ProSoundWeb Community
Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: Brian Jones on February 16, 2013, 02:00:47 PM
-
I own some sm58 and sm57, and one each om2 & beta 57a. Which should have superior feedback rejection? Which would be worst?
I'm also stuck for this gig using cheap kustom monitors. Tips on placement? The "talent" will be amateurs but I think ill have a mic coach to give tips before they hit the stage. Content will be spoken word and acapella with a slight chance of an acoustic guitar. Also recorded content but monitors will be turned down for that.
I'm thinking aides should be prefader.
-
I own some sm58 and sm57, and one each om2 & beta 57a. Which should have superior feedback rejection? Which would be worst?
It depends on several factors.
I'm also stuck for this gig using cheap kustom monitors. Tips on placement?
Place the monitor(s) in the "nulls" of the pattern of whatever mic you go with.
The "talent" will be amateurs but I think ill have a mic coach to give tips before they hit the stage. Content will be spoken word and acapella with a slight chance of an acoustic guitar. Also recorded content but monitors will be turned down for that.
A cardioid pattern mic is maybe better for amateurs. A tighter pattern makes it easier for poor mic technique to come into play.
I'm thinking aides should be prefader.
By "aides" do you mean monitors? If so, then yes.
-
I own some sm58 and sm57, and one each om2 & beta 57a. Which should have superior feedback rejection? Which would be worst?
I'm also stuck for this gig using cheap kustom monitors. Tips on placement? The "talent" will be amateurs but I think ill have a mic coach to give tips before they hit the stage. Content will be spoken word and acapella with a slight chance of an acoustic guitar. Also recorded content but monitors will be turned down for that.
I'm thinking aides should be prefader.
Simply do not use floor monitors for spoken word unless it is absolutely demanded.
Any and all of these mics can be used for instruments of vocals. The om-2 and beta 57 are hyper and super card, but that really will not help much one they are removed from the stand (I'm just guessing here).
I'd start with the beta 57 on the guitar then 58s on vox.
<edit syntax>
-
Simply do not use floor monitors for spoken word unless it absolutely demanded.
Agreed. I've got a "2nd Annual" event coming up on Tuesday (live radio remote) where I'm providing nominal "sound" in the room. It's about 15' wide by 30' long, so a single speaker at head height and a floor wedge for the keyboard player are it. For the spoken word and track artists, I am providing a small mixer with the tracks and their mic so they can plug in their headphones and set their own levels. Or they can just go with what comes out of the room speaker.
-
Simply do not use floor monitors for spoken word unless it absolutely demanded.
Any and all of these mics can be used for instruments of vocals. The om-2 and beta 57 are hyper and super card, but that really will not help much one they are removed from the stand (I'm just guessing here).
I'd start with the beta 57 on guitar. And 58s on vox
I agree.
If you are really having issues with feedback, try an OM7 or an ND767a. Both have excellent feedback rejection characteristics.
Note, that these microphones also require you to be close to them so you have to get your speaker to talk into the microphone (not hold it at belly button level).
One issue I have had with spoken word and inexperienced speakers is that when they hear themselves ..... they back away from the microphone. If you turn up more .... they back away more.... and eventually you get feedback :(
This seems to be especially common in long narrow speaking areas where the speakers are fairly close to the speaker, but need to cover a deep room.
-
When working with amatures-I usually don't put any of their mics into the monitors-unless they ask for it-for TWO main reasons.
1: It makes it that much easier to get gain out front
2: For most amatures-if they hear themselves it freaks them out-so they either move the mic away or sing/talk quieter because they think they are really loud to the audience. Makes it harder to get #1 above.
-
Thanks guys. In the future I'll probably get an OM7 but gig is tomorrow. I did some experimenting with a monitor hooked up, moving my mouth slowly from on axis to as close to behind as I could get, listening to how the level changed, thus combining what was said here with info I picked up watching Dave Rat's YouTube where he was testing mics. The OM2 was by far the quietest behind, with all the others about the same.
I'll deploy accordingly.
I'm happy to take the unanimous advice re monitors and spoken word. For the acapella group I'll place them at about 2 and 10 oclock.
-
I'm happy to take the unanimous advice re monitors and spoken word. For the acapella group I'll place them at about 2 and 10 oclock.
When using 2 wedges to cover one group, I prefer placing them together and "V-ed" out so that they have the least cancellation.
