Article

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Road Test: Alto TRUESONIC TS115A

Evaluating new self-powered compact loudspeakers

Alto Professional recently sent me a pair of TS115A loudspeakers to check out, and they turned out to be a gig saver - but more on that in a bit. Let’s look at the specs first.

Part of the company’s TRUESONIC Series, the TS115A is a 2-way self-powered model that utilizes a 15-in woofer for the lows and a 1-in neodymium compression driver for the highs.

The injection molded cabinet measures 26.8 (h) x 16.9 (w) x 15.2 (d) inches and weighs 39.6 pounds.

Stated frequency response is 53 Hz to19 kHz at +/- 3 dB. The power rating is listed at 800 watts peak (670 watts LF, 130 watts HF) or 400 watts continuous (335 watts LF, 65 watts HF).

These boxes are attractive, with a nice steel grill that covers the entire front of the box. I prefer full grills because they better protect the box, and also they look a bit more polished and “corporate” to me.

The cabinet has a built-in handle pocket on the top, as well as large handles on each side and a pole socket on the bottom that uses a clamp for added security/stability. Six M10 flypoints are also provided – two each on the top, bottom and rear.

The rear also includes two input channels with Neutrik XLR-1/4-inch combo connectors. Directly above them are individual gain pots for each input. A male XLR is provided for Line output, and there are “ground” and “contour” switches on the right side of the panel, as well as signal and power LEDs. An IEC power cord socket and power switch are located at the bottom.

Trial By Fire
Normally I set up Road Test gear in my shop first to do some testing and become familiar with its operation before taking it out on a gig – but this was an exception. One might even call it trial by fire.

The TS115As had just been delivered to my home when my neighbor Matt, a part-time DJ, asked me to help him with a problem with his system.

He had a gig that night so had set up his system in his garage to test it, and quickly discovered that his powered subwoofer and satellite loudspeakers had issues. After a bit of troubleshooting accompanied by a lot of head-scratching, it became clear that the amplifier to power his full-range boxes, built into the subwoofer, was dead.

I offered him the use of the TS115As. Straight out of the box, one loudspeaker made the “long trip” next door, where we hooked it up to give it a listen. Right away we were both impressed with how nice it sounded and how loud it got.

Next, I engaged the contour switch to see what it did, and realized immediately that it added a “loudness” curve (a.k.a., smiley-face EQ), boosting both the bottom end and the highs. But it had ample bass with and without the contour switch engaged, so Matt decided to leave his sub at home and do the gig with just the pair of TS115As.

To The Rescue
Because some cabinets have different-sized stand-mount sockets, I set up one of Matt’s aluminum tripod stands to make sure that they fit. The side handles on the box made it easy to grab the cabinet and position it on the stand, and I really like the adjustable clamp that allows you to get a secure fit to different sized poles. 

The top handle to me was less than handy as it just does not seems to fit my hands well, and I’ve since found that it’s uncomfortable to carry the box for a long distance by just the top handle pocket alone. That said, the top handle is very convenient when you have to just grab the box and move it a short distance. 

Matt actually used the TS115As on two consecutive gigs, reporting back to me that they had more than enough volume and that they were also easier to move and set up than his three piece system with the large, bulky subwoofer.

Because he does jobs ranging in size from small parties to larger dances, he doesn’t need subs for every event, but because his sub houses the full-range amps, he always has to bring it, regardless.

In fact, Matt was so impressed that he asked me where he could buy his own pair, and asked to use my Road Test models until he could get his own.

A few gigs later, I got my set back, and the next day received a call from my daughter’s choir teacher, who asked if I would be available to operate the school’s portable PA system for the upcoming fall choir concert at the gym.

I discussed the school system with the teacher, and decided that it wouldn’t cover audience members seated at the far sides on bleachers. So it was the TS115As to the rescue again!

For the concert, I placed them on their sides like floor wedges and covered the bleacher seats. Because they’re powered cabinets, it was easy to integrate them into the system, and they covered the area with ease.

Back In the Shop
After the concert, I finally had an opportunity to take the cabinets to my shop and do some listening.

For source material, I used a few of the (now very familiar) tracks we played at the Compact System Demo at WFX in Dallas.

With the boxes set flat, they sounded good with a variety of material. With the contour switch engaged, they sounded better on some tracks, but not as good as the flat setting on a few others. If I were doing DJ work, and didn’t have subs, I think I’d just leave the contour switch engaged.

Next, I added a small 15-inch front loaded sub. The TS115As played well with the sub – it would make a great small band (or again, DJ) rig. The TRUESONIC Series also includes some active subwoofers that would be great paired up with these full-range cabinets.

Last, I tested the dual inputs, which to me is one of the best features of the box. Instead of just one line input, there are the two separate inputs with gain pots, with the knobs labeled “line” on the left side of the range, and “mic” on the right side of the range. 

I plugged a Shure SM58 microphone into one of the inputs and turned up the knob. While no substitute for a mixer with tone controls, it would certainly do in a pinch if you needed to make announcements or had a small speech only gig.  Then I plugged an iPod into both inputs and it also worked well. 

Natural Sound
I also wanted to check out the rigging but didn’t have any M10 eyebolts handy. I did notice that the top and bottom fly points are very accessible, but the two on the rear would require longer bolts due to the way the cabinet is molded.

While not a deal breaker, I found it a bit odd that apparently, two different bolt lengths are needed for one box.

My last test came when I took the TS115As to a small corporate meeting. Normally I would have used a smaller 10-inch and horn box, so these were a bit overkill, but they looked good and worked great.

With a little EQ work, I had a nice, natural sound with the podium mic as well as a lavalier.

Go to the Road Test Forum on ProSoundWeb to read Craig’s full review and other comments from the community, as well as to ask questions about the TS115As.

Craig Leerman is senior consulting editor for Live Sound International and ProSoundWeb. He is also the owner of Tech Works, a production company based in Las Vegas.

{extended}

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Road Test: Danley Sound Labs SM-60F & TH-Mini

Evaluating a Danley Sound Labs high-pack/subwoofer combo in the field.

The Danley Sound Labs SM-60F is a passive, full-range loudspeaker that utilizes Tom Danley’s Synergy Horn concept, where multiple drivers covering different frequency ranges all play into a single horn.

It’s loaded with 2 x 8-inch woofers and a 1 x 5-inch mid/high coaxial driver. Dispersion is 60 x 60 degrees.

