Login / Register
 
Tuning the Room/System- The Right Way, The Wrong Way and Our Way
New Reply
Subscribe
GMK
Thread Starter
#1
12th September 2012
Old 12th September 2012
  #1
Gear nut
 
GMK's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 97

Thread Starter
GMK is offline
Tuning the Room/System- The Right Way, The Wrong Way and Our Way

Curious to know who the other live sound people here approach tuning the PA system and monitor system, and what their intent is (flatter system response, more gain before feedback, both?).

I've seen it done a hundred and one ways myself!
#2
15th September 2012
Old 15th September 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
jude's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,297

jude is offline
I tune so the PA sounds good with music i know well such as Jeff Buckley's everyone here wants you, and Mad World from the donnie darko sound track. after that a quick chat thru the vocal mic set up at FOH and the I'm good to go.

For monitors, its a case to the good old "Check one two" in the vocal mic, HPF on the desk channel and tune away on a DN360 until its sounds like my voice only much, much louder.

If its for a hiphop show, i make a point of cupping the mic to give "worst case" conditions while tuning
#3
15th September 2012
Old 15th September 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
jude's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,297

jude is offline
come on, surely there are others here that can chime in. Im keen for new ideas too. Speak up chaps
#4
15th September 2012
Old 15th September 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,650

fifthcircle is offline
I go for a system that is as linear as possible for the given space. Once you start scooping too much out to deal with feedback, you are effectively just lowering the overall volume. I've had some blisteringly loud systems that get that way because of a linear response. I usually will get the system to where it needs to be with parametric EQs as opposed to graphics (yes, monitors too).

I usually tune with music that I know well. I have a combination of classical, rock (that I've recorded) and world tracks that tell me everything I need to know.

From there, if I'm mixing monitors, I'll go around the system and find where the problem points are going to be- do I have a vocalist that is going to walk with a mic pointed down or a headset mic or ....

If I find a couple problem points (usually with monitors), I'll hit those with a 30 band graphic. I hate doing too much with them, though, because they are an easy way for the sound to go to hell quickly.

At the end of the day, though... I hate mixing monitors and try to avoid it whenever possible.

--Ben
__________________
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Long Beach, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
GMK
Thread Starter
#5
15th September 2012
Old 15th September 2012
  #5
Gear nut
 
GMK's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 97

Thread Starter
GMK is offline
I always double check with some programme music (Different for Girls by Joe Jackson!)
But I tend to ring the system with one 58 on stage first to get of those modey feedback frequencies as quick as I can. I often get about minus 10 minutes to tune a system for the band go on (they're quite casual about sound checks and such, unlike the venue owners! and Clientele who are always there while we set up!).If it sounds strange when I run programme music I try to compromise between the gain before feedback and linear response goals!
#6
16th September 2012
Old 16th September 2012
  #6
Lives for gear
 
hbphotoav's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: NashVegas
Posts: 1,629

hbphotoav is offline
I don't do "large" systems... but when I set up a room (especially gear I've not mixed through before) I run some AIFFs from the iPod (channel flat, of course) that each accentuate certain "problem" areas... Alison Krauss on "Crazy Faith" (the chorus has a strong vocal peak that lets me know if there's harshness around 2.5K) and Eva Cassiday on "Fields of Gold" (excessive sibilant sizzle in the upper-mids) and Chris Jones' "No Sanctuary Here" (to check for flabby sub crossovers and clarity between basso voice, the low string on the acoustic guitar and the bass fundamental) and Dan Tyminski with AK's "The Farmer Who Wouldn't Hoe Corn" (lots of midrange info between voices, fiddle, banjo and guitar) and Seal's "Killer" and Toto's "Dave's Gone Skiing" for huge percussion and electric guitars. If it's an acoustic gig, I'll add some Three Ring Circle (Andy Leftwich, Rob Ickes and Dave Pomeroy). Once it sounds right, we'll look at room nodes and primary mics and set some filters. I like to take 5-8 minutes... but can pretty well get where I need to be in 2-3.

Works for me... fortunately, most of the music I mix these days has the band(s) on IEMs, which reduces the headaches considerably.

