Have you checked out Mixing Station? Way better app, and works with all firmwares.
Sic0048 Please go back and re-read the post.
Youāve got the workflow wrong.
My channel sends, being post insert and pre eq from Waves Host Plug-ins get sent to mix busses for In-Ears Prior to other eq and compression being sent to FOH LR buss. I may effect FOH, but once is set up In-Ears for musicians, I dont need many changes to monitoring.
EQāing for the FOH can still be accomplished as normal as can channel compression. Musicians get what they want first and I can EQ and Compress FOH as normal.
When you make changes post channel eq or compressor, those changes effect both monitor eq and FOH eq and compression. Particularily for large changes. And despite your thinking, Changes in Room and Temperature, Crowd etc rarely effect monitoring this way. But FOH can be greatly influenced by Rooms and Room Temp. Reason is the close proximity micing and directs.
Musicians dont want to hear the changes you make for FOH. The whole purpose for The Monitor Engineer.
I avoid all that.
Your way any eq change you make for FOH for whatever purpose, effects and distracts the Musician and if you go post compressor, it makes monitors even worse, most vocalists dont want to hear FOH compression.
I mostly avoid that.
Not anymore. I did a week ago.
No I donāt.
That is true and as I continually point out, itās the only change between the āoldā firmware workflow and the new firmware workflow. I just believe that if you are making big enough EQ changes on a source during a show, those changes are generally desirable on the monitor sends too. Could it be a distraction to the musician when it first happens? Perhaps. But the source likely will also sound better for the musicians too after the changes.
Furthermore, a simple discussion with your musicians will alleviate 99% of these issues IMHO. āHey guys, there has been an software update on the console and now you are going to hear any EQ changes I make during the show. While I would much rather be able to make EQ adjustments that wouldnāt affect your mixes, I think youāll actually benefit from the EQ changes I am making too. I didnāt set it up like this originally because I didnāt want my changes to be a distraction for you, but I donāt have that choice anymore. I just wanted to let you know that you are going to hear EQ changes now and and it is not some mistake or problem with the IEM system.ā
THEN DONT GO POST COMPRESSION with your pick point! You are arguing about things that you have control over. Using a āPost EQā pick point is before the channel compressor which means you can alter the channel compressor settings without affecting what the musicians hear.
EDIT - I almost deleted this post after coming back to. It comes off as being argumentative and that is not a tone I like to take. Still, I decided to leave it here just for transparency. I hate it when people talk crap online and then remove posts when it suits them. I said these things and I am going to leave it up and āown itā, good or bad.
Mike - Your situation is real and your desires to have the system work as it did previously are completely valid. Whether or not the changes affect my work flow isnāt relative to how it affects your work flow. Sometimes I loose sight of that.
Yes mixing station is a great app. I use it frequently, and itās convenient because it works well over multiple platforms on multiple brands and models I tend to see as I travel. But depending on the brand/ model it lacks the ability to save shows / push / pull etc. But itās a great app.
I rarely mix off glass surfaces, their great for set it and forget mixers, mixing from stage etc; I do use them as additional monitoring or an occasional walk around but as a very active engineer, I find glass to slow. But thatās me.
Look Brian, you are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to mix however you want.
There are many different ways to accomplish the same goals or tasks.
I chose this mixer for specifics at the time of purchase. All equipment was selected to accomplish specific tasks a certain way, including the sound of specific preamps, and still fit a budget. A&H met those requirements then. I lost that yesterday.
I donāt like compromising my style or those I support. This becomes a compromise, For Me, your results my very.
You can sit at the keyboard, commenting on every post and tell me how I should or could be doing it differently while Iām out doing it. But in the end Iām in control of my shows. My style is my style, not yours so STHU. Itās great you want to defend A&H, I do too, when itās do, theyāre a good company.
Mark replied to my post and wanted to engage, that was until you hijacked the post. I think A&H is more than qualified to defend themselves. You are more than welcome to comment, as you always do, but your dissection and comment and (recommendations on how Iām wrong) has had no contribution or resolution to my complaint about the version update. It just watered it down and made it useless.
Those that can, Do, those that canāt Post.
Have a nice day. The last comment, is reserved for you, like always.
