ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- in 2010 I released this video where I describe a method for EQing live reinforcement sound systems. The method is based on 3 EQs to optimize console recording, show to show consistency and logical organization to minimize redundant EQing.
I have found and added some additional footage discussing monitor system EQ and EQ cuts in general as well as cleaned up the audio and video.
An EQ method for achieving consistent sound. What do you EQ with the channel strips? What do you EQ with the system graphic EQ? What do you EQ with the system processor?
00:00 Intro
01:20 Where to EQ what
01:43 The channel EQ mic
02:27 System processor EQ
03:00 System processor/house EQ
03:14 Sonic Consistency
03:49 Recording outputs
04:35 Headphone reference point
06:00 System EQ
07:01 Comparative reference points
08:23 Channel EQs consistency and triangulation of sound
09:32 No system processer
10:12 Stage monitor EQ
11:12 Over EQ
12:37 Which EQ for what in monitors
14:10 Outro
Here is a link to the original version • How to EQ a PA System ...
If you like this and other videos I do, please join this channel to get access to more videos, early access to videos as well as to be able to join my weekly zoom chats:
/ @daverat
Also check out:
www.ratsoundsales.com/
ratsound.com/daveswordpress/
www.ratsound.com/
www.soundtools.com
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the tips Dave! Been working in a venue 6 1/2 years now, and your explanation of eq’ing the system is the best I’ve heard. Appreciate it brother.
🤙👍🤙
You’re a living legend Dave.
Humbled
That comment is an understatement.
🤙🔥🤙
Dave can’t thank you enough, great job to help people like me who can’t afford a sound engineering course
Awesome! 👍
I cannot thank you enough for this top notch material everywhere on your channel, hats off!!
Always enjoy your videos. Thank you for taking the time to make them🙏🏼
👍
Thanks for this Dave! This video was huge for me back in the day, along with your mix strategy video.
👍
Helpful as always - logical, practical approach. Thanks Dave.
👍 thank you Curtis
I truly can't thank you enough! Your style of training/explaining is incredible. The "Rat" folder is where I spend most of my time on YT. Thanks again Brother!
Thank you Dana!
Always the pro with reliable advice. Thanks for sharing what you know and doing it well.
👍🔧👍
I watched the old version of this video years ago... thanks for sharing Mr. Rat.
Thank you and stoked the vid is still relevant
I don’t do sound in arenas or giant festivals. I only do a tiny little things. But this video is still incredibly helpful even for my small little shows. It completely changed the way I think and mix. Using this technique makes mixing much easier and a lot more fun.
Thank you that makes me so happy!
Great explanation Dave! Top content as always.
👍
You're a wealth of knowledge Dave! Big thanks!!
👍👍
Thanks again Dave, keep the videos coming. 👍🏻👍🏻
👍👍👍
I remember watching this back then. Still relevant today!
👍
Thank you Dave so much for sharing your knowledge and experience. Although courses and qualifications exist for audio engineering, this has always been an industry where experience is king. Most people have to apprentice in a studio or in live sound for years to learn these skills. You and many others sharing their experience online is so valuable for those of us who either volunteer or do this kind of work on the side. Thank you so much!
Thank you Malcolm!
Very good points! Your videos are the most useful!!!
🔧👍🔧
The teachings of Master RAT!! Thank You for you endless wealth of wisdom Master RAT!!!!!!!!
👍
Very many thanks for this video Dave. I'm starting out on the process of learning the sound engineering side of small live performances. Your video has really helpful, and timed beautifully! Cheers!
Thank you Darren!
@@DaveRat Hey Dave, I hope you're keeping well. So, I did my first live gig last Thursday. Two singers, two acoustic guitars, and one Strat. The channel eq went well. I was amazed how much one needs to adjuts the levels over the course of a gig depending on the context though. I definitely need way more practice learning to work the system, and process eq, but thanks to your tips I put my best foot foward. In fact, the three of us secured future paid gigs from the pub. So, once again a BIG 'thank you'.
Hell yes!! Rock it up!
Always enjoy your vid's Dave... keep on!!!
🤙😃🤙
Basic and solid , thanks Dave ...
👍
Great video, thank you Dave for sharing this knowledge of yours! God bless you
Thank You AJ!
I love learning from you! Thanks a Million Dave! Someday i will thank you in person!
Super cool and thank you!!
Very helpful video great job and professional explanation
Thank you so much for the good explanation Dave and high from 🇷🇴 Romania
Hello Dove! And I look forward to returning to Romania someday!
Excellent, as always.
👍
5-6 minutes in and I have nodded my head "yes" to every point you've made, so far.
I'll take that as a good sign that I'm thinking of this all the right way!
Crazy thing, because I learned everything on the job with no prior education, and it just tends to stay in my head!
👍🤙👍
Yeah, this is how I operate and have for years. Very well explained, channel EQ for channel specific issues, system EQ for system specific issues. I don't know why so many people don't intuitively arrive at this way of thinking about it, but if I had a dime for every time I've seen a flat system EQ and 100hz set to -6dB on every single channel...
