EQ for a smoother sounding Wedghorn....

[DAVID_L_PERRY]

This wedghorn is loaded with the Eminence Beta 8 (225w driver) and a 6 bank melded piezo array (2 banks of 3 1016 piezo's)

The standard wedgehorn has the ability to cut through loud stage noise un'eq'd with great results experienced by many on this forum.

If you also provide PA for quiter vocal based acts you probably don't need the cab to cut through, and natural sound of the wedghorn is probably not going to satisfy you, (howevor the build cost and weight still will...)

This EQ curve adjusts the natural honky horn loaded sound of the wedge and makes for a very smooth sounding vocal / acoustic/ keyboard sound, and creates a lot more sibilant clarity when it is required by the acts.

This is especially important if you are using the cabs at acoustic gigs, or quieter jazz gigs. Its important to hear clarity as well as simple volume.

Here is the eq adjustment:-


(I would also pass everything below 100hz to safeguard the driver.)

This EQ is fairly drastic, but will give you a super smooth vocal sound on quiter stages when that is what is required. Its mainly reducing the huge natural peak found in the wedgehorn in the 600hz region.

Knowing that the wedgehorn will sound honky, and a little unusual un eq'd is important as otherwise you may feel a little let down in your new build or think you have done something wrong.

Don't forget, if you are using the monitor to cut through loud stage noise, try adjusting the eq back or turn it off, as this is what many have found works especially well. For my needs I wanted the ability to provide both cutting power and sibilant clarity for quieter acts, and the EQ offers this second option

Dave

[byacey]

I know this is an old thread, but I thought I might add my experiences with the WH8. I agree with carving out the upper mid bump around 600 Hz, but I also found the need to tame the HF quite a bit due to the large 8 to 12K bump that the piezos produce.

In my opinion, I think it would be near impossible to use these without any EQ. In my attempts, I had feedback all over the spectrum map long before approaching any sort of usable stage level.

Placement is important, if not downright critical. I've had instances where everything seemed to be stable and fine, when all of a sudden I would get high frequency squeaks because one of the musicians moved slightly one way or the other in relation the the microphone / monitor. I think this is due to the wide HF dispersion; I may experiment with a non-melded array in an attempt to tighten up the HF pattern.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

In my opinion, I think it would be near impossible to use these without any EQ..

That's fine, because you're not supposed to. EQ is not optional gear in pro-sound, it's mandatory. Even if you have a speaker that has response flatter than Olive Oyl's chest EQ is still necessary to account for room acoustics and to deal with feedback.

[byacey]

How monitors sound are almost a philosophical discussion. If they cut through so the musician can hear, but they aren't comfortable with what they are hearing, it can affect how they perform.

An example is when I play violin on some gigs; if it sounds harsh and grating, it's definitely cutting through the din, but I can't stand listening to the sound I'm creating. This makes it hard to relax and get into making music, wincing over every note.

On the other hand, if the monitors are EQ'd flat and sound natural (read: pleasing to the ear), What I'm trying to hear may be lost in the wash. It seems there must be a happy medium between these two extremes.

The fact that Bill Fitzmaurice remarked that he starts with EQing his monitors flat, and then adjusts EQ further to minimize feedback seems to play down the idea of a monitor mix specifically tailored for "cutting through."

I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts from other people regarding this.