-
Thanks guys. In the future I'll probably get an OM7 but gig is tomorrow. I did some experimenting with a monitor hooked up, moving my mouth slowly from on axis to as close to behind as I could get, listening to how the level changed, thus combining what was said here with info I picked up watching Dave Rat's YouTube where he was testing mics. The OM2 was by far the quietest behind, with all the others about the same.
I'll deploy accordingly.
I'm happy to take the unanimous advice re monitors and spoken word. For the acapella group I'll place them at about 2 and 10 oclock.
Unless you plan on meeting riders for metal acts I wouldn't go with the OM-7. The OM-6 has about the same response but does not have the reduced output (intended to prevent or reduce input overload from screamers). The OM-5 is similar to the 6 but adds a presence peak.
The problem with the 7 is mainly having to turn the input gain up on the board significantly more then you are used to with other mics. Not so bad if you have plenty of time to dial things in, but can be a PITA in what we call 'combat audio'.
-
Unless you plan on meeting riders for metal acts I wouldn't go with the OM-7. The OM-6 has about the same response but does not have the reduced output (intended to prevent or reduce input overload from screamers). The OM-5 is similar to the 6 but adds a presence peak.
The problem with the 7 is mainly having to turn the input gain up on the board significantly more then you are used to with other mics. Not so bad if you have plenty of time to dial things in, but can be a PITA in what we call 'combat audio'.
And when dealing with "normal" or quieter vocals-turning up the input gain will add a good bit of noise to the system. This is not a good thing.
As with all things-it is a matter of "tradeoffs". What might look good in one area-may cause problems in another area. Sometimes in ways you didn't count on.
That is why one needs look a bit deeper than the "simple" specs.
-
Unless you plan on meeting riders for metal acts I wouldn't go with the OM-7. The OM-6 has about the same response but does not have the reduced output (intended to prevent or reduce input overload from screamers). The OM-5 is similar to the 6 but adds a presence peak.
The problem with the 7 is mainly having to turn the input gain up on the board significantly more then you are used to with other mics. Not so bad if you have plenty of time to dial things in, but can be a PITA in what we call 'combat audio'.
I actually prefer the EV ND767a to both of those microphones anyway. It is a smoother more articulate microphone and it has excellent resistance to feedback.
-
Unless you plan on meeting riders for metal acts I wouldn't go with the OM-7. The OM-6 has about the same response but does not have the reduced output (intended to prevent or reduce input overload from screamers). The OM-5 is similar to the 6 but adds a presence peak.
The problem with the 7 is mainly having to turn the input gain up on the board significantly more then you are used to with other mics. Not so bad if you have plenty of time to dial things in, but can be a PITA in what we call 'combat audio'.
Another problem with the OM7 (due to pattern and sensitivity) is it needs to be pointing down the throat of the singer right near the lips to get the specified frequency response and a decent amount of gain (think of a flashlight lighting up someone's tonsils). Not a mic I would use for amateurs. It's a good mic for a pro on a rock and roll stage but it really wants you to eat the mic.
In my early days I often used my one OM7 for the lead vocalist. I learned very quickly that most singers don't 'stay on the mic' like they need to to get consistent results from an OM-7.
-
Thanks again everyone.
The gig was earlier today and in large part to information received here, it was the most successful yet. This is the 4th year I've done this gig and only my 8th live gig total. I bought equipment and have been learning "on the job" and it hasn't been pretty, but everyone is grateful to just have a professional system so I've been lucky.
I ended up not using the monitors at all. The vocal group wasn't used to using them, so I suggested they not try to learn now and explained it could actually be a detriment and they agreed. With the spoken word stuff, I just didn't even offer it up.
The biggest problem I had was the wireless lav mic for the presenter. I didn't think I was going to have any problem at all with it which is why I didn't even mention it earlier. Plus, it wasn't something where I had options.
I set up an SM58 as a backup but we never had to go to that. I got a lot of feedback almost immediately with the AT freeway 700 lav mic, but it went away when I dialed it back. The audio level was a little lower than I wanted, but very comfortable to listen to nonetheless. My FOH booth was about 3/4 of the way back so I'm sure it was good coverage. I'm not sure why I was getting feedback. He was well behind the mains and no monitors were powered up. The only thing I can figure is, the room was more reflective than I thought. Ceiling was acoustic tile, side wall mostly curtain with some windows exposed. Concrete on other wall, hard lino floor but there was a full house so lots of bodies to absorb the audio. Mains were running through a dbx 231 with an upside down smiley to enhance vocals.