👍 yes, if you see ew patterns on all channels then you missed something in the system eq
You're the best, Dave!
Tank you!
One could play this video 50 years from now and everything Dave mentioned which is true today will be the same at that time. Well done.
Thank you thank you!
Thanks for this "basics" video. This "chain" approach to good sound makes perfect sense - I have always been interested in this process but I have never run into a situation where anyone wanted any help or wanted to show me their process. I'm not upset about it, and not interested enough to actively pursue it - I get it. Thought you might find this little story humorous.
I'll never forget this example, I almost laughed out loud when it happened. Here's the setup ;
Local, small, very informal acoustic jam session in a a good sized room (an old historical USO performance hall)
- very small, simple sound board, no monitors , 3 mics at most, 2 powered PA speakers
- very few volunteers to help and half of them were performing half the time - the biggest effort was just changing mics
- typically no more than 15 people in the audience (some of them were going to be participants) - I was somewhat familiar with the organizers
- I know I could have been of help - asked the two guys "running the show" if they would like some help while they were performing ..... wait for it ...... "we need someone to sell soda and popcorn in the lobby" #@*?!. They were serious.
I truly understand all of the "members of the band" jokes.
Sounds about right!
best soundtech on youtube by lightyears
respect the Rat \m/
Thank you Aran!
Very useful. Thank you Dave 🐀 😎
👍
This is hugely helpful as I start wading into performing live. Many thanks!
👍
Good advice.
🤙🤙🤙
awesome advice
👍🤙👍
Thanks Dave
👍🤙👍
Hope some day I will get the opportunity to work with this legend...my hero in this industry
👍
I'm honoured sir
Great video 🙂👍❤
👍
Really learning a lot from these videos (thanks Dave for your generosity!) Regarding wedges (and this is obvious but helps to keep in the back of one's head as something to check...) it's important to know the polar pattern of the mics and position the wedges accordingly. I've made the mistake of placing wedges directly behind Beta SM58As when they should be 120 degress off-axis for maximum rejection, then sheepishly crawling in front of the performer to move it after they indicate they need more level and there's no way that's happening without me castigating myself in front of the sound gods (and audience) to move the darned thing. Also, some stages (small venues especially) are literally hollow plywood boxes themselves and are a major source of low end feedback (wedge -> floor -> mic -> wedge). In these instances, placing packing blankets (or whatever is handy) under the mic stand(s) and moving the wedges off the front of the stage (stealing some dance floor) or placing them on blankets too, can make a world of difference.
th-cam.com/video/53-E8nUN7xM/w-d-xo.html
@@DaveRat Dave, "awesome" is an overused term, but you're a freaking awesomely creative dude. Respect! 🙏
Hell yes and thank you
Solid advise!!!
Or sound advice?
Cool cool!
Thanx!
🤙🤙🤙
Thanks Dave.
Thank you Dan!
Would love to see how to to integrate a vocal pedalboard into the mix of a live show or rehearsal room, and I remember that you told me that you did a vocal pedalboard for Perry Farrel. Thanks for the video!!! A fan from Argentina.
Yes, built Perry efx rig way back.He is so unique I don't see doing a vid on it though
You are wonderful.
I came here looking for tips on eqing my bands little bar/club PA. Feel like I've learned a lot more than I can use with my system
Excellent!
Good thinking here. I do have an exception to this I wrestle with all the time. I work a medium sized venue that isn't acoustically sound. It's been engineered with acoustical treatment and fills throughout the venue to try to even the sound out and it's well-tuned. The issue is that the place can't handle a lot of sound pressure in the room without feedback from the mains and because of the size and shape of the stage it differs depending on the location of the individual microphone. Additionally I have choirs or orchestral sections whose microphones function as more of an array. I make it work, but it's less than ideal and I typically have to use channel EQs to mitigate feedback.
Sounds like some sound absorption above, behind and to the sides of stage is in order
@@DaveRat I'd absolutely love to do that, and we have gone some way towards it. The stage isn't walled in as much as it's out towards the center of the room with balconies above and below on three sides and a moderately open area behind. It's an architect's dream but somewhat less than a good dream for a sound engineer.
👍
Thanks so much for these explanations Dave! I recently started doing sound in a very nice jazz club and one thing that always makes me a.bit uneasy is dealing with feedback. I've come to the point now where I know where (more or less) the nodes in the room are so I'll keep an eye out for those frequencies but ringing out the monitors and the pa still seems a bit of a hit and miss. I'm using a Midas M32 and end up with huge dips in the graphic for the mains with some going down to -10db which doesn't look great but it sounds good. It would be great if you could do a video on how to properly ring out mos and the pa in order to have a preset for the room. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge!
I have a ringing out pas and monitors video on my list of adventures. Cool cool and thank you
@@DaveRat amazing Dave, looking forward to it.
👍
Nice 👌
🤙🤙🤙
Amazingly insightful! Also, where is the join button on your channel for memberships? Can’t seem to locate it anywhere.
Cheers!
