Live mixer questions

[paul_c2]

Currently we have a little Behringer B205D which has 2 mic inputs and serves as a monitor so the singers can hear themselves; it also has a balanced XLR line out from which we send the signal to a 300W 12" active speaker. Oh and its a bit of a different scenario, its a big band - there were 27 of us: 11 saxes, 4 trombones, 4 trumpets, 2 clarinets, drums, bass, guitar, keyboard and 2 female singers. So the PA is only used to amplify the singers (and occasionally soloists who stand at the front to play), the guitar/bass/keyboard all have their own backline amps. 

After a reasonably successful gig last night, I think its time to bite the bullet and actually go for a proper mixer + monitors. The sound was pretty good but we faced a few issues: the guitarist didn't really cut through at FOH but once turned up enough, his own amp was exceedingly loud and dominated what the saxes etc could hear on stage; and the hall was quite big and "dead" sounding compared to our rehearsal venue which is very echo-ey, so some of the sax players were struggling to hear much of anything except those nearest to them.

I don't want to go down the route of mic-ing up the entire band - there's 27 of us.... but it might be worthwhile being able to run 3 (or 4) mics, plus the guitar/bass/keyboard/a bit of drums through the PA (and we might get more FOH power anyway). So, realistically the minimum is 8x XLR inputs. I'm not sure I want to be messing around with XLR-TRS adapters for some of the inputs, just because the mixer doesn't have enough of them. So, the Behringer Xenyx X2222USB seems to be the ideal thing. Its ~£180 vs ~£120 for something with 4 XLR inputs so its not massively more anyway, just makes sense to go for that now). But one thing about it....sure, the mains come out on balanced XLR, but the sub outputs (it has 2, plus the 3rd which is FX - we might not use the built in effects so that's another output channel usable for a different monitor mix etc) are all unbalanced 1/4" TS. Realistically, does everyone just not worry about this, and get a suitable lead to connect up to the monitors? Or do some better mixers have all balanced XLR out? (It makes sense to standardise, if for no other reason than to not have to use adapters or different cables etc). 

Regarding the monitors, obviously cost is a concern, we don't have much budget, so I was thinking to try the Alto TX208, at ~£90 it seems good value. And we really aren't in the same SPL as a rock band so don't need high volumes, in fact it would be good to keep the on-stage volume as low as possible. And obviously with 27+, IEMs are out-of-budget!!!

[pete.young]

That mixer has two Aux Sends which can be set to pre-fade, giving you two useable monitor feeds. The third (FX) is fixed to post-fade, which isn't ideal for monitors, same for the sub-group busses. Unbalanced is normal for all these, you don't usually have long cable runs.

[Dan Dare]

Yes, better mixers have XLR or TRS outs. You can use mono jacks with TRS outs. You just get an unbalanced signal (which isn't usually an issue if cable runs are short, as pete says above. See his comment about post fade not being ideal for monitors - you cannot control monitor levels independently of main levels if you run them post fade.

[paul_c2]

Yeah, I've resigned myself to getting different cables (or adapters, then a bunch of XLR-XLR cables) for the monitors. I think realistically it would benefit to have 2 (or more) different monitor mixes, so I'll look for something with 2 (or more) pre-fade aux outs. I'm 99% sure the Behringer X2222 can do that. 

Now I'm wondering if I should be looking for something which can do 3 different monitor mixes.....

[jrixn1]

How will the three new mics be used - how/what will they mic?

Who is getting a monitor - just the saxes, or others as well?  What do they need to hear more of?

[jrixn1]

Also,  is it swing  big band music, 1930s-1940s? Why are there so many saxes?

[paul_c2]

Singers definitely need a monitor. 2nd would go to a number of monitors around the band. I'm kinda used to knowing that what I hear isn't what goes out to the front, so I don't worry about what I hear. And I sit near the keyboard player (IMHO, out of the 27 or so players, piano/drums/vocals are the useful ones to hear), so I'm not 100% sure of what others are struggling with, although this is now the 2nd gig in a row where its been an issue of some kind or another.

Regarding the inputs: 2 possibly 3 singers, another mic for announcements, then some XLR inputs from DI boxes from bass, guitar, keyboard (stereo) although I guess these could go into 1/4" sockets if needs be. May need to further mic up everything else in the future but that's a different kettle of fish!

It is a big band but not limited to 30-40s stuff, we do all sorts of more modern stuff (think, Amy Winehouse, Zutons, Beyonce, etc) and the saxes are doubled or tripled up.

