MIKE900 Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 My band currently use a seperate amp for monitoring, going from Aug send on mixer via an eq, into amp channel then to monitors. A thru connection from one of the monitors then to a third monitor for drummer. This is working ok, but I have an extra active monitor if I was to make use of this to give the singer a bit more monitoring. Would I be best: Taking it from a splitter on the eq to then feed both amp and extra monitor, or use thru connection on monitor into active monitor then to drummer's monitor. Any comments would be appreciated, the active monitor is a Carlsbro 150W with both input and link (not sure which of these I would use either) ThanksMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolvesAndi Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 how many auxs do you have on the desk ? if its an active monitor you could have a seperate mix all together off the desk, then maybe give the singer his own mix with plenty of vocal so not to deafen the rest of the band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKE900 Posted May 6, 2010 Author Share Posted May 6, 2010 how many auxs do you have on the desk ? desk Alesis multimix 16. Think it only has one aux send Mike Moderation: Looks like you had a problem using quotes--I've done an edit to make your response clear and deleted your "take two" attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.elsbury Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 If you can give the singer an active monitor of their own (can't quite decipher your post above) then what you could do is get a cheap 2 input Behringer, Phonic, Mackie, Alto etc desk and split the line level monitor signal into that, plus split the singers mic into it as well (just use an XLR y-split). That way you can boost the level of their mic without effecting the rest of the monitor mix- make sense? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Make sure that the extra monitor is going to contribute to the performance, because it will contribute to the on stage sound level and will add feedback challenges. Also once people see that you can do it they will all want a wedge, and all want their own mix, per song.... Does the fee that you can get justify a monitor engineer as well as a FOH op? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKE900 Posted May 6, 2010 Author Share Posted May 6, 2010 If you can give the singer an active monitor of their own (can't quite decipher your post above) then what you could do is get a cheap 2 input Behringer, Phonic, Mackie, Alto etc desk and split the line level monitor signal into that, plus split the singers mic into it as well (just use an XLR y-split). That way you can boost the level of their mic without effecting the rest of the monitor mix- make sense? :-) So if I split the signal from aux out of mixer, one into amp as we currently do and other in active wedge in front of singer will this be of any benifit? Or do I really need a second desk (don't really want any more gear) Currently we go from aux out of mixer (aux send A on multimix 16) into a eq then into amp then to wedges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.elsbury Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 You only need another mixer if you want to ( as I suggested) MIX in the vocal mic to give more vocal in that monitor. I thought what I posted was fairly clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidRay Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 You may have another option if the calsbro monitor will accept a mic level signal, that is to plug the singer's mic directly into the carlsbro and take the link out from the carlsbro to the mixing desk. This will give you only the singers vocal in the monitor, so it assumes that he/she is hearing enough of everything else from the backline.There are a couple of disadvantages to this method (no control over level once set without altering the volume at the monitor, no EQ), but it is by far the simplest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 From the pics on this site, the desk you've quoted has TWO aux sends - aux A which is pre/post fade selectable, and aux B which id post only. So you do have an alternat feed out option to the active monitors if that's not used for anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKE900 Posted May 7, 2010 Author Share Posted May 7, 2010 From the pics on this site, the desk you've quoted has TWO aux sends - aux A which is pre/post fade selectable, and aux B which id post only. So you do have an alternat feed out option to the active monitors if that's not used for anything else. Thats great thanks very much I will try that. Sounds like the easiest option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidRay Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Aux B is also the internal effects bus, so if you're not using the internal effects that's the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound Man Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 If you do use aux B as a foldback send, don't move the channel sliders after the sound check otherwise you will alter the monitor mix. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKE900 Posted May 13, 2010 Author Share Posted May 13, 2010 You may have another option if the calsbro monitor will accept a mic level signal, that is to plug the singer's mic directly into the carlsbro and take the link out from the carlsbro to the mixing desk.Gave this a try last night, not a great amount of volume! I guess the monitor can't take mic level input?? Any ideas to boost the signal into the monitor, as this I think will be the best option as it is only lead singer struggling to hear himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.