I might add that "Dave's Gone Skiing" is very likely to bring smiles to the faces of whomever is in the room when it's heard at volume... myownself notwithstanding.

HB
__________________
Harry Butler
Photography • Videography • Audio Visual Production
www.harrybutlerphotoav.com
#7
16th September 2012
Old 16th September 2012
  #7
Gear nut
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 104

tacitus is offline
Since most of the live sound I do is for orchestras and concert bands outdoors, there isn't much, if any monitoring, and I always start with everything flat for FOH and work from there. Once I've got the speakers up I usually play something through the system while I'm setting up mike stands and have a wander round (obviously outdoors this is most important) to get the feel of the venue. I don't always use my 31 band EQ on FOH but if I do I usually drop the first few sliders (sometimes more) as I want to have bass but not mud. Outdoors, it seems to work better and waste less energy. And for orchestral music the bass needs to be even, not overpresent. When I'm using foldback, I take the same sort of line but cut more bass and some treble and focus on a smaller frequency range that's still flat. The sort of gigs I do mean that's usually plenty to get clearly audible monitors though it probably wouldn't work for everybody. The point is that it will be different for pretty well any situation. Even if you think outdoors is outdoors and that's it - it isn't. There's always a wall or belt of trees or something that makes the setup you used last time partially or completely invalid. I'm no physicist but if you look at sound as going out in lines until it hits something and is either absorbed, reflected or refracted you can usually work out what's going on well enough to be able to improve things.

Indoors, the big thing for me is using the audience to soak up the sound - it's what they're there for and I tend to think of them as a big sponge and aim the sound more or less at the middle and use the dispersion angle of the speakers to 'spread' the sound to the edges. Again, that science of squirting water at a sponge and it soaking to the edges is not the same as spraying sound on an audience, but it works most of the time in the sort of stuff I usually do.

I can't stress that what works for my situations won't necessarily work in a concrete bunker or anywhere else with totally different characteristics, or for all styles of music. You have to use your experience, and if you don't have that much, make up the shortfall with some quick thinking and common sense. Finally, as in most fields of endeavour, less is usually more. If it's not working, look at what you can simplify rather than what you can add. It's cheaper, and once you're tuned to that way of thinking, you will recognise the occasions when you really do have to make something more complicated for it to work.
#8
16th September 2012
Old 16th September 2012
  #8
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 197

ChrisJohnsonUK is offline
I mainly do larger systems and my theory is as follows:

First off, if you are working with top-end kit (and even a lot of mid-range kit) then we really don't need to EQ the PA very much anymore. Modern large scale SR systems are very good, and produce a relatively balanced sound out of the box.

What we do a lot of though, is applying EQ to the PA in response to issues in the room.

So my first port of call is listening to the system w/ an FFT package at hand (Smaart, EASERA, Tuning Capture... pick your poison) and assessing how the system behaves in the space, at multiple locations. I can then adjust the system to aim for a balanced sound (level and freq response) accross the whole audience space by adjusting individual elements of the larger system. Once this is done, I can then EQ the system as a whole to the subjective taste of the client (FOH Engineer, in some cases me).

What I tend to go for is what I would consider a typical large PA contour which is a 'flat' system between 100Hz and 10khz. A 6dB boost between 40Hz and 100Hz (subs) and a gentle rolloff of around 3-6dB between 10kHz and the limit of the system.

In general. Less is more. Applying excessive processing to the system can be detrimental to its performance in and of itself. Manufacturers spend a lot of money giving their systems the performance they have, I tend not to fight that, and pick the right system for the job in the first place.

For reference, when I say flat, I mean that what goes in is what comes out...
#9
16th September 2012
Old 16th September 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,719

edva is offline
For FOH, I use a combination of Fuzzmeasure sweeps, real time transfer capture with LAMA, old fashioned ringing out, with reference mics at multiple locations, and playback of familiar material. Then I will check headroom on the "money channels" for any feedback issues, and adjust if necessary.
I aim for a version of the "ideal" or "preferred" listening curve, basically rising 6db or so from the highs to the lows. If the "money channels" (usually vox) sound good without any channel EQ, except for hipass, then it's dialed pretty close.
I find most manufacturer default settings to be too bright and too aggressive in the high-mids, for my taste. I want a system that sounds musical, not clinical. YMMV.
__________________
_______________________________________________
Ed Billeaud - Snowflake Studio
___________________________________________
"Factory farming" is the worst and most horrible abuse of Animals on a massive scale ever devised by greedy humans. Please do what you can to help end it, and "laboratory testing" also. No living being should have to suffer like this. Thank you.
http://www.soundclick.com/edbilleaud
#10
12th November 2012
Old 12th November 2012
  #10
Just One More Mic...
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 182