The Danley TH-Mini is a compact subwoofer that uses a single 12-inch driver in a tapped horn configuration.

At only 24 x 15 x 22 .5 inches and 76 pounds, it’s easy for one person to move around. This 8-ohm box will handle 700 watts continuous and 1,400 watts program.

As I do with all new gear, I set up an SM-60F to try out before taking it on a show. I drove it with a QSC RMX 2450 amplifier and listened to some CDs full range. (Note that it is also available with a built-in amplifier as an option.)

They sounded great! I noticed detail in some songs that I usually don’t hear on my regular 15-inch, 2-way high packs.

They sound as good if not better than many reference studio monitors I’ve heard.

Next up was the TH-Mini, which I drove with a QSC CX1102 amplifier, and crossed at around 100 Hz. It had the walls of my shop rattling with headroom to spare.

I then placed the SM-60F on top of the TH-Mini and played around with the crossover settings to see what sounded the best, running the SM-60F full range with added subwoofer as well as crossing both boxes over.

Both ways sounded good, and would give me more options at gigs.

Stand Note
The only negative thing I ran into during this initial evaluation is the stand mount on the SM-60F and the lack of a pole mount on the TH-Mini.

The stand mount sits toward the back of the cabinet, making it rather front-heavy - in fact, too much for my usual “corporate” speaker stands, which are 50-pound cast iron lighting bases and black pipe. (I prefer these instead of tripods because they look better, and can use taller pipes to get the loudspeakers up higher in the air.)

Too be fair, there’s no way to move the stand mount forward on the box, because an 8-inch driver is in the way.

If I bought these boxes and wanted to use them on stands, I’d make a frame that bolted to the bottom of the SM-60F using the fly points, and locate a stand mount at the center of gravity.

Then I could use them worry-free on any tripod stand or my corporate pipe and base stands. For purposes of this evaluation, I put them on Hamilton metal tripods - with the weight centered over a tripod leg, the stands were stable, and just to be sure I also used sandbags to weigh down the rear of the tripods.

As for the pole mount on the sub, the company can put one in if you ask when ordering.

You can also retrofit it in, but talk to the folks at Danley first so they can tell you a good location on the box so you don’t hit an internal brace. 

Every Detail
The first gig I used them was a small dance band playing a corporate affair at a hotel ballroom.

With the band set up near the corner of the room, I placed two TH-Minis by the wall, side by side, and hid them behind a large potted tree.

One SM-60F went on a tripod, and I could almost get away with using just this one box except that the room was rather wide and a 60-degree box only covers so much area. 

So I located a second SM-60F next to the first, had great coverage, and each loudspeaker was hardly breaking a sweat! The band was quite impressed with how great the boxes sounded, especially how much bass the TH-Minis produced for their small size.

I had no problems thumping the dance floor later in the evening with two 12-inch subwoofers. Mixing on the rig was a pleasure - I could hear every detail clearly.

Next I took them to a corporate meeting, originally planning to use both tops and subs, but had little need for the subs, so they sat backstage. The SM-60Fs sounded great for the walk in music, and had more than enough bottom end for the video playback.

One thing I noticed was that I seemed to have more gain before feedback when using the SM-60s on stands with a podium microphone than with the loudspeakers I had used in the same room in the past. Again, they sounded great.

Big Bass
On another gig, I used the TH-Minis with some of my regular high-packs, a typical small DJ setup for a corporate party held in a large ballroom, one loudspeaker per side by the dance floor, and the subs center stacked.

The DJ was skeptical that the Minis were big enough for the gig, so I cued up “What is Hip” and watched his jaw drop. The DJ could not believe how much bass the TH-Minis put out.

Later in the evening when only the hardcore party people were left, the DJ played some newer urban bass heavy stuff, and we both were pleased at how nice the subs thumped. Probably not my first choice for a sub if I were a DJ playing serious bass heavy music, but for a regular corporate/party/DJ gig, the Minis would be a great choice.

Monitor App
For yet another gig, I used an SM-60F on a stand as an area monitor, and covered the backstage with a low-volume program feed.

While a little big for this application (I usually use a 10-inch coaxial or a 10-inch and horn-loaded box), it sounded great, and I liked the tight coverage pattern that helped keep the sound only in the area I wanted to cover.

I put the other SM-60F on a stand and it became the video world monitor. Again, a bit big for that application, but the video crew remarked how great the box sounded.

The last show I used them on was a typical corporate general session. The SM-60Fs served as front fills, and I placed them side by side on a small trunk in the center of the stage.

The two loudspeakers covered what normally would have taken three to four of my usual front fill cabinets. The coverage of two cabinets next to each other seems seamless, and they just sound like one wide single loudspeaker.

In all, I really love both the SM-60F and TH-Mini. I think both would make a great addition to my inventory, as well as any inventory where you need smaller boxes that can outperform their size.

Go to the Road Test Forum on ProSoundWeb to read Craig’s full review and other comments from the community, as well as to ask questions about the SM-60F and TH-Mini, 

Craig Leerman is senior consulting editor for Live Sound International/WroSoundWeb and has headed up the PSW Road Test Forum for six years. He is also the owner of Tech Works, a production company based in Las Vegas.

 

{extended}

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Road Test: Line 6 XD-V70 Digital Wireless Microphones

The pros and cons of Line 6's new handheld and lavalier wireless microphones

Recently, Don Boomer from Line 6 was kind enough to send over a few wireless units to the Road Test.

I received a pair of handheld mics, and a pair of lavalier mics.

First, a bit about the systems. They work on the 2.4 GHz band, so they can be used all over the world.

The systems have 12 channels to pick from, but in some instances, more than 12 can be used in the same building. I’ll expand a bit on this later.

Don told me that they are looking at using some different frequency ranges so more than 12 systems can be used on the same stage.

The units have a stated 300 feet/100 meter range. I did an experiment with a lav unit and found it will transmit a lot farther than that, but for my uses, a few hundred feet is more than enough.

These use 24 bit digital conversion, so there is no use of companding, they transmit between 10 Hz-20 kHz, and the dynamic range is stated as 115 dB.

There are also some remote antenna options available from Line 6.

The mics came well packed in a box with foam, but I managed to snag some unboxing shots.

Inside the box is the transmitter in a case, the receiver, two antennas, power supply, rack mounting hardware, a plastic joiner bar (for hooking up 2 units in 1 rack space), remote antenna jacks for the rack panel, and the instructions.

