Hmmm, I personally feel that the ability of a wedge monitor to get loud and sound good with minimum feedback and minimum time spent EQ'ing would be one of the most relevant aspects for a stage monitor.
@readerwriter You touch on an interesting point. I agree and have found that often engineers will EQ monitors for maximum perceived volume. The artist in turn, often listen for clarity. This disparity between what the engineer perceives as correct and what the artist desires often results in a loud wedge that does not sound good and is over EQ'ed.
that looks like changed since then, at least for my little experience i'm having nowadays in middle east... by the way, i wanted to point something. I can see that the frequency response is different and looks more linear and smooth on the db and l acoustics, looks like dropping slowly from the mid high frequencies on the EAW. Might be this the reason why 2-3 db difference on the mid frequencies triggers the feedback?
I should do though to be honest so far I kind of do these videos last minute and fairly spontaneously when I have time and an idea. I do intend on putting together a better/cleaner setup to make the videos.
I've had the pleasure of using "Pro Wedges" before and I can say that they are the best sounding monitors I've ever heard! Hearing your vocals in all ranges singing low like Elvis or high like Plant. With these you will be able to sing at your best!
@thebiggaloot1 Rat Sound owns HiQ's, MicroWedges & D&B wedges, we rent out all these systems & each has a set of assets that makes them useful. I did the video to demonstrate something I feel is very interesting & does not show up in the specs. II personally believe feedback stability while maintaining optimum sound quality is one of the most important traits a stage monitor can exhibit.. As far as #2, Chili Peppers and Queens of the Stone Age rehearse with Microwedges & no EQ's.
Gain before feedback is largely a function of the consistency of a speaker’s dispersion and frequency response. It is the absence of lobes in the dispersion pattern that permits higher perceived volume before the onset of feedback. Smooth dispersion across the frequency spectrum is very hard to achieve, requiring serious research investment. Most pro companies show their speakers plots at a variety of frequencies. The ones with the smoothest response plots at a wide range of frequencies are going to be less susceptible to feedback, all other things being equal. It should be said that the same exact thing applies to the microphone. The polar plots give a lot of useful guidance.
Just landed here and checked out this video. When pushed hard I thought the MicroWedge 15 out performed the rest with the MicroWedge 12 coming in second. Nice design. Nice work.
Mr rat. You are the craziest of all, but i do love the orginally and the environment where you test the gear. I have used L'acoustics in many different ocations and i believe is the best off them all. Thanks for the video
I think there's some kind of dependency between max stable SPL and form factor of wedges with complicated reflection/resonance system of microphone plus face. I mean - the narrower (close to the size of the head) the wedge, then more higher stable SPL can be reached.
@ToOlOGT22 Yep, there is a switch inside the port that puts the wedge in passive mode and allows them to run full range without a processor Though you want to use a pretty large power amp, bigger the better. The wedges will run on a amps over 1000 watts a channel.
HEY DAVE , It has been 7 years since you did this Video , It is about time you do a new one . This time do one on as many different monitors you can get your hands on to test . Also Leave out the Gated Reverb this time . Love learning from you . The Best places I have found to learn from are BAR BANDS . They are on the road 300 days a year working with equipment that is as old as dirt and HAVE to get by with what they own . But they make it work and Grow up to be like you ... A Hard working Man .. Good Luck in all you do ..
I may do, at some point once I start focusing on the new wedge design I am working on. In the meantime my focus is on the subwoofer designs. Primarily the Rat Sound SuperSub 30, SDS30. should have a video of that in the next month or two
Well, first lets clarify. 1"(throat diameter) typically refers to drivers with 1.75" to 2" diameter diaphragms and 2" (throat) usually refers 3" or 4" diameter diaphragm drivers. Lets do the math on surface area (Pi*Rsquared and circumferences (Pi*D). 2" dia would be approx 3sq inches & 6 inches. A 3" would be approx 7sq inches and 9 inches& a 4" dia would be approx 12 sq inches and 12 inches. More surface area increases max output, more voice coil circumference increases power handling 2"=appro
@leefanyee Well, the 8 ohm load with two sets of wire would see 1/2 the loss into speaker wire compared to 1 set of wires driving a 4 ohm. Use 2 sets of wire on the 4 ohm and it is back to the same. The third method would be to wire the speakers in series and bridge mono the amp. If the amp can handle 2 ohm loads, the bridged option will give you maximum power minimum loss into speaker wire. The dual 8 ohm option will give you less power per speaker and the 4 ohm 1/2 amp gives the lowest.
