EQ'ing Live Sound system
Yuko Sunada
large-venue system.
Say 400 seat and 2000 seat, both using line arrays flown over the stage.
I've not been able to find any "standard" for such work, and don't believe
the AES has ever published one.
There is a "standard" for cinema systems, but it clearly is wrong for live
sound and frankly I can't see why they would continue to use it for cinemas
today - when there was optical sound I can understand why such a harsh HF
rolloff, but not now with full digital traks.
Yuko-san
Himeji
Rupert
There is no standard per se with live sound, line array or not. For
major line arrays, there are processor presets to use for the speakers
themselves to achieve a factory benchmark, but house EQ is usually
accomplished these days by a combination of a dual input FFT analyzer
such as SMAART and one's ears. Every system tech will have a somewhat
different interpretation of what the best EQ for a given venue is, but
if they're worthwhile, the rig will sound decent.
Rupert
Yuko Sunada
In 4519ce78-e181-4329...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
"Rupert" <foods...@gmail.com> wrote:
I appreciate there is no "standard", but there has to be some kind of curve
that people are working towards. If the processors have a "benchmark" for
reproduction, what would it look like on an analyzer?
I've been told generally flat to 6kHz and then -3dB per octave. This seems a
little too much rolloff.
Yuko-san
McSteve
> I appreciate there is no "standard", but there has to be some kind of
> curve
> that people are working towards. If the processors have a "benchmark" for
> reproduction, what would it look like on an analyzer?
>
A system should be EQ'd flat simply as a baseline or starting point.
It then must be tailored to the application. As others have already
said, there is no single "right" setting for system EQ.
> I've been told generally flat to 6kHz and then -3dB per octave.
>
Who told you that, some church volunteer?
--
Steve <snip> McQ
Rupert
> In 4519ce78-e181-4329-b58a-f0425c21f...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
Well, there's no curve per se that is generally accepted. But with
many a rock PA, subs are often run up to 10dB hotter than the tops.
The processor for the top boxes are designed usually to achieve a
relatively flat response on axis in the near-field. But there can also
be be different "voicings" within the processor for the same boxes to
achieve different desirable characteristics such as a brighter top end
or "thicker" low mids. But such settings if they exist vary from
manufacturer to manufacture and are by no means standard. Often with
large scale rigs, there can be a substantial boost on the HF EQ to
compensate for distance and air absorption. Once again, no standard
setting for that.
Rupert
liquidator
"Yuko Sunada" <yusu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C73EB636.47714%yusu...@hotmail.com...
Frankly lots of systems are intentionally rolled starting much lower than
that...even as low as 3K.
It really comes down to the venue, what the system is used for, an what the
customer wants. You get paid for making the customer happy, not yourself.
3dB is the generally considered smallest amount most people can hear. I
think it a bit strange to think the smallest amount most can hear to be a
"harsh rolloff".
Most installed systems rolloff. Where is determined generally by the
installer.
Most digital files don't impress me as being that much better. Less noise
certainly, but we don't get digital studio masters, we get lower quality
digital versions.
George's Pro Sound Co.
I try to make it sound "good" and that is a subjective call
what sounds "good is largly dependent on the program material
a system that sounds GREAT from acoustic jazz will sound awful for hip hop
dj use
and system set up is a balance between dynamic range and system protection
so no there is no stadard that can be applied
if it were that easy you could tune a system via a web link from your easy
chair in front of your fireplace
George
Arny Krueger
>> There is no standard per se with live sound, line array
>> or not.
As close as there is to such a thing is probably "The X curve"
http://www.micasamm.com/publications/surround_0100b.htm
"The background behind this work began with Texas acousticians C. P. and C.
R. Boner, who established in the 1960s that a "house curve" was a needed
concept. They showed that a flat electroacoustic frequency response in a
large room sounds too bright on well-balanced program material. This was
subsequently found to be correct by other researchers, such as Robert
Schulein and Henrik Staffeldt, as well. While Boner's practice was for
speech reinforcement systems that did not require theater-to-theater
uniformity in the same way that film does, nonetheless the concept of a
house curve traces back to them. This development paralleled the
introduction of 1/3 octave room equalization, since there would be little
point in establishing a house curve if sound systems could not be adjusted
to it."