A quick bit about the instructions. There are only a few short pages to read, as it’s a very simple units to use.

Lets start with the receiver. The unit is well built with a solid felling metal body. The front has a power switch, a button for setup, and a button to exit the setup screen.

There is a select knob that you can turn and access the various options. The center of the front has a screen that shows what channel you are on, and the transmitter name, antenna diversity strength, as well as the menus.,

On the display there are three bar graphs to the left side, one for audio, one for battery power, and one for RF. There is also a MUTE light.

The picture shows the two rack ears for mounting as single unit.

The rear of the receiver has two antenna inputs, two antenna OUTPUTS for loopthru, XLR balanced and 1/4-in unbalanced outputs and the DC power jack for the wall wart.

The slots on the tops and sides of the unit allow you to use the plastic joiner bar and couple the units together. Two units can fit in one rack space, and they can also be stacked top to bottom.

The mics come in a nice padded case which would offer good protection if you store them in a rack drawer or mic box.

The handheld mic is well build and feels good in my hand. It comes with a nice mic clip. The mic head can be removed and any Shure-style head can be screwed on (including the ones from Heil Sound).

The mic uses two AA batteries, and has a nice secure battery compartment in the base. On the side of the mic there is a small screen that can display the mic name, and channel number. Recessed mute (also power) and select switches are under the screen.

There is a lock button inside the mic by the battery compartment that will lock out the menus as well as the power switch.

This is a great feature as I hate people flipping the power and mute switches on wireless after I hand it to them.

The handheld (and the lav) can run in two power modes. The Lo mode helps conserve battery life, and can help when using multiple systems near each other (more on that later).

The handheld mic features Mic Modeling technology.

The mics are based on an SM58, Beta58, Senn E835, AT4100, Audix 0M5, and one called the L6 which they based on a few favorite features of different mics.

The lav transmitter is built like a tank! It uses the same TA4F connector that Shure uses on its lav systems. The body has a screen, select and value buttons.

Pressing both buttons acts as the lock. On the end of the transmitter are a power switch and mute button, as well as battery and power lights.

The belt clip can be loosened and turned in any direction for ease of mounting. This is a nice feature! Also, the battery compartment has a great secure lock.

The lav mic has a sturdy tie clip and a small windscreen.

First Impressions
The receivers are well built and I like the fact that the company designed them so you don’t have to buy additional parts to mount them together. I also love the antenna looping feature.

The handheld mic has a great battery compartment. The lav transmitter is the most rugged belt pack I have ever seen, and I love the lockout feature on both mics.

Now the fun part! I tested the gear at my shop and had it up and running in no time. The units are very easy to program.

The handheld sounds good and the mic modeling definitely changes the sound, but not having most of the models of mics at my disposal, I cannot say one way or another if they all sound like the models they were based on. Handling noise is minimal, and the sound quality is excellent.

The beltpack was just as easy to program and I noticed that when you turned the pack on or off there were no thumps through the system.

The lav microphone that is included in the set is not in the same league as the rest of the components. It’s an OK mic, but not one I would pick on its own.

Like many tiny lav mics, it has handling noise, but this mic seems to have more than I would like.

This wasn’t a problem, as I already have a large supply of lav mics with TA4s, so I just swapped the mic out and used some Shure’s to test the lav transmitter. With the new mics, audio quality was excellent.

I took the mics out to a few gigs, the of which was a small speech gig outdoors with a local politician.

I used a handheld on her, and used one as the podium mic.

With the receivers at FOH, I turned the transmitters on Hi power and had no problems.

The next gig was a standard corporate general session with breakouts. I used the mics in the breakout rooms that were next to each other.

Here is where these mics shine. In one room I had a lav on Lo power, and the receiver placed next to stage right on Channel 1.

In the next room, I set up a lav on Lo power with the receiver placed stage left (furthest point away from the receiver next door) and also placed that on Channel 1.

They both worked! With only about 100 feet and an airwall between the receivers, I could have used them both on the same channel if I wanted to.

So, yes, there are only 12 channels available, however in some situations like a second festival stage a few hundred feet away, or breakout rooms, you can use more than 12 units if you put the transmitters on Lo power.

Pros:
• Easy To Use
• Receivers very sturdy and can be joined together
• Antenna Loop Through feature
• Rack mounting hardware included
• Mic modeling can come in handy
• Lav Transmitter built like a tank!
• Uses TA4 connectors for lavs

Cons:
• On one stage, no more than 12 units an be used
• Lavalier mic has handling noise
• I dislike wall warts

Overall, I think these mics are a winner. Even though I hate wall warts, the ones included are small and lightweight. These mics have made my “Buy List”!

Check out the rest of the discussion on the Line 6 V70 in the Sound Reinforcement forum.

Craig Leerman is the leader of the PSW Road Test Forum and a sound reinforcement veteran from Las Vegas.

{extended}

Friday, September 17, 2010

Road Test: The Encore 100 & 200 From Blue Microphones

The pro's and con's of Blue Microphones handheld microphones for live performance.

I was quite happy to have the chance to be the first road tester for the Encore 100 and Encore 200 microphones from Blue Microphones.

Blue is better known for their recording mics and special application mics and now they have entered into the realm of mics for live use with the Encore series.

I received one Encore 100 and two of the Encore 200 for this road test. Both are dynamic vocal mics with a cardioid pattern. The Encore 200 needs phantom power while the 100 does not.

Just for reference, the Encore 100 sells for around $99 and the Encore 200 sells for around $149 from the major online retail stores.

Because of the pricing similar to the Shure SM58 and the fact that I normally use the SM58 for vocals, I will be making comparisons relative to the SM58 for the most part in this review.

I have been running sound for a contemporary Christian rock band for the last 6 years or so and that is who I tested these mics with. It’s a fairly typical 4 piece rock band (drums, electric guitar, bass, acoustic, and 3 vocals).

I typically run around 97-99 dBA at front of house (about 50 feet from stage on average) with peaks from 102-105 dBA. All four band members are on IEMs so I didn’t have to worry about interactions with stage monitors for this test.

Accessories
First off, while this may not matter to most people, the pouches that these mics come in are a bit nicer than the standard Shure pouch. It’s like a thick tweed material with a soft inside liner.

It seems like it may provide a little more protection than the pouches most manufacturers provide with their mics. It’s also nice that the pouch has the microphone model on it so you know what’s inside the pouch without having to open it to check.

