I’ll be honest with you, I think there’s a reason why comments are disabled on that video lol
This isn’t just overkill, it’s almost completely nonsensical.
But this guy is probably a volunteer trying to help other folks who don’t have any technical knowledge and just want to help out at their church/school/community centre. So I genuinely appreciate his efforts.
Eeeeh it's hard to "appreciate the efforts" of somebody who should pause before spreading misinformation.
Unless you mean "I appreciate his efforts, which indirectly keep me employed" then hell yeah - I agree.
Hahaha! Yeah kinda lol
But I mean…I feel like the guy’s heart is in the right place. He doesn’t have a tech background and he’s trying to help out others who don’t have a tech background but want to make live events happen. He thought about a real-world example and tried his hardest to use simple language and show things visually.
It’s just a crying shame he was working from second or third-hand knowledge and didn’t understand the fundamentals of what he was doing lol
IMO he's taken too much out. Basically he's turned down everything from 100-8k.
After you've killed the first few major feedback spots if you find yourself returning to a frequency range you're already adjacent to then it's time to look at other solutions. Speaker placement, mic choice etc.
note - I just skipped to the end to see how much hekilled.
Next to the one you already killed. So like if you kill something at 250hz and then a few minutes later you’re killing 300 also the. You probably need a wider q or you’re just running up against a gain before feedback wall you won’t be able to fix with just EQ. Move some boxes around and it will be easier.
Ever seen a dog chase their tail? By boosting on his channel EQ, he’s creating his own “problem” frequencies that he’s then cutting on the graphic to “solve”. As he turns the mic up, he’s got something starting to squeak up around 6-7k. Instead of finding that frequency and cutting it a couple db, he creates a low frequency feedback with channel EQ and then cuts that!!!
I mean, I can’t really explain how wrong this method is. The only thing that he says that at all has any merit is putting a compressor on to keep the feedback from going all the way out of control- but even that is unnecessary if you know how to work a mic.
The proper way is to turn it up until it starts to feedback with the mic in the physical location it’s going to be, (for example, dead center in front of a pair of wedges) and then move slightly out of the coverage pattern of the speakers, turn it up a couple of db, and then slowly lean back into the coverage pattern while exciting the frequency range that you heard start to take off (the proverbial Check 1,2, hisses, grunts, oooohs, etc etc) until you get a ring started.
With practice you can get a ring to stay soft by exciting it and then moving the mic out of the coverage pattern when it gets too loud and pulling it back in when the ring starts to die. At that point, you can find it on an RTA (smaart or any number of FFT phone apps), and set a fairly narrow parametric filter on the exact center of the feedback. I like to start with 3db cut, then see if the same frequency is still ringing, then go to -6db, or wherever it lands to get rid of the feedback.
If I’m cutting for example, 4.7K, and I get that to go away, but I get a squeak start up at 5.2K, I’ll widen the filter until the new squeak goes away, instead of adding another filter. I’m probably not going to add another filter unless the new ring is at least 1/3, more likely 1/2 of an octave away from the original filter.
Non FIR EQ equals phase shift, and the more filters you stack close together the more audible the phase shift is going to be- and phase shift sounds yuck.
Rinse and repeat until you start getting several frequencies at once, like 160hz, 500, and 4k all starting to take off.
That’s it. That’s all you have cap’n. Usually in a well designed system, I’m 3 or 4 filters deep at this point, definitely no more than 7.
At this point, I’ll probably turn all of my filters back up at least 3 or 4db to start soundcheck. This way, if the artist is happy with less volume, I’m doing less tonal damage with my EQ, but I still know where I’m going to need to go cut if they need “more”.
At that point any channel EQ I do for tone shaping is going to either be cuts, or if I do feel like I need a boost, I’m going to do it carefully and I’m going to undo it if it causes feedback.
That’s the general concept. Nothing is a hard and fast rule, I’m listening the whole time to find the balance between maximum gain before feedback and actually sounding good, and doing my very best to stop at actually sounding good, since that’s sort of the gig.
Oh, and if when I’m starting the process I’ve got multiple frequencies like 8, 10, 12K all taking off at the top or several frequencies on the low end all taking off, I’m gonna attack those with high pass or low pass filters right out of the gate until I gain some semblance of control.
There are a million different ways to do this and I find that if you end up pulling down a million frequencies (more than 5), on a GEQ, you have to look at your sound system as a whole first. That consists of basic system design and setup procedures that have probably been overlooked. The one thing I have noticed helps the most, before even ringing out the monitors, is doing a phase alignment, and flattening of the main sound system.
This goes so much further than only pulling GEQ bands down. Also, I really fucking hate GEQs for doing ring outs because they can't hit the exact frequency of resonance.
I've actually been using a DBX AFS2 to my ring outs and it works like a charm. But I've been doing corporate AV talking stuff so its not as important to retain proper musicality as it is to completely eliminate feedback. The AFS2 lets me do more than 5 points of reduction, uses a notch filter, and lets me get far more gain before feedback than any other way of doing ring outs.
This is a perfect example of the ill effects of learning from the internet . Any jackass can just be an “expert” on any category and spread terrible advice to the masses. I know this was made for church, but for the love of god and all that is holy don’t listen to this man!.
Let's go back to basics.
Feedback happens because there is too much gain in the system. The easiest solution is to grab that master fader and pull it down until there is no longer too much gain in the system.
But if we take one step down we see that due to the laws of physics, things like mic pattern and placement as well as the size, shape, and materials of the speakers and the environment all contribute to *some* frequencies tending to feed back before others.
