ProSoundWeb Community

Church and H.O.W. – Forums for HOW Sound and AV - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Church and HOW Forums => Church Sound => Topic started by: mark ahlenius on January 13, 2013, 12:29:16 AM

Title: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius on January 13, 2013, 12:29:16 AM
Hi,

Sorry this is a bit long winded - but trying to explain our system and my questions about overall EQ.

In our church system, I've never really modified the "system level" EQ for our mains and wondering typically how this is done (like using TEF, or EASE, or ?)

We have a main cluster of 3 - Martin WT3's in a horizontal array - which are pretty nice speakers for an older design - that is my opinion but I am certainly out of date when it comes to the latest speaker designs.  These WT-3's are bi-amped and are fed by a Shure DFR-22 system DSP.  Among other things the DSP provides the crossover for the bi-amped speakers and the individual gains for low and high channels to each cabinet.  The sanctuary's acoustics are really decent, as it was designed for that purpose before any walls were raised.  We do have a pair of Martin WT-2's as side fills and a pair of Martin Subs as well under the stage.

Typically, all the EQ'ing we do is on the individual channel strips on a per-instrument or per-singer basis.   We've had this setup for about 7 years now.

One of our leaders told me they are thinking that we should do a speaker system upgrade because they don't feel that the sound we get (paraphrasing here) is very "intimate".  I respect their viewpoint, but frankly I think it sounds quite good.  I think the main issue is the mix but that's for another day.  But this person is the leader and am willing to work with them for sure.  I know they have been to several other venues with Meyer speakers  - which are great, but imho - they are very expensive.  It may have to do with speaker placement because places like Willow or others have vertical linear arrays which are also much closer to the audience than our center cluster is.

So what I am wondering is this - how often do the experts really modify the system level EQ - like what would be provided in a DSP for all audio going to the mains?  I think they would do that for avoiding or working around acoustical problems (nulls or peaks) in the natural acoustics of the room and/or speakers.  But are there modifications made to the EQ for improving the presence or (don't like this word) - intamacy of the sound?

thank you

'mark
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Taylor Phillips on January 13, 2013, 01:48:31 PM
What on earth does the leader mean by intimacy?  That word describes atmosphere, not audio.  As far as system EQ, I haven't actually done any, but avoiding/working around acoustical problems like you suggest is all I think I would use it for.  You are right to use the channel EQ on a per voice basis - that's why you have EQ on each channel.  The mix might be an issue, as could be the volume level, but really the only thing I could think of that would affect someone's view of how 'intimate' a church service is would be style and/or production.  I certainly don't think the atmosphere of your church service is going to be affected by system EQ. 
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 13, 2013, 01:55:50 PM
What on earth does the leader mean by intimacy?  That word describes atmosphere, not audio.  As far as system EQ, I haven't actually done any, but avoiding/working around acoustical problems like you suggest is all I think I would use it for.  You are right to use the channel EQ on a per voice basis - that's why you have EQ on each channel.  The mix might be an issue, as could be the volume level, but really the only thing I could think of that would affect someone's view of how 'intimate' a church service is would be style and/or production.  I certainly don't think the atmosphere of your church service is going to be affected by system EQ.

So you've posed the question:  What does "intimacy" mean in this context?

The first thing that comes to mind is the psycho-acoustic effect of having the original source precede the amplified source for the listeners.  I routinely delay the loudspeakers BEHIND the source for just that reason.  For me, hearing the sound system itself is far from "intimate" and I feel intensely uncomfortable.  By adding delay to the system, the listener will tend to identify the person speaking as the source rather than the "machinery" being used to amplify/distribute the speakers voice.

This is seemingly a small issue, but for me and possibly for the person desiring "intimacy", this can loom large.

DR 
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius on January 13, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
So you've posed the question:  What does "intimacy" mean in this context?

The first thing that comes to mind is the psycho-acoustic effect of having the original source precede the amplified source for the listeners.  I routinely delay the loudspeakers BEHIND the source for just that reason.  For me, hearing the sound system itself is far from "intimate" and I feel intensely uncomfortable.  By adding delay to the system, the listener will tend to identify the person speaking as the source rather than the "machinery" being used to amplify/distribute the speakers voice.