The pouch has a flap that folds open at the end of it rather than a zipper down the long side of it. I carry all my mics in a mic case so the pouch doesn’t really matter to me but I thought I would mention it anyway.

Another thing that may not matter to everyone but is worth a mention is the mic clips that come with these. They are good sturdy clips that are a little more flexible than the SM58 clips.

They are a little more like a wireless mic clip as far as flexibility. I liked the clips myself. They are a little easier to get the mic in and out of than the SM58 clip but still give a good solid grip on the mic.

Appearance
The first thing I noticed when I pulled the mics out of the bags for the first time was the very shiny, reflective grill on both mics and the copper color of the grill on the Encore 200.

The Encore 100 is on the left (above) and the grill color is more of a silver/chrome color than the pictures show. The grill looks a little “yellowish” in the pictures because of what it is reflecting from the room. Both mics are perhaps a little shinier than the pictures would suggest also.

I certainly wouldn’t have chosen such a reflective finish on the grills or the copper color of the Encore 200 grill. My first thought was “will the singers even want to use these mics?” I don’t think they are ugly or anything like that but they just stand out a little too much for my taste.

 
Don’t forget to check out the rest of the discussion on the Encore 100 & 200 in the Sound Reinforcement forum!
Build
After taking in the appearance of these mics, I noticed that they seem to be very solidly built.

They have a good “heavy” feel to them and seem like they could stand up to life on the road.

Of course, we’re not allowed to torture test items in the road test so I can’t say for sure how durable they are but they seem solid.

I did have a little trouble getting the XLR cables to lock into these mics, especially on the Encore 200.

Sometimes they would lock in but the lock on the connector wouldn’t spring up like normal to confirm that they were locked in.

It was only after I tugged on the cable a bit that I was sure they were locked in. That was a bit of an annoyance for me but not a deal breaker by any means.

Encore 100 vs. SM58
I started off my comparison by setting up the whole band as normal with SM58’s on all vocalists. I wanted to hear the SM58 in that particular room with that particular setup just to get a baseline for comparison.

I wanted to hear a direct A/B comparison of the SM58 and the Encore 100 with the same rig, same room, exact same setup.

So after listening to my lead vocalist through an SM58 for a little bit, I swapped him over to the Encore 100. I just swapped the mic and didn’t touch the channel EQ or change anything else at all.

My first impression of the Encore 100 was that it sounded noticeably richer and fuller and just sounded more natural than the SM58. It also seemed a tiny bit hotter level wise than the SM58.

Even my singer thought from behind the PA that it was a noticeable difference in the house mix and he also thought it sounded better in his IEMs. We were doing a multi-day event so I left him on the Encore 100 for the first night so that I could listen to it through a normal set.

The more time he spent singing through the mic, the more I was able to observe about it. One thing that I noticed was that the handling noise seemed to be much more than an SM58. The mic was in a stand the whole time but if he stepped heavily on the stage in front of the mic stand or clipped a capo onto the stand between songs I could definitely hear it in the house.

On the positive side, the Encore 100 seemed to exhibit less of a proximity effect than the SM58. Normally when my lead singer sings a really low passage he has to get real close to the mic and push his vocal to give me enough level to get him up over the rest of the mix.

What normally happens on a 58 is that the low end in his vocal becomes muddy and the overall vocal isn’t as clear. However, when he would get real close with the Encore 100 I didn’t experience the low end muddiness that I am used to. His low vocal parts came through much clearer and more intelligible than I am used to.

Encore 200 First Impressions
Since I wanted to leave the Encore 100 on the lead vocalist for the night, and since I had two Encore 200’s and two background vocalists, I tried the Encore 200’s on the BGV’s.

When I sound-checked the first BGV with the Encore 200, my first impression was that it sounded better than the SM58 he was just on but I quickly realized I didn’t have enough gain before feedback for it to be usable. Remember that I’m not using stage monitors so this was feedback from the house that I was getting.

I tried it on the other BGV just to see if it was any different for him but had the same issue. Of course, the BGV’s are stage left and stage right putting them closer to the mains than my lead vocalist who is center stage so I thought I might still be able to use it for lead vocal.

Just for kicks, I tried the Encore 200 on electric guitar. The Encore 200 sounded very dull compared to the Sennheiser e609 that I had just replaced. I’m assuming it was the high SPL coming from the guitar amp that was causing it to not perform so well.

No amount of EQ seemed to help it either. I was running the e609 nearly flat as I know where to mic the amp to get a great sound out of it. I quickly realized the Encore 200 wasn’t going to cut it for electric guitar and switched back to the e609.

 
Don’t forget to check out the rest of the discussion on the Encore 100 & 200 in the Sound Reinforcement forum!
Encore 200 vs. Encore 100
The next night I tried the Encore 200 on my lead singer in place of the Encore 100 he had used the night before.

I listened to him again on the Encore 100 for a little bit to refresh my ears on how it sounded and then switched him over to the 200.

The only thing I changed besides swapping the mics was turning on the phantom power for the Encore 200. I could tell a difference in the sound of the two.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that one sound was better than the other, just different.

The Encore 200 sounded very good just as the Encore 100 did, but the 200 had less low end and a little more “sparkle” in the highs. I thought it sounded a little more airy than the 100. The Encore 200 reminded me of a Shure Beta 87A.

The gain before feedback of the Encore 200 was better with my lead singer than it was on the BGV’s but it still wasn’t as good as the Encore 100. However, it was usable so I kept my lead singer on it for the set.

The Encore 200 exhibited the same handling noise as the 100 and it also exhibited the reduced proximity effect of the 100. Really, the little bit of difference in sound quality was the only noticeable difference I could tell between the 100 and 200. And again, I wouldn’t say that one necessarily sounded better than the other. They were just a little different.

I was able to use the Encore 100 on one of my BGV’s and get enough gain before feedback to make it usable. I would say the GBF was comparable to an SM58. And again with this particular vocalist, I felt like the sound quality was an improvement over the SM58.

Another thing I noticed about the two Encore mics was when my lead singer delivered some more powerful passages. He has a pretty strong voice in the middle to upper part of his vocal range. The Encore 100 seemed to handle the higher SPL’s more gracefully than the Encore 200. My lead vocalist can get a little shrill in the 5K-6K range at times on an SM58.

On the Encore 100, this didn’t seem to be as bad as the 58. But on the Encore 200 it seemed to be as bad as, if not worse than, a 58. However, the response curves on Blue’s website and the identical Max SPL ratings of the 100 and 200 would suggest that these mics should perform about the same in that particular area so maybe there is another reason behind what I observed.

