BillFitzmaurice.info

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:50 pm**

SethRocksYou wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:31 pm
Bruce Weldy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:34 amThat 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?
My speakers/system get set outside for my outside "flat" response - meaning set to the curve I like. I have driverack settings for my full system outside, my smaller setup outside, and one particular venue that where I mix monthly. So, I don't touch my driverack settings - I'm adjusting for the room and that's done in the mixer with GEQ and/or PEQ. Then that setting is saved for that band and that venue.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:23 pm**

SethRocksYou wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:31 pm
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.

While I've mixed on a lot of very large systems utilizing Aux-fed subs, personally I don't see the need unless you are providing a system to several bands that all bring their own sound guy.

If you are mixing out front - that's fine, but it is still additional setup and work. Some people say the reason for using Aux-fed subs is to ensure that nothing but Kick, Bass, and Floor Tom are in there.....well, that's what high pass filters are for. The other problem with Aux-fed is that you are typically using the GEQ as you low pass crossover. Unless your mixer has true crossover filters with steep curves, you are just getting probably a 12db/octave slope.

Now, some higher-end processors offer additional inputs/outputs that will allow Aux-fed subs to run through them, but with the driveracks that most of us use - you only get 2in/1out for a mono sub mix, thus there's no way to EQ the subs through the driverack and all of the Auto-EQ function goes out the window for any sub-100hz material (assuming that's the crossover point).

I have always subscribed to the notion that if I'm mixing the show and I'm running soundcheck, then I know my system is where I want it as far as the tops/subs balance, so there just no need to add the extra layer of work for using Aux-fed subs. Weekend warriors with systems the size that most of us here are using just really don't need it. Especially if you are running your own sound for your band off the stage. You have no idea what's happening out front when you turn up the bass or kick from the stage without the corresponding increase in the Aux for the subs. Now, if you are running a post fader aux for the subs, then you will get a corresponding increase - But.....why worry and go to the trouble. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.

All that said - I understand that if you are running a big system and everybody who will be mixing on it is demanding aux-fed subs - then you do it. But, in my world I'm a strong believer in getting the system right, get soundcheck right, then mix.....it's that simple.

So, the question might be - "Okay smartass - have you not ever encountered a situation where once the mix has started that you find the tops/subs a little out of balance? " The answer is yep - I have. And 99% of the time it's that the tops are outrunning the subs a little. I go to the Amp that's running the mains and dial 'em back one or two clicks and increase the overall volume at the mixer. It's rare, but I have done it a couple of times.

And I'll state again - I have no problem with Aux-fed subs......it's just that the majority of us out there doing shows with our BFM systems just flat don't need it. I will always keep things as simple as I can. My job is to make the band sound great - Aux fed subs do not make that any easier - it's just another way to do it that involves more setup and is one more thing that can go wrong......and a lot of folks on this forum are beginners and or intermediate level guys - so I'd suggest spending more time on learning the craft.

Once you feel like you've got it covered as far as knowing how to set up your system and mix, then jump into the more advanced stuff. Because if you have a system that's perfectly time-aligned, phase coherent, positioned perfectly, EQed flat as a pancake.......but you still can't mix.....it will still sound like crap.

Oh, and by the way......even though I'm older than dirt - I still learn new things about sound all the time. But mostly I've learned that the ultimate goal is to make it sound good with the tools at hand.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:43 pm**

SethRocksYou wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:03 pm
Grant Bunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:37 amYes, 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.

First time Power up default for the DEQ is flat IIRC. Using auto EQ with that will try to adjust cab response to flat, and, if indoors, to the room at the same time, or outdoors, to flat.
Yes, give it a target curve, and it's going to try to adjust to that with auto EQ

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.

Outdoors only, yes, that is what you might expect

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

You didn't quote everything though.
"tweak by ear" was in there as well, just as critical...

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:32 pm**

Bruce Weldy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:23 pm But mostly I've learned that the ultimate goal is to make it sound good with the tools at hand.

... and that's what aux fed subs are, another tool in the toolbox. Whether or not you need to use that tool is up to you. I need the ability to adjust the sub level from FOH without going on stage. I do sound for touring acts that come through town so every show is a new adventure. Could be 4 metal bands one day, folk the next, hip hop and then EDM DJ's the next. Often in venues I've never worked in before. Sometimes I can corner load, sometimes I can wall load, sometimes the subs are in front of the stage. Sometimes I only get a single 18" sub, sometimes I get 8 of them. I've had to do shows where I don't even know the genre until I get there, one time I set up for an EDM show and an hour before the show in walks 5 hip-hop acts wanting to sound check. Having the ability to get the low end balanced with the act from FOH where I can hear the changes saves me tons of headaches, especially when you have the act themselves at soundcheck saying up, up, up. Sometimes the EDM DJ's bass needs to go waay up but the electric banjo or guy playing piano on his guitar over top has too much (yes you read that right). I realize it isn't for everyone but sound guys should know that the technique is available if your workflow needs it. With digital mixers and saved templates there isn't anymore setup involved than stereo, I plug in my color coded patch cable from mixer to patch panel in the amp rack and go. The aux sends are already patched from the templates I have saved, no thinking necessary.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:36 am**

Grant Bunter wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:43 pm "tweak by ear" was in there as well, just as critical...

