EQ the monitor system or not?

[Ren Man]

I hate to bring up the subject, but what's the consensus regarding EQing the control room monitor system(s)?
A long time ago I dismissed the idea altogther. On one hand there were folks saying EQ introduces all kinds of problems, that you should address the real problem with proper room acoustics (which is what I've tried to achieve); then in the next breath you hear (many times the same folks) saying to EQ the monitor system.
I understand that you may want use EQ to compensate for some inadequacies in the monitors themselves, but aren't you creating as many problems as you're solving by introducing EQ into the signal path?

[djui5]

It's not whether to EQ or not..it's what EQ to use. All high end rooms have EQ's on the monitors, but they aren't the rack mount rane graphic eq's either. They have systems that the amp's run through and the EQ's are set via a computer and a test mic with pink noise. Graphic rack mount EQ's generally aren't the best idea for a high end monitoring situation. I'd recommend having a good acoustican adjust the playback of the room...

[joeq]

a recent thread here on gearslutz
here

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by djui5
...All high end rooms have EQ's on the monitors...

Actually not that many today compared with 20 years ago.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by djui5
All high end rooms have EQ's on the monitors, but they aren't the rack mount rane graphic eq's either.

Not all of them (Unless you count crossovers as EQ...).

[djui5]

I was mistaken, my appoligies.

[audiothings]

it seems that mid and high frequency problems can be reasonably easily corrected by (relatively) simple modifications to the room and setup. however low frequency management can be a more complicated issue.

a mastering engineer i spoke to a while ago told me about a 'white' (?) monitor eq. with tens of parametric bands only for the bass frequencies...

anyone know anything about this?

self.

[Fletcher]

There are several schools of thought on this... many of them even correct.

Obviously, you try to build the room as well as can be built, and you try to match speaker components as closely as possible... but at the end of the day, there are going to be differences, and there are going to be anomalies that you just can't plan for with a room...

Under 250Hz, you're generally talking about architecture as a remedy, though there are some band-aid's you can put on the headwound, like additional trapping, less trapping, Helmholtz resonators, etc... it's all a matter of budget and space.

My rule of thumb has always been that nearfield monitors are nearfield monitors and shouldn't be EQ'ed...

Soffit mounted main monitors should be mounted in the wall so they get the best response possible when coupled with the front wall [I have found this process usually takes at the very least a couple of days... you can't just throw the damn things in the wall and call it done by any stretch of the imagination]... bass trapping and outter shell design should be done to best control the modal responses of the room, and the associated reverb times of the room... but at the end of the day, no two drivers are ever really identical, no two compression drivers are identical, nor are any two ribbon drivers... so... a little EQ here and there [on soffit mounted mains] is often a good thing.

One other element is that soffit mounted mains are more often than not the "client happy speakers"... I happen to like rooms that were designed so the "bigs" are actually useable [I have actually been in a half dozen or so where this was indeed the case!!]... as you play speakers loudly, their voicing will change as the drivers fatigue... EQ can help compensate for that fatigue allowing the speakers to have a longer life span between reconings and re-diaphragming, etc.

There is something about a freshly tuned set of mains in a well designed room that is just a magic event... sorta like it's really better than the first time you buy Cocaine in Venezuela for $10- a tablespoon... better than buying street heroin and finding that a single bag can take you right to the line of turning blue... but not over... it's just one of those little plusses that can make the day so much more pleasant.

please note that the original analogy was actually a much better analogy to which I would hope more people reading this could relate... but as it contained reference to sexual activity I was asked to change it... I complied

[Ethan Winer]

AT,

> tens of parametric bands only for the bass frequencies ... anyone know anything about this? <

Yeah, it's a very misguided way to approach this problem!

See the other thread linked above in which I explained these issues in detail. Also, if you get Electropnic Musician magazine, my article in the current issue explains all of this in even more detail.

--Ethan

[joeq]

when a sexual metaphor achieves the level of Poetry, as Fletcher's did, I think it should be exempt from the censors

[MIKEHARRIS]

White Instruments.of Austin Tx..long since deceased..was the Eq of choice "in the day"...using the 4000 series with plug in crossover for the Westlake Style main monitors (equiv of Augsbergers today)....these systems now utilise the XTA or BSS digital crossovers...but tru fanatics have convinced Wyn @ Avalon (and other tweaks like him)to do some custom things...

[MIKEHARRIS]

and White Built 1/6 octave graphics (with rotary controls)

[Ren Man]

Thanks for the great input offered by all. The thread provided by joeq also brought up a lot of good points. As with most topics there always seems to be valid arguments at both ends of the spectrum, although there seems to be a concensis regarding not EQing nearfields.
I'm going to stick to my guns and stay away from EQing since I'm using nearfields and would like to have the best sound reproduction in as wide an area of the control room as is possible. I realize that there are compromises inherent in this choice.
I already have midband absorbers employed on the studio front wall and in a few other strategic areas in the control room. My main problem area lies in the lows, for which I've ordered 4- 20" Tube Traps to stack in the front corners of the control room. This should go a long way to smothing out the bass response. I think it's a good place to start at least.

[Bob Olhsson]

One of the funniest things I've ever seen has been the shocked look on a studio owner's face when the Whites got bypassed.

[matucha]

Everyone around, who did EQ the monitors, doesn't do that now. Even with not decent resonances in the bass, mixes come out better when there was no EQ and the "engineer" knows where the problems are.
You can always check your mix with some plugin taming the worst resonances, but don't let it sit there all of the time.

good luck

[Fletcher]

FWIW, there is a stereo 31 band graphic with a 3 band parametric made by a company called APEX that I found to be absolutely wonderful for soffit mounted mains... the parametric allows you to clear up "problem areas" while using quite a bit less of the graphic... but as always, YMMV.

