unmanageable. That is pretty much it. So to recap. Keep your lips on the grille. Keep your lips on the grille. Keep your lips on the grille. Keep your lips on the grille. Keep your lips on the grille. Sensitivity down on your mic transmitter - and make up the gain on the receiver.

It depends whether you are looking from a professional point of view as opposed to a prosumer point of view. You won't find many plastic boxes deployed in a true professional environment. Having said that, as you say, there are some very capable plastic boxes that punch above their weight and sound better than some of the wooden box counterparts. Of course, one of the big attractions of plastic boxes, is that they tend to be a hell of a lot lighter... which is a big consideration when you have to lug the things yourself.

Bloody love Genesis.

If you look at the pcbs of the last run of g3s and current g4s you may spot something familiar... In short, it’s pretty much a facelift.

I can get with this. In a previous life I would have made a retort such as "spoken like a guy who doesn't know any music theory".... however... I move in some very heavy theory circles... and sometimes, I have to be the voice of reason. "FFS guitarist. The song requires a simple G, not a substitution, not an extension... a G." I think it's why I fail to get a lot of session musician's solo albums. They'll go out their way not to play the obvious, or a root... when in reality, things would make a lot more sense and sound better if they did. But then again, that's their art isn't it? Who am I to judge.

No one will even notice if there is a bass or not!

I've also said that. Of course, you know they will never do such a thing.

I've said that myself to many... (only to be scoffed at)

A bit out of your zone but Bowfinishing in Godstone is a short trip around the 25 - highly recommended.

If you think the bass lines are great (some of the best lines ever written in my pop imho), listen to the isolated vocals on youtube. It'll blow your socks off when you hear exactly what is going on...

GLXD is 4 ms minimum, 7.3 ms maximum ULXD/QLXD is 2.9ms Just for completeness, analogue latency is way sub 1ms... (e.g. as good as 0ms)

Hola - I'd echo mike257 status above. A lot of the stuff covers off what I would say at a high level. Digital - In short, 2.4Ghz works but can suffer from drop outs when a room full of mobile phones looking for open wifi spots enters the room (e.g. so what works at soundcheck may cause you grief when the audience piles in) 5Ghz is better - what it gives up in range (assuming like for like transmission power compared to 2.4Ghz) it gains in there being more intermodulation free (e.g. interference free). Unlike 2.4Ghz, there aren't many 5Ghz systems around, certainly not from the more reputable manufacturers. Digital on channel 38 is best... but not common place unless you are investing in higher priced systems. For Shure, you are looking at the QLXD and ULXD as the cheapest (but not cheap) systems. Take a deep breath and click on this link - https://www.thomann.de/gb/shure_qlxd24_beta58_k51.htm (shared mic license = cost associated for license ) and this link - https://www.bax-shop.co.uk/wireless-handheld-microphones/shure-qlxd24-beta-58a-s50-823-832-and-863-865-mhz-handheld (free for use license) for an idea... and then think about adding another 6 or 7 hundred on top for ULX-D. I should point out, this is touring grade spec equipment - and hence are robust against mobile phones and wifi routers! Digital introduces latency as it has an analogue to digital conversion for the transmission and then digital back to analogue* (assuming that you haven't got something like a Dante enabled desk that keeps things in the digital domain) before going into the preamps in your desk. Depending upon the system, this latency should be kept as low as possible, especially if using in ears. Remember that latency is cumulative... so if you have a chain of digital devices, they will all add latency into the chain (for example a digital mic, into a digital vocal processor, into a digital desk will introduce 3 cumulative stages of latency). The latency could be the difference between a delay being not being able to be detected to completely unusable because it will sound like a delay has been put onto your vocal. As an idea, cumulative latency for a signal chain should aim to be under 8ms. I would say a mic with a latency of 3ms or under is good. Analogue - tends to be cheaper... but also cheaper analogue tends to be terrible due to the companders that have been mentioned above. Some systems have very transparent companders, others are terrible - leading to fuzzies, a lack of lows and most noticeable, harsh highs. Unless you can afford a decent analogue system, I would say stay away... however, if you can stretch to a decent analogue system, they are probably the best way to go. As mike above mentioned, the Sennheiser EW100, EW300 and EW500 are worth investigating. A G2, G3 or G4 will all do a great job (particularly G3+). For small venues, I'd stay away from condenser capsules - so you are looking at 835, 935 and 845, 945 capsules. The 845 and 945 are most closely linked to the Beta 58 - personally, I think the Sennheiser x35 and x45 smash the 58s into oblivion. There is a reason they are one of the most commonly seen analogue radio mics in use. They simply sound great and the radio element of the system is arguably still amongst the best in the business. So what would I do? Well, I actually run both ULXDs and EW300/EW500s. My vocal mics are all Sennheiser analogue. Body pack systems are ULXD. If I had to choose the best mic system for the money, I would look at a EW100 with a 935 on channel 38. If all of this is too much, then a Sennheiser D1(ew D1-945-EU) or GLXD24/beta 58A will do you - just make sure that you have a wired mic as back up (which you should always have anyway) and don't be too disappointed if you have to revert to wired due to interference issues. For a lot of people, they will never have any issues. If you are in a band that plays next to office blocks with lots of wifi, or conference centres/hotels, don't be surprised and expect the worse. It should be noted however, the single most reason why bands have a nightmare problem with wireless is that they aren't co-ordinated in what they buy. For example, the guitarist buys a random radio system, then the other guitarist, then the bass player gets something completely different... and these systems won't magically play nicely with one another. If you want to something to work out the box for the whole band, settle on one digital system (be it Line 6, Shure, Sennheiser) or whatever and then simply select individual channels - and the chances are things will just work. If you want to run lots of different brands of digital systems, you will run into problems, unless you have the problems to select discrete frequencies as opposed to presets that can't be fine tuned. Similar, if you go analogue, if you stick with one brand and model, you should be able to use a set of frequencies that are designed to work together. On the higher end stuff, you can fine tune all these systems (even of different types and brands) to be intermodulation free (e.g. channels free of interfering with one other) - and this can be quite a complex task and is generally worked out by software. Theses systems typically start at an entry point of the like of analogue EW300 and EW500 and ULX, (analogue) ULXD and QLXD (upwards to Axient) - and their prices reflect that versatility and capability. So to sum up, if your band wants to go wireless, get your heads together and subscribe to a common brand and model... this may also influence your choice if other elements in the band are already wireless. If there is already other wireless in the band, especially systems that have preset frequencies, there's no guarantees of them all playing together nicely! Hope this helps (if it hasn't totally confused you!)

