Now that everyone has had a change to apply our new design in “real-life” applications, I would like to know what suggestions are out there for system improvement. No one has more insight then all of you who are using the system day in and day out. I would like to focus this discussion on usability and design rather than pricing or sonic quality.

Like many of you, I am a gigging / traveling musician and, I too, am presented with the familiar inconveniences of setting up before a show. I am curious; as convenient as our new approach is, can we make it easier to use?

Thanks everyone!!!!

Attachments

Photos (1)
Original Post
I guess I might like to see XLR inputs and clip led's on 3 and 4 along with volume control on the remote, ( sounds like another 1 and 2, I guess), and maybe a pair of RCA aux inputs for a CD player.

Not that there's anything wrong with it the way it is! Smile

Rick
one problem i have, although i guess one can experiment at home with em all, is presets. at the gig , its kind of a pain to see the numbers on the ps1. or would be nice to have preset control from the remote., with maybe small led to show preset Number.
also some gigs are a bit cramped for space. may be nice to have an external cable for the ps1 to the l1. and maybe a smaller stand for the L1. amd maybe a small stand for the ps1 so it could stand on end without one worrying it gets tipped over. it would save alot of space. although i do really like that the ps1 holds the L1, certainly dont dislike not having to carry speaker stands. or another idea maybe make the L1 be able to connect to the b1"s side with some type of bracket for stability .. but again just ideas, i like my system alot. just some of these small venues dont give one much room. sometimes even with conventional systems, not enough room for speaker stands.
just with the ps1 verticle against a wall, the presets would be easier to read more at eye level. and the b1 alonside the L1...it all wouldnt take up so much floor space.
just curious if i come up with somethin, would i be able to get a cable from bose with the right connectors on either end?
Thanks for the quick responses. These are great suggestions. This is exactly the type of feedback that we’re looking for. We know you love your systems, but this is a great way to gauge what is and is not working for you.

Keep up the good work!!!
Hello wfs,
One of the key design elements of the Personalized Amplification System™ was to integrate all of its components to occupy the smallest footprint possible. However, this is an interesting suggestion to have the PS1 off-stage. This may or may not be an advantage depending on the connections between the musician and the PS1. (i.e. extended cabling, on-stage wire maintenance) Also, this may make it difficult for the musician to access the PS1 presets. (Although, I see how your “remote preset theory” would work well here.)

Originally posted by wfs:
quote:
just curious if i come up with somethin, would i be able to get a cable from bose with the right connectors on either end?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Bose does not have a cable to connect the PS1 to the L1. I would recommend against customizing your own cable as a solution. There is no way to test the integrity or affect on the system with that “custom” connection. Could you please elaborate on this for me a little bit more?

Thanks
OK. Here's my wish list.I'm a DJ and I do venues that hold as little as 50 people to on up to 2k plus. Indoor and outdoor. I have 2 systems and the last outdoor gig I did was for approx. 1500 people and I did'nt have enough sound. I had to use my JBL's as fillers. I want to be able to use my PAS whenever and where ever possible, so I would like you guys to start thinking bigger with more power. For example : 1 power stand with the ability to hold 1,2 or 3 towers and have 750 to 1000 watts per power stand. The power stand could be used with 1 tower for smaller gigs, and more towers could be added as the venue size increased. I'm not an engineer, but I thought this might get you guys scratching your head and thinking.
Also, how about incorporating a larger sub unit. One with a lot of umph!

Happy Inventing Cool
FOB
I recognize that the concept behind the PAS is that the performer controls his own sound, but that presupposes that one has enough time to sound check to get the levels set right AND always uses good mic protocol AND is always in a position to adjust the levels during a performance, which is rarely the case in the two churches where I'm using the systems (particularly for vocalists). I believe someone else in the forum posted a desire for a wireless remote, that could be possibly be interlocked with other remotes to make a PAS mixer of sorts. This kind of unit would be extremely useful to a lot of people, and adds flexibility to your system. For the musician using the PAS the way you intend, it eliminates a cable that can be tripped over/lost/damaged. For those who feel the need to have the mix adjusted remotely, now the PAS becomes a viable option (read: more sales). To me at least, it's a small compromise that has a large upside.
I agree with RGB...having four identical sets of inputs would be useful. Failing that, at least add presets to channels 3 and 4. A not uncommon scenario is to have two vocalists running through one PAS, with at least one instrument...say, a guitar. With the existing setup, the guitar can't make use of any of the presets unless the vocalists use a separate mixer.