This is seemingly a small issue, but for me and possibly for the person desiring "intimacy", this can loom large.

DR

Hi,  yes I am still trying  to understand exactly what was meant.  What I have asked is that the next time they are going to some venue, church or whatever which has a "sound" that they like, it to invite me along so I can hear with my own ears the difference.  Sure could more expensive speakers sound better?  You bet, but at what cost?  I'm one of the guy's who installed this gear and know it pretty well. 

Personally I really think its the mix.   That said, I always am having problems mixing the guitars. The e-guitarists are always adding distortion which I am not a fan of.  In my head, I think added distortion tends to broaden the signal - so to speak, to the point where its hard for me to give the guitar sound its own place in the mix, vs. the vocals and other instruments.  One is always on top of the other (I digress).

Going back to their comments, is that when we ran sound for an all church event at this other venue (The Mac Center at College of Dupage) they had these two large banks of Meyer speakers on the left and right of the stage not that high above the stage.  So you were literally sitting quite close to the speakers (and it was loud). In that way, it felt close and perhaps intimate and more clear.   Our Martin's in our sanctuary are probably 25 feet up and down tilted to cover the worship space. So there's much greater acoustical distance, but we still do drive the speakers quite a bit.  We are not in distortion or anything like that.

I agree with what Dick said about this. 

One last comment I made to them was that a few weeks ago we had a guest singer with his own acoustic guitar, and 1 mike, plus drums do a special number.  I had to look back at the board because I have never heard this sound so clean and crisp.  I was amazed.  That's what drives me back to the mix issue.

BTW - what's the view on Martin WT-3's?  pretty decent (but older) boxes?

thank you all for your comments,

'mark
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Brad Weber on January 15, 2013, 03:28:46 PM
As to the general EQ issue, channel equalization affects just one source or input while system equalization affects all inputs and sources the same.  Does the issue apply to all sources or just to some?  If you simply playback a CD or use a single mic as direct as possible to the speaker system is the issue still present?
 
Smaart, SysTune, TEF, SIM, Praxis, etc. are all tools to help in system tuning and they can be extremely useful in capable hands.  However, while they can all help understand what is happening and perhaps why you hear what you hear, none of them can tell you what sounds good.
 
A big room is a big room and there are only so many things you can do to address acoustical intimacy in such spaces.  Adding to that, the desired acoustic conditions for contemporary worship may conflict with the goal of acoustical intimacy.  I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to Architects and churches why the big fan shaped worship space they want because it is more visually 'intimate' generally has exactly the opposite effect acoustically.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius on January 15, 2013, 09:03:47 PM
Hi Brad,

thanks for your comments - all very good.  We did hire an acoustical expert to meet with us throughout the building design phases and we got great results.  That was about 8+ years ago when we built this new building.  He understood our goals and desires.  Its hard to move from a small room which had that flavor of intimacy (plus many audio issues) to a larger space and expect the same results.  But in the end we were quite pleased with the results.  Afterwards his comment was that he hardly ever gets to be involved from day one as opposed to fixing problems after a building is made without such inputs.

I think the intelligibility of our room with the current system is very good - for the spoken word.  This of course was a main concern.  Getting a great sounding room musically and for spoken words are not necessarily that easy (referring to article I read on this site by Pat Brown).

That said, am going to have expert come by to run some "acoustical diagnostics" so to speak on the sound system - just to see if anything has changed in the speaker cabs, amps, DSP, or signal path which could be coloring the audio clarity and/or intimacy.  Will let you all know what we find.

thanks again,

'mark

As to the general EQ issue, channel equalization affects just one source or input while system equalization affects all inputs and sources the same.  Does the issue apply to all sources or just to some?  If you simply playback a CD or use a single mic as direct as possible to the speaker system is the issue still present?
 
Smaart, SysTune, TEF, SIM, Praxis, etc. are all tools to help in system tuning and they can be extremely useful in capable hands.  However, while they can all help understand what is happening and perhaps why you hear what you hear, none of them can tell you what sounds good.
 
