Print

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

[Kaz]

Hi there,

This is my first post and I hope I can pick your brains...

Here's my setup:

2 x Mackie SRM 450
1 x Mackie 1801
Yamaha O1V96
IEM for monitors

I have a phonic PAA2 that I use to EQ the system using the onboard parametric on the O1V. Now I have been wondering if it is worth buying a decent analogue 31 band EQ.

Reading the info on this site and other places its difficult to say how much it will add to this setup. My personal view is that I want as little as possible in the signal path that could colour or change the sound.

I'd be intereted to know people's experience with their setup and how much of a difference  a good graphic makes.

Cheers,

Kaz

[Timoteus Ruotsalainen]

Unless you have someone using the system that needs a graphic I wouldn't even consider it. Parametrics are so much better. A fully parametric with swept high- and low-pass filters would be ideal for FOH. Monitor world uses graphics cause it's "faster" to tweak a graphic.

--
Timoteus Ruotsalainen

[David Bedrack]

I don't know how much of "coloured" sound your gigs can tolerate,but any GEQ built by any respectable manufacturer will be totally transparent in terms if distortion and noise- provided you follow proper gain structure procedures (see "Study Hall")

Believe me, these days, with better speakers and overall good sound gear, the classic application of GEQs in "flattening" the system is much less of a need, BUT, sometimes a nasty problem will arise and you will be begging for one.

...and, it will help you identify problems that now you are not even aware of them.

Get a good one.  A 1/3rd octave will be useful forever

have fun

David B.

[Kaz]

Thanks David & Timoteus,

I think my feeling is that now that I have the tools to visually see what I am hearing that is what is worring me  

And as you say David, most of the kit that I have I have chosen carefully to try and minise the colouring. So for most of the time I will just plus say my AKG C900 and very little EQ is needed for it to sound good.

Before I was using cheaper floor monitors that were messing up my FOH mix. So I think I will go with this setup for now while I work in the IEM's and focus my time and money on getting that all ironed out before I start worrying about the main mix.

Seiously removing the monitors has done so much to the mix, more than what a graphic would have done...

To that end I need to think what the best way to bring in the atmosphere into the IEM's...

Well thanks guys, you've been very helpful!

Cheers,

Kaz

[Michael Prasuhn]

It honestly depends. Do you like the sound you are getting now? Are you getting complaints about how it sounds from listeners? Are you having trouble with the FOH system feeding back at multiple frequencies?

It can be a tool to use there, given certain situations such as lots of feedback at widely separated frequencies, but for general shaping of the tone, it sounds like you are doing a pretty good job already.

Are you running your 450's off of the outputs of your subwoofer? If not, they may be overlapping in frequency with your sub, and causing a buildup of lows/low mids, that would need EQing to correct.

If you think this is something you should just have, because you see it elsewhere, think twice before purchasing one. Think about how satisfied you are with the results you have now.

-MIkey P

P.S. It sounds like you are already taking an interest in system tuning and alignment, you may want to check out Smaart from SIA Software for a PC based system to measure your PA. It is an extremely deep program, and understanding it's output may take awhile, but there are plenty here on this forum and in the LAB to help you, as well as training and articles available from Sia's website.

[Kaz]

Mikey,

I've look at the link and I am thinking... holy cow thats complex! I am still trying to get the max out of the PAA2 and so maybe I will study and research it more before I can even start to think what I need to do with it  

As for the sound, most people are very happy with it. I do like the sound I get from my Mackie setup (and yes I do run the 450's from the 1801) and for the size of audience I use it for (100-300) what I have seems to be fine.

But being a control freak I want to control the different halls that I run the system in. Most of the time I lose coz there is very little I can do with the time & space issues for a hall! I used to struggle even more when I ran cheap monitors but with that gone, I feel more comfortable with the sound that I am getting.

I guess the bottom line for me right now is that I don't want to go down the line of getting a cheap graphic from Behringer or something in the sub US$500 bracket and would like to go for the BBS or around the US$1000 mark. Seriously when I have invested thousands into the system I don't want to go cheap and wreck the sound by putting in a poor quality equipment in  the signal path.

And so as an aside, what do you think about going for an active crossover rather than using the inbuilt one in the 1801? Would that have more merits than a graphic?

Thanks,

Kaz

[Dry Creek]

Hi Kaz!

I recommand you getting the DBX Driverack 260. Soundhouse in Narita Japan sells them cheap.

It has GEQ, PEQ, X/O, COMP, Auto-Eq and etc in 1U space. I have a DRPA(budget version of DR260) in my main rack and works great.

My FOH system is similar to yours (I use Yamaha active speakers along with an analog mixer). My active subwoofers (SW500) have built-in crossovers but my X/O on DRPA works much better than the one on my SW500. The best part is that I can choose from some different filters such as Butterworth and Linkwitz-Riley (they are handy when you change your subwoofer placement etc).

Off course you can try GEQ and PEQ for room tuning, tone shaping and feedback reduction. If you like your tunings, you can store the data. If you don't like the EQs you can bypass them.

Good luck.

