Print

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

[George S Dougherty]

Dick Rees wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 13:12

George..... Personally, I would just deal with the speakers in place.  I would hope for the following: 1.  Proper placement for coverage. 2.  Proper speaker for coverage. 3.  A speaker of high enough quality that tweaks to the basic output would be unneeded.....or at least minimal. If you happen to have speakers which require equalization to pass decent sound, I'd look at having them brought back up to specs or replaced with better speakers.  That said, most professional grade speakers will have information available regarding any DSP which should be applied.  You can simply open the PDF and look it up. Best. DR

I'd hope for those too.  I've helped enough churches with GC grade speakers like the Yamaha club series though and those are often a different beast altogether.  If the speaker has suggested EQ in a manual that'd also be a great place to start.  Since I don't target flat anyway, I usually don't bother with suggested EQ settings.  

Replacing with better speakers would always be a great option, though as the OP mentioned they don't have the budget to even hire someone to set things up professionally.

[George S Dougherty]

Brad Weber wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 17:30

What, SAC doesn't do this?   .

It will when they release a SMAART plugin  I won't hold my breath, though there are some really sweet RTA plugins designed for studio use.

Brad Weber wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 17:30

I tend to go for flat response for this type of speaker/array tuning and to then address any subjective tuning when addressing the room and system.  I want to be sure that without the effects of the room, the rest of the system, etc. the speakers can be as transparent as possible before putting them into the space.

I used to go for flat as well for much the same reason, but as I mentioned, flat gets a bit painful at high volumes to my ear.  Equal loudness curves are also what many headphones target in their designs so it makes it a bit easier to use headphones as comparison (obviously of little merit if you do have a set with flat response, though Dave Rat has found them to be few and far between in his testing)
I prefer to EQ to taste before since I'll often have a simpler EQ as a result if I do it all in one pass rather than go flat then tweak later.  As I understand it, more EQ means more tweaks to the phase of the signal and I'm assuming a simpler EQ with potentially less drastic adjustments where you might not boost or cut in the first place would yield beter results.  If you were to do something like I described outside the room it certainly wouldn't hurt to create two presets for both scenarios.

Brad Weber wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 17:30

Oops, the age old issue that you cannot "EQ the room" and you cannot fix room modes with EQ.  You may be able to adjust the speaker response to try to compensate for the acoustical environment but as you say later, you can't solve acoustical problems with electronics (except maybe some of the electronic reverberation enhancement systems).

Suppose I should have been more clear in my meaning.  I wouldn't then re-eq to get everything back to where I'd had it outdoors.  I'd find the more consistent summation issues due to room dimensions.  Notches are less audible but resonances will often exacerbate feedback issues and mask other frequencies.  You can't "solve" them, but with some judicious cuts you can make them less of a problem.  Trying to fix suckouts with radical EQ boosts is of course a fools game.

[Brad Weber]

George S Dougherty wrote on Thu, 01 July 2010 03:54

I used to go for flat as well for much the same reason, but as I mentioned, flat gets a bit painful at high volumes to my ear.  Equal loudness curves are also what many headphones target in their designs so it makes it a bit easier to use headphones as comparison (obviously of little merit if you do have a set with flat response, though Dave Rat has found them to be few and far between in his testing) I prefer to EQ to taste before since I'll often have a simpler EQ as a result if I do it all in one pass rather than go flat then tweak later.  As I understand it, more EQ means more tweaks to the phase of the signal and I'm assuming a simpler EQ with potentially less drastic adjustments where you might not boost or cut in the first place would yield beter results.  If you were to do something like I described outside the room it certainly wouldn't hurt to create two presets for both scenarios.

You can't know what a speaker or array will sound like in the final installation as a result of free field testing, so you're going to end up tweaking it in place anyways.  And whether you adjust for a desired response before or after installation you are still going to be looking for the same end result.  It is personal preference and I prefer to start with a speaker or array that is by itself neutral, that way when addressing the room, installation and subjective aspects I know I am looking just at those and not at the speaker itself.

[Dick Rees]

The following quote always amuses me:

"they don't have the budget to even hire someone to set things up professionally"

I have spent my professional life listening to this excuse.  While it may be true in a few cases, the reality is that people have money for what they WANT more often than they have money for what they NEED.

It's (unfortunately) human nature......

[Tom Young]

Well said and a true "truism".

[George S Dougherty]

Dick Rees wrote on Thu, 01 July 2010 08:56

The following quote always amuses me: "they don't have the budget to even hire someone to set things up professionally" I have spent my professional life listening to this excuse.  While it may be true in a few cases, the reality is that people have money for what they WANT more often than they have money for what they NEED. It's (unfortunately) human nature......

