ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => Audio Measurement and Testing => Topic started by: Kent Clasen on April 14, 2021, 10:34:30 AM

Title: LF haystack
Post by: Kent Clasen on April 14, 2021, 10:34:30 AM
Hello all!

When tuning a sound system for a live music venue what do you or your customer/mixer people ~usually~ like to hear for the sub low end haystack relative to mid frequencies? Obviously this is very subjective but wanted to see what other’s experiences have been.

It would seem with an aux feed sub that if you have ~15dB of hay stack that when pushing the system you would run out of headroom in the subs much quicker.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Russell Ault on April 14, 2021, 11:46:26 AM
Hello all!

When tuning a sound system for a live music venue what do you or your customer/mixer people ~usually~ like to hear for the sub low end haystack relative to mid frequencies? Obviously this is very subjective but wanted to see what other’s experiences have been.

It would seem with an aux feed sub that if you have ~15dB of hay stack that when pushing the system you would run out of headroom in the subs much quicker.

As a BE I (re-)tune for flat ("equal amplitude"), but I know I'm weird.

-Russ
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Brian Jojade on April 14, 2021, 12:23:43 PM
It would seem with an aux feed sub that if you have ~15dB of hay stack that when pushing the system you would run out of headroom in the subs much quicker.

That's only true if you don't bring enough sub for the way you want to operate it.

Personally, I like to tune my system pretty flat and then adjust the individual channels to sound the way I want them to.  If I need more low end on a channel that produces low end, I fix the problem there instead of using the system EQ to do that.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Keith Broughton on April 14, 2021, 01:30:11 PM


Personally, I like to tune my system pretty flat and then adjust the individual channels to sound the way I want them to.  If I need more low end on a channel that produces low end, I fix the problem there instead of using the system EQ to do that.
You would get a better spectral balance on a "board" recording this way as well.
That said, if I am mixing a contemporary pop dance band, I like an aux fed sub so I can push the whole bottom end for different songs.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Chris Grimshaw on April 14, 2021, 03:52:37 PM
Another one for flat system. The PA should convey what's coming out of the mixing desk to the audience. The art/science line is (IMO) at the master outputs of the mixing desk.

Chris
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Brian Jojade on April 14, 2021, 05:55:29 PM
You would get a better spectral balance on a "board" recording this way as well.
That said, if I am mixing a contemporary pop dance band, I like an aux fed sub so I can push the whole bottom end for different songs.

I might disagree with you there.  If your goal is both recording AND the live performance, then you need to create the mix in the board to sound good for recording, then tweak the house EQ to make it sound the way that you want in the room.  Sometimes that can be dramatically different.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Steve-White on April 16, 2021, 12:53:31 PM
I might disagree with you there.  If your goal is both recording AND the live performance, then you need to create the mix in the board to sound good for recording, then tweak the house EQ to make it sound the way that you want in the room.  Sometimes that can be dramatically different.

Recording is adding a twist to what the OP stated - but you're right it changes things.

This caught my attention as I did a system revamp in my den this week followed by full re-tune starting at the DSC. 

I got started in pro audio with a DJ system.  Working my way up the learning curve in time using an RTA for system setup and learning how to tune up a playback system to how I liked it.  Nowhere near flat.  However, for a reinforcement system I like to pretty much "flat line" the tuneup and do it all on the console.  But for a playback system flat doesn't sound good at all.  I was going to start up a thread on this topic and was considering how not to start a war in the process.

To expand on the OP's point and yours regarding creating a recording.  At the other end of the chain is playback.  Virtually any playback media for music I'm familiar with sounds pretty dull and lifeless on a system tuned flat, whereas for a reinforcement system I like to start flat or what I consider a clean slate and paint the picture at the console.

Interesting to see other views on this:  Reinforcement -vs- playback system setup tuning.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Kent Clasen on April 16, 2021, 04:26:34 PM
Recording is adding a twist to what the OP stated - but you're right it changes things.

This caught my attention as I did a system revamp in my den this week followed by full re-tune starting at the DSC. 

I got started in pro audio with a DJ system.  Working my way up the learning curve in time using an RTA for system setup and learning how to tune up a playback system to how I liked it.  Nowhere near flat.  However, for a reinforcement system I like to pretty much "flat line" the tuneup and do it all on the console.  But for a playback system flat doesn't sound good at all.  I was going to start up a thread on this topic and was considering how not to start a war in the process.

