Guest-Proof New System

Fraghawk

Member
First some background. My school just just got a new sound system and booth. We also have a lot of outside people that rent out our auditorium. In the past, we had a rack mounted on the proscenium with the amps, CD player and mixer in it. Guests and faculty used this box for their purpose because the old booth was crap. Now we have this very nice digital board that we don't want untrained personal touching, so we are going to install a guest system using the old board. I was wondering what the best way to go about this would be, like should we just provide a new board and use the new amps and speakers, or provide a total guest system with separate amps, board, snake, speakers, and etc. We just want to make sure the new board does not get damaged, but at the same time we want to make it easy for guests to come in and run a show If I need to provide more Information I can on our old equipment, but I don't know much about the new equipment at all.
 
I wouldn't bother with a completely separate system - that's overkill. What you can do is use the old board as a slave - put it backstage somewhere with a CD player plugged into it, and a mic channel or two if that's going to be needed. Run the outputs of the old board into two channels on the new board - and then just make sure the system is left switched on but the booth locked. That way the guests have control over the CD player and mics, but can't get at the new board. If you don't like the idea of leaving gear switched on, install some remote switches so that you don't have to get into the booth to switch stuff on.
 
You could have a signal switcher, that switches the signal between the digital board and the old board, and just leave the amp rack on.
 
Leaving the master board on just to pass signal through would be overkill. I'd just use a summing box (or cheapest non-trash mixer with appropriate count and type of IO, e.g. Behringer Xenyx 1202FX | Sweetwater.com for a stereo system) to Y the connection - not the XLR itself - between the required amps, your new board, and your old board. That way, there's no worry over the signal switch being misset and locked inside the booth, or installing 100s of feet of wiring to remote it.

Remotely controlling the amps sans-wiring would be possible using a system like X10, though I'd go for a more modern system, e.g. Insteon, that's a) more reliable b) more secure/less liable to pranksters shutting down your amps from across the campus.

Won't prevent the guests busting everything downstream of the 'lite' board by pushing the system too far, of course, for that you'd need properly configured limiting right before the amplifiers.
 
Last edited:
An Extron system would probably be the most fool proof system, with a mode to relinquish control to full sound board. There’s one installed at one of the high school PACs I work in. It has a touchscreen control backstage and one at the sound board, providing control of 2 wireless mics, a computer audio input in the stage, and a Blueray player, while also controlling a projector. I think the whole thing is programmed to prevent any issues from happening with access to a full sound board. It would take an electrical contractor to install it with various wires going everywhere and A/V switchers.
 
Also, depending on the type of console you have, there are ways to set up a guest or safe mode where only certain features are allowed to be accessed. Obviously, this is only good if you're more worried about changes to system settings than physical damage to the console.
 
As you can tell, a number of potential options. I doubt that a completely separate system is necessary or the best option, however which potential approach makes the most sense for you is likely to depend on the hardware (both new and existing), the new system configuration, the needs of the renters, the capabilities of the renters' techs, the degree and/or limit of functionality desired and so forth. You may also want to consider if with the new system it makes sense for rentals to include a tech.

One of the possible considerations that could affect some of the suggestions noted as well as other options is the inputs involved in terms of both the quantity of inputs and the existing signal flow. If you were to add a second mixer of some type, how many inputs would it need to handle and how would those inputs physically get to the mixer? Realistically, this could be more challenging to address after the new system is already designed and installed than it might have been if addressed during the system design.

Thus I'm also curious how this situation arose. It sounds as though simpler operation was a capability that that you not only used on a regular basis but that is also still required with the new system, so how did you end up with a new system that does not support a similar functionality? Or might some way of addressing it have been incorporated in the new system but not clearly identified?
 
There is a basic question overlooked. What is the budget?

Beyond that, what is the new board? The concerns may one of fear of digital technology. Was there a problem with damage of equipment with the old system? I did an install last year with a Yamaha DM1000 that included a basic volume control and fire alarm interface. That board is potentialy one of the worst, if not the worst, around for user friendliness and learning curve. The basic system was programmed with minimal adjustments available. The unknowing user can not mess it up. The competent people unlock the mixer and all the capabilites are available then.