A big room is a big room and there are only so many things you can do to address acoustical intimacy in such spaces.  Adding to that, the desired acoustic conditions for contemporary worship may conflict with the goal of acoustical intimacy.  I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to Architects and churches why the big fan shaped worship space they want because it is more visually 'intimate' generally has exactly the opposite effect acoustically.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 15, 2013, 09:07:56 PM
Mark....

What's your monitor situation?

Stage volume level?

Instrumentation/amps?

Program SPL in the room (at what distance)?



Still trying to cipher out the "intimacy" thing......
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius on January 16, 2013, 12:39:44 AM
Hi Dick,

our monitor situation is really sweet (no more wedgies!) - everything's done with Avioms.

So stage volume is only the drum kit (on risers :-(  ) and perhaps a sax.  Everything else uses direct boxes - oh and the vocals (4-6).

SPL,  I try to hold it down under 90-94 db SPL (C-weighted) approximately 35' from the center cluster in the center of the room.

best,

'mark

Mark....

What's your monitor situation?

Stage volume level?

Instrumentation/amps?

Program SPL in the room (at what distance)?



Still trying to cipher out the "intimacy" thing......
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Dan Costello on January 16, 2013, 01:23:58 AM
So stage volume is only the drum kit (on risers :-(  ) and perhaps a sax.  Everything else uses direct boxes - oh and the vocals (4-6).

From what you've said, this is likely a mix, production, and execution issue, not a hardware issue. Six vocalist plus drums, sax, and who knows what else, is not my idea of "intimate." If he wants intimate, tell him to cut the band down to 3 people, with no more than 2 of them singing.

-Dan.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 16, 2013, 08:31:32 AM
Hi Dick,

our monitor situation is really sweet (no more wedgies!) - everything's done with Avioms.

So stage volume is only the drum kit (on risers :-(  ) and perhaps a sax.  Everything else uses direct boxes - oh and the vocals (4-6).

SPL,  I try to hold it down under 90-94 db SPL (C-weighted) approximately 35' from the center cluster in the center of the room.

best,

'mark

Sounds reasonable.  Have you tried delaying the system? 
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Dan Costello on January 16, 2013, 01:57:44 PM
Sounds reasonable.  Have you tried delaying the system?

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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 16, 2013, 02:02:40 PM
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.

I couldn't care less what you think of the way I run a system and mix.

I'm not advocating realigning the drivers, just "moving" the mains behind the musicians.  It's not rocket surgery.  You dial in a delay enough to accomplish that and listen.  Depending on the console, you can do it on the outputs or further downstream. 

  If it improves things, keep it.  If it doesn't, return it to how it was.  It's not going to do any harm.
 
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Dan Costello on January 16, 2013, 05:56:49 PM
I couldn't care less what you think of the way I run a system and mix.

While I'm skeptical about your approach, I deliberately did not address its effectiveness, so I'm not sure why your panties are in such a bunch.

My question was (mostly) an honest one: how much more would you delay them?

Quote
I'm not advocating realigning the drivers, just "moving" the mains behind the musicians.  It's not rocket surgery.  You dial in a delay enough to accomplish that and listen.  Depending on the console, you can do it on the outputs or further downstream.  If it improves things, keep it.  If it doesn't, return it to how it was.  It's not going to do any harm.

He's either buying a delay unit, or he's mucking about in the processor. One way, he's got to front some money; the other, he risks hosing some important settings.

-Dan.

Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 16, 2013, 07:16:25 PM
My question was (mostly) an honest one: how much more would you delay them?

As much as necessary to achieve the desired result.  If the result is not achieved, then go back to square one.

Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Dan Costello on January 16, 2013, 07:51:36 PM
As much as necessary to achieve the desired result.  If the result is not achieved, then go back to square one.

Ok, how about this:

In your experience, what's a ballpark estimate for the amount of total delay (natural delay from the speakers being farther away than the sources + dsp-added delay) required for this method to be effective?

I've never heard of anyone doing this. And while I can kind of see where you're coming from, I'm curious to know how much you've found to be useful.

