| Author |
Topic: Equalizer advise needed |
Ken Williams
From:
Arkansas
|
Posted 20 Jul 2007 12:48 pm |
|
I was thinking of buying a dual channel graphic equalizer to place between the mixer and the power amp in my modest home setup. I guess I'm trying to compensate for tonal characteristics of the speakers, power amp or the room I'm using. Is this a bad idea? I really don't have the money to invest in speakers and power amp at this time.
If it's an okay idea, would I need a dual 31 band or is a dual 15 band okay? I was looking at DOD equalizers. Are they acceptable?
I'm just trying to get a little better reference to what is going on the mixdown, without spending a lot of loot.
Thanks,
Ken
Last edited by Ken Williams on 20 Jul 2007 4:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Will Holtz
From:
San Francisco, California, USA
|
Posted 20 Jul 2007 1:30 pm
|
|
If you just want to shape the tonal spectrum a bit, a 15 band unit should be fine. If you want to try to pull out narrow frequency bands (such as the resonate frequency of the room, or to stop a PA from feeding back), then you want a 31 band unit.
_________________
WillHoltz.com |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 21 Jul 2007 8:55 am
|
|
A 31 band is called a 3rd octave EQ.
Because each slider equals about 1/3 of a musical octave
between it's top and bottom ranges.
So C D Eb, E F G, A B C.
So, more or less a minor third
covered by EACH slider.
If you notice a specific note range
(and likely it's octaves)
reacting or subtracting from your rooms balance,
then you can at least subtly raise or lower
that narrow band(s) to compensate.
1/6 octave eq's cover a whole step and a few cents approximately.
15 bands cover about a 1/2 octave range.
So determine how wide a range your problem is;
Brute force for the general lows, 15 band
A more subtle room balancing for 2 songs on an album,
that are in a key your room and speakers don't like,
when most of the album is perfect sounding.
1/3 oct 31 band.
Or a set of narrow but VERY annoying room modes,
that really call for precise scalpels.
1/6 oct.
Hard to find and more expensive than
many new speakers.
I saw the Cars band's studio in Boston and it
was a quite poor control room they inherited.
Inner city space is limited. It was the same room that
Aerosmith's 1st album with Dream On was recorded in.
It had 1/6 octave eq's, and set pretty radically.
If you listen to Cars mixes and Dream On,
you can REALLY hear what a change the 1/6th octaves
made in the monitoring situation in that studio.
The room DID sound good and Cars songs stand up well still,
but the engineering staff were embarrassed that
I HAD seen this control room eq.
Normally in a locked 'staff only' closet.
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Ken Williams
From:
Arkansas
|
Posted 22 Jul 2007 6:27 pm
|
|
Thanks for the help guys. Any reveiws the DOD equalizers other less expensive brands(Nady, Behringer, etc.?
Thanks,
Ken |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 22 Jul 2007 8:02 pm
|
|
In my expirence the DOD are pretty roadworthy
and don't live up to the nickname Dead On Delivery.
Not the greatest phase design,
but that costs lots of money.
Berringers are not as well made as many brands,
but decent sounding, again not the greatest
phase design between bands.
But what gets better phase is big bucks,
circuit 'over design', in some opinions.
A 31 band of typical dirt bottom budget cost at $250,
to be REALLY well done costs closer to $3,000.
You get the picture.
$600-800 gets pretty functional units.
$1,500-$5,000 for discerning engineers and mastering types.
The Nady's are closer to the budget end than the high end,
but have been around awhile
and don't have a bad rep.
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 9 Aug 2007 8:06 am
|
|
| I have a dual 7 band Technics, and it does everything I need for home use, and more. Paying more than a couple hundred dollars for an EQ (for home use) is just frivilous, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 10 Aug 2007 12:42 am
|
|
I bought a Stereo 5 band from a pawn shop a few years back for I think $10. I could have probably got it for $5 as I think I was the only person who ever picked it up ! I also bought a 7 band DOD pedal for $15 which I use every now .