To expand on the OP's point and yours regarding creating a recording.  At the other end of the chain is playback.  Virtually any playback media for music I'm familiar with sounds pretty dull and lifeless on a system tuned flat, whereas for a reinforcement system I like to start flat or what I consider a clean slate and paint the picture at the console.

Interesting to see other views on this:  Reinforcement -vs- playback system setup tuning.

I agree with playback and LF haystack sounds better. I do more system setup/design/tuning than mixing. So I tend to give the mixer person what they want/like.

So a few thoughts/questions:

-Most BEs seems to come into a new room and play a track. Do they complain if the system is “flat’?

- What about a venue like the one I am currently working on tuning that 50% of their shows are hip hop or DJs vs live bands? Flat or haystack?

I am a little surprised by the “flat” responses. I assumed it would be more of a mix or lean towards haystack.

Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Steve-White on April 16, 2021, 07:48:56 PM
I've done a lot of DJ shows as "the sound guy" bringing in the PA, multiple DJ's playing sets, for low rider car shows, hip hop, public dance, private dance party's and club installs.

Always pump up the bottom end.

At reinforcement jobs for live acts, when the system is flattened out, I always just add some eq to the source, which is either CD deck or laptop.

And before sound check, when the promoters and band managers are loitering around I put some program on and ring the SOB out - 1) to load/stress the system, 2) remove any doubt on where the problem lies if what's coming off the stage sounds like schitt.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Helge A Bentsen on April 17, 2021, 02:24:57 AM
Something to consider, a LF haystack isn't just "turning up the subs".
Usually your mains need a LF boost too so they can keep up with raised sub levels, especially on systems with small mains.
That has a impact on your available headroom, but usually makes the sound system sound more "fat" than "boomy".
IME people who enjoy mixing on a "flat" system is more concerned with "boomy" AKA loud subs. Give them a sound system that sounds more "fat" they're usually fine, and the system sounds better for DJ playback and background music.

If possible, I try to make a preset for both and have the one mixing or paying the check decide.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Luke Geis on April 17, 2021, 04:48:32 PM
I go for flat as well. I prefer the sub-content to sound equal and relative to the mids and highs. I also run subs on an aux.

I do a LOT of board mixes and live recordings where I have to balance the live sound with the recording quality. I prefer taking the board mix hot off the main master. I balance the two worlds by running the PA through a matrix and tuning the PA to match what I hear in my ears. More or less the Dave Rat tuning trick. The prescription is simple. If you have a set of earbuds or headphones you trust, tune the PA to sound like they do. Then what you hear in your ears is nearly the same as what you hear in the room. Doing this I find I can get damn good 2-track board mixes and the room sounds great as well. No complaints so far.

The haystack thing I find is only reserved for music that depends on it ( hip hop, pop et all ) and when realistic recording of the media is not crucial or needed.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Steve-White on April 17, 2021, 05:44:07 PM
^^^ I do it similar Luke.  Dial it in with the equipment, then the final is tuning is done listening with known program material.

For a club or portable DJ system I tune it up and listen to known well engineered program material of the genre of the system intent.

Once it's dialed in pretty close, crank it up and walk out in front or onto dance floor and close my eyes.  When I can visualize it, it's right.  When I can see the brass shining off of the horns, see the band playing it - done.

When designing system, headroom is the name of the game.  Always have a bit more in the low mids for talk-over with compressors setup for ducking on the DJ mic.  Sounds real clean, clear, articulate and not ear piercing.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Matthias McCready on April 17, 2021, 05:44:59 PM

It would seem with an aux feed sub that if you have ~15dB of hay stack that when pushing the system you would run out of headroom in the subs much quicker.

If you are not already aware keep in mind when you haystack the subs, that you are moving the physical crossover of the system and your subs.

For example (obviously this is speaker dependent) if your system DSP crossover is set at  60hz, if you had an 18dB haystack your actual crossover frequency could now be 125hz.

--

Personally I prefer flat as well. Let channel processing do its job  ;)

--

As to board mixes it is REALLY nice when you have a fantastic system which is relatively flat, your room is great, and your mix position is in a great place. However as we all know this isn't often the circumstance.

