Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"Ringing" out a live system

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 10:40:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
Any info would help...

More about : ringing live system

Anonymous
April 15, 2005 11:52:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Never remembered reading this - Right before showtime with the room
full of people, finish up sound check (i.e turn on up the knobs, and
let the feedback destroy grab a couple of rings.) The feedback will
start bringing focus amongst the audience and put a "it's show time"
edge on the performers. Could be considered rude for some shows but
expected at others... :-)

Playing a known composition first also helps the crew dial in...

Have fun!
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 1:20:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If you don't have an RTA to "look" at your system, you can get a pretty
decent EQ by ear but it does take some work and some practice...

You'll need a 30 band EQ for each channel of speakers in use (ie stereo PA
and 4 monitor channels uses 6 EQs). Put your mics up on stage and go to
your EQ. Raise each band of EQ and see how long it takes to feed back. If
it doesn't feed back at all, you leave the band at unity. If it feeds back
instantly, you take a lot out, if it takes awhile to feed back, you go
somewhere in between. After you get through the entire EQ, you'll notice
that you have likely taken more out of the system than you should have.
Play some full-range music through the system that you know well. Don't use
rap or other music that only contains high and low information- you really
need the middle too. As you listen, figure out where you took too much out
and mildly raise those sliders until things sound "right."

Chances are you'll be pretty close that way and you'll have quite a bit of
gain before feedback.

It is a process that like any aspect of engineering takes practice. Do it a
few times and you'll start to get a feel for systems and how they react...

-Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies


<lhorvat@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1113572435.050881.255450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
> by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
> searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
> Any info would help...
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 1:48:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1113572435.050881.255450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lhorvat@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
>by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
>searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
>Any info would help...


There is a nice discussion in the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook.

Just realize that if you're using a graphic EQ that you're making a lot
of other changes besides just dropping down the resonant frequency, so
it's important to play some prerecorded material through the system
afterward to make sure you aren't doing more harm than good. If you
are flinging notches around with a parametric, you can be a lot more
precise about finding each room resonance (but watch out, because they
may move a little bit as mike positions shift and the room fills up
during a performance).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:23:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

lhorvat@austin.rr.com wrote:

> I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed
step
> by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
> searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the
> process. Any info would help...

Set your mics up for the worst case that you run. IOW, as many mikes
as you ever use, and in locations known to be sensitive to ringing.

Ringing out a room works better if the room isn't silent.

Pre-stimulate the room by playing a recording of the kind of stuff
that goes on in the room. Some recordings seem to be better for this
than others. Doesn't have to be overly loud.

Then you slowly turn the gain up until the room starts *singing*. Tune
your eq or feedback destroyer until the singing stops.

The best solution is probably a parametric eq set for fairly narrow
bandwidths (1/6 of an octave or narrower). Crank in a little more dip
or loss than it takes to make the system just stop singing at that
frequency.

Generally only the first 3 to 5 ring points are worth chasing after.
If you notch out too many, the system will start soundling less full
and lifelike.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Set your mics up for the worst case that you run. IOW, as many mikes
> as you ever use, and in locations known to be sensitive to ringing.

Just to provide a slightly different interpretation-I just set up the stage
mics as they will be used for the performance. I take Arnie's meaning above
to be a "put the mics where they are most prone to feedback", and while both
situations probably provide the nearly identical results, I've just worked
ringing out a system under the conditions closest to what the musicians will
really use, which just makes more sense to me.


>
> The best solution is probably a parametric eq set for fairly narrow
> bandwidths (1/6 of an octave or narrower). Crank in a little more dip
> or loss than it takes to make the system just stop singing at that
> frequency.

And the obvous advantage of using a parametric eq is the ability to sweep
the frequency dial around a bit to find the feedback frequency in question
more precisely. This is also one reason that people recommend only 2-4
bands of notching be used on a graphic style 1/3 octave equalizer, there is
more alteration going on, especially how some eqs affect Q variably as the
attenuation gets deeper.
Also, once your eq is set, you need to double check the gain through the eq
as it will be different than if it were flat or bypassed-this is important
to preserve as much headroom and clean operation as possible-the gain
structure optimizing situation.

Best regards,

John
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:19:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John Halliburton wrote:

>> Set your mics up for the worst case that you run. IOW, as many
mikes
>> as you ever use, and in locations known to be sensitive to ringing.

> Just to provide a slightly different interpretation-I just set up
the
> stage mics as they will be used for the performance. I take Arnie's
> meaning above to be a "put the mics where they are most prone to
> feedback", and while both situations probably provide the nearly
> identical results, I've just worked ringing out a system under the
> conditions closest to what the musicians will really use, which just
> makes more sense to me.

That's the gist of it.

>> The best solution is probably a parametric eq set for fairly narrow
>> bandwidths (1/6 of an octave or narrower). Crank in a little more
dip
>> or loss than it takes to make the system just stop singing at that
>> frequency.

> And the obvous advantage of using a parametric eq is the ability to
> sweep the frequency dial around a bit to find the feedback frequency
> in question more precisely. This is also one reason that people
> recommend only 2-4 bands of notching be used on a graphic style 1/3
> octave equalizer, there is more alteration going on, especially how
> some eqs affect Q variably as the attenuation gets deeper.