My lead singer said after using both of these mics, “these mics just make it easier to sing.” When I probed for what he meant by that, he basically said that he felt like he didn’t have to work as hard to get the nuances in his vocal parts to come through.

This was something he sensed in the house mix when he had his IEM’s out and something he sensed in his IEM’s as well. I think he felt like what came out of the house system and the IEM’s was a more direct reflection of what was going into the mic. I would have to agree with him based on what I was hearing.

Summary
After my experiences with these microphones, I will definitely consider a purchase of these mics. They both offer great sound quality but come with some negatives. At the prices you can get these for, they are definitely worth considering versus similarly priced offerings from other manufacturers. I would probably recommend the Encore 100 for louder shows where a lot of gain before feedback is needed.

The Encore 200 seems to me to be a better fit for acoustic shows or anything where you don’t need as much GBF. I would definitely recommend both of these be used in stands rather than being held by a performer. Below are the pros and cons based on my experience and my personal opinions.

Encore 100 & 200 Pro’s
• Nice sound quality
• Good, competitive price point
• Reduced proximity effect
• Nice carrying pouch and mic clip

Encore 100 & 200 Con’s
• Handling noise
• Appearance (I don’t care for the very shiny grills and copper grill of the 200)
• Encore 200 doesn’t have enough gain before feedback for my use
• XLR connectors didn’t lock in very easily

The cons of the Encore 100 are things I can live with. I’ll always have them in a stand and my guys would know to be more careful when touching the stands or clipping the capo on the stand during a show. The appearance is just a preference issue that isn’t a deal breaker if it means I get better sound. We will probably end up buying a few of the 100’s for the band.

Check out the rest of the discussion on the Encore 100 & 200 in the Sound Reinforcement forum.

{extended}

Monday, November 09, 2009

Road Test Underway: Switchcraft SC800 Instrument Direct (DI) Box

Veteran audio professional Mark Frink provides perspective and an overview of a recent entry in the passive direct box field, the SC800 (Part 1 of 3)

Ten years ago, in the process of putting seven active direct boxes (DIs) - including the original Radial JDV - to a critical measurement and listening test, I discovered what has gone on to become an industry standard, Radial’s JDI. passive DI.

You know, the green one with a genuine Jensen transformer inside.

Now there’s another classic passive direct box, the Switchcraft SC800.

Over the years, Jensen transformers have established themselves as a reference benchmark.

Other manufactured Jensen DIs include the Whirlwind Direct-JT and D.W. Fearn PDB passive direct box.

Both employ the Jensen JT-DB-EPC, which is a PC-mount version of their classic JT-TB-E.

Many an old-timer earned his DI badge building a JT-DB-E into a bud box to make a homemade direct box: the way they were all made before the 1980s.

Not surprisingly, all these excellent passive DIs exhibit similar specs and sound, leaving most comparisons to design, features and packaging.

The SC800 passive direct box is built from a black anodized, laser-etched rectangular aluminum extrusion, with countersunk #2 Phillips screws fastening the recessed end panels.

.

At 2 inches high by 3.5 inches wide. it’s similar in shape to many familiar DIs.

Its 4-inch length is shorter than most others by about an inch, and there are two strips of rubber on the bottom to act as isolation feet. I like that there’s enough room to tape a business card on one side with clear packing tape to ID it when lost or misplaced. The SC800 looks sharp and professional.

A passive direct box simply converts the outputs of high-impedance unbalanced line level audio devices or musical instrument pick-ups by means of a transformer to match balanced XLR low-impedance professional mic pre-amps and mixers.

By eliminating the need to use a microphone, they also remove troubles of microphone choice and placement, as well as leakage into the mic from nearby sound sources.

.

A passive DI doesn’t require phantom power, further simplifying their operation.

Active DIs can be a good choice for matching the lower signals provided by passive instrument pickups.

However, many acoustic guitars and electric basses have on-board active electronics (“battery inside?”), making a passive DI a good match for their higher output levels.

Other applications include electronic keyboards, and various “Prosumer” line level playback devices with unbalanced outputs.

The connectors and switches on each end – which of course are all Switchcraft - are on anodized cerulean blue panels, recessed to protect their “short handle” pad and ground-lift switches.

One end has the usual pair of quarter-inch TS jacks for signal input and through-patching, with a 20 dB pad switch between. The other end has a male XLR and a pin 1 lift switch, plus a second quarter-inch through jack. The SC800’s rugged industrial design is an instant classic.

The specifications match the Jensen transformer inside, like the common mode rejection listed as greater than 100 dB at 60. Input impedance is greater than 150,000 Ohms at 1,000 Hz and output impedance is less than 170 Ohm.

Stated phase response is less than 3 degrees at 20 Hz, less than 1 degree at 1,000 Hz and less than 16 degrees at 20,000 Hz. With a +4 dBu input (1.23 volts RMS), Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) is less than 0.05 percent at 20 Hz and less than 0.006 percent at 1,000 Hz.

.

It has a maximum input level of +21 dBu, or 8.7 volts, which is where THD at 20 Hz rises to 1 percent. With the 20 dB pad engaged it will take a +41 dBu signal, enough for most small guitar amps if there’s also a speaker or resistive load attached.

Stated frequency response is 10 Hz to 40 kHz, plus or minus 0.3 dB, and stated voltage gain is minus 23 dB, or minus 43 dB with the 20 dB pad engaged.

Finally, the SC800 is hand-built in Chicago, Illinois.

Next I’ll take it to a few shows and try it on stage with a variety of audio inputs…

.

Mark Frink is a long-time audio professional and is also associate editor of Live Sound International magazine.

.

{extended}

Monday, August 17, 2009

Road Test In Process: Mackie HD1531 Three-Way Self-Powered Loudspeaker

The kickoff to an ongoing Road Test of a brand-new entry in live sound loudspeakers from Mackie

Mackie describes the HD1531 as a “15” High-Definition Powered Loudspeaker System”.

Yep, it’s got a 15” woofer, and it’s a three-way system, and it’s powered. Now what’s all this about being “High Definition”? I suppose I could try to explain it, but it might be easier if you just go here (pdf) and get the Mackie explanation.

The ordinary every-day non-HD attributes of this powered loudspeaker include 900 watts of power with an 1800 watt peak. Power is divided 700/100/100 (900/200/200 peak) into the Lo/Mid/Hi sections. There is a three-band EQ section that can be turned on and off as needed.

