Help - Advice on PA Systems req for Bluegrass band
Steve W
and if I can be pointed to a more appropriate area I would be
gratefull.
We are a 4 piece Bluegrass Band that needs a PA system for small pubs
and clubs & need some advice on the type of equipment to get.
The band consists of Banjo, Guitar, Mandolin, Double Bass & 4 vocals.
We intend getting a system of around 300 watts. Because we mike
everything we need a minimum of 8 low impedence inputs to the PA.
We'll probably end up buying a 12 int 2 mixer & seperate power amps or
a 12 into 2 powered mixer. We need flexibility and are unsure in the
following areas:-
1. Should we put th band through the PA or through a seperate, back
line Bass amp.
2. What sort of pickup should we get for the bass & will it need a
Pre-Amp
3.What sort of speaker. We have been told we need full range speakers
because of the combination of vocals and instruments. What are these?
and will we need different ones if we decide to put the bass through
the PA?
Thanks
Steve W
Steve Robinson
>line Bass amp.
>
>2. What sort of pickup should we get for the bass & will it need a
>Pre-Amp
I use the Fishman bass pickup--it mounts on the bridge. Other popular
pickups are the Barcus Berry and Underwood. All of these *can* be
used with a pre-amp, but do not need it. Before your bass player
spends $100 on a pickup, though, try miking one of the sound holes.
I haven't used my pickup in a few years.
>3.What sort of speaker. We have been told we need full range speakers
>because of the combination of vocals and instruments. What are these?
>and will we need different ones if we decide to put the bass through
>the PA?
For the PA size you are talking about, you will probably get full range
speakers. This means that all the signal goes through one set of speaker
enclosures without being crossed-over for different frequencies (i.e.
treble through the smaller speakers, bass through the larger ones. If you
put bass into the mixer, there is no problem going full range.
Large PA systems for rock bands and huge concerts are crossed over--hope
your PA never gets that complicated.
====
For your band, I would recommend finding a very simple 8-channel powered
mixer. That way it's all in one unit. Peavy makes several models of
these and, despite the bad name they gained for themselves in the 80's,
they make good equipment.
As for mics, I'd stay simple. The industry standard is the Shure SM57 and
SM58. 58's are perfect for vocals; 57's should be pointed right at the
soundholes of your instruments
>
>Thanks
>Steve W
>
Ed & Theresa Gebauer
>====
>For your band, I would recommend finding a very simple 8-channel powered
>mixer. That way it's all in one unit. Peavy makes several models of
>these and, despite the bad name they gained for themselves in the 80's,
>they make good equipment.
Greetings and some expansion on the above...
I just bought a sound system for our dance group and while I'm
confident I got the best I could for the budget we had to work with,
it has a couple deficiencies.
The head we got was a Peavey XR 680 E, 8 channel dual power amp mixer.
By using a short 4" jumper I route the Monitor out to one of the
internal power amps which gives me the convenience of not having to
carry around a second monitor amp. But here's what you get....
There's no EQ of any sort in the circuit that feeds the monitors so
feedback control in the level adjustment only. This could be solved
by inserting a Graphic EQ in the path of that 4" jumper but we were
going for simplicity and economy.
The sound also appears to be "colored" slightly by this head (as
compared to other, more expensive mixers I've tried). It is not at
all displeasing but it does exist.
>As for mics, I'd stay simple. The industry standard is the Shure SM57 and
>SM58. 58's are perfect for vocals; 57's should be pointed right at the
>soundholes of your instruments
These are the mikes I got and while I'm pleased with their ruggedness
and sound, they tend to have a response hump around 8-10 khz that
really isn't a problem till you get about 6 or 8 of them all on stage
at the same time. Again, a graphic should take care of this easily
but you should be aware it exists. Alternatives would be condensor
mikes that have a flat response. Though the Peavey board we purchased
had Phantom Power, the better mikes were out of our budget.
The speakers we bought were the Peavey 115 DL's with Mini Monitor
II's. Light weight and sound good.
Good Luck!
************************************************************************
Theresa Gebauer Web browsers visit our
Overland Pk, KS holiday page
http:www.//home.gvi.net/~tgebauer/card.html
tgeb...@gvi.net
NOTE - NEW EMAIL ADDRESS!
*************************************************************************
Conrad Shiba
First, condenser mics are great on acoustic instruments. I use a TOA
condenser on my guitar and hammered dulcimer and it sounds great. On
acoustic guitar, I would not point a mic into the soundhole, as that
leads to a boomy sound. As Dan Crary points out, you can get plenty of
sound without the boominess by pointing the mic at the lower end of the
fingerboard.
If compactness is a factor (it is for me), check out the Electro-Voice
S200 speakers. They are 12-inch two-way speakers in a molded structural
polymer case with handles and stand mounts built in. EV sells an
optional active equalizer for these speakers that extends the low-end
response (recommended). The great thing is that these speakers only
weight 36 pounds apiece. The S100 model is similar but has a lower
power-handling capacity. There is also a subwoofer available now in this
series. With my Ross 6-channel powered mixer (300 watts) and a pair of
Ultimate speaker stands, this rig is powerful and very compact.
