Hi Wess,

Thanks for using The Sketcher!

This is just a quick note to send you a link to your Sketch in case you want to review it, edit it, or share it with others.


-- click image to make changes to the live version --
Here is a link to the full sized version of the image.


Quoting Wess from The Sketcher

quote:

Set -up as first heard 1-06-08 family group involves 3 seperate quartets for most of venue but all sometimes
up who had too little gain prior to feedback. Obvious challenges are 11 open mic's at times.
Currently both keyboard and minidisk with background accompanyment is routed through Makie 1604 to channel 2 of T-1 All microphones are mixed in Makie and sent to channel 1 T-1 T-1 sends Master out 1/4" to second Model II. Going tomarrow to make fix on feedback.

Will try panning 5 mic's left and 5 mic's right then out to Channel 1 and 2 of T-1 respectively Keyboard to Channel 3 of T-1 and Mini disc to Channel 4

Will next add a T-1 to the second Model II and split the Mic's between them and Y Backgound Music and keyboard to both.

May need to suggest 4 /5 wireless max, share microphones for full group.

Wess

Hi Wess,

Yes, 11 open microphones can be a challenge. Your idea about panning should help.

I've done some searching for articles to support the notion that splitting the number of open microphones over two systems should improve the gain before feedback. I haven't had any luck finding anything concrete because nobody (else) seems to put multiple systems on a stage the way that we do. But from a practical standpoint, I have found that gain-before-feedback improves when you
- put each microphone through only one L1™
- reduce the number of microphones per L1™
You will accomplish both of these when you pan the microphones, and adding the second T1&trade will allow you more flexibility with the Presets and the EQ.

Depending on the stage depth, I would move the L1&trades behind the singers. Excluding the Keyboardist for a moment, this now looks like two groups of five, each with their own L1™. (picture coming).

Given the wide dispersion of the L1™ Model II, this should alleviate issues with monitoring for the people toward the outer edges. This might allow them to be more comfortable at a lower overall volume.

Is the issue that they get feedback before they can all hear each other, or before it is loud enough for the audience.

Hi Wess,

Here's what I meant about moving the L1™s behind the vocalists.



-- click image to make changes to the live version --

How big is a typical venue for this act?

Microphone technique
I think you will have watch how these performers work with their microphones and see if they need some coaching on microphone technique. You know that close-mic'ing is going to make more of a positive difference than anything else we could with routing the signals or tweaking the stage layout.

Two Zones
By panning the microphones you are creating two '"zones" on the stage. Each zone is served by the L1™ behind it. We have six microphones and the Keyboard served by the L1™ on the left and five microphones served by the L1™ on the right.

Doing this should help each performer hear him/herself AND help them isolate the microphone causing the feedback. This is a behavioural thing. The more immediately someone correlates his/her behaviour to the onset of feedback the easier it will be to fix it.

For me, *this* seems to be why getting the ratio of performers to L1™s closer to 1:1 helps with feedback. When someone can turn around and look at "his/her" L1™ s/he can be responsible for what comes out of it (feedback and all).

I hope that helps.

I agree with your assessments. However as you mentioned, "if the stage size permits". This venue has less than 10' total before rear risers began. In this case I thought of an old trial at BOSE, from 2006, with two mics for bluegrass acoustic where they positioned the L-1's front to each side slightly angled. Now with the articulated array this position of forward stage may enhance feedback with 10+ open mic's as well & now have the additional advantage of widened dispersion for monitoring.
As far as technique I had found your reference earlier today to Shure's detailed publication on these issues and db loss before gain with each additional mic etc. I did observe close proximity use & only two were cupping their mic, the group (ages mom & Dad then 16 years old all the way to 2 years old).

ST, Also I failed to answer your question on typical venue size ... That ranges primarily from 100-500

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wess,

Hi Wess,

If you can work out the microphone technique and you have 10' feet of stage depth I think you should be able to get the L1™s behind the performers.

In the smaller rooms that I've played, I can certainly get loud enough with the L1™ behind me. In a larger room I would expect that you would have more stage depth.

Do the performers move around much on the stage? For example: Is it possible that performer 1 could end up over at the far right of the stage (as viewed in the Sketch)?

quote:

In this case I thought of an old trial at BOSE, from 2006, with two mics for bluegrass acoustic where they positioned the L-1's front to each side slightly angled. Now with the articulated array this position of forward stage may enhance feedback with 10+ open mic's as well & now have the additional advantage of widened dispersion for monitoring.

I think you are right about the Model II having some impact on the thinking on the Bluegrass layout. It may be as simple as *not* having to angle the L1™s inward.

Lots of movement, we're talking about 2 year old to 16 remember. They use a lot of very good movement both in general staging highlighting soloists etc. And also for comedy there are skit type movements. They need 5 to six feet depth just for proper staging, that doesn't leave them the suggested 6 to eight feet ahead of the L-1's That is why it shows on the original sketch off to either side behind. I still think the forward approach might fare well in this situation. I really had to concentrate to hear all vocals the first listen.

This sounds like an application for headworn microphones.

I thought of that as well except with the feedback issues we already face (& good mic technique as far as proximity) most feedback issues with mic's have included head-worn. I thought this might exacerbate the problem rather than help prevent it. I will follow-up with an update & hopefully some photo's. At least I feel we're on the right track to a solution. Thanks again for your feedback and always efficient help.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wess,

Fixes in place! We ended with changing Mackie 1604 configuration to 5 Microphones paned left 6 paned right. Dedicated left to aux send #1 (Out to T-1 Channel#1) Right to aux send #2 (out to T-1 Channel #3) Mini disk to aux send #4 (out to T-1 Channel#4) Roland Keyboard direct to T-1 Channel #2 Then reset all Mackie gain staging. We added para EQ setting at minus 5db @ 5833Htz .33 band width (the new T-1 Version 1.3 was updated & the addition of the scale showing helped us find the feedback freq. easily) We did also relocate the two L-1's to outboard forward stage (this did add more gain but may not have been needed, however it will check the "whoops I should have muted that mic issues") I showed the advantage of by-passing Mackie altogether (cleaner, crisper, no high gain hum) Currently they are used to using some split tracks & using
their Mackie to mix those as well as the 11 Microphones. So if you get the opportunity go listen to the Allen Family. Schedule on their web site Website http//:www.allenministries.com