True enough, though there are a lot of churches these days that don't even have the budget for what they need and better sound would be something they want yet doesn't get on the list either.

[George S Dougherty]

Brad Weber wrote on Thu, 01 July 2010 06:40

George S Dougherty wrote on Thu, 01 July 2010 03:54 I used to go for flat as well for much the same reason, but as I mentioned, flat gets a bit painful at high volumes to my ear.  Equal loudness curves are also what many headphones target in their designs so it makes it a bit easier to use headphones as comparison (obviously of little merit if you do have a set with flat response, though Dave Rat has found them to be few and far between in his testing) I prefer to EQ to taste before since I'll often have a simpler EQ as a result if I do it all in one pass rather than go flat then tweak later.  As I understand it, more EQ means more tweaks to the phase of the signal and I'm assuming a simpler EQ with potentially less drastic adjustments where you might not boost or cut in the first place would yield beter results.  If you were to do something like I described outside the room it certainly wouldn't hurt to create two presets for both scenarios. You can't know what a speaker or array will sound like in the final installation as a result of free field testing, so you're going to end up tweaking it in place anyways.  And whether you adjust for a desired response before or after installation you are still going to be looking for the same end result.  It is personal preference and I prefer to start with a speaker or array that is by itself neutral, that way when addressing the room, installation and subjective aspects I know I am looking just at those and not at the speaker itself.

True enough on all counts.  So would you tackle the room and subjective adjustments on a separate EQ or are they additive such as additional bands of parametric on the same processor?  Probably depends on the installation?

[Ivan Beaver]

Dick Rees wrote on Thu, 01 July 2010 10:56

The following quote always amuses me: "they don't have the budget to even hire someone to set things up professionally" I have spent my professional life listening to this excuse.  While it may be true in a few cases, the reality is that people have money for what they WANT more often than they have money for what they NEED. It's (unfortunately) human nature......

But let the HVAC unit break and see how fast they can come up with some money to get it fixed.

But finding money to hear the Pastor clearly and have the sound system work better-Now that is really asking a lot.

I don't mean to be sarcastic-but that is true more often than not.

It is all about priorities

[Arnold B. Krueger]

Ivan Beaver wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 23:42

Dick Rees wrote on Thu, 01 July 2010 10:56 The following quote always amuses me: "they don't have the budget to even hire someone to set things up professionally" I have spent my professional life listening to this excuse.  While it may be true in a few cases, the reality is that people have money for what they WANT more often than they have money for what they NEED. It's (unfortunately) human nature...... But let the HVAC unit break and see how fast they can come up with some money to get it fixed. But finding money to hear the Pastor clearly and have the sound system work better-Now that is really asking a lot. I don't mean to be sarcastic-but that is true more often than not. It is all about priorities

I still remember meeting with our trustees over 25 years ago when we were trying to get approval for the first PA we bought that actually worked. Several of the trustees asserted that we didn't need to make this investment since they could hear the pastor just fine. It was well known to may of us  that in fact many of them routinely frequenctly "rested their eyes" through sermons.

We didn't get the system installed until several years later because the bequest that would have bought the new sound system was *redirected* in order to add a Trumpette En Chemade array to our pipe organ. I think those particular pipes have been played about a dozen times in the more than 25 years since then. Maybe fewer times than that, unless you count rehearsals.

Yes, for most churches it is all about perceptions about priorities. Keeping needed technical changes on hold can be like "marking behavior" for some in the church. Being able to stall useful upgrades is a demonstration of personal power and influence for some.

[Don Sneed]

I am a sound contractor/installer for churches & movie theaters, I use a 2 or 4 microphone setup using a USL microphone 4-plexer, & an Ivie IE-35 RTA/Scope, I use averaging Equalization. I EQ for a flat response to 4K than drop 3db step down to 16K. It always sound great, now the RTA is a tool, you still have use yours ears to fine tune to control feedback, but I usually have very little to adjust using the average technique & 4-mics. I perfer a 1/3 octave graphic Equalizers over a PEQ... (to each his own)....This 4-mic averaging is also a Movie Theater (Cinema) THX requirement or the theater will not pass the test & get the THX certflication, I am a THX re-certify technicians for movie theaters, we use a THX "R2" or the new "D2" RTA unit that must be purchase from THX & use only for their techs & certify sound compacies. I can get in the ball park with an GEQ, but perfer to use a RTA to do it correctly....

[ProSoundWeb Community]