FWIW, I recommend only 3-5 bands of notching, even when a parametric
is used.

> Also, once your eq is set, you need to double check the gain through
> the eq as it will be different than if it were flat or bypassed-this
> is important to preserve as much headroom and clean operation as
> possible-the gain structure optimizing situation.

IME if you keep the notches under control (i.e., minimize them) system
overall gain structure doesn't change THAT much.

Since I often record the live performances I do SR for, it's possible
to analyze the recording with the spectral analysis tool in Audition
to get a very good idea of the frequency of any ringing or incipient
ringing that gets by the operator. It's also entirely feasible to use
Audition's narrow band equalization tools to remove most all ringing
or incipient ringing from any recordings that you intend to
distribute.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:19:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>John Halliburton wrote:
>
>> And the obvous advantage of using a parametric eq is the ability to
>> sweep the frequency dial around a bit to find the feedback frequency
>> in question more precisely. This is also one reason that people
>> recommend only 2-4 bands of notching be used on a graphic style 1/3
>> octave equalizer, there is more alteration going on, especially how
>> some eqs affect Q variably as the attenuation gets deeper.
>
>FWIW, I recommend only 3-5 bands of notching, even when a parametric
>is used.

Sometimes you can get away with a lot more than that, although of course
your returns diminish with each additional one you find. Sometimes you
can't get away with more than one or two before there are sonic problems.

That's why once you set the the notches up, you need to play some recorded
music through the system and listen to it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 11:59:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 15 Apr 2005 06:40:35 -0700, lhorvat@austin.rr.com wrote:

>I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
>by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
>searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
>Any info would help...

Don't forget to make it sound good as well as LOUD! How often have
you seen a comprehensively "rung out" setup, only to find that an
operator with ears has set up channel eq that negates the main eq :-)
It happens.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:15:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:23:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>Pre-stimulate the room by playing a recording of the kind of stuff
>that goes on in the room. Some recordings seem to be better for this
>than others.

Any suggestions in various musical styles?

Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:02:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> < ....snip.. >
> Pre-stimulate the room by playing a recording of the kind of stuff
> that goes on in the room. Some recordings seem to be better for this
> than others. Doesn't have to be overly loud.

I'd tend to think a white or pink noise source would be better for the
ring evoking part of the procedure, then check your results with
"the kind of stuff that goes on in the room."

I tend to use a series of bandwidth limited impulses to excite the
system and I'll also use pink noise.
The fun part of the impulses is that you get to hear the ring
decay rate for each frequency band. Then too, I tend to be a
bit eccentric. [ Thus YMMV ]

Later...

Ron Capik
--
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:21:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Willie K.Yee, M.D. wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:23:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
<arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Pre-stimulate the room by playing a recording of the kind of stuff
>> that goes on in the room. Some recordings seem to be better for
this
>> than others.

> Any suggestions in various musical styles?

It seems like something like what the live show is, would be best.
I've used recordings of past live shows. I've also used tracks and
other music that was going to be used during the show.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 11:26:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> John Halliburton wrote:
>>
>>> And the obvous advantage of using a parametric eq is the ability
to
>>> sweep the frequency dial around a bit to find the feedback
frequency
>>> in question more precisely. This is also one reason that people
>>> recommend only 2-4 bands of notching be used on a graphic style
1/3
>>> octave equalizer, there is more alteration going on, especially
how
>>> some eqs affect Q variably as the attenuation gets deeper.
>>
>> FWIW, I recommend only 3-5 bands of notching, even when a
parametric
>> is used.
>
> Sometimes you can get away with a lot more than that, although of
> course your returns diminish with each additional one you find.
> Sometimes you can't get away with more than one or two before there
> are sonic problems.
>
> That's why once you set the the notches up, you need to play some
> recorded music through the system and listen to it.

Totally agreed.

IME, if you do things right, notching out a few baddies can make the
system sound better, over-all.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Buy gear and use it so it sounds good without resorting to drastic EQ
I can remember the last time I HAD to "ring" out a system
proper gear choice and deployment should eliminate this from your
stress load
George
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:48:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1113666157.882628.41480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> bmoas@yahoo.com writes:

> Buy gear and use it so it sounds good without resorting to drastic EQ
> I can remember the last time I HAD to "ring" out a system
> proper gear choice and deployment should eliminate this from your
> stress load

This is one problem that you can't fix by buying gear, unless you buy
the hall, too, and rehearse the band. Most feedback problems aren't a
result of peaky frequency response in the equipment (that's rarely
more than about 6 dB in the worst mics and speakers), it's a result of
peaks in the acoustic system.

Ever put up a mic in a room, sweep a sine wave through a speaker in
the room, and watch the level of the signal coming from the peak and
dip by 30 or more dB? That's what pushes the system gain over unity so
that acoustic feedback can occur.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 12:36:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bmoas" <bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113666157.882628.41480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Buy gear and use it so it sounds good without resorting to drastic EQ
> I can remember the last time I HAD to "ring" out a system
> proper gear choice and deployment should eliminate this from your
> stress load
> George
>

[I assume you meant "I can't remember..."]