-Dan.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 16, 2013, 08:06:22 PM
Ok, how about this:

In your experience, what's a ballpark estimate for the amount of total delay (natural delay from the speakers being farther away than the sources + dsp-added delay) required for this method to be effective?

I've never heard of anyone doing this. And while I can kind of see where you're coming from, I'm curious to know how much you've found to be useful.

-Dan.

Dan....

In reverse order:

I not only find it useful, I find it essential.

I don't do it in the DSP, I use either console output delay or the delay in my Sabine GraphiQ's.

I already gave the needed delay determinant:  BEHIND the performers.  How much behind is up to you.  Given that delay becomes audible as an effect at around 11 milliseconds (I hear it start to become noticeable at around 8 milliseconds myself), a BALLPARK figure for this to work is no more than 11 milliseconds.

HOWEVER, you have to do it by ear.  Any numerical measurements given are in retrospect, having been derived from setting this up BY EAR over the course of some 40+ years of experience.

Mark.....

Sorry for the topic swerve.  Dan wants to know about delay.

I'm curious about a couple of things yet:

1.  What are the rest of the components of your system; Console, processing, the whole ball of wax>

2.  At the other facility you mentioned, were the instruments all run through DI's as you do, or were there amps on stage?

Were the situations apples:apples or apples:oranges?
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Dan Costello on January 16, 2013, 08:25:40 PM
Dan....

In reverse order:

I not only find it useful, I find it essential.

I don't do it in the DSP, I use either console output delay or the delay in my Sabine GraphiQ's.

I already gave the needed delay determinant:  BEHIND the performers.  How much behind is up to you.  Given that delay becomes audible as an effect at around 11 milliseconds (I hear it start to become noticeable at around 8 milliseconds myself), a BALLPARK figure for this to work is no more than 11 milliseconds.

HOWEVER, you have to do it by ear.  Any numerical measurements given are in retrospect, having been derived from setting this up BY EAR over the course of some 40+ years of experience.

Ok, that's a start.

One of the reasons I ask is that you've got people lurking around reading this, and without any hard figures (or even ballpark figures), they could go off and delay their systems by 10+x that and think they're doing it "right," because some guy on the internet said so.

Another reason I ask is because we can see that the geometry of the room is already providing approximately that much delay. At FOH, it's about 7ms, but in the front row, it could be over 20ms. The farther you move back in the room, the less geometry-induced delay will be experienced, but at the same time, the stage wash will become lower in volume relative to the mains, so the trick will be less effective.

IOW, I think we can abandon this as a possible solution.

Quote
Sorry for the topic swerve.  Dan wants to know about delay.

It's not off-topic to ask about (and explain) something put forward as a potential solution to the OP's problems.

-Dan.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 16, 2013, 08:50:33 PM
Ok, that's a start.

One of the reasons I ask is that you've got people lurking around reading this, and without any hard figures (or even ballpark figures), they could go off and delay their systems by 10+x that and think they're doing it "right," because some guy on the internet said so.

Another reason I ask is because we can see that the geometry of the room is already providing approximately that much delay. At FOH, it's about 7ms, but in the front row, it could be over 20ms. The farther you move back in the room, the less geometry-induced delay will be experienced, but at the same time, the stage wash will become lower in volume relative to the mains, so the trick will be less effective.

IOW, I think we can abandon this as a possible solution.

It's not off-topic to ask about (and explain) something put forward as a potential solution to the OP's problems.

-Dan.

Dan....

You've obviously made up your mind (without any direct experience with this technique) that what I've been doing successfully for decades is either wrong or will not work.  You've misunderstood even the simplest of explanations, some of them given several times.

The section in bold above is wrong on several accounts, not the least of which is your assertion that the original sound from the stage and the sound from the speakers fall off at different rates.   

Do us all a favor and do some reading on the relationship of delay and location, try this for yourself, abandon the numbers and go for the result.  You can start with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect

What you're looking for is to associate the source of the sound with the performers, not the speakers.  If the sound appears to be coming from the speakers rather than the performers, delaying the speakers can help.

