enhanced features for monitor/master EQ

Quote from ckemper

That is correct.
But this polishing should be done with an eq per rig, as it cannot be done in a global manner with a global eq.
This was actually not even the motivation of the other users. They were talking about making corrections for a specific speaker.

The classic "fartiness or boominess" happens well above 100 Hz. The Low eq in the output section catches this perfectly.

Here are the frequencies of the global eq:

Low 150 Hz
Mid 600 Hz
Treble 2400 Hz
Presence 10000 Hz

Display More

Agreed, polishing must be done inside the rig, my wish is also for correcting nonlinearities in FRFR response in the master/monitor EQ. I've mentioned the "polishing" process because of some assertions regarding recorded vs raw amp tones, please disregard it for the topic at hand - I might have gotten a little carried away, I get very emotional about guitar tone some times

Hey Tyler, from that graph it looks like you could just use a Studio EQ with a nice big, wide cut at 200 HZ and a slight boost at 1250. All that +10kHZ is suspect IMO, and I bet it is moot for a live situation.

I'm just saying it's not as extreme as first glance, but I can see why you'd want this adjustment to be separate from an effects slot adjustment - it would be more of a global thing and you'd make presets for your different speakers.

but in general I'm with Christoph on this one. Speakers sound different and we deal with it. Part of the fun of making a good mix - should sound good across a variety of speakers.

Thanks for exact frequencies of available output eq.

But there is need to eq also different guitar equipment after KPA,
poweramp and cabinet combinations.
Not all want eq only FRFR systems.

For example there could be boomines or spikes that doesnt fit to those existinq frequencies:
by turning the frequence which is "near" the needed, it only can make situation worse.

So, having more available frequencies is all needed.

I dont want irritate anyone.
This is just feature frequest.

Peace.

Quote from liulululi

Thanks for exact frequencies of available output eq.

wiKPAed

Quote

[quote='tylerhb','index.php?page=Thread&postID=111755#post111755'][quote='DonPetersen','index.php?page=Thread&postID=111750#post111750']so I say it again
IMO a 31 band EQ makes no sense in the hands of a guitarist.

I respectfully disagree.

The #1 reason the KPA fails to deliver for some has nothing to do with what's inside the KPA. Its the lack of affordable FRFR solutions that come close enough to satisfy the average amp user. Read the threads. Its a common thread throughout the discussions. Anything done to help this is a step in the right direction.

A 10 band parametric or 31 band eq implementation can tame the inconsistencies enough (not perfectly) to satisfy the annoyances of a mediocre to good FRFR speaker and let the player get on with playing instead of purchasing yet another FRFR solution....or giving up.

To think a guitar tone is less critical to EQ than a band mix is a mistake. A few dB of resonance here and there can totally change the character of a guitar tone just like it can for a full mix.

I would really like and definitely utilize a more adjustable main and monitor eq in the KPA....and I suspect it would help others overcome their issues with their mid-range FRFR being "off" or "not right". It just makes sense.

bd

When setting up linear listening to recording studio there is many
things to take care about: acoustics, equipment positions to prevent
reflections etc. It is nowadays common that those monitors
also will be calibrated with calibrating system sofware.

So nobody producer or player is going to ask eq:ing of monitors
when doing recordings or mixes. They trust that monitoring is ok.

Here, in these threads with KPA, we are talking much about
listening FRFR:s or guitar cab in a live situation where acoustics could be whatever.

Frequesting for multiband eq to KPA output is not only for making "bad"
monitors itself more linear, in many cases the need is to compensate
acoustic behaviour of that room where you are playing.

It seems that here in a forum is many people are used to
use that kind of multiband eq:s, its not a thing for a many to get
much more better reults when proper tools are available.

And those who are not familiar with that kind of things there in KPAS output
could be output eq as it is now, multiband could just be optional to choose
to those who need it.

The problem of existing eq is that it is so broadband:
for example if you try to take boominess away you can end to the sound
which do not have lower bass enough.

Quote from tylerhb

I agree with musicman65 here. I think we all heard the story from quite a number of users who tried fullrange systems but went back to their traditional guitar cabs. Of course it stays a matter of individual taste but on the other hand active monitors should have some severe advantages concerning authencity of the profiled sound, less weight and more universal possibilities of use. I think many of these disappointing experiences could be prevented it you just had a method of setting up that particular system at least to good starting point, getting the sound closer to studio monitors.

I see this differently.

When Users have a bad experience with linear speakers, they will utilize an eq for adapting the sound in the direction of a guitar cab, rather than linearising the speakers.
It is simply impossible to linearise speakers by listening to a guitar sound.
Your example of using the Behringer eq for creating a more pleasant sound was very nice, but has got nothing to do with linearising your speakers.
It's even the opposite: No linear speaker shows frequency errors of up to 15 dB; you have delinearised it. Was your initial idea to linearise it?

Quote from ckemper

I see this differently.

When Users have a bad experience with linear speakers, they will utilize an eq for adapting the sound in the direction of a guitar cab, rather than linearising the speakers.
It is simply impossible to linearise speakers by listening to a guitar sound.
Your example of using the Behringer eq for creating a more pleasant sound was very nice, but has got nothing to do with linearising your speakers.
It's even the opposite: No linear speaker shows frequency errors of up to 15 dB; you have delinearised it. Was your initial idea to linearise it?

