# Instruments and Equipment > Equipment >  Bose L1 Compact + Extra Mixer

## Mandobart

A bandmate has the L1 compact.  She is interested in being able to input more than 2 channels, so has taken a look at the Bose T1 ToneMatch.  She is not extremely tech savy, (nor am I) and I doubt we would use all the bells and whistles on the tonematch.  For $500 I'm thinking that's more than we need to spend for additional input channels.  So I have a few questions:

1.  Anyone using the tonematch system?  Is it really all that?
2.  Couldn't I use just about any mixer and plug it in to the Bose L1?  Or would there be a problem that I don't know about due to inexperience here?
3.  It looks like even on the ugrade L1's (Model 1S, Model II) you still need to buy the tonematch separate to get more input channels.  I guess why they recommend each bandmember play thru their own L1.  Not happening in this band.

Thanks everyone.

----------


## almeriastrings

The L1 Tonematch is a quite sophisticated (though rather restricted) compact _digital_ live mixer.  Hence, the price tag is much more than for an analog mixer with an equivalent number of inputs. It includes compression, EQ, reverb and various presets and 'models'. It works well - within its limits - but _is_ expensive for the channel count on offer and there are several 'features' which are not very enticing: non-built-in PSU, for one, small display for another. For the $499 it costs you could get a much more capable analog mixer with a decent array of FX, for example. Any mixer will work with the L1 Compact. 

If you would only _ever_ need 4 inputs, and want compression and the 'modelling' capability, then maybe it makes sense, but 4 inputs is not very many.....  

I would suggest looking at the Allen & Heath Zed 10 FX or the Soundcraft EFX8. 

These are both rock-solid, great sounding little mixers that would work perfectly with the Bose. They cost substantially less than the Tonematch and give you many more input options (particularly the EFX8). They are both very versatile. The A&H has two very nice ultra-high impedance DI inputs built in... the EFX8 has more mic channels... depends on your needs as to which would suit best.

----------

Mandobart, 

Nevin

----------


## lloving

My 5 piece band is currently using the L1 Compact with the Soundcraft EFX8 with good success. We are running 4 instruments and 4 mics through the XLR inputs on the EFX8 then out to the L1 XLR input. Works great.

----------

Mandobart

----------


## avaldes

Are you using mics on the instruments, or pickups? I was wondering how good this system would be for a mic'ed mandolin or guitar. It seems one input is intended for an instrument with a pickup.

----------


## Mandobart

We use both a mic and piezo p'ups.  She plays accordion into the mic and I play mandolin, fiddle, or guitar into the instrument channel.  Don't know the specs, but it sounds like when I play thru a Fender acoustasonic, made for high impedance piezo's.  I've also used an XLR adapter and plugged mandolin and fine.

----------


## lloving

> Are you using mics on the instruments, or pickups? I was wondering how good this system would be for a mic'ed mandolin or guitar. It seems one input is intended for an instrument with a pickup.


All instruments are mic'ed. On the L1 there is an input for a pickup that is factory "Tone Matched"

----------


## almeriastrings

On a tech level, the 'tone match' is mostly a set of EQ curves. A few other parameters are tweaked as well, but it is really just a choice of settings that can be pre-selected. You can certainly achieve the same thing with any other mixer if you play with the settings... if you wish to plug instruments with a *passive* piezo transducer _directly_ into the mixer, via 1/4" jack, the  A&H Zed 10FX is ideal, as it has two channels designed for just that purpose (10M impedance). You 'lose' a mic channel when you do this, however.  The other mixer in that range which has more mic inputs (8) and a pair of ultra-high-z inputs is the ZED 60 14 FX. That is really nice mixer, with some great features that make a practical difference, channel mutes (illuminated), compact faders, etc. 

