Do you add effects to your foldback mix?

[Vince]

Hi all,

 

I've recently purchased a Soundcraft GB4-24, and it is a very nice desk indeed. I've had no problems at all getting used to it, but there is one thing my Behringer MX2442A (no sniggers please - it still is a great workhorse for smaller gigs) could do that the GB4 can't, and this relates to this topic title.

 

On the MX2442, you can set Auxes 1 & 2 to be pre/post fade per channel. This meant that you could send a small amount of effect to Auxes 1 & 2, by setting Aux 1 & 2 on the Effects channels to post fade, so that the monitor feed is dependant on the channel fader.

 

On the GB4, auxes 1-4 are fixed pre-fader, and Auxes 5-8 are pre/post, but globally not individually.

 

So.....here is the main part of my ramblings: do any other sound guys out there even want to put effects into your monitor mix? If you do AND you have a GB4, how on earth can it be achieved?

 

Cheers, Vince

[Chris Hinds]

Why would you want to? Adding Reverbs and more to the monitors makes feedback more likely and generally reduces clarity somewhat. If you return the effects unit to channels I don't see why the GB4 can't do it by the way.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[paulears]

why would you want to? Well, to satisfy the demands of the people on stage. You probably don't do what might be considered 'light entertainment' - here it's extremely common for the artiste to require reverb through the monitors for the musical numbers and for a dry monitor for speech. Some also have different requirements from number to number with different kinds of reverb. Some simply can't sing without it.

 

I tend to bring the returns from my reverbs back into the desk on stereo channels, and that way, you can also simply bring up the aux to stick it into the monitors - if the auxes are individually switchable, but if they are not, then it's not too much trouble to do it via the send - I normally stick a tiny bit of white tape on the pot to help me find it quickly. This way, channel fader brings reverb into the foh, and the send takes it to the monitor.

 

I don't find reverb in the monitors causes and major issues feedback wise - but I'm not doing major spl work.

[mackerr]

why would you want to? Well, to satisfy the demands of the people on stage. You probably don't do what might be considered 'light entertainment' - here it's extremely common for the artiste to require reverb through the monitors for the musical numbers and for a dry monitor for speech. Some also have different requirements from number to number with different kinds of reverb. Some simply can't sing without it.

Very true. A little reverb in the mons can make the vocal appear louder to the singer, so you may not have to run as high a level. It is not something I would encourage, but if the artist demands it you do it.

 

Mac

[dbuckley]

On the slightly wider issue, it is very handy to have auxes individually switchable betwixt pre/post, as sometimes on some channels you really do want post-fade foldback, and/or pre-fade effects. Although that kind of flexibility is "unexpected" in a low end desk, I'd frown at an expensive desk that doesn't do this.

[jimbo7744]

I too haven't come across an artist that doesn't want a bit of verb in their foldback or IEM's if it's available.

 

Besides satisfying their desires it can also help make them sound a bit more easy on the ear if they aren't as good as they think they are!

 

Just remembered to get my DFA button fixed as well as this usually helps keep them happy!

[Rob_Beech]

I too haven't come across an artist that doesn't want a bit of verb in their foldback or IEM's if it's available.

 

Just one moment. I could be wrong, but out of the fairly large number of acts I've worked with I've only known a couple of them that DO want reverb in the monitors. But, it should always be available should the need arise. So fx returns on stereo channels or even a pair of mono channels if necessary.

 

IEM is a whole different story.

[Bobbsy]

I have to say, my experience is more like Rob's with effects in monitor wedges being very much the exception rather than the rule. I'd certainly never encourage the use of effects in stage monitors (IEMs, as Rob says, are different) but do make them available if the musician insists.

 

As for the methodology, even without the need for monitors, I bring effects back into the mixer on stereo channels (or paired mono) as a matter of course anyway. I find it's much easier to control a 'verb precisely when it's on a nice long fader.

 

Finally, just to say that the ability to switch auxes pre/post on a channel by channel basis is one of my favourite (and most used) features mixing on Yamaha DM series digital boards.

 

Bob

[obsoperator]

Although the issue has been well-covered here, I want to add two points:

 

1)In some halls (I mean particularly successful orchestral halls with hard surfaces) the public hears a great deal of the reflected monitor sound. Some mixers have told me the best way to reinforce a jazz/pop concert in such a hall can be to turn off the mains in such a hall. (Of course, the best way would be to not load in any sound equipment, but that's not possible.) That means that monitor flexibility is alway "better".

 

2)There are cases, both benign and nasty, where the artist's demand for monitor is out of proportion to his/her necessary presence in the main mix. It can be nice to (subject of course to feedback worries) to have firm, individual control of the perceived monitor sound, without reducing control of that channel's proportion in the final mix. The benign case might include a prominent drum kit. The nasty example might be a hard-of hearing vocal soloist who's off-key anyway!

[PoppaDom]

The OP stated sending effects into monitors, so far everyone seems to have concentrated on reverbs and the like.

 

If the artist is using delay (thinking Ian Brown, Hard Fi - a couple I have been around) then it is essential for the effect to be present in the monitor to enable them to keep the vocal sitting where they want it in the mix.