I was hoping this tangent would arise. I consider the purpose of whatever
lies between the mixer and the crossover/amp(s) is to neutralize the system
to a known response pattern, which isn't necessarily the same from tech to
tech, but can't be too far off. I go for a relatively flat response, and
use my voice through a mic I know well and an RTA on a measurement mic,
preferably more than one.

I can't help but roll my eyes when the only thing between the mixer and the
crossover/amp(s) is a 31-band EQ with a few faders drawn down 3-6dB. PA
speakers are far from flat in response, then there's room issues, and there
are several components that attenuate high treble (vocal mics, compression
horns, even amps), so an EQ is a tool that can help compensate for all that,
more than just prevent feedback. Most techs can't tolerate the idea of
cranking high treble with a 31-band EQ, and rightly so, most of them sound
like trash doing that, but something's got to do it if you want anything
significant happening in the top octave.

In most cases feedback is a symptom of a gross discrepancy in the response
of a sound system. If you only eliminate feedback, you're still far from a
neutral response. And no matter what you're comfortable with at one venue,
it'll be night-and-day different at the next. A properly configured system
will generally not feed back unless the room has a major acoustic flaw, or a
source is too quiet and requires too much gain.

Monitors are different, but not much. I like to start by neutralizing those
too, so they not only sound reasonably flat, but they also sound like the
mains, and ring out from there, usually there's not much left to worry
about. If there's no monitor board then having the monitors on post-EQ
aux's works great, since whatever you do to make the mains sound right makes
the monitors sound good too.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:37:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Friday 15 April 2005 08:40 am, lhorvat@austin.rr.com thusly spake:

> I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
> by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
> searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
> Any info would help...


Good grief. All these news articles in response and no strait forward
answer.

Weather or not you have music playing while ringing out or not doesn't
really matter. You will usually get ringing on the same frequencies
regardless. I find it easier without anything playing because it's easier
to hear and track down the frequencies.

Proceed I mic at a time. Turn the gain up until you start to get a ringing.
Select an Parametric EQ in the appropriate range, turn the gain down to
about 9 o'clock and sweep the frequency knob until you find the frequency
that best stops the ringing. If available, adjust Q level as needed. If
it's a really bad system, you may have to ring out more than one frequency.

If you notice that you are having similar frequencies across the various
mics, you may want to nip those frequencies using a Graphic EQ for the
mixdown bus if there is one.

Most problems with feedback can be avoided if you place you monitors and
mics correctly, and only send to monitors what is absolutely needed.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:44:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Reuben Martin wrote:
> On Friday 15 April 2005 08:40 am, lhorvat@austin.rr.com thusly
spake:
>
>> I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed
step
>> by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
>> searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the
>> process. Any info would help...

> Good grief. All these news articles in response and no strait
forward
> answer.

The problem is not all that simple. If you want painfully simple
answers, ask a painfully simple question. ;-)

> Weather or not you have music playing while ringing out or not
doesn't
> really matter.

Well yes and no. Playing music hastens the process. Without music
playing, the feedback is stimulated by the residual noise in the room.
It will then take a certain amount of time, sometimes measured in
dozens of seconds, for the singing to become apparent. If you play
some relevant music, the feedback is stimulated by the music. Since
the music starts the process of feeding back at a far higher level, it
takes almost no time for the singing to become apparent.

> You will usually get ringing on the same frequencies
> regardless. I find it easier without anything playing because it's
> easier to hear and track down the frequencies.

This depends on operator skill. If you are well-trained enough of a SR
operator so that you can hear a tone mixed with music, and immediately
know that the tone is around say 150 Hz, you can jump right on it and
its all over with pretty quickly. ]

One of the rules for choosing music to stimulate feedback is to avoid
music that has sustained pure tones in it, because they will make the
process more confusing.

> Proceed I mic at a time.

Many find doing one mic at a time to be a sure way to end up with a
lot of notches, because each mic can have its own collection of sing
points.

>Turn the gain up until you start to get a ringing.

OK.

> Select an Parametric EQ in the appropriate range, turn the gain
down to about 9 o'clock and sweep the frequency knob until you find
the frequency that best stops the ringing. If available, adjust Q
level as needed.

Doing the Q last is generally a bad idea. Better to start out somewhat
narrow (1/6-1/12 octave) and work from there. Sing points are almost
always hi-Q resonances.

If you start out with notches that are say, 1/6 octave you have two
ways to go. If you use broader notches you might be able to nail two
or more sing points with one notch, at the cost of a broad, more
audible notch.

I find that the notches should be as narrow as possible. However, if
you make the notches too narrow, moving the mics around, as can well
happen during a performance, will induce sing points that are outside
the range of the existing notches.

> If it's a really bad system, you may have to ring out more than one
frequency.

I must be cursed with nothing but bad systems. ;-)

No, its about having complex systems. I generally don't worry about
notching feedback if there are only 4 mics.

This point is self-contradictory because it started out with doing one
mic at a time. Chances are pretty good that each mic is going to have
its own set of sing points if you do one mic at a time.

The only way I know of to come up with a system that has only one sing
point is to have a system with one mic that is bolted to the floor.
Back in the real world I work with systems that may have upwards of 22
mics on the floor, at least half hand-held. Upwards of a dozen,
certainly no less than a half dozen, must be turned up at at the worst
point in the show.