I would say that is the most critical thing to take from the whole conversation. Pleasing your ears should be the goal of sound, pleasing a graph on a computer screen because a rta mic said so even though the sound is like an icepick to the forehead is just silly. RTA's have done more harm than good since their inception. IMO the only use of an RTA is to quickly find a feedback frequency. For system tuning dual channel FFT's are useful in larger rooms but they take a lot of training to even begin to read the results. Your ears never lie, if it sounds good it is good, if it sounds bad it is bad. Sound is about your ears, not what a graph says.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:24 am**

SethRocksYou wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:41 am
CoronaOperator wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:38 pm ...Studio monitors don't sound very good.
Yikes!

Studio monitors are designed to help the engineer pick apart the mix and highlight the errors so that they can be corrected. They are tools the engineer uses to do his job. Your crowd doesn't need a magnifying glass on the errors of the mix, reproduce that at home, not live.

Posted: **Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:00 pm**

CoronaOperator wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:24 am
Studio monitors are designed to help the engineer pick apart the mix and highlight the errors so that they can be corrected. They are tools the engineer uses to do his job. Your crowd doesn't need a magnifying glass on the errors of the mix, reproduce that at home, not live.

Yeah... I don't know about all that. Designed to accurately reproduce the signal they're fed, sure. I'm fairly certain there's not any mumbo jumbo black magic in a studio monitor that makes anything more or less noticeable, or capable of highlighting "errors" more than any other speaker that's EQ'd flat. I haven't done a ton of studio monitor shopping, but I've perused from time to time. I don't recall ever reading that sales pitch. Sounds like a good one though.

Posted: **Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:22 pm**

CoronaOperator wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:36 am
Grant Bunter wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:43 pm "tweak by ear" was in there as well, just as critical...
I would say that is the most critical thing to take from the whole conversation. Pleasing your ears should be the goal of sound, pleasing a graph on a computer screen because a rta mic said so even though the sound is like an icepick to the forehead is just silly. RTA's have done more harm than good since their inception. IMO the only use of an RTA is to quickly find a feedback frequency. For system tuning dual channel FFT's are useful in larger rooms but they take a lot of training to even begin to read the results. Your ears never lie, if it sounds good it is good, if it sounds bad it is bad. Sound is about your ears, not what a graph says.

Here's the thing about that... what I hear changes. It's highly subjective and comparative. I read a statement on here a year or so ago, I don't remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of spending a couple minutes dialing in just the right amount of reverb until they were completely satisfied that it was perfect... then noticing the reverb is muted. I've done similar things. Adjust something, oh yeah much better. Oops, that wasn't the main mix it was an Aux. Musicians will say "hey I need more of this or that" and they see me working behind my laptop and say "oh yeah, that's much better, thanks" before I've even made any changes. If you think you can repeatedly create the same sound by ear time after time, I think you're kidding yourself. But, maybe repeatability isn't really important? What do the big guys do when the huge major band has to sound a certain way at various venues all over the world? Do they wing it by ear too?

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:19 am**

SethRocksYou wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:22 pm What do the big guys do when the huge major band has to sound a certain way at various venues all over the world? Do they wing it by ear too?

Good Lord, no.......they use very high-end processors to map the room taking measurements in several locations depending on which line array they are steering where. Certainly, the final adjustment is based on how it sounds, but there is a lot of technology to ring out the room. Lake Processors, Rational Acoustics SMAART software, etc.....

However, in our typical two mains stacks and a group of subs - software can be useful to find problems quickly - but often the setup time and noise you have to make in the venue makes it hard to use. Nothing wrong with using it, but don't ever let it become a replacement for your ears.

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:48 pm**

Yeah, that part was kind of rhetorical. If, for whatever reason, it doesn't sound good, then it doesn't sound good. Kinda falls in the category of obvious. Personally, if the RTA looked good but the sound did not sound as expected, I'd want to know why. What's going on? What is it that's causing the issue and how can I identify and avoid it in the future?

I've used the calibrated mic and RTA to EQ my system for about 3 outdoor shows and have never had it "sound like an icepick to the forehead", as CO puts it. Always sounds pretty good, but perhaps CO has had other experiences.

I have used it indoors a few times too and had mixed results which I expected... room attributes, speaker placement, mic placement, and listener placement. One time, just having the bassist and guitar player switch spots put smiles on faces for rehearsals.

Obviously listen. However, I find it hard to believe "sound like an icepick to the forehead" would show up as a pleasing graph on an RTA. Who knows? Maybe it could. I haven't seen/heard it firsthand, maybe some of you have?

Icepick to the forehead for me is morons who push their system into distortion, " 'caus that's how ya know it's good-n-loud". Not say'n anyone here does that, just say'n that's what comes to mind.