-
An upside down smiley, and plenty of mid range in the vocals which may be where most of the feedback was coming from. In places where the end result will be unknown it's sometimes best to start with the EQ flat and with 0db gain. From that point you would mostly remove EQ where it matters most or bump the EQ where most needed. Smileys (or frowns) are not a good thing.
-
An upside down smiley, and plenty of mid range in the vocals which may be where most of the feedback was coming from. In places where the end result will be unknown it's sometimes best to start with the EQ flat and with 0db gain. From that point you would mostly remove EQ where it matters most or bump the EQ where most needed. Smileys (or frowns) are not a good thing.
Actually the top of the frown was approximately flat with what amounted to low cut and high cut filters on the extreme highs and lows because I didn't anticipate any need for reproduction at the extremes of the audio spectrum. I wasn't boosting anything with the EQ. As it turns out, there was a flute in addition to the acoustic guitar on one song during the "acapella" act. I haven't checked my reference guide yet to see if flutes extend into the range I cut or not.
In between this gig (yesterday) and the next (October) I think I'll make a serious attempt at implementing the best I can the mic and speaker corrections so I don't have to touch those which will leave room correction only day of gig. Would a cheap Nady or Behringer reference mic and a copy of TrueRTA be sufficient for my needs? I have an audio interface for my laptop (M-Audio MobilePre).
Also, when doing correction on mics, would a 15 band EQ be overkill vs. just using the 4 band channel strip EQ on my MixWizard? If not, I might pick up a 4 channel 15-band EQ for my rack.
-
Actually the top of the frown was approximately flat with what amounted to low cut and high cut filters on the extreme highs and lows because I didn't anticipate any need for reproduction at the extremes of the audio spectrum. I wasn't boosting anything with the EQ. As it turns out, there was a flute in addition to the acoustic guitar on one song during the "acapella" act. I haven't checked my reference guide yet to see if flutes extend into the range I cut or not.
Setting your GEQ to what you "imagine" is not generally a good idea. You need to use your ears and learn how to make adjustments to real-time conditions.
Also, when doing correction on mics, would a 15 band EQ be overkill vs. just using the 4 band channel strip EQ on my MixWizard? If not, I might pick up a 4 channel 15-band EQ for my rack.
If you're going to add "fine-tuning" EQ to a channel or sub-group, don't use GEQ. Use a 5 band fully parametric EQ. A Klark-Teknik DN410 is great. Either 5 x 2 channels or 10 x 1 switchable. You can also find Rane PEQ's for reasonable used, but the power supplies are kind of a PITA.
Forget 15 band GEQ's. They're not worth the rack space.
-
Setting your GEQ to what you "imagine" is not generally a good idea. You need to use your ears and learn how to make adjustments to real-time conditions.
If you're going to add "fine-tuning" EQ to a channel or sub-group, don't use GEQ. Use a 5 band fully parametric EQ. A Klark-Teknik DN410 is great. Either 5 x 2 channels or 10 x 1 switchable. You can also find Rane PEQ's for reasonable used, but the power supplies are kind of a PITA.
Forget 15 band GEQ's. They're not worth the rack space.
I'm learning to tune via my ears little by little. I did that when adjusting the EQ for the monitors the day before the gig and surprised myself by how much better I made them sound.
Still I think limiting the signal to the frequency range of what the content is seems prudent, don't you? It's the same concept basically as adding a gate to a microphone -- filtering out that which isn't part of the actual content. I should have toyed with the EQ pseudo high cut when I noticed the flute, but didn't think of it and really I didn't notice the flute sound as if it was lacking high end so I don't think cutting the highest octave affected it. At least it wasn't a piccolo.
And thanks for the advice on PEQ vs. 15-band GEQ. I'll look into that.
-
I'm learning to tune via my ears little by little. I did that when adjusting the EQ for the monitors the day before the gig and surprised myself by how much better I made them sound.
Still I think limiting the signal to the frequency range of what the content is seems prudent, don't you? It's the same concept basically as adding a gate to a microphone -- filtering out that which isn't part of the actual content. I should have toyed with the EQ pseudo high cut when I noticed the flute, but didn't think of it and really I didn't notice the flute sound as if it was lacking high end so I don't think cutting the highest octave affected it. At least it wasn't a piccolo.
And thanks for the advice on PEQ vs. 15-band GEQ. I'll look into that.
