Do we really need Graphic equalisers at all?

[rinkydinkron]

I have been gigging for 20 years and have never used nor needed a graphic equaliser in all the venues I have played in,

which brings me to the point,do we really need them?

[paulears]

As a musician, on stage, playing - you have no idea at all what it sounds like to the audience. I do know what you mean - but whenever I play I spend a while making the sound to me on stage, be as good as I can - and unlike some bass players, I've never found the need for a graphic - indeed both my prefered amps don't even have one. The trouble is, when I take my musicians hat off, and move into the auditorium I'm never happy with the sound. My system is set up to be quite neutral, and in most places sounds fine, but there is always some resonance that needs controlling a bit, or odd sibilance that the desk eq can't quite deal with. I never use the graphic in the rack to do smiley faces or other daft things, and for most of the time it is switched out - but I'd never want to not have it.

 

Trouble is, many people use a graphic as a clever eq - or just a glorified tone control (as in the dreaded smiley face) - not, in my humble opinion, what they're designed for.

[Rob_Beech]

For monitors they can be quite handy.

 

When setting up the monitors, if I get feedback I'll first try and move the monitors a little to get rid of it.

However in a louder scenario its sometimes not possible.

Unless you are using equipment that has a far from flat response then you may just get a couple of offending frequencies that you can attenuate by a few db to give you more headroom. This is of course for the benefit of the musician.

 

I can't remember the last time my graphic on FOH was actually in.

 

Rob

[J Pearce]

Depends what I'm doing.

 

If I'm doing a rock gig, I rarely need one FOH, but often have one in the monitors.

In theatre work I often use them on subgroups to get an extra bit of gain on the rifles, or lose that frequency that rings when she stands DSR.

 

At church we have a graphic with some serious cuts in it across our FOH mix, as the speakers are hopelessly positioned, (there is nowhere else to put them without a serious amount of work) and the acoustics are pretty horrendous.

[charlyfarly]

I can't remember the last time my graphic on FOH was actually in.

 

Rob

 

Ah! The beauty of DSP's ;) Still like to have a GEQ for "grab" purposes though, especially on multi-act gigs. Not all of us like that harsh, barking mid-range that some engineers seem to find "attractive". ;) Personally I find it very tiring and uncomfortable to listen to.

[Rob_Beech]

Different types of shows I do may have a slight alteration to the crossover (omnidrive) but I dont find much need for the graphic at FOH. its always there just in case. I would never be without one, just hardly use it.

 

And I fully agree on that awful mid that is too common particularly with rock/metal. I've taken to walking out. I just can't be doing with it. only wants 3 db off in a couple of places to tame it and it'll be much better.

 

 

Rob

[char-p]

I'd probably want to say that in all touring rigs you would be foolish to not have one in the rack. Any rig will require equalisation for room modes, resonant strutures etc, but these can often be set at the system processing level. Often though, the only way to get these tonaly correct is to apply them at FOH, on a graphic, before transfering them. If we then look at touring systems, you can be encoutering any number of architecturally dire acoustics requiring changes to the system output. Most engineers will admit to having to reach for the 1k/1k25 on many occasions, even it is only for a 1db cut.

 

Finally, when an act veers from drums and everyone else with guitars; an eq is often helpful at an individual instrument level - most recently for me with a violin in a gym to reduce those frequencies at which the room acoustic was reflecting, leaving my gain structure cleaner on the re-enforcing frequencies.

 

Simply, why do we all carry a Gerber/Leatherman/etc, and yet still have a toolkit? Because the moment you don't, you'll need it worse than you ever have done before.

 

Paul

[Barrythebuilder]

I think it all depends on the quality of the system, I have more experience with good quality Hi-Fi, and in nearly all cases when you get top quality gear they don't give you any options to make the sound worse.

 

However for some reason when I get lots of knobs put in front of me I just can't help but play with them !!!

 

 

Barry

[Simon Lewis]

do we really need them?

 

Well there's no need to use them if you are happy with your sound....

 

However, at one time graphics were the one of the few tools we had to set up and optimise loudspeaker systems, deal with problem sources and adjust the PA's output in such as way as not to excite acoustic problems in the room.

Sound systems might have been loud, but they could be rough, plus a lack of arrayability and rampant combfiltering gave much grief.