When you've tried it, then come back and talk to me.  Until then you're just firing shots in the dark, my friend.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius on January 16, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
Sounds reasonable.  Have you tried delaying the system?

Hi Dick,

sorry I didn't see the 2nd page of posts until just now.

From the previous discussions I understand where you are coming from Dick.  I have no problems adding delay into the main feed.

As for the rest of the gear, sure I can give that.

FOH console - Midas Verona 40 ch.
Center channel out to the main cluster (via DSP), L/R chans feed via the DSP to the side fill speakers.

Shure DSP DFR-22 (no longer made but works fine).  This is used to split the input signal (center) to 3 channels, then feed parametric EQ effect proc, crossover (for bi-amp splitting) and graphic EQ + limiter and gain adjustment per channel.

I can drop in a delay on the main cluster very easily and dial in  < 11 ms.    I already did this for the DFR-11 DSP which runs our lobby speakers and other feeds.

The DSP outputs feed to our amp room (balanced low-imedance lines) to a rack of crown Macro Tech 2400's and some QSC's to power the Martins.
There's more to the system than that, but that's what's in the signal path to the mains (I know as myself and another friend installed it all).

Subs are a pair of Martins which are an Aux-fed sub system into a group fader.  That feeds a Rane e-crossover which feeds a QSC 3600?  to feed the subs.  Subs are below the stage which is concrete.

As for amps on stage - none.  everything is done via direct outs (typically Radial D/I's).   Aviom system is fed from D/O's from the Midas and a couple of Aux bus feeds.

Its a larger band, often 1-2 keys, Sax or Violin, drums, sometimes a latin percussion set.  1 acoustic, 1 bass,  1 e-guitar and 4-6 vocals.   Yes, I would appreciate a smaller group, but that's my opinion.

The only sound we get off the stage is of course the drums.

best,

'mark
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Dan Costello on January 17, 2013, 02:25:10 AM
Dan....

You've obviously made up your mind (without any direct experience with this technique) that what I've been doing successfully for decades is either wrong or will not work.

I said that I was skeptical, not that you were wrong. I, too, understand the precedence effect, and I think there's some value to leaning on it. However, what I was trying to point out was that the sound from the speakers is ALREADY behind the performers, just by virtue of the geometry of the room. When I asked how much more you wanted it to be delayed, you got your feathers all ruffled.

Quote
You've misunderstood even the simplest of explanations, some of them given several times.

I think you ought to re-read this thread, because there may be a post or two you think you made that you haven't. There's nothing here I've misunderstood and there's nothing you've explained several times. I've asked specific questions, and you seem to be insulted when I do, acting as if you've already explained the answers when you haven't.


Quote
The section in bold above is wrong on several accounts, not the least of which is your assertion that the original sound from the stage and the sound from the speakers fall off at different rates.

I didn't say that they fall off at different rates. I said that as you move backwards in the room, the relative distances change and the sound from the speakers winds up becoming more of what the listeners hear. 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.

And as far as the other things that you bolded being wrong, please tell me what I messed up. Calculating the relative delays is a matter of basic geometry. The OP has already said that the speakers are about 25' up and that FOH is about 35' back from the stage/speakers. Using the pythagorean theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2), we can find that the straight-line distance from FOH to the speakers is about 43' (assuming FOH is on the ground floor). That means that FOH is about 8' closer to the front of the stage than it is to the speakers. With the speed of sound being 1126 ft/s, that would mean the mains are already delayed to the front of the stage by 7.1ms, when measured at FOH.

Now, the relative delay is greater at the front row, because there's a wider gap in the relative distances between the listener and the sound sources. Assuming that the front row is 10' back from the stage and the speakers are still 25' up, that'd put the distance from the listener to the speakers at 26.9'. That's 16.9' farther than the front of the stage, which would translate to a relative delay of 15 ms.

Quote
What you're looking for is to associate the source of the sound with the performers, not the speakers. If the sound appears to be coming from the speakers rather than the performers, delaying the speakers can help.

I know. I also know that that's not always possible, particularly when the performer is quiet or when the distances to be covered are moderately long (or both).