cc14basketball is offline
Hey guys, I'm on the tour bus right now and doing this from my phone so it won't be too in-depth, but here are my 2 cents.

For FOH I start out with a song I know, and pop one in-ear in (shame on me) and leave one out and match the house and eat level until it is equal. I eq the house with a parametric eq until the track pfl'ed and the house are the same. I then bring up pink noise in the house (if I am lucky enough to have to room and time to do so, unlike festival situations) and make sure I have a linear response with an inverse-x filter in SMAART, and this ensures I have a smooth drop off on the high and low side of my system.

I have gotten to the point where SMAART normally doesn't tell me anything new that I didn't hear, but it is always nice to see, and it has saved me a few times with problem frequencies and harmonics I mis-identified.

Feel free to hit me up with any questions.
#11
12th November 2012
Old 12th November 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
Posts: 2,605

Roland is offline
The problem with "ringing out" systems is that the response beomes very non-linear and that effects everything else that you put through it, whether that is a DI or a drum microphone.

I can tell you one particular incident when I was brought in to mix an orchetra for an opera date. I turned up a day before the show and the PA company had been in for a couple of days rigging and running tests. For starters the rig wasn't really suitable for the job in that they coverage wasn't what it should have been. To make matters worse, they had got radios for the principles sounding reasonably good, but to achieve that they had used not only channel eq, but had "hacked" at the main output eq. I got them to put up a couple of CD tracks and the sound was so bad, it could only be described as "like an 80's disco".

Now if I had tried to mix the orchestra on that it would have been next to impossible. the owner of the PA company was a complete "ass" and didn't want to change anything so I had to wait for him to get out of the way and then sort it out. In the end we got a fairly good sound, but it was a lot of work.

Getting back to your original question, the first point of call is to make sure that the rig is suitable placed (or as best possible given a particular venue's limitation). You need to get the rig performing as linear as possible, things like SMAART can help here, but you have to know what measurements you need to take and why. Then subtle tweaks using material you know well and often (for me at least) a vocal mic for reference.

For monitors, again I try to get them sounding as good as possible, I usually roll off the bottom end as most monitors have a pretty poor LF response and usually there is plenty of low end on stage from FOH stage wash. The trick to monitoring is giving the artist what they need, not necessarily what they ask for. That's not to say that you don't listen to the artist, you do, then you interpret that to produce a balanced sound.

I've often seen drummers ask for BD, Snare, Toms even HH, the reality is that BD and Snare is often all they need, sometimes not even that. The more you put into monitors, the worse the monitoring often gets. Of course on larger stages and with Ears the situation is different, but what I am talking about usually goes for about 90% of gigs, that most of us do in the real world.

Remember, monitoring is there so that the players can hear themselves and the other band members and where they sit in the mix.

Good luck!
#12
17th November 2012
Old 17th November 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
jude's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,297

jude is offline
Hats in the monitors is a great request!
#13
13th January 2013
Old 13th January 2013
  #13
Gear Head
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32

Send a message via MSN to Timo Beckman
Timo Beckman is offline
I'm doing a lot of room tunings (better to say tune the system to the room) .
A good example is a post on my blog