A noteworthy feature of the built-in EQ is that the total boost/cut of each band is 3 dB. I like this. It’s useful, but it does not give the inexperienced user enough rope to hang themselves. The mid band sweep range is from 100Hz to 8kHz with a Q of 1.5. It has a pole cup so you can mount it on a stand and 12 fly points. At 96 pounds, it’s at the top end of what you’d want to put up on a stand.

Cabinet construction is of 11mm birch plywood finished in good ‘ole basic black. Fit & finish is top-notch. The grill is a bit on the thin side, so I don’t recommend using this speaker as a backstop. No, not even for slow-pitch softball.

This is just a brief general description of the product so you know what I’m talking about. Details can be found here on the manufacturers website.

So how does this thing sound? Lemme tell ya…

First, let me say that I have used the Mackie SRM450 and SR1530 quite a bit, and I find that when used for what they are designed to be used for, I find them to be very useful products. I also find that when asked to perform beyond their design limits, they tend to fall short, often with disastrous consequences. This however, is the fault of the user, not the products.

.

My first use of the Mackie HD 1531 was in my back yard for a celebration of my son’s high school graduation. I used just one, and although it was not a very demanding application, I found listening to CD playback of a wide range of music all day to be very pleasant.

Next, I brought them to the club where I am the regular house sound guy. The room is on the small side, with a capacity of about 200 people. This size room is typical of the rooms where these speakers would get a lot of use. The room books a lot of bands that play music on the ‘harder’ side, but my plan is to use them for the ‘80’s cover band on a Thursday, and put the regular rig back up for the weekend.

The speakers worked out so well on Thursday, I decided to use them for the weekend with the heavy bands, and give them a true beating.

Like a lot of small club installations, there are issues with the installed system. In this case, The loudspeakers I am taking down are very good. The problem is that when properly splayed, the pattern is too wide for the room, so I have to choose between overlapping the horns or bouncing sound off the walls. The 90 degree pattern of the Mackies is narrower than the (properly splayed) 140 degree of the usual house speakers, but the installed speakers have a much higher output capability.

The detail in these speakers was immediately evident to me. It was reminiscent of the first time I used another well-known brand of very expensive powered speakers. The speakers made the whole rig sound better. Adjustments at the mixer seemed more pronounced. Tiny tweaks made huge differences.

Hey, maybe there is something to this “HD” thing.

On Friday night there are four bands scheduled, but one ends up not making it. Band number one has a cheap wireless mic for lead vocals. The singer in band number two uses his own Shure Beta58. Band number three uses a house supplied Audix OM3. The wireless mic is adequate, but nothing to write home about.

The Shure Beta58 has a pronounced “icepick” quality about it. The OM3 sound considerably soother. My point here is that the differences in vocal mics was striking. Something that is only evident when using a high quality speaker system.

The headlining band sounded vastly better than the openers. I wonder if the difference would have been as audible if I was not using the Mackie speakers?

While walking the room during the performance, I go up to see how the new cabinets are doing. The heat sinks are not even warm to the touch. The limiter light is blinking with each snare hit, so I know am around maximum output. Not to worry, the house is rockin’.

On Saturday night there are two bands. Both are of the “Metal” variety. Things went well, but I did find myself wanting a bit more output. I was into the limiters again, but again, the heat sinks were not even warm. I bring this up because some older model Mackie speakers had know thermal issues. This does not seem to be an issue with these new cabinets.

One possible explanation for the lack of heat at the heat sink is that I used the speakers on top of some 2x18” subwoofers crossed over at 90Hz. I suspect asking the internal amps to produce lower frequencies might result in more heat being generated.

The nutshell is that the Mackie HD1531 is an excellent speaker. Much better than the $1200.00 street price might indicate.

At the end of Saturday night’s gig I passed the Mackies on to Jeff Knorr, who was nice enough to come to the bar at 3:00AM to pick them up. I suspect the gigs he uses them on will be different than what I used them for. His review is forthcoming.

This discussion by Dave and the Road Test community continues here.

{extended}

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Road Test In Process: Soundcraft Vi6 Digital Console

The introduction to an ongoing Road Test of one of Soundcraft's most recent entries in digital consoles for live sound applications

I’ve been trying to get my ugly mitts on a Soundcraft Vi6 since I first saw one at AES two years ago.

Tom Der had one to spare this summer and shipped it down to Asbury Park, NJ where Jason Dermer’s company, TSL, will be putting it through its paces.

Since I do a lot of work with Jason, I got assigned the duty of figuring out how the brightly lit control surface works, getting it set up, mixing the openers, and then handing it over to him for State Radio’s show this past weekend.

Fortunately, my job was easy from that point on.

When it comes to digital consoles, I always harp on two points: Usability, and sound quality, usually in that order. This is because most of them sound OK enough, but fall flat in the usability department.

There’s simply no good way to cram the thousands of knobs and switches that we have come to enjoy on an analog console into a few hundred multi-purpose controls without sacrificing the human interface.

When I first had the opportunity to get the inside tour of a Vi6 at AES, I said to myself “Self, I think this is the first digital console that I would be just as happy to use as a large frame analog desk.”

While it is telling that one has to get into this $60,000 price range to have the same level of control as a $15,000 analog desk, that is not an entirely fair comparison as the Vi6 will mix 64 inputs to 35 outputs (including L, C, & R) and does it well!

Walk-up usability of the desk is really excellent, I would have no qualms handing this over the the most junior of engineers and expecting them to be able to understand everything they need to do to mix within 30 seconds. The desk operates in two banks of 32 input channels with 8 master faders that can bank between VCAs or any of the bus masters.

The main outputs have a dedicated fader bank and metering. Each input channel has a clear control strip on the touch screen so that all settings, from gain and polarity to EQ and dynamics to aux levels, are immediately viewable and, with the touch of a finger, immediately adjustable.

Above each fader is a beautiful, clear, long LED ladder (with peak hold!) for signal metering, as well as a 9 element ladder for gain reduction. Above that is a soft knob that can be set, globally, as input gain, pan, comp or gate threshold, HPF, or LPF.

Everything needed to rip through sound check in too little time because the headliner showed up 4 hours late and diddled around on stage until 10 minutes to doors is right there on the top layer, no banking or extra thought required.

