ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Problem removing frequency in monitor  (Read 6542 times)

dick rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5569
  • St Paul MN
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2012, 05:20:00 pm »

I've got bands this weekend and I'm going to ring out the monitors beforehand.

Using what?  Have you gotten something that will actually work or are you going to continue with the 15 band stuff?
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Steve Kas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2012, 02:45:19 am »

First, respectfully reply to exactly what I posted in respect to this thread.

1. Turning down ALL frequencies on a graph is not prudent. That's why there is gain and the concept of signal structure.

2. There is not an EQ that can isolate 250 HZ without affecting 251, 249, 250.3 Hz etc.. Hence, an exact "250 HZ feedback" couldn't be fixed even if an individual had super-human hearing.

Now, the question of feedback resolution.

"Ringing" monitors cannot fix most variables that can cause unpleasant feedback on stage. Some engineers will "mix" to avoid feedback rather than providing the artist with optimal monitoring of the performance. I've seen soundmen pull 1K, etc.. out of a wedge's mix because it was "feeding back"! Great! No more feedback- but now the singer is going to want more volume because his voice is less intelligible! So, the sound guy turns up the send. Now, low mid and high frequencies start ringing! So, what does  he do? Pulls those down too! Finally, he ends up with an EQ that looks like many of you have seem in the past Nightmare! And, after all that work, the monitor mix still sounds like a**!

So, what should you do? This advice applies to vocals only.

1. Make sure all your wedges on the deck are the same as your reference wedge in monitor world or at the house.

2. Run some nicely mixed pre-recorded music through your reference wedge and EQ to your taste.

3. EQ their channel to your taste in a good pair of reference headphones before listening to it in your reference wedge.

4. Listen to their channel through your reference wedge and make minor adjustments in EQ that suit your taste. I strongly suggest having the artist play a song while you do this. I tell them that they will not hear anything in their mix during this time. Most are ok with this provided you can EQ your reference wedge quickly!

5. Slowly bring up the mix in their wedge. They will give you a "thumbs up" or a head nod, etc..

6. Ask anybody on stage to either get off stage or cover their ears. Go on stage and face the mic directly at the wedges speakers while standing. If no feedback, cool!! If feedback,turn mix send down. Try again. Then, hold mic to your mouth like you were singing and kneel down in front of wedges (cover 1 ear!!). If no feedback, cool! If feedback, lower mix send. DO NOT CUT FREQUENCIES at this point. Trust your ears.

7. Ask artist to play again. If the artist says, "I can't hear myself." Tell them to turn down their stage volume to a level that he/she can hear and begin thinking about where you can get some money to buy better gear! These guys will probably never hire you again. But, atleast you got the best from the gear you have. If the artist says, "Yeah! Sounds good!" Expect future biz!

Like I said before, there are too many variables that can affect a monitor mix and cause feedback to possibly post on this board. They are unique to any situation. However, I hope my 7 point advice might give you a good starting point. Cheers.   

 
Logged

Roland Clarke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2012, 05:37:48 am »

First, respectfully reply to exactly what I posted in respect to this thread.

1. Turning down ALL frequencies on a graph is not prudent. That's why there is gain and the concept of signal structure.

2. There is not an EQ that can isolate 250 HZ without affecting 251, 249, 250.3 Hz etc.. Hence, an exact "250 HZ feedback" couldn't be fixed even if an individual had super-human hearing.

Now, the question of feedback resolution.

"Ringing" monitors cannot fix most variables that can cause unpleasant feedback on stage. Some engineers will "mix" to avoid feedback rather than providing the artist with optimal monitoring of the performance. I've seen soundmen pull 1K, etc.. out of a wedge's mix because it was "feeding back"! Great! No more feedback- but now the singer is going to want more volume because his voice is less intelligible! So, the sound guy turns up the send. Now, low mid and high frequencies start ringing! So, what does  he do? Pulls those down too! Finally, he ends up with an EQ that looks like many of you have seem in the past Nightmare! And, after all that work, the monitor mix still sounds like a**!

So, what should you do? This advice applies to vocals only.

1. Make sure all your wedges on the deck are the same as your reference wedge in monitor world or at the house.

2. Run some nicely mixed pre-recorded music through your reference wedge and EQ to your taste.

3. EQ their channel to your taste in a good pair of reference headphones before listening to it in your reference wedge.

4. Listen to their channel through your reference wedge and make minor adjustments in EQ that suit your taste. I strongly suggest having the artist play a song while you do this. I tell them that they will not hear anything in their mix during this time. Most are ok with this provided you can EQ your reference wedge quickly!

5. Slowly bring up the mix in their wedge. They will give you a "thumbs up" or a head nod, etc..

6. Ask anybody on stage to either get off stage or cover their ears. Go on stage and face the mic directly at the wedges speakers while standing. If no feedback, cool!! If feedback,turn mix send down. Try again. Then, hold mic to your mouth like you were singing and kneel down in front of wedges (cover 1 ear!!). If no feedback, cool! If feedback, lower mix send. DO NOT CUT FREQUENCIES at this point. Trust your ears.

7. Ask artist to play again. If the artist says, "I can't hear myself." Tell them to turn down their stage volume to a level that he/she can hear and begin thinking about where you can get some money to buy better gear! These guys will probably never hire you again. But, atleast you got the best from the gear you have. If the artist says, "Yeah! Sounds good!" Expect future biz!

Like I said before, there are too many variables that can affect a monitor mix and cause feedback to possibly post on this board. They are unique to any situation. However, I hope my 7 point advice might give you a good starting point. Cheers.

