Aux sends for foldbacks - pre or post EQ/dsp

[Fluddman]

Just wondering how you are running foldback sends now you have the choice of pre or post EQ/DSP aux sends (I assume prefader is a given).

Most of the time I have vocals-only in the foldbacks and work in familiar rooms with familiar bands. I habitually go with 'pre' EQ/DSP sends but lately I have started to check which one sounds the best and go with that. The post send usually sounds better but if I need stupid loud foldbacks or the singer needs lots of compression I will go with the pre send.
 
How do you guys do foldbacks on the DL1608?
 
Cheers

[stevegarris]

I once sold a board (Mackie) and purchased a Mixwiz to achieve pre-aux EQ and pre-aux insert for compression (also needed the 6 sends, vs 4). After using the Mixwiz, I found I did not like the pre EQ. In my opinion, the singer's monitor wants to hear the same tonal adjustments I'm making to that mic or line input for the house. The mix output is then adjusted as a whole using the aux EQ.

When using my DL, I use post EQ/dsp. I use the compression very lightly (2:1 and only hitting the peaks). With the bands I'm currently working for it has worked flawlessly. I'm running bands that utilize both IEM's and live monitors. If there was an option to have post EQ but pre compression I would use that instead, but what I'm doing is working very well.

[Fluddman]

Thanks for posting Steve.

I definitely go post EQ for IEMs but for live monitors I am not 100% sold but starting to do it more often.

Cheers

[Wynnd]

I was thinking about this and if you set the EQ for the FOH it will be wrong for the monitor.  Unless you've already compensated for both speaker sets with the 32 band EQ.  Prep work really helps.

[WK154]

I was thinking about this and if you set the EQ for the FOH it will be wrong for the monitor.  Unless you've already compensated for both speaker sets with the 32 band EQ.  Prep work really helps.

I think you will find this explanation on eq's quite clear about the role of channel vs. FOH mix. Dave Rat is the FOH/MON engineer for the Red Hot Chilly Peppers and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU9BmupC62c
Setup order is important. Channels first house second then tweaks. It's important that you take note of where the tools are for the adjustments and can you substitute your ears on stage as opposed to headphone isolation and your ears. Ultimately the talent should be satisfied with the settings. You can also not determine the amount of stage bleed into a mic by iPad and ears for repositioning mics. The iPad/ear combo mobility is great at checking audience sound not so good for other things.

[stevegarris]

I was thinking about this and if you set the EQ for the FOH it will be wrong for the monitor.  Unless you've already compensated for both speaker sets with the 32 band EQ.  Prep work really helps.

I think you will find this explanation on eq's quite clear about the role of channel vs. FOH mix. Dave Rat is the FOH/MON engineer for the Red Hot Chilly Peppers and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU9BmupC62c
Setup order is important. Channels first house second then tweaks. It's important that you take note of where the tools are for the adjustments and can you substitute your ears on stage as opposed to headphone isolation and your ears. Ultimately the talent should be satisfied with the settings. You can also not determine the amount of stage bleed into a mic by iPad and ears for repositioning mics. The iPad/ear combo mobility is great at checking audience sound not so good for other things.

Excellent video, which explains my method perfectly!

One major downside to the DL, is that I don't put the headphones on as often as I used to.

[abzurd]

FWIW, these points also call out the way Mackie implemented the recording feature is flawed. I'm pretty sure the recording is post Main EQ so you're recording any compensation done to the room. Between that, and the fact the FOH mix is seldom a good recording mix, the chances of getting a good sounding and properly mixed recording are pretty slim. That's why if I'm trying to get something half way decent I'll run the mains out of an aux and use the main buss mixed differently with the eq bypassed.

[Wynnd]

Liked the video too.  It's not exactly my approach but they are very close to each other.  I start with a flat system response.  (EQ as necessary to get there.  I usually use a DriveRack PX or PA for system EQ and anti-feedback.)  I have the channel EQs flat with a HPF and rarely change them.  I do have a couple of mics that have so much roll off on the high end, that they aren't useable without some channel EQ making up for that flaw in them.  Anyway, looking at my MixWiz you'll find that most of the channel EQs are at the 12 O'clock position.  On my drummer's boards, the channel EQs are attempting to make up for a system that has never been flat and they are all over the place.  (And they don't even look similar channel to channel.  The mics aren't that different.)

[WK154]

FWIW, these points also call out the way Mackie implemented the recording feature is flawed. I'm pretty sure the recording is post Main EQ so you're recording any compensation done to the room. Between that, and the fact the FOH mix is seldom a good recording mix, the chances of getting a good sounding and properly mixed recording are pretty slim. That's why if I'm trying to get something half way decent I'll run the mains out of an aux and use the main buss mixed differently with the eq bypassed.