Input channels are set up in banks of 8, each with its own dedicated touch screen and Vistonics knobs. That places the Vi6 in the rarified company of desks that allow more than one engineer to work at the same time, independently.

Not even intending to, Jason and I did that very thing… while I was mixing the openers, he was finalizing his settings for the headliner, completely different tasks and not once did we get in each other’s way (well, except physically).

Had we been working on different layers it might have been a slightly different story (the whole desk, aside from the master section, banks at the same time), but the Vi6 thoughtfully allows a touch of the meters on the main screen to bring any bank of 8 channels over to the rightmost fader group for full control, while the rest of the console is elsewhere.

This proved useful still, since I buried my effects returns on the last 8 channels (58-64) but could easily bring them up to adjust without losing immediate control of my band channels.

This discussion by Bennett and the Road Test community continues here.

{extended}

Friday, April 18, 2008

APB Dynasonics ProRack Monitor M1016

A quick look at the compact APB Dynasonics ProRack Monitor M1016 mixer.

It’s always nice to come home to a present, and the upstanding folks at APB Dynasonics saw fit to let me demo one of their brand new ProRack Monitor model M1016 mixers for my birthday! I’ve literally just opened the box today and taken some photos, but I’ll have plenty of use for it coming up, and of course anyone else who’d like to take a spin is welcome to borrow it.

Yes, that means these are now shipping and you can even have one for yourself.

If you haven’t heard of the fine mixers coming out of Totowa, NJ on the LAB yet, I don’t know what rock you’ve been living under. Many of us LABsters have been having extremely positive experiences with APB Dynasonics’ excellent analog mixers, and there’s no reason to expect anything but smiles from the new rack mount set, but that’s my job to find out.

The M1016 offers the following features (shamelessly copied from their website):

• 16 Mono mic/line input channels, all with Spectra-quality microphone preamplifiers in a 10u (17.5” in x 19”) package.
• Built in Passive microphone splitter system on rear panel with Pin 1 lift switches.
• Minimum phase shift circuitry and internal Mother /Daughter Board construction derived from the Spectra console design.
• 48 volt Phantom Power switch, Polarity Reverse switch, Mic/Line switch, Mic Pad switch on input channels.

• Variable frequency high-pass filters on all input channels with a 20Hz to 400Hz sweep range at 12dB per octave.
• Input channels feature fixed high and low frequency EQ bands and two mid-sweep EQ bands, with EQ On switch with LED, The EQ internal design is based upon Spectra circuitry.
• Two (2) Mono mixes switchable between a pre or post fader source and include XLR balanced outputs and pre AFL (solo) TRS insert points.
• Eight (8) Stereo mixes, each with rotary level control and pan fader. These outputs each have balanced XLR outputs, Line (bus) inputs with each pair routed through return faders associated with each stereo master output section and pre AFL (solo) TRS insert connectors. Output may be selected to mono operation by front panel switch, making use of only the left inset point feeding both left and right output connectors.
• Internally illuminated Mute and PFL/AFL switches along with 6-segment LED channel metering on all input channels.
• Eight sets of 10x2 segment output meters on each of the 8 Stereo Output master sections. Master output level is controlled from eight (8) 60mm stereo faders, with each of these output sections having internally illumined Mute and AFL switches. Bus level signal monitoring using bi-color LED’s are provided on each stereo mix bus pair.
• Rear panel rotates and may be locked in any of three preset angles (referenced to the front panel) – 90 degrees, 135 degrees, or 180 degrees.
• 100-240 VAC, 50/60Hz Power Supply - Field replaceable (plug in) without disassembly of mixer.
• Adjustable lamp dimmer provided for the 4-Pin XLR connector for use with (optional) gooseneck lamp.

I’ve played around with this unit on a few trade show floors already, and it’s well built and feature packed… the ProRack series is really unbeatable in terms of quality and feature density. If you need to go small but still need a real feature set and the sound quality of a full frame analog board, I know of no alternative. 8 stereo/mono mixes plus 2 mono mixes, each with its own set of meters and little fader for a bus in (tracks, anyone?)... any show you could reasonably bring a compact mixer to, this mixer can handle. It would also make a great matrix, come to think of it.

Check out the discussion on the ProRack M1016 in the Sound Reinforcement forum.

 

{extended}

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

TC Electronic M350 Processor

A quick look at the compact tc electronic M350 digital effects device.

The friendly guy in the brown truck dropped off some packages last Friday, one of which was a TC M350, which is positioned by TC as their lowest-end digital effects device (list price $249). It’s a “dual engine” device, with one engine dedicated to non-reverb effects (like delay, flanging, chorus, phaser, tremolo and compression) and the second dedicated to reverb. It has two inputs, two outputs (all balanced, BTW), as well as S/PDIF digital I/O. It has a MIDI port for control, set-up dump and firmware update. A standard IEC jack attaches to the locale-specific power cord; the switch-mode power supply accepts any mains line voltage.

Natch, the first thing I do with any piece of gear is to open it up and poke around. Inside are two PCAs. One is a single-sided job that’s the power supply (it looks like TC buys somebody’s supply) providing +15V and -15V for the op-amps, +5V for the converters, and +3.3V for the digital stuff. The other PCA holds everything else. A Freescale (formerly Motorola) 56362-120 (about $8 in 1K qty) is the DSP, which is connected to an SRAM and a flash EPROM. Presumably, it’s clocked at 120 MHz (it has an internal oscillator and I didn’t check to see if the system clock is brought out to a port pin) so the DSP does 120 MIPs, which is obviously sufficient. Like all Moto 56K parts, it’s a fixed-point 24-bit processor, with a 24 x 24 MAC and 56-bit accumulators. An Atmel ATMega 8-bitter handles MIDI and user interface. The DAC and the ADC are AKM parts. Opamps are 5532s. Ferrites are used at all I/O ports for EMI suppression. I/O is balanced although it appears that the outputs use the simple build-out to ground for the inverting line (which is fine).

The M350 can be configured, via rear-panel switch, in one of two ways: One is as two parallel effects engines, with one input for the effects engine and the other for the reverb. In this mode, both engines have stereo out which are combined to drive the outputs. A balance control sets the relative level of both engines in the mix. The other configuration is serial, with the effects engine first, followed by the reverb engine.

I’ve been pretty vocal about my dislike of the dual-engine with one output configuration. It has to do with how I mix. I like to bring my effects into the console on their own inputs. I like to set up, on the input channel aux send knobs, the proper blend sending to an effect, while trying to keep the effect’s input level decently hot (best effect S/N), and then adjusting the level of the effect in the mix on the return fader. Usually the return fader lives somewhere other than at unity.

