ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ  (Read 3241 times)

Jason Lucas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 803
  • Hillsboro, OR, USA
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2013, 11:21:43 am »

...That's because speakers are usually louder than the vocalists on stage and because (excluding front fills) the speaker coverage towards the middle/back of the room is usually better than it is in the very front, whereas the stage wash is concentrated at the front and fades as you move back. So when you sit up front, you get a ton of stage wash, but when you're in the back, you hear mostly the speakers.

I don't know about the OP's church, but at mine you actually hear the stage noise more in the back than the front due to the reflectivity of the walls. For instance, we have electric guitar amps on stage. When you're in front, the guitar isn't very loud. If you move to the back of the room it's really loud. I've experienced the same thing with drums, although that's also affected by side to side movement.
Logged
There are three things I hate: Harsh highs, hollow mids, and woofy bass.

Brad Weber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2215
  • Marietta, GA
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2013, 11:40:32 am »

Just because of room geometry, the sound from the mains are already arriving at the listeners 7+ ms later than the sound from the sources on stage. (FOH is ~35' from the stage, speakers are ~25' in the air). How much more do you want them delayed?
Being a bit picky but it seems that we know the speakers are about 25' A.F.F. and that the center of the room is around 35' from the cluster but that does not really tell much about the room geometry.  I bring this up as in room acoustics terms 'intimacy' can be a factor of aspects such as the arrival time, level and density of early reflections relative to the direct sound and knowing the cluster height and distance from there to the center of the room does not address the relevant room geometry information.
 
 
I believe that one issue here may be that when you move to direct feeds and in-ears you lose much or even all of the sound from the sources themselves and for many listeners the actual source of any sound on stage becomes the speakers rather than the actual sources.  This may also be exacerbated by the mono system.  In an more 'intimate' setting a source stage left and one stage right would have the sound from those sources taking different direct and indirect acoustic paths to the listeners.  The sound from each source arrives at the listeners with different relative levels, different reflections, different path lengths, etc.  With virtually everything coming from a mono speaker system then every source has the same acoustic path to every listener.  It's as though all the musicians were in the same location and that location is 25' in the air.  Put simply, you not be hearing the band but rather hearing the speakers.  That's good for some things but probably not for the sound being 'intimate'.
 
Related to the same issue, while precedence effect can be very useful and will still work for a direct sound level that is lower than the delayed level (Haas Effect), I am not sure how much benefit it might provide where there may be little or no direct sound associated with some sources.  If the delayed sound is more than 10dB or so greater than the direct sound and/or the arrrival time difference between the direct and delayed sound is not within 10-30ms then localization to the direct sound may not occur.
Logged

dick rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5232
  • St Paul MN
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2013, 04:03:32 pm »

Being a bit picky but it seems that we know the speakers are about 25' A.F.F. and that the center of the room is around 35' from the cluster but that does not really tell much about the room geometry.  I bring this up as in room acoustics terms 'intimacy' can be a factor of aspects such as the arrival time, level and density of early reflections relative to the direct sound and knowing the cluster height and distance from there to the center of the room does not address the relevant room geometry information.

Neither does it take into account the fact that, while the speakers may indeed be 25' above the floor, we do not know that they are 25' above the stage floor. Neither do we know how far they are hung ahead of the stage or if the center cluster is directly above the center of the stage.  A little triangulation will show that the # of milliseconds of delay calculated on the figure of 25' is a theoretical maximum and not really what the folks in the audience may be hearing.  We're not there, so we don't know.

Quote

I believe that one issue here may be that when you move to direct feeds and in-ears you lose much or even all of the sound from the sources themselves and for many listeners the actual source of any sound on stage becomes the speakers rather than the actual sources.  This may also be exacerbated by the mono system.  In an more 'intimate' setting a source stage left and one stage right would have the sound from those sources taking different direct and indirect acoustic paths to the listeners.  The sound from each source arrives at the listeners with different relative levels, different reflections, different path lengths, etc.  With virtually everything coming from a mono speaker system then every source has the same acoustic path to every listener.  It's as though all the musicians were in the same location and that location is 25' in the air.  Put simply, you not be hearing the band but rather hearing the speakers.  That's good for some things but probably not for the sound being 'intimate'.

This is why I requested further information from Mark on the other setup which was deemed "intimate".  If they were not using DI's and in-ears, then the whole question of the amount of stage sound changes:  the two situations may or may not have similar stage-wash.