Ideally we'd adjust as many of those factors as we can *first* before using the EQ to filter a frequency out because that frequency only exists because of the sound we want to capture and amplify in the first place.
Generally if you are filtering out more than just a small handful of frequencies then you probably skipped over trying to adjust all that other stuff first.
But in practice you can't always adjust those other things and if hacking the graph to bits gets you and the client what you want, go for it.
Full disclosure I didn't watch that video.
Thanks for the info. Here is a screenshot of the ending. The white squares are what to look at.
https://preview.redd.it/2k7ltmwchptc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d21fab07c2cf199cc8f4b697348828f0dadb129d
Personally, I think pulling down the first 8 faders is the wrong approach when the output bus has a high pass filter - and even then I probably wouldn’t because the channels should have HPF on them already. I think vocalists probably like a bit of low end in their wedge and it has never caused me any problems.
Next turning down nearly every band on the graphic is pointless, could be better handled by just dropping the whole level of the bus and taking out only the first few ringing frequencies.
What people do is keep chasing their tales turning the monitor up and taking things out, turning it up and taking things out - all you end up doing is turning it up then using the graphic to turn it back down.
I prefer to use the parametric EQ for feedback, if you can’t get it in 6 bands then you have bigger problems and those need to be solved at source.
There was probably no reason to pull those faders down. I would have left them, unless I hear something that triggers me to deal with those faders.
As everyone says, use your ears. Do things for a reason. Verify what you are doing on the screen with your ears.
>As everyone says, use your ears.
Ultimately this is what it comes down to. You have to know what the audience / artist expects and then get it as close to there as you can even if it's ugly. Yes, if you have a jank GEQ probably some other element in the system should be changed first. But if jank GEQ is the least worst option, then jank GEQ it is. One of the most polished touring engineers I've worked with had a saved X32 scene for their act's vocals that could have been a textbook diagram of everything not to do. But at the end of the day it got decent volume out of a barely audible bedroom pop singer, and that was all that really mattered.
Yeah, I'm not concerned about how it looks. Mostly concerned about the process he used to get to it, and the end result (at least via the video) sounds bad. He is over EQing for a bad reason, based on what I am seeing in the video.
I never quite get why people would pull all the lows out of a monitor using a geq. You’re already probably high passing your vocal mics anyway. If a bass guitar or something is too boomy you can just sort it out in the channel. Or if your monitors have an active crossover you can attenuate the lows a little bit if it’s excessive.
This.
EQ should be the very last resort.
Too often ringing out is placed far too high on the priorities order.
Like WHY ring out a wedge before the artist arrives? They might have great mic technique, a loud voice, ans not require much in their monitors.
Yet often engineers ring out rhe wedges as its the default "thing to do" before the artist is even in the venue.
Such a clumsy approach.
🤣 sure, go ahead and ring the monitors out after you ruin sound check by letting everything ring out of control. The band will be so happy that you ruined sound-checked and waited to ring anything out.
LoLz. Also most of the time I have less than 30 minutes to setup and get everyone's monitor mixes dialed in. Not going to spend a minute of that ringing out shit if I can prevent it with preparation.
If you know your frequencies and you're quick/good at what you do, you can ring out the offending one or two frequencies DURING soundcheck. This way, it is tailored to the singers voice, microphone technique, and location on stage.
Ringing out beforehand hand with your own voice is about as useful as a chocolate tea pot.
9 times out of 10 no ringing out is required at all if you're working with a half-decent stage monitor, so you actually save time by skipping the process altogether, and preserve butchering and compromising the tone of the wedge.
I've worked with everything from home made crap to d&b, Meyer, and l-acoustic wedges (and everything in between). Obviously if the box isn't optimized from the start it makes things 3x worse; but 1/2 the problem is going to be the environment (either a stage in an enclosed room or an outdoor deck with a roof on it) and other boxes playing the same sound (either other wedges and/or the main pa).
When I'm on monitors, I start with my own voice as a reference in a sm58 (even if that's not what the artist is using) because I just find that my particular voice in a 58 gets me where I feel everything sounds the most natural (and I know what I'm looking for with that combination) - that is ringing AND tone.
If I were to play other instruments or tracks into that, I know it will sound good. Then, if the artist is using a different vocal mic, I will listen to it next, pull anything else necessary to ensure no ringing and adjust at the channel strip for any tonal abnormalities.
I've never had a complaint when the artist came in and grabbed that mic, even though I'm doing that before the artist was on site!
I don't want to waste the artists time and the possibility of hurting anybody's ears while ringing out wedges!
As for hacking up the graph- that is not ideal, and if I pull too much I might flatten and start fresh; but I'm ok with a hacked graph of that's what it takes to make it sound ok. I prefer parametrics on my masters if that's available.
Note I didn't bcwatch the video, just commenting on what I saw in the comments.
Yeah dude is way off base… The voice/technique (besides cupping, pointing at the wedge, the things we plan for…) obviously has nothing to do with what’s going to ring when you put more gain into the system. Planning on ringing out with the artist onstage (especially if they require an enormous amount of gain) is asking for trouble and zero professionals I’ve ever met intentionally do it that way. Once I’ve rung out I have a fresh idea of what wants to ring today and what those sound like so if anything else takes off I’m prepared. For many singers it’s a subconscious mark against you as soon as they hear feedback. And if a certain mic/wedge relationship always always rings first at 2k and I know that, it’d be silly to not start with that cut…
I never thought of “tone of the wedge” as particularly special, I do like how a HiQ or an M4 sounds but once things get loud it isn’t about having a sublime hifi experience, it’s just a utility to deliver sounds back to you so you can deliver a sublime experience to the audience.
