Print

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

[Royce Covington]

since you do not have the dsp settings for your speakers, you don't have a good starting point for your system set-up.  so, you're trying to use the auto eq to optimize the speaker sound, right?

well, ordinarily when setting up the driverack the speakers/amps are tuned with the crossover and parametric filter settings, etc.  then, once the 'system' configuration is established, the main/graphic eq is used to optimize the relationship of the 'system' to the room.

the auto-eq is notably one of the worst features of the driverack and by no means a reasonable tool for any practical purpose.

R~

[Lynn Oliver]

Royce, that is correct, I'm using it as a starting point. 

I may have given up a bit prematurely, as I just got a copy of the specs for the 310a's and the published frequency response is actually pretty close to what Auto EQ came up with.  Of course it would have been simpler just to pull the settings off the graph.

What I did originally with the NX550Ps was to take the Auto EQ settings and translate them to the PEQ.  Then I tuned the PEQ by ear, and that left the GEQ available to deal with the room.  The ART 310A's Auto EQ settings were too messy to translate readily to PEQ, and since those were being used as stage monitors I ended up just working with the settings in the GEQ.  So I guess I'm pretty ordinary in that respect. 

[Royce Covington]

kinda the long way around, but i see what you're trying to do now...

R~

[Brad Weber]

Maybe I'll run an impulse response on the speaker and work from that.

I agree that the AutoEQ seems to be using an RTA and graphic EQ approach.  However, for what you are trying to do that has several limitations, one of which is that since it will measure everything that hits the mic and thus you cannot remove the environment.

If you break it down you are often trying to tune a system for several factors including the response of a box or array, the effects of nearby surfaces on the response, the effects of other speakers, the effects of the room and subjective goals.  It sounds like what you a are trying to do is address just the first issue.  Shooting for a flat or known response eliminates the subjective aspect, limiting it to only one device eliminates the effects of other devices and a ground plane mic setup, etc. will help minimize or eliminate specific effects.  However, with an RTA based system you cannot avoid the effects of some nearby surfaces or of the room in general.  And measuring at just one location means you are then basing teh results on the effects of those surfaces and the room at that one point.  If you have not already done so you might want to read http://www.bennettprescott.com/downloads/devil_with_rta.pdf.

If you have Smaart, SysTune, SIM, Praxis, TEF or similar, then using a windowed Transfer Function would be much better, but as Mark noted, there are still limits on what can potentially be corrected with equalization, especially with a graphic EQ.
 

Royce, that is correct, I'm using it as a starting point. 

I may have given up a bit prematurely, as I just got a copy of the specs for the 310a's and the published frequency response is actually pretty close to what Auto EQ came up with.  Of course it would have been simpler just to pull the settings off the graph.

Do you mean that the stated response is close to the inverse of what the AutoEQ derived?  If you are compensating for the speaker then the EQ applied might resemble the inverse of the speaker response.

[Lynn Oliver]

Do you mean that the stated response is close to the inverse of what the AutoEQ derived?  If you are compensating for the speaker then the EQ applied might resemble the inverse of the speaker response.

Yes.  Accounting for the inversion, all three plots have the same basic shape (indoor Auto EQ, outdoor Auto EQ, manufacturer's specs).  Auto EQ tends to boost the mids and upper mids a bit more than the specs would indicate. 

I've learned a bit going through this exercise, but I've probably spent more time on it than the Auto EQ deserves. 

[Scott Bolt]

I have been using the DRPA for quite a few years. 

First, you need to make sure that your basic config is setup well.  The cross-over point(s), amp configuration, and time delay between your different drivers need to be configured.  There are rules of thumb you can use for the time alignment (for instance, my folded horns get ~8mSec delay to account for the distance traveled through the horn respective to the tops).

Second, there is a sensitivity setting on the DR's to allow a less precise eq.

Third, if your sub can't handle the lower frequencies (~30Hz) you will need to allow less precision for it to finish.

Fourth, make sure that the LP and HP are used on your sub.  Don't send signals to your sub that it can't reproduce.  You just end up working the amp and speaker harder and wasting headroom for power that you can actually use.

Fifth,  outdoors is a bass sponge. 

Sixth,  ensure that your sensitivity and input gains are set properly or you risk clipping or loss of utilized power.

I have seen the saw tooth effect mentioned above and have always manually corrected it.  It hadn't occured to me that it was comb filtering at work.  I will try doing a single stack at a time to see how good the results are.

My system is all passive with Cerwin Vega LR36's on the bottom and Klipsch KP301's on the top.

If I bypass the auto-eq, I find that my system does not sound as good as it does without it and it would require quite a bit of work at the instrument rack eq to get it there.

I only use 2 presets.  One for indoors, and one for outdoors.  I don't like using the auto-eq on a gig because of the disturbance to the venue while I do it.  I do fine adjustments with the rack graphic eq.

Most sound pros I have spoken to agree with the assessment of those here.  No "real" sound-man would use auto-eq.  Perhaps my talent doesn't extend as far as the "real" sound engineers   I kinda like the crutch.

As an aside, if you are using a matched pair of powered speakers, I would also agree that it is likely that the factory DSP is likely better than what you will be able to achieve with the DR; however, once you start mixing and matching, I am not sure this is still the case.

Many of these new powered speakers are DSP'd to sound good at low to mid volumes in a stand alone audition in order to attract buyers based on their "out of the box" sound of a CD.  They typically have the smiley face eq going on which usually needs some correction in order to sound better with a live PA setup over a sub.

[ProSoundWeb Community]