Printable View
in a recent post that they had never heard any monitors in a home setting that sounded like they have heard in a professionally setup studio?
I have experienced this, and thought it may be worth an examinatoin of why this is; what's behind it, and what can we learn from it.
MBB
Nice post Mike
I know who, but I am with you and want to hear why too.:D
My own thoughts have to go with room design and equalization as 2 major factors. Figure the room/monitor combo would be designed from the start so placment of the speakers and the listenning position would have primary consideration. Also the room acoustics can be tailored exactly to what is required and lastly you have EQ to add subtle refinements you can't get or plan for in the room design. As far as EQ well the Pro's use it all the time. Its not perfect but when its done right it's transparent and certainly helps things out. I don't understand why it gets such a bad rap in a home setting???? Let's see what the others think.
Rob :)
Nor do I. Ignorance, IMO. Purists simply cannot bear the use of an EQ - they must have acoustical insight that defies measurement. RTA measurement reveals the "coloration" / acoustic influences the room imparts on the heard (observed) sound. To ignore/deny the benefits of removing that by EQ is, well, I already said it... :)Quote:
Originally posted by Robh3606
As far as EQ well the Pro's use it all the time. Its not perfect but when its done right it's transparent and certainly helps things out. I don't understand why it gets such a bad rap in a home setting????
But, in addressing that, I may have swerved off topic. :bash: Back we go!
I find EQ,s indispensable! I feel the reason EQ,s have a bad rap is that a person who really doesnt know what they are doing, does more damage than good with an EQ! But Good EQ,s used the right way, bring it all into focus.
Also many consumer grade EQ,s that cost little money actually arent very good at all! In some cases you would be better off with nothing, rather than a Realistic 10 band EQ! I am a big fan of White EQ,s and I always was. I use two 4200A cut only EQ,s.
And of course top flight EQ,s cost money. It dont come cheap!
The problem with EQing anything BUT bass in a reverberent environment, is that by EQ'ing the on-axis response of the speaker (or more generally, the response at ONE location), 9 times out of 10, you screw up the POWER BALANCE of the system, so that it sounds WORSE everywhere else.
Basically, most home enviroments, lead to very non-constant FR curves, at various locations. The FR at one location may have VAST difference from that at another, which is something you WILL NOT SEE in a totally damped studio environment. Hence, the EQ that easily "tames the whole sound" in the studio, is frequently an exercise of "chasing your tail" in a less-damped room. Unless you're content to living with the "head in a vise" syndrome, where the sound is PERFECT in ONE SMALL LOCATION, but wacked out everywhere else, you need to DRASTICALLY damp the room modes, before you even attempt to EQ mids or highs...
Also, IME, even the BEST EQs generate noise... primarily, hiss/shot noise. In a studio, the object is frequently NOT to hear the "background ambience" of a mix, but to change the overall balance. Therefore, having the lowest-possible monitoring noise floor is less of a perogative, than it is for a home listener, trying to get the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM amount of information out of a recording.
Now, I've had GREAT results EQing bass... once you're dealing with wavelengths far in excess of the path between you and the speaker, EQ can work wonders. But for short-wavelength mid and treble sounds, in a big room such as a great room or living room, I've never really seen a case where an EQ really was an OVERALL benefit... ie, a case where the problems couldn't have been BETTER dealt with by either a) fixing the speaker (make it flat inherently, by crossover design, box tuning, etc), b) fixing the room (adding damping, moving furniture around, etc) or c) fixing the speaker location (moving the speaker, to excite DIFFERENT room modes)...
Regards,
Gordon.
I must weigh in with Gordon on this one. I am not as concerned about noise floor, but unless you have a very, very good EQ, (this excludes Audio Control, Rane, DOD, Behringer, dBx, Pioneer, Yamaha, Sony...) they add all kinds of crap and phase distortion to the mix. I try to limit my EQ to only the LF and only if multi-amped with none of the spectrum above the woofer going through the EQ.
As far as head in the vise, I feel there are two modes of listening.
First there is general enjoyment and background, then there is critical listening. In the first mode a Radio Shack receiver won't disturb the music and you can sit anywhere in the room or lie on the floor.
For critical listening if you are not sitting in a pretty damn narrow slot equidistant from both speakers you won't get the full stereo effect. This is true with every type of speaker I have listened to, whether horn, bi-polar, di-polar, omni-directional, direct radiator.... It is just that simple. When I listen critically, I have to be in one and only one spot. Any EQing above a minimum of smoothing (cut only preferred) will really mess up the sound too. The pink noise may measure flat, but it will still sound off due to phase problems, less than accurate "POWER BALANCE" and other problems created by the EQ.
In my HT where there is multi-channel sound and the distraction of visuals, I EQ like crazy and don't mind it a bit.
Some impressive observations here,
Along similar lines.........
I recall doing some Eq for FOH and foldback years ago..its was an experience, the idea being to eliminate feedback and get a listenable sound out of the FOH.
