What's to chat about?

[CoronaOperator]

I can't argue with anything Grant has said......but, in my PA world there just isn't time to worry about phase issues. The big boys get into an area 12 hours before showtime and have their high-powered Lake processors to properly time-align and EQ their systems.

Exactly, phase issues only show up at crossover points where 2 drivers share the same bandwidth. For a mobile PA system a quick polarity check of the subs is usually all you have time for, if I get to set up the day before for a show then I'll do the invert polarity and play with delay for maximum cancellation, then revert polarity alignment. These days I usually only get to load in at 8:30pm for a 10:30pm showtime - 3 truck loads of sound and lights. There isn't enough time for a bathroom break never mind other luxury's.

When I operated a club I had plenty of time to align the installed BFM system. I spent months tuning it and it sung like a song bird, adjusting and listening, then coming back a few days later and listening again and adjusting. The time spent was totally worth it as the system hasn't moved and is still in use but for a in and out mobile unit the time just isn't there to do that for a one night show.

I agree with Bruce on the other points except the auto-eq parts. Set up your system outside away from any reflections and tune it to sing there, use auto-eq as a starting point, then tune by ear. Spend as much time as it takes to get it right and then save that setting as a starting point for all the shows you do. Indoors there are too many reflections going on for auto-eq to work well. It will try and boost a frequency where there is a null from a reflection as it can't tell the difference from direct sound and reflected sound and peaks and nulls that result from that. It will do more harm than good, use your ears and adjust from your starting point. If tuning by ear at the venue seems daunting - keep at it, it will come. It is a leaned skill that comes to everyone with time. You will have enough critics (self proclaimed muso's in the crowd) to guide you. Once you get the hang of it you can then proceed to tell those critics to piss off.

[Seth]

Ultimately though, I want a recorded track to sound good with the system EQ and I've never found that to be flat.

I've had the same opinion about recorded tracks too and I've always found it weird, because their monitors are ideally EQ'd flat. (The people who produced the recorded track). At least the two studios I've been to affirmed that they do. If my system is flat, shouldn't I be hearing essentially what they were hearing at their mixing desk... for the most part?

And, if my system is EQ'd flat, it's essentially reproducing, to the best of it's ability, almost exactly what it sees at the source inputs without adding or taking anything away. For the last 3-4 years I've EQ'd the output as flat as I can in a reasonable amount of time and just adjusted EQ for specific instrument or mic inputs. The one time I ran short on time and had the subs a little hotter than the tops sounded fine at the show. BUT, the LR two track recording of the event had too little bass (instrument and kick) to really enjoy listening to.

I'm 90% sure the DEQ2496 auto EQ, EQ's to flat. I should read through the manual again and double check that.

I really do appreciate you sharing your experience Bruce. You're awesome I'd really like to hear from some of the other guys too.

[Seth]

I'm 90% sure the DEQ2496 auto EQ, EQ's to flat. I should read through the manual again and double check that.

Just read through it. Stock, it EQ's to flat. Although, I/you can specify a custom target curve too.

[CoronaOperator]

BUT, the LR two track recording of the event had too little bass (instrument and kick) to really enjoy listening to.

Most likely because the recording didn't have backline support coming from the stage.

[CoronaOperator]

If my system is flat, shouldn't I be hearing essentially what they were hearing at their mixing desk... for the most part?

Yes, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. Studio monitors don't sound very good. The Yamaha NS-10 is arguably the worst sounding speaker ever made.

[Grant Bunter]

Yep, I did it at least once, then had to go do lot's of reading to work it all out.
I can't remember where and when I found it, but I end up looking at a paper (a thesis dissertation for an Aussie university), which I can no longer find, discussing how both simple delay and EQ changes may end up being infinite because of alterations to phase response.
It made sense to me, and made me think more about phase.

Ok, we EQ pre crossover, we mostly accept that.
Then we say, for example, oh output X needs a tweak, we'll do that with an output parametric EQ. So we do that, and it sounds worse not better. Huh?
We altered phase, so we go baack to pre crossover EQ, and ...started chasing our tail.

Really, if EQ needs a tweak, do it pre crossover, with GEQ, PEQ, whatever blows your hair back, and leave it.

Honestly, sure, testing phase at the crossover point is a time thing. I try to always, but don't always get time. It's another thing you should know though.

Yes, a DEQ sets to flat with auto EQ unless you give it a target curve (the simplest target curve is made up by mirror imaging your subs and tops SPL charts in their appropriate band pass) then tweak by ear, then save as, say, "System Tune", the point as CO said, being the point you always start with from then on.

Is it an issue? Potentially.
Is phase response in any given cab addressed? It should be, at the design stage, and my understanding is that is when Bill addresses it.
Does it display itself in the real world? Yes, but we are more inclined to think it's a delay and EQ problem.

