Compact budget PA set-up to put bass through (without back-line).

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, mikeycrikey said:

When I used the Evox 8 system it was on a dep gig.

The band put acoustic guitar, keyboards, that's very sparsely used, bass drum and 2 vocals through it.

Their regular bass player doesn't go through the Evox 8 system. When I played with them I took a DI out from my Ashdown Studio 15 straight into the the PA . The band said it sounded better with bass going through the PA, rather than just backline. Sounded good to my ears too.

In fairness there is not that much going through the PA, so it handled it easily.

Thanks for that! My question was more around the position of the Evox 8 PA on the stage ie was it in a backline position, which avoids the need for stage monitoring, or in a more traditional FOH position? 

 

PaulS had his Evox8 set up as backline and managed to avoid feedback from the vocal mic. Just wondering if others have similarly done this? 

[mikeycrikey]

15 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Thanks for that! My question was more around the position of the Evox 8 PA on the stage ie was it in a backline position, which avoids the need for stage monitoring, or in a more traditional FOH position? 

 

PaulS had his Evox8 set up as backline and managed to avoid feedback from the vocal mic. Just wondering if others have similarly done this? 

No it was definitely in the front of house position, but the band don't use monitors and claim they can still hear the vocals quite clearly.

[Woodinblack]

2 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

I'd need a stair-climber trolley.  Carrying too much gear up and down a fire escape at our first gig post lockdowns is what caused my back pain last year.  

 

Our first gig post lockdown I twisted my back because the road was 3.5 foot lower than the pavement and I leaned over too much!

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, Al Krow said:

Thanks for that! My question was more around the position of the Evox 8 PA on the stage ie was it in a backline position, which avoids the need for stage monitoring, or in a more traditional FOH position? 

 

Our singer was raving about how it is the first time in ages he has managed to hear himself, even to the point where he was holding back a bit!

[PaulWarning]

2 hours ago, Al Krow said:

Thanks for that! My question was more around the position of the Evox 8 PA on the stage ie was it in a backline position, which avoids the need for stage monitoring, or in a more traditional FOH position? 

 

PaulS had his Evox8 set up as backline and managed to avoid feedback from the vocal mic. Just wondering if others have similarly done this? 

I've often wondered about the perceived wisdom of having the speakers in front of the band, our singer spends a lot of his time running round the crowd with his wireless mic without any feedback problems

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, PaulWarning said:

I've often wondered about the perceived wisdom of having the speakers in front of the band, our singer spends a lot of his time running round the crowd with his wireless mic without any feedback problems

I guess it stems from different venues. Agreed in a pub if you could have a backline PA that would be a really neat set up with no need to faff around with monitors or IEMs.

 

But in large auditorium venues the band likely wouldn't want to have the full venue volume blaring at them as backline on a regular basis?!

[Greg Edwards69]

16 hours ago, Al Krow said:

I guess it stems from different venues. Agreed in a pub if you could have a backline PA that would be a really neat set up with no need to faff around with monitors or IEMs.

 

But in large auditorium venues the band likely wouldn't want to have the full venue volume blaring at them as backline on a regular basis?!

Depending on the size of venue you're thinking, a good set of earplugs would sort that out. It certainly seems easier than IEMs.

The idea of having a pair of these set at the back of the stage, replacing FOH speakers, guitar and bass frfr speakers and monitors/IEM sounds like a wonderful idea. It would solve so many issues. Heck we could use just one for guitars, keyboard and bass with a mini mixer at rehearsals, or vocals as well with a larger mixer. And I realise they're not lightweight, but it's less gear to transport.

 

I seriously considering looking at a good finance option to split the cost between the band. It's certainly a viable alternative to getting a sub and IEM solution. Perhaps I'll have a chat with the guitarist whose dad own the PA. He's not a young man anymore and I don't know how much longer he'll want to do this for.  Perhaps he might consider selling the Yamaha's if we got these.

[Paul S]

1 hour ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

Depending on the size of venue you're thinking, a good set of earplugs would sort that out. It certainly seems easier than IEMs.
 

 

I seriously considering looking at a good finance option to split the cost between the band. It's certainly a viable alternative to getting a sub and IEM solution. Perhaps I'll have a chat with the guitarist whose dad own the PA. He's not a young man anymore and I don't know how much longer he'll want to do this for.  Perhaps he might consider selling the Yamaha's if we got these.

Exactly so - earplugs to attenuate the volume.  Or, in my case, I use my app. to reduce the volume of my hearing aids.