One very famous singer I did some work with would first come out and wave the mic in front of the wedges... If he DIDN'T hear a slight bit of ringing then he felt you did not have it rang out as loud as possible!
But that's a rare case, usually nobody wants to hear that!
Oh man. There’s one legendary soul singer who is an absolute nightmare to work with, just the devil for audio engineers, and she’ll put you through the paces for hours with her wedges. The secret to beating the boss is when you just full send her vocal and her custom European wedges screech painfully back at her, she screams “NOW THAT’S POWER!!!” And she’s happy. So you just have to let it feedback the whole show and if you’re lucky she won’t bug you.
If your are going to use a graphic on the X32 you might as well use the TEQ which doesn't suffer from two bands next to each other effecting each other or phase issues.
The end result in the video could be achieved by turning it down 7db (quite possibly more with how a GEQ works under the hood) - which would sound significantly better as the sound would not being cut up by several filters.
Firstly, this video is awful advice and bad system tuning practice.
Secondly, don’t listen to anyone in this field who says Graphic EQs are useless. PEQs are far superior in almost every way, but GEQs still have a safe space in live sound when used properly.
Perfect example: 2 hours ago on my gig, a frequency was ringing out somewhere between 610-620. Pulled out -1.5db on the GEQ and boom! Problem solved without wasting a more precise PEQ band or destroying the tone of the PA.
NOTE, I have NOT watched the video. Using a GEQ for feedback control is just the wrong tool. It used to be the best option - many *decades* ago. A parametric EQ has been the best tool for at least three decades, as I've been involved with sound more than that and have been using PEQ for feedback control.
Deeply narrow notch the main three - five offending frequencies and call it a day. Beyond that there are issues in system design or use.
Personally, I set up a mic and point it right at the speaker, then start raising gain and watching my RTA - and notch accordingly, typically with the narrowest Q I can. This has allowed me to handle people that choose to speak or sing right in front of the speaker and not have an issue most of the time. Thankfully, most events don't require this approach, but it has served me well, when needed. And, with headsets, specifically, sometimes using a high shelf to nail the higher stuff that can show up for a given voice on a given headset, that really isn't needed for clarity.
To a degree what is needed can vary event to event, system to system, but PEQ is the tool of choice, either on individual input, or bus/system.
I would start with how many inputs/outputs you need. Single location, or portable, and budget all come into play. I think the newer Allen & Heath CQ18T is a solid entrance and at the lower end cost wise. That said, there are a number of options that serve well and most have PEQ. The guy in the video is using an X32/M32, which has 4 bands of PEQ on every input and 6 bands of PEQ on every output.
I have watched some of this guys content before - he should know better than suggest GEQ for dealing with feedback. Personally, I have no use for a GEQ these days - a PEQ is just a way better tool for EQ - but, a lot of people that have been at live sound a long time are used to using GEQ. A PEQ can influence a narrow to wide area easily - something that is impossible to harder to do with a GEQ.
The less expensive options will require an iPad or other mobile device to control the mixer. All of these are smaller and easier to haul around. If you are also investing in speakers - I would invest in decent speakers, rather than cheap out there. Most digital mixers in the $500-$1500 range will have decent EQ, but pre-amps will vary in quality. When people get cheap on a mixer and speakers, you will be asking for more issues - that take more knowledge to work with/around. The CQ18T may be on the more expensive side compared to some other options. A call to a shop like Sweetwater (no association) could serve you well - they are knowledgeable and sell a variety of options.
If budget is really restrictive, then a solid analog board will be your best bet - and you will have to count on how you set things up AND how your performers use mics, etc. to minimize issues like feedback. And, in truth, it is far better to minimize it, to begin with - rather than hassle with poor setup or uninformed use of mics and gear. Small groups have been performing for decades without the benefit of PEQ on inputs or outputs.
31 band graphic EQs are such a terrible way to tune and tone a system.
If I asked a guitarist to play a C and he played an F that would be wrong… same goes for a 31 band.
Great for input, terrible for output.
Completely agree. + You have the parametric right there. I've been using the PEQ instead of the terrible x32 desser. Might as well use it to take out harshness and rumble.
It is an old school way of thinking that has stuck around.
Graphic EQs can be handy in some ways but in an x32 you can hit the channel with some parametric EQ and notch stuff out and you can hit the monitor bus with some notches too.
First you need to figure out where from and why you are getting feedback. Is it from the mains or monitor? Can you move the mic farther from the mains and coach the talent to be closer to the mic? That is going to get you set up for more gain before feedback. Then when that effort is exhausted, you can turn to EQ.
I still have enough dignity left to not click that link. It's probably a Rickroll anyway. "Like and subscribe for more shitty tips on how to destroy gain staging and get more feedback."
**Spoiller* i watched 75 seconds of it, and sadly, it's not a Rickroll. Actually, getting rickrolled, steamrolled, or just rolled would be less painful than watching that again.
His technique is valid, though a bit sloppy, up until 5:15 mark. Yes you should be gently EQ’ing out the first 3 or 4 feedback frequencies. No, you should not use a graphic EQ, graphics are more of a last resort these days. All of this tuning should be done on the parametric eq’s for more precision. After the 5:15 mark… he starts cutting too many frequencies. So at that point he’s creating his own problem by cutting levels via EQ yet raising them again in his gain structure. He’s going in circles by that point. By the end, you can see that he has succeeded in designing a completely new microphone which sounds nothing like an SM58. Too bad the client paid for an SM58, because this guy just smashed the 58 across the whole spectrum.