The other mixer I mentioned, the Soundcraft EFX8, is notable for the 8 high quality mic inputs you get in a super-compact package. The thing is built like a tank, too. If you want to plug instruments with a *passive* piezo into this, you will need a high impedance buffer pre-amp. That will then go into one of the channel line jacks, or mic XLR's. You do not need 'fancy' EQ on the preamp, as the Soundcraft's own EQ is more than up to the job (as is the Allen & Heath's). If your instruments have *active* pickup systems (they need a battery to operate), you can usually just plug straight into any channel's line-level jack input, as the high impedance buffer is already built inside the instrument. 

Any of the above mentioned mixers are extremely capable, great sounding little desks. You really can't go wrong with any of them.

Worth noting that the price of *digital* mixers is coming down... the QSC is due out soon, and the Mackie DL's are discounted well these days....   when you consider the Bose Tonematch is $499, and these are all _vastly_ more capable, with loads more inputs, remote iPad control and such... I feel the Tonematch is now over-priced and under-powered. Things have moved a long way since it first appeared.

----------

Nevin

----------


## roysboy

Any mixer will work with the L1 compact . You don't need the Tonematch . I've used up to 8 inputs on the mixer . The system sounds great .

----------


## foldedpath

I just wanted to add one small caution about the Soundcraft EFX8 mixer that Almeriastrings mentioned above. It's a great compact mixer, but it has one odd design flaw. The AUX send channel has no output volume control, which is a serious handicap if you use powered monitors since you can't adjust the monitor level on the mixer. You can still use the "monitor out" but that's the full mix, which defeats the purpose of having an AUX channel at all. It's the reason I sold my EFX8 and got the slightly larger MFXi8 mixer which does have an AUX out volume control. 

Another minor complaint with the EFX8 is that the channel mute switches don't have LED indicators, which tripped me up a few times when swapping instruments on a dark stage, having to go just by by feel (The MFXi8 does have LED mutes). Not a big deal, but worth mentioning. If you need 8 mic channels in an analog mixer with the smallest frame size possible, and you'll never use a powered floor monitor, then the EFX8 will do the job. 

I like this Soundcraft series (and the MFXi range) better than the equivalent Allen & Heath ZED line in the medium 6-12 channel sizes because the fader range is shorter and it has fewer AUX channels (I don't usually need more than one monitor mix). That keeps the frame size smaller in the front-to-back dimension, compared to  A&H ZED mixers with longer fader runs and more AUX channels. 

I do like (and use) the little Allen & Heath ZED-10FX for small jobs. It's a tremendous bang for the buck with excellent build quality, preamps, and EQ. I wish it had mute switches, but I can live with rolling down the channel volumes in return for the ultra-compact size. And I'm keeping my eye on that new QSC ultra-compact digital mixer about to hit the street. I don't _need it_ right now, but it sure looks cool.
 :Wink:

----------


## lloving

I agree completely with FOLDEDPATH on the EFX8. I have used both the EFX8 and the MFXi8. While the EFX8 does a great job the added control and effects of the MFXi8 make it a better choice for a very reasonable price.
As mentioned by ALMERIASTRINGS the upcoming QSC digital looks very interesting.

----------


## Polecat

You might want to look at the Yamaha MG series mixers; to my ears, the preamps sound better than anything else in their price class - there are affordable models available with and without FX, with varying aux/monitor options. As with most small mixers, you'll need a buffer for piezo pickups, but that's just something you'll have to live with.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## Charlieshafer

I'm in the mix with everyone here, but I think I'd look long and hard at either waiting for the QSC or look at the small Mackie, even though it needs an iPad. While it's tempting to get as little as you need right now, what happens when some friends sit in? What happens if you get a little bigger on an more permanent basis? I'd rather spend 5-6 hundred now, than 300 now and another 5-6 later on. The Soundcraft is a great little board, and I'm basically a slave to analogue, but the more I play with the features on digital boards, the more I'm tempted to go that way, especially with the remote-control thing (by iPad or smartphone) they offer.

----------

lloving

----------


## jake-mando

I play in a duo. We have the Bose L1 model 2. We have 2 T1 tonematch units. One for each musician. (We both play multiple instruments) i would highly recommend them. Very easy to use with the tonematch function. It takes very little work to eq your sound. Bose is made for Bose. If you own the L1 Compact, you already know how good the product is.