Personally, I wouldn't EQ anything without there being some particular audible need for the correction. Of course, the variable HPFs on my desk see a lot of use. EQs, by their very nature, induce phase errors while they do their job. It's best to have no EQ, but the reality is that it is often necessary.
-
I'm learning to tune via my ears little by little. I did that when adjusting the EQ for the monitors the day before the gig and surprised myself by how much better I made them sound.
Still I think limiting the signal to the frequency range of what the content is seems prudent, don't you? It's the same concept basically as adding a gate to a microphone -- filtering out that which isn't part of the actual content. I should have toyed with the EQ pseudo high cut when I noticed the flute, but didn't think of it and really I didn't notice the flute sound as if it was lacking high end so I don't think cutting the highest octave affected it. At least it wasn't a piccolo.
And thanks for the advice on PEQ vs. 15-band GEQ. I'll look into that.
There are, at the least, three levels of EQ:
PEQ (delay/filtering) in the system EQ/driver alignment
System (or room) EQ, usually a 31 band GEQ
Individual (channel strip) EQ
Each has a different purpose. Some of what you're talking about is better done on channel strip as using the "house" or other outboard EQ will affect more than just the voice you're dealing with (the flute, for example).
As to EQ'ing for it to "sound good" and trying to sculpt the sound, I'd say that you should start thinking at the INPUT, then the channel and so on down the line. But first......
You should (again) not work from your imagination, but from empirical evidence. Learn how to use whatever EQ tools you have which are controlling the spectral output of your console/speakers to get the best fit of the system to the room. Your system is not separate from the space in which you're running.
An enclosed space will exhibit a characteristic sound brought on by complex interactions between the dimensions, surface compositions, etc. You can and should know how to "ring out" a system to alleviate the "hot" frequencies, standing waves, room modes......whatever you want to call them. Only then can you begin to utilize your system to the max.
Without proper system setup (positioning/gain-staging/ring-out), none of the subtle adjustments you'd like to make will be effective...or as predictable as you would like.
It's like a guitar. Someone hands you an instrument with the strings tuned in a random fashion. You put your fingers on the frets in a standard chord formation, but........WTF. It doesn't come out like its' supposed to.
A system must be tuned like any other instrument which produces musical sounds. That's what you've got to learn. Once you learn that, then you can use your imagination to get creative. But you can't tune a system to a room by imagining what you "think" might work. You've got to do it step by step, by the book.
-
Thanks again everyone.
The gig was earlier today and in large part to information received here, it was the most successful yet. This is the 4th year I've done this gig and only my 8th live gig total. I bought equipment and have been learning "on the job" and it hasn't been pretty, but everyone is grateful to just have a professional system so I've been lucky.
I ended up not using the monitors at all. The vocal group wasn't used to using them, so I suggested they not try to learn now and explained it could actually be a detriment and they agreed. With the spoken word stuff, I just didn't even offer it up.
The biggest problem I had was the wireless lav mic for the presenter. I didn't think I was going to have any problem at all with it which is why I didn't even mention it earlier. Plus, it wasn't something where I had options.
I set up an SM58 as a backup but we never had to go to that. I got a lot of feedback almost immediately with the AT freeway 700 lav mic, but it went away when I dialed it back. The audio level was a little lower than I wanted, but very comfortable to listen to nonetheless. My FOH booth was about 3/4 of the way back so I'm sure it was good coverage. I'm not sure why I was getting feedback. He was well behind the mains and no monitors were powered up. The only thing I can figure is, the room was more reflective than I thought. Ceiling was acoustic tile, side wall mostly curtain with some windows exposed. Concrete on other wall, hard lino floor but there was a full house so lots of bodies to absorb the audio. Mains were running through a dbx 231 with an upside down smiley to enhance vocals.
I have had nothing but problems with lav mics. I know they are nice and unobtrusive, but boy do they want to feedback!
I used them a few years ago in a wedding. The bride and groom wanted them for their vows (outside wedding with around 500 people). I got some decent volume out of them, but it was a real challenge. Also, when we were doing the rehearsal, I found that when they got close to one another, it caused feedback right away. I had to watch for the "Big Kiss" and drop the faders clean off before they got close ;)
-
Thanks again everyone.
The gig was earlier today and in large part to information received here, it was the most successful yet. This is the 4th year I've done this gig and only my 8th live gig total. I bought equipment and have been learning "on the job" and it hasn't been pretty, but everyone is grateful to just have a professional system so I've been lucky.
