Print

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

[Ken Webster]

Hi,

I am considering replacing our current graphic equaliser, or at least relegating it to FB.
Yamaha Q2031A

There is a good deal on a DBX 231S right now.  I haven't had a lot of time to research the market.
We do want to stick with and analogue system as it's simple with everything in plain view.  The DBX has about the same S/N but much much better THD, 0.003% as opposed to 0.1% for the Yamaha.  Functionally they seem similar.

I am trying to really upgrade out output and will be replacing the Yamaha MR1644 mixer maybe next year.

Could you recommend a value for money option with better S/N?
I don't mind investing more if it's worth it.

Ta,
Ken

[Rob Spence]

Hi,

I am considering replacing our current graphic equaliser, or at least relegating it to FB.
Yamaha Q2031A

There is a good deal on a DBX 231S right now.  I haven't had a lot of time to research the market.
We do want to stick with and analogue system as it's simple with everything in plain view.  The DBX has about the same S/N but much much better THD, 0.003% as opposed to 0.1% for the Yamaha.  Functionally they seem similar.

I am trying to really upgrade out output and will be replacing the Yamaha MR1644 mixer maybe next year.

Could you recommend a value for money option with better S/N?
I don't mind investing more if it's worth it.

Ta,
Ken

What is wrong with the current one?

[TomBoisseau]

What is wrong with the current one?

I agree!  I've used many of the Yamaha Q2031A's and Q2031B's, and in fact I still own 2 of them!  I sincerely doubt that the DBX 231s would be a step up (although I will confess I have no personal experience with that model) rather, I think it would be a step down!

The Q2031A's are excellent if you're trying to cut feedback.  Personally believe they are more effective than even the Klark Teknik DN360 and Ashley GQX 3102.  Years ago I tested all three both with a scope and "sonically".  The filters on the Yamaha are more narrow (tighter "Q") so that when you cut (I hope you never boost?) for feedback you're not removing nearly as much material.  Additionally it just seems that it does it more effectively than the Klark Teknik or Ashley.  You could argue that the Klark Teknik and Ashley's are sonically superior, however we are talking subtleties that are not likely to be noticeable in a live application.  Besides, my greatest need is usually gain before feedback, and for this the Yamaha is excellent.  Of course I'm not making a fair comparison as the Klark Teknik and Ashley's are (were) considerably more expensive than the Yamaha.  Then again, I think you'll find the Yamaha is (was) considerably more expensive than the DBX. 

After selling off my Klark Teknik's, Ashley's, and Yamaha EQ's many years ago, I realized just a few years back that I still needed a couple analog EQ's.  What did I purchase (or perhaps I should say repurchase)? 2 of the Yamaha Q2031B's!

I my opinion there has not been any considerable advances in analog EQ's.  Stick with the Yamaha!  Oh, and in regards to the THD, 0.003% as opposed to 0.1%, you'll never hear the difference.

Tom

[Scott Holtzman]

I agree!  I've used many of the Yamaha Q2031A's and Q2031B's, and in fact I still own 2 of them!  I sincerely doubt that the DBX 231s would be a step up (although I will confess I have no personal experience with that model) rather, I think it would be a step down!

The Q2031A's are excellent if you're trying to cut feedback.  Personally believe they are more effective than even the Klark Teknik DN360 and Ashley GQX 3102.  Years ago I tested all three both with a scope and "sonically".  The filters on the Yamaha are more narrow (tighter "Q") so that when you cut (I hope you never boost?) for feedback you're not removing nearly as much material.  Additionally it just seems that it does it more effectively than the Klark Teknik or Ashley.  You could argue that the Klark Teknik and Ashley's are sonically superior, however we are talking subtleties that are not likely to be noticeable in a live application.  Besides, my greatest need is usually gain before feedback, and for this the Yamaha is excellent.  Of course I'm not making a fair comparison as the Klark Teknik and Ashley's are considerably more expensive than the Yamaha.  Then again, I think you'll find the Yamaha is considerably more expensive than the DBX. 