Sorry for the distraction but I really should do my TH-cam videos this way. Set up several wedges in a big warehouse and lecture to them. Sounds freaking great! Did I mention that I am not an engineer, but I do know a German engineer and a Czech one too ... I said ... a Czech one too ....
@mirceaciuciuc I chose the M2 for 2 reasons: 1) We see them spec'ed on riders of major artists & the M4's rarely are 2) Rat sound owns them and we do not own M4's. Actually the M2 is an active only wedge as is the HiQ, the MicroWedge is passive or active. To keep things fair, I used all three with "factory setups." To some the dedicated amp is an asset, to other it is an issue. Regardless, I just compared the off the shelf manufacturer setups to show and aspect that specs sheets do not cover.
Dave, thanks for sharing your knowledge. It seems to me like the Microwedge are slightly pre-eq'd from hearing the noise test? Still very interesting test. The toughest mons I've had to work with are the QSC KW122. The horn is not suitable for monitor duty IMHO...
@thebiggaloot1 I think a good engineer is more relevant than good gear in every instance and a good engineer with good gear is always better than a reduction in either. As far as sound quality all the wedges tested are well in the window of pro acceptability sound quality wise, some just take more work than others to achieve the goal at hand. Max volume wise, the D&B's box per box will win. Pound per pound or size wise or time spent to achieve changes things.
Just for a little laugh, I’m a retired touring drummer/singer. We were at Dollywood, sold out, my tech dangled a fake spider in my face as I played the drums. I lept from my throne, ripping the hardwired cm-311 headset mic and Shure wired belt pack out of the weak point. Granted, I’m running the backing track via foot switch, so it’s still playing, but I’m not. 😂lol . Techs yelling, it’s fake, it’s a joke. Well, now I have no monitor as my ears were hardwired, and I ripped it out lol.
I did an interesting experiment. Two monitors were placed on the ground and the microphones were placed in the middle. The frequency response and level of the two speakers were all adjusted to the same level. At this time, if the same signal is pushed at the same time, logically speaking, The sound heard at the position of the microphone should be in the middle of the two speakers, but in fact it is not, even completely to one side
Hmmm, possibly something else is wrong. When two sources reproduce the same signal, maximum summation will occur at the equidistant points from the two source. Or put another way, if the signals from two sources do not maximally sum at the equidistant points, the signal sources are not identical in time, phase, polarity and/or distance.
@@DaveRat Theoretically, the sound image should appear in the middle of the two speakers, but because these are two different models (both 15-inch coaxial), I now guess that it should be due to the difference in phase between the two (due to the Haas effect) The result
Yes, different models can have a wide array of differences. Some companies will invert polarity on the HF to improve summing to LF at the crossover region. I am guessing that is what is happening in your test.
@leefanyee I have not used either of those, though I will venture to say that floor porting and a coax design will be hard to beat with a conventionally ported seperate horn and driver setup.
I've used Microwedge 12s on a lot of shows, they get decently loud and don't need a lot of EQ. I have done pretty loud shows where I haven't needed much if any EQ on them. However, you don't always get your first (or second or third) choice for amps, so unless I know I'm getting what I want (lab greuppen) I'll useually opt for the meyer 12 or 212.
Interesting video. I might be taking a too much of a technical approach, but isn't this just testing the frequency response of the wedges? You can actually see the dips on the spectrum analyzer. You could think of it as a factory eq'ed wedge. I can honesty say I don't know if i'd like that, the technical voice inside my head says I'd want to control the frequency of that dip myself. But then again it is probably pretty practical in the real world. I'll probably never know, the band I mix uses in-ear, makes it so much cleaner though.