And this is it, in a nutshell!

"Ringing out" monitors is like taking a sledge hammer to a nut.  Good smooth monitor sound shouldn't feed back given, reasonably sensible monitor levels, sensible positioning of monitors with due defference to the microphones polar patern and a decent mix.

The only time I "ring out" monitors, is to discover problem frequencies that are down to stage resonances from things like standing waves, that's not to say that I leave them pulled out, I still look for solutions such as repositioning or a subtle adjustment of monitor eq, though nothing that drastic.

As pointed out, particularly on smaller stages, other issues such as the monitor angle can effect the way that musicians hear themselves.  Often musicians will stand so close to the monitor the sound is firing at their belly and not even close to their ears, hence my suggestion for sidefills as an option for dealing with this.  Obviously YMMV as may others.
Logged

Curtis H List (Too Tall)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2012, 08:57:01 pm »

And this is it, in a nutshell!

"Ringing out" monitors is like taking a sledge hammer to a nut.  Good smooth monitor sound shouldn't feed back given, reasonably sensible monitor levels, sensible positioning of monitors with due defference to the microphones polar patern and a decent mix.

The only time I "ring out" monitors, is to discover problem frequencies that are down to stage resonances from things like standing waves, that's not to say that I leave them pulled out, I still look for solutions such as repositioning or a subtle adjustment of monitor eq, though nothing that drastic.

As pointed out, particularly on smaller stages, other issues such as the monitor angle can effect the way that musicians hear themselves.  Often musicians will stand so close to the monitor the sound is firing at their belly and not even close to their ears, hence my suggestion for sidefills as an option for dealing with this.  Obviously YMMV as may others.

Good points.
If you have to use active xovers with controls people can get at ring out becomes a necessity to see if the xover is still set to the settings it should be.
This is used because they don't have Smaart.
If you are outdoors or in a building with at least a 30ft ceiling anyone should be able to get enough gain before feedback.

Recall we are in the "LAB Lounge".
If you are on a bar stage with the ceiling is less then 7 feet it becomes an intractable problem. Especially if the band is loud.
Also you seldom have high quality wedges and mics. Even a 1/3rd Oct EQ is often a luxury.

On pulling down the EQ faders more than you should. If you have 5 nights in the same place and the weather changes you keep chopping away at the main EQ till the average line goes further down every night.
How many here have found themselves moving the whole curve up above zero and starting from scratch on the third night?


Logged

John Roberts {JR}

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13152
  • Hickory, Mississippi, USA
    • Resotune
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2012, 09:43:34 am »

One piece of misinformation that has crept in, is that correcting feedback cuts holes in the frequency response. Properly done, corrective EQ flattens out peaks or bumps in the response, for a flatter result.

Of course using an axe (2/3rd octave) to trim your toe nails, could lead to loss of toes. :-(

JR
Logged
Tune it or don't play it... please

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3743
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2012, 11:07:16 am »

One piece of misinformation that has crept in, is that correcting feedback cuts holes in the frequency response. Properly done, corrective EQ flattens out peaks or bumps in the response, for a flatter result.

Of course using an axe (2/3rd octave) to trim your toe nails, could lead to loss of toes. :-(

JR
Of course there are actually 2 basic sources of "peaks" in the response that need to be flattened out.

The loudspeaker is one (and yes a flat response is the best place to start (and usually works just fine).

The second is the peaks in the response of the open mic.  So when you add the two  together you could end up with some nasty stuff.  Or not-depending on the response of each.

It is also a misconception that you HAVE to ring out the mics.  If the system gets loud enough for use without ringing out the system (and also sounds fine), then there is no real reason to "ring it out".

As always- just because it CAN be done-does not mean it HAS to be done.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

John Roberts {JR}

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13152
  • Hickory, Mississippi, USA
    • Resotune
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2012, 11:52:00 am »

Of course there are actually 2 basic sources of "peaks" in the response that need to be flattened out.

The loudspeaker is one (and yes a flat response is the best place to start (and usually works just fine).

The second is the peaks in the response of the open mic.  So when you add the two  together you could end up with some nasty stuff.  Or not-depending on the response of each.

It is also a misconception that you HAVE to ring out the mics.  If the system gets loud enough for use without ringing out the system (and also sounds fine), then there is no real reason to "ring it out".

As always- just because it CAN be done-does not mean it HAS to be done.

There is a third source of frequency response bump(s) caused by the signal repeating and constructively (and destructively) summing with itself (at frequencies related to path transit time and signal wavelength).

From whatever source, reducing feedback generally flattens the system. Of course significantly non-flat off-axis response in the vector between mic and speaker can reduce normal path system flatness at extremes of GBF tweaking. 

This is either engineered(?) or has been discovered empirically with mic/monitor speakers that play nice together. Feedback is the product of these path response phenomenon "and" system response, so a perfectly flat system can still feedback, and a non-flat system might work OK depending on where it is not flat.

All things equal, flat is a good initial condition.

JR
Logged
Tune it or don't play it... please

Patrick Tracy

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 503
  • Boulder, CO, USA
    • Boulder Sound Guy
Re: Problem removing frequency in monitor
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2012, 01:21:33 pm »

I've found that if you start off with wedges that measure flat they will sound louder right off the bat because nothing is missing. With a bumpy response you can turn up to the point that it's feeding back at a response peak but the musician still needs more to hear what's in the troughs.

If you do get the speakers flat but you have to turn up to the point of feedback then the frequencies you're cutting are either mic or room issues. I consider that the boundary between reasonable stage volume and high stage volume.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.116 seconds with 23 queries.