After selling off my Klark Teknik's, Ashley's, and Yamaha EQ's many years ago, I realized just a few years back that I still needed a couple analog EQ's.  What did I purchase (or perhaps I should say repurchase)? 2 of the Yamaha Q2031B's!

I my opinion there has not been any considerable advances in analog EQ's.  Stick with the Yamaha!

Tom

How would you use a scope to verify the Q of a filter?  You need a spectrum analyzer and a tracking generator?

Before we had those tools we tuned filters with a dual trace scope and a lissajous pattern.  Is there something I missed? 

[Ken Webster]

What is wrong with the current one?

It's unreliable and needs continuous service.  The carbon fadders fail, we loose many bands, like several octaves,  I do a service using deoxit F5, it then works for around 6-12 months.  To me, this indicates it needs to be replaced.

Would prefer to get 2 so I have 2 channels for both mains and foldback.  This would allow 2 FB mixes and enable stereo recordings to play in stereo, already discussed this issue so I'd like to give that a try and see how it works out for us because we are aware that some things get phased cancelled when summed to mono.

[Ken Webster]

I agree!  I've used many of the Yamaha Q2031A's and Q2031B's, and in fact I still own 2 of them!  I sincerely doubt that the DBX 231s would be a step up (although I will confess I have no personal experience with that model) rather, I think it would be a step down!

The Q2031A's are excellent if you're trying to cut feedback.  Personally believe they are more effective than even the Klark Teknik DN360 and Ashley GQX 3102.  Years ago I tested all three both with a scope and "sonically".  The filters on the Yamaha are more narrow (tighter "Q") so that when you cut (I hope you never boost?) for feedback you're not removing nearly as much material.  Additionally it just seems that it does it more effectively than the Klark Teknik or Ashley.  You could argue that the Klark Teknik and Ashley's are sonically superior, however we are talking subtleties that are not likely to be noticeable in a live application.  Besides, my greatest need is usually gain before feedback, and for this the Yamaha is excellent.  Of course I'm not making a fair comparison as the Klark Teknik and Ashley's are (were) considerably more expensive than the Yamaha.  Then again, I think you'll find the Yamaha is (was) considerably more expensive than the DBX. 

After selling off my Klark Teknik's, Ashley's, and Yamaha EQ's many years ago, I realized just a few years back that I still needed a couple analog EQ's.  What did I purchase (or perhaps I should say repurchase)? 2 of the Yamaha Q2031B's!

I my opinion there has not been any considerable advances in analog EQ's.  Stick with the Yamaha!  Oh, and in regards to the THD, 0.003% as opposed to 0.1%, you'll never hear the difference.

Tom

Yes, agree about THD, it's not whole story, I'd prefer all other performance specs to be better, not just one.  However, I always view replacement as an upgrade opportunity, eventually leading to a sum of small gains. It's only the reflective moments where that counts.  I realise the DBX is at the cheap end, though it is being reviewed as an advance at that end of the market.  Also, there can be larger issues with EQ.  So my question was to gain and independent reality check as I haven't had time to look more closely and the deal will likely be snapped up fast.  Thanks for that.

The Yamaha was purchased 2nd hand, someone else's cast off.  We have had it quite a while and it's become the most unreliable component in the system.  Due to transport distance, I can't get a pro service without replacing it with something.  In any case, I believe the faders are basically at end of life.  We don't just use EQ for ringing out.  The room has issues so we use it for correction as well.  Yes, I am well aware that isn't a real solution for the room but it's all we can do with our resources.  The result gets positive comments for sounding natural, at least in the audience area, stage not so much....

I'd be interested in suggestions for replacements, I don't think we need anything more complex though.

Ken

[David Sturzenbecher]

I don't mind investing more if it's worth it.

Ta,
Ken

A graphic EQ is a tool in your bag that should have been thrown out long ago...with the RTA. A parametric EQ and knowing how to use it will deliver superior results 100% of the time.

[Ken Webster]

A graphic EQ is a tool in your bag that should have been thrown out long ago...with the RTA. A parametric EQ and knowing how to use it will deliver superior results 100% of the time.