The good engineer is probably more relevant then the good eq in this instance. I don't believe maintaining optimum sound quality was considered by this test. However, I will also say that these are all wonderful wedges. vern7530 3 minutes ago
How come you didn't test with the usual "1,2,3 and 10,12,6" to cover a broder range of the human voice besides "Hey, hey hey" ? My favorite montier wedge currently as an engineer right is the Ps15 by NEXO which i think work amazing for house of worships b.c of quality, coverage and frequency range. For your typical "Rock N Roll" applications the EAW MicroWedge is A-mazing!... Minimal ringing out and eq adjustments. Thank you for the demo Dave.
@www73171 I agree, the less eq you use the more gain before feedback you will have. It's all about phase, every filter you apply puts you further out of phase with your source and the more gain you apply up or down to each filter also puts you further out of phase. The less you interfere with a solid signal chain the better the performance will be. Actual gain and perceived loudness will always win the day when you have a stage full of really demanding "talent" Thanks Dave, you da man!
@musicianstl Currently in my opinion JBL does not make a stage monitor that is competitive on the top touring levels. JBL is well known for studio monitors though
A really cheap amp may cause some issues but it's fairly easy to make a fairly flat response amp. As far as drivers, they have a huge impact on feedback. Cheap and non linear drivers will feedback much easier. Any resonances or peaks in the response will de stabilize things and speakers are the weak link, followed by mics, then everything else in the signal chain
Thanks for your reply. With drivers, I take it this is to do specifically with frequency response? Or are there other factors like voice coil inductance? Do things like settling time not affect feedback, even if indirectly? If I get the gist of your reply, with a D&B amplifier for instance, these problems are not likely to exist in any significant way. Thanks.
With drivers there are so many things that can cause issues, any residences or unevenness in the response or cabinet design or reflections from the cabinet or reflections in the horn throat materials that are too thick or too thin or too hard or understand or overdamped can all be issues increasing feedback
I designed the microwedge originally and licenced to radian and used a radian coax. When I moved the licence to EAW I worked with them to improve the series. I chose a 18Sound for the coax and was able to increase efficiency, improve high frequency response, reduce cone surround failure issues and improve the frequency response linearity, increase maximum output level, and increase power handling of the drivers and crossover. Additionally, I upgraded the grills to 12 gauge, added damping to reduce reflections from the sidewalks between the grill and baffle, added fly track hardware, Also, I worked with EAW to develop multiple presets for both passive and active operation. The presets are downloadable as well as imbedded in powersoft amps. Radian, went on to develop a knockoff of the microwedge that lacks the patented trapezoid sidewalls.
There is no real difference when with different mixing consoles. I have compared the Micro To 115XT using a Midas XL4, An ATI mic pre, Mackie Oynx and PM5d with the same results each time.
They are all different. The microwedge is the most stable feedback wise and smooth sounding. The d&b has a very good punchy sound and the l'acoustics was so so but has since been discontinued and their new wedges are quite good
Feedback over a narrow range indicates irregularities in the response and that max Volume has not been reached. A perfect speak mic combo would not feedback until max level and all frequencies would be reach feedback at the same point. Any freqs that feedback at lower levels are problems
avoid plugins. ring your monitors out with a graphic eq and an RTA app on your phone. waste of money. do yourself a favor and teach yourself to whistle 1khz on command... when you hear feedback try and do math and see what octave above or below your feedback is and rough estimate this. if you can whistle 1khz on command and hear feedback that is not quite an octave higher (which would be 2k) you know right away to reach for your 1.25 or 1.6khz... do that shit in front of a client without an RTA and they will think you are god.
Rafael Ospina That's either a very simple answer, or a very complicated one depending on your setup. If you want independent control over each of the 4 speakers, you will need at least 4 independent aux outputs on your mixer. If you have powered speakers (speakers with amplification built in) they you should be sorted by running lines from different outputs of your console to the input of the speaker, thus giving you separate control over the mix to each speaker. Alternatively, if you are not running powered speakers, they require a separate amplifier to drive them. Which would then require you to run an output of the console to each amp, which would run to each speaker, delivering the powered signal. In most live applications, especially where there isn't a huge budget or crew, monitors can be "daisy-chained" together. Which means that multiple speakers will be receiving the same output from the console, as well as the amp (if applicable) Hope that helps! Also, if you're new to this stuff, i'd do some research into "signal flow". It'll help you understand a lot more how to set up different systems!