Agreed and it's even worst than that. I think the whole recording thing was an afterthought. Since the DL can't record all channels for a post mix-down and only two channels are recorded they certainly shouldn't be taken off the L/R bus. Use a stereo aux bus so that you can at least get a reasonable spacial stereo recording using 2 mics just for that. These don't belong in the FOH or monitor mix, no processing just the right level. You'll get the best idea of how you sound to the audience with this and have a chance to correct what needs to be corrected.  The iPad level meter should also be functional so you don't record blind as you do now. This approach also get you a second recording path to whatever you hook to the two aux's or at least a monitoring station (headphone amp and headphone). This is all based on the desire to record using the iPad. I don't waste my time with this it's just not worth the aggravation. I use a separate recording setup and even think you'll be ahead of the game using a Zoom H2 or similar recorder.

[Fluddman]

I was thinking about this and if you set the EQ for the FOH it will be wrong for the monitor.  Unless you've already compensated for both speaker sets with the 32 band EQ.  Prep work really helps.

Some interesting discussion to date but I think we are drifting off the topic.

Wynn,

I typically do compensate for the FOH and each foldback send using the GEQ. After doing so, I've started to try the aux sends for the foldbacks in both the pre and post EQ/dsp positions. Often the post EQ/dsp positions sounds better than the pre (nicer more natural sound). Don't ask me why this is, as my channel EQ is typically the hpf set at around 110 Hz and fairly flat from there up plus a very gentle compressor setting. 

I was eagerly awaiting the last update so I could have pre EQ/dsp aux sends but it seems it was not as critical as I thought. I still like have the option and will always go 'pre' for bands that want really loud foldbacks or if I need heaps of compression to tame a wild vocalist.

I know some folk here always use 'post' for their aux sends to foldbacks and that seems to make a lot of sense if you are not having to deal with feedback prevention.

In the digital world, I guess it wouldn't be all that hard to add additional channel Eq for each of the aux sends - probably overkill but it sure would be useful for nice monitor mixes. Also would be nice to have the option of using parametric or the GEQ on the aux sends. HPF in particular would be nice to have on each aux send.

Cheers

[WK154]

OK back to your original inquiry. Here is my explanation in case you didn't quite understand Dave. Channel adjustments for tonality done with a headphone (this eliminates most outside influences) is done first. The whole system amounts to the talent, mic and position, stage bleed, preamp adjustment, eq's and effects and ending at the headphone and the talents ears. Your ears if you want to micromanage. This needs to be gotten right and has nothing to do with feedback (room acoustics). So for a separate adjustment for this for aux's doesn't make any sense. Get the first one right and move on. Mackie and most other Mfg. didn't get this wrong. I do have a unit which is flexible enough and would allow a second setting of eq's etc. but to what purpose? I would hope your final product from this sounds better than pre or you need to go back and fix it. So you ask why then do you even need monitor mix if everything is perfect. Well for one who does the monitor serve? In IEM its very clear in stage monitors it's not. So why would you want the kick and tops in you IEM or your monitor if your right next to the drummer? The vibration alone will probably do. This is where monitor and IEM mixes will differ. The more me or less them or none of this is why. Levels will change for most of this again nothing to do with FOH. All a personal choice of the talent for their own comfort and style and hopefully not yours. Now for FOH and feedback. Unless it's a really bad acoustic situation you should be able to tame it and produce a reasonable level for the audience. If you want to damage eardrums just let the feedback handle that it won't take long and after that it wont matter what it sounds like  . A parametric would be nicer to deal with for this than a graphic eq but it will do. Don't try to over-control the sound it won't work. This approach has worked for me for decades and the digital revolution hasn't changed the basics, just packaged things into smaller boxes and made things more convenient.

[Fluddman]

WK - thanks for your detailed reply. I do appreciate you taking the time and I do get what dave is saying.

I thought my original enquiry was just asking whether people are using the pre or post Eq/dsp option for aux sends.

From your post it sounds like you are using post.

Cheers

[WK154]

I believe that this forum SW allows survey type requests maybe it's time somebody tried it. Yes I'm all for post.

[walterw]

doing loud rock and roll in small clubs, so vocals gotta be audible and even out front but also strong in monitors. that means auxes are pre, so i can compress out-front vox and leave monitors uncompressed.

i wouldn't mind a post-EQ but pre-comp option, but until then it's pre-everything.

[RoadRanger]

I want my monitor sends post-HPF, post-gate, switchable pre-or-post-EQ, and pre-comp. If switchable per channel I'd want the option of post-comp on channels like keys, kick, bass. I personally am still running post DSP with the comps on vocals only shaving off the peaks - soft knee 4:1 I think.