Well, we are pretty basic here, small church not much funding but a little now.  We do not have any spectrum analysis to know which specific frequencies to target.  As far as room correction, it's down to comparing each band played over speaker with the volume heard in a set of HD 650 phones.  Run through the spectrum a few times and then just scan through listening to the speakers only and fine tune so the bands progress smoothly.  I have tried using test tones and a sound level meter but the room modes make measurements too varied to be of any use.  The above comparative listening has proved to reliably & repeatably obtain a nice result.  For both FOH and FB.  Speakers can not be relied upon to produce anything like a flat response so EQ is essential to obtain nice tonality even for FOH.  I EQ FB to match the FOH spectrum in the audience area as that allows higher FB levels to be obtained before polluting the FOH tonality and clarity.  FB has strong reflection out of stage area with altered tonality.  If it is not EQed as above, we can not get useful FB levels before polluting the audience sound with bassy muddiness.  So currently, it is essential to EQ for audience tonality before ringing out the FB, testing which are the live bands.  While the above method is time consuming, it is the only one we have found to work short of investing in spectrum analysis.  My research indicates that at least some cheap calibrated mics are not so much individually calibrated as they are supposed to be.  Some vendors have stopped stocking them for that reason.  So it is difficult to know if you are getting what you paid for.  Also, the church does not regard this a worthwhile investment yet I must somehow obtain the best result I can.  I like graphic EQ because it's simple, straight forward and familiar for volunteers.  While we have parametric on input channels, to do that on main outputs would I assume, require configuring settings in a memory which is not simple or user friendly.

Correct me on this if my assumption is wrong, show me an example of a simple easy to use multi filter parametric.

Regards, Ken

[Mac Kerr]

Correct me on this if my assumption is wrong, show me an example of a simple easy to use multi filter parametric.

Regards, Ken

Finding feedback with a parametric eq is much faster and easier than with a graphic. The improved sound quality is a bonus.

If you are in a rehearsal situation bring the system up close to (but not in) feedback. Pick a filter and set the Q fairly high so you have a narrow filter. Boost the gain a bit and sweep the frequency through its range. If the system goes into feedback you have found your first node, dial in some cut and raise the overall gain. Now go to a second filter and do the same. With 2 or 3 filters you should have enough gain. Try opening up the filters to a wider bandwidth as long as it doesn't adversely effect the tonal balance.

Done.

Mac

[Kevin Maxwell]

Well, we are pretty basic here, small church not much funding but a little now.  We do not have any spectrum analysis to know which specific frequencies to target.  As far as room correction, it's down to comparing each band played over speaker with the volume heard in a set of HD 650 phones.  Run through the spectrum a few times and then just scan through listening to the speakers only and fine tune so the bands progress smoothly.  I have tried using test tones and a sound level meter but the room modes make measurements too varied to be of any use.  The above comparative listening has proved to reliably & repeatably obtain a nice result.  For both FOH and FB.  Speakers can not be relied upon to produce anything like a flat response so EQ is essential to obtain nice tonality even for FOH.  I EQ FB to match the FOH spectrum in the audience area as that allows higher FB levels to be obtained before polluting the FOH tonality and clarity.  FB has strong reflection out of stage area with altered tonality.  If it is not EQed as above, we can not get useful FB levels before polluting the audience sound with bassy muddiness.  So currently, it is essential to EQ for audience tonality before ringing out the FB, testing which are the live bands.  While the above method is time consuming, it is the only one we have found to work short of investing in spectrum analysis.  My research indicates that at least some cheap calibrated mics are not so much individually calibrated as they are supposed to be.  Some vendors have stopped stocking them for that reason.  So it is difficult to know if you are getting what you paid for.  Also, the church does not regard this a worthwhile investment yet I must somehow obtain the best result I can.  I like graphic EQ because it's simple, straight forward and familiar for volunteers.  While we have parametric on input channels, to do that on main outputs would I assume, require configuring settings in a memory which is not simple or user friendly.

Correct me on this if my assumption is wrong, show me an example of a simple easy to use multi filter parametric.