[Seth]

BUT, the LR two track recording of the event had too little bass (instrument and kick) to really enjoy listening to.

Most likely because the recording didn't have backline support coming from the stage.

Definitely not the case this particular time. There was little to no backline spill, nearly inaudible from where I was mixing from. Their amps were behind a partition (no line of sight to the audience), placed directly in front of the musicians on tilt backs aimed at their heads, outdoors, and the performers were all on IEM's... and the drummer was playing Roland TD-11 V-Drums.

It's simply due to the subs being too hot in relation to the mains. Had they been better balanced, I would have had to push the faders up more on those instruments to get a decent sound and the recording would have been better balanced.

[Seth]

...Studio monitors don't sound very good.

Yikes!

[CoronaOperator]

Definitely not the case this particular time. There was little to no backline spill, nearly inaudible from where I was mixing from. Their amps were behind a partition (no line of sight to the audience), placed directly in front of the musicians on tilt backs aimed at their heads, outdoors, and the performers were all on IEM's... and the drummer was playing Roland TD-11 V-Drums.

It's simply due to the subs being too hot in relation to the mains. Had they been better balanced, I would have had to push the faders up more on those instruments to get a decent sound and the recording would have been better balanced.

You are spoiled to work on quiet stages . Regardless of the lack of stage sound, if you need a good recording of the event - that mix needs to be done afterwords using a multitrack recording of the event or for live broadcast a split to another mixer in an isolated area or at the very least using very good isolated headphones. Add a few crowd mics added to the mix for a live feel.

[Bruce Weldy]

If my system is flat, shouldn't I be hearing essentially what they were hearing at their mixing desk... for the most part?

Yes, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. Studio monitors don't sound very good. The Yamaha NS-10 is arguably the worst sounding speaker ever made.

Two subjects here......

Seth, you are correct that studio monitors are essentially flat. However, in a studio, you sit fairly close to the speakers, so your balance of highs and lows are consistent. However, in our world we are in a much bigger space where its takes more bottom end to get to our listening position typically - thus we tend to use an EQ curve that enhances the bass to get it sounding good in the crowd away from the speakers......by the time it reaches us - it is probably getting closer to the flat curve that the recording started with.

Studio monitors that are used for tracking and mixing are designed to sound really good in the studio space. The NS-10 has always been used as a reference point for checking mixes to see how they play on lesser sounding systems/speakers......kinda' like an oversized Auratone (we never had any NS-10s, but we did have Auratones in our studio). It would be very rare to see NS-10 as the only monitors in a studio - but they are still definitely sought after for the important job they do. Enough so, that I recently saw another manufacturer building an NS-10 clone since Yamaha quit making them.

[Seth]

You are spoiled to work on quiet stages . Regardless of the lack of stage sound, if you need a good recording of the event - that mix needs to be done afterwords using a multitrack recording of the event or for live broadcast a split to another mixer in an isolated area or at the very least using very good isolated headphones. Add a few crowd mics added to the mix for a live feel.

That's exactly what I did. I multi-tracked the raw individual inputs as well, along with left and right crowd mics and re-mixed them later.

[Seth]

Yes, a DEQ sets to flat with auto EQ unless you give it a target curve (the simplest target curve is made up by mirror imaging your subs and tops SPL charts in their appropriate band pass)

I'm positive, if someone set a target curve for the auto EQ as a mirror image of the response chart, that's what auto EQ will try to create.

On the other hand, if someone didn't use the auto EQ and set the EQ to mirror image the response chart, it should result in an RTA that's close to flat.

I'm also fairly positive that's what you meant to begin with

[Seth]

Seth, you are correct that studio monitors are essentially flat. However, in a studio, you sit fairly close to the speakers, so your balance of highs and lows are consistent. However, in our world we are in a much bigger space where its takes more bottom end to get to our listening position typically - thus we tend to use an EQ curve that enhances the bass to get it sounding good in the crowd away from the speakers......by the time it reaches us - it is probably getting closer to the flat curve that the recording started with.

If I use a calibrated mic outdoors at the FOH position and EQ as flat as possible, wouldn't I have (nearly) the same consistent balance of highs and lows, at that moment at that particular position?

Asking purely out of curiosity and conversation, not intending to come off as a challenge or argument





What about you other guys? Anyone else use their calibrated mics and a target curve? What's your curve look like? Flat? Bumpy lumpy?



.

[Bruce Weldy]

Seth, you are correct that studio monitors are essentially flat. However, in a studio, you sit fairly close to the speakers, so your balance of highs and lows are consistent. However, in our world we are in a much bigger space where its takes more bottom end to get to our listening position typically - thus we tend to use an EQ curve that enhances the bass to get it sounding good in the crowd away from the speakers......by the time it reaches us - it is probably getting closer to the flat curve that the recording started with.