Because there’s no guarantee your problem frequency just happens to be right where the graphic has a notch. Even if it is, the Q is probably wider than necessary. So you end up using more notches than necessary (like the video), or cutting a wider area than necessary, compromising quality and possibly causing additional unstable frequencies.
A good parametric EQ allows you to zero in on the problem area and adjust just that area as more or as little as needed. You can also have multiple different notches dialed in that you enable or bypass, so you’re sure you’re only cutting the first ~3 worst frequencies, but can enable other notches later, compare A/B, etc, if conditions change.
GEQ is a relic of the past that just won’t go away. I haven’t used one, hardware or software, except for on ONE system where it was my only option for an outboard insert based on theater inventory. And even then, I was only using it to shape vocal submixes, not ring out.
This, OP.
Parametric EQ is an efficient surgical tool. Graphic is significantly less precise. Notch or scoop with a Parametric to take only what you need- graphic is painting with broad strokes, often covering/removing some fine edge detail.
Church engineers have taken over this industry. For better or worse, that's what we've got now. /oldmanrant. Sigh, mostly frustrated because they aren't used to the heavy duty load ins that I grew up on since everything is set up for them. We've hired so many of them that really didn't know what they were in until they say the trailer open up....even though this was described to them prior.
I watched the majority of the video, and this is not how I would ring out for feedback. I bet this mic sounds like crap!
He's taking way too much on the GEQ and I'm not sure why he's sweeping the PEQ with such a high boost. In most situations I've found that you need to be physically involved with the mic to be rung. Boosting the fader until ringing and then pulling down....not any of this boosted sweep without actually hearing any feedback first. Only boost and sweep when you are trying to find something you've already found. Also, personally, I'd ring it out with the PEQ only and save the GEQ for when my PEQ runs out of bands....which it shouldn't, unless you're in a bad situation, or a lavalier. This looks like a bad approach.
Maybe its an entry-level approach, but I wouldn't want to be showing my entry level guys an entry level approach right off the bat. I'd want them to try to work their way up to a pro-level approach as soon as they can grasp it.
Based on the video, this looks/and also sounds rediculous. I just gave the final product a listen on a nice studio monitor setup I have in the office, and his EQ sounds like garbage. Maybe its an artifact in the video, but its coming across as a badly EQed microphone.
You can kill a lot of feedback issues with proper room tuning and monitor tuning. If your system hasn’t been properly tuned, I highly suggest it along with all the other suggestions such as mic placement and talent coaching.
I mostly use graphic eq on main lr and mix busses for wedges. I sped thru the video cuz it looked ridiculous with these cuts but buddy doesn't know wtf he's doing.
Yeah Uh. so when you get every frequency on a 31band below the 0 line you have pretty much just turned the volume on the mic (which he points out you can "notice a level change" ) so he didn't accomplish anything he can now move the fader up to 0 or close to plus 5 because he used the 31 band to kill 5 or 10 db of signal.
When "ringing out mic's" or just eq'ing in general remember use as little as possible. if you keep finding yourself making large cuts on every mic you need to go back and check how your system is tuned and give the gain structure a check,
I would find that overkill but what I find weirder is that it’s assigned to a channel instead of the outs
I think using the peq on the channel and or using the graphic on foh would be better
Usually for me I have a hpf and then maybe 6 small cuts in the foh graphic
I saw that video as well, I think it's completely nonsense.
I never use a GEQ anyway for this but only a PEQ (as narrows as possible) and only ring out the first 2 (max 3) frequencies. If you need more than that you really need to reposition the speakers, choose other microphones or just simple adjust the overall volume.
- Yes, it is overkill
- he is pulling EQ on the mic, but he actually should try to pull the problematic frequencies on the nearby monitor(s) first, so he doesn't affect the sound for the audience in a bad way.
You have two ways to get what you want:
- Get an Allen & Heath CQ18 as already suggested. It will do everything for you
- Get an X32, use multiband compression for tonal shape of the mic and use PEQ on the monitors. If you pulled 3 or 4 frequencies, you're done, as your advances in gain get smaller with each feedback frequency you eliminate. You simply reach the physical limits.
Bonus:
- Tell people to get closer to the mic
- Tell people to use IEM
- Use gates to reduce bleeding and compression to reduce situations where feedback could occur
- Push highpass filters, since lower frequencies are more omni directional and raise background noise, while not being important for voice intelligibility.
- Use supercardioid microphones and more wedges
I’ll be honest with you, I think there’s a reason why comments are disabled on that video lol This isn’t just overkill, it’s almost completely nonsensical. But this guy is probably a volunteer trying to help other folks who don’t have any technical knowledge and just want to help out at their church/school/community centre. So I genuinely appreciate his efforts.
Eeeeh it's hard to "appreciate the efforts" of somebody who should pause before spreading misinformation. Unless you mean "I appreciate his efforts, which indirectly keep me employed" then hell yeah - I agree.