Hey hey Matt! Welcome and thank you. As far as the join, check in the vid description for a link. I think the join does not show on some mobile devices.
Else, check from a computer and please let me know as if there is an issue, I will work on it.
Thanks
👍🤙👍
Awesome!
I had often heard about giving each instrument/ mic, some "space" , where they aren't overstepping all over the same frequencies, or "mixing with eq". It really amazed me how distinct I could get each instrument to sound, and I noticed that my faders would end up pretty much straight across the board right about that time when I thought "stop messing with it!"
That point just before one might start over-correcting or the ears begin to lie. lol!
Was I just getting lucky?
results are what we seek and using headphones to compare your mix to a reference track during the show is useful for being sure you are on track
I wish I had access to this level of knowledge when I was doing sound for church. tbh I still want to get into the live sound engineer game again sometime
🤙👍🤙
Great video Dave. When it comes to "ringing out" wedges, at what point in your workflow do you do this? Do you run a CD through the monitors first and get that sounding nice, and then go on with an SM58 or whatever and and ring them out? And do you find it best to do your FOH system EQ first and then add monitors in after that? Lastly, do you do your monitor EQ'ing with the FOH PA on or off? I imagine having it off helps to isolate issues, but doesn't account for the combined effect of the system as a whole.
The two systems are seperate. Ring out mona, EQ mains and then if the pa makes the mo s ring, try to EQ those freqs from the pa first.
Another Dave Rat video! Even though it's technically an old one.
Love your work and your willignness to put out this info.
In regards to headphones, it annoys me greatly when you have other engineers who do good work criticize the use of headphones in the way you describe it - "why make a mix that only you can hear" or something to that extent.
Also question: is there any solution to LR busses with inserted graphics where you cannot PFL pre system EQ? Assuming of course no matricies are available.
Thank you Ryan!
beyond my level, but still, very helpful-ty much
👍
About the eq for anti - feedback on edge monitors i ve had that in the past and the higher a dummy expert that used 3 oct like you mention in video and finally the raise the gain to balance th einput and changed the overall tonality/processing line .After all was looks like normal to me just used a tight knoch filter like a pin eq on that specific vocal main tonality .In ear monitors of course not having this problem anymore.Anti-feedback eq look great to me if they have that kind of gear! . I would probably try to change necessarily the main pa eq if sound good or by the importance of the signal cause the problem .Rather sending a alterated signal lowering the problem ,because a feedback step in from a ring so (starting from there) using a send to mix monitors alterated signal make more sense to me ! Maybe is a misfortune main pa - room and some kind of wedge monitors that where prone to some rings! Whay should i fast tweek the main pa if it sound good !
It's important to have the speaker system set up right before you do anything else. These days, as you mention, the speaker manufacturer has usually already done this for you via a system processor. As I'm sure you recall, in the older days your speaker system processor was just a crossover. I've seen so many system EQs where everything between 300 and 2k are down 10db. This is a classic sign that the crossover could have been set better in the first place.
I always try to do outputs before inputs! If I have the right speakers in the right place pointing in the right directions with the right EQ and delay processing I can usually throw a good mix together in moments. Without that it's a struggle. I've definitely used spare monitors or utility speakers for centre fills or other audience areas out of the PA's throw. A simple fix that can set you apart in small and mid-sized venues.
👍
Sir you are a Sonic Philosopher !
brought me a little more closer trying to have a full proof workflow.
👍
I use pink noise to make speakers sound good. I play it on one speaker and the other speaker I key in a band EQ. Works perfect.
Things get more complex when doing left, right, outer left, outer right, center left, center right, and center. Using multiple pink sources allows you to measure the coverage and and transitions between various zones without comb filtering issues
"You're kinda screwed" made me laugh! I was thinking, "Damn, time for some Microwedges."
Ha! Yes!
Thank you Dave. 1. Can you talk about smiley face EQ and also, 2. what to do when you need to cut 500 ish hz on every vocal mic to get rid of boxy sound, and also 3. harshness around 1k to 2kz.
I'm not Dave Rat, but this is what I use a vocal group EQ for. I buss all my vocals to a group and insert an additional graphic EQ on that group. This helps me get additional control over global mic problems with the group para (although this definitely works best when you're using the same mic for all vocalists), and there's an additional grab graph available for the dreaded "let me put on my cowboy hat" moments that can potentially induce feedback with unplanned-for early reflections.
🤙🤙
Hi Dave! I'm usually a hired audio guy for churches. My concern is, most mixers I see have only 3 band para eq with fixed frequencies per strip (low, mid and high). It has no sweep-able frequency especially in the mids. Is it ok to work on the rest of the frequencies on a 31 band eq? Thanks in advance! I love your new updated video!
Yeah, use the tools you have to get the job done. And if you dont have enough EQ on the strips, then ya got to do the EQing elsewhere and request a new console too!
Classic!