Thatās an interesting workflow!
So, you typically would send post-insert monitor mixes from waves grid to mix monitors, without a monitor engineer.
So does that same waves grid processing go to the FOH mix? Iām just curious, Iām always interested in how others operate:)
2 Likes
Yes, monitor /In-Ears needs only minor adjustments if any, other than volume. That leaves EQ, Compression for FOH nearly independent. If you have to make a small EQ adjustment for monitors, I just make a corresponding offset adjustment with channel EQ, as an example.
That allows me to make large channel adjustments for, say guitar EQ effect to FOH, say boost of 2.5 k or momentary low end thickness for a start of song, and where I donāt want those frequencies during the rest of the song,and it doesnāt effect or distract musicians monitoring.
Itās work yes, itās what producer/engineers do, but itās not for everyone.
Thanks for asking.
Which engineers did you speak to? Sound or technology?
For me, the question remains why such a not entirely insignificant design change to the internal routing isnāt even mentioned in the release notes.
If the obviously favored AMM users donāt happen to explore the manual again, they might not even learn about their good fortune.
1 Like
Mark is it technically possible to set which points are available in the show config as suggested? Then at mix time you can only pick from 4 but could have numerous defined for selection in the show/mixer config?
Hi all,
Apologies that this change was inadvertently missed from the original release notes - this has been corrected.
The decision to move the tap off point was a difficult one, we avoid making these kind of changes and almost never do, but following a lot of internal discussions and when checking with (sound) engineers, we didnāt find any common use case for the post-insert point where the post-PEQ point could not be used, and had to balance the possibility there were outlying use cases against the many complaints over the years about monitoring channels with AMM in use.
There are also other applications including recording and streaming where either AMM or channel delay are not required on some sends (but where you do want compression) and are required on others.
If I understand the use case detailed here correctly - there are two EQ stages being used, with one affecting the monitors/aux and both affecting the FOH. This is the first time Iāve heard of such a setup and it did not come up in any of the conversations, so apologies it was not considered.
Unfortunately the points are fixed at a low level, so I donāt believe itās something that can be provided as a show level option, but it would need investigation to confirm/deny. Please do make a suggestion for it (SQ Feature Suggestions - Allen & Heath Digital Community Forums) so we can prioritise looking into it further if itās something lots of other users want to see too.
Thanks,
Keith.
3 Likes
Thanks Keith, for listening.
I have already created a post in Suggestions ā Additional Mixer Configuration
The Post suggests creating a separate configuration or firmware install for AMM. SQis Very flexible and configurable because of the FPGA use.
Master, Listen and add AMM.
Depending on NVRAM, a separate configuration could be created for AMM users thereby devoting maximum mixer resources to Speech production needs, conference, theatre etc.
A second configuration would be devoted to Sound Production / Sound Reinforcement. Again devoting maximum resources to Sound. Without AMM more Sound feature additions would be possible and vice versa.
If That cant be done because of lack of NVRAM to store an additional configuration, It could be dome by creating a separate Firmware load for each use. Again maximizing the usability for each type of show or mixer need.
Thanks for listening
Mike
That should allow for more configuration and in my case, the Post Insert / Pre EQ Aux take-off point I lost in the Firmware upgrade.
1 Like
I donāt have much to add except that Iāve enjoyed this conversation because I like to learn how different engineers do their job and solve difficult problems.
Iām an engineerāboth sound and electrical 
āand Mikeās suggestion seems like a good compromise for dealing with limited hardware resources but also affording the flexibility of multiple use cases. I donāt do theater/conference work but Iād not be surprised if there are additional ways the mixer could be optimized for use cases like that, so having a separate configuration mode (and potentially a unique FPGA load) for AMM might be a valuable addition.
As a HW design engineer, though, I donāt want to underestimate how hard it is to develop and test a new FPGA build, but I wonder if a good compromise (or until a new AMM mode is added) would be for A&H to release an update to the mobile apps that can access both the old and new firmware so that people who need to stay with the V15 feature set can stick with it?
2 Likes
Mike, your approach on monitoring from FOH is quite interesting. And even though Iād not use anything similar for my shows, I do understand your way of mixing.