My current house gig has a top brand PA; unfortunately the overall deployment of the rig and the mix position negates a great board mix. For a board mix recording (to examine mix decisions, show execution etc) I usually use a matrix that is getting the same groups as the PA, and I have found for most venues some processing on the record matrix can account for an imperfect system/deployment/room and help things to translate. With recording separated on a Matrix I can mix for the PA/Room and still have a valuable tool for afterwards.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Luke Geis on April 18, 2021, 01:37:03 PM
Matthias,

    The shift in acoustic crossover points is true, but not true. Once you set the levels, crossovers, and other DSP, you don't mess with the master levels. At unity gain, you are in theory, utilizing the system as it was set up to run. The acoustic crossover point will not change provided you don't change the master send levels.

Now where things differ is the relative send levels of each channel. If you send the kick drum at a very high level to the subs, its acoustic crossover point may be shifted in relation to the mains, but that is kind of the whole idea. However, as with anything, too much of a good thing is still too much. If you send the level to the sub aux too high, you may end up with a very weak and anemic sounding board mix because you allocated the energy too much towards the subs.

The name of the game is balance. I DO NOT like too much low-end; so I strive hard to keep it curtailed and under wraps. This is probably why I like systems that have very little or no haystack subs responses? I also never cared for the idea of boosting a bunch of 50-80hz on the kick drum. To me, it sounds unnatural. This is how you end up with live recordings where the kick drum is just a big fluffy pooooof and walks all over everything. With subs on an aux, you can tune things to sound right in your ears and in the main PA, and then add them to the subs as needed/desired. The subs simply become a way to fill out the rest of the sonic spectrum. If you gain a channel up past unity gain on a send, does the acoustic crossover point change? I purpose NO it doesn't, because the DSP and the rest of the system doesn't know if that sound was supposed to be that way or not. I.E. If the channel needed to be turned up that much to get the desired sound, it was devoid of that media to begin with and if it sounds right when gained up as such, then it is right, and you haven't broken the rules of PA systems design and deployment doing it :)

So once again, it is about balance. The trick I was taught many years ago as it relates to subs on an aux was to tune the channel with its aux send off. Once the channel sounded right in the mains, then you added the subs in to taste. This is where the headphone/earbuds trick really works well if you are doing live recordings. Your headphones give you a full-range response indicative of a full-range speaker system. If it sounds good in your ears, then it should also sound good out of your PA. If that is true, then from the PA with no subs it will sound weak and thin. So as you add in the subs from the channels aux send, it should fill out and sound wonderful again.

There is no rule that says you can't send every channel to the subs either, although objectively the idea is to not. Utilizing subs on an aux can free up LOTS of headroom for live band situations. I have found that with some tricks, you can free up as much as 9db, which may be just enough to take you from not nearly enough to just enough.

Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Matthias McCready on April 21, 2021, 01:46:13 PM
Matthias,

    The shift in acoustic crossover points is true, but not true. Once you set the levels, crossovers, and other DSP, you don't mess with the master levels. At unity gain, you are in theory, utilizing the system as it was set up to run. The acoustic crossover point will not change provided you don't change the master send levels.



Yes, this is what I had meant.

I have seen guys set the crossover (tune/tone the PA), and then do their giant haystack. Obviously if the haystack is accounted for when setting the crossover things will be fine.

The trick I was taught many years ago as it relates to subs on an aux was to tune the channel with its aux send off. Once the channel sounded right in the mains, then you added the subs in to taste.


This is also how I run things (when Subs are on Aux, which is most of the time for me).
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Tim McCulloch on April 21, 2021, 02:23:18 PM
I like a system that is linear - what comes out of the loudspeaker system accurately reflects the signal from the console.  Other than as a special effect, I'd prefer to shape the LF of my mix *in my mix* because that's the way the artist will listen to the 2 track in the back lounge of the bus.

But there are at least 2 types of FOH mixerpersons - those that put on a track, twist some knobs and then say "I can (or can't) work with this" and those who want to hit "play" and have the rig make them smile, and if it doesn't it may be a long day.

That said, the perception of LF and it's spectral place in a mix has changed a lot over the last 30 years.  In general I think many consumers believe that LF sounds like "car stereo rap tunes" and anything less is not right.  Much of the public expects a good deal more LF/ELF than was customary in most live venues 20 years ago.

