ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Target FOH EQ/frequency response  (Read 19804 times)

Doug Fowler

  • Member since May 1995, 2nd poster on original LAB, moderator on and off since 1997, now running TurboMOD v1.826
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1781
  • Saint Louis, MO USA
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2013, 08:49:06 pm »

I prefer sheers and curtains to any type of blinds or shades.

Oh, so the Barbara Streisand arena treatment then?

I'm sure the decorator's union still fantasizes about that tour.

;-)
Logged
"It's got electrolytes.  It's got what plants crave."

Jay Barracato

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2025
  • Solomons, MD
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2013, 08:53:22 pm »

If you are referring to the smoothing, I tend to do it the other way. I leave the smoothing off but for eq still look for broader trends especially if I can average multiple positions.

Just because the data shows a bunch of variance over short frequency ranges doesn't mean you have to change anything in the system
Logged
Jay Barracato

Jay Barracato

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2025
  • Solomons, MD
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2013, 08:56:22 pm »

Oh, so the Barbara Streisand arena treatment then?

I'm sure the decorator's union still fantasizes about that tour.

;-)

If I ever get a huge tour with a non-negotiable rider window treatments are going to be my version of m&m's
Logged
Jay Barracato

Doug Fowler

  • Member since May 1995, 2nd poster on original LAB, moderator on and off since 1997, now running TurboMOD v1.826
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1781
  • Saint Louis, MO USA
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2013, 08:58:00 pm »

>>I tend to work mainly in 1/6th to sort of "keep my eye on the prize" but have a look higher up to 1/12th and beyond for the extra info and trends. Am I doing it right?


Well, for a single position measurement (vs. an averaged measurement) if you have something visible (audible? :-) with 1/12, and not so much at 1/6, consider if it is truly a problem.  This is where averaged measurements have a huge advantage.  If you have five or six measurements (with equal amplitude) and you see trends, those are your areas of interests. 
Logged
"It's got electrolytes.  It's got what plants crave."

Jerome Malsack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1352
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2013, 09:19:03 pm »

With my tiny system I try to follow a house curve with the lows slightly higher than the highs and a gradule slope from left to right.   

two EV TL15-1 for subs
two EV S15-3a for mains. 
Logged

Nicolas Poisson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Paris, France
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2013, 03:39:28 am »


I tend to get a rather flat frequency response using the speaker processor. The output EQ of the console is used to modify the response if desired.
I may lower a bit around 3 kHz to decrease harshness. I usually keep the highest frequencies (8 kHz and above) at the same level as the mids. It gives some air and clarity without sounding harsh.

Concerning the low end, it will depend on the kind of music. In some case I will add low end only to some instruments (bass, kick) using the channel EQ. In other cases I will use the output EQ to add a general low end boost.

I have compared two ways of adding more low-end to the whole mix:
- use the output EQ of the console
- raise the output level of the low range output of the speaker processor

I find the console output EQ method much more efficient. I can raise frequencies up to something like 160Hz, while raising the processor output only works up to the 100Hz crossover frequency.

And I agree that counter-EQing the 70-80Hz bump of many subwoofers considerably helps into switching from "disco monotonous sound" to "acoustic instrument live sound". Upright bass then sound like an upright bass.

Concerning measurements, I switch back and forth from a strong averaging (1 octave or 1/3rd) to low (1/12).
Using the strong averaging prevent me from focusing on all the tiny details and give me a good view of the system trends. But strong and tight peaks will appear as broad boosts when averaged. Switching to 1/12 smoothing allow to detect that.
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9045
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2013, 07:46:37 am »

I think everybody know my opinion-a white sheet that has no "color" of its own.

So from around 100Hz up I try to get it as flat as possible-up where the HF drivers start to roll off-sometimes putting a gentle small "bump" on the top to help extend it a tad.

Below 100Hz it is either flat or rising-depending on the particular job.

Now that is for a LIVE MIX type venue-where the sound person has control over each individual instrument.

In a playback situation-a sloping HF rolloff can be desirable-IF the levels are loud.  If they not so loud-then flat is better.

So as usual-the answer is "it depends".  There is no 'one size fits all.

I do love the comments that say "a gentle slope fro low to high".  What does that mean? Gentle-on what SCALE?

1dB/octave-6dB/0ctave?  Other?  Is the vertical scale 20dB or 100dB.  Gentle takes on a whole new meaning there.

You HAVE to put REAL numbers to what is being said-or it can mean any number of different things.

SPECIFICS ARE IMPORTANT.

But for me-flat as a board(a non warped board that is) is my goal in most cases-and the customers are happy with the results.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Jerome Malsack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1352
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2013, 08:39:26 am »

Seeing as the discussion wants some numbers on the gentle slope  I will say that my slope is usually around 3 db down from 40 to 16k.  The 16 k is down around 3 db from 40 hz.
Logged

Rasmus Rosenberg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2013, 10:45:14 am »

Well, the monitor thread http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,144949.0.html has quieted down a bit, so:

When you're setting up your mains/subs processing in the shop, possibly using measurement, what is your target frequency response?

Flat? Slight roll-off of the high end?  Slight hump in the low end? Depends on the speakers?  Depends on the band? Tune by ear? re-tune by ear after flattening,...?

Why?

I'm intentionally ignoring crossover settings, I'm interested more in the speaker system response than component setup.  I'm also somewhat ignoring venue-specific idiosyncrasies in this discussion, but feel free to comment on common venue issues.

I would spin the question and ask why do you want to change the (manufactures) response in the shop?
Is it to make the speakers appeal more to you or others? What do you like and is that the same as others? Do you disagree with the manufactures preset?  etc etc
With out a defined goal its quite an academic discussion, and Ivan all ready nailed it with IT DEPENDS!

When thats said i strongly advise any one who have the opportunity to measure everything they can! and see if they can find similarities to what they like and what others like (and how manufactures present it out of the box). There are as many similarities as differences, but knowing them sure helps in the field and definitely makes you a more knowledgeable sound man. Also in general the more you know what your speakers can do and can't, the easier it is to use them in a design.

/R
Logged

Merlijn van Veen

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 309
    • www.merlijnvanveen.nl
Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2013, 10:46:03 am »

Is it conceivable that some slopes are identified wrongly? Some contributors appear to apply a healthy dose of smoothing. The image below shows a series of screenshots from SMAART, displaying the summation of two identical signals with 1 ms of delay. The resulting comb filter is shown with increasing amounts of smoothing applied. As smoothing increases a slope (imaginary line over the peaks) becomes clearly visible and is 6 dB lower in level at 16 kHz by the time you reach 1/12 8ve smoothing. Needless to say, that both contributing signals are "flat" as a ruler.

Very little do I witness real measurements that aren't affected by a certain amount of reflections or late arriving signals from other speakers. AFAICT the density of dips and peaks, also referred to as "grass", is affected proportionally by smoothing. This density, comb filtering being a linear process, increases with frequency on a logarithmic scale. Hence a slope could be "witnessed" at higher smoothing levels, that in fact isn't there.

I don't question your ears, but I suspect that most of tunings are flatter than they "appear". Most likely because smoothed transfer functions are "easier" to interpretate in comparison to the dense "grass" with little or no smoothing applied.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 11:15:33 am by Merlijn van Veen »
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Target FOH EQ/frequency response
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2013, 10:46:03 am »


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.082 seconds with 23 queries.