enhanced features for monitor/master EQ

  • Guys, please appologize that I stay on this topic. The level of authentity that the profiler brings to guitarists, is also available for keyboarders by evolved sampling and modeling during the last 25 years. Guitarists are not in a special situation at all.


    I have read many threads in the guitar world, and it's remarkable how certain topics get emphasized with a view that is not shared by the rest of the large audio world. Tyler, I will cite your post, but don't take it personally, as your post reflects a broad opinion. I want to share some thoughs and knowledge, since I am suspecting broad misunderstandings and misconceptions of linear speakers, when being used for digital amps.



    - FRFR is not a myth, but real!
    Modern studio monitors and PA speakers are highly linear, often by the use of digital signal processing. Have a look at their frequency plots, they are pretty flat. There is no significant peaks or gaps, that can be catched by a parametric EQ. If you think you can catch a frequency by a peak filter with high Q to supposingly correct a flaw of these speakers, you will likely walk away from linearity and additionally distort the transients of your guitar picking. If you move an eq by 2 dB or more, you have left the linear region for sure.


    - The radiation pattern of the speaker has a much higher impact to the frequency responce. In other words, the frequency responce depends in the listening angle. There is no EQ that can compensate for that. Let the speaker point to you in a straight line, to experience the most linear frequency responce. If you never followed this advice, no probem. The ear perfectly compensates for the angle.
    Every guitarist does that with guitar cabinets: You rarely listen to them in a zero angle.


    - Reflections on the floor have the biggest impact to the frequency responce, they can increase the bass responce by 6 dB. The slope is shallow. This can be compensated well by the monitor eq.


    - The Fletcher-Munson effect is en vogue among guitarists these days, but nowhere else. It is a guitarists myth that this effect makes everything nonlinear and needs to be compensated. I think this is theoretical bla bla, not interpreted well, and does not reflect the experience in reality.
    If you look at the Fletcher-Munson curves, you will easily see that on middle to high loudness ranges the curves are highly parallel. That means there is no significant Fletcher-Munson effect in regular volume ranges, where we play or rehearse, by speaker or headphone. Only on low volumes you will loose some bass and treble sensitivity. These volumes are so low that you might chose a headphone, when you are not allowed to turn up the volume. This fact is not mentioned in any discussion about this (in the guitar world). The Fletcher-Munson effect was compensated by the "Loudness" control by Hifi rigs back in the 80, as well as some home speaker system of todays. Still the compensation is done only at fairly low volumes. However, if you want to compensate, you should use a shallow eq again.


    - You say the JBL Eon is made for electronic music and drums, but not so suitable for guitars, if not equalized well. I am afraid that this reveals a root for the "FRFR myth and misunderstanding" as I see it.
    The JBL Eon is a widely used PA speaker range. It has a sufficiently linear frequency responce, and does not feature a significant bass emphasis. You can even add a subwoofer to extend the low frequency responce. Eon's are used everywhere for amplifying bands and recorded, including the guitar sound.
    Saying that a general purpose PA speaker needs individual corrections for guitar amp reproduction is a clear contradiction.
    You might end up in attempting to adapt a certain sound idea on your general purpose monitor by using steep eq's and creating a deep colour change to your listening situation, while the FOH is using general purpose speakers of a similar kind, but without these adjustments.
    The profiles and rigs must be individually chosen and adjusted to sound well on those speakers, especially in a band context. Do not attempt to adjust and color the speakers themself by heavy and steep equalizing.


    Active premium speakers such as JBL, Yamaha or Atomic have undergone excessive work and measurement to provide a linear sound. Use them as a reference. Those speakers are a good investment, they will still be good in 20 years.

  • CK, with all due respect, I have never played a smaller indoor venue where there wasn't some huge peak or valley in the room response, usually in the low and mid-bass. EQ's are used in the real world everyday to correct for speakers and rooms. Overall linearity is improved, not destroyed....yes minor nonlinearities are introduced but overall, it is an improvement.


    Intellectually, in a perfect world, I can understand your explanations. EQs create problems. But they solve problems too. Just keep buying better speakers...I get it. The problem is that with an external EQ, I get the result I want with my current FRFR.


    I have no reason to debate this further as you already are fully convinced that we don't need it. That's fine. I'll buy an extra EQ or move on to something else that delivers the features I need. The KPA is the best amp sim I've ever heard but perhaps its shortcoming is a lack of flexibility and practical features in the long run.


    I'll wait around awhile in hopes others can explain this need better than me. Please consider it.


    Respectfully, bd.


  • Christoph, i totally respect your kind of view as you really put a lot of thought and knowlege into it. However imo this is just another example of the contradiction between "real science vs guitarist science". In an ideal world without all those nasty little things as room resonances and maybe even user errors we would not need any eq at all. So why does the KPA even have an EQ now? Because things are just not perfect. Nobody ever claimed that this is a shortcoming of the KPA, or that the KPA sounds bad. And we can have endless discussions about how an narrow Q setting EQ will add distortion and phasing problems or people are not setting their gear right or they should consider buying new stuff. You´re probably right in all those aspects but that doesn´t change the fact that we need a way of dealing with problems when things do not work out like they should even if this is not the best possible way in a theoretical approach.