> If you notice that you are having similar frequencies across the
> various mics, you may want to nip those frequencies using a Graphic
> EQ for the mixdown bus if there is one.

Parametric eqs rule.

> Most problems with feedback can be avoided if you place you monitors
> and mics correctly, and only send to monitors what is absolutely
needed.

This might be true under ideal cases, but back in the real world of
larger systems... Let's start with the fact that much of the feedback
in the system I work with is stimulated by the main speakers that were
bolted to the ceiling 27 feet up, by a sound contractor, about 20
years ago.

I have it relatively easy. I never have more than about 25 people
miced at the same time. I was visiting a newly-minted venue of the
same genre as mine, and they had over 40 people miced, all singing and
playing at the same time, at the *worst* point in the show.

Electronic instruments make it easy. Right now I only have one
electronic instrument, and one more instrument that I can mic very
closely. They had 4 and 1.

Finally, the choice of mics is really important. We recently compared
a SM58, a CAD 95, and an Audix OM5. The SM58 was relatively singy, the
CAD 95 was better because it is a much smoother mic than the 58, and
the OM5 was easiest to set up because it is a relatively smooth
hypercardiod with limited bass.

However, there can be cases where directionality is not the final
solution. If you're picking up a large group of singers, an omni can
be less singy than a cardiod, for a given amount of coverage.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:29:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42621234$0$39673$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net> reuben.m@gmail.com writes:

> Weather or not you have music playing while ringing out or not doesn't
> really matter. You will usually get ringing on the same frequencies
> regardless. I find it easier without anything playing because it's easier
> to hear and track down the frequencies.

I think you misunderstood. You set the notch filters without any music
playing, then you play some music to see how badly you've buggered up
the sound. There are systems that will allow you to adjust a system's
response with music playing (even the live performance) by comparing
the input to the speakers with the output of a microphone in the room,
but that's beyond "ringing out."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:23:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I think you misunderstood. You set the notch filters without any
music
> playing, then you play some music to see how badly you've buggered
up
> the sound.

No misunderstanding. I've found that playing some music while ringing
a system out faciliates the process.


>There are systems that will allow you to adjust a system's
> response with music playing (even the live performance) by comparing
> the input to the speakers with the output of a microphone in the
room,
> but that's beyond "ringing out."

No, I'm talking about playing music from a CD or tape and then turning
system or mic gain up until it sings. Follow up with using a notch
filter to put and end to the singing.

Being able to detect incipient feedback during a performance (i.e.,
when music is playing) is a SR op survival skill.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:26:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article <1113572435.050881.255450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> <lhorvat@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
> >by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
> >searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
> >Any info would help...
>
> There is a nice discussion in the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook.
>
> Just realize that if you're using a graphic EQ that you're making a lot
> of other changes besides just dropping down the resonant frequency, so
> it's important to play some prerecorded material through the system
> afterward to make sure you aren't doing more harm than good. If you
> are flinging notches around with a parametric, you can be a lot more
> precise about finding each room resonance (but watch out, because they
> may move a little bit as mike positions shift and the room fills up
> during a performance).

Any room modes are likely to be unrecognisably different when there's an
audience in there. Fiddling with graphics is the most time wasting and
useless exercise ever imposed on sound engineers by musicians during the
sound check who think they know better.

I always used some recorded material to check the performance of a system I
hired out. Each track was specifically chosen to represent certain
instruments ( and frequency ranges ) fairly accurately. I'd *lightly* EQ it
by ear so it sounded right to me and screw anyone else who thought they knew
better. There is no better instrument to assess sound quality than the human
ear btw. Even the modern clever RTA stuff is seriously never going to
replace a set of good ears.

In one memorable instance 25+ yrs back when we were providing the PA for the
support act for a band with the then new *Turbosound* equipment we finally
though we'd met our Nemesis !

After a succesful sound check we played a new test track ( from Pink Floyd's
The Wall ). Two things happened. (a) one of our 'roadies' who used to work
on aircraft carriers commented that is was exactly just like a real
helicopter (b) the engineer from the main act went visibly green and rushed
to his bloody graphic - as if he thought it would save him ! We retreated to
the bar looking smug.

I never ever used a graphic on my rig. Never wanted to. Never would do.

Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:29:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Benjamin Maas wrote:

> If you don't have an RTA to "look" at your system, you can get a pretty
> decent EQ by ear but it does take some work and some practice...
>
> You'll need a 30 band EQ for each channel of speakers in use (ie stereo PA
> and 4 monitor channels uses 6 EQs). Put your mics up on stage and go to
> your EQ. Raise each band of EQ and see how long it takes to feed back. If
> it doesn't feed back at all, you leave the band at unity. If it feeds back
> instantly, you take a lot out, if it takes awhile to feed back, you go
> somewhere in between. After you get through the entire EQ, you'll notice
> that you have likely taken more out of the system than you should have.
> Play some full-range music through the system that you know well. Don't use
> rap or other music that only contains high and low information- you really
> need the middle too. As you listen, figure out where you took too much out
> and mildly raise those sliders until things sound "right."
>
> Chances are you'll be pretty close that way and you'll have quite a bit of
> gain before feedback.
>
> It is a process that like any aspect of engineering takes practice. Do it a
> few times and you'll start to get a feel for systems and how they react...