Learning by doing is and effective teacher.
I have something called Sussical The Musical coming up next week. Probably will have 12 to 18 wireless plus the usual PCC all trying to overcome the orchestra in a shallow pit.
-
Learning by doing is and effective teacher.
I have something called Sussical The Musical coming up next week. Probably will have 12 to 18 wireless plus the usual PCC all trying to overcome the orchestra in a shallow pit.
Oh the Thinks you can Think!
I like that little show... and when designing it the first (and second) times I was struck by just how faithfully minimalist the music and lyrics were. Very much in keeping with the Doctor's intentions and giving me the inspiration to make each iteration of a song ever so slightly different.
I think the company had 14 wireless for the show, and the director changed some blocking that resulted in kids with one or 2 lines standing next to a character that had a mic; 3 PCC 160 and 3 AT853 for upstage ensemble pickup.
-
I have had nothing but problems with lav mics. I know they are nice and unobtrusive, but boy do they want to feedback!
I used them a few years ago in a wedding. The bride and groom wanted them for their vows (outside wedding with around 500 people). I got some decent volume out of them, but it was a real challenge. Also, when we were doing the rehearsal, I found that when they got close to one another, it caused feedback right away. I had to watch for the "Big Kiss" and drop the faders clean off before they got close ;)
And I love lavalier mics (well, okay, I'm lying just a little). And I put them on presenters that work downstage of the PA, in the audience area, for 600-1000 folks, classroom style. Yep, in front of the PA.
The secret is good system work (design, deployment, alignment and EQ) before patching a receiver. The techniques that go into that come from lots of doing stuff the hard way and then figuring out better ways. IOW, practice.
I'm a big proponent of actually setting up equipment and experimenting. It helps to have an assistant who can wear a lav, read a script of some kind, move around... while you make changes and listen. Nothing replaces hands-on time with gear, and getting that time outside of shows is important.
-
I found that when they got close to one another, it caused feedback right away. I had to watch for the "Big Kiss" and drop the faders clean off before they got close ;)
Ø
-
Ø
quite the relationship
-
I have had nothing but problems with lav mics. I know they are nice and unobtrusive, but boy do they want to feedback!
I used them a few years ago in a wedding. The bride and groom wanted them for their vows (outside wedding with around 500 people). I got some decent volume out of them, but it was a real challenge. Also, when we were doing the rehearsal, I found that when they got close to one another, it caused feedback right away. I had to watch for the "Big Kiss" and drop the faders clean off before they got close ;)
I think I mentioned the Dave Rat video I watched talking about how to ring out a system. It mirrors what you're saying in different words. His approach was, channel strip EQ to correct microphone anomalies or other coloration at the individual input level; processing equipment to correct for loudspeakers (and I suppose to a lesser extent, amps); and GEQ for room correction. With this philosophy, when one enters a new venue, the room correction is all that is left to do because you already have your channel strips set for the particular inputs selected and your loudspeakers are producing as true a reproduction as they are capable of. Therefore, any adjustment needed to be made must be due to the room.
I don't have an RTA or reference mic (I believe I posted a separate thread asking about that) so the little bit of monitor correction I made was using a GEQ... the best tool I had immediately available. I do own a Behringer DCX2496 but I hadn't thought about using it till it was too late (it was still back home over 100 miles away). In the future, I'll probably use the DCX2496 to adjust the monitors since my K10's I use for mains are pretty good out of the box and the monitors are crap. I'll get an RTA and reference mic probably before my next gig and use them for this purpose. Also, I'll pick a better environment than my garage to make the adjustment. I do "know" too that a flat RTA is just a starting point (albeit, pretty good one) and I will use my ears to determine if any further adjustment should be made.
As far as using the channel strip to correct microphones, I have to admit I'm a little in the woods here and don't see how 4 bands can do the trick when a 15 band EQ is considered worthless. I know I have sweepable mids, but it still seems like not enough tool for the job IMO. It makes me wonder about going with the Behringer X32 Producer when it comes out (rack mountable) which has PEQ, gating, compression on every channel. On the other hand, I know my MixWiz is a reliable quality mid range product so I'd like to work this out with what I have while adding perhaps a little processing here and there. I have a lot of other things going on so I'm holding off on purchases right now, but I've gotten a couple of people offering equipment for sale via PM and when I start pulling the trigger, I'll try to nab those deals first most likely.