Well that might be like having your neighbors make you wear headphones instead of listening to your home stereo. In ears are a different experience than monitor wedges. With in ears you hear the same sound no matter where you walk, with wedges you hear what instrument or wedge your next to more than the ones you're far away from. Some musicians prefer in ears because it helps them hear everything clearly and better while other musicians prefer wedges because they want to be in the same acoustic space as the rest of their band mates and the audience Additionally putting on in ears, wearing a belt pack wires attached to your head is not optimum for certain types of music or people that jump around and sweat a lot. Also within ears it makes it difficult to interact with the audience as you can't hear what they're saying
@@DaveRat But you can also have specific mixes for every musician with ear monitors. It also saves their ear drums from busting. The lead singer from AC/DC is done with touring from what I hear.
@@VWGTI2013 well, I am not one to tell someone or a musician what to prefer. We could tell everyone to never drive fast or go skiing or skydiving or to never drink alcohol and so on, because there is dangers. As a sound engineer and tech, I assist musicians and audience members in optimizing their experiences. And avoid telling people what to like.
Naw, don't really have much of a likeness to Jeff Daniels, not even the scraggly hair really parallels my my curly mop top. I do get Jeff Spicoli though.
I don't feel the goal of this "measurement" is relevant. 1. A flat starting place is more important than feedbacklessness. The RTA screen in this video clearly shows the D and B as almost perfectly flat, while there are some serious deficiencies in the hi mid range of the other three. 2. Who is going to be using this type of wedge without an expensive EQ and a good engineer. The flat one is going to sound the best when you only take out what needs to go.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D5 | Fall | พลาดวันนี้ จะต้องเสียใจ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A5-Cuo12p6A/mqdefault.jpg)
Hmmm, I personally feel that the ability of a wedge monitor to get loud and sound good with minimum feedback and minimum time spent EQ'ing would be one of the most relevant aspects for a stage monitor.
@readerwriter You touch on an interesting point. I agree and have found that often engineers will EQ monitors for maximum perceived volume. The artist in turn, often listen for clarity. This disparity between what the engineer perceives as correct and what the artist desires often results in a loud wedge that does not sound good and is over EQ'ed.
that looks like changed since then, at least for my little experience i'm having nowadays in middle east... by the way, i wanted to point something. I can see that the frequency response is different and looks more linear and smooth on the db and l acoustics, looks like dropping slowly from the mid high frequencies on the EAW. Might be this the reason why 2-3 db difference on the mid frequencies triggers the feedback?
I should do though to be honest so far I kind of do these videos last minute and fairly spontaneously when I have time and an idea. I do intend on putting together a better/cleaner setup to make the videos.
I've had the pleasure of using "Pro Wedges" before and I can say that they are the best sounding monitors I've ever heard! Hearing your vocals in all ranges singing low like Elvis or high like Plant. With these you will be able to sing at your best!
@thebiggaloot1 Rat Sound owns HiQ's, MicroWedges & D&B wedges, we rent out all these systems & each has a set of assets that makes them useful. I did the video to demonstrate something I feel is very interesting & does not show up in the specs. II personally believe feedback stability while maintaining optimum sound quality is one of the most important traits a stage monitor can exhibit..
As far as #2, Chili Peppers and Queens of the Stone Age rehearse with Microwedges & no EQ's.
Gain before feedback is largely a function of the consistency of a speaker’s dispersion and frequency response. It is the absence of lobes in the dispersion pattern that permits higher perceived volume before the onset of feedback. Smooth dispersion across the frequency spectrum is very hard to achieve, requiring serious research investment. Most pro companies show their speakers plots at a variety of frequencies. The ones with the smoothest response plots at a wide range of frequencies are going to be less susceptible to feedback, all other things being equal. It should be said that the same exact thing applies to the microphone. The polar plots give a lot of useful guidance.
