Two p.a. systems in tandem...will it work?

[rotsprung]

Hi everyone,

 

First of all, it's great to have discovered this forum...Ooh, the questions you could've answered over the years!! This is my first post, and it's quite a long-winded question - but hopefully a fairly simple answer?

 

I'm going to be gigging with a rock/pop band (drums/bass/guitar/vox/keys) playing 200 to 500 capacity venues. My Q is: We really can't afford a nice new big rig off the bat, but 2 of us own separate p.a. systems. One comprises:- Mackie 808S/Yamaha F12 tops + Logic 15" passive bins/RCF amp. The other is HK Actor (the old one) 2 subs and 2 tops + Folio F1.

 

Obviously, the 2 systems could be used in tandem but:

A: Will it sound OK?

B: Whats the best way to do it i.e. run everything through one system and sub out to the other or run one system for, say, drums/bass/keys and the other for vox/guitars?

C: I know 2 systems doesn't mean twice as loud, but do you think it will be enough?

 

Sounds a bit mad and unorthodox but any help would be really appreciated!

 

Sorry, just one more question then I'll get me coat - I don't ACTUALLY own the HK Actor yet but have been offered it (well looked after, from a friend) for 1300 quid (plus FolioF1, MD player, midiverb 4, all cables). Is that a good price?

 

Cheers!

[Bobbsy]

** laughs out loud **...Welcome to the Blue Room!

 

Now...tell the truth...you're kidding when you think this one might be simple, aren't you? :** laughs out loud **:

 

Normally, running the same stuff through two different PAs covering the same area is a pretty bad idea. You're liable to have all sorts of very unpredictable comb filtering effects causing a pretty poor sound.

 

Something I've played with in the past when faced by similar problems is to split what goes to each system. Generally this means putting the vox in one system and most of the instruments in the other, though it often works well to have kick and snare on the same system as the vocals since they tend to be in frequency bands (and also be short duration peaks) that don't overlap at all with voices. This has actually sounded pretty good the couple of times I've been forced into doing something like this.

 

Interestingly, I thought this was a kludge solution to solve a specific problem but I've become an avid reader of Dave Rat's blog of his current tour with the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Guess what? He's deliberately done something like this. Okay, in his case he as two matched vDOSC systems and something approaching half a megawatt of power...but the basic theory is the same. You might be interested to read what he has to say HERE. The technical bits are interspersed with general blogging, but the whole thing is an excellent read.

 

Finally, on your specific question, that price sounds pretty good to me.

 

Bob

[paulears]

If you don't want it for 1300 -- pass on my details, I do!

 

I think the one important thing to remember here is that they will sound different - not always good and bad, just different. So the advice to split what goes to them is good - choose the system that will enhance the programme you're putting through it - so if one does vocals justice, that's the one, equally, maybe the actor might handle percussion better - the difficulty is just in the routing and how you control it. other than that - a simple output split would probably work ok anyway - you do need time to fiddle, though.

[Brian]

Running seperate systems, each carrying a different mix, is something that various groups have done for the last 30 years or more. Probably the most extreme example was the Grateful Dead who for a period ran without what we would call a main PA, instead having HUGE backline...

 

http://www.aux99.co.uk/blue-room/tn_GD.jpg

 

Click for full-res scan.

 

Others have toured with more conventional systems, often using one for vocals and one for the instruments.

[andy_s]

slightly off topic perhaps, but running two systems in tandem is a technique found in the theatre - for example the A/B system used in the west end theatre (The Cambridge I think?)for Gerry Springer the Opera, where the A system was drivers in cabinets, and the B system was drivers in "free space" (I.e no boxes). One benefit as I understand it is to be able to avoid the issues of voices leaking into adjacent lav mics, (discussed in other threads) by sending one to A and the other to B, another benefit is in being able to mix the two systems which will clearly have very different tonal characteristics, so it's another tool to use to achieve the natural open sound you're looking for, or perhaps to find a "speech" version and a "song version", I suppose a bit like audio version of colour mixing in a MAC or whatever. Not sure how this applies in a concert setting though....but I thought it was interesting.

 

The sound designer told me he decided what went to which system by trial and error - so that agrees with the other posters' comments about needing a lot of time to fiddle around and try stuff out.

[Matt Riley]

If you need to cover a larger area than is possible using the one system, then you could investigate the use of delays. It involves having one speaker system at the front, covering the first 2/3rds of the venue (or whatever) and then another, seperate speaker system which is supposed to cover the back of the venue. Normally this would be sited behind the Front of House mixer position and would need artificial delay applying to it so that the sound from the front speakers reaches the listener a tiny bit before the 'fill' speakers. Its quite complicated without the right tools, but would be a way to cover a venue which you didn't have enough power (or inclination) to fill using a flippin big front of house rig.

