Ringing out Feedback in a Microphone

[@jamesnjoroge8578]

You don't use channel EQ to eliminate feedback. Use the system EQ for feedback removal and then channel eq to set channel tone.

[@deepwatervideo]

Hey James, you make a good point! I now often start with system EQ for this issue (using a graphic equalizer). I have learned that many of the big problem spots are venue-related and will be the same across multiple mics. But there are a few things to keep in mind.
(1) If the problem is coming from an individual microphone that is more prone to feedback, perhaps due to where it is positioned on the stage or its specific build (condensers are always worse), you can end up really messing with your overall EQ curve just to fix one mic. Let's say you have to cut 1K and 2K by 10dB each to stop a condenser mic from screaming... those changes will then affect everything in your mix. Maybe worst of all you will lose presence on your vocal, which may have sounded great before. In any case, you need to know your equipment and what is causing the problem.
Condenser mics are always worse than dynamic mics, and they usually have a pretty decent frequency response (not too much tone shaping needed with them), so using the channel EQ may be a better choice for those mics. Whereas, if an issue is shared by multiple vocal mics, it would be better to use the system EQ.
(2) Related to number 1. If you are troubleshooting sudden feedback, rather than messing with your overall mix, it is often better to target in on the mic that's having problems.
Finally, I'll say a well-tuned system and well-treated room will eliminate most of these issues.
Kind regards,
Josiah

[@michaelandreas2177]

@@deepwatervideo Have you ever tried a white noise generator to tune out room modes in the system EQ before connecting any mics? And then using channel EQ to handle feedback through individual mics?

[@deepwatervideo]

@@michaelandreas2177 The room in this video was untreated. Pink-noise and feedback suppression helped a great deal! We were able to get a decent curve for pre-recorded sound (tracks, videos, and other music, our electronic instruments, etc.). The placement of the speakers and mics, however, made certain mics much more prone to feedback.
In other words, we had a choice between keeping a good sounding curve or adjusting the house for these few microphones. What I have ended up doing lately, is using a graphic EQ on a bus for our live vocals. And another graphic EQ for our two wireless packs. This works really well.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Josiah

[@petruciucur]

What mean channel EQ vs System EQ ?

[@TD-gv7jl]

You mean GEQ

[@Alphagosney]

This was helpful in finding ringing frequencies however if you do it like this you are shorting yourself of multiple bands to make that mic EQ sound better

[@stnkeyez1672]

100% agree, which is why I would personally use a graphic EQ instead, so then you can save the parametric EQ for the singer’s voice.

[@mexstrat96]

Much better to use graphic on the bus eq instead of Eqing it out of the mic channel. This dude has it wrong

[@stnkeyez1672]

@@mexstrat96 agreed, that’s how I do it too.

[@deepwatervideo]

Hey Adam, Luke, STNKEYEZ, you all make a good point! I now often start with system EQ for this issue (using a graphic equalizer). I've learned that many of the big problem spots are venue-related and will be the same across multiple mics. But there are a few things to keep in mind.
(1) If the problem is coming from an individual microphone that is more prone to feedback, perhaps due to where it is positioned on the stage or its specific build (condensers are always worse), you can end up really messing with your overall EQ curve just to fix one mic. Let's say you have to cut 1K and 2K by 10dB each to stop a condenser mic from screaming... those changes will then affect everything in your mix. Maybe worst of all you will lose presence on your vocal, which may have sounded great before. In any case, you need to know your equipment and what is causing the problem.
Condenser mics are always worse than dynamic mics, and they usually have a pretty decent frequency response (not too much tone shaping needed with them), so using the channel EQ may be a better choice for those mics. Whereas, if an issue is shared by multiple vocal mics, it would be better to use the system EQ.
(2) Related to number 1. If you are troubleshooting sudden feedback, rather than messing with your overall mix, it is often better to target in on the mic that's having problems.
Finally, I'll say a well-tuned system and well-treated room will eliminate most of these issues.
Kind regards,
Josiah

[@Emkaiii]

I usually take feedback out from the “Dual/Stereo EQ” in the effects menu, works better for me🤷🏾‍♂️

