Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Magnus Högkvist]

So, this way, that "4 more bands" is actually on that individual channel that's going into the mix.  So, if I was ringing out a wedge, I could use the 6-band PEQ on that bus mix,  but I could ALSO adjust 4 bands (and HPF) on each individual source that's coming into that mix  (say just the vocal channel on that monitor, or whatever).  Seems cumbersome, but an option I guess if I really needed something extreme.

This is exactly how it would work if you split to a monitor mixer.

[Don T. Williams]

Most graphic EQs, but certainly not every graphic EQ, have fairly wide filter bandwidths - usually about 1 octave wide.  They are on 1/3 octave centers, but the reality is 28 to 30 one-octave wide filters. This is done so the EQ sounds more "musical", especially when boosting filter bands. Cutting only 3 or 4 filters affects a very large part of the spectrum.

Feedback is usually a very narrowband problem, usually less than 1/10th of an octave wide.  Even if you use 6 (or 10) narrow PEQ filters much less of the spectrum is affected.  I'm not saying graphic EQ's aren't usuable tools, but for feedback it is like using a sledge hammer to swat flies.

[Scott Holtzman]

Most graphic EQs, but certainly not every graphic EQ, have fairly wide filter bandwidths - usually about 1 octave wide.  They are on 1/3 octave centers, but the reality is 28 to 30 one-octave wide filters. This is done so the EQ sounds more "musical", especially when boosting filter bands. Cutting only 3 or 4 filters affects a very large part of the spectrum.

Feedback is usually a very narrowband problem, usually less than 1/10th of an octave wide.  Even if you use 6 (or 10) narrow PEQ filters much less of the spectrum is affected.  I'm not saying graphic EQ's aren't usuable tools, but for feedback it is like using a sledge hammer to swat flies.

I have seen guys pull so much of the "meat" of the spectrum out with a graphic that the monitors were unintelligible.  Usual symptom is artist complaining they can't hear with the monitor way above stage level.  Solution is to reset the EQ and turn down the monitor.

When all we had was graphics you used the tools you had.  We have better tools today. 

 

[Trevor Jalla]

This is exactly how it would work if you split to a monitor mixer.

Except with shared head amp gain

[Mac Kerr]

Except with shared head amp gain

If that's an issue you can use an XLR twofer to split the mic into 2 inputs.

Mac

[Kevin Maxwell]

If you are going to use a graphic EQ on the X32 try the TrueEQ versions. The filters don’t interact the same way that most graphics do, the end result is more like what you would get with a parametric except without the precision. 

[Keith Broughton]

If you can't use separate channels for the monitor sends, set channels to pre fader PRE EQ aux send. I am not of the opinion that channel EQ changes to the main mix are necessarily suitable for the monitor mix. (this is a contentious issue...)
This way, once your vocals are stable in the wedges , using the buss EQ, no changes will be heard from channel EQ adjustments.
An example would be wanting a touch of , say, 3.5k boost for a vocal and that might send your carefully EQd monitors into feedback if your channels are post EQ aux send.

[Don T. Williams]

If you can't use separate channels for the monitor sends, set channels to pre fader PRE EQ aux send. I am not of the opinion that channel EQ changes to the main mix are necessarily suitable for the monitor mix. (this is a contentious issue...)
This way, once your vocals are stable in the wedges , using the buss EQ, no changes will be heard from channel EQ adjustments.
An example would be wanting a touch of , say, 3.5k boost for a vocal and that might send your carefully EQd monitors into feedback if your channels are post EQ aux send.

+1 Keith.  This should be a given if you need loud stable monitors.  With 6 bands of aux output eq and the number of auxiliary sends available, things are easier . . . if you understand how to use PEQs and don't overuse it.

[Keith Broughton]

+1 Keith.  This should be a given if you need loud stable monitors. 

You would think so but I was taken to task and considered "not professional" for suggesting this on the Behringer forum.

[John L Nobile]

I use the 6 band PEQ on the mix.  My FX rack slots are used for EFX and some vintage comps used on mix groups.

If I need more EQ I can route the monitor mix through a matrix and get 6 more bands of PEQ, but I've never needed to do that.

I've routed 6 of my auxes to my matrix mixes for a while now. It was mainly to use the xover feature for hi and lo pass. My monitors are passive so I don't have a processor on them. I use lo pass cause my KSM9's tend to feedback above 10k. Only one BE has complained about the lack of hi end so far. I'll also do a cut at around 200hz to account for a room resonance.

I use the PEQ's for my setup but I insert GEQ's for the guy I have running monitors as PEQ's seem to be a little too confusing for him. I've also found that when the band has  BE, they'll use GEQ's instead of PEQ's. Personally, I've used PEQ's since the 70's and always carried my own. Rental companies always gave me a weird look when I asked to patch it.

[ProSoundWeb Community]