Quote
When you've tried it, then come back and talk to me.  Until then you're just firing shots in the dark, my friend.

You like to proclaim yourself correct and me wrong w/o providing much of an explanation why, despite your claims that you have. I'm not saying that your underlying principle is wrong (because it has some merit), but as a general principle, whenever I see anyone get so bent out of shape and defensive about such simple questions, I start to suspect that they're full of it.

If I'm wrong about the geometry of the room already providing the bulk of this delay, please show me how.

Quote
The only sound we get off the stage is of course the drums.

And vocals, horns, percussion, acoustic guitar, and violin.

Quote
Its a larger band, often 1-2 keys, Sax or Violin, drums, sometimes a latin percussion set.  1 acoustic, 1 bass,  1 e-guitar and 4-6 vocals.   Yes, I would appreciate a smaller group, but that's my opinion.

Yeah... I'm guessing that of those dozen people only 1-2 (at most) are really good, with most of the rest being just average, with 1-2 being in the "joyful noise" category. Does that sound about right?

Arranging for such a large group is hard. Arranging them to sound "intimate" is even harder. Doing it with a band of mediocre volunteers is night unto impossible.

Out of curiosity, do you have any videos or audio recordings of the band?

-Dan.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Jason Lucas 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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Brad Weber 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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees 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.............
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Bob L. Wilson 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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees 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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius 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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius 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
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Brad Weber 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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Nick Simon 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... ;)
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius 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.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Brad Weber on January 19, 2013, 07:37:29 AM
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.
That makes more sense.

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.
What actually happens when you do that is not just a factor of the mixer but also of the coverage from the speakers, how the system is wired and how the DSP is programmed.  Have you walked the room and listened to what happens with speech and music sources when you start panning those sources?  Does it sound the same everywhere or do some locations hear something different than what you hear at the mix position?
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius on January 20, 2013, 12:54:56 AM
That makes more sense.
What actually happens when you do that is not just a factor of the mixer but also of the coverage from the speakers, how the system is wired and how the DSP is programmed.  Have you walked the room and listened to what happens with speech and music sources when you start panning those sources?  Does it sound the same everywhere or do some locations hear something different than what you hear at the mix position?

Hi

from the FOH position (which is centered in the very back of the room) you can hear the pan so to speak.  But just like any "stereo" mix, it only sounds the best when you are in the center.

I always walk my mixes - during the practice because most rooms sound a bit different than in the FOH position.  I work to get a good balance of all instruments  and vocals that way.  As for walking the room when I've panned something, its great if you are on that side to where its panned or toward center, but when you go to the opposite side, you lose the level (of course).  Hence unless its a really simple grouping of instruments, I rarely do much panning.

Speech sounds very good, esp if the eq on the strip is set properly.  Music is pretty good - but really depends on the mix and complexity of the band/worship team.  IMHO - the more there are up on stage vocals plus mutiple guitars - the worse it sounds.  I think that I mentioned it before - but if I could get the guitarist to get rid of distortion (for the most part), I would,  Just my opinion.

I am intrigued about getting the "image" of the sound down closer to the stage.  I would see a couple of options here;  1) putting some wedges on stage to fill in the gap, or 2). thinking about dropping the height of the center cluster down say 10' or so to bring the image close to the vocals.

thanks again everyone - all great things to be thinking about.

'mark
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on January 20, 2013, 08:41:25 AM
Hi
 thinking about dropping the height of the center cluster down say 10' or so to bring the image close to the vocals.

Take a moment to think about the other result of lowering the speakers.  As they are now deployed, there is (X) distance to the listeners in the front row and (X') distance to the back row.  By lowering them you will change the overall ratio of sound making it louder at the front than the back.  IOW, if you lower it 10 feet, it will be about 10 feet closer to the nearest listeners while the distance to the folks in the back will remain relatively the same.