[@danieleduca1241]

And using the graphic one also gives more control than just 4 bands

[@djftfour6251]

Thank you so much for this video, very educative.
Please I still need help

[@xzibit8614]

Problem is there’s limited channels, so this won’t work on say, 12 mics

[@deepwatervideo]

Hey @Emkai, @Daniele Duca, you all make a good point! I now often start with system EQ for this issue. I've learned that many of the big problem spots are venue-related and will be the same across multiple mics. But there are a few things to keep in mind.
(1) If the problem is coming from an individual microphone that is more prone to feedback, perhaps due to where it is positioned on the stage or its specific build (condensers are always worse), you can end up really messing with your overall EQ curve just to fix one mic. Let's say you have to cut 1K and 2K by 10dB each to stop a condenser mic from screaming... those changes will then affect everything in your mix. Maybe worst of all you will lose presence on your vocal, which may have sounded great before. In any case, you need to know your equipment and what is causing the problem.
Condenser mics are always worse than dynamic mics, and they usually have a pretty decent frequency response (not too much tone shaping needed with them), so using the channel EQ may be a better choice for those mics. Whereas, if an issue is shared by multiple vocal mics, it would be better to use the system EQ.
(2) Related to number 1. If you are troubleshooting sudden feedback, rather than messing with your overall mix, it is often better to target in on the mic that's having problems.
Finally, I'll say a well-tuned system and well-treated room will eliminate most of these issues.
Kind regards,
Josiah

[@noelbulls8628]

So you sacrifice the eq for the channel strip to cut feedback? Sound to me like you need to re eq the house again. Cutting feedback at the channels is no practical. Get a DBX drive rack and use the feedback suppression in it. There’s only so much gain you can have in a venue before feedback. Get your gain structure set first then check. Pink noise to around a comfortable level 85 DB is a good place to start. You be surprised how well this works.

[@danielalexis9409]

Hi Noel, I am curious to find out how you would use the DBX drive rack with the X32.

[@noelbulls8628]

@@danielalexis9409 Hello Daniel. Is very simple connect the main out from the x32 normally output 15&16 and feed the input of the DBX drive rack . Then distribute the outputs from the processor to the PA system. There are plenty of videos here on you tube on that subject. Hope this helps cheers.

[@deepwatervideo]

The room in this video was untreated. Pink-noise and feedback suppression helped a great deal! We were able to get a decent curve for pre-recorded sound (tracks, videos, and other music, our electronic instruments, etc.). The placement of the speakers and mics, however, made certain mics much more prone to feedback.
In other words, we had a choice between keeping a good sounding curve or adjusting the house for these few microphones. What I have ended up doing lately, is using a graphic EQ on a bus for our live vocals. And another graphic EQ for our two wireless packs. This works really well.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Josiah

[@knurdstudio5027]

Thank you!!!!

[@TheD_R_G]

Anyone find that you could do this, but once you get all mics going on stage, they exhibit totally different freq problems?

[@deepwatervideo]

Yes Ryan, that is a key observation. This will often be the case especially if you are using a limiter or compression on your main bus. Frequency issues also will change when you have a full house. (I think in the video my room was empty.) People will actually act as sound absorption.
The biggest thing that will help you with this is getting the right equipment and ringing out your room. The Behringer X32 has a great user interface to do this, but you will have to check your board to see if it has a similar feature. th-cam.com/video/Kez1LIHbevY/w-d-xo.html
Ringing out your room deals with most venue-based frequency issues, which will help you get to a better starting point for mixing. (Actually a good mix is near-to-impossible without doing this first) The only caveat to the above video is that you don't always want to aim for a perfectly flat response with pink noise. Often venues aim more for a curve with higher bass, lower mids, and mid-to high treble. This is a good area to consult an expert. You'll pay for it, but if they do a good job, it will be worth the investment.

[@nicknovak1352]

Q is the same on every board. It's a mathematical equation to quantify the bandwidth.