Please allow me to comment on a few things:
-
If any source needs drastic EQing, chances are it is needed in both monitors and FOH mix as the source is the problem. Iād expect you to tell me about any problems with my instrument during rehersals so I can fix the problem at the source.
-
If thereās a problem with the room and hence the way the FOH mix sounds in the venue, there are ways to fix that without touching channel EQs. I often find beginners removing the same frequency from all microphones by using channel EQ instead of master or buss EQ for that purpose. I use buss EQs for PA/room corrections and leave channel EQs for fixing sources.
-
If there is a problem with a certain source, Iād appreciate to have it fixed in my IEMs as well as the house mix so please use the channel EQ to fix it in both worlds.
-
As a singer and guitar player, I want to have FOH compression on my IEM signals so I know how to work with the compressor. If I canāt hear how the compressor reacts to what Iām doing, I cantā work with it. If thereās too much compression on my vocals, I will tell you - chances are itās over-compressed in the FOH mix as well.
As I work a lot of conference and TV shows as well as band mixes, Iām happy for the changes in tap points as they fixed a huge problem with the AMM that made the SQ essentially useless for TV studio work in the past. Yes, there is a small impact to your way of handling things (and Iām sorry for that) but if you look at it again it might not even be as big as a problem.
1 Like
Thanks for your comments proper audio.
Like I said your results and style may vary.
The change is ok for you because you gained something you needed.
Itās not ok for me because itās some I need and use, and had and now l lost.
I only do live sound, no conference. My job is to provide the best experience for both musicians and audiences.
My mixing processes have been developed over the last 60 years. I currently do 40-50 live shows a year for only 2-3 bands. My sound and style is why I get hired.
My show would typically require a separate monitor engineer and console. I have been able to accommodate my clients without spending a fortune and can accommodate just about any size venue.
Please stop telling my I can do my job a different way. Of course I can, one size doesnāt fit all and as a sound engineer have to be flexable. I can do a show with one mic if I had too. Point is I donāt have to.
I purchased this console, remote preamps, Wave and outboard computers and ancillary equipment for this purpose and it is now Not what I paid for. It fit a budget and did its job.
I could always have purchased an AVID console or a Digico, or SSL or whatever, spending $100ās of thousands more. Sure thatās a way also. Not exactly budget friendly. But I didnāt. I bought an SQ 7 because it has great sound, I bought a GX 4816 because it sounds great. Added Waves to accomplish my goals and tasks.
Now I have to change my live sound so you can have more features for an AMM process? Really?? If that was the case you could have used a QU. It has AMM. See my point.
The SQ design was very well thought out but it flexibility is being downgraded and compromised to try to satisfy too many platforms in one firmware or configuration.
A robust feature rich mixer for AMM in one configuration and a robust feature rich live sound mixer in another configuration or firmware. Possibly others. That is until AI gets incorporated into someoneās mixer. Then weāll both be dinosaurs.
Donāt get me wrong, Mike.
In an ideal world, both use cases could be satisfied.
Originally, we bought the first SQ 5 to replace some older X/M32ās - since dLive is a bit on the expensive side for most of our productions. As we needed something that could be carried by car and one person so there really was no other choice (at least not from A&H) at the time. Unfortunately, websites these days are all colourful and blinking but they donāt tell you about pure technical data or limitations of the product anymore (unless you spend a few hours finding out about limitations).
In large scale TV world (with numerous presenters, guests and 52 channels of show band), I will mostly work a dLive (that canāt record multitrack to SSD - the SQ can do that, so why canāt Avantis and dLive?), for conference and band productions I will either use an SQ or a WING (provided by the productions). I need a working AMM, multi-track recording and band mix features at the same time for some corporate shows so the choice of desks is rather limited unless you want to go the Yamaha way and live with the sterile sound and a UI that doesnāt work with my brain. Or you go DiGoCo to start swearing every time you have to do anything other than pushing a fader.
Looking at what the WINGs can do that some of my bands use, Iām on the verge of getting one of those - to get other limitations such as AES50 cable length that isnāt an issue with GX boxes when adding some media converters and a suitable length of fibre.
Or maybe I should grab an old ML4000 or XL3 where you didnāt even have to worry about all that
2 Likes