[paul_c2]

ETA we would probably in the future want dedicated instrument (ie decent condenser) mics/channels for soloists rather than sticking a vocal mic in front of them too. So that's 7-9 XLR inputs needed, depending on how the keyboard connects.

[Richard R]

Unbalanced runs from the mixer to the FOH amps or the on-stage foldback is quite common even at pro-level gear, its a line-level rather than mic-level signal so won't suffer in the same way from noise. 

I'm not quite clear on what you have and how you use it though - so let me just play it back if you'll pardon the pun:
Behringer b205d:  this is a little personal mixer/monitor which is currently used with the vocal mics plugged in, so that they can hear themselves. Also sends an output to an active speaker.
300W 12" active speaker: just the output from the vocal mix.
"PA" - is this just the 12" speaker?
Guitar amp
Keyboard amp
Bass amp  - all three above independent mixed by the players.
Drums - full kit unamplified?
A large "big band" section of unamplified instruments who will balance their sound naturally (assuming they can hear each other)

What you think you need:
More FOH power for the backline and vocals, without drowning the big band
The band members all being able to hear each other.

First questions:
How do you arrange yourselves on stage?  Vocals out front with rock band behind and big band behind them? Vocals then big band, then rock band to one side?

 

 

 

[Jack]

It's an investment upfront, but if you can swing a digital mixer like the Behringer XR18 then it's so worth doing. 16 XLR ins, 8 XLR outs, any of which can be configured to do whatever you want. One of the 27 of you must be able to donate an old laptop, tablet or phone for control.

[paul_c2]

12 minutes ago, Richard R said:

Unbalanced runs from the mixer to the FOH amps or the on-stage foldback is quite common even at pro-level gear, its a line-level rather than mic-level signal so won't suffer in the same way from noise. 

I'm not quite clear on what you have and how you use it though - so let me just play it back if you'll pardon the pun:
Behringer b205d:  this is a little personal mixer/monitor which is currently used with the vocal mics plugged in, so that they can hear themselves. Also sends an output to an active speaker.
300W 12" active speaker: just the output from the vocal mix.
"PA" - is this just the 12" speaker?
Guitar amp
Keyboard amp
Bass amp  - all three above independent mixed by the players.
Drums - full kit unamplified?
A large "big band" section of unamplified instruments who will balance their sound naturally (assuming they can hear each other)

What you think you need:
More FOH power for the backline and vocals, without drowning the big band
The band members all being able to hear each other.

 

 

 

Yep that's about right.

As for layout, its a kinda moveable feast, but this is what we've done so far and seems to work quite well. The vocals are deliberately near the keyboard to help. Previously, it was 2 long thin rows of wind instrument players with the rhythm section as a 3rd back row but this was never going to work once the singers are here; and also recently we've had guitar AND piano/keyboards; previously it was either/or.

Edited May 20, 2019 by paul_c2

[jrixn1]

Sounds like a cool band and repertoire.

I play in a "mini big band" (normally four rhythm, two vocals, and four to 10 horns).  However the situation is different as everyone is DI or close miked.

We use a Mackie digital mixer but there are Behringers too - e.g. XR16 which has 16 inputs and four independent monitor mixes. What is really great about a digital mixer is that the monitor mix can be controlled independently by each person/section via an app on their phone/tablet, which delegates the work away from you. Our band is half the size of yours but the band leader already has enough to do without having everyone constantly asking for monitor tweaks.
 

[Phil Starr]

I'd be a little cautious about this and think about exactly what you want before jumping. Your problem with the sax players can only be solved if you put the things they couldn't hear through the monitors. If you put anything else through the vocal monitors the singers will struggle to pick themselves out. Your problem with the guitarist will only work if you turn him/her down and put some guitar through the PA. the guitarist will be the biggest problem but to get on-stage volumes down should you look at some bass and keys through the PA too? Is your one PA speaker enough to do that job? None of this is difficult to solve but I suppose the warning is about mission creep; adding layers of extras until the complexity weighs you down. The second problem is matching your gear to the outcome you want without spending a fortune.

The advantage of an acoustic band with a little reinforcement for the singers is twofold. Simplicity and familiarity, most players in a big band are used to playing acoustically, it may not be ideal but they are used to hearing the instruments closest to them and learn to pick out the rest of what they need to hear by practice and experience. Most big bands have a conductor so extra clues and guidance are provided that way.

The disadvantage of beefing up the monitors and running separate monitor mixes is that the monitors need to be similar volumes to the acoustic volumes or they won't be heard, so if everyone is covered by monitors you have doubled the sound energy on stage. That's not wrong but it could be a mixed blessing.