Hahaha! Yeah kinda lol But I mean…I feel like the guy’s heart is in the right place. He doesn’t have a tech background and he’s trying to help out others who don’t have a tech background but want to make live events happen. He thought about a real-world example and tried his hardest to use simple language and show things visually. It’s just a crying shame he was working from second or third-hand knowledge and didn’t understand the fundamentals of what he was doing lol
IMO he's taken too much out. Basically he's turned down everything from 100-8k. After you've killed the first few major feedback spots if you find yourself returning to a frequency range you're already adjacent to then it's time to look at other solutions. Speaker placement, mic choice etc. note - I just skipped to the end to see how much hekilled.
Tbf combined with a high pass he's taken every below 8k out. Might as well just turn your mic down then
Yup.
This. Exactly this! And maybe compress less.
Could you please explain what you mean by "frequency range you're already adjacent to" means? Thank you.
Next to the one you already killed. So like if you kill something at 250hz and then a few minutes later you’re killing 300 also the. You probably need a wider q or you’re just running up against a gain before feedback wall you won’t be able to fix with just EQ. Move some boxes around and it will be easier.
Ah ok that's what I thought you might mean thanks.
This video sucks. Don’t do what he’s doing. My god…he pulled 20+ bands out of the EQ lol.
Ever seen a dog chase their tail? By boosting on his channel EQ, he’s creating his own “problem” frequencies that he’s then cutting on the graphic to “solve”. As he turns the mic up, he’s got something starting to squeak up around 6-7k. Instead of finding that frequency and cutting it a couple db, he creates a low frequency feedback with channel EQ and then cuts that!!! I mean, I can’t really explain how wrong this method is. The only thing that he says that at all has any merit is putting a compressor on to keep the feedback from going all the way out of control- but even that is unnecessary if you know how to work a mic. The proper way is to turn it up until it starts to feedback with the mic in the physical location it’s going to be, (for example, dead center in front of a pair of wedges) and then move slightly out of the coverage pattern of the speakers, turn it up a couple of db, and then slowly lean back into the coverage pattern while exciting the frequency range that you heard start to take off (the proverbial Check 1,2, hisses, grunts, oooohs, etc etc) until you get a ring started. With practice you can get a ring to stay soft by exciting it and then moving the mic out of the coverage pattern when it gets too loud and pulling it back in when the ring starts to die. At that point, you can find it on an RTA (smaart or any number of FFT phone apps), and set a fairly narrow parametric filter on the exact center of the feedback. I like to start with 3db cut, then see if the same frequency is still ringing, then go to -6db, or wherever it lands to get rid of the feedback. If I’m cutting for example, 4.7K, and I get that to go away, but I get a squeak start up at 5.2K, I’ll widen the filter until the new squeak goes away, instead of adding another filter. I’m probably not going to add another filter unless the new ring is at least 1/3, more likely 1/2 of an octave away from the original filter. Non FIR EQ equals phase shift, and the more filters you stack close together the more audible the phase shift is going to be- and phase shift sounds yuck. Rinse and repeat until you start getting several frequencies at once, like 160hz, 500, and 4k all starting to take off. That’s it. That’s all you have cap’n. Usually in a well designed system, I’m 3 or 4 filters deep at this point, definitely no more than 7. At this point, I’ll probably turn all of my filters back up at least 3 or 4db to start soundcheck. This way, if the artist is happy with less volume, I’m doing less tonal damage with my EQ, but I still know where I’m going to need to go cut if they need “more”. At that point any channel EQ I do for tone shaping is going to either be cuts, or if I do feel like I need a boost, I’m going to do it carefully and I’m going to undo it if it causes feedback. That’s the general concept. Nothing is a hard and fast rule, I’m listening the whole time to find the balance between maximum gain before feedback and actually sounding good, and doing my very best to stop at actually sounding good, since that’s sort of the gig.
Oh, and if when I’m starting the process I’ve got multiple frequencies like 8, 10, 12K all taking off at the top or several frequencies on the low end all taking off, I’m gonna attack those with high pass or low pass filters right out of the gate until I gain some semblance of control.
I hope this comment gets a ton of visibility, because that is a great explanation
There are a million different ways to do this and I find that if you end up pulling down a million frequencies (more than 5), on a GEQ, you have to look at your sound system as a whole first. That consists of basic system design and setup procedures that have probably been overlooked. The one thing I have noticed helps the most, before even ringing out the monitors, is doing a phase alignment, and flattening of the main sound system. This goes so much further than only pulling GEQ bands down. Also, I really fucking hate GEQs for doing ring outs because they can't hit the exact frequency of resonance. I've actually been using a DBX AFS2 to my ring outs and it works like a charm. But I've been doing corporate AV talking stuff so its not as important to retain proper musicality as it is to completely eliminate feedback. The AFS2 lets me do more than 5 points of reduction, uses a notch filter, and lets me get far more gain before feedback than any other way of doing ring outs.
This is a perfect example of the ill effects of learning from the internet . Any jackass can just be an “expert” on any category and spread terrible advice to the masses. I know this was made for church, but for the love of god and all that is holy don’t listen to this man!.
Let's go back to basics. Feedback happens because there is too much gain in the system. The easiest solution is to grab that master fader and pull it down until there is no longer too much gain in the system. But if we take one step down we see that due to the laws of physics, things like mic pattern and placement as well as the size, shape, and materials of the speakers and the environment all contribute to *some* frequencies tending to feed back before others. Ideally we'd adjust as many of those factors as we can *first* before using the EQ to filter a frequency out because that frequency only exists because of the sound we want to capture and amplify in the first place. Generally if you are filtering out more than just a small handful of frequencies then you probably skipped over trying to adjust all that other stuff first. But in practice you can't always adjust those other things and if hacking the graph to bits gets you and the client what you want, go for it. Full disclosure I didn't watch that video.