Quote

Related to the same issue, while precedence effect can be very useful and will still work for a direct sound level that is lower than the delayed level (Haas Effect), I am not sure how much benefit it might provide where there may be little or no direct sound associated with some sources.  If the delayed sound is more than 10dB or so greater than the direct sound and/or the arrrival (sic) time difference between the direct and delayed sound is not within 10-30ms then localization to the direct sound may not occur.

Exactly.  "Intimacy" might then be achieved by starting out with a low level reinforcement from a couple of front fills, then bringing in the house system gradually until everything clicks.  Mark stated that he was running around 95 dB C weighted.  This may be a bit more than the setup can support and maintain "intimacy".  If intimacy is the be all, then working with one level of benign reinforcement closer to the musicians and running the house system such that the whole is within the Haas limits may get the job done.

Please note above that if the arrrival time is indeed as spelled, we may be dealing with pirates and all bets are off.  Additionally, I avoided pointing out the possible pun resulting from the juxtaposition of "house system" and "Haas system".

Oops.............
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Bob L. Wilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2013, 04:43:45 pm »

Being a bit picky but it seems that we know the speakers are about 25' A.F.F. and that the center of the room is around 35' from the cluster but that does not really tell much about the room geometry.  I bring this up as in room acoustics terms 'intimacy' can be a factor of aspects such as the arrival time, level and density of early reflections relative to the direct sound and knowing the cluster height and distance from there to the center of the room does not address the relevant room geometry information.
 
 
I believe that one issue here may be that when you move to direct feeds and in-ears you lose much or even all of the sound from the sources themselves and for many listeners the actual source of any sound on stage becomes the speakers rather than the actual sources.  This may also be exacerbated by the mono system.  In an more 'intimate' setting a source stage left and one stage right would have the sound from those sources taking different direct and indirect acoustic paths to the listeners.  The sound from each source arrives at the listeners with different relative levels, different reflections, different path lengths, etc.  With virtually everything coming from a mono speaker system then every source has the same acoustic path to every listener.  It's as though all the musicians were in the same location and that location is 25' in the air.  Put simply, you not be hearing the band but rather hearing the speakers.  That's good for some things but probably not for the sound being 'intimate'.
 
Related to the same issue, while precedence effect can be very useful and will still work for a direct sound level that is lower than the delayed level (Haas Effect), I am not sure how much benefit it might provide where there may be little or no direct sound associated with some sources.  If the delayed sound is more than 10dB or so greater than the direct sound and/or the arrrival time difference between the direct and delayed sound is not within 10-30ms then localization to the direct sound may not occur.

+1 if the stage volume is super low or non existent I have personally had an "it sounds like I am standing on the other side of the glass at a studio listening to the engineer's monitors" experience at a local PAC before. I just drug out a dozen wedges and lit them up on separate mixes one at a time until the performer or instrument descended from the center cluster. It didn't take very much level on the wedges but it took some. The artists were all on ears and thought I was nuts but it sounded distant and artificial some how without the wedges. Wedges on and off was only a difference of 1 or 2 db at the desk but it made a big difference in how I perceived the sound stage. LCR parts of the PA are delayed 9ms at this venue in the look but but don't touch section of their system processor. Sounds like the OP's system must not be true LCR but an exploded mono setup with mirrored left and right sides as the DFR22 while a good unit is 2X2 only.
Logged

dick rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5232
  • St Paul MN
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2013, 04:53:24 pm »

+1 if the stage volume is super low or non existent I have personally had an "it sounds like I am standing on the other side of the glass at a studio listening to the engineer's monitors" experience at a local PAC before. I just drug out a dozen wedges and lit them up on separate mixes one at a time until the performer or instrument descended from the center cluster.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I suggested adding the front fills.  Could be wedges, front fills or side-washes.......anything so you could dial them in and get things to "descend from the center cluster".  Love that image.  Well said.
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

mark ahlenius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2013, 11:19:29 pm »

Hi Dan,

I think you misunderstood something I stated about he geometry of our sanctuary.  The FOH is not 35 feet from the center cluster.  I was referring to the approx distance from the center cluster where I measure the 94 dB spl - which is used to help us estimate volume peaks we try to stay under.

thanks

'mark


Just because of room geometry, the sound from the mains are already arriving at the listeners 7+ ms later than the sound from the sources on stage. (FOH is ~35' from the stage, speakers are ~25' in the air). How much more do you want them delayed?

Also, I think it's generally a bad idea to tell someone to go mucking about with system delay when their OP says they've never even modified a system eq before.