The difference between a live band being mixed and DJ performances - the DJ may or may not have the capability to do 'system processing' in the mixer (and I'd really not want that) so if proper performance of the system in the venue requires that DJ shows sound 'right', right out of the box, build in the haystack.  As a live band mixer I can shelve/HPF a post-record L/R feed to send to the system if I don't like it.  I'd rather not, but I think (hope) the BE can deal with that better than a DJ can deal with its absence.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Art Welter on May 26, 2021, 04:25:55 PM
I agree with playback and LF haystack sounds better. I do more system setup/design/tuning than mixing. So I tend to give the mixer person what they want/like.

So a few thoughts/questions:

1)-Most BEs seems to come into a new room and play a track. Do they complain if the system is “flat’?
2)- What about a venue like the one I am currently working on tuning that 50% of their shows are hip hop or DJs vs live bands? Flat or haystack?
3)I am a little surprised by the “flat” responses. I assumed it would be more of a mix or lean towards haystack.
Kent,

The "flat vs haystack" or loudness contour discussion has been around since aux fed subs were popularized around 1978, and dual purpose live/DJ systems had to "live together".
1) For the most part, I've encountered no complaints if the system set for flat amplitude response has the LF extension and headroom they desired.
2) Pre-sets for both.
Optimum speaker configurations for DJ/dance use may also be quite different than for live band use.
Some portions of the systems may overlap, while others would be best used independently.
3) Perhaps the "haystack" engineers got jobs on farms during the Covid19 fallout, and not have returned to audio yet ;^).
This is the "Audio Measurement and Testing" section, response from the Lounge, Church Sound, DJ and other forums would have more that want an arbitrarily boosted cartoon version of their mix, and less who desire an accurate representation of the output of their console's main output.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Jim McKeveny on October 28, 2021, 09:12:03 AM
flat amplitude response and has the LF extension and headroom they desired.
Thanks again Art. As we know, mixer "fiddling" with VLF on aux causes unwanted accuracy & perception issues up-spectrum in critical  LF response. If +30db between 25hz to 40-50(?)hz is desired it should be engineered in/produced at the source not poorly coerced into overall system performance.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Guillermo Sanchez on April 25, 2022, 03:21:26 PM
I'm going to go against the popular opinion here. There is a lot of evidence that what constitute good sound for a statistically majority (>90% of the people) include at least a bit of low frequency boost and high frequency rolloff (see Floyd E Toole lifelong work). The same work point out that for most people, about 50% of perceived sound quality comes from bass quality/extension/punch, so most people perceive more bass as "better sound" (within limits of course)

I'm an independent system designer/tuner, which 90% of the time don't mix in the systems I tune. All systems I tune need to be approved by someone before I leave the premises, and in every case I need to leave it with a 6 to 18dB "stack" in order to comply with what the customer wants. It depends on the situation: for example in a theater or lounge they might be happy with +6dB, in an entertainment system with around +12dB, and in Latin music/Urban music/Reggaeton or similar they might want in excess of +18dB. By the way, had any of you ever installed or tuned a system in Jamaica? The norm there is 2 dual 18" subs per top box, and boy, they use it to the extreme! The numbers I'm talking about fall short of Jamaican expectations. In my tunings, I rarely leave the subs on an aux (unless requested) because sometimes I don't know who's going to mix on the system, and most people inexperienced with the technique will go for the channel eq instead the aux send and force your full range while under utilizing the subs.

I understand this is not ideal, but I might leave a system that will be in charge of people far from experts, to be kind. Others are just accustomed to a super huge bass bump and if they don't hear it, they will immediately dismiss the system or my work. The best compromise I had is to to send the subs over a matrix fed from L&R plus an aux. Then I tune the system to have a 6dB bump directly from the master, but you can add more energy to subs by pushing on the aux. Is the best of both worlds as if someone decides to push the eq on a channel that energy will find its way to the sub, but an expert will push it though the aux and still is going to go to the subs.

The only caveat is that nowadays that all consoles are digital, you have to deal with the extra latency caused by going through the aux. Last time I checked a CL5 (for example) added 0.04ms in that case, but since we are working with low frequencies, with their long wavelengths, the phase difference was negligible in the intended range.

Sorry for the long post.   
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Caleb Dueck on April 25, 2022, 07:43:59 PM
The best compromise I had is to to send the subs over a matrix fed from L&R plus an aux. Then I tune the system to have a 6dB bump directly from the master, but you can add more energy to subs by pushing on the aux.