Regards, Ken

When you say “While we have parametric on input channels, to do that on main outputs would I assume, require configuring settings in a memory which is not simple or user friendly.” This makes me think that your mixer has some sort of digital capabilities. But I tried to find what a Yamaha MR1644 mixer is as you mentioned in the first post but I can’t find it online

The only graphic EQ I ever really liked was the DBX 3231L. A sound company I do a lot of work for has a bunch of these and even though we don’t hardly ever use them anymore I hesitate to recommend that they sell them. I have encountered Graphic EQs in systems that sounded best when you just hit the bypass button or completely hardwire by passed them. I am not saying that they were set wrong, I am saying that there was no way to set them that helped in any way. They just sounded bad and most of these were well known brands and models. And some graphic EQs I have used were ok for tonal modification of the speakers there weren’t any good for feedback control.

I don’t EQ a system for feedback control. I EQ on a sub Group or Mix Bus the vocal mics for gain before feedback and overall tonality and save the channel EQs for tonal shaping of the input. This way any playback or direct or closely mic-ed instruments sound like they should and the sound of them hasn’t been butchered with a system EQ that was setup for feedback EQing. 

[John Roberts {JR}]

Well, we are pretty basic here, small church not much funding but a little now.  We do not have any spectrum analysis to know which specific frequencies to target.  As far as room correction, it's down to comparing each band played over speaker with the volume heard in a set of HD 650 phones.  Run through the spectrum a few times and then just scan through listening to the speakers only and fine tune so the bands progress smoothly.  I have tried using test tones and a sound level meter but the room modes make measurements too varied to be of any use.

yes...

The above comparative listening has proved to reliably & repeatably obtain a nice result.  For both FOH and FB.  Speakers can not be relied upon to produce anything like a flat response so EQ is essential to obtain nice tonality even for FOH.  I EQ FB to match the FOH spectrum in the audience area as that allows higher FB levels to be obtained before polluting the FOH tonality and clarity.

not sure what "FB" means (feedback)?

FB has strong reflection out of stage area with altered tonality.  If it is not EQed as above, we can not get useful FB levels before polluting the audience sound with bassy muddiness.  So currently, it is essential to EQ for audience tonality before ringing out the FB, testing which are the live bands.  While the above method is time consuming, it is the only one we have found to work short of investing in spectrum analysis.  My research indicates that at least some cheap calibrated mics are not so much individually calibrated as they are supposed to be.  Some vendors have stopped stocking them for that reason.  So it is difficult to know if you are getting what you paid for.  Also, the church does not regard this a worthwhile investment yet I must somehow obtain the best result I can.  I like graphic EQ because it's simple, straight forward and familiar for volunteers.

yes GEQ is the original  WSIWYG "what you see is what you get", while technically what you see is what you changed, not the result.

While we have parametric on input channels, to do that on main outputs would I assume, require configuring settings in a memory which is not simple or user friendly.

Parametric makes sense for permanent fixed install room EQ changes, where you have time to patiently measure and tweak. For crude live on the fly EQ, GEQ (graphic EQ) is more easily manipulated.   

Correct me on this if my assumption is wrong, show me an example of a simple easy to use multi filter parametric.

Regards, Ken

By definition parametric EQ are NOT easy to use, certainly not easier than GEQ. That said experienced users like you are encountering on this forum prefer the extra control resolution and adjustability.

Perhaps TMI, for general room EQ/speaker voicing trims 2/3rd octave (15-16 slider) GEQ are recommended for their gentler alterations. For feedback control the narrower 1/3rd octave (31 slider) GEQ can mitigate feedback without punching huge holes in your sound.

If course an even narrower bandwidth parametric can surgically remove feedback modes but are harder to dial in.

JR

PS: for TMI last century I invented GEQ with LED indicators over each slider making it easier to zero in on finding feedback quickly, to nip it in the bud. Peavey has sold a bazillion of these (called FLS "feedback locating system"), Behringer even made their own version of it (at least they didn't copy the name).   

[Caleb Dueck]

A graphic EQ is a tool in your bag that should have been thrown out long ago...with the RTA. A parametric EQ and knowing how to use it will deliver superior results 100% of the time.