Having two effects combined in the box means you have to put the effects return faders at unity (or some other convenient level) and then establish the level of the effects in the mix on the effect input, which is a pain, perhaps less so if your console has faders for the aux send masters. Of course you’re boned if you want to use the box in the parallel mode but also send the delay output to the reverb (since vocal that’s fed to both a reverb and delay with the delay kept dry sounds kinda weird to me). So it’s a simple matter to say “this is a single-engine device,” especially since each engine’s effect select has an “off” position.

This brings up another important topic: User Interface. And the M350’s interface is kinda spartan, similar to competing products in its price range. There are the expected input-level and blend (wet/dry) knobs, and the effect balance knob.(There’s no output level knob, which is fine, as most users set it to maximum.)

Each engine has a 16-position effect-select switch (as noted, one position is “off”). The Delay/Effect engine has two pots for parameter adjustment and the Reverb engine has three such pots. The 12 o’clock position of each pot is what TC calls the “normal” setting. One could reasonably ask, “What’s normal?” For example, the Reverb engine has controls for Predelay, Decay Time and “Color.” If you choose the Gold Plate program, what’s the decay time? Seriously. At my show on Saturday, the opening band had a mixer-person, and he asked for a 2 second reverb. On many pro-level reverb boxes, the reverb decay setting is simple. On the M350 (and similar units from Lexicon and others, let’s be honest here), there’s simply no way to know your decay time.

And this is where the whole dual-engine-summed-into-one-output concept falls on its face: you can’t cue up just the reverb to fine-tune it… you also hear the delay engine. (Similarly, you can’t cue up just the delay without hearing reverb.)

The delay engine has an interface quirk related to this “normal” setting. You actually set the delay using the tap button. If the delay time knob is in the “normal” position, the delay time you tap is what you get (and you can fine-tune it by turning the delay knob). However, if the delay time knob is not at normal, then the time you tap gets varied by the amount the knob is offset from normal, which is annoying until you realize what it’s doing. Advice: leave the knob at 12 o’clock and tap your delays and be done with it.

TC tells us that the M350 is “Perfect for Computer Recording ... Through the included software, the user can control and edit the M350?s parameters stand-alone and in any AU/VST environment. “

The demo unit didn’t include a CD, so I followed the link to “control software” where I was able to download the Vyzor Control Software for OS X. I installed it, connected the unit to my M-Audio MIDI gizmo, and ran the software. I was then asked for a serial number for the software (!!), which is NOT the same as the unit’s serial number. How to get a serial number? Follow the link where you’re asked for an e-mail address and your name.

Note to TC: You’ve just annoyed me. The Vyzor software has one purpose: to control this particular box. So why do I need to register it and get a serial number? It’s not like I can use the software to control my LXP-5? No! So, please: drop the stupid serial number.

I haven’t had a chance to play with the control software yet. I hope that it offers reasonable control of things like reverb time, kinda like how a Lexicon MRC makes the LXP-1 and LXP-5 units actually usable.

Another potentially interesting use of this box is as a plug-in for a DAW, using the S/PDIF I/O. The note above mentions “the user can control and edit the M350?s parameters stand-alone and in any AU/VST environment. ” There’s a comment about this: “For more information about availability of an Audio Units version of the Control Software, please click here.” So I clicked there, and we’re told that “We hope to have the Audio Units version available for download from our webpage in march 2007.” Well, it’s the lusty month of May, so I’ve filed AU support for the device under vaporware. (Maybe by the time it’s real, I’ll have figured out how to use Logic 7.)

About the control software, called Vyzor M350, apparently written by a third party.

The product’s web page tells us that, “through the included software editor, parameters and preset recalls may be fully automated or real-time controlled.” Ignoring the awful syntax of “may be real-time controlled,” I downloaded the software, and installed it on my MacBook Pro.

As I noted before, for whatever stupid reason TC requires you to get a serial number for the software. So I registered for the software, and it asks for my name and my e-mail address. I expected to get an e-mail with the magic serial number, but no, I just get to a web page with the serial number. So the deal here: print that web page so you don’t lose the number and have to re-register. Why ask for an e-mail address?

NB that the promised Audio Unit support still has not materialized, although there is VST support if your DAW software can use it.

After getting a serial number, I connected an M-Audio USB Uno MIDI interface to my MacBook Pro, then connected the MIDI tails to the M350. I ran the software and it asked me which MIDI port to use, so I selected the Uno and it seemed to recognize the M350. I was able to fetch user presets from the box. The main window of the program has an image of the M350, which, when clicked, opens up a large photo of the front panel and all of the user interface controls are clickable and changeable. However, after changing a few controls the software (which was v1.00) crashed. Restart, re-set MIDI port selection, open up the front panel, play a bit, crash again.

I did about five or six cycles of this, until I got pissed off and checked the TC Electronic web site and sure enough, there’s a v1.3 of the control software. I downloaded it, read the READ ME FIRST.pdf file, which told me that I needed to update the firmware in the M350 to work with the new software. OK, that’s fine ... except the disclaimer: “The M350 software upgrade can only be done using a PC running Windows. (emphasis theirs) We have only tested it under Windows XP, but it may also work under other versions of Windows.” On the next page, we’re told, “Please note, the software update cannot be made under Mac OS X. (again, emphasis theirs) This is not a deliberate choice on the side of TC Electronic. We know a lot of studios and musicians use the Mac.”

In other words, go fuck yourselves, Mac users. This is an EXCELLENT reason to take the unit out of the rack, put it back into the box, and return it.

Oh, I figured that I had nothing to lose by at least installing and running the v1.3 software without doing the firmware update, so I did.

And it turns out that what’s labeled as v1.3 on the web site still shows up as v1.0 when one does “About Vyzor M350 ...”

Ooops. Somebody at TC needs to, you know, get that sorted out.

Gotta dig out the ThinkPad and do the FW upgrade. I suppose I could try it under Parallels, as the new v3.0 has some excellent hardware support (I can talk to a Silicon Labs serial JTAG dongle using a Prolific USB-to-RS232 converter with the SiLabs software running in Parallels).

Poll! Should I do it from the Mac under Parallels, knowing that I could brick the M350?

Check out the discussion on the TC M350 in the Sound Reinforcement forum.

{extended}