The most significant name mentioned above are the Boners, who largely
originated the application of systematic equalization to live sound system.
Also:
>> For major line arrays, there are processor
>> presets to use for the speakers themselves to achieve a
>> factory benchmark, but house EQ is usually accomplished
>> these days by a combination of a dual input FFT analyzer
>> such as SMAART and one's ears. Every system tech will
>> have a somewhat different interpretation of what the
>> best EQ for a given venue is, but if they're worthwhile,
>> the rig will sound decent.
This is a critical point. Doing live sound is about getting as good of a
natural sound as possible. The core of much live sound is reproducing human
voices. Does the way your system reproduces peoples voices sound like them?
> I appreciate there is no "standard", but there has to be
> some kind of curve that people are working towards. If
> the processors have a "benchmark" for reproduction, what
> would it look like on an analyzer?
http://www.micasamm.com/publications/XCurve.gif
> I've been told generally flat to 6kHz and then -3dB per
> octave. This seems a little too much rolloff.
Actually, its probably too little. Liquidator for one already posted that
comment, and he's right. A proper room curve will end up being more like -3
dB at 3 KHz and -3 dB/octave above that. YMMV.
Notice that -3 dB/octave is not a standard filter curve. Standard filters
are either -6 dB/octave, -12 dB/octave or other multiples of -6 dB/octave.
That means that a room curve usually has to be approximated using a graphic
eq. or a number of sections of a parametric eq.
I initially adjusted my system at church for flat response and then a room
curve starting around 3 KHz was added to it using the parametric equalizers
on the main output channels of the digital console. That curve was developed
by adjusting a number of vocalists, recordings and movies until they sounded
natural to me and a few of my trusted associates.
If you have a good enough ear for good sound, you will tend to implement a
proper room curve with your system and channel equalization adjustments and
microphone choices. The system just won't sound right to you until you do.
It will tend to sound too harsh and too bright.
DougD
Well, I'm sure some will not agree with this, however this is what worked
for me, back in the "old days"..
I worked for a large studio installer from Minneapolis, AVC (became Vaughn
years later), and our "standard" was our small fleet of IVIE IE30 analysers
with the IVIE standard sampling mic. It gave great results when setting
up control rooms, especially those used for mixing down acoustic and
orchestral sessions (the old Sound 80). The IVIE sampling mic however
was TOO flat for setting up most non-commercial systems, and when
I'd drag it out for club work, I would usually use whatever was the standard
mic in use by the system provider. So, back then in the 80's, typically
most systems were using the workhorse SM58's. I made up some
cheater cables so that I could use these with the IVIE, and the results
were almost always resonable to very good, depending on the rest
of the system. One thing I learned the hardway, is that if you really
spend some time setting up your system well, you should be able to
get by without much if any EQ on your mains! So, by setting the gains
and crossover points, as well as the gains of your power amps, I could
often flatten out system response to where no main EQ was needed,
except maybe for a bit of a tweak to compensate for the room EQ
difference between empty/full house samplings.
Ok, as I said, those were the "old days", you youngsters here I'm
sure have more options now (as well as I do, I use a number of PC
based analysers now, although I'm no longer a full timer)..
d.
Phildo
> I'm interested to know what "standard" is used to do the house EQ on a
> large-venue system.
There isn't one.
> Say 400 seat and 2000 seat, both using line arrays flown over the stage.
All down to the personal taste of the man behind the desk.
> I've not been able to find any "standard" for such work, and don't believe
> the AES has ever published one.
That's because there isn't one.
> There is a "standard" for cinema systems, but it clearly is wrong for live
> sound and frankly I can't see why they would continue to use it for
> cinemas
> today - when there was optical sound I can understand why such a harsh HF
> rolloff, but not now with full digital traks.
The standard for cinema systems is so the movie can be heard exactly the way
the director intended it wherever it is played without the director needing
to be there to EQ the room. Live sound is not pre-recorded and varies from
night to night so there is no use for a standard house EQ.