Shame that you only get to do this when the room's empty and won't remotely
resemble the sound when the audience is in there !


Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:32:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 15 Apr 2005 06:40:35 -0700, lhorvat@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
> >I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
> >by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
> >searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
> >Any info would help...
>
> Don't forget to make it sound good as well as LOUD! How often have
> you seen a comprehensively "rung out" setup, only to find that an
> operator with ears has set up channel eq that negates the main eq :-)

Hahahahah !

I used to 'take over' from a house engineer at a local venue for a while
since he had to leave early some nights. I wasn't very keen on his technique
as a rule and had to salvage some godawful corners he'd painted himself
into. The classic was when almost *all* the frequencies on the graphic were
cut. :-(


Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:38:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bmoas wrote:

> Buy gear and use it so it sounds good without resorting to drastic EQ
> I can remember the last time I HAD to "ring" out a system
> proper gear choice and deployment should eliminate this from your
> stress load

It is indeed astonishing ? how the choice of decent, accurate equipment
makes your life so much easier and the sound so much better. Not
astonishing at all really if you're not fighting peaky responses in the
speakers ( and mics ) - if you care that is - and bother to think about
it.

If you know someone with a steam/road roller - ask them to do you a
favour and chuck any SM58s under the wheels. It's about the only way of
totally destroying them ! When you replace them with decent mics ( ones
that don't have a response curve approximating the Rocky Mountains )
you'll find yourself sighing with relief.

Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:43:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <1113666157.882628.41480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> bmoas@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > Buy gear and use it so it sounds good without resorting to drastic EQ
> > I can remember the last time I HAD to "ring" out a system
> > proper gear choice and deployment should eliminate this from your
> > stress load
>
> This is one problem that you can't fix by buying gear, unless you buy
> the hall, too, and rehearse the band. Most feedback problems aren't a
> result of peaky frequency response in the equipment (that's rarely
> more than about 6 dB in the worst mics and speakers), it's a result of
> peaks in the acoustic system.

I know a *few* halls that bad - but I truly think you're barking up the wrong tree Mike.


> Ever put up a mic in a room, sweep a sine wave through a speaker in
> the room, and watch the level of the signal coming from the peak and
> dip by 30 or more dB? That's what pushes the system gain over unity so
> that acoustic feedback can occur.

Sine wave testing really isn't a valuable or meaningful technique in such situations - as I
thought you would know. Where are you intending placing the measuring mic ? You want to take
1000+ plots ? One for each person in the audience ? - 'cos they'll all hear something
different !

Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:55:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Zigakly wrote:

> "Bmoas" <bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113666157.882628.41480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Buy gear and use it so it sounds good without resorting to drastic EQ
> > I can remember the last time I HAD to "ring" out a system
> > proper gear choice and deployment should eliminate this from your
> > stress load
> > George
>
>
> [I assume you meant "I can't remember..."]
>
> I was hoping this tangent would arise. I consider the purpose of whatever
> lies between the mixer and the crossover/amp(s) is to neutralize the system
> to a known response pattern, which isn't necessarily the same from tech to
> tech, but can't be too far off. I go for a relatively flat response, and
> use my voice through a mic I know well and an RTA on a measurement mic,
> preferably more than one.
>
> I can't help but roll my eyes when the only thing between the mixer and the
> crossover/amp(s) is a 31-band EQ with a few faders drawn down 3-6dB. PA
> speakers are far from flat in response,

Some are/were actually very flat. Sadly that kind of accuracy has gone out of
the window in recent yrs/decades in search of 'sounding louder', cost reduction
and ease of rigging.

By far the best sound I ever heard in an admittedly modestly easy hall (
acoustically ) was from a classic late 70s - early 80s Martin rig using 'W' bins
- 12" cone midrange and HF radials.

It was actually so clean I didn't realise how loud it was ( on the balcony )
until I tried talking to my g/f !


> then there's room issues, and there
> are several components that attenuate high treble (vocal mics, compression
> horns, even amps), so an EQ is a tool that can help compensate for all that,
> more than just prevent feedback. Most techs can't tolerate the idea of
> cranking high treble with a 31-band EQ, and rightly so, most of them sound
> like trash doing that, but something's got to do it if you want anything
> significant happening in the top octave.

Any 31 band EQ is an absurdly blunt instrument anyway. I loathe the things.
Probably actually responsible for more examples of bad sound than the reverse.


> In most cases feedback is a symptom of a gross discrepancy in the response
> of a sound system. If you only eliminate feedback, you're still far from a
> neutral response. And no matter what you're comfortable with at one venue,
> it'll be night-and-day different at the next. A properly configured system
> will generally not feed back unless the room has a major acoustic flaw,

Agreed. I found by chance ( ok some science crept in ) how to avoid such a flaw
in one once famous London pub venue popular with punk bands - located in the
cellar - simply by staggering the stacks a metre or so ! Astonishing ! Worked a
treat. Stopped almost all room modes.