Real world tuning @ a theatre

In this case i used SMAART because i was giving a short seminar to the lead house technician
#14
14th January 2013
Old 14th January 2013
  #14
Gear nut
 
elharley's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New York, USA

elharley is offline
This is my routine when out with a artist on tour and I am carrying a console, Lake and using locally provided racks and stacks.
The first thing I do is blow pink noise and pan L-R.
I am amazed at how many times the L does not sound like the R.
If I find a discrepancy I will point it out to the local system tech and work with him to try and remedy it.
Sometimes the problem gets fixed and sometimes it doesn't.
If the L-R sound similar I then proceed to Smaart the room from multiple locations.
I like to use a Lake with the Smaart bridge so I can see Smaart on the tablet as I eq.
After eqing the mains I will time align the subs and front fills.
When that is done I will play some music that I am familiar with and walk the room.
In an empty room I will pay particular attention to the front fills and the bottom boxes of the array. Places you can't easily get to when the room fills up. The Lake and a wireless tablet help make quick work of this. If it is a room I have not mixed in before I will ask the system tech what type of changes I can expect when the room fills up. I would rather pull out too little of a given frequency and then make a cut as the show starts as opposed to having to breathe a cut back in.
At some point you figure out what works for you.

My goal is consistency. I want to eq the system for the room and eq channel strips for instruments, vocals. The strip eq should not change much from show to show unless the artist does something drastically different. I regularly go back and listen to 2 track mixes taken from a matrix feed, pre Lake eq. These mixes should sound fairly consistent night to night as the bulk of the eq is on the Lake feeding the mains.

I realize that everyone has a different way of doing things and a different work flow, but that is works for me.
#15
14th January 2013
Old 14th January 2013
  #15
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 29

Bruce Reiter is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by elharley View Post
This is my routine when out with a artist on tour and I am carrying a console, Lake and using locally provided racks and stacks.
The first thing I do is blow pink noise and pan L-R.
I am amazed at how many times the L does not sound like the R.
If I find a discrepancy I will point it out to the local system tech and work with him to try and remedy it.
Sometimes the problem gets fixed and sometimes it doesn't.
If the L-R sound similar I then proceed to Smaart the room from multiple locations.
I like to use a Lake with the Smaart bridge so I can see Smaart on the tablet as I eq.
After eqing the mains I will time align the subs and front fills.
When that is done I will play some music that I am familiar with and walk the room.
In an empty room I will pay particular attention to the front fills and the bottom boxes of the array. Places you can't easily get to when the room fills up. The Lake and a wireless tablet help make quick work of this. If it is a room I have not mixed in before I will ask the system tech what type of changes I can expect when the room fills up. I would rather pull out too little of a given frequency and then make a cut as the show starts as opposed to having to breathe a cut back in.
At some point you figure out what works for you.

My goal is consistency. I want to eq the system for the room and eq channel strips for instruments, vocals. The strip eq should not change much from show to show unless the artist does something drastically different. I regularly go back and listen to 2 track mixes taken from a matrix feed, pre Lake eq. These mixes should sound fairly consistent night to night as the bulk of the eq is on the Lake feeding the mains.

I realize that everyone has a different way of doing things and a different work flow, but that is works for me.
good post. i was just going to reply and saw your post.
one thing to add especially for the "bigger venues" is to pay special attention to the low end. "tune"/listen to the pa with the subs off first and then follow the steps laid out above. once you are happy with the sound/response/room interaction then add the subs.
#16
14th January 2013
Old 14th January 2013
  #16
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is offline
Start with pink, make sure left is left, right is right. Mute out all outputs from the processor, listen to Lows left, Lows right, make sure they sound the same, and have the same output level, low mids left, low mids right, etc, high mids, highs. If the output level or tone isn't the same, I'll usually toss up Smaart, and set up a pair of mics in front of each side of the rig, same measured distance, use the meters to trim the output from the processor for each segment of the rig, or check for bad components...

Unmute everything but the subs, listen to the pink, left and right should match up at this point. Here's where it gets normal, I play a few tunes that I know very well, switch Smaart over to transfer function, and check the PA one side at a time. Listen to it, tune it to taste, which pretty much is always flat with a slight dip at 2.5, 3.15, and 4-5 depending on the PAs tonality. At this point all tuning is done with a parametric, be it on the desk, or Lake DLP. Obviously you ignore anything under 100...

Set the delay time for the sub vs mains with a track of click track. Let Smaart tell me the delay time for the mains, and then the subs, fill in the value. THEN I switch over to a sine, which is usually relative to the crossover freq, and make sure it's tonally working, might adjust it finely at this point if it's sonically not hitting right.