Phildo
Yuko Sunada
"Rupert" <foods...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But there can also
> be be different "voicings" within the processor for the same boxes to
> achieve different desirable characteristics such as a brighter top end
> or "thicker" low mids. But such settings if they exist vary from
> manufacturer to manufacture and are by no means standard. Often with
> large scale rigs, there can be a substantial boost on the HF EQ to
> compensate for distance and air absorption. Once again, no standard
> setting for that.
This and the answer from Arny Krueger are the closest I think to what I'm
trying to figure out. Surely the riggers don't come in, throw the boxes up
in the air and say "good luck, use your ears". They have to have some kind
of benchmark performance standard to determine if the system is even
performing properly. Of course ever venue is going to require especially
different HF performance due to size of the venue and distance of the
speakers from the audience (air absorption, etc).
But there must be some kind of "benchmark" curve that is sought before
plugging any audio into the system.
As a FOH engineer I wouldn't be expected to EQ the system to the room
(transfer function). This would require use of my program EQ and would then
change from venue to venue, and I don't see any FOH mixers doing this.
And I know too that a Meyer system sounds different than a Martin Audio
system. I'm sure this is related to how the speakers are setup and EQ'd
prior to any audio being put into the systems.
In some respects film has a better method because the transfer function of
the sound system is setup to the Dolby standard in every room. The reality
of this though seems to be suspect as the amount of rolloff applied to the
systems were there in the days of analog sound.
Yuko-san
George's Pro Sound Co.
> In article
> 3942edc-ee7e-4f6e...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> "Rupert" <foods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But there can also
>> be be different "voicings" within the processor for the same boxes to
>> achieve different desirable characteristics such as a brighter top end
>> or "thicker" low mids. But such settings if they exist vary from
>> manufacturer to manufacture and are by no means standard. Often with
>> large scale rigs, there can be a substantial boost on the HF EQ to
>> compensate for distance and air absorption. Once again, no standard
>> setting for that.
>
> This and the answer from Arny Krueger are the closest I think to what I'm
> trying to figure out. Surely the riggers don't come in, throw the boxes
> up
> in the air and say "good luck, use your ears". They have to have some
> kind
> of benchmark performance standard to determine if the system is even
> performing properly. Of course ever venue is going to require especially
> different HF performance due to size of the venue and distance of the
> speakers from the audience (air absorption, etc).
>
> But there must be some kind of "benchmark" curve that is sought before
> plugging any audio into the system.
the "benchmark is a system free from "weirdness" but the pat6h to that
destination is diffrent every time
what you want is the road map to get from load in to band start time
that simply does not exist
the hang ,eq, nealry every parameter is inplay every night in order to
achive a point where the engineers opinion decides the the system is ready,
and send the first engineer home and put a second engineer in his place and
all that work most likely will need to be redone to satisfy the opinion
of"good' to that second engineer
this is a subjective , not analytcal judgment
the tools can be very percise measurments but in the end it all comes down
to one mans ears, one mans opinions and one mans decisions based on his
experiance
there is no cookbook solution that can get you to the final destination, the
cookbook solutions can only get you to the ballpark, they can't hit the home
run
George
George's Pro Sound Co.
>
> As a FOH engineer I wouldn't be expected to EQ the system to the room
> (transfer function). This would require use of my program EQ and would
> then
> change from venue to venue, and I don't see any FOH mixers doing this.
I have never know one(pro level) who didn't
>
> And I know too that a Meyer system sounds different than a Martin Audio
> system. I'm sure this is related to how the speakers are setup and EQ'd
> prior to any audio being put into the systems.
and both sound great, so which one is "right" that is a OPINION
not something you can prove with math or measurment
>
> In some respects film has a better method because the transfer function of
> the sound system is setup to the Dolby standard in every room. The
> reality
> of this though seems to be suspect as the amount of rolloff applied to the
> systems were there in the days of analog sound.
film is not live sound, it is recorded sound, there is a world of diffrence
between production and reproduction
which is one of the reasons CD's and any recorded music are useless in
system tuning,unless you are tuning for playback of recorded sound
George
bob urz
> In article 3942edc-ee7e-4f6e...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> "Rupert" <foods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But there can also
>> be be different "voicings" within the processor for the same boxes to
>> achieve different desirable characteristics such as a brighter top end
>> or "thicker" low mids. But such settings if they exist vary from
>> manufacturer to manufacture and are by no means standard. Often with
>> large scale rigs, there can be a substantial boost on the HF EQ to
>> compensate for distance and air absorption. Once again, no standard
>> setting for that.
