ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.  (Read 3517 times)

Ian Moore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« on: March 27, 2015, 11:28:34 am »

Today I'm working with a Midas Venice console with an Ashly GQX3102 and 4 L-Acoustic 112P's. 3 EV goosenecks and 2 wireless Shure ULX's.

Yesterday during setup:
Left main out going through a snake to the offstage speakers
Right main out going to the onstage speakers
Ashly Channel 1 inserted into main Left
Ashly Channel 2 inserted into main Right
(They had been patched in the rack correctly from the last show it was used on)
The result I got was hollow and very quiet from the gooseneck mics but the ULX 58's sounded just fine.

All in all I decided to come straight out of the mains directly into the channels of the EQ and out of that into the snake and that worked just fine. Rang out the room and all's ducky. But I'm curious:

Can anyone tell me what went wrong? Am I not supposed to be able to insert an EQ into a master out? Is there a better way to set this up?

I thought that maybe inserting into an input instead of my main outputs would have worked but I don't have enough EQ channels to do that to each gooseneck mic.
Logged

Brian Jojade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1459
    • HappyMac Digital Electronics
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2015, 01:27:22 pm »

The more typical way to have a master EQ would be to just daisy chain it in the signal path instead of using the insert feature. The inserts are typically an unbalanced connection. Not a big deal for short runs, but if you can stay in the balanced realm, life is generally better in terms of random issues.

Why only the goosenecks didn't work is a bit of a mystery, but it's possible that one of your cables is miswired and you're getting an out of phase issue.  Very quiet and hollow would be the result of that.
Logged
Brian Jojade

Jerome Malsack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1333
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2015, 02:09:52 pm »

My argument for the inserts is because the EQ sees the input pre-fader and is not as easy to send into clipping.   

Logged

Patrick Tracy

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 513
  • Boulder, CO, USA
    • Boulder Sound Guy
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2015, 03:06:14 pm »

I don't know what went wrong with your first setup, but I put the eq after the console because I divide the system conceptually between production (everything up to the mixer output) and reproduction (everything from the eq to the speakers). The production section should sound good with any good sounding reproduction system and vice versa.

Peter Kowalczyk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2015, 03:16:05 pm »

This may not apply to your situation, but a visiting ME pointed out to me that when mixing monitors, its preferable to have the EQs inserted, rather than in series after the console output.  The reason is that the cue bus comes After the EQs, so you can then 'hear' each mix's respective graphic EQ.  A minor distinction if your monitor mixes have nearly-identical graph settings, but could be a big deal if each mix requires a substantially different EQ.

Regarding your 'hollow and very quiet' gooseneck mics, that description does sound like the result of electrical summation of two out-of-polarity signals.
Logged

Ian Moore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2015, 03:17:03 pm »

Why only the goosenecks didn't work is a bit of a mystery, but it's possible that one of your cables is miswired and you're getting an out of phase issue.  Very quiet and hollow would be the result of that.

definitely sounded like a phase issue. I didn't feel like I had time to experiment and swap stuff out so there is a possibility the patch cables were the wrong way.
Here's a question: I have the EQ inline right now with the room all rung out. Sounds fine (If it ain't broke...) However, if I decided to switch over to patch cables as it is, how would it change the dynamics of the EQ sound?
Logged

Brian Jojade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1459
    • HappyMac Digital Electronics
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2015, 05:15:05 pm »

This may not apply to your situation, but a visiting ME pointed out to me that when mixing monitors, its preferable to have the EQs inserted, rather than in series after the console output.  The reason is that the cue bus comes After the EQs, so you can then 'hear' each mix's respective graphic EQ.  A minor distinction if your monitor mixes have nearly-identical graph settings, but could be a big deal if each mix requires a substantially different EQ.

I would think that the final EQ should be used to compensate for the monitor speaker being used. That would mean that unless your cue headphones have the same response curve as the speakers, you're going to be incorrectly compensating for things.  If you're using the EQ for other reasons, then inserts would make sense.

My argument for the inserts is because the EQ sees the input pre-fader and is not as easy to send into clipping.

This is a good argument.  You'd also be at a better s/n ratio in the EQ too.  Hmm.
Logged
Brian Jojade

Peter Kowalczyk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2015, 07:48:07 pm »

I would think that the final EQ should be used to compensate for the monitor speaker being used. That would mean that unless your cue headphones have the same response curve as the speakers, you're going to be incorrectly compensating for things.  If you're using the EQ for other reasons, then inserts would make sense.


Whenever possible, I use a cue wedge of the same model the performers have at their feet.  I use the graphs primarily for feedback control (and leave tone-shaping for the channel strip), but aggressive cuts on the graph naturally affect the resulting tonality, and it helps to hear the same thing in the cue wedge.  In the event that wedges of different models are being used, with different EQ settings to approximately match their voicing, then I agree that cuing before the EQs would be a better approach.  That said, I'm getting out of my league here; my work and experience is more lounge-level.  Just wanted to share something that was shared with me...
Logged

Erik Jerde

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2015, 08:10:04 pm »

Peter, I'm with you.  Monitor eqs inserted so that my cue wedge sounds just like the performers wedge.  It's still not the same as standing next to them and listening but it's a lot closer.

As to the original topic, house eq inline is how I set it up.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: EQ's: to insert or not to insert.
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2015, 08:10:04 pm »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.115 seconds with 23 queries.