👍
Nice Sennheiser 416, got a few of them too…
🤙👍🤙
Digital consoles have parametric EQs on their outputs (in addition to GEQs). I like to use them instead of graphic EQs (rarely you run out of PEQ bands and need one or two of the GEQ bands), both for FOH and monitors. My venue actually has some Klark-Techniks outboard analog PEQs collecting dust... they would have been a game changer in analog days!
A very new thing for the highest end digital consoles is EQ on channel sends. So instead of just being able to EQ the channel before it goes anywhere, or EQ an output, now you can EQ what a channel sends to a particular output. So for example you could notch out vocal feedback in a singer's monitor but keep their full range in other outputs, while also preserving the frequencies of OTHER instruments in the singer's monitor. In other words you're not killing a guitar or keyboard tone to stop the vocal from feeding back, which is what could happen with output EQ notches.
I actually toured with both Meyer CP10 parametric EQs and BSS 1/3 oct graphs as my house EQs. I would use the CP10 parametric's to tune the PA to the room for soundcheck and leave the graphs flat, then during the show, use the graphs to fine tune for the impact of heat and room sound changes due to people and such. So basically adding a 4th layer where the parametrics eq the room/system combo and the graphs eq for the constantly changing variables.
@@DaveRat That's an interesting workflow. With a digital console I guess you could either do that with the GEQs OR run your whole mix through an additional bus layer and use the PEQ for that bus as your in-show global adjustment EQ (if you really like PEQs like me).
👍
1k Likes (im the 1000th)
I will boost or cut, whichever gives me the sound I seek with the least amount of EQ.
Mic choise and placement to get as close as possible, EQ to fix whatever is left to be done tonally
@@DaveRat appreciate the reply Dave, always have looked up to you as an engineer since 2004 when I started learning about Audio as part of my careers. I've always been taught its better to get the right mic in front of the right instrument (or amp) and then adjust the system in the manner you describe. Always found the debate about boost vs cut amusing because the correct answer (and the most musical one) is to just make things sound "right" and then work on making each thing blend into the over all mix in the right place to get where you want to.
👍👍👍
Hey, appreciate the video, Dave! By ear (but without headphones), I've tuned a lot of systems via reliable reference mixes, and have gotten pretty good results overall...
I looked up the specs for the headphone models you mentioned... They don't look like they have the most flat responses across the spectrum, which makes me hesitate on buying either of them, unless you have good reason to insist regardless? Obviously my ol' MDR 7506 headphones would be even worse, but can't resist posing this curious question, considering they're somehow your basis nevertheless.
Also, I often have to do all the compensation for the room *AND processing for the system* through the board's GEQs. (I imagine that this is actually normal if the board's a stagnant/committed part of a particular venue's system?) I bring this up because I was wondering what the difference would be, as for how many decibels in total I should try to limit, when pulling out volume from a bunch of various frequencies in this alternate manner. I'd presume I should have at least a little bit more liberty on the board's GEQs, if there's no "system processing EQ" going on afterwards?
It's all about establishing reference points and correlation to them.
Flat response for gear is important but when you get to the transducers like mics, speakers and headphones it gets complex.
A razor flat mic on high hat may pick up puffs of air that result in large low frequency signals being sent to the mixer. The puffs of air are real but the fact that a high hat does not create massive low frequency signals is true as well.
So what the mic picks up is not necessarily the sound that exists.
Same with headphones. The output can be razor flat and yet if you set the headphones on the table, you hear just highs.
The freq response of headphones are extremely dependant on distance and depending on the headphones, dependant on the seal around the ears as well.
So, what really matters is
When you mic an instrument, does the mic/instrument combo sound like the instrument actually sounds or sounds how you want it to sound
Same with headphones or speakers. When signal is sent to them, does the reproduced sound mirror what it should sound like, what you want it to sound like or expose all of the frequencies you need exposure to to make informed decisions about the sound
@@DaveRat Wow, thanks for such a quick response! I guess I'm a little confused as for why the graphs would not be taking into account the stuff you mentioned (the small distance from someone's ear when they're being worn, or the type of seals and how they'd affect the sound, etc.) I understand that this is a complex topic; so, I don't really mind just taking your word for it that these headphones will properly translate everything (provided the gear is relatively transparent obviously)... I just wanted to be sure there wasn't something I'm maybe missing.
However, I'm still wondering how much more liberal you think I should be able to be in theory, when handling *everything* from the GEQs (that is both the elimination of any feedback *AND the tuning of speakers/room).*
I know you said that the limit should be about six 1/3 8ve bands (each being pulled down 6dB at most), *when using a GEQ exclusively for feedback elimination...* But I didn't catch you saying anything about how conservative you should try to be when EQing in the system processor.
Like I said, I don't have a system processor on any of the setups I'm dealing with--I have to do it *all* from the GEQs. Perhaps the conservatism doesn't apply, if all we're doing is adjusting frequency bands solely for getting a proper reference mix to translate closer to an ideal pink noise curve? In other words, is the conservatism important only when notching out any feedback that remained *after* the reference-mix tuning was done?