 

Graphics didn't actually solve most of these issues, but we thought they were better than doing nothing!

 

Now, it's quite likely that the system uses a loudspeaker management tool to provide loudspeaker specific alignment and equalisation. Better quality mics and flatter response PAs with controlled directivity may mean that problem sources do not always require a 31 band eq on that channel.

 

Some attention is now paid to room acoustics, and even the poorer behaving venues will benefit from loudspeakers that can deliver sound to the audience instead of unnecessarily exciting the reverberant sound field.

 

I would still keep a 31 band eq available for guest engineers, primarily to keep them happy, and because it's easy to flatten or bypass it when necessary. The real work is done by the locked off DSP and through better loudspeaker design;-)

 

Simon

[ampcats]

as simon said...

Now, it's quite likely that the system uses a loudspeaker management tool to provide loudspeaker specific alignment and equalisation

I was just about to point out that you are bidding on an equaliser at this very moment!! - it may be unadjustable and be inside a box, but an EQ is what it is

 

how long will it be before audio equipment manufacturers create an audio version of 'colour profiles' used with printers / scanners / monitors etc... to provide a 'transparent sound' - i.e. you tell the desk that channel 1 has got a Shure Beta87C (or later using I2c or another technology, it may autodetect devices) and it has a couple of XYZ amps and then the desk calculates the length of cable and the loss from the mic and matches up all the other assigned inputs, it also adjusts the output curve to cover any known weak spots in XYZ's response curve - leaving the speaker processor to take care of the speakers themselves (that is, if you tell it there are 'managed' speakers)?

[Just Some Bloke]

I love the idea of a system that sets itself up for you. It could even learn what kind of sound you like and have user presets!

 

That way, I could just plug everything in and mix the show.

 

I've seen too many engineers recently who carry wonderful kit, spend half the day playing white noise to set the system up perfectly, then make a right old hash of the mix. The sound is too harsh, you can't hear the vocal properly, the rythmn guitarist might as well not have bothered turning up and the bass guitar and kick drum have merged into one low end thud cos the subs are up too high.

 

Give me a system that sets itself up any day so that we can then concentrate on people who can actually mix the show rather than just set up the system.

 

;)

[drowner77]

When I first got my PS15 system I felt embarrased that I did not have to use the EQ. I thought that I must be doing something wrong or that my ears were going so I just moved a couple of the levers on the lower mid range down a bit in a little pattern just in case a secret technician snuck a look.

 

I still use the EQ, but very sparingly..

[Bobbsy]

Give me a system that sets itself up any day so that we can then concentrate on people who can actually mix the show rather than just set up the system.

 

:)

 

I wonder though.

 

If you think about it, while not "a system that sets itself up" things like SMAART are tools that, in theory, let you tune your system in whatever location you're working. However, as much as it can make things "flat", very often the sound is disappointing and it takes a trained set of ears to make things right.

 

Could a fully automatic system, at least one using any existing technology, do any better?

 

Bob

[ampcats]

I was careful to NOT include any mention of room acoustics, merely the connected components - what goes in, comes out louder.

 

The point that the sound might then be picked up immediately by a microphone and howls, or everything bar the bottom 1K gets muffled by a ton of soft wall coverings / or the room resonates nicely at xxKHz- is immaterial, and is for the sound engineer to sort out using the processing available ... since now (s)he is working to make the room and presenters / vocalists / instruments sound 'right' - NOT the equipment

 

I think EQ's will be more important in systems like that. Whether it is the 3 knob input channel, or the 31 band type remains to be seen

 

While useful, and with it's place, SMAART style analysis proves that a totally flat EQ can be far from what sounds 'good' - especially when you start filling the solid concrete gymnasium with lots of squishy sound absorbing humans

[Chris Hinds]

I like to have graphics on monitors as it's handy to be able to cut out a few obnoxious frequencies. On the other hand at FOH I tend to have very little use for the graphic, tending to do the main system tuning by altering the gains on each bandpass to suit my taste for that music style. I very rarely go as far as making cuts on the graphic as in most places cuts make it worse in some places than others. I quite often do different cuts on the L and R to get a more even sound too. Any EQing activity takes place after some venue walking with a CD going as the load in/stage prep is done. Making cuts blind for the sake of it is not helpful.

 

Regards

 

Chris