D. Dubois
>>SM58. 58's are perfect for vocals; 57's should be pointed right at the
>>soundholes of your instruments
Hi all,
Please don't assume, like most musicians seem to, that the mic should
be pointed right at the soundhole of your instrument! While there are
bound to be instances where this is best, I have encountered very few
of them in my 10 years of sound management.
The sound of your instrument that you think of as "natural" does not
come from one area of the instrument, but is a blend of harmonics
coming from all over the instrument, the soundhole and the reverberant
field of the environment you're in. Ideally, we would place the mic
1-3 feet from the instrument to capture all of this as our ears do.
But of course this is where the enormous PA compromises rear their
ugly heads.
In most PA settings we musicians find ourselves in, we are closer to
the "gain before feedback" threshold than we want to be. This means
that we must maximize the input of the instrument into the mic and
minimize the input from speakers and room reverberation into the mic.
But it is rarely a good choice to accomplish this by going for the
soundhole.
The soundhole is not "where the sound is", but it is where SOME of the
sound is. And the frequencies that dominate that area not only tend
to aggravate feedback/resonance problems, but will tend to favor the
low to mid frequencies of the instrument. In most of the poor PA
management situations I have witnessed, these frequencies were already
too prominent in the mix, and this tends to aggravate room
reverberation, which produces a boomy, echoy (sp?) mess.
Equalization adjustments should usually be made as far "upstream" as
possible. When you carefully place a mic on an instrument you are in
effect adjusting the EQ about as far upstream as you can get. This
will make EQ management on the board much easier and cleaner,
especially if you're using a low-grade system with few EQ
opportunities. During the sound check, with the channel EQ set flat,
try different mic locations on the different instruments before
resorting to the channel EQ. And try to use EQ to cut rather than
boost whenever possible. For an ensemble, make adjustments that will
complement the sound of the whole ensemble, not just each instrument
on its own. This process goes a long way in helping to accomplish a
clean, intelligible and "natural" sound thru a PA system.
I apologize for jumping in and venting about this, but as you can see
it's something that gets me riled up. Numerous times in my capacity
as soundperson I have optimized mic locations for performers and asked
them to observe the mic orientation, only to have them default right
back to the soundhole during the show. This gets very frustrating!
Old-time music forever! 8^D
Doug DuBois
Paul Tyler
>Please don't assume, like most musicians seem to, that the mic should
>be pointed right at the soundhole of your instrument! While there are
>bound to be instances where this is best, I have encountered very few
>of them in my 10 years of sound management.
> . . . [and much more great stuff]
Thanks
Paul T
mcle...@esper.com
>>>As for mics, I'd stay simple. The industry standard is the Shure SM57 and
>>>SM58. 58's are perfect for vocals; 57's should be pointed right at the
>>>soundholes of your instruments
>Hi all,
>Please don't assume, like most musicians seem to, that the mic should
>be pointed right at the soundhole of your instrument! While there are
>bound to be instances where this is best, I have encountered very few
>of them in my 10 years of sound management.
>The sound of your instrument that you think of as "natural" does not
>Old-time music forever! 8^D
>Doug DuBois
I play in a trad. Bluegrass band in Townsend Tn. and have found that
by using Condenser mic. aprox. 2-3 feet infront of and aprox. i ft.
higher than inst. gives a very natural and pleasing blend for inst.
and vocals. We use this setup for 2 guitars, 1 fiddle, dobro, up-right
bass, and mandolin. We have Had very pleasing comments about the
natural sound. I have used this in stage and lounge situations. Put
2-or 3 Cond. mic. in a semi-cir. and gather 'round.
Have Fun!!
B.G. Forever
mcle...@esper.com
Doug DuBois
>I play in a trad. Bluegrass band in Townsend Tn. and have found that
>by using Condenser mic. aprox. 2-3 feet infront of and aprox. i ft.
>higher than inst. gives a very natural and pleasing blend for inst.
>and vocals. We use this setup for 2 guitars, 1 fiddle, dobro, up-right
>bass, and mandolin. We have Had very pleasing comments about the
>natural sound. I have used this in stage and lounge situations. Put
>2-or 3 Cond. mic. in a semi-cir. and gather 'round.
Very interesting. I'd love to know more about your overall volume
potential in the mains, do you use monitors, etc.
When my old-time band (Euphoria Stringband) plays in a concert
setting, we use 3 Shure 55-SH's (for an old-timey look) and a Fishman
bass pickup. That's all. We have five people, all on instruments and
vocals. Due to our spacing from the mics (1-2 feet) we run the input
trim pots wide open on the mic channels. We cannot use monitors in
this environment, but that is not much of a problem. We form a
semi-circle around the mics, get in as close as we can, and this helps
us focus on LISTENING to each other (something that is easy to lose
with the typical setup with a long straight line of mics and monitors
to make up for the visual and aural distance).