----------


## Tim Griffin

It sounds to me a system that has a mixer shouldn't need another mixer.

----------


## almeriastrings

The Bose L1 Compact by itself does not have (much) of a mixer. One mic + one instrument and a stereo RCA and mini-jack. That's it. To top that off you get no EQ apart from 'treble' and 'bass' and no FX. Hence, an ancillary mixer of some sort is pretty much essential for most users.

The 'negative' points about the EFX8 are correct, though in this case, if used with a compact line array, the lack of output level control on the AUX out would not be an issue as you do not normally need separate stage monitors with those systems. The most annoying 'feature' to me, has been the non-illuminated channel mutes. Instead, just a red button... fine in good light, but frustrating in anything less. Illuminated channel mutes might seem like a small thing, but it's not when you are mixing in dingy conditions! It makes life so much easier and greatly reduces the chance of screw-ups. The MFXi series do add the illuminated mute, and they have workable AUX outs. The downside is they are larger and more costly. They are a very fine analog mixer, however (we have an MFXi12 and an EFX8, though both are mainly doing backup duties now to the Line 6 M20D digital mixer we've been using the past couple of months). See separate thread on the pros/cons of digital live mixers.

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> You might want to look at the Yamaha MG series mixers; to my ears, the preamps sound better than anything else in their price class - there are affordable models available with and without FX, with varying aux/monitor options. As with most small mixers, you'll need a buffer for piezo pickups, but that's just something you'll have to live with.


Polecat, Thank you for that! I was just about to ask if anyone knows anything about the Yamaha MG mixers when I noticed your post. 
I need something with more inputs than the Tone Match to run with a Bose L1 Model II. I have access to an MG82cx (with FX) that I'm hoping will work. I have not had a chance to test out the combination yet. Your response is encouraging. 

Any other tips/advice re the Yamaha MG-Bose combination would be welcome.

----------


## roysboy

> Polecat, Thank you for that! I was just about to ask if anyone knows anything about the Yamaha MG mixers when I noticed your post. 
> I need something with more inputs than the Tone Match to run with a Bose L1 Model II. I have access to an MG82cx (with FX) that I'm hoping will work. I have not had a chance to test out the combination yet. Your response is encouraging. 
> 
> Any other tips/advice re the Yamaha MG-Bose combination would be welcome.


I'll second the Yamaha mixer suggestion . I used one as a recording interface for a couple of years and got great results . It has a built-in tweak-able compression on several channel strips . Never had any issues ....but it never left my studio .

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## Polecat

I have an MG 10/2 which must be about 15 years old attached to my computer for recording (used to use it live but the 4 mic inputs proved to be limiting sometimes), and an MG124CX for live work (bought used to replace the 10/2). They are both very reliable and have never caused any problems, and, as I say, IMO you'd have to look long and hard to find a better-sounding mixer for the price. I can't speak for the quality of the effects in the desk, though; I'm  one of those perverse people who actually prefers a spring reverb, so we use a "vintage" opamp-driven unit and leave the digital bells and whistles switched off.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## Tim2723

My bandmate and I have been using the Bose compact (as well as a Model II for larger gigs) for about four years now.  It was originally designed for a single player using a pickup and a vocal mic.  But there is a small switch you move to select a line-in option for any mixer and just go from there.  I recommend a mixer with at least reverb added.  Being a duo, we use a Soundcraft six channel mixer but you can go larger if you want.

----------


## Tim2723

> It sounds to me a system that has a mixer shouldn't need another mixer.


You're right.  But the Bose systems were intended for use by a single player.  Each performer was supposed to have his own.  But in true musician's fashion people are using them as powered speakers and putting in as many channels as they want.