 

Poppadom

[Pete Alcock]

What Vince is talking about here is what I see as an increasingly common shortcoming in the lower mid-range desks - a lack of flexibility in the stereo FX returns. This really vexes me.

 

The GB4 and for example the GL2400, have sacrificed a "proper" FX return section (the GL2200 even had faders for the FX returns), for a (IMHO useless) matrix. A matrix is clearly just a trendy thing to have, even though two stereo returns could be far more use to most folks.

 

Both my little FX8 and FX16 have the ability to route FX to mons and in the case of the FX8 you don't have to sacrifice a somethimes crucial stereo channel. Similarly the old LX7 did and, as I've said, did the GL2200. It seems bizarre to me that a manuafacturer's older low-end desks have more useful features than their latest and best. I've mentioned this to both the above at Plasa but it's met with the usual indifference.

 

This, (and I'm sorry Vince) is the sole reason why I wouldn't buy a GB4 or a GL2400. I'm waiting for these (see below) to come out in the UK later this year.

 

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/petealcock/MAYA-320_m.jpg

 

Note four stereo channels, and 2 proper stereo FX returns!

 

Pete.

[Vince]

Well, that post certainly generated some interesting dialogue, and I thank you all for your rapid and enlightening comments!!

 

I totally accept your observations Pete, and perhaps I should have done my homework a bit more thoroughly, but I still think I would have gone for the GB4, on the basis that there are no other desks in that price range that offer 8 Aux sends, and with the desire to offer IEM in mind I could not find a better compromise. I also agree about the matrix thingy - I can't think of any application for that as yet.

 

It is interesting that the LX7 could send FX of the mons, but one feature I covet on a desk is a signal LED (or mini-meter) per channel that acts as a tell-tale for signal presence, and the LX7 doesn't have this. I don't want to spark off a debate on this one - this is merely my preference.

 

I would say that "compromise" is the key word here. Unless you are in the big league (which I most certainly am not) where you can justify the spend on a desk is is indeed all things to all men (and women!!), you are never going to get everything that you want.

 

I think my solution - on the basis that on some occasions it will be necessary to provide FX on foldback for those that must have it - will be to ride the Aux send pots when needed.

 

One final "positioning" comment - I provide PA, lights and sound engineering for bands pretty close to the bottom rung of the gigging ladder, but in the form of a hobby that has got out of control. It is not my "day job" (although I would like it to be), so I think it will be some time before my expenditure is less than any income generated. For me, everything is a compromise......untill I win the Lottery!!

 

Cheers, Vince

 

What Vince is talking about here is what I see as an increasingly common shortcoming in the lower mid-range desks - a lack of flexibility in the stereo FX returns. This really vexes me.

 

The GB4 and for example the GL2400, have sacrificed a "proper" FX return section (the GL2200 even had faders for the FX returns), for a (IMHO useless) matrix. A matrix is clearly just a trendy thing to have, even though two stereo returns could be far more use to most folks.

 

Both my little FX8 and FX16 have the ability to route FX to mons and in the case of the FX8 you don't have to sacrifice a somethimes crucial stereo channel. Similarly the old LX7 did and, as I've said, did the GL2200. It seems bizarre to me that a manuafacturer's older low-end desks have more useful features than their latest and best. I've mentioned this to both the above at Plasa but it's met with the usual indifference.

 

This, (and I'm sorry Vince) is the sole reason why I wouldn't buy a GB4 or a GL2400. I'm waiting for these (see below) to come out in the UK later this year.

 

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/petealcock/MAYA-320_m.jpg

 

Note four stereo channels, and 2 proper stereo FX returns!

 

Pete.

[audio]

Depending on whether you've got a free channel and post fade aux on the desk, and how important getting the effects to monitor sends working post fader is to you....

 

Effect channel send to free post fade aux X

 

Output from X to free channel strip Y

 

Channel Y to monitor sends

 

I have used this before and it works fine, but does require a little bit of extra cabling and setting up

John

[cedd]

Personal choice, yes I would do it, though never had the need to.

 

The way I look at it is this, when you sing in the bath, how good do you think you sound and how much louder do you sing?

Now apply that to a live venue, if the singer's ropey, yes I would do it. As for effects, well as has been stated, delay is essential. Others such as phase shifts or pitch changing could be iffy territory, I tell you from experience it's very off putting to hear yourself singing back at you an octave higher, or even worse a third!

[Vince]

Thanks John,

 

I may well give that I try! It's a 24 channel desk, and for the average 4 piece rock band I'll have a few to spare.

 

As other folk on this thread have said, adding FX to the foldback mix may be the exception rather than the rule, but it is good to be prepared when someone asks for it, and Murphy's Law states they most certainly will at some point!!

 

Thanks one & all for your help

 

Cheers, Vince

 

Depending on whether you've got a free channel and post fade aux on the desk, and how important getting the effects to monitor sends working post fader is to you....

 

Effect channel send to free post fade aux X

 

Output from X to free channel strip Y

 

Channel Y to monitor sends

 

I have used this before and it works fine, but does require a little bit of extra cabling and setting up

John