[@deepwatervideo]

@nicknovak1352 this is generally true. In my understanding, Q is the ratio between the primary frequency that is being adjusted (let's say 1000Hz) and the bandwidth of the two frequencies that are affected by half as much (let's say 500Hz and 1500Hz are affected half as much as 1000Hz). In this example, the bandwidth between those frequencies is 1000Hz, so the value of Q would be 1.
However, some plugins deviate from this rule (or have different harmonic material that they introduce). There is also the issue of "constant Q", which means the value of Q changes (visibly or invisibly) as the gain is increased. It is always best to use your ears.
Kind regards,
Josiah

[@seanaltairmarino588]

thanks for this videos

[@Smooveg25]

Is it a way to use that last EQ to ring out the monitors? I would love a video on that…

[@deepwatervideo]

It will be a similar technique for ringing out monitors. One more thing, if I could echo the feedback of those in this chat, you will want to use a graphic EQ as opposed to a 4 band channel EQ like the one I used in this video. It is usually best to reserve the channel EQ for tone if you can swing it. Other than that the process is the same!
Kind regards,
Josiah

[@hydroviperking]

What if I need to cut a 5th note?

[@deepwatervideo]

Hey HydroViper, see @James Njoroge comment for thoughts on how to deal with this. A few options:
- It may likely be your system EQ needs adjustment because of a bad room. You can use a multi-band EQ inserted on your mains bus to fix that. Maybe look up some videos on how to ring out your room...
- If it is a condenser mic that is especially sensitive to certain frequencies, then it may be a good idea to insert the same multi-band EQ on that channel individually. I have had to do that with choir mics.
Blessings,
Josiah

[@jirehbenyamin3953]

im really curious because I'm also new with live mixing,
why dont you use one band and cut with big spread like Q 3.0-5.0 (it could cut 4k-6k with one band)

[@deepwatervideo]

Hey Jireh, there are certainly times to use a smaller Q and cut a large band. ESPECIALLY if you are mixing in a bad room, or working with a recording that was done in a bad room. You will often find areas with a ton of unwanted frequencies and if you only have 4 bands to work with, you need to get the most possible done with each EQ move.
But Shlomo G is right, it is often better to subtract less overall, so that you don't end up messing with the natural tone. If you can ring out your mic with one or two thin bands, it will sound more natural overall.

[@mdcoker]

thanks for this video, but is this the same as mic eq?

[@winulff7082]

Yes, this is the mics eq

[@deepwatervideo]

Hey Muyiwa, this technique is used for dealing with spontaneous feedback issues, especially with more sensitive mics, like condenser mics. Normally, the channel EQ is used more for shaping tone and helping instruments sit together in the mix. There are some great videos available on that from channels like th-cam.com/users/recordingrevolution

[@qddk9545]

That was a nice video, but you are wrong about Q which is the same on all devices, and completely specified. A Q of 10 is 1/4 of an octave and Q3 is approx. 1 octave bandwith.

[@deepwatervideo]

@QD DK, that's interesting, I have found it to be different on at least on a few plugins, but very cool that there is a standard. I didn't know.

[@samuelopara8641]

is better to insert a graphic eq, and use the parametric for normal tone eq.. but thanks this was very helpful

[@qddk9545]

No it is not, you will cut to much freq. that needs to stay.

[@deepwatervideo]

@Samuel Opara, good question!
I now often will use a graphic EQ for that reason. QD DK is right that the graphic EQ will cut more than needed, but it does free up your parametric for tonal eq. It also kind of depends on how many effects slots you have to work with. I am often mixing 10-20 channels live and have 4-6 slots used up with my basic/necessary effects.

[@BM-ie8ur]

Great 👍🏻

[@cherrichapman4751]

Crazy

[@MyJaxJingles]

Perfect

[@danieldubon95]

Nice!!

[@SaschaB82]

Dude, use a graphic, not the channel eq. 🤦

[@deepwatervideo]

Agreed @cliptester1, I have started using graphic eq's for this more frequently (almost exclusively)!

[@SaschaB82]

@@deepwatervideo I don't mean to be a dick about it, but the advice in this video is bad mate, consider updating the video to your new use of graphic eq to help control eq.

[@JREDING01]

HA HA HA

[@JREDING01]

,NO