Just landed here and checked out this video. When pushed hard I thought the MicroWedge 15 out performed the rest with the MicroWedge 12 coming in second. Nice design. Nice work.
Mr rat. You are the craziest of all, but i do love the orginally and the environment where you test the gear. I have used L'acoustics in many different ocations and i believe is the best off them all. Thanks for the video
great company, quality products, expensive but they are reliable and hold their value very well and are in high demand.
Yes, a strong amp makes a big difference.
Hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey.
I think there's some kind of dependency between max stable SPL and form factor of wedges with complicated reflection/resonance system of microphone plus face. I mean - the narrower (close to the size of the head) the wedge, then more higher stable SPL can be reached.
My dog woke up and ran out of the room!
@ToOlOGT22 Yep, there is a switch inside the port that puts the wedge in passive mode and allows them to run full range without a processor Though you want to use a pretty large power amp, bigger the better. The wedges will run on a amps over 1000 watts a channel.
HEY DAVE , It has been 7 years since you did this Video , It is about time you do a new one . This time do one on as many different monitors you can get your hands on to test . Also Leave out the Gated Reverb this time . Love learning from you . The Best places I have found to learn from are BAR BANDS . They are on the road 300 days a year working with equipment that is as old as dirt and HAVE to get by with what they own . But they make it work and Grow up to be like you ... A Hard working Man .. Good Luck in all you do ..
I may do, at some point once I start focusing on the new wedge design I am working on. In the meantime my focus is on the subwoofer designs. Primarily the Rat Sound SuperSub 30, SDS30. should have a video of that in the next month or two
Well, first lets clarify. 1"(throat diameter) typically refers to drivers with 1.75" to 2" diameter diaphragms and 2" (throat) usually refers 3" or 4" diameter diaphragm drivers. Lets do the math on surface area (Pi*Rsquared and circumferences (Pi*D). 2" dia would be approx 3sq inches & 6 inches. A 3" would be approx 7sq inches and 9 inches& a 4" dia would be approx 12 sq inches and 12 inches. More surface area increases max output, more voice coil circumference increases power handling
2"=appro
the MicroWedge 15 sounded pretty nice
@leefanyee Well, the 8 ohm load with two sets of wire would see 1/2 the loss into speaker wire compared to 1 set of wires driving a 4 ohm. Use 2 sets of wire on the 4 ohm and it is back to the same. The third method would be to wire the speakers in series and bridge mono the amp. If the amp can handle 2 ohm loads, the bridged option will give you maximum power minimum loss into speaker wire. The dual 8 ohm option will give you less power per speaker and the 4 ohm 1/2 amp gives the lowest.
That was such a massively cool demo. That's brought it home.
Great Job Mr. R.
@TheTecm I don't consider them to lose. The D & B do get very loud and sound quite good loud. They just cost more and are bigger and heavier.
@MrAnomilus The EAW components get louder, are smoother sounding, lighter weight and more reliable than the Radian
Dave Rat I got the last two small studio monitors they made in Framingham 1987 Sandy Mac was my best man and no finer gift was ever given .
My guitar player would still ask for more monitor.....he is frickin deaf....lol!
Sorry for the distraction but I really should do my TH-cam videos this way. Set up several wedges in a big warehouse and lecture to them. Sounds freaking great! Did I mention that I am not an engineer, but I do know a German engineer and a Czech one too ... I said ... a Czech one too ....
Ouch
@mirceaciuciuc I chose the M2 for 2 reasons: 1) We see them spec'ed on riders of major artists & the M4's rarely are 2) Rat sound owns them and we do not own M4's. Actually the M2 is an active only wedge as is the HiQ, the MicroWedge is passive or active. To keep things fair, I used all three with "factory setups." To some the dedicated amp is an asset, to other it is an issue. Regardless, I just compared the off the shelf manufacturer setups to show and aspect that specs sheets do not cover.
Ll
Dave, thanks for sharing your knowledge. It seems to me like the Microwedge are slightly pre-eq'd from hearing the noise test? Still very interesting test. The toughest mons I've had to work with are the QSC KW122. The horn is not suitable for monitor duty IMHO...