Go back to music, turn up the subs til it fits in to taste, and graph the subs if needed.

Repeat those last two steps for front fills, out fills, or whatever other satellite system there may be... Obviously your measurement point is relative to the coverage area and seating.



Grab the lead vocal mic, get it to show volume +5, and make sure it's tonally great, also make sure there are no points on the stage where it rings out at all. If there is, that's where the graph comes in handy, I might take the 31band and notch tiny bits here and there, if it's barely there, I'll notch it, and leave the graph off, and if it's needed during the show I'll turn it on...

That SHOULD be gravy.
#17
14th January 2013
Old 14th January 2013
  #17
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Deep Gap, NC
Posts: 266

hughshouse is offline
I generally work 300 / 1,000 seat small venues that fortunately have reasonably good acoustic architecture. We are predominately a Bluegrass show and use no percussion and have no "back line needs" with one exception. I use a PreSonus SL 24 console with lap top VSL that features Smaart and I-Pad remote technology. In our case there is very little if any primary sonic needs below 90HZ where floor noise and some annoying room resonance generally occurs. For this and other reasons I am prone to have a much smaller emphasis on the bottom end of the curve. If a room has lots of lower resonance or floor noise I will cut below 100 and use an amp on the upright bass that is tweaked to punch 40-100 hz. The sonic needs of the subject program must be considered before any adjustments are made. We have a KV2 ES system with EX10 warmers when we have to provide a full system and other than moving 13 100 lb boxes to and fro the set up is quick and very dependable. We use AE 5400 and/or AE4100 vocal mics and avoid any mic with a "presence curve" since we usually have between 10 or more open mics in use.
#18
14th January 2013
Old 14th January 2013
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Cover'd's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008

Cover'd is offline
We carry our own system from gig to gig. The majority of them have little to no opportunity to run pink noise etc (too many people milling about who would not appreciate being exposed to that!)

However, we do all that sort of testing and tweaking in rehearsal space so at least we know what to expect from the system and what we're aiming for. From there it's simply a case of using one's ears to determine whether there are any obvious resonant / dominant frequencies and then hit the PEQ on the Dbx Driverack to tame them

Most of the time though, simply balancing the subs and tops gets the job done just fine However, the fact that we don't use backline - all direct to desk - and triggered drums helps tremendously - even the monitors are simply fed the FOH mix - so the 'volume wars' and multi-mix challenges I read about engineers on here having to face are non-existent too. Happy days
#19
14th January 2013
Old 14th January 2013
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Andy Hamm's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 501

Andy Hamm is offline
I guess I'm old school, because I use tracks that I know for reference and my main vocal mic as a talk back and tune the system to my voice.

I do it a little bit differently than most people though in that I set up a basic gain structure for all of the mics on stage and have them all live when I do it. I really have never seen the point in just getting my voice sounding great through the system with no other mics on, as that is likely never going to happen during a show - except maybe between songs.

I also don't have any real super preconceived Idea of what I'm after when I'm doing this, I'm just getting it to sound the best I can with the system in that particular room - I don't expect every system to sound the same in every room so I just try to bring out the best of whatever situation I'm in at the time.

If I am using my own mixrack, I have the additional option of doing a virtual sound check, which includes stage monitors and the entire show.

My approach to monitors has always been to make them loud and sound good as they usually pollute the FOH mix. I'll then pull out odd frequencies that I can hear from FOH, even if they don't hear them on stage. Usually these frequencies get filled back in when I turn the house back on but if I get weird explanations of what doesn't sound right, I just sneak those frequencies back in on the weirdo's mix. I carry IEM's in my mixrack, but more often than not they are used in conjunction with stage monitors so I always have to deal with monitors polluting the FOH mix.

Soundcos and Venues will use RTA's to tune systems prior to my arrival sometimes, and I'm almost never happy with it. There are a few venues that I have mixed at that do this, and have the processor locked up someplace with no FOH EQ. It's not so bad now with digital consoles, with fully parametric EQs, but with an analog console I find it to be less than ideal.