I agree to Christoph. I wonder how a well mixed recording will sound on your system with an EQ curve like that. Doesn't seem that it would come out very linear or pleasant sounding with that drastic settings. And i don't see the point in adding tools to take out the flaws of equipment connected to the Profiler.

Yeah, and it is not always about linearity.
Looking for good musical sounds, to do music, not worry about their authenticity.
Tools just helps.
Tools in a same place it would be easier.

Since the sought-after paradigm for those who went FRFR is transparency and linearity, I see nothing wrong in trying to correct the response of a linear audio system to get closer. If it's a proper expectation to have the job done by the profiler it's another story, but I agree with the principle.
OTOH, another position could be: if you're looking for linearity, build the most linear system you can afford and don't look for patches aimed at fixing hardware's limitations.

Generally speaking tho, I find the request legitimate.

Quote

I agree to Christoph. I wonder how a well mixed recording will sound on your system with an EQ curve like that. Doesn't seem that it would come out very linear or pleasant sounding with that drastic settings. And i don't see the point in adding tools to take out the flaws of equipment connected to the Profiler.

For recording, no correction is needed. We are talking about live use and monitoring, not recording. Studio FRFR should be trusted more whereas we KNOW that most FRFR PA speakers need EQ.

If the correction was made in a room with severe nodal issues like most small rooms have then prerecorded music could possibly sound better too. If you have ever analized a room, you would know that drastic curves are common in the lower freqs.

To be fair, I am suggesting that the speaker needs correcting, not necessarily the room also. An amp in the room suffers from room resonance too. I would just like to have a better EQ to help normalize the FRFR speaker.

CK,

Could we compromise on this and get a 6 band fully adjustable parametric in both Main and Monitor outputs? I think that would allow most mid-range priced FRFR to be corrected enough to overcome any objections. Having them stored for recall would be great.

Thanks,

bd

Quote from musicman65

For recording, no correction is needed. We are talking about live use and monitoring, not recording. Studio FRFR should be trusted more whereas we KNOW that most FRFR PA speakers need EQ.

CK,

Could we compromise on this and get a 6 band fully adjustable parametric
in both Main and Monitor outputs? I think that would allow most
mid-range priced FRFR to be corrected enough to overcome any objections.
Having them stored for recall would be great.

Display More

musicman65, I agree completely.

Let´s put that in a commercial way:
I cant believe anybody potential customer who is thinking to buy KPA doesnt think it is a bad thing having that option

Quote

musicman65, I agree completely.

Let´s put that in a commercial way:
I cant believe anybody potential customer who is thinking to buy KPA doesnt think it is a bad thing having that option

A good 6 band parametric is jest as effective in most situations. Each band has a center frequency, Q (width), and gain. The rotary knobs and interface on the KPA lend themselves to this also. 31 band EQ'a are nice....so either is fine.

My Roland V-drum module has a nice example of this.

Quote from musicman65

A good 6 band parametric is jest as effective in most situations. Each band has a center frequency, Q (width), and gain.

With parametric I do like this:
boost some band, scroll slowly through the frequencies, find the "bad" ones, if there is any
-and cut them accordingly.

With that method it is so easy to find problem freqs

Quote from musicman65

For recording, no correction is needed. We are talking about live use and monitoring, not recording. Studio FRFR should be trusted more whereas we KNOW that most FRFR PA speakers need EQ.

If the correction was made in a room with severe nodal issues like most small rooms have then prerecorded music could possibly sound better too. If you have ever analized a room, you would know that drastic curves are common in the lower freqs.

To be fair, I am suggesting that the speaker needs correcting, not necessarily the room also. An amp in the room suffers from room resonance too. I would just like to have a better EQ to help normalize the FRFR speaker.

Quote from musicman65

For recording, no correction is needed. We are talking about live use and monitoring, not recording. Studio FRFR should be trusted more whereas we KNOW that most FRFR PA speakers need EQ.

If the correction was made in a room with severe nodal issues like most small rooms have then prerecorded music could possibly sound better too. If you have ever analized a room, you would know that drastic curves are common in the lower freqs.

To be fair, I am suggesting that the speaker needs correcting, not necessarily the room also. An amp in the room suffers from room resonance too. I would just like to have a better EQ to help normalize the FRFR speaker.

Musicman65, I did not refer to recording. I meant to point out that the sound of a system with an EQ curve as displayed by TylerHB reproducing a well done recording will be suboptimal. If the speakers were FRFR a curve like that would not be necessary. Of course a PA set up in a room needs adjustment, working as FOH engineer i should be aware of that. But i never worked on a system that could be eqed sufficiently to an acoustically insufficient room. I always got the response "The room sucks" by the pro techs that had set up the system (not that i ever had a show at Royal Albert Hall or would've had enough time on a line check to change room-eq ).
How do we set up a 31 band eq without an analyser? Would i set it to a curve like that? Would Tyler have set it up like that without the auto eq function (to a system by the way that is meant to be set up on a pole and not on the floor)? Or would i turn down Bass on the Monitor out eq to quench boominess and raise treble and/or presence to optimize cutting through the mix?
I listen to my profiler through a pair of decent Monitors in my by no means acoustically treated livingroom. If it gets boomy => -anything on the out eq and i'm done. Peace.
I respect the request, but i would not sacrifice DSP power to a feature that can be covered by the already available ones.