EBS_freak

OK - so you were A/Bing against the QSC. Which model? - I would look through the FRFR thread if it was mentioned in there but it's probably just easier to ask you. I'm quite intrigued about the dispersal onstage as I would have thought they are quite similar? Are you talking about the high end frequencies? The Big Twin is a flat-ish response as you say - but not like a DSP flattened cab. But could understand why you haven't seen enough reason to change given what you've said.

So what was the consideration? Not a big enough reason to change? The cost to change? Preference for coloured tone over flat response?

PS @Wolverinebass Come to the dark side and kill Rock n Roll.

Will be interesting to hear your view.. because in the FRFR thread, there seems to be a 100% hit rate (except Al... but he'll get there in the end )- and people who have tried have moved from traditional cabs to PA cabs.

I'm glad you took the time to look through the video so you have a load of information on which to base a fully considered response. In regards to explanation, maybe you should watch the whole video... but the York notes is that the drivers and the subsequent crossover point that they allow for, are only found in setups that are vastly more expensive. The 4" VC on that horn alone takes it well beyond the specs of cabs that are in it's vicinity. If the 745 is too rich... then the performance of 735 will also outdo competitor cabs. Back to the vid - It's not really marketing material - Trinity take apart every single cab they get hold of so they can show people exactly what they are paying for. They are very fair and point out places where cost savings have been made for example. Going for the tech spec is fine - but the trouble is, not all tech specs are equal - and as an engineer, you should know that. Out of all the published technical specs, there's no independent validation. Think that you cab puts out 140dB. Put that down. Nobody will question it.... and if they do, so be it. The point is, the OP wanted - " Preferably light (naturally) with as faithful a response as you can get. In an ideal world, what I want is the signal which goes in sounds exactly like what comes out." - and that shout more of a FRFR cab than a passive bass cab that has a sound baked in. As you've stated, the DSP engineers out the inconsistencies in the response curve of, in this case, the RCF speaker... and that in itself is why the cab is flat response.... and in keeping with the OP's brief. I don't expect passive speakers to match a setup... but that's exactly why I offered it up as a suggestion... after all, the OP did request "Thoughts? Opinions? Missed anything?" And I'm not sure what the fascination with going deep is either... because for the vast majority of gigs, you will want to roll off a great deal of bass in that area anyway... unless you like listening to unprocessable mud. Your closing statement is probably more fair... and whilst I understand you are clearly a fan of Acme, when comparing size, the 745 actually appears comparable (and even smaller except for depth) than say, the Barefaced offering.

21:48 is where it's at. Check that. This guy does a much better explanation as to why these boxes are simply ridiculous for the money that they are.

Ooh. Deliveries (!) landing on Thursday. Can say I'm quite looking forward to it. 😛

Because saturation. You listen to a valve DI and a SS DI and whilst on face value, they may appear to do the right thing, as soon as you start adding saturation, thing sound louder and fuller. You are getting non audible distortion but this is what adds the warmth and the fatness that people are often craving.

FRFR. Line out from your preamp of choice (or amp, just don't use the power stage), into... RCF 735A or RCF 745A. Will smoke all the aforementioned cabs, especially on treble extension.

😮 Have you checked the feet?

Xair monitor mixer would do you for iOS... but there's a few options out there with regard to Android and for iPad. Find the one that you like best - they all do pretty much the same in the same way. Dont forget to factor in a xlr loom in your cost - they can be a significant outlay.