Another suggestion: More mic presets, for more different mic models. Failing that, a cross-reference chart that points users of alternate mics (One of the vocalists in our band uses a Shure Beta 87) to an existing mic preset.
Hello Andrew Douglas,
More inputs seem to be a common request. The Personalized Amplification System ™ was designed to serve as an extension of the individual musician. The system’s design of two “main inputs” allows the majority of musicians to route their instruments into the system. If the system encouraged routing 3 or 4 instruments, users could begin to overload the system with too many sources which would defeat the advantages of our approach.

1. Individual control over one's sound.
2. Audience’s perception of each musician having their place within the soundstage.
3. Clarity of the instrumentation from a single sound source.

We’re really trying to emphasize that the system is not a PA. Channels 3 and 4 were really intended for “return” use or to supply line level accompaniment. Thanks to our users, we have discovered other creative applications for channels 3 and 4. Some members we have talked to have tried the approach of mixing 3-4 instruments through one system and have had favorable results. Keep in mind, this was never the intent for this system but it is worth experimenting. (I think in those situations, the combination of instruments will most likely dictate if that approach works for you or not.)

I can see your point when routing a guitar into channel 3. Access to the DSP could definitely come in handy here.

Presets: We are currently working on a “version 2” of the preset list. Users will be able to upload the new list via software (so that’s what the “data in” does Eek). Keep checking the Announcements thread for future details.

Download the current Preset List:
Check out this thread for a downloadable version of the current preset list.

Take care !!
Andrew et al (al, are you listening?)

We tried to keep it simple, avoid "feature creep", thus keeping the bang-for-bucks high and encourage the one-system-per-player format (Cinemascope spectacular and CD-onstage acoustical environment). Here's some more on this:

1. If you have two singers that sing at the same physical output, you can use the same gain for both mics and thus youe can Y-jack the two mics into the same input, thus applying the preset for both mics. There is no "phasing" or "modulation distortion" hit by doing this, if you don't run into channel clipping. By doing this, however, you run into the the creeping problem of more sources per system, leading to feedback (more open mics per system), clarity (conference call effect) and spatial shrinking compared to two systems.

2. new expanded series presets coming soon, stay tuned. Who loves ya, baby? (My advice, try preset 02, try them all, have fun)

Just back from Canada shows, over-the-fence for the Linemen. such receptive audiences. "Dan S" from Seattle drove up to the Vancouver show, went trolling for after-show restaurants with us. Look at Kyle's pix in "announcements"

cheers, clifford
Hi fob777,
We recommend the Personalized Amplification System ™ for venues that can hold audiences of approximately 500 people or so. If you are performing in venues that house 2K or more, then output may definitely be an issue. I’m not sure that additional bass support will resolve that issue either, because the Cylindrical Radiators ™ were not designed to disperse sound energy through a room of that size.

As of now, the B1 Bass Module ™ is the only system specific bass solution for the Personalized Amplification System ™. You can have up to two modules per power stand (when a Cylindrical Radiator ™ attached). Another solution is the Extended Bass Package. This package acts as a slave power stand with no radiator. In this state, a single power stand can power six additional B1 Bass Modules ™.


However, users can still take advantage of the “Bass Line Out” to supply there own additional bass support.

Thanks for your input. We are taking the feedback from our “bass heavy” customers very seriously. As music styles change, so does the audience’s expectations of how that music should sound. We rely on all of you to let us know how our system is working with all styles of music in live applications.

Thanks again.
Is there a longer remote cable available? I the interest of having a neat stage and setup, I like to rout cables around the side and the remote cable is too short to do this in some venues.

Another alternative would be a female-female adapter for connecting more than one cable together.

Thanks!

Rick
An extension for the remote would be nice.
But what I'd really like is a mute button on the remote. One for each channel.
Or even just a master mute so that if there *is* feedback open can kill it quickly. Or another reason is if I know that I an going to walk away from the microphone; it would be nice to mute it before I wander across the stage. I would still need to keep the other channel live so individual mutes would be better.
ST,
A mute button is a great idea.

For the "live mic" concern: You may want to experiment with some of the presets that are already in the power stand. There are four different gates (presets 16-19). The gates range from -60dB to -90dB. This way, when you back away from the mic, the gate will close. You can assign these gates to individual channels so you can affect one mic without affecting other instrumentation.

Good idea!! Keep ‘em coming.
quote:
Originally posted by Greg-at-Bose:
More inputs seem to be a common request. The Personalized Amplification System ™ was designed to serve as an extension of the individual musician.

