Yes, this is ridiculous.....

[danosix]

Ridiculous.... but true.

My guitarist just finished building his 3rd 100watt Marshall stack for our live sound. I'm a little concerned he will be drowning me out.... I use a Hartke Kilo with twin AK410 cabs. I figure, I have one of three choices.
1) Get 2 more cabs, probably 15"s. I wouldn't be able to bridge them, due to impedance. But, I believe I could run the 410s on one side and the 115s on the other in stereo mode. That would be 2 x 350watts @ 4 ohms.
2) Get a 2nd rig...... yikes $$$!
3) Always rely on P.A. support to balance things out.

Any thoughts?

The rigs in question....
View attachment 814518
View attachment 814519

Since you're concerned about this, I'm going to assume you aren't doing arena gigs with any regularity.
Given that, your guitarist is just being selfish in the worst way possible, because when he's that loud not only does he drown you (and likely the rest of the band out), but there's no way he'shearing the rest of you in a way that will allow him to play the best thing for the song and the band.
Don't join the audio wars, the louder the and gets the less any of you ca hear each other properly and the less the FOH can have any proper control (remember he can only turn UP not down if someone is too loud). Talk to the guitarist and tell I'm he needs to do the hair ban thing if he wants stacks on stage and leave two inactive, or if he wants to justify their existence, set up two of them for different levels of distortion and have one as a handy "backup". If he does not respond appropriately, turn DOWN so you are only at all audible when he takes a rest. When he comments say "what. I can't hear you over the ringing I my ears from your rig", when he repeats his question about why you're so quiet tell him you thought he didn't want to hear the rest of the band. This will be even more effective if you can get the rest of the band to do it at the same time.

 

[Deezer Butler]

="Martin Beer, post: 18500898, member: 50170"]This is a digression from the thread, but I always thought that the reason you see singers using two mics taped together in old concert footage was because one was for the FOH system while the other went to the recording console. Mixers weren't very sophisticated in those days.

That Is how I understood it as well...

 

[Deezer Butler]

Since you're concerned about this, I'm going to assume you aren't doing arena gigs with any regularity.
Given that, your guitarist is just being selfish in the worst way possible, because when he's that loud not only does he drown you (and likely the rest of the band out), but there's no way he'shearing the rest of you in a way that will allow him to play the best thing for the song and the band.
Don't join the audio wars, the louder the and gets the less any of you ca hear each other properly and the less the FOH can have any proper control (remember he can only turn UP not down if someone is too loud). Talk to the guitarist and tell I'm he needs to do the hair ban thing if he wants stacks on stage and leave two inactive, or if he wants to justify their existence, set up two of them for different levels of distortion and have one as a handy "backup". If he does not respond appropriately, turn DOWN so you are only at all audible when he takes a rest. When he comments say "what. I can't hear you over the ringing I my ears from your rig", when he repeats his question about why you're so quiet tell him you thought he didn't want to hear the rest of the band. This will be even more effective if you can get the rest of the band to do it at the same time.

You must have missed my previous comment.

 

[Atshen]

I don't feel like reading all thirteen pages, but I'll just add my 0.02$.

Of course he doesn't need six cabs. But to me it looks damn cool on stage (assuming you guys play rock or metal).

You could just use the old trick of having unloaded dummy cabs on stage to look as cool as your guitarist!

Yeah I'm shallow.

 

[mellowinman]

As long as he knows not to turn up too loud, and he doesn't ask me to help lug gear, I would say fine.

 

[Ricky Daion]

Ridiculous.... but true.

My guitarist just finished building his 3rd 100watt Marshall stack for our live sound. I'm a little concerned he will be drowning me out.... I use a Hartke Kilo with twin AK410 cabs. I figure, I have one of three choices.
1) Get 2 more cabs, probably 15"s. I wouldn't be able to bridge them, due to impedance. But, I believe I could run the 410s on one side and the 115s on the other in stereo mode. That would be 2 x 350watts @ 4 ohms.
2) Get a 2nd rig...... yikes $$$!
3) Always rely on P.A. support to balance things out.