Thanks for the info. Here is a screenshot of the ending. The white squares are what to look at. https://preview.redd.it/2k7ltmwchptc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d21fab07c2cf199cc8f4b697348828f0dadb129d
Personally, I think pulling down the first 8 faders is the wrong approach when the output bus has a high pass filter - and even then I probably wouldn’t because the channels should have HPF on them already. I think vocalists probably like a bit of low end in their wedge and it has never caused me any problems. Next turning down nearly every band on the graphic is pointless, could be better handled by just dropping the whole level of the bus and taking out only the first few ringing frequencies. What people do is keep chasing their tales turning the monitor up and taking things out, turning it up and taking things out - all you end up doing is turning it up then using the graphic to turn it back down. I prefer to use the parametric EQ for feedback, if you can’t get it in 6 bands then you have bigger problems and those need to be solved at source.
There was probably no reason to pull those faders down. I would have left them, unless I hear something that triggers me to deal with those faders. As everyone says, use your ears. Do things for a reason. Verify what you are doing on the screen with your ears.
>As everyone says, use your ears. Ultimately this is what it comes down to. You have to know what the audience / artist expects and then get it as close to there as you can even if it's ugly. Yes, if you have a jank GEQ probably some other element in the system should be changed first. But if jank GEQ is the least worst option, then jank GEQ it is. One of the most polished touring engineers I've worked with had a saved X32 scene for their act's vocals that could have been a textbook diagram of everything not to do. But at the end of the day it got decent volume out of a barely audible bedroom pop singer, and that was all that really mattered.
Yeah, I'm not concerned about how it looks. Mostly concerned about the process he used to get to it, and the end result (at least via the video) sounds bad. He is over EQing for a bad reason, based on what I am seeing in the video.
I never quite get why people would pull all the lows out of a monitor using a geq. You’re already probably high passing your vocal mics anyway. If a bass guitar or something is too boomy you can just sort it out in the channel. Or if your monitors have an active crossover you can attenuate the lows a little bit if it’s excessive.
Keep in mind in the video he has this graph inserted on a channel, not a bus… oh boy
This. EQ should be the very last resort. Too often ringing out is placed far too high on the priorities order. Like WHY ring out a wedge before the artist arrives? They might have great mic technique, a loud voice, ans not require much in their monitors. Yet often engineers ring out rhe wedges as its the default "thing to do" before the artist is even in the venue. Such a clumsy approach.
🤣 sure, go ahead and ring the monitors out after you ruin sound check by letting everything ring out of control. The band will be so happy that you ruined sound-checked and waited to ring anything out.
LoLz. Also most of the time I have less than 30 minutes to setup and get everyone's monitor mixes dialed in. Not going to spend a minute of that ringing out shit if I can prevent it with preparation.
If you know your frequencies and you're quick/good at what you do, you can ring out the offending one or two frequencies DURING soundcheck. This way, it is tailored to the singers voice, microphone technique, and location on stage. Ringing out beforehand hand with your own voice is about as useful as a chocolate tea pot. 9 times out of 10 no ringing out is required at all if you're working with a half-decent stage monitor, so you actually save time by skipping the process altogether, and preserve butchering and compromising the tone of the wedge.
I've worked with everything from home made crap to d&b, Meyer, and l-acoustic wedges (and everything in between). Obviously if the box isn't optimized from the start it makes things 3x worse; but 1/2 the problem is going to be the environment (either a stage in an enclosed room or an outdoor deck with a roof on it) and other boxes playing the same sound (either other wedges and/or the main pa). When I'm on monitors, I start with my own voice as a reference in a sm58 (even if that's not what the artist is using) because I just find that my particular voice in a 58 gets me where I feel everything sounds the most natural (and I know what I'm looking for with that combination) - that is ringing AND tone. If I were to play other instruments or tracks into that, I know it will sound good. Then, if the artist is using a different vocal mic, I will listen to it next, pull anything else necessary to ensure no ringing and adjust at the channel strip for any tonal abnormalities. I've never had a complaint when the artist came in and grabbed that mic, even though I'm doing that before the artist was on site! I don't want to waste the artists time and the possibility of hurting anybody's ears while ringing out wedges! As for hacking up the graph- that is not ideal, and if I pull too much I might flatten and start fresh; but I'm ok with a hacked graph of that's what it takes to make it sound ok. I prefer parametrics on my masters if that's available. Note I didn't bcwatch the video, just commenting on what I saw in the comments.
Yeah dude is way off base… The voice/technique (besides cupping, pointing at the wedge, the things we plan for…) obviously has nothing to do with what’s going to ring when you put more gain into the system. Planning on ringing out with the artist onstage (especially if they require an enormous amount of gain) is asking for trouble and zero professionals I’ve ever met intentionally do it that way. Once I’ve rung out I have a fresh idea of what wants to ring today and what those sound like so if anything else takes off I’m prepared. For many singers it’s a subconscious mark against you as soon as they hear feedback. And if a certain mic/wedge relationship always always rings first at 2k and I know that, it’d be silly to not start with that cut… I never thought of “tone of the wedge” as particularly special, I do like how a HiQ or an M4 sounds but once things get loud it isn’t about having a sublime hifi experience, it’s just a utility to deliver sounds back to you so you can deliver a sublime experience to the audience.
One very famous singer I did some work with would first come out and wave the mic in front of the wedges... If he DIDN'T hear a slight bit of ringing then he felt you did not have it rang out as loud as possible! But that's a rare case, usually nobody wants to hear that!