----------


## almeriastrings

The Yamaha MG series are a decent sounding mixer, but build quality is very 'plastic' and they use a veritable lump of an external PSU which can put a strain on the cable entry if you are not careful.  Seen a couple with failures at that point. The 'one knob' compression is very inflexible compared to a regular unit. They will certainly work with the Bose - as will any mixer. Nothing really wrong with the Yamaha's, but they are not quite in the same league as some mentioned previously, though at the same time, they are better than 'some' others out there! If you have one, I'd use it, but I would not rush to go out and buy one specifically.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## foldedpath

> Polecat, Thank you for that! I was just about to ask if anyone knows anything about the Yamaha MG mixers when I noticed your post. 
> I need something with more inputs than the Tone Match to run with a Bose L1 Model II. I have access to an MG82cx (with FX) that I'm hoping will work. I have not had a chance to test out the combination yet. Your response is encouraging. 
> 
> Any other tips/advice re the Yamaha MG-Bose combination would be welcome.


I'm not a fan of those Yamaha mixers, for three reasons:

1) The EQ is basic Low/Mid/High, lacking the semi-parametric mid EQ of the compact Allen & Heath ZED and Soundcraft EFX/MFXi mixers. For an acoustic musician, that "sweep" mid EQ function is extremely useful for tone shaping. 

2) They include channel compressors, which is a waste of space on a mixer like this. It's the easiest way to generate feedback if you don't know what you're doing. Worse, it's a "one knob" compressor, so even if you do know how to use a compressor, you're missing full control over it. 

3) It has no internal power supply and needs an AC adapter (wall wart). External power supplies are a potential failure point I don't want to deal with, whenever I can avoid it. The Allen & Heath and Soundcraft mixers have internal power supplies, so all you need is a standard IEC power cable.

Yamaha makes some great gear, but this is a design they haven't updated in years. I don't see a reason to buy this series, when mixers like those from A&H, Soundcraft, and the new breed of digital mixers are out there.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## Polecat

I don't want to start a long discussion of the merits and otherwise of various mixers, but I would like to respond to Almeriastrings and foldedpaths points:

I would agree, the compressor knob is more or less useless, and don't use it.

As regards the lack of a parametric "mid" tone control - I don't miss it; my bass player uses a DPA mic, I have an AKG C411, for vocals we use the good old SM58. The mixer tone settings are all pretty much flat, with some mids reduced for the mandolin. I don't like piezo pickups because of the radical doctoring you have to do to get them to sound "natural"; it makes more sense to me to worry that the signal coming from the instrument sounds good in itself than have to "bend" it in the mixer. This, however, is only my point of view based on my experience.

I regard the external power supply as a two-edged sword - sure, it's a point of potential failure (though I wonder what you have to do to break the plug socket on the desk, it is secured with a locking ring). On the other hand I have had bad experiences with other compact mixers which produce an audible 50hz hum; whether this is a result of poor screening or rough handling I don't know, but they weren't cheap junk, and an external power supply removes this potential problem.

foldedpath makes the point that the MG range "hasn't been updated for years", this is true, but neither, for example has the Shure SM58! and, I suspect, for similar reasons: There are better microphones (and mixers) out there, but for the task it is designed to perform, at the price point it is available at, it does a very good job. However, it is not the only decent mixer in its class, and I would be the last to say that mine is the only "right" opinion.

----------


## Mandobart

I sure appreciate the input from everyone.  Couple more questions:
1. How is the USB interface on the A&H units?  Would it work ok going into my PC to make demos with Audacity?

2.  Does the larger and heavier A&H ZED 12FX also have a couple 10 meg ohm inputs?

Thanks again!

----------


## foldedpath

> I sure appreciate the input from everyone.  Couple more questions:
> 1. How is the USB interface on the A&H units?  Would it work ok going into my PC to make demos with Audacity?
> 
> 2.  Does the larger and heavier A&H ZED 12FX also have a couple 10 meg ohm inputs?
> 
> Thanks again!


The USB interface on these mixers is the very basic USB 1.1 direct interface, which means it doesn't need to have any drivers installed on your computer (a good thing!), but it also means you can only record in 16 bits (not such a good thing!). The preamp quality in thse mixers is very good; not quite up to outboard dedicated preamps or those in some of the higher-end recording interfaces, but certainly "good enough" for 
basic home recording. 