Any thoughts?

The rigs in question....
View attachment 814518
View attachment 814519

I can't help but think your guitarist has some inadequacies in other areas...

 

[Dave M]

As long as he knows not to turn up too loud, and he doesn't ask me to help lug gear, I would say fine.

Finally, a common sense statement that actually addresses the perceived "issue".

Has it even been determined, in the last twelve and a half pages of this thread, that the guitar rig in the OP's photo is actually being used too loud? Or is it the fear of an image without really understanding what the problem actually is, or (shudder) might be?

 

[okcrum]

This is a digression from the thread, but I always thought that the reason you see singers using two mics taped together in old concert footage was because one was for the FOH system while the other went to the recording console. Mixers weren't very sophisticated in those days.

Maybe, but in every case I worked live sound for concerts or broadcast, the second mic was a backup in case the first failed. That went for wireless even more.

Saved my @$$ once during a live TV broadcast.

 

[Downunderwonder]

The early Frank Zappa anecdote I told you about, ended up in that he could play louder on stage due (or thanks to) the sub volume the guitar amps had to have on stage later on. He finally understood that even if you have 100 W Marshalls, when mic'd up it goes through a 3-4000 Watt of MONITOR ON STAGE gear, and thus could play way louder than any guitar amp. He could mic up a 50W and get monstrous sound through the wedge monitors anyway, with way more dynamics and detail, than ANY guitar amp. All others heard him to and the sound out front became clearer. They found out he could get way louder, than if he had cranked his amp. He finally subdued.

I think there's the culprit of todays mentality altogether. Those amps where for the days where you had no PA .... does anyone remembers when lead vocalists had to use TWO mices when singing? Yepp, one for left and the other for right. And today, with massive amount of watts in the PA and even monitor systems, certain loudness is uncalled for. Same with 15 " bass bins on stage. Monitor and FOH sound guys hates this. It just rumbles into all other mics, and you'll get the low end from the PA speakers anyway. It's directionless. You can't isolate anything below 50 Hz on stage anyway, it justs travels about... but now for that guitar. I think still Rush manages to stir up a pretty monstruous sounds these days, without any CAB on stage. AMPS they do have, but runs them through simulators and stuff. Geddy's getting all the ooomph he needs. The only thing heard on stage acoustically is the drums.

This is a digression from the thread, but I always thought that the reason you see singers using two mics taped together in old concert footage was because one was for the FOH system while the other went to the recording console. Mixers weren't very sophisticated in those days.

That Is how I understood it as well...

two mics were the first for the singer to sing right into and the second down out of the sweet spot so it doesn't catch much vocal. The 2nd is wired to the mixer in reverse so what it picks up from the stage cancels out the stage in the main mic.

 

[punchdrunk]

Either find a guitarist who lives in the real world, or let us know when your stadium tour begins...

This

 

[samson3382]

two mics were the first for the singer to sing right into and the second down out of the sweet spot so it doesn't catch much vocal. The 2nd is wired to the mixer in reverse so what it picks up from the stage cancels out the stage in the main mic.

I'm curious, is this not done anymore? Not necessary?
Could I use this to fight drums bleeding into vocal mics?

 

[Downunderwonder]

I'm curious, is this not done anymore? Not necessary?
Could I use this to fight drums bleeding into vocal mics?

Don't know if mic technology got better or stages got quieter. Easier to get the drummer to shush some.

 

[okcrum]

two mics were the first for the singer to sing right into and the second down out of the sweet spot so it doesn't catch much vocal. The 2nd is wired to the mixer in reverse so what it picks up from the stage cancels out the stage in the main mic.

I know they did this with the Dead's Wall of Sound for feedback supression, as well.

 

[okcrum]

I'm curious, is this not done anymore? Not necessary?
Could I use this to fight drums bleeding into vocal mics?