Graham


> or a source is too quiet and requires too much gain.
>
> Monitors are different, but not much. I like to start by neutralizing those
> too, so they not only sound reasonably flat, but they also sound like the
> mains, and ring out from there, usually there's not much left to worry
> about. If there's no monitor board then having the monitors on post-EQ
> aux's works great, since whatever you do to make the mains sound right makes
> the monitors sound good too.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:18:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <42621234$0$39673$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net> reuben.m@gmail.com writes:
>
> > Weather or not you have music playing while ringing out or not doesn't
> > really matter. You will usually get ringing on the same frequencies
> > regardless. I find it easier without anything playing because it's easier
> > to hear and track down the frequencies.
>
> I think you misunderstood. You set the notch filters without any music
> playing, then you play some music to see how badly you've buggered up
> the sound.

LMAO ! Nicely put. And then you have to consider if the buggered up sound is worth the extra gain
you might acheive.

Sadly most live sound I've heard in recent years suggests that the engineers are deaf and prefer
the buggered up sound ( graphic tweaking fixation ).


Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:18:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:18:51 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sadly most live sound I've heard in recent years suggests that the engineers are deaf and prefer
>the buggered up sound ( graphic tweaking fixation ).

I've done SR at 10 to 15 DB SPL lower than similar genre shows
in our room, and gotten complements on the sound.

I've also *left* shows that were too loud, so maybe it's just me.
But, for me, loud gets old really fast. Already been there; yawn.

Stage volume is another matter, and my only conclusion to date
is to NEVER work with pickup Big Bands again. We live and learn.

Chris Hornbeck
6x9=42 April 29
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:18:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear wrote:

> Sadly most live sound I've heard in recent years suggests that the
> engineers are deaf and prefer the buggered up sound ( graphic
> tweaking fixation ).

Don't necessarily blame the engineer. I'm just getting out from under
the direction of a music director who was loosing her hearing due too
much time spent in front of too-loud monitors as a backup singer. She
liked it loud and loaded with reverb, and hardly cared what fidelity
was lost to get things loud, or how much the reverb (in a room that
was already very, very reverberent) made things sound like the back
seat of a 68 Camaro with the after-market reverb unit.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:20:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Being able to detect incipient feedback during a performance (i.e.,
> when music is playing) is a SR op survival skill.

Ride that fader like your life depends on it !


Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:59:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Any room modes are likely to be unrecognisably different when there's an
>audience in there. Fiddling with graphics is the most time wasting and
>useless exercise ever imposed on sound engineers by musicians during the
>sound check who think they know better.

I disagree. The first couple feedback modes aren't going to change much.
They're going to be due to resonance issues around the stage area and
leakage from the rear of the speakers directly into the stage mikes.

Beyond the first couple modes, though, yes there will be a lot of modes
that do change totally when the audience arrives, which is why it's not
worth spending a huge amount of time notching everything possible out.
But those first couple notches can mean a huge difference in available gain.

>I always used some recorded material to check the performance of a system I
>hired out. Each track was specifically chosen to represent certain
>instruments ( and frequency ranges ) fairly accurately. I'd *lightly* EQ it
>by ear so it sounded right to me and screw anyone else who thought they knew
>better. There is no better instrument to assess sound quality than the human
>ear btw. Even the modern clever RTA stuff is seriously never going to
>replace a set of good ears.

Absolutely. That's why I recommend listening to music as you add notches,
so you can hear what the notches are doing. THEN, after that, you can
think about doing some more broad shaping EQ to change the sound of the
system if you're into that.

>In one memorable instance 25+ yrs back when we were providing the PA for the
>support act for a band with the then new *Turbosound* equipment we finally
>though we'd met our Nemesis !
>
>After a succesful sound check we played a new test track ( from Pink Floyd's
>The Wall ). Two things happened. (a) one of our 'roadies' who used to work
>on aircraft carriers commented that is was exactly just like a real
>helicopter (b) the engineer from the main act went visibly green and rushed
>to his bloody graphic - as if he thought it would save him ! We retreated to
>the bar looking smug.
>
>I never ever used a graphic on my rig. Never wanted to. Never would do.

I don't much like them at all, but the one good thing about them is that
when you hear the system ringing, you can quickly pull down the slider
corresponding with the note that is ringing. It's very fast to operate
on the fly once the system is running and things start moving around.
When Monte McGuire and I wind up working together, he is always about
having graphics so you can do that in an emergency, and I am always about
using parametrics to notch out the most obvious modes so you don't have
an emergency.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <426329A6.34E862DE@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> Shame that you only get to do this when the room's empty and won't remotely
> resemble the sound when the audience is in there !

Generally the characteristics of the piece of the system between the
on-stage monitor speakers and the mics doesn't change a whole lot when
the audience comes in, so reducing peaks in the monitor part of the
system usually helps. Any EQ used to reduce feedback between the mics
and the main house speakers will need to be adjusted when the audience
comes in, but usually it means you can remove or reduce some notches
rather than move or add them. Soft bodies don't usually add
reflections, but they can damp resonances.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:32:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42632CCC.837EBFD0@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> Sine wave testing really isn't a valuable or meaningful technique in such
> situations - as I
> thought you would know. Where are you intending placing the measuring mic ? You
> want to take
> 1000+ plots ? One for each person in the audience ? - 'cos they'll all hear
> something
> different !