I think it's good to have some sort of EQ box hanging around, but not for HI $$$.
I have used the stereo 5 band unit for recording LP's to CD...
tp |
|
|
|
Al Marcus
From:
Cedar Springs,MI USA (deceased)
|
Posted 11 Aug 2007 8:13 pm Equalizer
|
|
I have a Behringer EQ 700, 7 band that I bought on the advice of my good friend Chuck Christenson, for $19.95 . I like it and it seems to do the job..al.
_________________
Michigan (MSGC)Christmas Dinner and Jam on my 80th Birthday.
My Email.. almarcus@cmedic.net
My Website..... www.cmedic.net/~almarcus |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 12 Aug 2007 12:42 am
|
|
Al you got one of the best 'Avatars' here.
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Al Marcus
From:
Cedar Springs,MI USA (deceased)
|
Posted 12 Aug 2007 8:00 am
|
|
David-Well, gee thanks, but I wish I looked like that now, eh?...al.
_________________
Michigan (MSGC)Christmas Dinner and Jam on my 80th Birthday.
My Email.. almarcus@cmedic.net
My Website..... www.cmedic.net/~almarcus |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 12 Aug 2007 10:40 pm
|
|
I bet you play better now!
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Brad Sarno
From:
St. Louis, MO USA
|
Posted 14 Aug 2007 2:13 pm
|
|
Personally, I'd want to avoid putting an EQ in there for that purpose. I'd treat the room a bit before I inserted an EQ. A decent EQ is very expensive. I think that if you've got some room resonances you should try to control them, or even just get used to them. You'll have to pay LOTS of money for an EQ that won't degrade your signal path. You may be able to tame or enhance certain acoustic aspects of the room with an EQ, but the price you pay will be the phase distortion you create by EQ'ing that way as well as messing with the actual monitor frequency response. That may not actually help your mixes in the long run. The brain is an amazing machine, and if you spend enough time correctly placing your monitors, doing basic room acoustic treatment, and then most of all familiarizing yourself with your monitors in that setup, you'll probably be far better off than using a graphic EQ to "fix" the room. It's always a good idea to listen to your new monitor setup a LOT by playing your most familiar and favorite recordings. Even if you're casual about it, your brain will learn what it sounds like in there. Then when it comes time to mix, you'll have a pretty good idea of what is "right". EQ'ing a room is an attempt to control the frequencies that either build up or decrease in the acoustical space. That sound has already left the speaker and is happening "after" it comes from the source. You'd have to mess with the source sound to control what happens after it. In a nearfield monitoring setup, you can usually reduce the room issues by simply creating a smaller triangle (head, left speaker, right speaker) placing yourself closer to the speakers. This will increase the monitor to room sound ratio. No room is perfect. As David said, some really classic stuff was done in funky spaces. A good engineer knows his room. So that's my 2-cents, leave the EQ out of the chain. Just the mixer to the amp to the speakers and then get very familiar with it.
Brad |
|
|
|
Al Marcus
From:
Cedar Springs,MI USA (deceased)
|
Posted 14 Aug 2007 7:19 pm
|
|
David-I sure hope I have played a little better during the 60 years since then. LOL.....al.
_________________
Michigan (MSGC)Christmas Dinner and Jam on my 80th Birthday.
My Email.. almarcus@cmedic.net
My Website..... www.cmedic.net/~almarcus |
|
|
|
Al Marcus
From:
Cedar Springs,MI USA (deceased)
|
|
|
|
Ken Williams
From:
Arkansas
|
Posted 14 Aug 2007 7:58 pm
|
|
Thanks guys for all the responses. Brad your ideas ,as well as some others, are making me re-think this issue.
Thanks,
Ken |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 15 Aug 2007 4:12 am
|
|
I don't disagree with Brad's posting either.
I was explaining about Eq's
not necessarily about the pros and cons
vs other methodologies.
If you CAN do it with the room that is 1st choice.