>
> This and the answer from Arny Krueger are the closest I think to what I'm
> trying to figure out. Surely the riggers don't come in, throw the boxes up
> in the air and say "good luck, use your ears".
Number one: riggers are NOT sound men. They do what there told. They
don't make it up as they go. Most modern line arrays all have
predication programs to map coverage to a venue. The players have the
venue information in advance typically, plug it in to the program, and
have the boxes and angles figured out in advance. There is NO "riggers
throw it up" period. Besides, the riggers just put up the points for the
motor hangs. The SOUND MEN actually hang the array once the points are
up. In some venues, hang locations may shift due to the steel locations
in the ceiling and weight load requirements.
They have to have some kind
> of benchmark performance standard to determine if the system is even
> performing properly.
The benchmark is known as the two objects on both sides of your head.
If it does not sound good on known source material, an experienced audio
tech knows he has an issue.
The system processors set the crossover points and relative skew between
the multiple amplified components. Once this is set, only small tweaks
are needed. You don't go reinventing the wheel every show.
Most systems will have a master EQ to adjust to house conditions.
Some engineers will RTA it, some will use there ears. The thing you have
to remember is during a typical show sound check, your EQ'ing to an
empty house. Once you get 18K people in an arena, the room will darken
up. People are sound absorbers. most engineers out with a system will
have a good feel on how that system will act in most situations.
If i start from scratch, I EQ as flat as i can within the limits of the
drivers and minimal boost. Then i EQ to taste. Some rooms will have
frequencies that make it humpy and you might have to cut some out to
clean up the mix.
You also know what the limits of your high frequency drivers are.
You never want to over boost top end to compensate for mechanical
limitations of the high frequency drivers.
The big boys have wireless tablet PC's, then walk the arena and can
tweak levels and EQ to suit the zone.
If your looking for benchmarks, there is an academy curve in the motion
picture industry. Personally, i think the academy curve in use at a lot
of theaters is too dark for my tastes.
bob
Joe Kotroczo
Sunada" <yusu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(...)
>
> But there must be some kind of "benchmark" curve that is sought before
> plugging any audio into the system.
First make it flat.
Then make it sound good.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Joe Kotroczo
<so...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
(...)
>
> If your looking for benchmarks, there is an academy curve in the motion
> picture industry. Personally, i think the academy curve in use at a lot
> of theaters is too dark for my tastes.
The Academy Curve is obsolete. Try the Dolby X-Curve. Been around since 1971
AFAIK.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
liquidator
"George's Pro Sound Co." <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NOKdnTBC_pWppobW...@earthlink.com...
If there were cut and dried formulas anybody could read a book and be a
first class engineer.
liquidator
> plugging any audio into the system.
>
Why?
I have setups I use, and they are different whether it is going to be a
Jazz or hard rock gig.
Goerge's will be different from mine.
As everyone here will be different from George.
There is no one setting period. Pick one. Start with it. Them modify it as
you like. Sooner or later you will develop your own starting settings.
But it's really getting kinda dumb sounding like a broken record with "there
must be"
There is not. Period.
George's Pro Sound Co.
"liquidator" <mi...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:hfgscd$4fp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
MY STARTING POINT IS WHERE EVER IT ENDED UP AT THE LAST GIG
gEORGE
>
>
Ron
In many venues it changes throughout the gig as environmental variables
come into play. For instance humidity may increase as night falls
outside, Audience movement in a standing or dance gig can change the
sound a lot, even the venues heating system may make changes to way the
room sounds.
On very loud gigs, ear fatigue plays a part too, tho in that case you
should avoid changing the eq to suit your battered ears. I babysat a gig
the other night where the bands engineer kept boosting up the highs as
the gig went on. to me the whole thing sounded far too toppy, I wore
plugs throughout most of the set, he was riding bareback and in my
opinion his ears were shot.
Get it as flat as you can, then make it sweet.