@thebiggaloot1 I think a good engineer is more relevant than good gear in every instance and a good engineer with good gear is always better than a reduction in either. As far as sound quality all the wedges tested are well in the window of pro acceptability sound quality wise, some just take more work than others to achieve the goal at hand. Max volume wise, the D&B's box per box will win. Pound per pound or size wise or time spent to achieve changes things.
Just for a little laugh, I’m a retired touring drummer/singer. We were at Dollywood, sold out, my tech dangled a fake spider in my face as I played the drums. I lept from my throne, ripping the hardwired cm-311 headset mic and Shure wired belt pack out of the weak point. Granted, I’m running the backing track via foot switch, so it’s still playing, but I’m not. 😂lol . Techs yelling, it’s fake, it’s a joke. Well, now I have no monitor as my ears were hardwired, and I ripped it out lol.
I did an interesting experiment. Two monitors were placed on the ground and the microphones were placed in the middle. The frequency response and level of the two speakers were all adjusted to the same level. At this time, if the same signal is pushed at the same time, logically speaking, The sound heard at the position of the microphone should be in the middle of the two speakers, but in fact it is not, even completely to one side
Hmmm, possibly something else is wrong.
When two sources reproduce the same signal, maximum summation will occur at the equidistant points from the two source.
Or put another way, if the signals from two sources do not maximally sum at the equidistant points, the signal sources are not identical in time, phase, polarity and/or distance.
@@DaveRat Theoretically, the sound image should appear in the middle of the two speakers, but because these are two different models (both 15-inch coaxial), I now guess that it should be due to the difference in phase between the two (due to the Haas effect) The result
Yes, different models can have a wide array of differences. Some companies will invert polarity on the HF to improve summing to LF at the crossover region. I am guessing that is what is happening in your test.
Brilliant stuff
👍
@efrainpineda That is a screen hooked up to a unit called "DBX RTA-1"
@leefanyee I have not used either of those, though I will venture to say that floor porting and a coax design will be hard to beat with a conventionally ported seperate horn and driver setup.
Great!! Grettings from mexico yeahhhh!!!
Buenos!
I've used Microwedge 12s on a lot of shows, they get decently loud and don't need a lot of EQ. I have done pretty loud shows where I haven't needed much if any EQ on them. However, you don't always get your first (or second or third) choice for amps, so unless I know I'm getting what I want (lab greuppen) I'll useually opt for the meyer 12 or 212.
Wow that 15 is pretty nice out of the box
Interesting video. I might be taking a too much of a technical approach, but isn't this just testing the frequency response of the wedges? You can actually see the dips on the spectrum analyzer. You could think of it as a factory eq'ed wedge. I can honesty say I don't know if i'd like that, the technical voice inside my head says I'd want to control the frequency of that dip myself. But then again it is probably pretty practical in the real world. I'll probably never know, the band I mix uses in-ear, makes it so much cleaner though.
The good engineer is probably more relevant then the good eq in this instance.
I don't believe maintaining optimum sound quality was considered by this test.
However, I will also say that these are all wonderful wedges.
vern7530 3 minutes ago
How come you didn't test with the usual "1,2,3 and 10,12,6" to cover a broder range of the human voice besides "Hey, hey hey" ? My favorite montier wedge currently as an engineer right is the Ps15 by NEXO which i think work amazing for house of worships b.c of quality, coverage and frequency range. For your typical "Rock N Roll" applications the EAW MicroWedge is A-mazing!... Minimal ringing out and eq adjustments. Thank you for the demo Dave.
@www73171 I agree, the less eq you use the more gain before feedback you will have. It's all about phase, every filter you apply puts you further out of phase with your source and the more gain you apply up or down to each filter also puts you further out of phase. The less you interfere with a solid signal chain the better the performance will be. Actual gain and perceived loudness will always win the day when you have a stage full of really demanding "talent"
Thanks Dave, you da man!
@musicianstl Currently in my opinion JBL does not make a stage monitor that is competitive on the top touring levels.
JBL is well known for studio monitors though
Love some Dave rat with the zero bullshit review ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🚬🕶
I like the 2nd one from the getgo
Hi Dave.
Just got a quick question.