-Dan.
Logged

mark ahlenius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2013, 11:32:09 pm »

+1 if the stage volume is super low or non existent I have personally had an "it sounds like I am standing on the other side of the glass at a studio listening to the engineer's monitors" experience at a local PAC before. I just drug out a dozen wedges and lit them up on separate mixes one at a time until the performer or instrument descended from the center cluster. It didn't take very much level on the wedges but it took some. The artists were all on ears and thought I was nuts but it sounded distant and artificial some how without the wedges. Wedges on and off was only a difference of 1 or 2 db at the desk but it made a big difference in how I perceived the sound stage. LCR parts of the PA are delayed 9ms at this venue in the look but but don't touch section of their system processor. Sounds like the OP's system must not be true LCR but an exploded mono setup with mirrored left and right sides as the DFR22 while a good unit is 2X2 only.

HI Bob,

I am not sure what really defines a true LCR system but how ours is wired is with the L/R going into individual channels on the DFR-22 (8:4 DSP) and have the L & R sides independently run through the processor.  So the only thing which might "mirror" them is the Midas.  But how that is configured currently is to have it in both stereo and mono.  We do get more clarity out of the center cluster (3-ways vs. 2-ways for the WT-2's on the sides). 

I also appreciate what was used to be called point source sound reinforcement (that's what I recall anyway).  When a speaker or singer is up on stage, to me its best if the sound is generally coming from their direction.  Its a psycho-acoustical effect.  Not everyone agrees, and that's ok.  But I find it annoying when I am sitting in the side area of the room and the singer is up on stage to my right and all I hear is the side speaker in my left ear. 

thanks again everyone for your comments.

'mark
Logged

Brad Weber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2215
  • Marietta, GA
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2013, 06:32:49 am »

I am not sure what really defines a true LCR system but how ours is wired is with the L/R going into individual channels on the DFR-22 (8:4 DSP) and have the L & R sides independently run through the processor.  So the only thing which might "mirror" them is the Midas.  But how that is configured currently is to have it in both stereo and mono.  We do get more clarity out of the center cluster (3-ways vs. 2-ways for the WT-2's on the sides).
As Bob noted, the Shure DFR22 is a 2x2 processor, only two inputs and only two outputs.  Shure used to offered the P4800 that was a 4x8 'drag and drop' processor but I am not familiar with them ever offering an 8x4 processor.
 
You also initially presented the left and right WT-2s as being side fills which suggests they are used just to cover areas the main center cluster doesn't properly cover.  That would be quite different than their providing left and right 'stereo' coverage for the entire room.
 
So I am now unclear about what you actually have and how your system is actually configured and intended to work.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 07:00:48 am by Brad Weber »
Logged

Nick Simon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
  • Dark Side of the Moon, MS
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2013, 05:00:13 pm »

I'm a nobody, but I had a similar setup at my old church.  I know it's not the "right" thing to do, but I also brought up the wedges and brought down the balance between them and the center cluster (also 25' in the air, but no side fills) to get a little more "fill" and made it sound a little more "intimate", yet a little delayed. It made it sound more like the sound was reflecting off of everywhere vs. out of the ceiling..... It was all I could do with what I had to work with.  Mix with your ears, not theory... ;)
Logged

mark ahlenius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2013, 12:18:30 am »

Hi,

I was mistaken about the DSP.  It is a P4800 which is 4x8.  We have 2 - DFR-22's which are used for other purposes.  My error in the model.

The sides were originally added to give a slight fill to the far corners.  We never really intended it to be a "stereo" system at all but on account of the Midas, we can use its features to pan specific instruments towards one side or another.

'mark

I am not sure what really defines a true LCR system but how ours is wired is with the L/R going into individual channels on the DFR-22 (8:4 DSP) and have the L & R sides independently run through the processor.  So the only thing which might "mirror" them is the Midas.  But how that is configured currently is to have it in both stereo and mono.  We do get more clarity out of the center cluster (3-ways vs. 2-ways for the WT-2's on the sides).
As Bob noted, the Shure DFR22 is a 2x2 processor, only two inputs and only two outputs.  Shure used to offered the P4800 that was a 4x8 'drag and drop' processor but I am not familiar with them ever offering an 8x4 processor.
 
You also initially presented the left and right WT-2s as being side fills which suggests they are used just to cover areas the main center cluster doesn't properly cover.  That would be quite different than their providing left and right 'stereo' coverage for the entire room.
 
So I am now unclear about what you actually have and how your system is actually configured and intended to work.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 12:24:55 am by mark ahlenius »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.101 seconds with 23 queries.