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 => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: Loren Jones on January 17, 2011, 10:04:16 pm

Title: Processing Question
Post by: Loren Jones on January 17, 2011, 10:04:16 pm
All right,

I was for the first time looking at the actual settings in our DBX 481 system processors at church.  Speakers are KF650z and SB600/625.  My question is this.

Is it standard to apply the manufacturer recommended parametric EQ settings on the post crossover parametric EQ's available in the driverack and then use the pre-crossover EQ (graphic or parametric) for tuning the system to the room?  I was curious because our system has some cuts and boosts on the pre-crossover graphic EQ and then has multiple parametric filters on each bandpass post crossover, but none of the applied parametric filters are the EAW recommended filters for the KF650z.

Just curious what is the usual method when using a procesor like the driverack 481 with a speaker that has manufacturer provided EQ settings recommended.  I would have thought that you would use the post-crossover EQ to apply the manufacturer's recommended filters then use the pre-crossover EQ to make whatever changes you desire to mate the system to the room as well as possible.  What is the usual method?

Thanks,
Loren Jones
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: Rob Spence on January 18, 2011, 12:49:37 pm
Well, there are certainly differing opinions on this but mine is that the DSP is part of the speaker subsystem and is used first to make the speakers work right.
In an install, I would expect it would also be used to make corrections for the room including timing and tone. For portable use, my use of the DSP is to align the speaker system and make corrections to make the speakers have as flat and uniform response as I can. It is installed in the amp rack and I don't make changes at a show.
I then use the graphic to make "artistic" adjustments for the show.
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: Keith Broughton on January 19, 2011, 10:42:00 am
Quote
apply the manufacturer recommended parametric EQ settings on the post crossover parametric EQ's available in the driverack and then use the pre-crossover EQ (graphic or parametric) for tuning the system to the room?

I think this is a good way to do this. You can then lock the system parameters and have a "user" or "house" graphic EQ available for the mix person.
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: Loren Jones on January 19, 2011, 11:16:32 pm
I was just surprised to see that the EAW recommended parametrics hadn't been applied.  I guess in the end though that the guys who installed/tuned the system placed the filters they needed to get the best response they could in our room.  Thanks for the responses.  I am just wondering out loud how much room for improvement there is in the EQ processing applied to our system.
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 20, 2011, 11:03:26 am
I was just surprised to see that the EAW recommended parametrics hadn't been applied.  I guess in the end though that the guys who installed/tuned the system placed the filters they needed to get the best response they could in our room.  Thanks for the responses.  I am just wondering out loud how much room for improvement there is in the EQ processing applied to our system.

With systems where the manufacturer has developed presets with the precision that EAW has you should absolutely start with those filters applied as specified. The speaker cabinet and the processing are developed as a system, to be used together.

After the manufacturer's preset is applied further eq should be one either with an external eq, or with the input eq of the processor. Individual passband eq should be left alone, as should passband delay.

Mac
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on January 20, 2011, 01:32:19 pm
I was just surprised to see that the EAW recommended parametrics hadn't been applied.  I guess in the end though that the guys who installed/tuned the system placed the filters they needed to get the best response they could in our room.  Thanks for the responses.  I am just wondering out loud how much room for improvement there is in the EQ processing applied to our system.
Just curious - were the manufacturer-specified parameters specifically for the DR480?  If not, differences in calculation and terminology can make different processors sound different.

I agree with the general consensus though - it's usually pretty tough to improve on the manufacturer's processing parameters, and many installations where that is tried end up worse off than just sticking with the recommendation.
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: Loren Jones on January 20, 2011, 06:10:33 pm
With systems where the manufacturer has developed presets with the precision that EAW has you should absolutely start with those filters applied as specified. The speaker cabinet and the processing are developed as a system, to be used together.

After the manufacturer's preset is applied further eq should be one either with an external eq, or with the input eq of the processor. Individual passband eq should be left alone, as should passband delay.

Mac

That was what I as a novice would have assumed and was surprised when I looked at the actual settings in our processors that it wasn't the case.  Perhaps I'll get some help from someone with some skills/experience and see if applying the EAW presets to each passband and then just using the DR480 input EQ to try to "tune" the system to the room makes a noticeable improvement.

Just curious - were the manufacturer-specified parameters specifically for the DR480?  If not, differences in calculation and terminology can make different processors sound different.

I agree with the general consensus though - it's usually pretty tough to improve on the manufacturer's processing parameters, and many installations where that is tried end up worse off than just sticking with the recommendation.

I guess I don't know but I would assume the EAW settings were optimized for their processors (MX8750, UX8800) but I don't know for sure.  I guess it wouldn't be for the UX8800 because anyone with these boxes and a UX8800 would use the Gunness processing.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts on the general consensus approach to this guys.

Loren Jones
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: Rob Spence on January 21, 2011, 05:42:43 pm
I just scanned over the thread and didn't see a statement of a problem needing to be fixed (I may have missed it)?
Why mess with it if it is working?
Title: Re: Processing Question
Post by: Loren Jones on January 21, 2011, 09:24:10 pm
Rob,

You are right, nothing specific is really wrong.  I've just been curious if we are getting the best we can out of our system or if there is any room for improvement by fine tuning system EQ, delays if any etc.  Also, there are no limiters implemented in the system processing.  I would think it would be wise to put that in place just to prevent system damage due to runaway feedback etc.  Nothing really that wrong just wondering if it could be better.

Thanks,
Loren Jones