Indeed.

Speaking of which, nobody has posted a pic of the back yet. How do you get to the back where all the power, fx loops etc are? I presume there's a hatch?

A pair of 12.2s would be nice. Plenty of opportunity to make use of some of those Helix stereo effects! I would take a single 735 over the 12.2 as a one box solution though (although I do admit the 12.2 visually look better)

More often than not this is the case.

Theres plenty of capable plastic boxes out there... a lot that are better than poorly specced wooden boxes. Trouble is, a lot of people view and experience of monitors are budget, budget! Even when it comes to IEMs - the whole "I've tried IEMs and they are rubbish" - usually means they have plugged in the earphones that they got with their phone (but they sound really good!) into some cobbled together mcgyver setup.

Most are rubbish because it's the first bit of the PA that people choose to save money on thinking that the cabs aren't as important as FoH. To produce a great sound, like front of house, they need good quality drivers and horns - and these come at a cost. Manufacturers realise there is a market for cheap speakers to use for monitors... and hence, they produce them - and people half expect monitors to be kinda rubbish but good enough to get through the gig. As for adjusting on the gig - they shouldn't be adjusted on the gig... and no sound guy would thank you for doing so. You run the risk of boosting overall volume or troublesome volumes that can cause the setup to start running into feedback. Good monitor? Yeah, one which is as good as something that you would use for front of house. There's no getting around it! (or go IEM)

If anybody wants to chat IEMs with me, I'll be here - http://www.custom-inearmonitors.co.uk/events/visit-us-at-the-uk-bass-guitar-show-manchester-2020.html (or maybe not! - it's postponed!)

get the project box search on the go... and take the opportunity to switch to AA so you can use some decent capacity eneloops (and lets face it, AAs are easier to source in an emergency!)

that looks like a rehousing project in the making!

@Gottastopbuyinggear - looking nice. Good to see some Nextion screens coming into play.

Oh - and the snare tends to be a big issue too - and the cymbal shields won’t do a lot for that... hence my reluctance to spend.

I’ve never been anywhere to assess how useful these actually are. Whilst they logically seem that they should work to some extent, I have a niggling nag about them. Ive even got this saved in my “something to explore” folder -

@Steve1967 - depending upon your situation, I know of a few theatre teams that travel with their own monitor setup with the view of getting quicker and more consistent IEM mixes. The ones in question use a Mackie DL32R or a Midas Core with DL32 and an analogue split as described in section 5 above. With the latter, you can then look at ultranet and Behringers P16s or at least look after your own mix off the phone. Usefully you know that the settings are going to be pretty much ballpark every gig if you carry your own monitor world. Any digital desk will do I guess - but if you can utilise a split, you can sort your own IEMs pretty quickly using that method. I'm guessing you already have read that... otherwise, it's pretty much a setup from scratch every time. Photos of settings rarely work as gains/mics/outboard are typically different.