Dave.....At the beginning of this video you talk about using Channel EQ to repair abnormalities in the mic/instrument and using System EQ to repair speaker/venue. Later in the video, you talk about ringing out monitors and FOH where the guitar sounds great, but vocals feedback at 2k and you say to reach for the channel EQ. Which EQ should I be using to fight feedback issues (system or channel)?
If the feedback is on a particular channel, use the chanel, if the feedback 8s on multiple channels sending to the same speaker, use the EQ of that speaker. If the feedback freq is prominent on all or most channels in all or most speakers, use the overall system EQ.
Of course this varies depending on mains or mons but you should get the idea
blimey you had that chair for 10 years or more it seems to be doing well.
👍
Good day Mr dave I wanted to know the best way to replicate a high pass filter for an analog mixed that only has a high and low shelf and some bell curve for some frequencies
Dave I had a question for you about EQing without a system processor: the way we have our installed system set up, we run our speakers directly out of the console's matrix outputs and I have EQ and limiters inserted on each matrix output. In addition, I have graphics inserted into the Stereo, Mono/Center and Subwoofer main outputs (we run LCR plus subs). Do I use the EQ and limiters on the matrix outs the same way as the system processor for speaker correction and then use the master fader graphics as the venue EQ? Or would I use the matrix EQ as the venue EQ while also taking into account speaker correction?
Hmmm, the matrix eqs would be used to hear all the various speakers on each matrix send to sound the same and close to coreect So running punk and getting each some or area eq'ed similar.
The stereo eq would be to compensate to global room issues, temp changes and such.
Treat the matrix eqs like you would a system processor EQ and the stereo eq as the active show eq
@@DaveRat ahh gotcha. How would I balance the four graphics i use as the active show EQs? Do I just apply the same settings from stereo left and right graphics to the center and subwoofer graphics?
Can do, typically the center is not so loud and not shooting very far in most configs, so it's EQ shouldn't change much with room temp and such.
I treat subs as their own seperate entity.
Thanks.
In a very asymmetric venue do I need a dual mono system EQ or will stereo do the job? I think I do, but can it just be phase artifacts that really even out over the whole space?
System EQ playlist:
Cher - Believe
Communards - Dont leave me this way, So cold the night
Jean Michel Jarre - Equinoxe pt4 (I know, its an era thing)
Art of Noise - Close
Hmmm, mixing stereo where nothing is panned hard unless there is a different version of the same sound panned the opposite way works well
I'm always pressing for panning 3 and 9 o'clock on the banjo and guit to clear up the mix, but the other band members scoff at the idea.
Sorry if you've already covered this but what are some or your go-to reference tracks?
Hmmm, will ponder a test music vid
That would be interesting . ‘The Rat Collection’ CD! 🤪👍
@@DaveRat Or just a playlist if not video worthy. You're the man!
My favorite story about a speaker check reference track was the late, great Scottish sound engineer Gordon "Gungi" Paterson's choice - the Kate Bush song "Babooshka."
He'd be doing front of house for System of a Down or Judas Priest but the system check track was always Kate.
👍
Hey Dave! Great video I really enjoyed it! I have a question about the video if you have a minute: in one of your videos comparing different types of headphones you made a point that it wasn't just EQ that changed the sound across different brands and price points, it was their impulse response too. Is there a similar principle that impacts impulse responses in the room that could not be fixed with a room EQ on the board?
Yes. Differing sound systems have differing impulse responses and rooms do as well. The impulse response is pretty much "how fast can the speaker, or sound you hear transition from quiet/stationary to a certain level/displacement and then back quiet/stationary again.
So room reverb would be similar to drive ringing where even after the signal stops, the speaker or room keeps making noise. This can not be EQed out, as I am sure ya know
@@DaveRat Dave, so are you saying that I.R.'s ( does "convolution" = IRs ) are essentially the same as the dynamics/ transients of a sound?? If that's the case then are all of these fancy new I.R. loaders really just variations on a vocoder effect? I read in a music theory book a long time ago that sounds could be broken up into 3 primary components, Pitch/Frequency---- Volume/Amplitude--- & Tone or Tonality/ the unique character of a particular sound or its waveshape. The first 2 are relatively simple to understand but Tonality is far more complex & confusing, I've been under the impressionthat I.R.s were either related to copying the particular Tone/Waveshape of an amp/ effect/ revrb/ or space, etc. Or something with phase given the name Impulse Response. Sorry for all the questions these are some of the more confusing terms I've come across so far, your work is amazing & is helping a lot of people improve their skills myself included thank you very much!! ( I know there are probably several other minor details that make up a given sound perhaps phase or panning though those seem to be more artifacts of reproducing the sound than parts of it, would you agree or disagree about the 3 primary components of a sound?).
Hmmm, to simplify this chat.
The sound of a 10" speaker reproducing a kick is not the same as the sound of an 18" speaker.
Even if both speakers are eq'ed, and crossed over to reproduce the exact same freq response.
An SVT 8x10" will not sound the same as a 5x12" or a 3x15" rig even though they have similar surface areas on the cones.
1 big heavy speaker wi not sound the same as a lot of small light speakers.