Andre
 
The best way to guest-proof a system is to provide a knowledgeable operator. Other than that, I think you're going to get complaints when there is distortion, feedback, etc. because people don't know what they're doing.

And guess what? They'll blame the system - it should "just work", right? You (or whoever else is unfortunate enough to follow-up with them) will get an earful and might even be demanded to refund some or all of the money the client paid.

I'd build the cost of the operator into the rental fee for the space. It gives the renters peace-of-mind and allows the venue to keep repeat business.
 
Last edited:
My high school said to use our new digital board, rentees had to have a student tech who was trained run the board for them. The student techs also got paid for whatever they did.
 
Agree, That is what we do.

What about the Lights? Presets?
What light board do you have?

Edit: I realize you aren't the OP. But it's still a valid question. But I guess I should elaborate. If you have submasters, you can pre-build looks into the submasters and label them for rentees. "Front wash" "full stage wash" "work lights" It gives them something to work with, and you tell them not to mess with anything else. Include somewhere in the contract that they are only allowed to use the submasters given to them, even if someone they have with them knows lighting. If they would like to do their own lighting, add new clauses to the agreement.
 
Agree, That is what we do.

What about the Lights? Presets?

Where I am, there are preset panels with white light on various parts of the stage if there isn't a lighting tech present to use the board. I'm not sure if it's possible, but I think it would great if the presets were controllable from the Extron panels instead of the separate ETC slider panels.
 
My high school said to use our new digital board, rentees had to have a student tech who was trained run the board for them. The student techs also got paid for whatever they did.
Many facilities do something like that, however I prefer to see it not be quite so rigid and be more that a house tech has to be there but will work with the renter as appropriate. It is frustrating to have to pay for techs that turn out to not be up to the task but won't let anyone else touch anything. And even worse to be forced to pay for techs that you then effectively end up training.

I guess I look at it that if you are renting out a facility then you are essentially acting as a professional venue and thus if you provide/require house personnel be used, and especially if there is a cost associated, those people should be at the same level as any comparable or competing professional venues. If they are not then that should be reflected in your policies and pricing.
 
Many facilities do something like that, however I prefer to see it not be quite so rigid and be more that a house tech has to be there but will work with the renter as appropriate. It is frustrating to have to pay for techs that turn out to not be up to the task but won't let anyone else touch anything. And even worse to be forced to pay for techs that you then effectively end up training.

I guess I look at it that if you are renting out a facility then you are essentially acting as a professional venue and thus if you provide/require house personnel be used, and especially if there is a cost associated, those people should be at the same level as any comparable or competing professional venues. If they are not then that should be reflected in your policies and pricing.
Our students were trained. And new ones are trained every year so we have a full crew of students who can run the board if need be.
 
Our students were trained. And new ones are trained every year so we have a full crew of students who can run the board if need be.
No disrespect, but what do "trained" and "who can run the board" mean? What would happen if a renter had a person with equal or greater experience that wanted to mix?

I should start by saying that I know I am addressing a minority situation and that most renters will not have qualified techs and will need a house tech. However, I've personally had too many experiences with house techs who might know how to operate the systems but did not know how to handle anything out of the ordinary, were not familiar with the band/material/event or simply did not know how to create a good mix yet that would not let more qualified people present help or take over for them. And in some cases the groups I was with for those experiences never returned to those venues and subsequently avoided venues with smilar policies, not what you probably want to do for your venue.

