Putting vocals and instruments in separate PA systems?

[NukePooch]

So, I found this blog a few days ago...some decent info, some not. (as with most blogs)

What got my interest is that in this post:

http://smallvenuesurvivalist.com/the-st ... ig-part-3/

...he briefly describes (and shows his tiny PA set up as such) that vocals and band instruments are run through two separate PA systems for 'clarity'.

"With the PA deployed as it was, putting the same signal into all four FOH mid-highs probably would not have sounded all that hot. The outer pair was slightly behind the inner pair, which would have resulted in the high end being out of phase alignment. That problem did not come into play, however, because the different pairs were used for different signals. The inner pair was my vocal cluster, and the outer pair was for instruments. This technique borrows both from The Grateful Dead’s “Wall Of Sound,” and Dave Rat’s “double hung” PA deployments – it’s just on a very small scale.

The configuration as pictured and described trades coverage area for power and/ or clarity. We essentially have one, larger PA setup that’s firing in a narrow pattern. (Even so, some walking around proved that you could hear the PA pretty much everywhere in the park proper.) An alternative would be to put the entire mix into all four boxes, but aim the boxes to hit different zones. In that case, we’d be trading power/ clarity for coverage."

He then links to Dave Rat's 'Double Hung' setup, where Rat talks briefly about hanging two separate line-array systems for the Chili Peppers tour...

My question is...has anyone heard and/or experimented with this? I get that the Grateful Dead tried it, PA's weren't good back in the day... but I can't imagine that the clarity of modern top-shelf line arrays would be significantly improved enough to offset the cost, complexity, logistics, etc. I've never listened to a L'Acoustics, Meyer, or DB Audiotechnik system after sweating over the things for the last hour (on crew) and thought..."what this really needs is another 40 boxes to sweat over"...LOL.

Back to the original blog post. I can't see that running vocals separate through another couple of cheap speakers-on-sticks would actually help over just running all through the same PA. Especially with an underpowered tiny PA at an outside venue...

[Bruce Weldy]

Looks to me like the drummer's monitors are a better PA than what was facing the audience.

This is just another example of someone getting an idea.....then turning backflips to execute it....without actually finding out if the idea was any good in the first place.

A lot of extra work and set up for absolutely no gain....(get it? no gain? )

If you have a decent PA and get the FOH EQ set properly, there is absolutely no need to do something like he's doing. And there is no way that it sounded better than just using both boxes for everything.

If you take his idea even further....why not just get every player to bring really big amps and not put them in the PA at all? Then you've not only separated the vocals from the music, but every instrument stands on it's own. Oh wait.....that's what we used to do and it sucked.

Oh well, at least he disabled the comments section so he can remain oblivious to the truth.

[NukePooch]

If you take his idea even further....why not just get every player to bring really big amps and not put them in the PA at all? Then you've not only separated the vocals from the music, but every instrument stands on it's own. Oh wait.....that's what we used to do and it sucked.

...the pinnacle of which was the Grateful Dead's 'Wall of Sound'...a different PA for each instrument, directly behind the band (otherwise known as the instant deaf musicianizer)

Believe me, I don't have near enough PA as it is, nor do I have any desire to set up two systems each time I gig, but...I just would like to A/B a setup one time, just to see if there's any discernible difference. The only thing I found is one post by Dave Rat saying something to the effect that he can run two systems less hard than one system.

http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=105954.60

I just love that an average guy reads about this stuff, then goes, yeah, I can do that. Hmmm..I've always liked the idea of Metallica's TM Sub array. Maybe I can do that too!

http://www.thereference-online.com/meta ... w-tm-array

Let's see...I'll need a dozen T48's and some rope and 2x4's...


I do love the generator directly under the front of the stage, though. I have one of those small Hondas, and they are really quiet...but not THAT quiet... I've run mine 50' behind the stage and it was perfect.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

he briefly describes (and shows his tiny PA set up as such) that vocals and band instruments are run through two separate PA systems for 'clarity'.

There's no more reason to do that with PA than there is with a home stereo or any other playback system.

Back to the original blog post. I can't see that running vocals separate through another couple of cheap speakers-on-sticks would actually help over just running all through the same PA. Especially with an underpowered tiny PA at an outside venue...

+1.