It sounds like the guitar was the real problem. Without that the sax players could hear as well as they have in the past. Guitar amps are like torchlights, they throw a very narrow beam of sound which is very loud if you are in line. you could mike up the guitar amp and put it through the PA or simply move it to the front or side of the stage and provide a second quieter guitar monitor for the guitarist to hear themselves if needed.

That will buy you time to think through exactly what you want without spending anything up front. 

[paul_c2]

That's my thoughts already - while in theory we could amplify a lot of stuff, in reality we shouldn't really need it and should be able to "cling onto" playing just acoustically, just like an orchestra or smaller group would do, at least until we play bigger venues. So its very much a case of "less is more". And that's where we are now - the singers need to be amplified, and the system is actually very simple, not much more than a mic plugged straight into a speaker - for example there is no EQ at all, except for the "contour" button on the back of the active speaker.

The next 2-3 gigs will be outdoors, so I'm guessing any issues of being unable to hear others will be most prominent there.

Hence I have the plan that the electric stuff can be put thru a mixing desk, an aux output (or two) can be used to have a monitor mix (or two), meaning that their backline amps can be turned right down so they aren't trying to do 2 things at once. Or even...we could eliminate the backline amps (at least for keyboard and bass). Using a proper mixer with everything adjustable means we aren't messing around trying to compromise the various levels in one or another area.

[Richard R]

I can imagine that with the layout as drawn the guitarist needed to really push the volume from the back to be heard out front in a dead hall, which is why he drowned the sax players.

I'm supposed to be at work so I'll have a proper think later on, but my first thoughts - independent of any equipment purchase - would be to rotate the guitar, keys and bass round anticlockwise one position, so the bass & drums are on the back row, and the keys and guitar are in front.  That gives the guitarist more projection without travelling through four people in front. Bass of course gets everywhere, that's why we're normally stuck in a corner 🙂

Where are you based, and when's the next gig?

[Phil Starr]

Sounds like a plan. 

I use leads rather than adaptors for the Jack/TLR sockets. I always carry a few short 1m stereo jack to XLR leads for that purpose, a lot of older mixers retain jack for everything except the main out. They are dirt cheap really and you can just daisy chain one of your normal XLR leads. The big advantage is that they don't stress the sockets on the mixer

 

https://www.thomann.de/gb/the_sssnake_mxp2009.htm

[Huge Hands]

I can remember getting a similar band when I was a in-house sound engineer and trying to throw everything at it.  I borrowed every mic/stand I could and tried to close mic everything, even though we had 20 mins turn around between gigs..

Problem was, I was used to pro-brass players setting their own mics up.  We flung a load of mics on stands out and ran off to FOH to do a line check...when the curtain went up - they hadn't touched them!  We ended up with mics pointing down, up, left, right, but not at the instruments!  I ended up having to do an ambient mix from the best mics I had.  In a way, it probably worked better than close mic'ing.

They also obviously weren't used to working with monitors and hearing themselves.  When the first song ended, the vocalist/compare started to talk and ended up putting his hands over his ears so we killed that monitor straight away....

This was a 1200+ seat venue, and a gentle reinforcement certainly worked fine in a room that size.  I don't think you would need too much equipment - perhaps just a bit more practice with what you have?  Perhaps mic the vocalists and put the guide they use (most likely piano) only with their voices in the monitor?

If the guitarist is having issues (wow you found a quiet guitarist?) stick a mic on his amp to give you a "boost" option FOH and only permit one trusted soul to have control of that....

Finally - where are you based?  The concert band I play in would kill to have 4 trombones and four trumpets right now....

 

[Dan Dare]

5 hours ago, paul_c2 said:

Yeah, I've resigned myself to getting different cables (or adapters, then a bunch of XLR-XLR cables) for the monitors. I think realistically it would benefit to have 2 (or more) different monitor mixes, so I'll look for something with 2 (or more) pre-fade aux outs. I'm 99% sure the Behringer X2222 can do that. 

Now I'm wondering if I should be looking for something which can do 3 different monitor mixes.....

If you want an 8 input, cheap, reasonable mixer that will give 3 monitor mixes (and don't mind it not being digital), look for a used Allen & Heath PA12. I use one for smaller jobs. Has 8 XLR ins (phantom power individually switchable for each channel) plus a couple of stereo ins, 3 monitor/aux outs, decent - 4 band - eq, onboard FX. Outputs are on XLR or TRS/mono jack. I got mine used (and mint/boxed) for around £150 and I've been very happy with it.