Yes, and I certainly agree that's the optimal use for it. As you know, my band is a 3 piece and we have 3 of them. However we would still like to see 4 full inputs instead of 2. Why? Because sometimes we play on bills with other bands, or have other musicians sit in. I hate having to worry about whether there'll be enough inputs for everybody. Also, there is no reason a 4 or 5 piece band couldn't use 3 PAS's or a 6-7 piece band use 4 - there's no problem with 2 musicians sharing one without overloading the system. But if each of the 2 musicians sings and at least one of them also plays a miked instrument, then you're out of mic inputs. Then there are the times we've done acoustic sets in tiny places like coffeehouses and record stores. In that case we only bring 2 of our 3 PAS's or sometimes even just one.

I think having 4 inputs would cover 95% of situations that most gigging musicians would run into. The fact of the matter is that a lot of even spontaneous situations come up where people have to share their PAS, it comes up with me personally quite often. In case anybody else hasn't noticed this Big Grin, having PAS's is GOING to mean you're gonna get asked to bring them along to parties, coffee houses, any sort of event where musicians are going to be there (it's kinda like if you own a van or truck and people call you anytime they need something big moved Big Grin). So then I have to mentally count inputs, and we always wonder whether we need to bring a mixer to the gig or an extra preamp or two... this was never something we had to think about with a conventional PA/mixer setup and I do have to confess (as much as I love the PAS) that it's been a source of stress and headache on quite a few occasions. I think nearly all of that could be eliminated with just a couple more mic inputs. Smile
Thanks Greg,

I'll have to experiment with the gates. I've had the PAS since Friday and despite its incredibly simple user interface, I'm sure I'll be learning the subtleties for quite awhile.

I'm guessing that the gates are going to be EQ'd flat though so I'm going to lose some of the "shaping" that you folks have put in the presets if I use one of the gates. Does that sound right?



quote:
Originally posted by ST:
An extension for the remote would be nice.
But what I'd really like is a mute button on the remote. One for each channel.
Or even just a master mute so that if there *is* feedback open can kill it quickly. Or another reason is if I know that I an going to walk away from the microphone; it would be nice to mute it before I wander across the stage. I would still need to keep the other channel live so individual mutes would be better.
ST,
The gate presets are defaulted to the flat EQ. But, I think that you’re on the right track. It’s going to take a couple of run-throughs to get familiar with the system’s features and settings. Another idea would be to use the effect send/return on the channel with the mic. That way, you can either use an outboard gate or EQ to compliment the power stand effect of choice.
Hi Lee,

Dropped by your web site and really enjoyed the mp3s. I'll have to figure out how to do that some day.

Well with a little over 72 hours on my PAS and so far, being the only one in my band who has one, I am certainly not qualified to speak to much.

Still...

I *would* like four balanced inputs with presets (XLR + 1/4 inch). And it would be nice to have 4 sets of controls on the remote. These two things would make it easier to switch from electric to acoustic guitar, while still having an input for a microphone or two.

*but*

I don't think I want them because it is tough enough to concentrate on your own sound with a couple of sound sources (vocals and instrument). If there were more microphone inputs, then there would probably be more voices (human/instrument) to manage.

I'm just not good enough to multi-task at that level and still have any fun playing.

I used to cringe if I walked in to a new gig and found an "unmanaged" mixer at stage right (where I usually stand). It always meant, that I was going to be taking directions from everyone else: "shelve the mids", "more reverb", "it's too muddy", "trim the low end", "trim the high end", "it's too loud" and the ever popular "I can't hear myself!"

I think I would rather bring along a small mixer (like one of those Mackie 1202s) for those very very rare occasions that I might feel like accomodating others.

Until we get another PAS or two, I will be running two vocals through mine. It was our first gig with the PAS on the stage (on Saturday night).

I think it was Chris who may have said (at the Vancouver show last Thursday) that the first show was going to be a little chaotic while the band was getting used to the new sound. This was true.

I spent most of the night terrorized by the other vocalist as he moved in and out from the microphone. (leading to feedback). I had the remote velcroed to the mike stand in front of me of course. It *was* the first time, and I'm sure we could have done better with placing the PAS, and we should have been running lower volume, and... and... and...

There has only ever been one input on my guitar rig, and I don't apologize for that.



quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg-at-Bose:
More inputs seem to be a common request. The Personalized Amplification System ™ was designed to serve as an extension of the individual musician.