I could be wrong, but I think some of you guys might find added importance in consistent and accurate sound reproduction if/when you start recording your gigs. My experience is minuscule compared to most of you and I've noticed a huge importance in just the small handful of experiences I've been fortunate enough to have. And I still haven't nailed the ideal solution, where the recorded mix adequately represents the live experience.

Like I mentioned earlier, if I'm not recording, "sounds good" is totally good enough for me. Totally.

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:31 am**

SethRocksYou wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:48 pm

I've used the calibrated mic and RTA to EQ my system for about 3 outdoor shows and have never had it "sound like an icepick to the forehead", as CO puts it. Always sounds pretty good, but perhaps CO has had other experiences.
I haven't experienced that situation either. My biggest concern is that the Auto EQ sometimes leaves huge disparities with adjacent frequencies....I just smooth those out.

Obviously listen. However, I find it hard to believe "sound like an icepick to the forehead" would show up as a pleasing graph on an RTA. Who knows? Maybe it could. I haven't seen/heard it firsthand, maybe some of you have?
Nope, not me.

Icepick to the forehead for me is morons who push their system into distortion, " 'caus that's how ya know it's good-n-loud". Not say'n anyone here does that, just say'n that's what comes to mind.
Ha! That definitely happens on some systems. But, never on my rig. I have mixed on some boxes with cheap, crappy horns that get distorted very easily. Thus, I tend to like systems with lower crossovers on the horns, because that typically means its a higher quality horn.

I could be wrong, but I think some of you guys might find added importance in consistent and accurate sound reproduction if/when you start recording your gigs.
I often record snippets of shows that I do....mainly for the band to hear and see. But, you can't get too carried away with that being exactly how it sounded live unless you are using a high quality flat microphone. Video on my iPhone is pretty good, but I know it's hyped on the top end a little. Still a good way to get a clue about what your doing.

Like I mentioned earlier, if I'm not recording, "sounds good" is totally good enough for me. Totally.
That's the bottom line, isn't it? And it all comes back to starting with a good foundation before the first instrument is sound-checked.....and that's the point of this whole conversation - get the PA and the room right and rest gets easier.

I mixed a friend's band on a last minute call last Saturday. I didn't get to run my test song through the system and they had already line checked everything. So, my first move was on the downbeat of the first song. I immediately wished I could have tuned they system. I was doing some of that along with shaping individual channels - but it all would have been easier had I been able to do the proper preparation.....

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:46 pm**

Bruce Weldy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:31 am I often record snippets of shows that I do....mainly for the band to hear and see. But, you can't get too carried away with that being exactly how it sounded live unless you are using a high quality flat microphone. Video on my iPhone is pretty good, but I know it's hyped on the top end a little. Still a good way to get a clue about what your doing.

Next time I get a chance, I'm going to give that a try and use the RTA mic to record from the audience.

As it is now, the 2 channel mix (not to be confused with multi track recording the raw input signals) gets recorded post Channel Attenuator and pre Main Attenuator. So, any effects, compression, EQ, etc. on individual channels gets recorded and anything that's EQ'd into the PA and/or room acoustics is not captured. If I add EQ to the PA to make it sound fatter on the bottom, that change is not recorded. I'd have to make those changes on the individual instrument channels to have them represented in the recording. If the PA isn't essentially transparent (not boosting or attenuating frequencies too noticeably) what I hear out front and what's being recorded are two different things. It will never be right on the money 100% and I completely agree that I can't get too carried away with it being exactly how it sounded live (I have a show to run, after all

). However, I know I can achieve better results than I've experienced so far. Reasonably close is all I expect. That one time I mentioned was pretty awful. The show was good, recording sucked.

Totally gonna record it with a mic next time I do a land based show. That would make things waaaay easier.

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:59 pm**

I've always wanted to set one of these up at FOH or somewhere in the crowd to see if it actually sounds like I remember... https://3diosound.com/products/free-spa ... microphone

It's not exactly what they are marketed for, but if it worked, It would be a pretty easy way to capture the show.

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:00 pm**

I've always wanted to set one of these up at FOH or somewhere in the crowd to see if it actually sounds like I remember... https://3diosound.com/products/free-spa ... microphone

It's not exactly what they are marketed for, but if it worked, It would be a pretty easy way to capture the show.

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:35 pm**

That's pretty interesting Kevin. I've tinkered a bit with using condenser mics in a cross pattern to get a decent stereo image. But have only done it to help give a spaciousness feeling and the ability to "hear the room" to those using IEM's. It's been a bear getting my dad to put and keep both ears in. And when he doesn't (99% of the time) he complains that they're distorting. I couldn't figure out why they were distorting... until I put one in my ear to hear what he was hearing. HOLEY SH!T. He had them turned up so loud, I'm surprised we needed a PA at all. Gross exaggeration, but they were teenager loud. No wonder they were distorting.

Anyway, back to the point... I set up IEM's in stereo, but always do my main mix in mono. I'd be curious to hear both, a mono and stereo recording of a mono performance. Could be interesting.

BillFitzmaurice.info

What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: How to chase your tail

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: How to chase your tail

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: How to chase your tail

Re: How to chase your tail

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?

Re: What's to chat about?