But the FOH was mostly done with the active crossover levels playing the Eagles or something familair, too much eq caused power limiting problems else where so we used to cut only.
The noises gates in the PA scene tend to control there noise problems
There is some useful stuff in the Sound Recording Handbook (by John Eagle). I am happy to research it if anyone is interested.
Some of the earlier JBL Monitor Owner manuals give a good basis for setting up the right balance and position for imaging.
The basis of this is symmetry of the listening room and careful calibration of the level adjustments as a result of contolled listening tests. In a 4 way there is quite a lot of variation and control which I think is a virtue of a 4 way design on this topic.
I found the balance sometimes bright and glarey without the level adjustment and the depth of image and image focus also improved surprisingly with level adjustment.
One can only imagine with the RTA and nice EQ this would improve still further.
(I tried it with the cardboard 4345 and it actually works wonders.)
Ian
Amen. Aw shucks, I thought we were in church...Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Widget
...Any EQing above a minimum of smoothing (cut only preferred) will really mess up the sound too. The pink noise may measure flat, but it will still sound off due to phase problems...
and:
Amen, again. I employ RTA mics both on-stage and at the FOH board. Invariably, there are astonishingly different FR in each location, and the frequency of "standing waves" on stage were typically not the same FOH, with FOH usually less needful of EQ cuts/notching. But, if you don't notch them out on-stage, they become a problem FOH. I never had any luck using source material for EQ'ing other than pink noise, and even then, it all had to be changed, on-the-fly, during the first 30secs of the show - bodies change the FR remarkably.Quote:
Originally posted by Ian Mackenzie
...I recall doing some Eq for FOH and foldback years ago..its was an experience, the idea being to eliminate feedback and get a listenable sound out of the FOH.
But the FOH was mostly done with the active crossover levels playing the Eagles or something familair, too much eq caused power limiting problems elsewhere so we used to cut only....
Ian, your remarks on the 4-way and the benefits of subtle adjustments relieving the "bright and glarey" character are spot-on. :yes:
You guys are onto one of my themes that has usually drawn a "blank stare" on other forums; there is much to be learned in live audio/sound reproduction/reinforcement that can be/is directly applicable to ANY audio environment. People scoff at the pro sound guys and don't realize that many of them could setup a good home system quicker, trouble shoot it better, and have it sound better than MANY experienced audiophiles.
As for the studio experience; my direct experience is limited, but it obviously starts with the room, then moves into proven quality electronics and, as mentioned, very careful level setting between drivers.......
I agree with most here on just about everything said!
Unfortunately, for the audiophile types, who abhore equalization, it is a neccessary tool for professional and sound reinforcement work. After all, what arena, nightclub, stadium, or other large venue is built to have perfect acoustics? Some theatres, and many studios are constructed with perfect acoustics in mind, but I have a large room, and I have to deal with certain things accordingly. Speaker systems when put into rooms exhibit peaks, and often excite room resonances! Equalization, good EQ,s not toys, properly used, tame peaks and the sound becomes very intelligible. I use cut only. I RTA the room, then fine tune by ear! The trick is to get your system as " Right " as it can be in the particular room, without any EQ, and then use a minimum of EQing to tame peaks. Any more than 3db of cut at any frequency usually indicates other problems that need to be addressed.
The " audiophiles " that CANT have any EQ in the system kind of contradict themselves as any crossover in any system that has compensation or padding, as pretty much all do, is in fact tuning to tame unwanted peaks and achieve the desired response. And what about all recordings? Dont engineers EQ during the mixdown process? And what about mastering? realize it or not, we are always listening to source material that has been EQued to achieve the tonal, spatial, and dimensional balance!
And Mr. Widget makes a good point about using good EQ,s! Most EQ,s like Audio Control etc are toys, not tools. My favorite EQ,s are the White 4200A,s, minimum phase shift design, I have tried many other things, and I always come back to these! I achieve very transparent, dynamic, and highly resolving sound using these.
You will not find any 10db boosts in my house, no smiley face EQ curves here!
a wise old engineer once told me that "he who eq's the least, eq's the best"....of course this was back in the 600 ohm passive days...
I would bet that NONE of the "purists" who abhor equalization have done any more to a room than make the speakers aim to a listening position. orient the speaker wires north/south and use interconnects that have a *direction* arrow that cost more that most CARS
The ROOM is the most significant component and is the least understood. All the early reflections / hard slaps and acoustic traps would make even the BEST "studio" monitor sound misplaced.
A great EQ for the money that can be found on ebay from time to time is the JBL/urei 5547 and 5549's. you CAN adjust the noise floor on them and the filters are very quiet.
sub
You're right I have a pair of 5547s, although they spend most of their time on the shelf. But when I need them they are some of the best I have owned. Ron
I am using Urei 539's from the "Tent". 1/3 octave cut only. Really nice EQ's super quiet and very transparent. They are from the old 600 ohm transformer coupled passive world. Was using an old Dyanaco SE-10 for a long time. These are leaps and bounds ahead.
Rob:)