 

Our set up came to £2K on the nose - 2 x EVOX 8s, a new desk, leads etc.  I bought it and the other guys pay me a depreciation cost each year - working on the stuff losing half it's value over 3 years, they each paid me £110 a year.  Coming up to 3 years now, so then they'll pay me £55 a year for 3 more years, assuming I am still alive and gigging.  When you look at it that way it isn't much.

[Greg Edwards69]

1 hour ago, Paul S said:

Exactly so - earplugs to attenuate the volume.  Or, in my case, I use my app. to reduce the volume of my hearing aids.

 

Our set up came to £2K on the nose - 2 x EVOX 8s, a new desk, leads etc.  I bought it and the other guys pay me a depreciation cost each year - working on the stuff losing half it's value over 3 years, they each paid me £110 a year.  Coming up to 3 years now, so then they'll pay me £55 a year for 3 more years, assuming I am still alive and gigging.  When you look at it that way it isn't much.

Nicely done, although I can't afford to get a pair of them right now. However, I see Andertons are offering 9 months interest free.  Even between the 6 of us as a band purchase (guitarist's dad sound man not included) it only works out at £25 each per month - even less if he wanted in on it. Obviously there's cheaper monthly payments for longer with interest.  If someone decided to leave the band, the rest of us could simply buy their share at market used rate.

 

FWIW I note the original Evox 8 is marked as "archived" on RCF's website. It appears the lighter, but plastic Evox J8 has superseeded it.

 

Heck, they even make a protection cover with wheels and trolley handle!

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

FWIW I note the original Evox 8 is marked as "archived" on RCF's website. It appears the lighter, but plastic Evox J8 has superseeded it.

 

The J8 is the current version, the 8 is the old version, they were superseded some time back, and at the same time the prices went down. This made people think the old one was better, it is in some ways, not in others. 

 

1 hour ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

Heck, they even make a protection cover with wheels and trolley handle!

 

I mentioned that a few posts up!

[EBS_freak]

For those who are saying just add ear plugs - ear plugs don’t give anywhere the same experience as a IEM solution.

[Woodinblack]

42 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

For those who are saying just add ear plugs - ear plugs don’t give anywhere the same experience as a IEM solution.

 

Indeed they don't - I had to wear earplugs at a gig this weekend and I hated it, not something I would want to make a habit of.

[Phil Starr]

We seem to have wandered off a bit from Al's first post but it is great to have a place to discuss PA

 

Just something to think about really when discussing putting the PA at the back behind the players. It just isn't a great idea really. I'm a pragmatic person so I'm not saying it can never work, I will say it is never the best solution in terms of how your band will sound. Two reasons for this.

 

The PA is louder than the human voice. If it isn't why would you use it, just sing. If you have anything other than an acoustic band the band is likely to be louder than the vocals and even though the mic is much closer to the singer than the rest of the band it will pick up everything in it's line of fire. I have meters on all channels and those vocal mics are busy all the time even when the singer isn't there. A hit on the snare registers at the same volume as the singers voice. You need to get a clean sound from each musician to get a good mix so moving anything away from the vocal mics is good. Don't put the PA at the back, keep it in front where as little sound as possible leaks into the vocal mics. Point everything back line away from the mics if possible. I've mixed for bands that are so loud on stage that there is no point in the set where the singers voice matches the instruments in the vocal mic.

 

Secondly there's a thing called 'gain before feedback' link. It's basically very simple, how loud can you turn things up before feedback. There's loads of components to this from the acoustics of the room, pickup pattern of the mic, how flat the frequency response of your system is, how loud the rest of the sound is and so on. It's quite possible that with a singer with a loud voice you can turn down the gain and they can go into the audience. Or turn down the gain and just be quieter. Or just be in a perfect room with no little acoustic problems but eventually if you turn up loud enough your PA starts screaming. A column may well have a flatter response than a poorly designed horn and a more predictable dispersion but that's as much about the quality of the system. A good horn system will beat a poorly executed column. Putting the speaker at the back was a bit of advertising from Bose written by the marketing people. Putting anything behind the vocal mics just decreases the gain before feedback over placing them in front. Something you can possibly get away with but never a good idea.

[Mottlefeeder]

The vocalist/guitarists in my band are quite happy with the pa speakers at the back, because our performance volume is about right as their monitor volume. However, sound disperses according to the square of the distance, so OK for them is too loud for the back line. Even wearing earplugs, enough mush gets through to make it difficult to hear the bass notes you are playing.

Our compromise is one front -of-stage speaker and one back-of-stage speaker, and I make sure I am as far from the back one as I can get.