This works for all stage sound cancellation - the idea is everything cancels except the vocal sung into one mic. You can tell when this is being done because the mics are separated by a little distance. When they're taped right together it's usually so they're redundant or they are two feeds, since both mics then have to pick up the vocal. I've seen a single mic used to pick up and cancel stage sound from all the vocal channels, as well, but that is less common and less effective.

The out-of-phase idea came in during the time things were also being doubled up for redundancy, but to make them redundant you'd need at least one extra mic making three, which gets silly.

These days, if you see a mic failure, there's a roadie in the wings who's out on stage pronto with a replacement. The gear's gotten more rugged, but the logistics have gotten better too.

EDIT: It's not done anymore (at least for feedback suppression) because of monitors, and because the FOH is out in front of the mics now. Good sound crews are careful about monitor and side fill placement and phase. Most feedback I've seen in smaller venues is from the monitors being badly placed or phased incorrectly relative to the mics. You have to worry about reflections from the monitors hitting the mics. In ear monitors neatly eliminate the issue. Today you also see goldfish bowls (baffles) around the drummer.

 

[Dave M]

I know they did this with the Dead's Wall of Sound for feedback supression, as well.

Right. The two mics were 180° out of phase to each other. Think: "humbucker".

 

[Honch]

This works for all stage sound cancellation - the idea is everything cancels except the vocal sung into one mic. You can tell when this is being done because the mics are separated by a little distance. When they're taped right together it's usually so they're redundant or they are two feeds, since both mics then have to pick up the vocal. I've seen a single mic used to pick up and cancel stage sound from all the vocal channels, as well, but that is less common and less effective.

The out-of-phase idea came in during the time things were also being doubled up for redundancy, but to make them redundant you'd need at least one extra mic making three, which gets silly.

These days, if you see a mic failure, there's a roadie in the wings who's out on stage pronto with a replacement. The gear's gotten more rugged, but the logistics have gotten better too.

EDIT: It's not done anymore (at least for feedback suppression) because of monitors, and because the FOH is out in front of the mics now. Good sound crews are careful about monitor and side fill placement and phase. Most feedback I've seen in smaller venues is from the monitors being badly placed or phased incorrectly relative to the mics. You have to worry about reflections from the monitors hitting the mics. In ear monitors neatly eliminate the issue. Today you also see goldfish bowls (baffles) around the drummer.

The main thing is ... which would make matters worse, it wasn't the same type of mic that were doubled. If there were any thruth to phase cancellations, both mikes should be at least equal brand/model and "fresh". You couldn't have one Sure 545 coupled to any Sure sm57 or sm58. Would've looked cool though with Roger Daltreys stage antics, his Jo-jo and pendulum tricks with two mics flailing around...

Here's Ozzy! Early 1970... Huge big on top, and seemingly a cigar 545 at the bottom:

Well, considering his nasal vocals... maybe much needed...

 

[denhou1974]

Buy him some In Ear Monitors. He can be as loud as he wants without everyone else having to suffer through it.

 

[mmbongo]

Oh My, that sounds like a marital aid.



I want one, but I'll bet they're pricey.

A couple of these and some plywood and you've got the same thing. Probably, I have no idea what that Pleaure Board has inside, but I'd just about guartantee it's just some of these. We had lots of fun with these in the car audio world back in the 90's, and I had a home theater couch rigged up with a few of them.
"AuraSound AST-2B-4 Pro Bass Shaker Tactile Transducer" from www.parts-express.com!

 

[Honch]

Right. The two mics were 180° out of phase to each other. Think: "humbucker".

Find it funny that this would work...at all:

Here's a stack and some bunch of knobs for you. Doesn't your guitarist wants all options on guitar pickup configuration as well? Dead again, Phil Lesh this time:

 

[Deezer Butler]

Find it funny that this would work...at all:

Here's a stack and some bunch of knobs for you. Doesn't your guitarist wants all options on guitar pickup configuration as well? Dead again, Phil Lesh this time:

These guys make my band seem a lot more sensible..... LOL!!