The 16-bit limitation just means you have to be more careful about hitting the sweet spot in your levels, between clipping with a too-hot signal, and too low a level so you get noise or aliasing artifacts when you increase the volume later, in a computer editor like Audacity. A 24-bit recording interface gives you more headroom to work with, so you don't have to be as careful about your levels. That said, it's not a serious limitation as long as you watch the clip lights on your computer software when recording. FYI, the small pocket recorders like the Zoom H2 have this same 16-bit limitation when used as a computer interface instead of their intended standalone mode, where they do record in 24 bits.

Also, the USB recording function is just the main stereo mix, not the individual channels. That's a feature of the new compact digital mixers coming out now, but these smaller mixers with a "USB record" function are usually just the 2-mix.

On the second question, as far as I can tell these larger ZED mixers don't have the High-Z inputs for direct pickup connection like the ZED-10FX. You'd have to use a DI box, but that can be a better solution anyway if you have a long cable run from the instrument to the mixer. Passive pickups perform better with the shortest possible cable run to a High-Z input.

----------


## almeriastrings

My feeling is that you should pretty much ignore the USB outputs on these mixers. Much better to use a dedicated interface for recording. One little known effect is that if you plug a USB 1.1 device into a USB bus it drags down the speed of the entire bus - even if it is USB 2.0 or 3.0 by design. If you do want to record from these mixers, I'd just take an analog feed out to a separate SD card recorder or PC/Mac interface. If you want to record independent tracks, then you are looking at a much more complex and expensive mixer. I've used the A&H Zed R16 for that (firewire or ADAT connectivity). The Zed R16 is very much optimized for recording, however, and lacks a lot of what you need for live sound (no built in FX, for example). The preamps on all the ZED range are really good in my experience. Very clean. Quiet. Neutral. Lots of headroom.  I was using one as an ADAT extender on a project recently, feeding into our Universal Audio Apollo interface (Thunderbolt into Mac). 

Can confirm the ZED 12FX does not have the hi-z inputs. The Zed 60-14FX is actually a better deal these days. The Zed 12 only has 6 mic preamps too.... and it is quite a bulky beast!

----------


## foldedpath

> My feeling is that you should pretty much ignore the USB outputs on these mixers. Much better to use a dedicated interface for recording. One little known effect is that if you plug a USB 1.1 device into a USB bus it drags down the speed of the entire bus - even if it is USB 2.0 or 3.0 by design. If you do want to record from these mixers, I'd just take an analog feed out to a separate SD card recorder or PC/Mac interface.


Yeah, I agree. Analog stereo out to a decent stereo SD card recorder is the way to go, if you just need a capture of the main 2-mix.




> If you want to record independent tracks, then you are looking at a much more complex and expensive mixer.


Slight disagreement there, depending on the analog mixer we're talking about, and whatever extra recording gear you have lying around
 :Smile: 

Any compact analog mixer that has _channel inserts_ can be "tapped" with a 1/4" TRS cable with a wired short across two leads, to send a signal to an outboard multitrack recorder and also back down to the mixer (so it doesn't disturb the PA mix). There is a way to do this with just inserting a standard 1/4" TRS plug halfway in the channel insert to the first click, but that's risky in a live sound rig application. One wrong move and that channel goes dead on the PA. Use a plug with a soldered short for this. HOSA sells cables pre-wired this way, and I've used those with my MFXi8 mixer to get a multitrack recording into a basic, no bells-and-whistles recorder like the Tascam DR-680. You get a pre-fader, pre-EQ multitrack recording you can edit down later on your computer. 

The new digital mixers are making it much easier to do this with internal flashcard or USB hard drive recording, but there is still this Old School way of doing it, using shorted plugs into channel inserts on an analog mixer. Channel inserts are slowly disappearing from the market as the digital mixers invade (no need for external FX patching!), but it's worth knowing that you can do this, as a workaround for multi-track recording if you have those channel inserts and an outboard multi-track recorder to use.