One thing we didn't expect is the visual interest this setup added to
our presentations. We balance our own mix by backing off instruments
during vocals, moving in for instrumental emphasis, etc. Therefore,
we're always moving around and having fun at it, too. This adds a
great deal of interest for the audience, compared to everyone having
their own mic(s) and remaining (relatively) motionless behind them.
And since old-time music is heavy on the fiddle tunes which can sound
all alike to non-enthusiasts, this works greatly in our favor while we
are trying to spread the old-time gospel to the masses.
I wouldn't expect that you can get much gain out of your described
setup, especially in a noisy environment. We have found this setup to
be unsuitable for barn dances and marginal for outdoor gigs, because
of insufficient gain before feedback (inside) and low signal to noise
ratio (outside).
We have had few shows with the 3-mic setup where we had the luxury of
a good sound person at the board. Usually I have to personally run
sound and play at the same time, which does not encourage the best
sound management. I'm always asking audience members how it sounds so
that I can evaluate the success of our setup, and they have always
responded that it sounds good. I just wish I could spend more time
behind the board and see (hear) for myself.
Thanks for writing!
Doug DuBois
Paul J. Stamler
become the standard of the industry, but I'd like to enter a demurrer.
They are not partticularly natural sounding microphones, but add an
etched brightness to the sound that many people, including me, find
unnatural and at times excruciating. Microphones with a flatter frequency
response sound less spectacular in the store, but are far less wearing on
the audience's ears. They feed back less, too. I've switched bands that
were not used to flat microphones from SM-57/58s, and once they got used
to the fact that it didn't sound like a PA anymore, it just sounded like
music, they never wanted to go back. Good flat mikes for a reasonable
price include the Electro-Voice RE-11 and PL-11 (essentially the same
mike), and (at a higher price) the RE-15 and RE-16 (for instruments and
vocals respectively, although the 16 also works well on instruments).
These mikes are darn near indestructable too. A good source for pro
equipment at reasonable prices is Milam Audio, 309-346-3161.
I second (or third) the idea of not putting mikes on soundholes. On most
guitars, you get much cleaner sound miking the instrument on the
fretboard (about the 15th fret), or about 4" below that spot, or on the
bridge, or about 4" below *that* spot. Same with mandolins.
The idea of distance-miking a bluegrass band isn't new: in fact, when I
was growing up all the performers I saw worked that way (bluegrass
bands, folk bands (the Weavers), old-time bands (New Lost City Ramblers).
They all had a lovely choreography of soloists moving in and out from a
single microphone. Of course, levels were lower then (which was a good
thing). The idea of every instrument and voice having its own mike didn't
come along until the late 60s. I still think it's a good idea, but I
suspect most engineers wouldn't know how to handle it. And of course, it
does require the performers to shower regularly. :-)}}}}
Peace.
Paul
Maggie J. Murphy
> >>As for mics, I'd stay simple. The industry standard is the Shure SM57 and
> >>SM58. 58's are perfect for vocals; 57's should be pointed right at the
> >>soundholes of your instruments
>
Jeez, what an interesting thread. Uh, I've been in sound for about 20
yrs. now and I just really don't like those Shure's in any application.
Oh, maybe loud rock n' roll vocals in a bar, but how else would get over
all the amps? The front end is pretty important. I like mics from
Germany and Austria. Listen to the instrument, find the place where it
sounds best or most pleasing to the ear, mic it there and throttle up.
The rest just seems to be preference's and everybody has an opinion, an
amp, a console, a speaker, and freaking outboard gear they like best.
What the heck is best? Whoever has the longest drool probably has the
best monitors anyway.
Just my 2 cents
Oldtime1
sound in concert situations and at festivals by using a single condenser
mic. The monitors are turned off and the soundman can go have a
cheeseburger during their set. They sing four part harmony and use
mandolin, banjo, guitar, fiddle and bass (which is a separate feed). They
gather around this mic, a common Audio-Technica condenser. 4033? I think
they'd do better with an AKG 414, but they'd spend considerably more
money. My organization organizes tours and while we have not gone as far
as Doyle and Dale, we are using condenser mics on stage, mainly Neumann KM
84s and the aforementioned 414s. These are combined with side fill
monitors nearly off stage and an occasional small, directed monitor
(usually for a semi-deaf person). This gets rid of the monitor and mic
forest visual clutter and the cheapening of the sound that travels with
it. The audience hears the performers far better. This requires
rehearsal for sound dudes and performers; it is a considerable transition.
Yes, 57s & 58s are okay. We have 20 and use them less and less, mainly
for people who have everything figured out and don't want clutter it up
with anything new. This is not a matter of doing more with less -- at
least not in terms of money. I believe our three 414s cost more than our
20 SM 58s did a few years ago. Joe Wilson