Ron(UK)
George's Pro Sound Co.
"Ron" <r...@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:8uWdnXmXzIW6moHW...@bt.com...
flat is a very shrill sound
george
Ron
Till you make it sweet, which usually involves hacking out high honkies.
Joe Kotroczo
FJCdnZ-Hj6OalYHW...@earthlink.com, "George's Pro Sound Co."
<bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(...)
>> Get it as flat as you can, then make it sweet.
>>
>
> flat is a very shrill sound
Yes, but it's not a bad starting point. IMHO.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Joe Kotroczo
"liquidator" <mi...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
(...)
> But it's really getting kinda dumb sounding like a broken record with "there
> must be"
>
> There is not. Period.
Furthermore: why would you want such as thing as a "standard curve" anyway?
Would such a thing not take away one of the most desirable attributes of
"live", its uniqueness? Each room is different, each PA is different, each
band is different, each audience is different. That's why being a live sound
engineer is so much greater than being a projectionist at a cinema.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Michael Dobony
We start from zero each session, if possible.
If you want a starting point, try pink noise. Please note it is a *starting
point* not a standard. Also note that this may not work in many situations,
especially in gymnasium type rooms. Every room is different. Different
layout, different size, different textures, different materials, different
atmosphere, different music style. If you are mixing for the same group all
the time, this gets easier and faster with practice, almost automatic. Then
change guitars and you start from scratch. The singer had cold water
instead of warm water, start from scratch. No matter where you start, it
all ends up being your ears and your opinion, or the money's opinion.
Paying customer wants more highs, give him more highs.
Rupert
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:16:29 -0500, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "liquidator" <mi...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> >news:hfgscd$4fp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
Do what with the pink noise?
Rupert
liquidator
"Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message
news:bzaar0uxp1xu$.1ueckkrreqfrn$.dlg@40tude.net...
Pink noise isn't a setting.
Mike, even if you use pink noise you have to set a certain way.
If you are saying just use the automatic eq, what gear?
Michael Dobony
Duh.
>
> Mike, even if you use pink noise you have to set a certain way.
Duh.
>
> If you are saying just use the automatic eq, what gear?
I though you claimed to be a professional and you don't know that there are
lots of auto eq's out there? There are also a number of scope programs to
flatten out the pink noise.
http://www.eaw.com/products/software/EAWSmaart/index.html comes immediately
to mind.
If you want to continue to play the troll, go back under your bridge.
Krooburg Science
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:05:16 +0200, liquidator wrote:
> > "Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message
> >news:bzaar0uxp1xu$.1ueckkrreqfrn$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:16:29 -0500, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>
> >>> "liquidator" <mi...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:hfgscd$4fp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> to mind.
>
> If you want to continue to play the troll, go back under your bridge.
Your post made absolutely no mention of HOW to use pink noise. The
implication of your post is that you "just run pink noise and turne
the system." Pink noise on it's own is USELESS for tuning a system.
Auto EQ, which was NOT mentioned is LAME way to tune a system. I does
not detect cancellations caused by room interactions, it SUCKS. Pink
noise can be useful with proper analyzers like SMAART which you did
NOT mention and SysTune, etc. In an anechoic environment, pink noise
can work with time-blind RTA's, but PA's don't live in rooms like
that. I'd say hands down YOU are the troll.
K.
McSteve
> I'd say hands down YOU are the troll.
>
OK. Who's sock puppet is this? Can't be Arny.
This person makes sense.
--
Steve <snip> McQ
McSteve
> If you want to continue to play the troll, go back under your bridge.
>
If you want to continue look a fool, keep posting nonsense
like you've done in this thread.
--
Steve <snip> McQ
McSteve
snipping posts he replies to.
What a tard.
--
Steve <snip> McQ
liquidator
>>> If you want a starting point, try pink noise. Please note it is a
>>> *starting
>>> point* not a standard. >>
>
> Duh.
>
>>
>> Mike, even if you use pink noise you have to set a certain way.
>
> Duh.
>
Mike you look stupider with every post. I'm not the only one saying it.
You probably meant to say just use auto eq. That assumes the poster even has
it.
If he just has a pink noise generator and EQ, he can't do much.