----------


## almeriastrings

Yes, you can tap the channel inserts (provided there are some there to tap!) - unfortunately a lot of new, smaller mixers now omit them altogether as you point out - and you still need an audio interface with the required number of line inputs... it is a workaround, but can be messy in terms of cables and is rather susceptible to ground-loop issues. All of which can be overcome, but generally, I'd advise people going for a more direct approach. If you need to record large numbers of channels simultaneously, look at some of the more capable interfaces (Apogee, RME, Universal Audio and Lynx, etc.) and some matching ADAT extenders. I suspect we are going into territory far beyond that envisaged by the OP!

----------


## Mandobart

Old thread, new related question - There are several acoustic amps out there that get discussed in here.  Most of these have two or three inputs, 1/4" and XLR.  Can a mixer be plugged in to one of these to expand the available number of inputs?  I'm now mostly  a solo performer, using the house system or borrowed PA from friends.  (My usual musical partner Tom passed away earlier this year.  We always used his old beat up PA, so I didn't need my own system).  I'm expanding the number of gigs I get, so I really need my own sound reinforcement.  Sometimes I'll play in a duo or trio, meaning a few times a year I may want to have more than two inputs.

Without debating PA vs single powered speaker vs acoustic amp, my question is can I plug a mixer into the input of a Fender or Carvin or Genzbenz or other acoustic amp to expand the number of inputs?  Thanks again.

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> Old thread, new related question - There are several acoustic amps out there that get discussed in here.  Most of these have two or three inputs, 1/4" and XLR.  Can a mixer be plugged in to one of these to expand the available number of inputs?  I'm now mostly  a solo performer, using the house system or borrowed PA from friends.  (My usual musical partner Tom passed away earlier this year.  We always used his old beat up PA, so I didn't need my own system).  I'm expanding the number of gigs I get, so I really need my own sound reinforcement.  Sometimes I'll play in a duo or trio, meaning a few times a year I may want to have more than two inputs.
> 
> Without debating PA vs single powered speaker vs acoustic amp, my question is can I plug a mixer into the input of a Fender or Carvin or Genzbenz or other acoustic amp to expand the number of inputs?  Thanks again.


I'm not familiar with the acoustic amps you mentioned. I do sometimes use a Bose L1. It has basically only one input. I plug an 8 channel Yamaha mixer into it when I need multiple inputs. Works fine for me. 

I don't know if that answered your question or not. I see this very combination has been discussed in the previous pages.

----------


## foldedpath

> Without debating PA vs single powered speaker vs acoustic amp, my question is can I plug a mixer into the input of a Fender or Carvin or Genzbenz or other acoustic amp to expand the number of inputs?  Thanks again.


The simple answer is yes, no problem, as long as the acoustic amp includes a line level input or FX send/return. 

Don't plug the mixer output into an "instrument" input. It has to be something labeled "line level." It will also work if the acoustic amp has FX send/return jacks. Just plug the mixer output into the FX return, and you'll bypass the preamp input of the amp.

As usual, it's not _quite_ that simple, and you have to be aware of what "line level" means coming out of a mixer. 

Acoustic amps are looking for a "consumer line level" that runs at -10db, like the output of an FX pedal. However, if you're using a mixer output into that jack, the mixer may be sending a "pro line level" of +4db, which will be too hot and clip the input, causing nasty distortion. All you have to do in that case, is back off on the mixer's main output level. Another way to deal with that, is to use a mixer's "recording" outputs, which are usually on RCA output jacks and always run at the consumer line level output.

There's line level, and there's line level. It pays to know the difference between the "consumer" type and the "pro" type. But the bottom line is that it will work fine. Just watch your output levels from the mixer.
 :Wink:

----------

Mandobart

----------


## roysboy

> Old thread, new related question - There are several acoustic amps out there that get discussed in here.  Most of these have two or three inputs, 1/4" and XLR.  Can a mixer be plugged in to one of these to expand the available number of inputs?  I'm now mostly  a solo performer, using the house system or borrowed PA from friends.  (My usual musical partner Tom passed away earlier this year.  We always used his old beat up PA, so I didn't need my own system).  I'm expanding the number of gigs I get, so I really need my own sound reinforcement.  Sometimes I'll play in a duo or trio, meaning a few times a year I may want to have more than two inputs.
> 
> Without debating PA vs single powered speaker vs acoustic amp, my question is can I plug a mixer into the input of a Fender or Carvin or Genzbenz or other acoustic amp to expand the number of inputs?  Thanks again.