An academic venue limiting operators to students makes sense if it is a solely educational effort but if you are charging for the venue and/or their services then that seems to create a reasonable expectation for professional quality and capability. My view is that it is definitely a good idea to have someone familiar with the venue and systems there, especially in the more likely situations where a renter does not have their own qualified tech, but do not be too rigid about only student techs operating the systems. If people associated with a renter show themselves qualified not only may they better serve the renter but the students might even learn more from watching what they do and working with them.
 
lwinters630 said:
Thus I'm also curious how this situation arose. It sounds as though simpler operation was a capability that that you not only used on a regular basis but that is also still required with the new system, so how did you end up with a new system that does not support a similar functionality? Or might some way of addressing it have been incorporated in the new system but not clearly identified?
Ok. Here's a bit of history. Before 1997, our sound system was one speaker and 2 XLR inputs with an amp. In 97, we got this box behind the proscenium with an amp for mains, amp for monitors, 6 channel mixer, and a cd player, as well as 4 mains and 4 monitors. This was the sound system for the auditorium until 2005, when 2 students got permission to remove the back 2 rows of seats and build a booth. One of these students also donated a board, graphic eq and snake. Since this was all donated to the Theatre dept, and it was confusing to an outsider to run stuff, they used the box. Then, 2 years ago, another donated a nicer system and board. In total we have 4 subs, 8 mains (not counting the built in ones we just got, counting those it would be 14.) an 18 channel board, a 12 channel board, 2 amps, a limiter, and 6 monitors. This past winter we got a new booth and sound system. This is where we are now.
 
Last edited:
This past winter we got a new booth and sound system. This is where we are now.
Systems that support basic use by untrained users as well as much more advanced functionality with trained operators are quite common and there are a number of ways to approach that when developing an overall system concept and selecting equipment. And it seems as though the basic operation was a pretty obvious and important functionality to have. So my question was really how you ended up with a new system that apparently does not address what seems to be a rather obvious and important functionality?

I ask this because maybe the system designer did consider it in the new system but in a manner that is apparently not obvious. For example, maybe there are a couple of available inputs on a matrix DSP device that are or can be programmed to get the sound from a basic mixer into the new system. Or maybe they planned to use a portable rack and a stereo DI into a couple of inputs to the new system.

If there is not any planned solution then while I doubt a totally independent system is necessary, identifying what might be a practical or effective approach to integrate the basic operation functionality would probably require knowing a lot more information about the existing system, the existing infrastructure, the available equipment, the available resources and so forth. And maybe the system designer should be the one leading that effort.
 
Agree, That is what we do.

What about the Lights? Presets?

We have an ETC Express 48/96, and we have these handy preset boxes with a few of our sub-masters programmed in. All guests have to do is hit for example, preset 2, and it brings up a general wash with house lights on, or 6, which is gen. wash without house lights. The downside is its all at 100% with no dimming capability.

Systems that support basic use by untrained users as well as much more advanced functionality with trained operators are quite common and there are a number of ways to approach that when developing an overall system concept and selecting equipment. And it seems as though the basic operation was a pretty obvious and important functionality to have. So my question was really how you ended up with a new system that apparently does not address what seems to be a rather obvious and important functionality?

I ask this because maybe the system designer did consider it in the new system but in a manner that is apparently not obvious. For example, maybe there are a couple of available inputs on a matrix DSP device that are or can be programmed to get the sound from a basic mixer into the new system. Or maybe they planned to use a portable rack and a stereo DI into a couple of inputs to the new system.

If there is not any planned solution then while I doubt a totally independent system is necessary, identifying what might be a practical or effective approach to integrate the basic operation functionality would probably require knowing a lot more information about the existing system, the existing infrastructure, the available equipment, the available resources and so forth. And maybe the system designer should be the one leading that effort.
We were under the impression that a box similar to our old one was in the sound schedule, and our principal says we are getting one, but the final walk through is on Friday, and we have had no word yet whether or not we are for sure getting one. To top it off, we have a church that has service in our auditorium every Sunday, and they have demonstrated to us that they do not know how to run sound. We've come back on Mondays to seeing all of the mic inputs and the main out on the mixer we used to have backstage maxed out, along with other things. This is why we don't want them anywhere near our booth. We are looking for more of a temporary solution than a permanent one at this point.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back