I've run into systems like this, and have to say I really disliked them.  For me, aux fed subs are a way to 'hard cut' input channels like vocals from getting to the subwoofers, and this method kills that (primary IMHO) capability.  If the mixer persons are very inexperienced - I'd rather just L&R, no aux.  Just my personal preference.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Guillermo Sanchez on April 26, 2022, 10:00:55 AM
I've run into systems like this, and have to say I really disliked them.  For me, aux fed subs are a way to 'hard cut' input channels like vocals from getting to the subwoofers, and this method kills that (primary IMHO) capability.  If the mixer persons are very inexperienced - I'd rather just L&R, no aux.  Just my personal preference.

I agree that with inexperienced people is better to have everything through L&R, and that if your preference is to have subs solely on an aux when you mix, that is the way you should do it (and that I would do it if I was tuning for you). The approach mentioned, in my opinion, is a compromise between solely on aux or solely on L&R. Is it perfect? no. Is just a compromise that helped me in a particular situation.

60% of the systems I tune will work with people of dubious capabilities. 35% of them will be handled by people who believe they know what they are doing. 5% is handled by real, experienced professionals. In my experience, unless you are working at very high level touring, this numbers are representatives of what's on the market. When you tune systems for theaters, cruise ships, houses of worships and institutional venues, you have no idea who is going to work on that system tomorrow, much less a year from now. In that particular case the current engineer wanted to have a way to "enhance" punch on some channels, but was not experienced enough to leave the subs just on an aux. If I did that, the LF on mains will be destroyed sooner rather than later. And the engineer was supposed to be rotated to another venue in 30 days or so. So it was the best solution for the moment.

I tend to be pragmatic and have as many options as possible in my toolbox instead of applying one technique to every system I touch. If I was the one mixing, I would approach the system accordingly.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: John Schalk on April 26, 2022, 05:46:45 PM
The only caveat is that nowadays that all consoles are digital, you have to deal with the extra latency caused by going through the aux. Last time I checked a CL5 (for example) added 0.04ms in that case, but since we are working with low frequencies, with their long wavelengths, the phase difference was negligible in the intended range.
According to Dave Rat's testing (see his YouTube content), the X/M 32 mixers have zero added latency no matter how many groups you assign the channel to, before taking an output from the console.  He did measure the added latency you note in the Yamaha CL mixer he was using for his tests.  Not sure if he's tested group latency on Digico or Allen & Heath yet.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: John A Chiara on April 26, 2022, 05:57:12 PM
Another one for flat system. The PA should convey what's coming out of the mixing desk to the audience. The art/science line is (IMO) at the master outputs of the mixing desk.

Chris

But the audience only hears what’s coming out of the speakers…so you reference is removed from the room. Who is that useful to? An six sub system is still part of what the audience is hearing right?
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Steve-White on April 26, 2022, 10:17:50 PM
But the audience only hears what’s coming out of the speakers…so you reference is removed from the room. Who is that useful to? An six sub system is still part of what the audience is hearing right?

That depends upon the size of the venue and stage volume.  In a 300-500 seat club with a loud stage the mix is basically filling in what's needed to make it sound good out front.

Whereas ACDC at River Plate the stage volume is insignificant and the mains carry the house ~100%.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Guillermo Sanchez on April 28, 2022, 09:22:54 AM
But the audience only hears what’s coming out of the speakers…so you reference is removed from the room. Who is that useful to? An six sub system is still part of what the audience is hearing right?

I read an article here at ProSoundWeb that measured latency of several mixing consoles through different paths. If I remember correctly, A&H, Midas and Behringer were "latency compensated", meaning that all paths lead to the same latency. The caveat was that the inputs should be coming from the same place. The local inputs always had less latency than the ones comiong from stage boxes (makes sense). Digico and Yamaha among others had different latencies for different signal paths. Something to be aware when doing tricks of the trade like parallel compression. What I do in those cases is to mimic the signal path on the two signal chains: Instead of sending one directly to stereo with no compression and the other to a group with compression (for example), I would send both to different groups, both with compression, but one with the threshold at maximum and ratio to minimum (the "clean one") and the other with the desired compression dialed in. It uses more resources, but on digital consoles in general that is not an issue.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Guillermo Sanchez on April 28, 2022, 09:45:54 AM
That depends upon the size of the venue and stage volume.  In a 300-500 seat club with a loud stage the mix is basically filling in what's needed to make it sound good out front.