[natpub]

Originally posted by Fletcher
FWIW, there is a stereo 31 band graphic with a 3 band parametric made by a company called APEX that I found to be absolutely wonderful for soffit mounted mains... the parametric allows you to clear up "problem areas" while using quite a bit less of the graphic... but as always, YMMV.

Checking the Apex product list, I do not see one like you describe:

http://www.apexelectronics.com/defau...4&p2=0&p_id=13




-KT

[barefoot]

DON’T EQ YOUR MONITORS! - soffit mounted or otherwise.

1. Low frequency room modes are spatially dependent. If you try to EQ for one very specific location, you make things even worse at many other locations. So, unless you want to mix with your head clamped in a vise, don't EQ. Fix your room.

2. At higher frequencies our brains make a distinction between the early sounds arriving directly from the speakers to our ears, and the later sounds resulting from room reflections. We give more weight in our perception to the early sounds, and they have primary influence on our decisions about spectral balance and imaging. Assuming your monitors are flat, EQ will wreck the early response and, therefore, adversely affect your decision making. So, unless your brain works completely differently from the rest of humanity, don't EQ.

Are there any situations where EQ is useful in a monitoring system? Yes, but they're rare. If the monitors themselves are not flat, then it might make sense to EQ. But you need anechoic measurements (independent of the room) to do this correctly. Another possible application of EQ is in the very lowest frequency range. I don't mean the modal range. I'm referring to the range where the wavelengths are large compared to the room dimensions. In this case, EQ is perfectly valid for tailoring the room response because there is essentially no difference between the direct and ambient sound fields. However, unless you have an extremely small room, this frequency range is typically below 30Hz, so it has very limited use.

Thomas

[jcc449]

Originally Posted by barefoot

DON’T EQ YOUR MONITORS! - soffit mounted or otherwise.

1. Low frequency room modes are spatially dependent. If you try to EQ for one very specific location, you make things even worse at many other locations. So, unless you want to mix with your head clamped in a vise, don't EQ. Fix your room.

Thomas

I might have to agree but also disagree with this.
first i agree, EQ won't fix the room problems.
If the room is having too much standing waves and bass boom, EQ won't fix any of it. Simply the frequency will shift as you move your listening spot.
but i also disagree because eq can help upon your listening habit.
No human ears have flat response for hearing.
In fact, some are heavy bass taste and some are heavy treble taste.
For that matter, you might want to EQ it a bit so you own't make bad judgement all the time. For example, my mix turns out to be more transparent after i attenuate my treble signals because my ears are highly sensitive with signals above 5K and always caused me wanted to cut more high end than i should.

[janjaal]

mmmm

in my studio, the room is treated, but i feel that there is a bit of hype in the lowend (adam a7x) in this room...

so i EQed the speakers, with an old analog 10 bands graphic eq (has no brand lol) just to test things out u no???

so i opened up a track that i know very well, and tried to eq my speakers to the levels i thought it should be...

i mixed 2 songs on EQed speakers and the mix results came out very well and were translating perfectly...

then i thought of upgrading to a real good eq to eq my speakers. i did a research and this topic came up, and i can see that WE SHOULD NOT EQ OUR SPEAKERS from the comments, then what are IK ARC systems and KRK ergo or things like these stuff are made for??? don't they EQ the speakers???

can someone clear my confusion???

[Kronos147]

Originally Posted by janjaal

so i opened up a track that i know very well, and tried to eq my speakers to the levels i thought it should be...

i mixed 2 songs on EQed speakers and the mix results came out very well and were translating perfectly...

Screw what anyone else says. It works for you!

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by natpub

Checking the Apex product list, I do not see one like you describe:
APEX Electronics: Quality Above All
-KT

Not that Apex.

[Franz]

I had big troubles for many years, trying to understand why my mixes never translated to the world outside. Diving into the subjects of room treatment and room EQ, I found that most people (especially on forums like this) are totally devoted to either EQ or room treatment. As usually the truth stays in between two arguing parts. Ethan and Glen are room treating fundamentialists. They, and many others believe that room treatment is the solution to everything. All other methods are wrong. The producers of room treatment software, on the other hand, are trying to sell a product that solves all problems with a wave of a magic wand! Let me be clear about one thing! I did everything I could for years, trying to solve the problems with my monitoring. I even went through depressions, couldn't work, couldn't sleep! I wanted moore than everything in the world to understand how it was possible to create a mixing/mastering environment that really gave me the "real" experience of what I was doing. And here is the conclusion I came up with. (And I have been happy ever since!) 1. You need to treat your room! Take Ethan and Glens advice on the basic facts. Build some bass traps in the corners, and make shure that the room doesn't ring, as good as you can. And place your speakers accuratley! 2. Meassure your room. Use ARC or any room EQ program and see what your room looks like. It will not be flat! Not even if you do everything in the book of room treatment. Not ever! But, if you have treated your room fairly, you will have no severe dips. Only a few peaks. Let ARC or any other good room EQ program deal with theese, and you will find that mixing and mastering is actually possible! However, if the meassurement curve looks weired, you must go back to treatment. This is my story, and I have truly become a believer in the happy church of room treatment, with some adjustment of a good room EQ-software. Not a very catchy name, and who wants to join the gospel of "everybody is wrong and right" anyway? People on Gearslutz will allways claim that THIS is right and THIS is wrong. Like in the big world outside! The truth is allways in between. Amen.