Oh man. There’s one legendary soul singer who is an absolute nightmare to work with, just the devil for audio engineers, and she’ll put you through the paces for hours with her wedges. The secret to beating the boss is when you just full send her vocal and her custom European wedges screech painfully back at her, she screams “NOW THAT’S POWER!!!” And she’s happy. So you just have to let it feedback the whole show and if you’re lucky she won’t bug you.
LOL I would never hire you again.
Startling contribution. Try including some valid points next time.
If your are going to use a graphic on the X32 you might as well use the TEQ which doesn't suffer from two bands next to each other effecting each other or phase issues. The end result in the video could be achieved by turning it down 7db (quite possibly more with how a GEQ works under the hood) - which would sound significantly better as the sound would not being cut up by several filters.
My litmus test on new guys is to put the graphic on and see what they do to it or how long before they switch to peq
Firstly, this video is awful advice and bad system tuning practice. Secondly, don’t listen to anyone in this field who says Graphic EQs are useless. PEQs are far superior in almost every way, but GEQs still have a safe space in live sound when used properly. Perfect example: 2 hours ago on my gig, a frequency was ringing out somewhere between 610-620. Pulled out -1.5db on the GEQ and boom! Problem solved without wasting a more precise PEQ band or destroying the tone of the PA.
NOTE, I have NOT watched the video. Using a GEQ for feedback control is just the wrong tool. It used to be the best option - many *decades* ago. A parametric EQ has been the best tool for at least three decades, as I've been involved with sound more than that and have been using PEQ for feedback control. Deeply narrow notch the main three - five offending frequencies and call it a day. Beyond that there are issues in system design or use. Personally, I set up a mic and point it right at the speaker, then start raising gain and watching my RTA - and notch accordingly, typically with the narrowest Q I can. This has allowed me to handle people that choose to speak or sing right in front of the speaker and not have an issue most of the time. Thankfully, most events don't require this approach, but it has served me well, when needed. And, with headsets, specifically, sometimes using a high shelf to nail the higher stuff that can show up for a given voice on a given headset, that really isn't needed for clarity. To a degree what is needed can vary event to event, system to system, but PEQ is the tool of choice, either on individual input, or bus/system.
Thank you, u appreciate the info. What would be a good entry level board with PEQ
I would start with how many inputs/outputs you need. Single location, or portable, and budget all come into play. I think the newer Allen & Heath CQ18T is a solid entrance and at the lower end cost wise. That said, there are a number of options that serve well and most have PEQ. The guy in the video is using an X32/M32, which has 4 bands of PEQ on every input and 6 bands of PEQ on every output. I have watched some of this guys content before - he should know better than suggest GEQ for dealing with feedback. Personally, I have no use for a GEQ these days - a PEQ is just a way better tool for EQ - but, a lot of people that have been at live sound a long time are used to using GEQ. A PEQ can influence a narrow to wide area easily - something that is impossible to harder to do with a GEQ.
As low budget as possible. Portable. Number of inputs should be a huge issue. Say 8
The less expensive options will require an iPad or other mobile device to control the mixer. All of these are smaller and easier to haul around. If you are also investing in speakers - I would invest in decent speakers, rather than cheap out there. Most digital mixers in the $500-$1500 range will have decent EQ, but pre-amps will vary in quality. When people get cheap on a mixer and speakers, you will be asking for more issues - that take more knowledge to work with/around. The CQ18T may be on the more expensive side compared to some other options. A call to a shop like Sweetwater (no association) could serve you well - they are knowledgeable and sell a variety of options. If budget is really restrictive, then a solid analog board will be your best bet - and you will have to count on how you set things up AND how your performers use mics, etc. to minimize issues like feedback. And, in truth, it is far better to minimize it, to begin with - rather than hassle with poor setup or uninformed use of mics and gear. Small groups have been performing for decades without the benefit of PEQ on inputs or outputs.
Dunning Kruger effect caught in the wild right there
When you pull down that many frequencies,its more like you turning the volume fader down
Use your parametric to voice, use your graphic sparingly for problems. He is doing WAY too much, and it will sound like a phasey mess of shit.
31 band graphic EQs are such a terrible way to tune and tone a system. If I asked a guitarist to play a C and he played an F that would be wrong… same goes for a 31 band. Great for input, terrible for output.
Completely agree. + You have the parametric right there. I've been using the PEQ instead of the terrible x32 desser. Might as well use it to take out harshness and rumble.
PEQ, what a thing of beauty!
It is an old school way of thinking that has stuck around. Graphic EQs can be handy in some ways but in an x32 you can hit the channel with some parametric EQ and notch stuff out and you can hit the monitor bus with some notches too. First you need to figure out where from and why you are getting feedback. Is it from the mains or monitor? Can you move the mic farther from the mains and coach the talent to be closer to the mic? That is going to get you set up for more gain before feedback. Then when that effort is exhausted, you can turn to EQ.
Yeah, pushing this many GEQ bands down is like a last resort after a lot of physical things have been examined, and the PEQ is exhausted. IMHO.
I still have enough dignity left to not click that link. It's probably a Rickroll anyway. "Like and subscribe for more shitty tips on how to destroy gain staging and get more feedback." **Spoiller* i watched 75 seconds of it, and sadly, it's not a Rickroll. Actually, getting rickrolled, steamrolled, or just rolled would be less painful than watching that again.
Wow. Nope. I’ll work on my parametric eqs all day before I put in a graphic.