Whereas ACDC at River Plate the stage volume is insignificant and the mains carry the house ~100%.

Still, on the ACDC at River Plate scenario, if the subs were aux fed, the "board recording" will be bass thin as it is only getting L&R, so it will not be representative on what's coming out of the system.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: John A Chiara on May 03, 2022, 05:11:35 PM
Still, on the ACDC at River Plate scenario, if the subs were aux fed, the "board recording" will be bass thin as it is only getting L&R, so it will not be representative on what's coming out of the system.
No board mix is a real reference. I record L/R pre eq and my aux sub feed is post fader…so full range bass gets sent to the recorder. Aux subs CAN be useful for the live system especially where crowds change….like a big club dance floor. I can change the feel and heft of the system real time. In a concert setting probably not so much.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Guillermo Sanchez on May 04, 2022, 10:51:10 AM
No board mix is a real reference. I record L/R pre eq and my aux sub feed is post fader…so full range bass gets sent to the recorder. Aux subs CAN be useful for the live system especially where crowds change….like a big club dance floor. I can change the feel and heft of the system real time. In a concert setting probably not so much.

Since the board mix had been mentioned in this thread, I wanted to point that out. I'm not against using subs on an aux, I just say that is not always the best solution, specially with inexperienced engineers at the helm. Anyway, the thread is about LF haystack, which in my experience is neccesary at least a little bit in almost all occasions.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Art Welter on May 20, 2022, 01:12:25 AM
I'm going to go against the popular opinion here. There is a lot of evidence that what constitute good sound for a statistically majority (>90% of the people) include at least a bit of low frequency boost and high frequency rolloff (see Floyd E Toole lifelong work). The same work point out that for most people, about 50% of perceived sound quality comes from bass quality/extension/punch, so most people perceive more bass as "better sound" (within limits of course)
Guillermo,

Not sure what Floyd E. Toole you have seen,  but he concludes in this work:
The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society Vol. 63, No. 7/8, July/August 2015

https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20220520/17839.pdf

"Bass performance alone accounted for about 30% of the overall subjective ratings—spectral balance matters.
This is a logical parallel to common experience in live unamplified concerts, where humans are able to substantially separate the sounds of instruments and voices from the sounds added by the different venues in which they perform, even though the venue is truly part of the performance.
The target for the direct sound should most likely be flat: neutral.

The movie industry has decided that the steady-state sound should be flat below 2 kHz, most of the music/audio industry has decided that a flat direct sound is the norm. The latter has the advantage of agreeing with natural hearing of live (unamplified) acoustical events.

The starting point would be the delivery of an accurate, neutral, direct sound. The fact that there is a rise in bass sound level in the short (<150 ms) interval following the direct sound is a variable for which there is no practical control—it is room and source-directivity dependent. It means that a steady-state room
curve should rise by some amount at low frequencies. We do know, however, that some of the present recommendations and industry practices are not optimum and others are simply wrong."


From what Floyd wrote there, doesn't seem he would suggest using an arbitrary "haystack"LF boost, more likely he'd put that practice into the "not optimum or simply wrong" category.

Art
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Mal Brown on May 23, 2022, 11:05:48 AM
The only times I have wanted AUX fed subs were some local festivals with extremely variable acts.  Having that hard limit on what went to the tops was helpful.  Not necessary, helpful.

I prefer to mix on a system that is set flat and apply my own 'tilt'.  I want things to sound full but not overstated if you will.  I truly despise wnat I consider to be overly bright, isizzly systems.  I notice that older BE types, whose hearing in the 2k+ range may be iffy tend to have that exagerated high end.   I have my hearing checked annually.   I have some 4k damage - have for ages thanks to an Ampeg V4 on a couple of 4x12's back in the day...  If I can hear 4 K... I know there is way too much...