X1000

Xilica QR1 is great and not very expensive

[Ken Webster]

yes...not sure what "FB" means (feedback)?

Sorry, seems I was confusing,  I meant FB = fold back.
Thanks for the rest of that, I will certainly follow up.

Ken

[Luke Geis]

I would equate a Graphic EQ to being much like a crescent wrench vs a box end wrench when compared to a Parametric EQ. A graphic EQ works rather well but is clunky and not optimized to fit any one specific nut or bolt. A box-end wrench is more precise and is designed to work perfectly with the bolt or nut it is fitted for. A graphic EQ is a crescent wrench and a parametric EQ is a box-end wrench. Now with a parametric EQ, you usually have 4 -6 bands depending on the tool you use. The equivalent to having 4-6 different box end wrenches. With a graphic EQ, you have 31 frequencies you can make changes to, but the likelihood that the frequency fader you have will be perfectly centered around the frequency of interest. It functions for the most part but is a loose-fitting tool for the job.

From an objective standpoint, you want to use a few a number of filters as possible. Most professionals would say that any more than 6 frequencies being cut or boosted is extreme and starts going the wrong way. With a graphic EQ, this is very certainly true. This makes most of the frequencies available on a graphic EQ pretty much useless. It also certainly helps that a parametric EQ can be set to affect only the frequency/frequencies of interest or need. A parametric isn't really any harder to use than a graphic EQ. If you can recognize frequencies enough to know which slider to move, then adjusting a parametric isn't much different. You can select the desired frequency almost nearly to a few hz of resolution  ( tool dependent ) and you can adjust the width ( Q ) of the filter to be as wide or narrow as is practically useful.

A popular digital equalizer that has both graphic and 10 bands of parametric EQ is the Behringer DEQ2496. It has gone up in price and is holding value rather well because it is one of few products of its type that works rather well and performs great on top of that. It has many tools that make doing the job a bit easier and is perfect for monitor and main PA use. I can't say how well it compares to the aforementioned analog Graphic EQ's, but I am certain it is close enough to be a non-issue. The DEQ2496 is a pretty nice little tool to have if you must have graphic EQ and still want to save rack space, save presets, have parametric EQ and need an RTA. I would take the DEQ2496 before any other lower-end analog graphic EQ. Of which there aren't very many higher-end graphic EQ options available anymore.

[Ken Webster]

X1000

Xilica QR1 is great and not very expensive

I just have trouble visualizing how products like this incorporate into a system, especially an existing analogue PA.  Is there reading material that can help logically organize the seemingly infinite DSP variants as to their features and, how they interface?  As it is, it seems that DSP can almost mean anything you want it too.....  How does one deal with that to arrive at a practical application?   Yes, I do understand the basic concept but getting from that to a practical implementation is like swimming through molasses.

Ken

[Scott Holtzman]

I just have trouble visualizing how products like this incorporate into a system, especially an existing analogue PA.  Is there reading material that can help logically organize the seemingly infinite DSP variants as to their features and, how they interface?  As it is, it seems that DSP can almost mean anything you want it too.....  How does one deal with that to arrive at a practical application?   Yes, I do understand the basic concept but getting from that to a practical implementation is like swimming through molasses.

Ken

There really aren't infinte variants, they are mostly all the same.  Some have FIR filters some don't  BSS Soundweb has a SIP client which is cool for paging integration.

You just pick one with the number of inees and outees you need.

From a design standpoint they should replace system crossover.

They all have limiters, compressors, parametric EQ's, some have feedback suppressors.  Most have libraries of preset configuration and some have crossover and EQ settings for popular speakers. 

Front panel programming is PIA, use whatever software the vendor provides.

The DBX260 is a good value unit.  DBX Driverack PA's are garbage.  The DBX Venue 360 is very easy to program with nice tablet or PC based software.

[Patrick Tracy]

not sure what "FB" means (feedback)?

I'm guessing foldbacks, as in "You've got some howlround in your foldbacks."

[Ken Webster]

There really aren't infinte variants, they are mostly all the same.  Some have FIR filters some don't  BSS Soundweb has a SIP client which is cool for paging integration.