    For my part i put much time into this as did other users. I even set up the KPA with the JBLs next to near fields as well as some older ultra high end HIFI speakers, which really sound linear. First a subjective test by just playing, near fields and HIFI sounded great and pretty close to each other. The JBLs were boxy and woofy, soundling like plastic. Then using an RTA mic and analyzer, it became very obvious. As long as you do not crank the JBLs into those 130 db regions, for which they are designed, they are extremely bass heavy. At least with the internal EQ set to neutral position. There might be other and better solutions than using a digital 31 band eq like the Behringer, for example having a precise internal DSP control for the speaker like in those modern active speakers. It would even sound better if i put the JBLs on a pole instead of using them as wedges. But perhaps mine is just the "guitarist science" approach :)


    Maybe in 10 years, system like the CLR or even better will be widespread and cost only a fraction of what they do now. Up to then, a more versatile monitor out EQ might serve as "workaround", not a solution.

  • The KPA is the best amp sim I've ever heard but perhaps its shortcoming is a lack of flexibility and practical features in the long run.

    So why does the KPA even have an EQ now? Because things are just not perfect. Nobody ever claimed that this is a shortcoming of the KPA, or that the KPA sounds bad.

    Thanx CK to your effort to this thread.


    Yes, this all is about different point of view.


    My purpose is mainly two things:
    -to get out of traditional guitar stack (poweramp + cab) best possible results with KPA
    -to correct those reflections, in a corner they could be even 18 dB if you need to put cab there for some reason


    Sometimes it is must to put cabinet situated such a way that also band fellow mates hear what
    you are doing -zero angle is always not possible, for example in rehearsals -it is not always
    about big venues with FOH, and always even about main PA to put KPA signal.


    Now I just can do the thing with the existing studio eq (enough for me for that purpose) in a x-slot,
    altough it would be nice to have some other kind of effect there, I dont think there is too much slots in KPA.


    Or by separate eq system between KPA and poweramp.


    And after all -it was just option to choose in that request.


    Thanks for excellent sounding product anyway :)

  • I appreciate that you spend some of your time to address the issues raised by this topic, thanks CK :)


    You bring some interesting insights on the subject, indeed the JBL EON 510 does have a pretty flat frequency response judging by its frequency response chart.


    So maybe we are not really trying to compensate for nonlinearities in the FRFR speaker, but for other factors that make us perceive what comes out of the KPA + FRFR as different from what comes from our amps. I know, I know, different things, KPA + FRFR should sound closer to what we hear in recorded music, etc.


    However, as much as we are aware of all that, it won't stop us from chasing a specific tone that we hear in our heads, that's something you can count on. Now, how to address this in a way that makes sense and makes most of the users happy?


    Allow me to make a few suggestions:


    1. Regarding FRFR nonlinearities either by design or room characteristics and/or speaker placement: I'd include a parameter that would allow to choose both master and monitor EQ from "off", "3-band" (current EQ) or "parametric", with high and lo cut with variable slope and 1 or 2 parametric bands - I believe it would suffice for the needs of most users in that regard. I've included the "off" option because I for one wouldn't use EQ in the master section because the soundguy can apply EQ in the mixer and it would save me some DSP - no use in adding features if it costs added latency.


    2. In light of the information presented in your post, I realize that what has been bothering some of us is the result of mic positioning, proximity effect, mic frequency response and the difference in dispersion and absortion patterns from a guitar amp+speaker and its miked counterpart. What I'd like in this respect would be a way to make our lives easier when trying to get the sound we want. In my mind I imagine having the option of high and low cut with variable slope instead of shelf high an low in the studio eq, but I could be wrong. All I know is whatever I do in the studio EQ to shave off lows or highs, it seems that by the time I'm happy with the highs and lows it appears to have taken off some frequencies it wasn't supposed to, if that makes any sense.


    3. Fletcher Munson effect seems very real to me, it's the only explanation I can think of for dialing patches at low volumes which become too trebly when playesd loud. I have a feeling that tube amps somehow compensate for this, not completely but maybe a little. I won't lie, some sort of compensation for this effect would be an interesting feature that if well executed I would certainly have a use for.


    Cheers,
    Deny

  • This is an interesting discussion.
    I for one can totally understand the usefulness of extended EQ options to deal with real world shortcomings that we as users may encounter, using borrowed cabs which may not be high end etc.


    The Fletcher-Munson discussion exists (and I may say rightfully so) since guitarists are tweaking devices that model amps with master volume 'going to eleven' but they do it at bedrooms levels which leads to the fact to have to compensate for having too much bass/treble and too less mids dialed later at gig levels. Nothing more nothing less.

  • Tyler,
    I have listened to your two clips again from page 3.
    Was this a recording straight to clip or did you record your JBL Eon with a microphone, to show the change to the frequency responce of the speaker?

  • Tyler,
    I have listened to your two clips again from page 3.
    Was this a recording straight to clip or did you record your JBL Eon with a microphone, to show the change to the frequency responce of the speaker?

    I did this with an RTA mic to get an idea of how the sound changes in the room. However, it´s very hard to get a representative sound like this. Anybody who ever tried to do a speaker comparison with distant miking knows the problem. I would say the real sound with the EQ enabled sounds more balanced and pleasing than in my sample. Nonetheless you get an idea of the relation.

  • I did this with an RTA mic to get an idea of how the sound changes in the room. However, it´s very hard to get a representative sound like this. Anybody who ever tried to do a speaker comparison with distant miking knows the problem. I would say the real sound with the EQ enabled sounds more balanced and pleasing than in my sample. Nonetheless you get an idea of the relation.


    Yes, the recording is representative, in a relative manner.
    Can you post a direct recording of the rig, without going through the Eon and RTA microphone, for a comparison?
    Or send the rig in question to Burkhard?

  • Yes, the recording is representative, in a relative manner.
    Can you post a direct recording of the rig, without going through the Eon and RTA microphone, for a comparison?
    Or send the rig in question to Burkhard?


    It should be similar to the first bars in this clip:


    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5902643/original.mp3


    Can´t share the rigs yet :whistling: