BEs and System DSP

[Spenser Hamilton]

Re: BEs and System DSP

I would think this comes from the expectation of a graphic eq on the mains. Starting with everything flat may not be a bad policy. I would not expect that to include the speaker processor settings, which should be the manufacturer's specified parameters. I try to avoid using the processor for show system eq. That should be an external eq next to the console, or an eq built into the console. I prefer the ones in the console because there is already one there on every output.

Mac

In this case, desks were Yamaha and Behringer digital boards.

Input side of the processor is typically not touched, we just load the settings from Harman and go, Harman has people on staff that are way more experienced at system setup than me

Graphic eq is supplied either from the consoles or we supply Klark and/or DBX 31 band units.

I'm happy to see so many poll results, I've always thought that I fell closest to the second option - I'm always willing to adjust passband gains and even bump up the limiter threshold on the subs a few dB if I feel it is safe to do so. This is the first time I've let an band engineer have full reign over DSP setup, and based on my experience and the poll results it will likely be the last.

 

[Art Welter]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Input side of the processor is typically not touched, we just load the settings from Harman and go, Harman has people on staff that are way more experienced at system setup than me

Spenser,

While I won't argue your system voicing experience compared to the Harman staff, I can say that the SRX settings I tried were certainly not what worked to correct the response of the SRX boxes I happened to use outdoors.

And those same Harman staff were perhaps responsible for the early Vertec presets, which have been replaced by new ones created by a different engineer, which reportedly make the boxes sound "like a new PA", indicating that the original voicing was far less than stellar.

Have you checked the in room system response with any measurements to determine that the Harman settings with your particular cabinet location and deployment result in a reasonably flat amplitude response (at least at the mix position) from around 125 to 5000 Hz?

If not, I'd suggest that they are a "load" that can "go" .

Art

 

[Spenser Hamilton]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Spenser,

While I won't argue your system voicing experience compared to the Harman staff, I can say that the SRX settings I tried were certainly not what worked to correct the response of the SRX boxes I happened to use outdoors.

And those same Harman staff were perhaps responsible for the early Vertec presets, which have been replaced by new ones created by a different engineer, which reportedly make the boxes sound "like a new PA", indicating that the original voicing was far less than stellar.

Have you checked the in room system response with any measurements to determine that the Harman settings with your particular cabinet location and deployment result in a reasonably flat amplitude response (at least at the mix position) from around 125 to 5000 Hz?

If not, I'd suggest that they are a "load" that can "go" .

Art

We're using the settings specified for the DR260, off the top of my head there is a few cuts in the 1.6KHz and 2.5KHz areas, and the hi-shelf above 6KHz. I've never measured the rig outside, indoors it looks - and sounds - okay to me. The 725 seems to drop off quickly above 12 or 13KHz. You don't happen to remember which settings you were using?

Now we're almost going down another tangent though, not that I'm opposed to that, I'm always open to improvement.

 

[Gary J Green]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Spenser,
To add to your fun..
Every rider that comes across my desk where the "BE needs access to the theater's Sound System DSP ", this gets RED lined. We see riders up front to project production costs before the show is booked, contracts signed. It has never been an issue. Artist's management signs off because they want to sell a show. This is an install so obviously a different beast. It really has to be this way. The only changes I ever do for anyone is system delay, aux subs - no touching limiting, MF/HF xover points, eq filters . Helps having this processing 2 floors above mix position. Then again, no one has ever asked to change anything else.
gg

 

[Rob Spence]

Oddly enough, this was the case. "Can we start with everything flat?" before the rig had made a single sound that day.

I'm tempted to move the processor from the FOH rack to one of the amp racks at this point, would save on return lines too.

My input EQ on the DSP is flat. The output is what EV provided. No one changes the DSP on my rig. You got parametrics on the console out, use em.

My DSP is in an amp rack. They used to call them speaker processors. I consider it part of the speaker system ( people don't ask if they can re-wind the voice coils in the cabinets do they ).

Sent from my iPad HD

 

[Brad Weber]

Re: BEs and System DSP

I recently had a 'discussion'on this topic with a national tour tech whose standard conditions apparently dictate full access to all system processing. It also came out that they did not usually take the time to return the system to the original settings nor did they necessarily back anything up if they were in a hurry. And they seemed to have the view that they were typically the only ones who cared about the sound and whose reputation was at stake. In the ensuing discussion they noted that they actually rarely actually required 'full' access and never touched limiters, etc., usually worked with the venue/system techs and so on, but felt that they needed to watch out for themselves. And I believe that is the problem, if both sides address their 'worst case' potential scenario then you tend to have two directly competing perspectives.

What was most concerning to me in that discussion was that the party demanding full system processing access apparently also specifically stipulated assuming no liability for their actions. I believe that if you want access to all system processing then you need to be willing to accept the associated liability and if you aren't willing to take responsibility for your actions then you probably shouldn't be demanding anything. To demand full system processing access and then deny any related liability seems to be less than 'professional' and cause by itself to deny the very access desired.

To try to address this situation I tend to design installed systems with two layers of processing, one layer that addresses the basic system tuning and that should not have to be touched and one that is there specifically to allow some flexibility in setup and subjective adjustment. With digital consoles that accessible layer of system processing is often addressable via the console routing and processing (or whatever processing a BE carries with them).

 

[Art Welter]

Re: BEs and System DSP

We're using the settings specified for the DR260, off the top of my head there is a few cuts in the 1.6KHz and 2.5KHz areas, and the hi-shelf above 6KHz. I've never measured the rig outside, indoors it looks - and sounds - okay to me. The 725 seems to drop off quickly above 12 or 13KHz. You don't happen to remember which settings you were using?

Spenser,

It has been years since I used the JBL system, and the settings used have been different depending on the deployment, never committed any to memory.
The Harmon settings specified for the DR260 are derived using different cabinets deployed differently in an environment different from yours.
Although they might be a starting point, they should not be the end point.

I have been presented with systems with whacky EQ choices that "sound OK" to whomever set them, but sound and measure poorly.
What specifically do you mean when you say "indoors it (the rig) looks - and sounds - okay to me"?
Does that mean the orange tags are upright and visible, or that the settings and deployment result in a measured response +/- 3 dB from around 125 to 5000 Hz?

 

[Spenser Hamilton]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Spenser,

It has been years since I used the JBL system, and the settings used have been different depending on the deployment, never committed any to memory.
The Harmon settings specified for the DR260 are derived using different cabinets deployed differently in an environment different from yours.
Although they might be a starting point, they should not be the end point.

I have been presented with systems with whacky EQ choices that "sound OK" to whomever set them, but sound and measure poorly.
What specifically do you mean when you say "indoors it (the rig) looks - and sounds - okay to me"?
Does that mean the orange tags are upright and visible, or that the settings and deployment result in a measured response +/- 3 dB from around 125 to 5000 Hz?

Most recent measurement was done with a DBX RTA-M into Tascam US-200 into SMAART on my MBP, mic on a stand at FOH position. Didn't save the measurement's which I am kicking myself for because I would love to have some of you guys rip them apart. I just received a Rational RTA-420 with calibration file so perhaps I'll make a point of do so next time the rig is out.

As far as what I was able to measure: The subs were hay stacked due to the fact that we were running three 728 per side, I pulled back the sub pass band about 2dB prior to the artist arriving only to have the BE request that I boost the subs during soundcheck. There were a few spots in the 200-800Hz and also the 2-3KHz range that needed to be tamed on the FOH graph, and as I stated previously there is the rapid drop in response in the very high frequency range. Phase between the sub and mid bands looked good on screen, the phase at the upper end looked not so great - probably due to the fact that the ceiling was about 4" from the top of the stacks!

I'll gladly start a new thread when I get a chance and post some measurements, I always appreciate when you comment Art, even if your comments usually consist of schooling me on how to improve in this business.

 

[Dave Barnett]

Re: BEs and System DSP

What was most concerning to me in that discussion was that the party demanding full system processing access apparently also specifically stipulated assuming no liability for their actions. I believe that if you want access to all system processing then you need to be willing to accept the associated liability and if you aren't willing to take responsibility for your actions then you probably shouldn't be demanding anything. To demand full system processing access and then deny any related liability seems to be less than 'professional' and cause by itself to deny the very access desired.

Something about having your cake and eating it too?

 

[Jared Koopman]

Re: BEs and System DSP

So does this not work?

 

[Craig Hauber]

Re: BEs and System DSP

My input EQ on the DSP is flat. The output is what EV provided. No one changes the DSP on my rig. You got parametrics on the console out, use em.

My DSP is in an amp rack. They used to call them speaker processors. I consider it part of the speaker system ( people don't ask if they can re-wind the voice coils in the cabinets do they ).

Sent from my iPad HD

Along with this too is when using high end self-powered cabinets (like Meyer) they don't expect to change the crossover and limit settings so why should they when the DSP is separate from the cabinet? They are more than welcome to change relationships between cabinets (subs to tops to fills etc..) but your not going to do better than the factory by setting the tweeter to mid crossover type point and type. Same goes with L'Acoustics and d&b type PA's, -they don't even let you have access to those settings as an SE (built into the amps) so how can you grant a BE access?
-and as a BE I wouldn't want to see those PA's run without the factory presets either (such as using a different amp and a generalized speaker processor)

 

[Tommy Peel]

So does this not work?

View attachment 7815

I love it when I find a system where every channel is assigned to every bus and all the bus masters are all the way up(and assigned to L/R).... The the master fader usually ends up around around -30(though one time it was all the way up too) as do most of the channel faders; and they wonder why touching a fader results in a massive change in volume and usually feedback. ;-)

That is a clever, interesting limiter though.


Sent from my iPad HD

 

[Max Warasila]

Re: BEs and System DSP

I love it when I find a system where every channel is assigned to every bus and all the bus masters are all the way up(and assigned to L/R).... The the master fader usually ends up around around -30(though one time it was all the way up too) as do most of the channel faders; and they wonder why touching a fader results in a massive change in volume and usually feedback. ;-)

That is a clever, interesting limiter though.


Sent from my iPad HD

I wonder if you could overdrive the circuits enough to move the fader through the tape from induction...

...nah probably not. I don't think electronics work that way.

 

[Jason Raboin]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Today was a good example why I demand access to the system DSP. The tech had turned the low of the Kudo rig down 7db in the Lake processors to compensate for room acoustics. That's not how I like to do it, so I asked him to put it back to factory settings and used parametric to achieve the same results.

 

[Brad Weber]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Today was a good example why I demand access to the system DSP. The tech had turned the low of the Kudo rig down 7db in the Lake processors to compensate for room acoustics. That's not how I like to do it, so I asked him to put it back to factory settings and used parametric to achieve the same results.

Asking the house tech to reset the processors to the factory settings seems to be different than demanding full access to all processing. Perhaps the issue is really making processing changes via or in cooperation with the house tech versus making changes via direct access with little or no coordination.

 

[Graham C Mellor]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Today was a good example why I demand access to the system DSP. The tech had turned the low of the Kudo rig down 7db in the Lake processors to compensate for room acoustics. That's not how I like to do it, so I asked him to put it back to factory settings and used parametric to achieve the same results.

Seems pointless to do if it achieves the SAME result. At that point is preferential and almost egotistical to change. There are many ways to skin a rabbit, and some people might not like a method, but if you don't have to touch it and it achieves the SAME result, why touch it?

 

[Evan Kirkendall]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Seems pointless to do if it achieves the SAME result. At that point is preferential and almost egotistical to change. There are many ways to skin a rabbit, and some people might not like a method, but if you don't have to touch it and it achieves the SAME result, why touch it?

Because turning down the low band pass 7dB not only changes the crossover point, but also kills from like 65-300hz on the Kudo. I'd rather do a parametric as well.



Evan

 

[Graham C Mellor]

Re: BEs and System DSP

Because turning down the low band pass 7dB not only changes the crossover point, but also kills from like 65-300hz on the Kudo. I'd rather do a parametric as well. Evan

Exactly my point Ev, it doesn't acheive the SAME result. Which in and of itself is probably the #1 reason I rarely open my processors for a BE. If they can't communicate WHY, I don't allow it. I know that turning it down won't achieve the same result, so if someone told me that it would, I would question their strengths as a system engineer. In this case I'm going slightly overboard to prove a point, but we as touring guys need to be able to communicate our needs thoroughly and precisely, or knowledgable PM's and house system techs won't open up for us. Sometimes it's all in how you ask.

 

[Josh Millward]

Re: BEs and System DSP

... we as touring guys need to be able to communicate our needs thoroughly and precisely, or knowledgable PM's and house system techs won't open up for us. Sometimes it's all in how you ask.

Exactly. As a house guy for a couple venues I see all kinds of BE and ME types travelling with bands.

If you can talk to me intelligently about what you would like to accomplish, I am quite happy to help you achieve it.

However, if all you can do is bitch and moan about the Peavey rig you are being forced to used today (never mind that there are 12 mixes available, each using a Crest Audio Pro 9200 to biamp a QW wedge, and there are at least 14 wedges available, processing done with a MediaMatrix NION) I'll probably take whatever you have to say with a pretty good sized brick of salt. Besides, some of the worst offenders are groups who were playing some club last night using some low end passive wedges, and now you are trying to tell me that this 12 mix 31KW monitor rig isn't enough? Yet you were lucky to have 4 working passive monitor mixes last night? Puh-leeze.

The best thing to do is to just work together. Communicate with me and let me know what you are trying to do and what I can do to help you get it done. However, unfortunately equipment has limits. The venue does not have a budget to replace all the baskets and diaphragms after each show. I have to use this equipment for the next show, you get to use different equipment. I'll do whatever I can, within the constraints of the equipment I have, to help you have the best show possible, but I'm not going to blow this rig up because you just stand there and demand access into the DSP system. It simply ain't gonna happen.

Regardless, simply changing the nameplate on the front of the boxes is not going to make as much of a difference as some people want to think it will.

 

[Tim Duffin]

Re: BEs and System DSP

I recently had a 'discussion'on this topic with a national tour tech whose standard conditions apparently dictate full access to all system processing. It also came out that they did not usually take the time to return the system to the original settings nor did they necessarily back anything up if they were in a hurry. And they seemed to have the view that they were typically the only ones who cared about the sound and whose reputation was at stake. In the ensuing discussion they noted that they actually rarely actually required 'full' access and never touched limiters, etc., usually worked with the venue/system techs and so on, but felt that they needed to watch out for themselves. And I believe that is the problem, if both sides address their 'worst case' potential scenario then you tend to have two directly competing perspectives.

What was most concerning to me in that discussion was that the party demanding full system processing access apparently also specifically stipulated assuming no liability for their actions. I believe that if you want access to all system processing then you need to be willing to accept the associated liability and if you aren't willing to take responsibility for your actions then you probably shouldn't be demanding anything. To demand full system processing access and then deny any related liability seems to be less than 'professional' and cause by itself to deny the very access desired.

To try to address this situation I tend to design installed systems with two layers of processing, one layer that addresses the basic system tuning and that should not have to be touched and one that is there specifically to allow some flexibility in setup and subjective adjustment. With digital consoles that accessible layer of system processing is often addressable via the console routing and processing (or whatever processing a BE carries with them).

I found this most common with hip-hop acts. They basically wanted to destroy your system and make you pay for it to show how much of a bada55 they were. When asked what they wanted to do with the dsp, the answer is always: "everything is not loud enough" no matter how loud it is. You could be hitting 150 and people would be crying, but unless you are experiencing a monetary loss, its not "loud enough".

I don't do hip hop anymore. That is one of the reasons.