Yes, and I certainly agree that's the optimal use for it. As you know, my band is a 3 piece and we have 3 of them. However we would still like to see 4 full inputs instead of 2. Why? Because sometimes we play on bills with other bands, or have other musicians sit in. I hate having to worry about whether there'll be enough inputs for everybody. Also, there is no reason a 4 or 5 piece band couldn't use 3 PAS's or a 6-7 piece band use 4 - there's no problem with 2 musicians sharing one without overloading the system. But if each of the 2 musicians sings and at least one of them also plays a miked instrument, then you're out of mic inputs. Then there are the times we've done acoustic sets in tiny places like coffeehouses and record stores. In that case we only bring 2 of our 3 PAS's or sometimes even just one.

I think having 4 inputs would cover 95% of situations that most gigging musicians would run into. The fact of the matter is that a lot of even spontaneous situations come up where people have to share their PAS, it comes up with me personally quite often. In case anybody else hasn't noticed this Big Grin, having PAS's is GOING to mean you're gonna get asked to bring them along to parties, coffee houses, any sort of event where musicians are going to be there (it's kinda like if you own a van or truck and people call you anytime they need something big moved Big Grin). So then I have to mentally count inputs, and we always wonder whether we need to bring a mixer to the gig or an extra preamp or two... this was never something we had to think about with a conventional PA/mixer setup and I do have to confess (as much as I love the PAS) that it's been a source of stress and headache on quite a few occasions. I think nearly all of that could be eliminated with just a couple more mic inputs. Smile
Hi Greg,

While we're talking about the send/return jack: from what I've read here in the message board and in the user manual says to pick up the "send" by inserting the plug halfway and to return on channel 3 or 4.

I understand this I think.

Nobody seems to be saying I should use the send/return as you would with a tip-ring-sleeve insert cable. Isn't that the way you would have to use a Gate or EQ?

By the way, part of the great appeal of the PAS for me (besides the sound), is the simplicity.

You could have given me a midi-in, or USB port, with software that would let me program the presets, and control everything from my computer. This would be a wonderful feature, for somebody.

but ...

What I know about sound wouldn't fill a thimble and when I think about it, that thinking as often as not interferes with the music.
Well said, Lee.

As it happens, our preferred setup (if we can scrape up the cash to buy it) has enough lo-z/EQed inputs for our needs...but it would be NICE to have additional flexibility.

We get the message (we really do) that the PAS is supposed to be used by individual musicians, not groups of people. But as Lee so eloquently pointed out, that ideal situation does not necessarily reflect the actual needs of the users.
Greg,
You asked for it, so here's another idea.

Remote Control Visibility.

On the remote control, can you make the position of the controls more visible? I'm thinking of leds on the rotary knob, or just glow in the dark paint or something. As you know, visibility on stage is rarely good.

Maybe you can help me with this too. I kept twisting the wrong controls, typically turning the bass up / down when I meant to get to the volume. Maybe next time I will just turn the whole remote control upside down so the volume controls are at the top. These are the ones that I used the most. I think that for the most part, I want to set/forget the "tone" controls after initial sound check.
quote:
I would like to see switchable outputs for the bass amp so those of us who have them could use the MB4.
Thanks, Oldghm


Amen brother. Better yet, just more general "user" controls. It would be nice to have a "Line Out" that was selectable for Full Range, Flat Bass w/a croosover @ 125 Hz, or Bass Out eq'd for addional B1's - all with a variable output (volume) control. Take a look at the back of a Mackie power amp - they gave the end user lots of control options...that's what I like.
ST,
I am a guitarist and I run into this all the time with my pedals. From my experience, your LED idea would probably help out the most (easier to read the value). Something I like to do is use White Out to mark the pot knob. It is visible in low lighting and it’s easy to rub off.
ST,
There are two ways to hook up external FX,

1. TS (half-insert) on CH send --> TS FX in -->TS FX out --> back into CH 3 or 4

2. TRS insert cable

----------------------------> TS FX in
TRS (full insert)
----------------------------> TS FX out

We are working on a version 2 of the preset list. You will be able to upload the new version via “data in” on the power stand. Keep checking the thread Announcements for release dates.
To jump on the "input" bandwagon, I have to agree that all 4 channels having mic inputs and a remote would solve a lot of problems I'm having. I'm using 2 systems for a 5 piece band and realize a 3rd system would really help, but the additional inputs w/control would really do me just fine. Unfortunately bands like ours have many fill-in players, so I have to supply the "PA", whatever type that may be.