Of course not. I know not to equalize a room with sine waves. I was
only using that as an illustration that wherever you make a
measurement, you'll find very wild peaks that are not a function of
the mic or speaker, but of their interaction in the room. Those are
real and the only reason why they're a 10 dB problem and not a 40 dB
problem is because there are so many of them that they tend to average
out.

When "tuning" a room with an equalizer (which is different from
reducing feedback) you can only do a little. That's the touching-up
that you do with real music, some during the sound check, then again
with the audience. You aren't going to make radical changes here,
unless something is very wrong.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:33:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Any room modes are likely to be unrecognisably different when there's an
> >audience in there. Fiddling with graphics is the most time wasting and
> >useless exercise ever imposed on sound engineers by musicians during the
> >sound check who think they know better.
>
> I disagree. The first couple feedback modes aren't going to change much.
> They're going to be due to resonance issues around the stage area and
> leakage from the rear of the speakers directly into the stage mikes.
>
> Beyond the first couple modes, though, yes there will be a lot of modes
> that do change totally when the audience arrives, which is why it's not
> worth spending a huge amount of time notching everything possible out.
> But those first couple notches can mean a huge difference in available gain.

My own experience with small halls such as pub gigs suggests that the only modes
that stay much the same are the low frequency ones. The audience is normally so
close to the stage - and the venue so closely packed that you have a huge
absorber in front of the system.

Considering that I never used a graphic back in my hire days it's curious that
*no-one* ever accused me of having insufficient gain.


> >I always used some recorded material to check the performance of a system I
> >hired out. Each track was specifically chosen to represent certain
> >instruments ( and frequency ranges ) fairly accurately. I'd *lightly* EQ it
> >by ear so it sounded right to me and screw anyone else who thought they knew
> >better. There is no better instrument to assess sound quality than the human
> >ear btw. Even the modern clever RTA stuff is seriously never going to
> >replace a set of good ears.
>
> Absolutely. That's why I recommend listening to music as you add notches,
> so you can hear what the notches are doing. THEN, after that, you can
> think about doing some more broad shaping EQ to change the sound of the
> system if you're into that.
>
> >In one memorable instance 25+ yrs back when we were providing the PA for the
> >support act for a band with the then new *Turbosound* equipment we finally
> >though we'd met our Nemesis !
> >
> >After a succesful sound check we played a new test track ( from Pink Floyd's
> >The Wall ). Two things happened. (a) one of our 'roadies' who used to work
> >on aircraft carriers commented that is was exactly just like a real
> >helicopter (b) the engineer from the main act went visibly green and rushed
> >to his bloody graphic - as if he thought it would save him ! We retreated to
> >the bar looking smug.
> >
> >I never ever used a graphic on my rig. Never wanted to. Never would do.
>
> I don't much like them at all, but the one good thing about them is that
> when you hear the system ringing, you can quickly pull down the slider
> corresponding with the note that is ringing. It's very fast to operate
> on the fly once the system is running and things start moving around.
> When Monte McGuire and I wind up working together, he is always about
> having graphics so you can do that in an emergency, and I am always about
> using parametrics to notch out the most obvious modes so you don't have
> an emergency.

I'd certainly prefer the parametric approach. For example, if the sytem rings at
2.3 kHz do you 'pull' the 2 kHz slider or the 2k5 or both ? Both will miss the
spot. You might get 4dB of attenuation @ 2.3k but 6dB unwanted attenuation @ 2k
or 2k5 by using a single slider - waht you get by pulling both dpends on the
design of the graphic.

For 'ringing out' I think the feedback eliminators are far better. They have
adaptive filters that can home in on the troublesome frequencies with a decent Q.
Set them and lock them. Of course then you have the problem that it's ok for the
sound check - but a full hall's going to be different.


Graham
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:20:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I find using music to eq systems nearly worthless, perhaps even beyond
worthless to the point of making quality eq decisions impossible
for me , my voice is all I need, though I do like to play with analysis
programs like MacFOH, though in the endI will always default to my
ear +my voice through a M88
george
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:25:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

or lays it down on the monitor when he walks off stage for reasons
unknown in mid song
George
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:02:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yes I meant "I can't"
use good stuff that is working properly at reasonaly spl and feedback
is not a issue

George
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:03:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <4263C52B.36730347@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> My own experience with small halls such as pub gigs suggests that the only
> modes
> that stay much the same are the low frequency ones.

Around here, we don't call pubs "small halls." But often the low
frequency modes are the most troublesome ones.

> The audience is normally so
> close to the stage - and the venue so closely packed that you have a huge
> absorber in front of the system.

Then why is there a feedback problem? I don't suppose it ever occurred
to anyone to use a little less gain, for a little less volume, when
the audience is right in front of the stage.

Unfortunately, in pubs, the speakers tend to be put where they'll fit,
not where they'll provide the best coverage. More often than not, that
puts them behind the mics. Room modes don't usually have much bearing
on that feedback when the acoustic path is direct.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:58:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear wrote:

> Any room modes are likely to be unrecognisably different when there's an
> audience in there. Fiddling with graphics is the most time wasting and
> useless exercise ever imposed on sound engineers by musicians during the
> sound check who think they know better.