Finally, you didn't mention any program, whether to set to a curve or use
auto EQ. Your post was incoherent and useles. then you wonder why you get
crap.
You ain't a pro, not even a knowledgeable amateur.
liquidator
"McSteve" <mcstev...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hfj6b8$g2v$1...@aioe.org...
Yeah, my jaw dropped.
McSteve
> Mike you look stupider with every post. I'm not the only one saying it.
That about sums it up perfectly, IMO.
--
Steve <snip> McQ
Arny Krueger
news:d4baa084-4cb2-467a...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com
> Your post made absolutely no mention of HOW to use pink
> noise.
OTOH, it was not a tutorial. Neither is your post, Krooburg. Sauce for the
goose, and all that.
> The implication of your post is that you "just run pink noise and turne
> (sic)
> the system."
You're stuffing words into Mike's mouth. What Mike started out saying was
(and unlike your lying self, I'll actually quote him)
Dobby wrote:
"If you want a starting point, try pink noise. Please note it is a *starting
point* not a standard."
Now I realize that actually quoting what someone says is something that
flies way over the heads of the usual suspects, but if you had an ounce of
personal integrity Krooburg, you'd at least try to damn Dobby using his own
words, which is regrettably often very easy to do.
> Pink noise on it's own is USELESS for tuning a system.
Well of course. So is any other single component of a sound system. Amps on
their own (no speakers, mixers, or mics) are useless as sound system,
wouldn't you say?
IOW Krooburg, you're just talking trash. You're trying to attract attention
to yourself by flaming one of the local whipping boys.
Pink noise is a tool for tuning sound systems, one of many. When you're not
flying high, you know that, right Krooburg?
> Auto EQ, which was NOT mentioned is LAME way to tune a system.
Tell that to the well-known professional equipment manufacturer who
implicitly recommend it by providing facilities to use it, anybody from
Harman to Behringer. Tell that to all the well-known professionals who use
it as part of their standard procedures for system tuning to this day. One
tool of many, but still a useful tool in its own right.
Tuning a sound system is like baking a cake - you have to use the full
recipe, not just a few of the ingredients. Pink noise is just one ingredient
of many. And Dobby said exactly that, Krooburg. Only your likes and flames
make it seem otherwise.
Of course that's sufficient to impress the idiot children who think you're
great (names withheld to protect the guilty).
> does not detect cancellations caused by room interactions,
Except that pink noise can be used to detect cancellations caused by the
more serious room interactions, if used properly. Pink noise might muddy
the measurement waters, but the sonic shoals are still visible if they are
problematical enough. Live sound is not about getting every detail right -
its about addressing the show stoppers and the more obvious things that are
noticeable when listened to just one time through. It's not the same as
recording where critical people listen to the identical same thing 100s of
times.
> it SUCKS.
Only if you're foolish enough to bet the farm on just it all by itself.
> Pink noise can be useful with proper analyzers like SMAART which you
> did
> NOT mention and SysTune, etc.
Pink noise can and has been and is useful, even when used with a simple RTA.
Maybe you can't make it work, but lots of people can and have.
Note that even Dobby said: "If you want a starting point, try pink noise.
Please note it is a *starting point* not a standard."
> In an anechoic environment, pink noise can work with time-blind RTA's,
Heck, in an anechoic chamber, you can work with pure tones and slow-swept
sine waves.
Pink noise was originally chosen as the next step after sine waves to get
useful results in real-world venues like auditoriums and theaters. It was
the gold standard for decades.
Just because we have fancier tools doesn't mean that the old ones stopped
working. In the final analysis, the best tools we have are the oldest tools
of all - our ears. Pink noise isn't the answer, but it can part of an
effective answer, and Dobby prefaced his statements with exactly that.
Dobby said:
"If you want a starting point, try pink noise. Please note it is a *starting
point* not a standard.
Can't you read, Krooburg? Isn't that clear enough?
What you're doing Krooburg is pulling a trick that is often used around
here - you're lying about the OP, and trying to repeat your lies so
forcefully that people think that your lies are what was originally said.