Yoshi

[Tim Padrick]

I'm not much of a fan of the Mackie sub a client has (don't know which one - it's a bandpass box).  Formerly I was not much of a fan of the 450s.  Then I used a pair with my Audix OM7s: the 450s can really sing. However in some rooms you will get hot spots that greatly compromise gain before feedback even with OM7s, so I would indeed recommend an affordable but decent EQ (dbx & Rane ok, Alesis digital ok, Alesis 230 NOT ok, Behringer and Yamaha not ok.)  (If you are up to getting the hang of using it, a parametric would (as others mentioned) be a better option.)

*    

[Allen (Alien) Craft]

Over in the LAB, we did a Graphic EQ shoot out. BINK has the details compiled somewhere.
The Behringer, although easy flame-bait, actually performed well. Don't try driving a long line with it was the only caveat.

[Kaz]

I tried looking but only found the discussion but no results. Any idea where I can find it?

Kaz

[Dietrich Sider]

Here ya go for the procedures: http://www.binkster.net/geq_shootout.shtml

and the results : http://www.roaddog.com/bink/geq_roundup.php

[Alan Hamilton]

AlienC wrote on Mon, 26 April 2004 08:50

Over in the LAB, we did a Graphic EQ shoot out. BINK has the details compiled somewhere. The Behringer, although easy flame-bait, actually performed well. Don't try driving a long line with it was the only caveat.

Are you confusing the Behringer with another review? This is the Behringer review I see:

This unit sounded dark or choppy to the feedback team. Faders are short and flimsy and the LEDs on the fader tips don't register RTA level like the Peavey. Wider filters kept this guy from excelling in single tone notching and they cut more sound power out of 'Death To 100' which shows 6dB of lost signal at 250Hz. The 500Hz filter was visibly off ISO center -- you can see it best in 'Frown' and 'Capital V.' Crummy CMRR performance at 1kHz suggests that the unit will not take well to radio interference. Peak indication doesn't give any prior warning. The good news is that the GEQ3102 is very quiet at idle.

-AlanH

[Kaz]

I think he was talking about the digital DSP8024...

But seriously guys, the shoot out is great but with the price of the digital gear dropping and with the multi purpose kit like the drive rack, DEQ1024, DEQ2496  you have to wonder where this will all end up...

I already have a PAA2 which shows me that I don't have any huge peaks or troughs that I can't fix with my O1V96. And with the lack of floor monitors, the risk of feedback is less.

I think if I am going to get something it looks like the BSS coz I want something that will be musical. You know what I mean? Having a digital desk even running at 96kHz means that the sounds is rather... well digital. I used to run an A&H GL2000 desk and I would have to say that that was more musical than my O1V and my now O1V96.

But the reason I have this setup is coz at the end of the day I can load the whole thing into a back of a wagon/estate and drive home!

So what do you guys think?

Which Graphic would add not just EQ but something back into the mix? Am I making sense here? Or should I just go with some valve compressors etc

Cheers,

Kaz

[Michael 'Bink' Knowles]

Quote:

Which Graphic would add not just EQ but something back into the mix? Am I making sense here? Or should I just go with some valve compressors etc

Okay, this is a new question and one that doesn't get asked much. You are looking to get something extra out of your GEQ -- you want it to affect your overall soundfeel experience.

I have no experience trying to warm up the sound of an 01V96 with a graphic EQ.

But if I had to guess, I would say that you would be happy with many of the better-performing GEQs in the world. Because you are interested in light weight, you might look into the Audient ASP231 which sounded amazingly clean at 6.2 kg in 3 rack spaces. Or try the Rane DEQ60 which comes in two sizes or the XTA GQ600 which was a little heavier but had headroom for days. There are other fine performers to choose from as well, but I can't tell you which will make your 01v96 sound the way you want.

On the valve side of things, you might want to consider locating and purchasing a Peavey Tube Sweetener. This limited production device is no longer manufactured but the few that are out there seem to get resold frequently due to the subtle effect they make. Even though the average Joe doesn't seem to understand subtle, you sound like the perfect candidate for the Tube Sweetener's fine nuances. It doesn't compress, it just runs the signal through some tubes and slightly overdrives them. In fact, I'd try one of these things first before getting a graphic EQ, since none of the GEQs I can think of match your colorization needs. Or is that colourisation in your book...

-Bink

[Andy Peters]

Kaz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2004 10:50

Which Graphic would add not just EQ but something back into the mix?

If an EQ was putting "something back into the mix," I'd call it what it is -- an Alesis MEQ-230 -- and toss it into the nearest dumpster.

-a

[Dave Bigelow]

LMAO, see my post about the club I work for buying a MEQ230 in the "balanced cables" thread. I'm sure you'll like what I did with it.

Anyway, If you don't really need it I don't see why you'd have to have it but I totally agree with what others and yourself have said about not buying something cheap and then regretting it and having to fork out more money for what you really should have gotten. I'd look into the driverack 260 too, I use the DRPA and it worked wonders on the rig I installed it on.

[Timoteus Ruotsalainen]

If I were in your situation I would use a "non-coloring" equalizer (or a system dsp like dr260). This way the system would be clean and reproduce what you put in it. Any coloring can be made with specials, for example a tube compressor on the main inserts.

--
Timoteus Ruotsalainen