Similar to how a light weight 4 cylinder car that goes 100 miles and hour will not handle the same as a V8 muscle car.
One will be agile and accelerate quickly and the other will have it's power at higher speed and burn through brakes quicker.
The ability to start and stop moving as well as the maximum output capabilities, are very dependent on moving mass and motor size.
This applies to cars and speakers and anything else that moves like airplanes and assembly robots.
All I have to say, is yes
Dave when you EQ with a reference CD, hour headphone and the speakers venue, it sounds good at YOUR position behind the console. How do you fix huge venue in different area ? being at front stage or way up in the back of a stadium isn't sounding different than what you hear at your reference point behind your console in the middle of the venue ?
Ideally, a properly designed and set up system strives to cover a venue evenly. That said, while setting up a system and EQing, one would do all they can to even out the coverage as well as take note of issues that can not be corrected with the system/venue combination, such as a bomminess under a balcony or lost low end for people way off to the sides.
Also, mixing from room center or on a riser puts the engineer in a position where the sound is less like the sound where most listeners.
Putting reference mics located in areas of concern that go an analyzer, can be helpful for staying aware of sound in various places. As does wandering to hear the sound in other places than the mix position so correction can be made, is wise.
@@DaveRat and I just thought that an empty venue vs a venue full of public must also affect frequency response ! thanks for the precisions !
👍
I'm in a situation where I have a quality computer, and can run low latency monitoring straight through my Pro Tools, Ableton, etc in a live scenario.. Wth a mastering chain and all the individual inputs, I can now run an all virtual mix, using the mastering chain to compensate for any room or system problems. Obviously the fear is relying solely on the computer. Any thoughts? Have you digitized?
32x32io
Hmmm, I have always a oided mixing purely in digital, that is a question best answered by someone else
i run FOH/MON for a touring band, unfortunately i don't have a console at FOH, we have a rack with a M32c+DL32 which i remotely control with mixing station on my touchscreen laptop, i could have headphones with an IEM transmitter but currently don't have the budget for a decent one.
when it comes to tuning the mains i usually play a song i know very well(type o negative, love you to death) while walking around the venue and just go from there with the built in 31band GEQ, after that i bring up the DCA for the whole band, 99% of the times i only have to fix a couple levels and we're ready to go, i have yet to find a better way to get it right fast
👍
Powerful Jedi is Master Rat, Powerful Jedi!
Awesome! Humbled
Great video.
I usually do small rock shows. Mixing the channels with headphone will cut off the natural sound that comes from the stage - from the drums, amplifiers, monitors, and acoustic instruments.
Do you ignore this when you mix, EQ and balance the band with your headphone? Is it negligible related to the FoH?
As a video guy, please, whatever you do, always include guitars and bass in your mix for speakers. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten a board feed and there's no guitar or bass in there because of how loud the guitar amps were on stage.
Hello Niv! So I use headphones as a reference for insuring the room sounds similar to the PFL of the instruments. Also to compare to a recording. The goal is not to mix in headphones and ignore the room sound any more than it is to mix in the room and ignore the headphone sound. The goal is to get the two as close possible to each other. And have both the headphone mix of the band, and the room sound of the band sound tonally similar to a desired recording of the band or similar music.
The way we perceive sound can change from day to day. If you are tired, have a cold, just off a plane flight, hung over or are 30 shows into a tour, our perception of volume levels and tonal balance will drift. If you mix a show after plane flight, you will tend to mix brighter and louder. But, if you use an SPL meter to mix to the same volume every day and you match the brightness of the PA system to the brightness of the same recording and to the brightness of the pre-house EQ console outputs, you can learn to mix the same brightness regardless of whether your personal hearing has drifted.
You need to request a separate feed from the main PA mix. Or request the recording feed rather than the main PA mix feed
@@DaveRat I'm traveling from city to city filming shows, so I'm always at the mercy of the house sound engineer - who has to do mains...and monitors...and stage tech...and lighting (and would probably be pulling beers as well if the venue owner had his way.)
I know you're not a big fan of digital consoles, but I do love the ones that have built-in multitrack recording, that way I can get a stereo feed, record with a pair of mics, and then be able to create a mix after the fact. But I've only been offered that a couple of times.
👍
I just manipulate energy, as the cure is inversely proportional. I use my ears to establish my point of reference, then match it throughout the system scientifically. I don't need SMAART to EQ, I only use SMAART to match. I also use SMAART to spot anomalies after I find my comfort zone. I can EQ an entire monitor system without SMAART, while never stepping out on the stage. For a good sound, we learn to layer the instruments throughout the spectrum. Dave's method for establishing a point of reference via a good set of cans is valid, but I like to just feel it.
Hey hey John! I like the feel as well. And also, I try to construct a method that works even when I have a head cold, came off a plane flight or anything that alters our perception of sound. Because what feels right changes. What seems loud on the first day of tour is not the same as what feels loud after a plane flight six months into a tour. So having reference points that do not have the human factor can be quite important.
@@DaveRat Good point. I have experienced various altered states, usually a flu, while on the road.
