Prev: How to turn down work
Next: How to turn down work
From: Richard Webb on 9 Feb 2010 00:11
On Mon 2038-Feb-08 17:24, liquidator writes:
I wrote:
>> YEs, but I'm doubting it sounds that stellar. From the op's description
>> it sounds to me like his friend is trying to use channel strip eq in place
>> of an eq for foh.
>> YEs, one can get reasonably good sound on a Peavey. Done it a few times
>> myself. OF course, there was a 31 band graphic
>> in the rack for foh, and I could communicate with the talent about volume
>> control issues.

> I would bet cash I could walk in and have the system sounding a lot
> better in a matter of minutes.

I would too, for me or yourself, because we know what the
hell we're doing. EVery channel set the same sounds like
the height of ineptitude no matter how you slice it, which
is why I suggest that the op find somebody else to be his
mentor in the world of sound reinforcement, cause his buddy
sure as heck isn't it.

> The chance the audio is "being done right" is almost nil. Every
> channel being set the same?

True, I can't see why. AS I stated, he might be
compensating for no global eq for foh or something else
weird, but it's still sort of backwards imho. WHatever the
op's buddy's rationale it's not the correct way to do
things.

Regards,
Richard
.... Vegetarian is an old Indian word meaning "bad hunter."
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
#! rnews 1589
Path: ftn!116-901!NOT-FOR-MAIL
From: R
From: Orlando Enrique Fiol on 8 Feb 2010 21:44
liquidator <mikeh(a)mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>Well it proves you only email people when you want something...

If I emailed you to be purely sociable, would you respond?

>The only think that will convince me is your future behavior. Right now I
>think it's a case of the lady doth protest too much...


Guess what, I'm not out to convince you or anyone else with my future or past
behavior. I am a free agent, a fully grown and mature adult who takes full
responsibility for my actions whether or not you approve of them. If you were
in fact correct that my primary aim was to hit on Danielle by asking her to
email me privately because she has hidden her email address, I am free to do
that in the United States of America.

Orlando
From: Orlando Enrique Fiol on 8 Feb 2010 21:45
liquidator <mikeh(a)mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>Counting you?

Being a heterosexual male in a polyamorous relationship who doesn't get many
opportunities to meet women, damn straight! Do something about it.

Orlando
From: Sean Conolly on 9 Feb 2010 00:40
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" <ofiol(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.25da5b225e9d07779898b0(a)news.albasani.net...
> Joe Kotroczo <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote:
>>Except that your terminology is wrong. Phrases like "headroom for cut"
>>don't
>>make any sense.
>
> Headroom, in terms of boost, is intended to prevent digital clipping or
> distortion.

A little awkward, but OK.

> In terms of cut, headroom conversely prevents the hollowing of
> specific frequency spectra.

That just doesn't make sense any way I try to construe it.

First off, I don't think I've ever used a board with more headroom at the
preamp than the EQ section. The preamp will clip first, and if it does you
turn it down. If the post-EQ signal is too hot and clipping something else,
then you use the fader to pull it down.

The only purpose for the EQ is to reshape the frequency response of the
circuit, to change the tone of the signal. The idea of using EQ to control
headroom sounds like a bad solution to an easy problem - learn how, and
where, to set gain stages properly.

Sean


From: Arny Krueger on 9 Feb 2010 08:30
"liquidator" <mikeh(a)mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:hkna1t$ul7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org

> "Audio1" <Audio1(a)where.net> wrote in message
> news:MJFbn.100441$_96.23490(a)newsfe02.iad...

> If so,
>> you're not missing much, indeed having them all at 9:00
>> is a lot like turning the levels down

To a certain degree, yes. Of course there will be some ripple in the
resulting frequency response curve, but the net effect will be something
like turning the overall gain down.

This reminds me of the days when many hifi integrated amps and receivers had
built in graphic equalizers, usually 5 or 7 bands. It was not unusual to
walk into a cheap hi fi store or appliance store with hi fi on the side, and
see amps with all the graphic eq's sliders full up.

> Except you have a very simplistic view of how the EQ
> works. She is correct that the setting is bad.

> The EQ's have a curve, they don't just turn down a
> frequency band. Setting them all at anything but 12
> oclock will result in a response graph that looks like a
> roller coaster.

Right, there will a general decrease in gain with the 9 o'clock setting and
there will also be a frequency response curve with a definate ripple to it.
Depending on the width of the filters and how they interact, the ripple
could be less rather than more. YMMV.

> Whoever is running that board and setting it that way
> should be fired.

Well, at least given some instruction. It is hard to understand how
adjusting an equalizer with a critical, educated ear would give such a
consistent setting.


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: How to turn down work
Next: How to turn down work