If I use a calibrated mic outdoors at the FOH position and EQ as flat as possible, wouldn't I have (nearly) the same consistent balance of highs and lows, at that moment at that particular position?

Asking purely out of curiosity and conversation, not intending to come off as a challenge or argument





What about you other guys? Anyone else use their calibrated mics and a target curve? What's your curve look like? Flat? Bumpy lumpy?



.

When I've used a reference mic out front, it's always been in the middle of the space and I always mix to the side. But it's still about the same distance from the stage, so your point is well taken. However, in my experience (especially outside) using a flat EQ setting will leave you woefully lacking in bottom end that will have to be made up with channel EQ.

Of course, it's not hard to compensate if you are running Aux fed subs (which I don't) - you just turn it up to make up the difference. So, really that should be part of the equation - are you running aux fed subs? Or, setting the EQ on the entire system and expecting the signal to the subs to stay static?

Bottom line is that either approach will work. I do it the way I do because I believe that it makes my job easier to have the PA's EQ where I'm gonna' want it before I ever start soundcheck.

I guess the way to find out what works for you is to EQ the system to flat and then listen. If recorded music is pleasing to you - then leave it alone. I've just never found that to be the case. That area between 100-250hz will always have a spot that needs to come down to take out the mud and usually a little bump around 60hz will fatten up the bottom for me...but, the spot that really makes things happen for me is typically in the 1k-2.5k zone.....finding the right spot to cut a little can really take the honk out of vocals and really clean 'em up.

It's really going to come down to you trying different settings and see what works for you. There are many ways to skin a cat in this job. But most importantly - train your ears. Play with the GEQ and move each frequency up and down to get a feel of what certain frequencies sound like - what they add when boosted and what they fix when taken away. And remember - always try to take out what sounds bad by cutting rather than trying to boost everything else to overcome it.

[Seth]

When I've used a reference mic out front, it's always been in the middle of the space and I always mix to the side. But it's still about the same distance from the stage, so your point is well taken. However, in my experience (especially outside) using a flat EQ setting will leave you woefully lacking in bottom end that will have to be made up with channel EQ.

I've found the same thing and have wondered, is this the sound that they were shooting for? Is it just my personal taste that likes it with more bottom? Is the recording maybe optimized for radio, or is it just that it's too compressed and I'm adding some dynamics back into it? It's all a guesses and I'm still wondering, why don't they mix them a little fatter on the bottom?

Of course, it's not hard to compensate if you are running Aux fed subs (which I don't) - you just turn it up to make up the difference. So, really that should be part of the equation - are you running aux fed subs? Or, setting the EQ on the entire system and expecting the signal to the subs to stay static?

Up to this point, I've just done the traditional mono 2 way x-over for tops and subs, output EQ'd flat (except for when I don't LOL), individual channel inputs EQ'd to taste, and put a high pass on everything at an appropriate Hz for whatever it is. Though, I'm going to try aux fed subs next time I get the chance.

I don't always record the performances and I can't see a downside to nudging the level of an aux fed sub output up a bit if needed. But then, conceptually, if I am recording the performance and want to have it be reasonably listenable, I think it would be better to make those adjustments in the faders and channel EQ. At least based on the small recording quality failure I had before.

Bottom line is that either approach will work. I do it the way I do because I believe that it makes my job easier to have the PA's EQ where I'm gonna' want it before I ever start soundcheck.

I hear ya about making it easier. The last one I did, I came prepared with the ref mic, but once I got it all set up and gave it a listen I called it good. Partially out of being lazy and knowing I wasn't going to record the performance, and partially because it did sound darn good. Just made small adjustments on the inputs.

I guess the way to find out what works for you is to EQ the system to flat and then listen. If recorded music is pleasing to you - then leave it alone. I've just never found that to be the case.

Me too. Wonder why that is? I've just made up for it on the input EQ.

That area between 100-250hz will always have a spot that needs to come down to take out the mud and usually a little bump around 60hz will fatten up the bottom for me...but, the spot that really makes things happen for me is typically in the 1k-2.5k zone.....finding the right spot to cut a little can really take the honk out of vocals and really clean 'em up.

Do you find these to be pretty universal, or is it specific to "correct" the response of your particular speaker response?

It's really going to come down to you trying different settings and see what works for you. There are many ways to skin a cat in this job. But most importantly - train your ears. Play with the GEQ and move each frequency up and down to get a feel of what certain frequencies sound like - what they add when boosted and what they fix when taken away. And remember - always try to take out what sounds bad by cutting rather than trying to boost everything else to overcome it.

Thank you for the fantastic response and advice Bruce. More than just me, I think this conversation is possibly a valuable resource for others on their way up the ladder too I can't be the only one thinking this stuff.