This may or may not help.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Brad Weber on January 20, 2013, 12:34:46 PM
I am intrigued about getting the "image" of the sound down closer to the stage.  I would see a couple of options here;  1) putting some wedges on stage to fill in the gap, or 2). thinking about dropping the height of the center cluster down say 10' or so to bring the image close to the vocals.
It used to be fairly common when addressing speech with distributed or pew-back type systems to incorporate one or more 'localization' speakers at the normal 'talker' locations and then delay the reinforcement speakers to be 10-15ms or so behind the sound from the localization speaker(s).  The reinforced sound provided the intelligibility while the localization speakers provided the, not surprisingly, localization.
 
I agree with Dick that lowering the center cluster is likely to adversely affect the related coverage.  It may also reduce the potential gain before feedback of the system since you would be moving the speakers closer to the microphones.
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: mark ahlenius on January 20, 2013, 02:34:35 PM
It used to be fairly common when addressing speech with distributed or pew-back type systems to incorporate one or more 'localization' speakers at the normal 'talker' locations and then delay the reinforcement speakers to be 10-15ms or so behind the sound from the localization speaker(s).  The reinforced sound provided the intelligibility while the localization speakers provided the, not surprisingly, localization.
 
I agree with Dick that lowering the center cluster is likely to adversely affect the related coverage.  It may also reduce the potential gain before feedback of the system since you would be moving the speakers closer to the microphones.

Yes I see.  You both make a really good point about this and it was just a thought.  I was going to bounce it off the guy who designed the speaker placement and room acoustics first before ever trying such a change.  I am going to have him run his measurement gear on the system to insure its running properly, and that we are not getting any artifacts from aging amps, etc.

This morning as I sat out the audience in church,  noted that while I could detect that the sound image of the pastor was above him, it did still sound natural to me.  Which brings me back again to what I think may be just mix issues.

Thanks again all,

It's been educational.

Mark
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Taylor Phillips on January 20, 2013, 11:07:30 PM
I hadn't thought about the lack of stage volume contributing to the lack of 'intimacy' before, but I think that does make a lot of since.  I've never been one to fight to completely eliminate stage volume completely like a lot of other sound guys because I've always thought the result sounded unnatural.  Rather, my goal has always been to keep things manageable.  Anyway, I think I can say conclusively after all this discussion that your issue is not EQ or speaker quality, but stage set up and perhaps the mix.  I would think people would notice the unnaturalness of a silent stage less with a good mix in the house.  I don't think I would entertain the idea of lowering the center cluster of speakers.  I think the ideas the others mentioned about the delay, front fills, or wedges would be a much better place to start. 
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Luke Geis on February 09, 2013, 12:54:54 AM
Some call the effect of delay from source to reflection the precedence effect, but it's also know more accurately as the HAAS effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect

In a nut shell and individual will perceive the first source they hear as the focal point. The reflected sound can be several db louder and the initial sound source heard will still be perceived as the source. This assumes of course that the reflected sound is heard after the actual source.

Adding delay to the PA can bring it in behind the performers. It's how much delay that is used that can make the effect occur. It takes between 5-30ms of system delay behind the performers to acquire the effect. Doing so should make it sound as if the performers are creating the volume. It is a really neat effect and can really draw people in. When standing in th audience you hear the instruments quite loud and it seems as if the volume is coming from the stage more so than the speakers. Different in every scenario of course and YMMV. It's something that takes some critical listening to really nail it down. A couple ms difference can really lock something in or make it start to sound distant again. This is why delay on every input is such a nice feature of some desks. You can do this effect on a per instrument basis!
Title: Re: System EQ vs. channel strip EQ
Post by: Brad Weber on February 09, 2013, 08:08:21 AM
Some call the effect of delay from source to reflection the precedence effect, but it's also know more accurately as the HAAS effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect)

In a nut shell and individual will perceive the first source they hear as the focal point. The reflected sound can be several db louder and the initial sound source heard will still be perceived as the actual source.
Technically, the Hass Effect is a subset of the precedence effect and relates greatly to precedence and localization being maintained even if the later arrival is up to 10dB greater in level than the direct sound as long as the time arrival difference is between 10ms and 30ms.  This is important for audio systems as you are often dealing with delays or fills that are higher in level than the direct sound but can still maintain precedence as long as the direct sound is within 10dB and leads the delayed sound by typically 10ms to 20ms.