KISS. I'm pretty decent with an eq, but generally I just end up trashing tone. Most other audio engineers do the same thing as well. I say "no".I have been eyeballing a dbx dual channel 31 band eq to add to my gear. My thoughts are that it will help make the sound crisper, and a lot more balanced. I am just getting ideas for now, what are your thoughts?
Different times with different equipmentCurrently my setup consists of a numark mixdeck express, and two Peavey DM112, which do have a small built in digital eq, but im used to gear that allows me to manage a wider band of frequencies, besides just high, mid, and low.
And a lot worse. The first rule of EQ's are they are there to take out far more often than they are to put inIt could also make things worse if you don't know what you're doing.
DSP is for the speakers the EQ is for the room. There are very few rooms that are acoustically perfect enough that an EQ wouldn't make it better with proper use regardless of what speaker you are using. That being said you would be doing it more for you than anyone else because the average guest wouldn't know the difference anywayKeep in mind, most speakers have dsp built in and this wouldn't be beneficial in many cases. I can personally say that ever since I switched to my qsc k12's in 2009, and with every system since, I've never used an eq.
^^^yes, thisAnd a lot worse. The first rule of EQ's are they are there to take out far more often than they are to put in
DSP is for the speakers the EQ is for the room. There are very few rooms that are acoustically perfect enough that an EQ wouldn't make it better with proper use regardless of what speaker you are using. That being said you would be doing it more for you than anyone else because the average guest wouldn't know the difference anyway
31 band gives a lot tighter control. Which brings us back full circle to the operator's skills and the goals of adding the piece.I wouldn’t go past 15, who suggested 31? More doesn’t make it better & most powered speakers have DSP in them. If you want to improve your sound upgrading components in the signal path will improve the sound. Your sound will only sound as good as the worst component in the chain.
not sure i agree with that one. It's like saying an apple is a better fruit than an orange. Each has it's strengths and they aren't identical.ya, it cost more, but it's much more effective, especially for eliminating feedback.
If we are talking about a DJ system - then the notion of eliminating feedback might be moot. In order to do that with an external EQ the mic input requires a processing loop so that you can EQ the mic without also messing up the music program. A 31 band is better for this because the bands are narrower and you'll remove less of adjacent frequencies. You can also roll off a low cut and add a high shelf.parametric eq makes a lot more sense.
If you are running an EQ to solely tame a mic channel you are wasting a perfectly good EQ.if we are talking EQ for feedback issues and overall vocal clarity, you cannot run a global EQ. You have to route a EQ through the mic channel only, and in this case, I still strongly believe it is much easier to do it with a Parametric. You can really easily sweep across frequencies to find out the troubled ones.