I never use headphones. I guess I've learned to mix by manipulating both my console and the outboard gear to get the system to react in the way I want it to. I realize that some people want to have a flat canvas and have whatever is coming out of the console to sound pristine and 'correct'. This probably goes back to my roots of slugging it out in bars in the eighties in less than ideal situations, with less than ideal gear - so I came from the school of make due. I will frequently adjust my FOH EQ throughout the night, which seems blasphemous to some local techs, but it's just the way I work.

I have a group of friends who are all audio techs, we will often fill in for one another on different shows that are set up and running and not one of us approaches a mix in the same way. We all get our own sound differently and everyone usually gets a result that we identify as one another's mix (so I have an 'Andy Mix') so we can tell who has mixed the show before us the night before.

I guess what I am getting at is that I'm sure that there is a textbook way to mix that will get you consistent results night after night, and you can have a group of people all agree that it's done correctly, but I prefer mixing my way with my 'Andy Mix'.
__________________
http://www.fohdaw.com
S21
#20
15th January 2013
Old 15th January 2013
  #20
S21
Lives for gear
 
S21's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 866

S21 is offline
My low-rent approach is to start with pink noise on one channel. Sweep left and right to look for big problems.

Then bring up two channels of pink (two pink generators, not one that is split) one panned 9-ish left and one 3-ish right.

Walk around the floor with an averaging RTA looking for problems big enough to be worth fixing.

As I said, low-rent.
#21
15th January 2013
Old 15th January 2013
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
Posts: 2,605

Roland is offline
The problem with "old school" approach is that it ultimately is what it is all about, however, things like phase problems can only truly be sorted with tools like SMAART.

That being said, I see people taking all sorts of measurements with smaart and one major issue is that for all the measurements being taken there is little that you can do except play with levels, aim and placement/delay.

A lot of the problems that occur within venue's tend to be either reflections or resonances, both of which eq will not fix.
#22
16th January 2013
Old 16th January 2013
  #22
Lives for gear
 
ryanojohn's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: New York, New York

Send a message via AIM to ryanojohn
ryanojohn is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
The problem with "old school" approach is that it ultimately is what it is all about, however, things like phase problems can only truly be sorted with tools like SMAART.

That being said, I see people taking all sorts of measurements with smaart and one major issue is that for all the measurements being taken there is little that you can do except play with levels, aim and placement/delay.

A lot of the problems that occur within venue's tend to be either reflections or resonances, both of which eq will not fix.
The thing about Smaart is that all it does is show you what's happening. It doesn't tell you why...

Often people that use Smaart, just see it as a viewing tool for an EQ issue, but REALLY it's a tool to provide you information, with which you figure out what the problem is, the cause of said problem, and a solution, none of which Smaart does for you.
#23
16th January 2013
Old 16th January 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
Posts: 2,605

Roland is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
The thing about Smaart is that all it does is show you what's happening. It doesn't tell you why...

Often people that use Smaart, just see it as a viewing tool for an EQ issue, but REALLY it's a tool to provide you information, with which you figure out what the problem is, the cause of said problem, and a solution, none of which Smaart does for you.
I think you've misunderstood me, that's exactly the point I'm making. Of course it won't fix the problem, but phase issues and alike can be seen, measured and then changes can be made to reflect that, tested again to see if the issue has been corrected or improved.

" Old School" in as much as listen to the system and apply eq till it sounds as good as possible, is great, however, if the issue isn't a fequency banlance one, you won't be able to fix it, hence the benefit of tools like Smaart. Too often I've seen smaart deployed badly, 1 microphone 7-8ft in the air at FOH, it will give very limited and quite possible erronious information.

I read a very interesting article by one of the Smaart tutors that basically said there were two aspects to smaart and other similar systems, firstly knowing how to take the "right" measurements to get useable information and secondly, knowing what can be improved and how to achieve it.
#24
16th January 2013
Old 16th January 2013
  #24
Gear addict
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Calabasas, CA
Posts: 306

dboomer is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanojohn View Post
The thing about Smaart is that all it does is show you what's happening. It doesn't tell you why...
I'd phrase that a little differently. It shows you what you are "measuring". The info it shows is only as good as your setup and mic placement.
#25
17th January 2013
Old 17th January 2013
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,710

Samc is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
" Old School" in as much as listen to the system and apply eq till it sounds as good as possible, is great, however, if the issue isn't a fequency banlance one, you won't be able to fix it, hence the benefit of tools like Smaart.
How did engineers tune systems before tools like Smaart?