David

[Downunderwonder]

On 10/08/2022 at 07:00, PaulWarning said:

I've often wondered about the perceived wisdom of having the speakers in front of the band, our singer spends a lot of his time running round the crowd with his wireless mic without any feedback problems

Must be a powerful singer, less mic gain ftw.

[Al Krow]

Think I may just have stumbled on a really good answer to the original question in my OP! 

 

I've always loved the the portability and articulation of our little RCF 310A PA set up. In terms of an upgrade, I guess the answer was staring me in the face i.e. simply to upgrade to the either the RCF 710A or more recent RCF 910A model. Given the 310A can handle a full band including bass in smaller venues, I suspect the 910A, with its additional headroom, would be able to handle medium sized venues and the dancefloor area of larger function venues.

 

@Phil Starr as a fellow RCF fanboi and a much greater expert on PA speakers than me, be very interested to get your thoughts on this. I've pulled together a little comparison table for ease of reference. I'm very pleasantly surprised that there isn't a bigger price premium between the 910A and 310A given the step up in power, components and finish.

[EBS_freak]

I know stats are mostly nonsense as they don't give you the full story - but the additional volume that you gain from the 910A is not really going to be perceivable as any real world advantage. You may get a better quality sound with the higher headroom - but whether that transforms in the real world through a 10... I wouldn't bet on it. I see there is 3dB to be gained in the 9 over the 3... but at what frequency. If it's in the lows, probably more useful... but I suspect it's not going to be in the lows.

 

I haven't had much of a look through the thread of late - but what is it that you are trying to achieve by changing cabs? Greater quality? Greater volume? Are your 310s showing some deficiency in some area? Or are you just itching to spend some money (which is a valid argument also as naturally, we'd all take a 910 over a 310 if we could...)

[Al Krow]

1 minute ago, EBS_freak said:

I know stats are mostly nonsense as they don't give you the full story - but the additional volume that you gain from the 910A is not really going to be perceivable as any real world advantage. You may get a better quality sound with the higher headroom - but whether that transforms in the real world through a 10... I wouldn't bet on it. I see there is 3dB to be gained in the 9 over the 3... but at what frequency. If it's in the lows, probably more useful... but I suspect it's not going to be in the lows.

 

I haven't had much of a look through the thread of late - but what is it that you are trying to achieve by changing cabs? Greater quality? Greater volume? Are your 310s showing some deficiency in some area? Or are you just itching to spend some money (which is a valid argument also as naturally, we'd all take a 910 over a 310 if we could...)

Cheers Russ. Our 310As were fine for my 5 /6 piece bands (3 vocals, acoustic guitar, kick drum and, on occasion, sax) without me putting my bass through and actually aren't too bad at all with bass going through as well. But the plan is to be putting my bass through much more regularly. Our drummer has bought my 310As off me for use with his other project and to provide us with a back up rig - so I have the opportunity to upgrade.

 

I think having 2 x 700W RMS on the 910A for mid / low frequencies vs 2 x 300W RMS on the 310As i.e. an additional 800W on tap across the two speakers should provide the additional headroom at mid/lower frequency range to mean that the PA handles the full band with bass without breaking into too much of a sweat. And frankly the difference in price between the two models is pleasantly less than I was expecting.

[EBS_freak]

In which case, the limit of how much bass these things can put out are going to be limited by the driver, not the power. Even if you throw more power at the drivers, if the drivers can't deliver the low end, they can't deliver the low end full stop. If you are planning on using 4 x10s, you may hit combing issues. Without thinking about it too much, I'd have two on the floor as centre fills. When you say a 910 for mid/low frequencies, are you planning on putting some crossovers in place or something?

 

Whats stopping you from going to a 735/745? Are they just too big? They really are the sweet spot in the one stop shop for doing all without going into subs. A pair at £1500 is kinda ball park of the 910s and the 310s (granted you already own the 310s). 

[Al Krow]

21 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

In which case, the limit of how much bass these things can put out are going to be limited by the driver, not the power. Even if you throw more power at the drivers, if the drivers can't deliver the low end, they can't deliver the low end full stop. If you are planning on using 4 x10s, you may hit combing issues. Without thinking about it too much, I'd have two on the floor as centre fills. When you say a 910 for mid/low frequencies, are you planning on putting some crossovers in place or something?

 

Whats stopping you from going to a 735/745? Are they just too big? They really are the sweet spot in the one stop shop for doing all without going into subs. A pair at £1500 is kinda ball park of the 910s and the 310s (granted you already own the 310s). 

Cheers fella. Yup size and weight ("compact" is key). 