So, the big questions are 1. if you want to go stereo in your inears 2. whats your budget looking like I can have a guess at what I think you are looking for from the spec you have posted and go from there. Assuming you want to have control of your mix independent to the front of house, you are going to be needing a splitter somewhere along the line. So there's really only one option which you guarantee to work in most situations... and thats the good old analogue split. (Digital Dante splits, whilst being cool - are still not that widely adopted in the smaller scene... and even if you have a FOH Dante card, you'll need somebody to be able to configure it in Dante controller. If Dante is running at a festival, I guarantee nobody will be allowing any changes with Dante Controller). Anyway, I digress. So analogue split wise, look at the following - http://orchid-electronics.co.uk/micsplit.htm http://artproaudio.com/splitters/product/s8/ https://www.gear4music.com/Recording-and-Computers/Behringer-ULTRALINK-MS8000-8-Channel-Microphone-Splitter/1WMI Any analogue splitter will do you - but I would always get an isolated split - so you can't accidentally send two sets of phantom from two desks. You'll need to buy more than 1 if you want to monitor more than 8 channels. Remember, you don't necessarily need to monitor absolutely everything. (e.g. for drums - do you need all of the drum mics in your monitors?) One half of the split will go FOH, the other will go to your mixing device. Mixing device wise, you are probably looking like something like a Behringer XR18 to give you 6 mono mixes from the auxes. This means you can plug in something like a Behringer P2 headphone mixer into each aux for each of the band members. They can then control their mix individually via an phone or tablet that connects via wifi over the XR18. If you want to go stereo, you have couple of options... You could make use of ultralink P16M from the XR18. That would give you stereo mixes for up to 16 tracks. Or you could use a combination of 3 lots of 2 lots of auxes to achieve 6 stereo mixes at a more affordable cost. Or... you could get rid of the XR18 and get one of these to use with P16Ms - http://www.musictribe.com/Categories/Behringer/Signal-Processors/In-Ear-Monitoring/P16-I/p/P0420# Or... you could get a mixer with more auxes - the Mackie DL32R being the obvious candidate (as it has all the I/O built in without the need of break out boxes). Again, you would use it over Wifi like the XR18 - but you have the additional auxes available to you. Gives you the option to add a Dante card too if you want. Hows that sounding for starters? Of course, the biggest complexity is actually getting the festival organisers aware of what you want to do. Plugging in this way means them breaking their FOH chain and inserting your splitter. Of course, the most prepared festival organisers have splitters in place already for such things. Bigger festivals will have a dedicated monitor world. And festival organiser gods will let you take a feed from a Dante switch and have somebody on hand who can patch your device straight in. If you aren't looking at the above, and you are looking at just wireless systems to be run off FoH auxes or maybe even a dedicated monitor world, then my go to system for the money would be a EW300. However... that brings it's own complexities... co-ordinating wireless frequencies in itself can be challenging. If you turn up to a festival that is running RF already... well, you aren't going to make yourself very popular if you start standing up your own RF broadcasts that could interrupt other systems. Also, you say that you are doing festivals all over Europe - you aren't going to be able to find a wireless system that is legal in every country... the legality of running these things are very much dependent on the country (and even state in some circumstances) and their local radio licensing laws. Not worth getting fined over wireless! Are you running the instruments wirelessly? If not, why don't you run inears wired also? And if you are running wirelessly, what frequencies? As you can see, running reliable RF can be a huge complication that nobody will thank you for at a festival... unless it's all under the organiser's control.

Probably bin the ACS off after this and look at getting something else as my backup pair. What use is a backup pair if they are so prone to failing? This weekend has been full of left side only, distorted mess that has ended up with me getting more frustrated and flustered. Without fail, everybody I know with ACS has had issue with the cables. From the historical moulded in place, non removable cable to the stupid hookup system with the Live series, all of them give up the ghost. I can count on one hand the number of cable failures I've heard of from other manufacturers. Even the common Shure cable failures at least give you some warning before it's going to happen. It just seems so wrong that such an unreliable and average at best performing product has such a market share in the UK. Utter utter shyte. I wish I knew back then what I know now... and yet, if you ask anybody what they'd recommend, they always say ACS. And then when the inevitable cables fail, "yeah, they do that". It's utter shyte. For the money you are paying for ACS, get something decent from JH, 64 or UE. They will have more headroom, sound better and the cables are less likely to fail.

Do you want to get a costume to match too?

And now the cable has gone on my ACS. Wow. Surprise - not. Utter stinky poo design. Roll on postman. I need some decent ears delivering quick smart!

Eww. just kidding!!

Just out of interest... what gear were you using?

I reckon the isolated fit alone improves things from 10%-35% in terms of sound quality. Custom fit is boss!

The PSM300 is great so no worries there... but would suggest if everybody is hopping on board with wireless IEMs, stick with PSM300s. That way you can use their present frequencies without worry of intermodulation issues - this is more common and problematic when you start mixing brands and systems. You should be able to get 3 or 4 in the channel 70 space.

Problem with inears systems is that different radio frequencies and illegal in different countries (and states!)... and all that.

Yeah - I guess the investment all depends upon your experience. If 2.4Ghz is a problem at venues that you play, it's not going to get any better any time soon. There's always the option of going wired in that case. I guess the reason I have invested the way that I have is that I currently (I chop and change!) run 6 channels of IEMs and 6 channels of mics. So getting stability gig after gig is down to Ch38. If you are only running a few channels, you can get away with a lot more. Of course, I've always got the wired back up.

Looking great!

As an aside, 10ms seems to be the maximum for most people on IEMs. I know people that can't tolerate 5! (Or so they say - guitarists)

Yeah, I guess we must remember to take into account the price and form factor of the Smooth Hound before we get too harsh! But for anybody looking I get into IEMs, it would not be a prudent purchase. Anyway..... Ooh. Snap. Apparently I'm at the sameness stage with mine. Race! I've got a slight addition to my order to... will post when that arrives also!

I'm glad somebody else has experience of the Smooth Hound latency! As you say, I'm sure for straight in the amp types, the latency is not noticeable... but inears? Forget it. Yet numerous people have argued with me otherwise. Makes me facepalm when you see all these "no latency" comments... especially from so called pros. I think as an all rounder, the line 6 stuff is hard to beat. The Sony DWZ was really good - but sadly discontinued, presumably because they couldn't gain a big enough market share. It surprises me as Sony's knowledge with wireless audio, particularly in the broadcast world, is world class. Be wary of scan functionality on ch38 and ch70 kit - they will usually dump you into illegal frequencies. Also, doing a scan with a large number of wireless generally never works out. It's ok for say, two or three bits of wireless kit (and that's if it dumps you out frequencies that are legal)