UPA-1P/3836 System

[lifeisacabaret]

Hi guys....following my thread down the page.....will I get any problems from a flown system that had 1 Meyer UPA-1P either side for the band, and (on the inner edge either side) 2 Tannoy 3836 Open Drivers for the Vocals (2 vocal systems, A & B). Therefore, a stereo band system and 2 stereo vocal systems (although, effectively operating in mono with all vocals {apart from vox booth} panned to centre). Subs would be 1 USW-1P per side and front fills 3 UPM-2P's on the floor of the front of the stage, angled up. Foldback would be 4 flown UPM-2P's.

 

Can anyone forsee any problems with this arrangement?

[mackerr]

Hi guys....following my thread down the page.....will I get any problems from a flown system that had 1 Meyer UPA-1P either side for the band, and (on the inner edge either side) 2 Tannoy 3836 Open Drivers for the Vocals (2 vocal systems, A & B).

I haven't kept up with what is being done with A/B vocal systems lately, but part of the original concept was that the 2 systems used different speakers. The idea was that the subtle differences between the 2 systems would help to alleviate comb filtering, by not quite having the response. The A/B systems I remember from Martin Levan used UPA1 and the Tannoy open frame speakers for the vocals, and UPA1 for orchestra, with a variety of subs, including Bose.

 

Mac

[lifeisacabaret]

Hi mac...thanks for replying.

 

Looking at the system for phantom in london, I cannot see any traditional cabinets on the pros at all, apart from a few bose subs, but the open drivers are visable if you know what to look for.

 

Am I over complicating things? Would it be better to have 1 upa for the band and 1 3836 for the vocals per side?

[lifeisacabaret]

Any ideas?

[James]

Any ideas?

 

I dont' know if you have already tried it but have you asked this question over at the theatre sound mailing list

 

(I have a little catchup to do so forgive me if you have already done this)

[lifeisacabaret]

No I havent...ive always found the list awfully hard to navigate- surely with boards like this, mailing lists like that have been rendered pointless?

 

Anyway, back to the matter at hand:-)

[StevieR]

I would presume that what you are trying to achieve is a cleaner, more defined sound - yes? If so, then the principle of splitting the band and vocals is a good start. The placement of the cabinets is more guided by venue and the best layout may not always be feasible. One option I would consider is to have the band split left/right as you describe - creating a 'surrounding' effect for the music - but then having a centre cluster for the vocals. This gives the vocals more of a point source that is in relation to their source on stage and places them in a different plane in the soundscape. I've seen this used several times and found the effect very pleasing to the ears but you do need the ability to fly a centre cluster.

 

With regard to Tannoy 3836 units, I haven't used these so can't comment on their effectiveness. My thought would be to stick to meyer throughout to maintain an even sound colouration.

 

Steve

[lifeisacabaret]

Surely the issue of sound colouration isnt very prevalent when you're putting two groups of signals through the speakers- vocals in the tannoys and band in the meyers? The recent revival of 'Sunday in the Park with George' had D&B E9's for the band and tannoy 3836's for vocals......it would seem to be an option that worked.

 

How about 1 UPA-1P either side for the vocals, then a small array of 2 UPA-2P's in the centre for the vocals?

[mackerr]

Surely the issue of sound colouration isnt very prevalent when you're putting two groups of signals through the speakers- vocals in the tannoys and band in the meyers? The recent revival of 'Sunday in the Park with George' had D&B E9's for the band and tannoy 3836's for vocals......it would seem to be an option that worked.

 

How about 1 UPA-1P either side for the vocals, then a small array of 2 UPA-2P's in the centre for the vocals?

I take it that you have abandoned the idea of an A/B system for vocals. In that case you need to put the speakers in a place where you can achieve the coverage you need. Do not use proscenium speakers and a center cluster if they are covering the same audience area. This will cause comb filtering, and timing issues. Since you can only time 2 widely paced speakers to each other over a very small area, you should limit the amount of overlapping coverage from speakers that will carry the same signal.

 

The A/B system requires a console with the ability to change routing on a scene by scene basis, but does a remarkable job of eliminating the phasing problems between cast lavs that are close together. With the widespread use of digital consoles this ability is now pretty common. It used to pretty much require a Cadac with routing modules.

 

Mac

[lifeisacabaret]

What about the original idea....L/R UPA's for the band, and mounted on the inner edge either side, 2 3836's, 2 stereo vocal systems. Due to the nature of the piece the routing wouldnt need to change much scene to scene..

 

would this system work?

[mackerr]

What about the original idea....L/R UPA's for the band, and mounted on the inner edge either side, 2 3836's, 2 stereo vocal systems. Due to the nature of the piece the routing wouldnt need to change much scene to scene..

 

would this system work?

Sure, it could work. It is impossible to say that it would work. Speaker choice and placement depends on audience size and layout. Do some drawings in plan and section views and try out the speaker's coverage pattens to see how the audience is covered. As far as rerouting for the A/B system, unless the same cast members always sing in the same pairings, the mics would have to be rerouted to make sure that 2 adjacent mics never come from the same speaker system.

 

Mac

[lifeisacabaret]

How careful would I have to be? The space is a 180seat studio space, being used in an end-on configuration, with the main portion of the audience being in one level of raked seating. There are seating areas on each side at the gallery (top of the raked seating) level and at the floor level. The plan would be to hang 1 UPA-1P either side, aimed at the main rake of seating (side and upper areas to be filled in with some E3's or UPM's) then attach the 2 3836's either side to the bar of the UPA's flying frame on the inner edge to the stage, 1 above the other.

 

Does that sound like a workable solution?

[mackerr]

Does that sound like a workable solution?

It depends entirely on the dimensions of the seating area. Make a plan and section drawing of the audience, and try out the coverage angles to see where you have to place and aim the speakers to get even coverage.

 

Mac

[lifeisacabaret]

Thanks for the help mac...im off back to the drawing board then!

 

Ill let you all know how it goes.

 

 

J

[dbuckley]

Late comment, but the arrangment you are specifying comes straight out of the Mark Levan school of theatre audio, and if I remember correctly, the open frame Tannoy speakers were used as point sources, not as stereo pairs. The Tannoys were then used as A+B speakers as outlined above.

 

The way you use A+B is that no two vocalists who may be picked up by the same mics (eg romeo and Juliet in a clutch, both mics pick up both vocalists, cos the omni mics are inches apart) go out the same cone. This sometimes means that A+B is more than two channels, and thats when a desk with lots of routable outputs gets very handy.

 

I'm not going to say a thing about the UPA-1s :P