After a few decades of ringing-out and only a graphic EQ at hand, I have
yet to see a room's modes change significantly with addition of
audients. Absorption within portions of the spectrum? Yes; but room
dimensions, no. Depending on room size and surface materials I may have
to adjust the degree of attenuation within a band or few, but not enough
to have rendered a good job done pre-soundcheck into worthlessness.

--
ha
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:58:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<lhorvat> wrote:

> I wanted to see if anyone knows where I can find a good detailed step
> by step system on "ringing" out a sound system for live gigs. I've
> searched the net for it but I'm still a little doubtful on the process.
> Any info would help...

The Yamaha SR handbook has a good discussion of the process.

I willing to suggest that you might want to try using the RTA function
of a Behringer DEQ2496 in conjunction with a careful ringing-out of a
few rooms. It works surprsingly well, and if you move the cursor to the
hot band and then switch to one of the EQ modes, the cursor will come up
in the EQ on the hot band. One can move rather quickly this way while
still learning everything you'd learn by the trypical sweeping ringing
process. And the DEQ offers both "graphic" EQ with selectable filter
bandwidths, and parametric EQ, as well as dynamic EQ. Pretty cool tool,
in my book.

--
ha
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:58:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> FWIW, I recommend only 3-5 bands of notching, even when a parametric
> is used.

The room and the music tell me how many of what I'll have to use. In
some cases, none will be needed.

--
ha
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 10:14:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I recommend only 3-5 bands of notching, even when a
parametric
>> is used.
>
> The room and the music tell me how many of what I'll have to use. In
> some cases, none will be needed.

I did not properly say that 3-5 would be the maximum. The ideal
minimum is, as you say exactly zero.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 10:14:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bmoas wrote:

> Yes I meant "I can't"
> use good stuff that is working properly at reasonaly spl and
feedback
> is not a issue

Only if you can control the venue and the number of concurrent open
mics.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 12:35:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Master fader down.
Set the input gain for the vocal mics then bring their faders up to
unity gain.
31 band EQ flat, start increasing the master fader level SLOWLY until
you hear the first ringing note.
Find the band on the EQ that affects the rung the most and cut by 3 dB.
Increase master level until you hear the next note ring.
Repeat a couple times for the next frequencies, you may cut the same
one again.
You generally shouldn't need more than 3 or so dB cut at any freq on
the mains. All should be below 300 Hz. Any adjustments to higher
frequencies are pretty much to taste as long as you're amps are
balanced. Usually wait until the rrom is full and the band playing for
this. People soak up high frequencies.

For monitors it's a whole different bag with many more high frequency
cuts. Again, if you find you're cutting a lot of frequencies more than
a few dB you should reduce output level. It's a real trick. I've had
mixed results with feedback eliminators. Sometime they grab frequencies
they shouldn't and take the meat out of the signal.

Another trick, either use a high pass filter or just cut everything
below 50 Hz or so. Unless you have monstous subs you're wasting
amplifier headroom trying to get anything below 50. I see sooo many
graphics with 20, 30 amd 40 Hz boosted and folks wonder why they keep
blowing subs and getting little low end before the amps sag.

I find RTAs and pink noise relatively useless unless it's a single
point source system (1 speaker basically). If you've ever run pink
noise and walked the room you'll have heard wild comb filtering
sweeping as you move around.

My 2 cents YMMV
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 10:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<tymish wrote:

> I find RTAs and pink noise relatively useless unless it's a single
> point source system (1 speaker basically). If you've ever run pink
> noise and walked the room you'll have heard wild comb filtering
> sweeping as you move around.

With a small venue and the DEQ2496 I can put all mics to approriate gain
settings, leave them all open, raise master gain until the RTA and my
ears says we're observing a resonance, and deal with it. I don't invoke
the Pink Noise God at all.

Mind you, I stay very far away from high SPL situations these days.

--
ha
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 5:11:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
>
> Shame that you only get to do this when the room's empty and won't
> remotely
> resemble the sound when the audience is in there !
>
>
> Graham
>

I find that the room more often than not sounds better when you get an
audience in there. In any case, I may adjust things in performance, but the
basic work is done when I get quiet. Getting soft bodies helps dampen rooms
which give you more gain before feedback. The frequencies where there needs
to be help don't change, but I may be able to get away with a touch less EQ.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 3:50:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Your bass frequencies don't change that much and they are your biggest
problem.

Julian


"Benjamin Maas" <benmaas@nospamfifthcircle.com> wrote in message
news:M_Odnfzl4NsQKvvfRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
>>
>> Shame that you only get to do this when the room's empty and won't
>> remotely
>> resemble the sound when the audience is in there !
>>
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
> I find that the room more often than not sounds better when you get an
> audience in there. In any case, I may adjust things in performance, but
> the basic work is done when I get quiet. Getting soft bodies helps dampen
> rooms which give you more gain before feedback. The frequencies where
> there needs to be help don't change, but I may be able to get away with a
> touch less EQ.
>
> --Ben
>
> --
> Benjamin Maas
> Fifth Circle Audio
> Los Angeles, CA
> http://www.fifthcircle.com
>
> Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies
>
>
!