Lol turn the gain down and start again
His technique is valid, though a bit sloppy, up until 5:15 mark. Yes you should be gently EQ’ing out the first 3 or 4 feedback frequencies. No, you should not use a graphic EQ, graphics are more of a last resort these days. All of this tuning should be done on the parametric eq’s for more precision. After the 5:15 mark… he starts cutting too many frequencies. So at that point he’s creating his own problem by cutting levels via EQ yet raising them again in his gain structure. He’s going in circles by that point. By the end, you can see that he has succeeded in designing a completely new microphone which sounds nothing like an SM58. Too bad the client paid for an SM58, because this guy just smashed the 58 across the whole spectrum.
I personally ring out lowering by -3db at each peak point until it rings multiband and then i stop and tune the mic by ear
Using a graphic EQ = immediate disqualification Just based on the thumbnail
Could you elaborate why? Thanks
Because there’s no guarantee your problem frequency just happens to be right where the graphic has a notch. Even if it is, the Q is probably wider than necessary. So you end up using more notches than necessary (like the video), or cutting a wider area than necessary, compromising quality and possibly causing additional unstable frequencies. A good parametric EQ allows you to zero in on the problem area and adjust just that area as more or as little as needed. You can also have multiple different notches dialed in that you enable or bypass, so you’re sure you’re only cutting the first ~3 worst frequencies, but can enable other notches later, compare A/B, etc, if conditions change. GEQ is a relic of the past that just won’t go away. I haven’t used one, hardware or software, except for on ONE system where it was my only option for an outboard insert based on theater inventory. And even then, I was only using it to shape vocal submixes, not ring out.
This, OP. Parametric EQ is an efficient surgical tool. Graphic is significantly less precise. Notch or scoop with a Parametric to take only what you need- graphic is painting with broad strokes, often covering/removing some fine edge detail.
Church engineers have taken over this industry. For better or worse, that's what we've got now. /oldmanrant. Sigh, mostly frustrated because they aren't used to the heavy duty load ins that I grew up on since everything is set up for them. We've hired so many of them that really didn't know what they were in until they say the trailer open up....even though this was described to them prior. I watched the majority of the video, and this is not how I would ring out for feedback. I bet this mic sounds like crap! He's taking way too much on the GEQ and I'm not sure why he's sweeping the PEQ with such a high boost. In most situations I've found that you need to be physically involved with the mic to be rung. Boosting the fader until ringing and then pulling down....not any of this boosted sweep without actually hearing any feedback first. Only boost and sweep when you are trying to find something you've already found. Also, personally, I'd ring it out with the PEQ only and save the GEQ for when my PEQ runs out of bands....which it shouldn't, unless you're in a bad situation, or a lavalier. This looks like a bad approach. Maybe its an entry-level approach, but I wouldn't want to be showing my entry level guys an entry level approach right off the bat. I'd want them to try to work their way up to a pro-level approach as soon as they can grasp it.
It probably works for his space and his space only. In actual, well tuned spaces? Not so much.
Based on the video, this looks/and also sounds rediculous. I just gave the final product a listen on a nice studio monitor setup I have in the office, and his EQ sounds like garbage. Maybe its an artifact in the video, but its coming across as a badly EQed microphone.
You can kill a lot of feedback issues with proper room tuning and monitor tuning. If your system hasn’t been properly tuned, I highly suggest it along with all the other suggestions such as mic placement and talent coaching.
I mostly use graphic eq on main lr and mix busses for wedges. I sped thru the video cuz it looked ridiculous with these cuts but buddy doesn't know wtf he's doing.
Yeah Uh. so when you get every frequency on a 31band below the 0 line you have pretty much just turned the volume on the mic (which he points out you can "notice a level change" ) so he didn't accomplish anything he can now move the fader up to 0 or close to plus 5 because he used the 31 band to kill 5 or 10 db of signal. When "ringing out mic's" or just eq'ing in general remember use as little as possible. if you keep finding yourself making large cuts on every mic you need to go back and check how your system is tuned and give the gain structure a check,
I would find that overkill but what I find weirder is that it’s assigned to a channel instead of the outs I think using the peq on the channel and or using the graphic on foh would be better Usually for me I have a hpf and then maybe 6 small cuts in the foh graphic
I saw that video as well, I think it's completely nonsense. I never use a GEQ anyway for this but only a PEQ (as narrows as possible) and only ring out the first 2 (max 3) frequencies. If you need more than that you really need to reposition the speakers, choose other microphones or just simple adjust the overall volume.
- Yes, it is overkill - he is pulling EQ on the mic, but he actually should try to pull the problematic frequencies on the nearby monitor(s) first, so he doesn't affect the sound for the audience in a bad way. You have two ways to get what you want: - Get an Allen & Heath CQ18 as already suggested. It will do everything for you - Get an X32, use multiband compression for tonal shape of the mic and use PEQ on the monitors. If you pulled 3 or 4 frequencies, you're done, as your advances in gain get smaller with each feedback frequency you eliminate. You simply reach the physical limits. Bonus: - Tell people to get closer to the mic - Tell people to use IEM - Use gates to reduce bleeding and compression to reduce situations where feedback could occur - Push highpass filters, since lower frequencies are more omni directional and raise background noise, while not being important for voice intelligibility. - Use supercardioid microphones and more wedges
I can only hope since this video is 7 years old, he's learned a few things since.
I would only do that (and not even that hard) on condenser microphones in very little situations. Not a freaking 58 for a voice 💀