 

The RCFs seem to have built in x-overs (see spreadsheet on post above, at 1.8kHz or 1.6kHz) 

 

Not sure where your cost figures are coming from, but the 910As should come in for less than £1k for a pair - see spreadsheet comparison above. 

[Phil Starr]

I can see what Russ is saying and it is true that there is a limit to how hard you can work a 10" woofer.

 

I'm amazed by how many options RCF offer they also offer 10's in the HD and NX series as well. It looks like they have withdrawn the 3 series though. Each one is a step up with either better bass drivers or better compression drivers or a better cab. RCF actually started out making drive units and have the luxury of being able to specify a driver for each cab. Generally you'll get bigger voice coils and hence more power handling longer voice coils and bigger magnets and hence more excursion, tighter bass and increases in volumes in return for the extra cost. I haven't had the chance to pull a 9 series apart yet so this is based only upon speculation but the 935 sounds great.

 

So looking at what you put up for comparison, yes you have a bigger voice coil and more power handling in the 9 series so I think it looks perfectly sensible to expect an extra 3db from the 9 series. The power ratings are a nonsense, probably what the amp can do short term, I doubt the compression drivers can handle more than 30W thermal so upping the power from 100W to 350 is a nonsense. Yamaha and everyone else does the same so just take it all with a pinch of salt. The DSP won't let the amplifiers reach full power so everything is safe but it lets them tell you that you have 1000W available.

 

So 1db difference is what you can just hear if you have two speakers next to each other. In practice it would make no difference for a gigging band. 3db is probably the minimum needed to be noticeably louder, but not by much. It's difficult to exact but as a really rough estimate if your 310's are fine for a pub with 50 people in the 910's might be good for 60-70. They probably will have better 10" drivers which will give you a little more bass handling as part of the package. Only expect marginal gains though. Only you can judge if those gains are worth £850 minus trading in your 310's

 

Might be worth seeing if a local PMT have them in stock so you can take your 310's along and compare them

 

 

[Al Krow]

Cheers Phil. That does all sound about right. The 310As are already "traded-in" so I have clean canvas with what I go for. But having been very content with the 310As - our pub audiences have been more than happy over the years, then if the 910As are going to give me a marginal improvement which ties in with a relatively modest increase in price, and also deliver superior bass handling then I think I'll jump in with that.

 

We do have the option of adding a sub to the PA (RCF 702 AS II) should the venue warrant it and I guess that would then take your 60-70 figure up to closer to 85-100?

 

I totally love the BIG sound that @bassfan's band 24K get with their rig, it really is huge! But that is neither a compact nor budget set-up, haha! So I guess we'll just be 24K Lite in the meantime 😊

[Phil Starr]

1 hour ago, Al Krow said:

 

We do have the option of adding a sub to the PA (RCF 702 AS II)

Ha ha I was going to suggest you buy one of those to add to your 310's as a cost efficient way of getting what you want. You'll have just a little bit more confidence with the 910's in placve of the 310's and they will probably sound a littlebetter too. The 702 will let you get a lot more out of your system when you need to and the crossover in the sub will let you push the tops a bit harder. It'll be a nice system.

[Al Krow]

@Phil Starr - cheers. One of the drummers has a RCF 702 sub - so available in one of the two covers bands I am gigging with.

 

Just one point that's left me a little undecided is your comment about "how hard you can work a 10" woofer". The set up here would effectively be a 2 x 10" and there are plenty of bass cabs that are 210s which are a popular alternative to a 1x12". Should we not therefore be reasonably expecting the two 10" PA speakers to put out as much "bass" as e.g. a solitary BF BB2? 

 

If the 910A set up is going to fall short of that, you've got me thinking that I should spend a little more and get two 912As instead? Particularly if those will better match what I'm getting from my bass rig, and without the need for additional support from a 702 sub in the band that doesn't have one. The two 12" will obviously be pushing a bit more air out than the two 10" speakers, assuming that they both have the same speaker excursions, which I understand they do. 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Al Krow

[EBS_freak]

17 hours ago, Al Krow said:

Cheers fella. Yup size and weight ("compact" is key). 

 

The RCFs seem to have built in x-overs (see spreadsheet on post above, at 1.8kHz or 1.6kHz) 

 

Not sure where your cost figures are coming from, but the 910As should come in for less than £1k for a pair - see spreadsheet comparison above. 

Ah - I was thinking that you were adding to the existing 310s so you were running 4 boxes. I thought you were talking about crossing over the 3s and the 9s (which wouldnt be that advantageous!) Sorry for the misunderstanding.