Does amplifier design affect gain before feedback?
Also does the choice of drivers affect it?
Thanks
A really cheap amp may cause some issues but it's fairly easy to make a fairly flat response amp.
As far as drivers, they have a huge impact on feedback. Cheap and non linear drivers will feedback much easier.
Any resonances or peaks in the response will de stabilize things and speakers are the weak link, followed by mics, then everything else in the signal chain
Thanks for your reply.
With drivers, I take it this is to do specifically with frequency response? Or are there other factors like voice coil inductance?
Do things like settling time not affect feedback, even if indirectly?
If I get the gist of your reply, with a D&B amplifier for instance, these problems are not likely to exist in any significant way.
Thanks.
With drivers there are so many things that can cause issues, any residences or unevenness in the response or cabinet design or reflections from the cabinet or reflections in the horn throat materials that are too thick or too thin or too hard or understand or overdamped can all be issues increasing feedback
Is it ok if i sample this video for my new alarm clock ?
Ha 👍
what is the difference between the RADIAL RMW-1152 and the EAW MW15?
I designed the microwedge originally and licenced to radian and used a radian coax. When I moved the licence to EAW I worked with them to improve the series. I chose a 18Sound for the coax and was able to increase efficiency, improve high frequency response, reduce cone surround failure issues and improve the frequency response linearity, increase maximum output level, and increase power handling of the drivers and crossover.
Additionally, I upgraded the grills to 12 gauge, added damping to reduce reflections from the sidewalks between the grill and baffle, added fly track hardware,
Also, I worked with EAW to develop multiple presets for both passive and active operation. The presets are downloadable as well as imbedded in powersoft amps.
Radian, went on to develop a knockoff of the microwedge that lacks the patented trapezoid sidewalls.
How do people not go deaf after standing behind monitors for years on end?
I'd like to se the same but with two of each
just out of curiosity, how hot was your mic gain for this experiment??
Oooh, I don't remember but it was in the normal range I set it for gigs. Usually in the 2 o'clock range
Ah, just seen you take apart the monitors, split drivers as opposed to coaxial.
Probably that as well as a bit flatter response as well
Dave where did u get that cool hoody you have on? I had one but I lost on the road.
There is no real difference when with different mixing consoles. I have compared the Micro To 115XT using a Midas XL4, An ATI mic pre, Mackie Oynx and PM5d with the same results each time.
Hi Dave! I really enjoy your videos. Thx!! What Real Time Analyzer for cheap your recommend?
What does he mean by coax powered? NL4?
The microwedges have coaxial speakers
how were you sure they were all the same volume?
Does the test not account for that?
@ProAudioDevelopment cool cool, thank you!
What is the best in the 4 ?
They are all different. The microwedge is the most stable feedback wise and smooth sounding. The d&b has a very good punchy sound and the l'acoustics was so so but has since been discontinued and their new wedges are quite good
@@DaveRat thank y
hi dave one monitor you could of tried is the LE1500 from martin audio
what program did you use to get the frequenz?
Perhaps but software so often does not take all real world factors into account.
Hey, just wondering why you need even feedback. Surely it's better to have some bad than all bad.
Feedback over a narrow range indicates irregularities in the response and that max Volume has not been reached.
A perfect speak mic combo would not feedback until max level and all frequencies would be reach feedback at the same point. Any freqs that feedback at lower levels are problems
Dave, You just save me money!!! U RULE
@www73171 what is this program?
Thank you ! :)
you can get them at any place that sells Mexican wear. Google "Baja Hoodie"
My wife calls them, drug rug hoodie.
I get them at truck stops, about 10 bucks.
@@johnstutz4458 yeah, you can also ask for a drug rug!
Can I ask why you do not wear a wireless mic tied directly to the camera instead of using a camera mounted mic so your narration is properly recorded?
Are there any plugins to control feed back? I wanna start a little audio rental company but I am going to handle both monitor and front of house.