[dswpro]

Nothing against Dave Rat or the Grateful Dead, but both configurations mean additional cost, complexity, potential for failure, longer setup and tear down times; everything I want to avoid in a live sound setting. Now if none of those factors apply to you, by all means have fun, but its a law of diminishing returns scenario to me.

[Bruce Weldy]

Nothing against Dave Rat or the Grateful Dead, but both configurations mean additional cost, complexity, potential for failure, longer setup and tear down times; everything I want to avoid in a live sound setting..

Which is why the GD abandoned the approach after a short time. PA systems were trying to find their way when they came up with the Wall of Sound. It was an experiment, but even they didn't stick with it.

And that Dave Rat column was from 8 years ago.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

Which is why the GD abandoned the approach after a short time. PA systems were trying to find their way when they came up with the Wall of Sound. It was an experiment, but even they didn't stick with it.

They abandoned it because they had to have two of them, one to play through, while the other was being set up at the next gig. The system was so massive that it took days, as opposed to hours, to assemble. It also required two road crews, one to set one up, another to tear the other one down, plus twice the number of trucks to transport them, etc. I've never seen an explanation why they didn't just use a line array PA, as they obviously understood the theory. I chalk it up to being one of those 'it seemed like a good idea at the time' notions, fueled no doubt with the availability of too much money. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean that you should.

[Bruce Weldy]

I've never seen an explanation why they didn't just use a line array PA, as they obviously understood the theory.

I don't believe that they existed yet in commercial form (large enough for concert venues)......the line arrays we know today hit the scene sometime in the 1990s, I think. Even if they understood the concept, I don't know that the components were available then that could put out the SPL that a huge ground stack PA or flown array of point source speakers could produce at the time.

Anyway.....they were all stoned....all the time....

[NukePooch]

Anyway.....they were all stoned....all the time....

I guess Electric Koolaid can power a whole lotta PA equipment...

[CoronaOperator]

...the pinnacle of which was the Grateful Dead's 'Wall of Sound'...a different PA for each instrument, directly behind the band (otherwise known as the instant deaf musicianizer)

Not just for each instrument, the bass had a different pa for each string !

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

I've never seen an explanation why they didn't just use a line array PA, as they obviously understood the theory.

I don't believe that they existed yet in commercial form..

They didn't, other than Shure Vocal Master.
Theirs could have been the first had they done it. Pictures post-Wall of Sound show them using conventional cluster arrays, a distinct step backwards.
The point is that it's odd that they didn't just do a line array PA, rather than separate line arrays for each instrument plus vocals. One reason why might have been the lack of mixing consoles to handle all those inputs. I've seen the specs of what they used for drivers and amps, but no clue on the board or boards. They might have treated each instrument array as self-contained backline system, having no viable way to get everything into a single PA feed.

[Bruce Weldy]

I've never seen an explanation why they didn't just use a line array PA, as they obviously understood the theory.

I don't believe that they existed yet in commercial form..

They didn't, other than Shure Vocal Master.

Thus, my statement - large enough for concert venues. Like most guys our age, my first PA was a Peavey Standard with two columns of 4-10s (line array!).....and no horn. Maybe they were 4-12s? I really don't remember....

While mixers may have been a problem, I still don't think that they could have gotten enough speakers in a line array with the limited output back then to equal the sheer total of drivers either onstage with the wall of sound or with a stacked system.

Other than a couple of pictures, I haven't really seen a definitive explanation of how they ran the system. I've read several articles over the years, but they were written for the fans, not sound guys.

Seems as though I remember them using two vocal mics taped together on each stand - one out of phase that fed the monitors in order to keep feedback down....or something like that.

Anyway, damned glad I wasn't a roadie for all of that.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

Seems as though I remember them using two vocal mics taped together on each stand - one out of phase that fed the monitors in order to keep feedback down....or something like that.

They didn't have monitors. They stood in front of the speakers, to hear what the audience heard. Using two identical mics with one reverse-polarity anything coming into both of them was cancelled out, which was everything but their own vocal, as they sang into only one mic. They would have power shaded as well, so the cabs directly behind them wouldn't have been as loud as those higher up.
PA manufacturers could have put out line arrays then, the technology had been well known since the 1940s. No one did, because the operators insisted on using cluster arrays, and wouldn't have bought line arrays even if they were offered. PA was cobbled up theatrical systems until Christian Heil came along.