-
A DEQ 2496 would be greatly preferable to a DCX 2496 for this purpose.
A flat EQ (as displayed by an RTA) on a speaker system is not a starting point, its a disaster.
A 15 band EQ is not preferred for maximizing loudness in in speaker systems as the width of adjustment is much greater then is desirable. As a general tone shaper it can be OK.
A parametric EQ, once you get used to it is simply a faster and easier way to get the results you desire.
A lot of us here didn't have access to advise or information much beyond what we could read in the Yamaha Sound Reenforcement Handbook. A lot of stuff we were told by others turned out to be just plain wrong. I hope you will integrate what you learn from this site with your real world experience. I know I have.
-
1) A DEQ 2496 would be greatly preferable to a DCX 2496 for this purpose.
2) A flat EQ (as displayed by an RTA) on a speaker system is not a starting point, its a disaster.
3) A 15 band EQ is not preferred for maximizing loudness in in speaker systems as the width of adjustment is much greater then is desirable. As a general tone shaper it can be OK.
4) A parametric EQ, once you get used to it is simply a faster and easier way to get the results you desire.
5) A lot of us here didn't have access to advise or information much beyond what we could read in the Yamaha Sound Reenforcement Handbook. A lot of stuff we were told by others turned out to be just plain wrong. I hope you will integrate what you learn from this site with your real world experience. I know I have.
I numberered your points for easy reference...
1) understood and agreed
2) don't understand at all... I understand one might want some coloration but flat is supposed to "true" and from there one would shape things to taste. Am I missing something big here?
3) I don't think ANY EQ is a tool for increasing loudness. The approach I've heard described that makes sense to me is to mostly use an EQ to cut much more than to boost.
4) I can see that re: PEQ. And maybe with something like that DEQ2496, with visual feedback to reinforce what I'm hearing, I could learn to use one much faster.
5) Yes, I try to use my real world experience, logic, theory and everything else that makes sense to use, to make things better. I still need to pick up the Yamaha book. I've been meaning to buy a copy for a long time now. I have what I guess is a poor substitute from what I've heard.
And I'm never afraid to admit I'm wrong. I know that false pride won't win me many accolades for my work but excellent results will. I'm just now starting to see that approach pay off as others noticed the vast improvement over even just last year's event, not to mention my rather dismal first attempts. I know I have a long way to go before I feel I am in the ranks of the pro. I'm not sure I'll ever be a pro from the standpoint of getting paid to do this, so I'm talking about knowledge and skill level when I say that.
-
3) I don't think ANY EQ is a tool for increasing loudness. The approach I've heard described that makes sense to me is to mostly use an EQ to cut much more than to boost.
What he said was to "maximize loudness", not "increasing loudness". The use of the term "loudness" is unfortunate, but what he was saying is the EQ is used to maximize Gain Before Feedback, otherwise known as headroom. This allows you to turn it up "louder" before the threshold of feedback is reached. This is done by using the various bands on the EQ to attenuate the "hot" frequencies in your system setup.
-
A flat EQ (as displayed by an RTA) on a speaker system is not a starting point, its a disaster.
don't understand at all... I understand one might want some coloration but flat is supposed to "true" and from there one would shape things to taste. Am I missing something big here?
Flat is a good starting point; however, flat (as displayed by an RTA) is a disaster (usually). If you were using the RTA in an anechoic chamber with a perfect measurement mic, then you can trust it. The reality is that what an RTA displays in the world is a long way from the actual speaker response. The tool you want for this task is a dual FFT measurement system (SMAART, SysTune, etc.) and a crap-load of training (with subsequent experience) to learn how to understand what the measurement is telling you. The RTA is the wrong tool for the job, which is precisely why Auto EQ systems don't work. RTAs can be useful, but not in this context.
-
2) don't understand at all... I understand one might want some coloration but flat is supposed to "true" and from there one would shape things to taste. Am I missing something big here?
Coloration is a nebulous term invented by recording guys to describe something they think they hear, usually in a negative context. i.e. that mic colors the instrument.
I never use this term unless I'm talking about Crayola's.
3) I don't think ANY EQ is a tool for increasing loudness. The approach I've heard described that makes sense to me is to mostly use an EQ to cut much more than to boost.
You ever see a DJ push up the EQ top and bottom? <g>
Shown here: parametric on i-pad, graphic EQ with smaart display on laptop. I don't remember which channel is being displayed. Might have been female VOX. This was a loud gospel show.