+VWGTI Waves X-FDBK.
avoid plugins. ring your monitors out with a graphic eq and an RTA app on your phone. waste of money. do yourself a favor and teach yourself to whistle 1khz on command... when you hear feedback try and do math and see what octave above or below your feedback is and rough estimate this. if you can whistle 1khz on command and hear feedback that is not quite an octave higher (which would be 2k) you know right away to reach for your 1.25 or 1.6khz... do that shit in front of a client without an RTA and they will think you are god.
@@snapascrew But them plugins will control feedback automatically for you, right?
You dont even need to worry about any of that if you use Bob Heil microphones. testes..testes... one two testes.
What's your opinion on L'Acoustics in general, Dave?
Well. He is one of the biggest L’a providers in the US....
what do you think about 15' woofer and drive monitor? 12'' is better? thanks
ricardo fogaça not sure what you mean, please explain
His knowledge of current speaker technology is very limited and outdated. There are excellent 15" speakers for monitors available.
thanks!..i agree with you!
Ur the man.
What are the likely reasons for the 3 dB difference between the D&B wedge and the microwedges?
he D&B M2 require way more processing and I believe it is artifacts of the processing that make them less stable
Dave isn`t there new computer software to help with this?
super
How do I connect 4 monitors separately ?
Sorry, but I´m a rookie
Rafael Ospina That's either a very simple answer, or a very complicated one depending on your setup. If you want independent control over each of the 4 speakers, you will need at least 4 independent aux outputs on your mixer. If you have powered speakers (speakers with amplification built in) they you should be sorted by running lines from different outputs of your console to the input of the speaker, thus giving you separate control over the mix to each speaker.
Alternatively, if you are not running powered speakers, they require a separate amplifier to drive them. Which would then require you to run an output of the console to each amp, which would run to each speaker, delivering the powered signal.
In most live applications, especially where there isn't a huge budget or crew, monitors can be "daisy-chained" together. Which means that multiple speakers will be receiving the same output from the console, as well as the amp (if applicable)
Hope that helps! Also, if you're new to this stuff, i'd do some research into "signal flow". It'll help you understand a lot more how to set up different systems!
DanielCarballalMusic Thank you very much for your answer =D and for helpind me understand
Why not just make the band wear ear monitors instead....?
Well that might be like having your neighbors make you wear headphones instead of listening to your home stereo.
In ears are a different experience than monitor wedges. With in ears you hear the same sound no matter where you walk, with wedges you hear what instrument or wedge your next to more than the ones you're far away from.
Some musicians prefer in ears because it helps them hear everything clearly and better while other musicians prefer wedges because they want to be in the same acoustic space as the rest of their band mates and the audience
Additionally putting on in ears, wearing a belt pack wires attached to your head is not optimum for certain types of music or people that jump around and sweat a lot.
Also within ears it makes it difficult to interact with the audience as you can't hear what they're saying
@@DaveRat But you can also have specific mixes for every musician with ear monitors. It also saves their ear drums from busting. The lead singer from AC/DC is done with touring from what I hear.
@@VWGTI2013 well, I am not one to tell someone or a musician what to prefer. We could tell everyone to never drive fast or go skiing or skydiving or to never drink alcohol and so on, because there is dangers.
As a sound engineer and tech, I assist musicians and audience members in optimizing their experiences. And avoid telling people what to like.
@@DaveRat That's what I meant, recommend them to wear ear monitors. The Chili peppers wore in ears, right?
@@VWGTI2013 not really, both Josh and John did not like in ears.
This is a useless comment I'm about to make. It drives me nuts to see somebody trampling his cords! Nice video.
hahaha very nice xD
Anyone tell you that you look like Harry from dumb and dumber 🤣🤣
Naw, don't really have much of a likeness to Jeff Daniels, not even the scraggly hair really parallels my my curly mop top.
I do get Jeff Spicoli though.
Thomas Robert Jones John Miller Kenneth
ff tare
I don't feel the goal of this "measurement" is relevant.
1. A flat starting place is more important than feedbacklessness. The RTA screen in this video clearly shows the D and B as almost perfectly flat, while there are some serious deficiencies in the hi mid range of the other three.
2. Who is going to be using this type of wedge without an expensive EQ and a good engineer. The flat one is going to sound the best when you only take out what needs to go.
sacate uno mejor