Ha! Flu, hangover, and the worst was scuba diving before a gig
@@DaveRat I went shooting years ago before a gig.... I was useless at the gig. (I am not a gun guy, per say)
Yeah, that would do it. trying to sort a reference method that would allow me to get close to the sound I seek, even if I was deaf, was a bit of a goal for me.
I think it's arguable that you can obtain a clear well balanced mix 100% of the time. Small venue acoustics determine what you need in the mix as well as the mix itself. Loud drums or even louder guitars 😁 are sometimes omitted completely, rendering the reference levels moot. What would you suggest as far as the system eq is concerned? Wouldn't the requirements (specifically frequency range) change?
Not sure I understand the question. What type of system EQ?
@@DaveRat system eq for very small venues where using reference levels like you described but producing an undesirable result (eg- too much guitar, etc).
@@DaveRat maybe a bit more info would help. My house sound gig. Around 300 capacity, full stack guitar amps get brought in regularly, and almost never get put through the PA (monitors yes, another story). Often other annoying instruments (snare, even overheads at times) are too loud, and only slightly reinforced by the PA. The end result is usually a very lackluster board recording that can sicken even the most tenured of ears.
Ahhh, to get a good board recording in a venue where certain instruments do not need to be reinforced requires a separate mix. Send all instruments to groups, dial up the recording on matrix outs with all groups sent, dial up the pa on different marix outs with 9nly the instruments you need sent.
@@DaveRat I did mostly field recording when I would record, a separate stereo mix is a bit difficult to achieve using a solitary board for mains and monitors. I just went digital at FOH, so that's a whole new ballgame for capacity to route and process. Thanks for responding, have fun out there!
Brilliant video Dave...can you give me the magical vocal setting with only a low mid high setting on my dynacord cms 600 no sweepable mid...myself and my female singing partner both use sm beta 58 radio mics...
Sadly I lack the magical ability to know sounds I have not heard
@@DaveRat lol no probs Dave...
👍
How would you know if a certain instrument / vocal is feeding back at a certain frequency?
One way is to put an real time analyzer on your cue bus and solo channels. Looking for the peak frequency.
Slightly turning down channels to find which channel stops or reduces the feedback can help
Ideally and over time, one just knows based on the way the feedback sounds and which inputs were most unstable.
Mics close to speakers feedback faster and far from speakers have a slower build up.
Also watching singers and seeing if feedback relates to specific motions or actions.
Or if feedback is triggered by certaing things like hitting a drum or whatever
Hey Dave, what's your take on sends to monitor wedges being POST Channel EQ, as opposed to being sent PRE Channel EQ?
This seems to be mixed response on those I've asked with many years experience.
For a dedicated Mon console, you would want the ability to EQ the mics going to mons. For mons from a house console, post EQ to mons can be an issue as EQ on the channel for mains can mess with mons and create feedback or issues.
So it's best to Y the mics into 2 channels and use one channel for mains and one for mons and then you have separate EQ and gain for mains and mons
@@DaveRat ah, I didn't think of Y ing the mics. I wonder if this can be accomplished with digital routing. I'll have to try it out. Thank you!
Yes, a digital Y is good too. Though often that links the gains and sometimes it's nice to have separate gain controls
@@DaveRat you are probably right on with gain sharing. Still neat to experiment and see what's possible. Thank you very much for the info.
Cool co Anthony and let me know how it goes and thank you for joining!!!
Nice Tangent 12x2 :)
I cut my teeth on a 24x4x2 back in the early`80s (F#&k me, I`ve been doing this for too long, but still loving it). Good sounding console as I recall.
My EQing method differs in that I use a variety of very familiar music to fine tune after the system drive processors have been tweaked by whatever means, SMAART, SIM etc.
There is always a very nice playback system at home that I use as a reference for that music. Get the PA sounding as close to the reference system as possible, apply some channel HP where needed, bring the channel up and your already in the ballpark.
As for the equalizers, it`s been my experience that the ISO center frequencies on graphics rarely if ever coincide with actual problem frequencies and bandwidths.
I feel that many engineers, monitor and FOH end up abusing graphics because of those shortcomings.
A 4, 5 or 6 band parametric is all that is really needed for many applications and it can address any issues more precisely. It is very easy to over EQ a system, you`ll just end up tuning the life out the program material.
👍
What about system EQ? You talked about flat response. But flat frequency response does not sound good. Or does it? :)
Hmmm, a flat response versus a EQing a system to flat are two differing things. A flat response is where "what you send tonally is what is reproduced tonally" Having a system with a flat response does not mean that the signal you send to it is flat, and therefore the signal it reproduces in not flat, the output should attempt to mirror the input.