Here's a few other things off the top of my head:
- Cord channeling devices to keep the cords from laying right on top of the input connection area- they currently block the knobs and view.
- Some way to mount/secure the B1 to the bass so that it could sit on the bass/amp and not require additional floorspace.
- In the same vein, a custom rack system that could sit on the bass/amp to hold wireless receiver, effects, mini-mixers, etc. I bought my own racks, one for each and set the B1 on top, but it is taking up a lot of valuable stage real estate compared to a back-line system.
- A "swiveling" L1, so that the bass could be at any angle on stage, yet allow the the speaker to be dialed into the best angle. Often the bass footprint/location is not ideal and then you're "stuck" with the speaker angle, especially on small stages where the system really doesn't fit behind you- conventional PAs go in front and stages are designed that way. Maybe not a completely free-swiveling L1, but several spots ie- every 20 degrees or so.
- A way to control the inputs if you lose the remote. (hasn't happened yet, but Murphy's Law usually prevails).

Kevin
However, there are definitely no show-stoppers so far with me at this point.
Greg,
Delving into micro-design here:
If you went this route, it would be handy if on the tone controls, the led's went out (dark) when at 12:00 so that each would only light up if it was "active".

quote:
Originally posted by Greg-at-Bose:
_ST,_
I am a guitarist and I run into this all the time with my pedals. From my experience, your LED idea would probably help out the most (easier to read the value). Something I like to do is use _White Out_ to mark the pot knob. It is visible in low lighting and it’s easy to rub off.
ST,
Something to consider:
I think the design of the R1™ is comparable to most “gigging” gear. The lay-out seems fairly user friendly. If we start to clutter the remote’s panel with LED’s, it may actually become more cumbersome to operate. For an LED to be functional within the R1's design, it should some how designate a value (like numbers + and -). Now that I think of it, I really like your idea of a highly visible marker on the knob. This would be the most simple and effective modification to help with this issue. Especially, if the tone control names (i.e. high, mid, low) were also written using the same material.

Great thinking ST !!
Greg,

Now we're on the same page. I wasn't talking about an LCD readout, but just a glowing LED indicator. And I suppose while we are talking about LEDs, they have come a long way in the last couple of years.

Imagine a tone control knob that had a little indicator light that showed its position. When negative values, the indicator would be red. When neutral (12:00) it would be dark (or it white I guess), and when positive, it could be green.

Many years ago I had a Bond guitar with digital (numeric) read-outs. That didn't work out very well.

saving space
ST,
I’m not sure that an LED is a reliable way of recalling specific EQ settings (limited values). Maybe, if each LED had different dim levels per indicator, you could gauge more values within each LED.

Interesting......
Hello ST,
Not at all. I understood your idea was do have the LEDs designate the knob’s position. (Not display a numeric value.) I think I may have interpreted your suggestion incorrectly. I was under the impression that the LEDs would replace the values around the knob (-12,0, and + 12). But, I see now. You meant that the LEDs should be on the actual knob itself. My apologies. That’s a great idea!! And this would probably look more professional than White Out.
Smile
To ST and whoever is having a problem seeing their remote, I cut out a small piece of plywood and mounted it on a podium mount using short screws. Painted it black, mounted some velcro to and stuck it on a mic stand. It's now setting horizontally which makes it easier to see and don't seem to have quite as much problem hitting the wrong knob. As you use the remote, a touch lets me know which control I'm on, or at least a quick glance takes care of it. Doesn't look bad on the stage, and with it's own stand, I'm able to move my mic stand out of the way when I'm holding my mic in my hand.
Here is an odd idea. How about a powered outlet for one of those console lights. (in the "connector" area on the base unit).

I know that these are usually a round bayonet connector, but if you made it a USB connector then we could use a $10 computer accessory light instead of a $60 console light.
Yeah, a little lite would be nice down there. This is cool, I'm hearing all these little suggestions for the "next wave" of the PS1.
Internal effects(with amount sends for chs.1&2 on the remote, or shoulderstraps on the bags(couple of my ideas here) also, I was already thinking towards some type of horizontal mounting deal for the remote, too. How about some little rubber feet on the B1?
A light down there would be a big thing. Even at practice in my basement with all the lights on, it's very difficult to see the presets if they're in shadow, especially since they're upside down when the PS1 is pushed back against the wall. I have to keep a flashlight right next to the unit to be able to try different presets.

Of course, it would be WAY WAY WAY better to have all the controls on the front side and right reading instead of at the back and upside down....

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
Having trouble signing in?

We recently updated our sign-in procedure and if you have old sign-in data cached, this can create a problem. Please:

  1. Clear your browser cache and cookies
  2. Then close the browser (not just the window)
  3. Open the browser and try again
Thank you

Please make sure that your profile is up to date
×
×
×
×