I'm guessing you aren't working at " Balls To The Walls " volume so I can't see why you'd have any issues running a small mixer into your amp ...as long as its from a line -out ( not a speaker out ) or an un-powered mixer. Running everything from one source may mean some compromise EQ-wise ( ie backing tracks with bass and drums  may need more " thump " from the amp EQ ) but again , monitoring your main volume levels is the key to keeping things clean and uncluttered . You've indicated that you already have several amp channels available so I'll assume you may only need the mixer for 2-3 other tracks ? Test drive the set-up at home or in a closed club so you can experiment a little. Keep us posted..

----------


## jimbowi

We have an Ear Trumpet condenser mic.  Would that work with your Bose L1?  Condensers always seem to have feedback issues.
Jim

----------


## Charlieshafer

> We have an Ear Trumpet condenser mic.  Would that work with your Bose L1?  Condensers always seem to have feedback issues.
> Jim


You should be just fine. Make sure the speaker array is in front of the microphone, and adjust the positioning so that you get a little of the monitor effect of the speakers but not enough to bleed back into the mic. If you're used to playing with no monitors, then it's easy. It's the sound from monitors or speakers bleeding back into the microphones that causes the issue, so if you can adjust the physical placement so that you get no speaker output into the microphone, there's no feedback to worry about.

----------


## BrianWilliam

Back from the dead!

Does anyone have experience with the Behringer Xenyx X2222USB?  How does it stack up against the soundcraft efx8?

----------


## almeriastrings

It doesn't.

The EFX8 is vastly superior on all counts.

----------


## BrianWilliam

Sweet. Thanks Almeria!

----------


## Perry

Couple of easy questions that I think I know the answer to but if anyone has any experience?
I've searched forums and  not surprisingly there is much conflicting advice.

So I can just take the left and right XLR outputs of a Mackie Board (DFX12) into the XLR inputs of (2) Bose Compact 1 correct? Or use the 1/4" on the Bose set to line level? No tone match needed right?

Will the XLR outs on a board be a good match for the XLR input on the Bose? 

Or for smaller room just take the left output into one Bose and pan left? 

Can you bypass the EQ on the Bose? Or just set it flat and EQ at Board? So is it better to use the line level input on Bose that does not have EQ

Better to use Aux one send on Mackie if using one Bose?


How much better do you think this would sound then just a pair of SRM350'S?

----------


## almeriastrings

The XLR on the Bose L1 Compact is for a dynamic mic only (or self-powered - battery operated - condenser mic). Do not plug a mixer output into this.

The 1/4" jack set to line level would be the correct input. This does accept a TRS (balanced) jack, so you could go from the XLR out on the mixer to this via a suitable cable. You would go from one of the MAIN outputs, not the AUX. Just keep all inputs panned to center.

I don't think it would sound "better" than a pair of SRM350's. It would sound very different, however. It would also be a considerably less powerful setup - with much less "throw" in larger venues.

----------


## Chuck Leyda

FWIW If you can find an older model Bose L1, they come with 4 inputs and two have phantom power.  We use the L1 Model 1.  Plug a condenser into the 1st channel (that has phantom), and a 58 for the bass player into channel 3, and the bass pickup into channel 4. 

My wife and I huddle around the condensor, Jimmy sings into the 58, we get a little bass wash into the condensor and adjust his pickup volume as necessary.  No monitors but we are all so close it works great for smaller venues.

----------


## Perry

Thanks...so just to confirm..... if I use just one output on the board..say the left... panning the the individual channel(s) all the way left will be the same output if I left the pan center?:

----------


## almeriastrings

Effectively, yes. It would work OK.

----------