An experienced engineer can do a lot with his voice and a microphone that he understands...
__________________
Sam Clayton
#26
17th January 2013
Old 17th January 2013
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
Posts: 2,605

Roland is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
How did engineers tune systems before tools like Smaart?

An experienced engineer can do a lot with his voice and a microphone that he understands...
I couldn't agree more, and for many years that was the only option. My standard working method was to play tracks that I knew really well and a single SM58 for a vocal.

But I would also point out, when I started (and I think the same is probably true for you), live sound systems were bass bins, mid bins and top boxes. The first all in one systems like Turbosound TSM3's and Hill M4's and M6's were just appearing. In theatre's, stage sound was a colection of speakers running around the procenium, for PA events there were two stacks, one on the left and one on the right. Now for music shows there are line array's, central clusters, delay towers, sub array's, front fills. In theatre's all the best shows have localized delay systems and often surround feeds.

Even after Simming systems, it still comes down to an engineer taking a listen and making decisions on what does or doesn't work, the FFT tools only allow us to take measurements that can show us why things may or may not be working. In many situations things like Smaart are of limited use, but they are another tool in the arsenal, hence why it is so important to know what measurements you are taking and why.

I did a show with a system that had been installed last year, two main stacks, front fills and some flown cabs for the theatre circle. It was a "gun and run" job, multiple bands. The person responsible for doing the install had set up various delays on the Front fills and the flown speakers and whilst ultimately the show didn't sound too bad, the eq on both the mains and the channels was no where near as effective as it should have been. There wasn't any time for "rig tunning" and we didn't have a Simm system, but I suspect that there was some pretty major comb filtering going on that was causing the issues. If the rig had been properly measured it could have been even better.

You can always tell if a system is well set-up, small changes in eq, compression and levels are audible, bad systems (in my experience) are blunt and lack this type of subtlety. Of course YMMV!
#27
17th January 2013
Old 17th January 2013
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 692

museAV is offline
Another case where the answer seems to be "it depends" as what you are trying to do and what tools are available to you likely affects what you do and how you do it.

Beyond the fact that you are probably not tuning a room, what are you tuning and why? Are you tuning an installed system that might have multiple users and uses? Are you tuning stage monitors for a performance? Are you tuning the house systems for a performance? Are you tuning an input?

Are you tuning to make a system sound good with a certain genre of music or to maximize gain before feedback or to get optimal intelligibility or what? Are the goals subjective, objective or some combination?

What tools do you have available? This can apply to measurement tools as well as to the processing tools available. It's sort of pointless to try to address time and phase issues if all you have is a passive full range speaker on a stick, a GEQ and an RTA but on other systems that may be a critical aspect to address.
#28
18th January 2013
Old 18th January 2013
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,710

Samc is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by museAV View Post
Another case where the answer seems to be "it depends" as what you are trying to do and what tools are available to you likely affects what you do and how you do it.
In my opinion it's the experience and knowledge of the person doing the tuning that's most important...The tools etc come second, because in the wrong hands they won't do much.
#29
18th January 2013
Old 18th January 2013
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,842

Kaoz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
How did engineers tune systems before tools like Smaart?

An experienced engineer can do a lot with his voice and a microphone that he understands...
Yep, has always been my weapon of choice.
S21
#30
18th January 2013
Old 18th January 2013
  #30
S21
Lives for gear
 
S21's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 866

S21 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by S21 View Post
My low-rent approach is to start with pink noise on one channel. Sweep left and right to look for big problems.

Then bring up two channels of pink (two pink generators, not one that is split) one panned 9-ish left and one 3-ish right.

Walk around the floor with an averaging RTA looking for problems big enough to be worth fixing.

As I said, low-rent.
For me, the first corrective action for problems is to move/point/tilt speakers differently. This is probably only workable for small systems.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Remoteness / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
10
mavertron / Low End Theory
6
BLueROom / So much gear, so little time!
9
lofi / So many guitars, so little time!
17
thenewyear / Studio building / acoustics
6

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.