[paul_c2]

Its Chester Big Band, and I fully understand the issue with trombone players - they are somewhat rare! I'm keen to keep it simple so I think analogue it is; the extra stuff on digital is a step too far. And the PA12 is a good call but I've kinda bought new with warranty so far, just in case something goes pop it makes it much easier to get the money back or replace it quickly.

[Phil Starr]

7 hours ago, Huge Hands said:

I can remember getting a similar band when I was a in-house sound engineer and trying to throw everything at it.  I borrowed every mic/stand I could and tried to close mic everything, even though we had 20 mins turn around between gigs..

Problem was, I was used to pro-brass players setting their own mics up.  We flung a load of mics on stands out and ran off to FOH to do a line check...when the curtain went up - they hadn't touched them!  We ended up with mics pointing down, up, left, right, but not at the instruments!  I ended up having to do an ambient mix from the best mics I had.  In a way, it probably worked better than close mic'ing.

They also obviously weren't used to working with monitors and hearing themselves.  When the first song ended, the vocalist/compare started to talk and ended up putting his hands over his ears so we killed that monitor straight away....

This was a 1200+ seat venue, and a gentle reinforcement certainly worked fine in a room that size.  I don't think you would need too much equipment - perhaps just a bit more practice with what you have?  Perhaps mic the vocalists and put the guide they use (most likely piano) only with their voices in the monitor?

If the guitarist is having issues (wow you found a quiet guitarist?) stick a mic on his amp to give you a "boost" option FOH and only permit one trusted soul to have control of that....

Finally - where are you based?  The concert band I play in would kill to have 4 trombones and four trumpets right now....

 

This might be a good solution,  a couple of fairly wide angle mics above the band if you have the height can work really well as reinforcement if you aren't going to rock band levels. I might try a stereo pair in XY configuration probably putting them somewhere near where the conductor stands, or would stand if you don't have one

It's my worry about too much miking up for people who aren't used to it. If you've had a nice sound that everyone has been happy with so far then why start a steep learning curve when a bit of jiggling around with the offending guitar amp will do the job.

The only really difficult thing about PA is managing the humans. I'd just chat through with the guitar, bass, keys. They may be very happy with their own backline as it is. If it is just the guitar then you only need to mic that https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/miking-guitar-amps-stage

[Tubster]

I would avoid the cheapie Alto series and look at the TS308, 310 etc. Digital mixers if you want lots of auxes for monitors

[Richard R]

Sorry for not getting back on this one. "Real life" in the way

 Seriously, I would keep it simple. For a mixer get something 8 in, main out plus four  aux, analogue. That will give you more than enough for the time being.

Mic up the singers and the guitarist cab only, use one channel of aux for the singers, and initially just  one for the rock band. Remember most active monitors will let you daisy chain, so you can feed the same signal to a monitor for the rhythm section and for git/keys. There are a nice pair of Laney monitors for sale on this site ad a good price.

Just work with that for now, and get the FOH sound ok. If the big band can't now hear the guitar because he is turned down, or want a bit more of the band, then you have two mixes available to give them.

You should get a decent monitor and PA mix with that, and plenty of channels spare to DI the bass or keys and fly mics over the big band if you want to.

cheers,

Rich

 

 

[paul_c2]

7 hours ago, Tubster said:

I would avoid the cheapie Alto series and look at the TS308, 310 etc. Digital mixers if you want lots of auxes for monitors

I've heard this said a few times - why? The "cheapie" ones seem to offer very good value for money and the one we have so far, performs very well.

[Phil Starr]

38 minutes ago, paul_c2 said:

I've heard this said a few times - why? The "cheapie" ones seem to offer very good value for money and the one we have so far, performs very well.

Paul I think the problem is two fold, you are asking people to recommend things and to do that we would need to be sure.

Then there is the issue of practicality, you can't always believe the adverts and some of these claims seem to defy physics and economics. The Alto says it is a 300w active speaker with an 8" bass driver and a horn for less than £100. Well I can't think of an 8" speaker that can handle 300W. Reading on with the Alto specs it then becomes a 100w to the 8" speaker. The speaker is said to be capable of 113db, to do that is feasible but the speaker would have to produce 93db/W which is reasonably high end for an 8" speaker. That's physically possible but the whole thing is £98 including horn, cabinet, 8" bass unit and two amplifiers. That pushed credulity and 113db is not that loud if you have a big brass section. Alto have a fairly decent reputation but if something looks too good to be true, well you can see why people are urging caution.

Budget is an issue for you so mistakes would be especially costly. A quick easy solution is only a solution if it works. I think the general advice is to take it slowly and understand what you want to achieve. 

 

[Tubster]

Phil has summed it up very well but there is one way to find out - trot down to a dealer and compare TX and TS.