Why does my in ear mix change during a set from too bright or to bassy
Hmmm, hard to know for sure but could be ear fatigue or cheap in ears heating up or other factors. Tuning a spare belt pack into an analyzer would be where I would start
Dave: This is good information - and you obviously know what you are talking about - and you are kind of famous in the sound reenforcement industry - but ironically, the sound quality of this "how to" video is terrible - One of the worse I have encountered on TH-cam - Please consider re-recording this "how-to" video while wearing a head-worn microphone. Pro audio microphone tip: For each time you half the distance between microphone and the source, you increase the signal to background noise by a factor of 4 - and in a live rig, greatly lessen the chance of feedback. I would drop the microphone now, but it's my Shure wireless microphone, so I'm not going to do that.
Yeah that video is old and I was just doing them as quick info idea sharing. One shot, no edits and idea to recording to upload the vid in less than an hour was my goal. Never thought a bunch of people would watch it and make my video recording endeavors to share info more complicated
How do you deal with feedback this is my current issue
Hmmm, I will try and do vid on that at some point
The part about recording is true for bigger venues, but not for small clubs where a big part of your PA has to be balanced with the direct stage sound, which makes an unbalanced output to the PA.
Record off of a separate matrix output that compensates for those imbalances
@@DaveRat MOS def! Really appreciated your tip about comparing with reference headphones btw. Just used it the other day and made much sense!
Excellent!!
Quick dirty trick: If you need to mix from the side of the podium, use some half closed or cheap closed headphones and use the leakage from the live stage balanced with the volume level from the console to get a pretty close idea of what is going on exactly on the FOH. It is usually pretty low, unless your headphones are really bad or open back hifi thingies It is a dirty trick, so, use at your own risk
Great content, but the audio is quite muddy from room resonance compared to the original.
Yeah, a side effect of removing all the background noise
@@DaveRat I understand, but to my ears some vocal intelligability has been lost in the process.
Noted and when listening on multiple headphones, after the background noise removal, I still heard a harshness that I EQ'ed out a bit. I will try leaving more of that in on the next one
Time for the digital version?
I think the basics apply stiil. I do have some expanded concepts on it that I will hope to share soon
@@DaveRat - The routing is sometimes mysterious....
Yeah, that's a hornet's nest I don't really enjoy enough to dive into
Were all of Dave's videos recorded in the late 90s and theyre just being uploaded in 2021????
Ha! I did a few re releases of old vids to clean up the audio and add some extra footage I found on a drive
@@DaveRat lol word. Really great stuff man. Ive learned so many practical things from your channel.
👍
As a guitar player, immediately eqing out the low end I add bums me out
Well it really depends on the sound system. The goal is to recreate the guitar tone and with sound systems that has several double 18 boxes or more, leaving in the low end of the guitar creates an unnaturally boomy sound that is not desirable
The sound system subs can typically recreate sounds that a guitar rig is not capable of doing and so eqing out the low end is important unless you want a very unnatural sound
@@DaveRat That makes a lot of sense! Thank you!
🤙🤙👍
That’s the price us sound engineers demand for when you play when we’re trying to sound check your band mates or not playing when we get to you and ask you to play something so we can sounds check you.
What would u prefer for live sound 2 way ,3,4,5 way?
Depends on the application, size constraints and volume levels needed
The more ways you do it 5 way vs 2 way then each individual driver will handle its frequency response better than trying to make a driver handle more than one frequency area
True and with a 2 way or 4 way, you can drive the lows hard into overload without distorting the clarity. But, with with each added way, you add a crossover and the driver interactions that create sonic issues. So it's a trade off. More ways gets louder but less ways can sound better.
@@DaveRat I wonder if a lot of guys do this they use the passive crossover in the cabinet which doesn't sound as good if you use specific frequencies and use an electronic crossover and let the drivers do less work in the frequency range I would love to hear your thoughts on this
@@DaveRat a lot of guys take a two-way cab with a 2 inch or 1 and 1/2 inch corn in a 15 and if they cross the horn over at 1.6 k and let the 15 do all the rest of the work that's a lot of work for a 15 inch speaker to do go from maybe 38 to 1.6 K if the frequencies are dispersed different drivers they might be able to do the job better with correct time alignment of course
The headphone mix almost never translates to the system mix. Mixing into the context of the PA and using headphones to troubleshoot problems that can't be pinpointed with the PA* is a much more practical workflow.
Perhaps there's another way to look at this and I can say from experience of mixing almost four decades everything from clubs to stadiums that this works.
If you involve headphones early in the tuning process and tune the sound system to sound like your headphones, Yes it's a bit tricky and a complex skill but can be done. Then the mix will translate to your headphones well.
When I mix I use multiple reference points to ensure everything is aligned. I know the way the mix should look on analyzer or I learn and know the way the mix should look EQ wise on the console and I learn and know the way the mix should sound in the main PA versus the sound of the headphones.
By triangulating the measurement software the mechanical knob positions and the reference point of the sound of the headphones, that will allow you not only to create a well-balanced mix but also to compare it to pre-recorded music in the headphones while mixing if need be as well as ensure their ears are not getting duller or brighter from day to day in the middle of a tour because you're using headphones and other reference points.
I've done several other videos on methods 2 establish reference points for worldwide Sonic consistency that may be of interest
More louder = more better. Always.
👍
FIRST!
👍