By the way, this term HayStack EQ ... where did this come from ?  It evokes a vision of a curve but not one I would ever think would be applied outside of car stereo, in someone elses children's car :-)
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: John A Chiara on May 23, 2022, 03:29:56 PM
Since the board mix had been mentioned in this thread, I wanted to point that out. I'm not against using subs on an aux, I just say that is not always the best solution, specially with inexperienced engineers at the helm. Anyway, the thread is about LF haystack, which in my experience is neccesary at least a little bit in almost all occasions.
The big elephant in the room is ‘inexperienced engineers!!’
In what other discipline do inexperienced people run the show? Restaurant? Airlines? Race cars? NONE!!
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Art Welter on May 23, 2022, 04:43:37 PM
By the way, this term HayStack EQ ... where did this come from ?  It evokes a vision of a curve but not one I would ever think would be applied outside of car stereo, in someone elses children's car :-)
Mal,

For those who don't know what a low frequency "haystack" curve looks like, here is a graphic example:
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Mal Brown on June 07, 2022, 09:23:40 AM
A big bump at 60 to 120.   Interesting.   My rigs - all I mix on - unless there are venuew issues that contr-indicate, have a slight tilt.  I tend to be mixing blues, rock, new-grass (southern rock with banjo, mando, dobro and can ya make it louder bro?)  I hpf like the dickens.  The bass and kick I give their own emphasis.

As I am a bass player that also mixes, If I get the kick and bass right, vocals prominent, everything else will fall into place.
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Jelmer de Jong on June 11, 2022, 11:57:58 AM


By the way, this term HayStack EQ ... where did this come from ?  It evokes a vision of a curve but not one I would ever think would be applied outside of car stereo, in someone elses children's car :-)
Well, if you hang 12 boxes a side from either a well know French or a well known American brand of speakers you get a 14dB haystack, right out of the box. Not sure why....

Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Russell Ault on June 11, 2022, 03:43:29 PM
Well, if you hang 12 boxes a side from either a well know French or a well known American brand of speakers you get a 14dB haystack, right out of the box. Not sure why....

I can't speak for the French, but up until the L-series Meyer always insisted that each individual box, whether point source or line array, should have a ruler-flat mag trace (which, in fairness, does make them very easy to test on the workbench). Of course, put 12 of them together and the summation below the crossover will produce a huge haystack (and not necessarily a nice-sounding one, either).

-Russ
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Mac Kerr on June 11, 2022, 06:16:41 PM
I can't speak for the French, but up until the L-series Meyer always insisted that each individual box, whether point source or line array, should have a ruler-flat mag trace (which, in fairness, does make them very easy to test on the workbench). Of course, put 12 of them together and the summation below the crossover will produce a huge haystack (and not necessarily a nice-sounding one, either).

-Russ

Which is why a Galileo was required to drive the system. The Galileo had the low frequency compensation built in, you just had to tell it how many boxes in the array.

Mac
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Jelmer de Jong on June 15, 2022, 08:15:39 AM
I can't speak for the French, but up until the L-series Meyer always insisted that each individual box, whether point source or line array, should have a ruler-flat mag trace (which, in fairness, does make them very easy to test on the workbench). Of course, put 12 of them together and the summation below the crossover will produce a huge haystack (and not necessarily a nice-sounding one, either).

-Russ
I think that is kinda weird for a box(Milo) designed to be used with eight or more per side. The French have their '6 box vdosc curve' which comes down to a 6dB LF boost around 100Hz and its their target curve for any new box they design. Besides some odd situations here and there, i rarely use a dual 15" three way speaker with less than 12 a side so unless I use the magic array compesation that some manufacurers offer the starting point is 'big boom haystack'.  ;D
If it was me designing presets, a dual 12 or 15" speaker would be flat-ish when used 12 per side. For a bigger array you would need a bit of LF cut and a smaller array would need some LF boost.
Current presets, without array compensation would make you think that the LF haystack is what people want. Reading through this topic, it clearly isn't.  8)
Title: Re: LF haystack
Post by: Russell Ault on June 15, 2022, 08:45:03 PM
I think that is kinda weird for a box(Milo) designed to be used with eight or more per side. {...}

This is one of the reasons (perhaps the only reason?) that Meyer's L-series line array boxes aren't individually "flat".

That said, at least around here you'd be hard-pressed to find a Meyer array that didn't have a Galileo (of some kind) behind it, so at least in some people's minds the disadvantages of having to use array correction (that you were probably going to use anyway) were outweighed by the advantages of being able to test any Meyer box in a very rudimentary test rig and know just by looking at the mag trace whether it's working properly or not.

-Russ