This might impress our local inventory of low IQ wanna-bes, but its simple
lying and posturing people who can actually read and think, which is
arguably *not* your chosen audience. You just want to spread hate and
derision and attract attention to yourself by playing on people's
prejudices.
> But PA's don't live in rooms like that.
Duuuh!
> I'd say hands down YOU are the troll.
You'd say all sorts of crazy things Krooburg, and look whose agreeing with
you - the dumb and dumber segment of AAPLS. Hopefully most people won't be
distracted by your lies.
Remember that what Dobby said was:
"If you want a starting point, try pink noise. Please note it is a *starting
point* not a standard.
and not the stupid lies you forced into his mouth, Krooburg.
Krooburg Science
> "Krooburg Science" <kroob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Pull your head out of you ass. Saying "pink noise is starting point
not a standard" with NO QUALIFIER ON HOW TO USE IT is akin to saying
"fuel in the tank is a starting point to take a trip". What kind of
fuel? A road trip where? How do we get there? Is the tank in a car or
an RV or a rocket? Also, if you and Mike had a clue, PINK NOISE IS A
STANDARD for all sorts of measurements. And auto EQ is NOT used by
pros. It is used by AMATEURS. Bring your junk-ass Behringer EQ with
"autotune" to an arena, shed, or stadium and starting tuning a D&B
line array with it and you will be LAUGHED OUT OF THE INDUSTRY FOR ALL
TIME and never allowed near a real system again. They system owner
will likely ban you from the premises too. In the 33 years I've been
doing live sound NOBODY I know or met has EVER used this shit auto EQ
since it's inception even on small systems. It is INHERENTLY FLAWED
and has no place in PROFESSIONAL sound. Obviously you're an MI grade
individual though. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on you. OTOH, you
opened your know-nothing mouth. Go to the bank, get a loan, AND BUY A
CLUE. You're a know nothing defending a know nothing standing on
quicksand. Too bad it only figurative so your drivel wouldn't be
posted on the internets in perpetuity.
K.
liquidator
On Dec 8, 5:20 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Tell that to the well-known professional equipment manufacturer who
> implicitly recommend it by providing facilities to use it, anybody from
> Harman to Behringer.
Arni is such a clueless idiot.
JBL also builds boxes stuffed with Eminence speakers. Therefore JBL impies
Eminence speakers are as good as their own right? Makes as much sense as
arni does.
Yes most manufacturers build idiot level equipment. Doesn't mean they don't
recommend how to learn to get the most out of it.
There are few textbbok answers in the world. The OP is looking for a
textbook answer. Bonehead couldn't even provide that.
He would have made more sense had he said if you've got it try auto eq. He
assumed the OP had it then called it pink noise. Just plain dumb.
Arny Krueger
> Pull your head out of you ass. Saying "pink noise is
> starting point not a standard" with NO QUALIFIER ON HOW
> TO USE IT is akin to saying "fuel in the tank is a
> starting point to take a trip". What kind of fuel? A road
> trip where? How do we get there? Is the tank in a car or
> an RV or a rocket?
You didn't do any better, Krooburg. You have provided few if any qualifiers
on how to use it. All you've done is complained that Dobby didn't do it.
Neither did you. Clean up your act!
Greg Cameron
> "Krooburg Science" <kroob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In all fairness, education on how to implement live sound systems and
use tools like pink noise with SMAART is not the responsibility of the
internet or people on the internet. It's the responsibility of the
person inquiring to maybe ask for guidance on where to get proper
training. The most common learning ground in my day was hooking up
with a decent sound co. and learn the ropes from the ground up, the
school of hard knocks if you will. I'll suggest Mr. Dobony take a
SMAART class with Rational Acoustics:
http://www.rationalacoustics.com/
They recently purchased SMAART from EAW and are very enthusiastic
about improving it and teaching it. They're providing classes all over
N. America and are also partnering up with people in Europe and
elsewhere. Even if you don't tune systems for a living, it the
education will teach a lot about speaker systems in general along with
room interactions. Even people who have been doing this a long time
tend to learn some valuable stuff.
Greg
liquidator
"Greg Cameron" <cameron...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:9941045c-db06-44cb...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
http://www.rationalacoustics.com/
Greg
Well said, Greg.