You just pick one with the number of inees and outees you need.

From a design standpoint they should replace system crossover.

They all have limiters, compressors, parametric EQ's, some have feedback suppressors.  Most have libraries of preset configuration and some have crossover and EQ settings for popular speakers. 

Front panel programming is PIA, use whatever software the vendor provides.

The DBX260 is a good value unit.  DBX Driverack PA's are garbage.  The DBX Venue 360 is very easy to program with nice tablet or PC based software.

OK, I looked up some of that and it's a bit clearer now thanks.

I am not sure of the impacts for a small church adopting DSP.  If some specialist comes in and sets it up for us, then for whatever reason it requires another specialist setup, that seems inflexible and expensive.  So my questions are around the extend to which a volunteer PA group may be able to respond to change and deal with this technology appropriately?  So far, DSP looks to me like, set and forget but not easily flexible to change.  Is that correct or incorrect?

The current situation is that we are likely to have a major move of our stage toward the end of the year as there now appears to be support for this.  I am hopeful this will resolve or at least reduce most of our remaining stage sound issues.  So I am unlikely to do anything in the EQ area before that.  Except to continue getting more educated on the DSP option though.  Can you direction me to some appropriate material on this please?  It would be most helpful as the the need to replace aging gear will not go away forever.

Ken

[Scott Holtzman]

OK, I looked up some of that and it's a bit clearer now thanks.

I am not sure of the impacts for a small church adopting DSP.  If some specialist comes in and sets it up for us, then for whatever reason it requires another specialist setup, that seems inflexible and expensive.  So my questions are around the extend to which a volunteer PA group may be able to respond to change and deal with this technology appropriately?  So far, DSP looks to me like, set and forget but not easily flexible to change.  Is that correct or incorrect?

The current situation is that we are likely to have a major move of our stage toward the end of the year as there now appears to be support for this.  I am hopeful this will resolve or at least reduce most of our remaining stage sound issues.  So I am unlikely to do anything in the EQ area before that.  Except to continue getting more educated on the DSP option though.  Can you direction me to some appropriate material on this please?  It would be most helpful as the the need to replace aging gear will not go away forever.

Ken

I think you should recuse yourself from any of these decisions until you learn what you are doing,  you don't understand the basics.  Which means you need a basic guide to sound.  The Yamaha guide is goos.  Working with an experienced peraon is better.

Doesn't your board have EQ?

David Rat has some good videos on basic EQ

[Rob Spence]

OK, I looked up some of that and it's a bit clearer now thanks.

I am not sure of the impacts for a small church adopting DSP.  If some specialist comes in and sets it up for us, then for whatever reason it requires another specialist setup, that seems inflexible and expensive.  So my questions are around the extend to which a volunteer PA group may be able to respond to change and deal with this technology appropriately?  So far, DSP looks to me like, set and forget but not easily flexible to change.  Is that correct or incorrect?

The current situation is that we are likely to have a major move of our stage toward the end of the year as there now appears to be support for this.  I am hopeful this will resolve or at least reduce most of our remaining stage sound issues.  So I am unlikely to do anything in the EQ area before that.  Except to continue getting more educated on the DSP option though.  Can you direction me to some appropriate material on this please?  It would be most helpful as the the need to replace aging gear will not go away forever.

Ken

Setting eq for a room and a pa is mostly set and leave alone. As long as the room or the pa doesn’t change, why would the main eq change?

Voicing for a performance would be done with the various eq in the mixing desk.

If you have access to a tablet (I use an iPad so cannot comment on other tablets), download the Venue360 app and play with it in demo mode. There are graphic eq functions as well as parametric eq functions. The PEQ is a bit easier to get just what you want while the GEQ is more of a broad brush.

I just went 10 years with essentially no changes to my dsp since the pa itself didn’t change. Recently I replaced it with a Venue360 and am quite pleased. Often, DSPs are referred to as Speaker Processors and as such are considered part of the speaker system (dsp, amps, & speakers).

 

[ProSoundWeb Community]