 

But I would have thought that the HK system could handle 500 people on its own. If you have coverage issues you could also use the yamaha speakers as 'fills', which is where they are used to cover areas which aren't covered by the main speakers. The trick is to avoid having the same stuff coming out of speakers which are overlapping in their coverage area.

 

WRT the Actor, buy it, its a bargain!, but shouldn't it have a total of 4 subs(2 passive, 2 active) and 2 tops?

 

Rgds,

 

Matt

[rotsprung]

Hi guys, and thanks for your replies. VERY helpful.

 

I must point out that the HK system is the 'old' Actor (2x 400w bins and 2x400w tops) not the new 6 box, 3.2k Actor DX sytem. Is it still worth 1300 quid?

 

Matt - Yeah, the Actor is usually marketed as a 4bins/2tops system, but the cabs can be bought separately. The guys I know that are selling it obviously didn't need too much bass! (a comedy act).

 

Cheers, Chris

[Seano]

for example the A/B system used in the west end theatre <snip> where the A system was drivers in cabinets, and the B system was drivers in "free space" (I.e no boxes). One benefit as I understand it is to be able to avoid the issues of voices leaking into adjacent lav mics, (discussed in other threads) by sending one to A and the other to B, another benefit is in being able to mix the two systems which will clearly have very different tonal characteristics

 

You're confusing two different (but similar) things. With an A/B system used as you suggest to avoid phasing problems between lavalier mics, the A and B systems are identical - in some cases that means two complete systems including delays, front-fills, the lot.

 

The other thing you're talking about is having separate vocal and music systems. All the vocals would be mixed through the vocal system in that case. The last time I toured as a noise boy (don't do that any more) it was with such a system - Meyer UPA's/USW's for the music system, and open framed Tannoy dual-concentric jobbies for the vocals.

 

Just to confuse things further, both can be combined. Its been a long time since I did theatre noise, but a few years ago it was very common to see systems touring which consisted of a music system and A/B vocal systems - in effect 3 separate pa/reinforcement systems.

 

Sean

x

[dbuckley]

... and open framed Tannoy dual-concentric jobbies for the vocals.

 

Hmmm, my Martin Levan detector appears to be bleeping :** laughs out loud **:

[Bobbsy]

Hmmm, my Martin Levan detector appears to be bleeping :** laughs out loud **:

 

....and probably pointing at Wyndham's Theatre in London where the current production of "Sunday in the Park with George" features Levan-esque unboxed Tannoys for the dialogue (with a nod to Levan as the inventor). The rest of the show is d&b, I believe.

 

Interestingly, the show is also being done on an M7CL for budget and space reasons...it'll be interesting to see how they get on in the usual world of Digico and Cadac...

 

Bob

[Bobbsy]

Running seperate systems, each carrying a different mix, is something that various groups have done for the last 30 years or more. Probably the most extreme example was the Grateful Dead who for a period ran without what we would call a main PA, instead having HUGE backline...

 

<snip>

 

By pure coincidence, Dave Rat's blog for August 31 (HERE) goes into great detail on the Grateful Dead's "wall of sound" and credits it with getting him thinking about better ways to do things by combining multiple systems.

 

Worth a read!

 

Bob

[andy_s]

similar) things. With an A/B system used as you suggest to avoid phasing problems between lavalier mics, the A and B systems are identical - in some cases that means two complete systems including delays, front-fills, the lot.

 

The other thing you're talking about is having separate vocal and music systems. All the vocals would be mixed through the vocal system in that case. The last time I toured as a noise boy (don't do that any more) it was with such a system - Meyer UPA's/USW's for the music system, and open framed Tannoy dual-concentric jobbies for the vocals.

 

Just to confuse things further, both can be combined. Its been a long time since I did theatre noise, but a few years ago it was very common to see systems touring which consisted of a music system and A/B vocal systems - in effect 3 separate pa/reinforcement systems.

 

Sean

x

 

Yep I understand the theory, but what I was describing was how the sound designer described to the way he'd used the system - not simply as an A/B system (and indeed they weren't identical) nor as a music / vocals system

 

(no, on this occasion it wasn't Martin Levan...)

[MarkPAman]

......................... Dave Rat's blog of his current tour with the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Guess what? He's deliberately done something like this.

 

I too, have been reading Dave's blog and considering the two PA setup. So I tried it with a (very good) band yesterday and was extremely happy with the results. :P

I used the centre channel of the desk for the Kick, Snare & Vocals; and L+R for everything else. One sub each side ruining C+L and C+R, two tops each side. Does mean I can't pan the vocals (or kick & snare) but then I don't often want to anyway.

Setup time is obviously slightly longer for two systems, and you need to have the space to put them, but it is certainly something I will consider doing for many of the gigs I do from now on.