But sometimes you can't, and that maybe the time
for focused but gentle use of EQ.
There is a thread from a few weeks back with
good info about working the room / monitors equation.
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=110325
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 17 Aug 2007 5:32 am
|
|
Since the purpose of mixing is to make your final product sound better it would seem to me that to manipulate your playback sound with an EQ that is not affectng the basic mix is self defeating. Like wearing sun glasses when you go check out house paint samples.
You might try experimenting with different speakers by doing a mix and listening to it in your car and with headphones. That way you will learn how to shape the sound with what you have.
_________________
Bob |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 17 Aug 2007 5:44 am
|
|
I was just thinking about all those hidious NS10 speakers in studios everywhere. Those are some messed up sounding speakers. Crap low end, terrible bump in the upper mids....uugggh. Or those auratones/horrortones. Yikes !
But, they were everywhere because mixing guys knew them and understood how to get a good mix with them. So my experience has been that the guys that got a great sound did it by knowing what they had and how to use it more than by having everything perfect.
_________________
Bob |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 17 Aug 2007 7:11 am
|
|
| Bob Hoffnar wrote: |
| Since the purpose of mixing is to make your final product sound better it would seem to me that to manipulate your playback sound with an EQ that is not affectng the basic mix is self defeating. |
Ok, in the case of chosing the best
monitors / placement and acoustics treatments
for a given room, is to match the room modes to the listening position.
If that is not done well:
a) you don't hear what your $12,000 mic is hearing.
The room is changing it as you monitor it.
b) You do a mix of many mics/channels and you
THINK you hear it right in the room,
but that 'room sound' may be quite incompatible
with much of the outside world.
So you have two strikes against getting
a product that travels well to many systems.
| Bob Hoffnar wrote: |
| Like wearing sun glasses when you go check out house paint samples. |
Actually I liken it more to NOT wearing your needed glasses.
You ears are your eyes in this case,
but your monitors are your eyeglasses
and the room is also.
| Bob Hoffnar wrote: |
You might try experimenting with different speakers by doing a mix and listening to it in your car and with headphones. That way you will learn how to shape the sound with what you have. |
In the long run this is what most people do do.
At the same time the Cars's studio syncro sound,
was a good enough complex of rooms,
but the control room was a serious bordel...
This was discovered after it was completed.
The cost of ripping it out and starting over,
in a CITY environment precluded doing that.
So they got some really good White 1/6th octave eq's and tweaked until the mixes traveled well.
Not the IDEAL method.
but dollars to doughnuts the most cost effective one.
And it did the job well.
If you use EQ to compensate somewhat for a really bad mixing space,
you are goiving yourself a better chance to hear and mix what you think.
If, as is the case most often,
you can NOT afford to build a truely
integrated and accurate control room.
I am about to start that actual construction phase..
Design has been mind-bending. I won't know how
close I get for sometime.. 'turn key control rooms'
are really not extant.
If I can do it without EQ I will.
If not... well subtle as heck.
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 17 Aug 2007 12:21 pm
|
|
David,
I understand what you are saying and it is much better to have a tuned room and system. I'm wondering if it is practical to try to patch up an untuned room, consumer grade speakers and power amp with a cheap EQ ?
_________________
Bob |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 17 Aug 2007 7:34 pm
|
|
If the room and speaker combination are really unusable,
but the money (or rights to rebuild),
just isn't there to redo either into a usable state;
then a 1/3 Oct EQ probably can help.
it's most often a question of bass modes throwing
off such discrepancies at the listening position,
that you can not mix anything close to what you hear,
and have it work in the real world.
In bad rooms an engineer knows well,
he may have to INSIST that the band ignore
what they HEAR in the bottom end and TRUST him...
to mix it as ONLY HE knows will work outside.
This is often a BIG hurdle psycologicly for
the artist/band members clustered around waiting
for a copy to take home. And the producer paying
for the time to do the mixes.
This is also a reason why many many albums
are recorded in one place, but mixed in another.
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
