enhanced features for monitor/master EQ

  • Hi everyone.


    Due to the fact that every fullrange system that you could use with the KPA sounds very differently, many users reported poor or just "not so great" sound quality. Many active monitors are designed for enhanced bass and high end response, rather then flat response. This often results in KPA rigs sounding very off, which normally sound great over near field studio monitors.


    Correcting this with the EQs that are present in the master section of the KPA is often impossible. While the recent EQs with their rather broad bands are great for rough adjustments by ear, they are not suitable for precise adjustments. Like i stated before, i use a Behringer DEQ2496 with a RTA mic to analyse the frequency curve of my active monitors to "flatten" the EQ curve. The results are great. However i would love to replace this piece of gear and put the EQ function into the KPA.


    CK said that we will probabaly not see the KPA using RTA mics directly, it would still be awesome to be able to do the corrections to the EQ curve within the KPA. This way you could use an external device like the DEQ2496 or a Computer in comibation with a RTA mic to make the adjustments on a 31 band eq that would be part of the KPA. You could fine tune your settings and then store and load a numer of EQ curves. This way you would not need any device on stage anymore after finding the right settings. You could even exchange those settings as presets for the KPA which would make it easy for new users to get their systems running.


    I would love an option for swapping the basic EQ on the Monitor and Master outs for this 31 band EQ, so it would only be active for users who really know what they are doing. A good method to set the EQ would be to manually insert a noise generator into the KPA loop return, before the 31 band EQ. Now you would only need to watch your analyser tool and adjust the bands on the EQ. Afterwards you could store those curves as presets.


    What do you think?

  • I think it would be awesome if CK came up with a solution for people who use the KPA live, my perception is the same as yours: FRFR speakers are not really FRFR, not by a long shot. For studio guys it's pretty much ok if you have nice nearfields, reportedly people with CLRs too, but those of us who can't afford one, or even worse, don't even have a local distributor, suffer with this problem.


    On the other hand, I suspect a 31 band EQ to be a bit difficult to cram into the KPA's DSP limit, but neverheless it would be great if there'd be a solution. If I was in charge of the problem I'd take some of the most popular FRFR solutions like the DXR10, K10, etc and put them through a RTA and see what would be the minimal processing that needed to be done in order to compensate, maybe not perfectly but within the perception capacity of most players, for the imperfections in their response curves. In fact I think if the Studio EQ had the shelf/lowpass and shelf/highpass options along with selectable dB/oct slopes and an additional parametric band it would probably do the trick. Obviusly it would ideally be also present in the master section instead of the current tonestack-style controls.


    And the icing on the cake would be EQ presets for the aforementioned popular FRFR speakers, that'd be truly amazing :)

  • guys,


    the EQs are meant to make quick & easy adjustments to the sound. If your monitoring setup is a bit bass-shy, give it a bit more bass etc.
    this is all in the subjective realm of tonal 'taste' and gives the player the opportunity to quickly optimize how their Profiler and monitoring setup work together.


    the keyword here is 'optimize', not 'make a crap speaker sound like a million bucks', to put it bluntly... :D


    the belief, that an eq with a sufficient number of bands can make a poor monitor sound good/great is just that - a belief. it can't be done.


    If you want consistent monitoring quality, you'll have to invest in a system that suits your needs, choosing between IEM, traditional guitar cab or FRFR and then find a setup that works for you.
    the rule of the weakest link applies.


  • I have to disagree. This is done with nearly every PA system, so why not use it for guitar monitoring? Sure, it won´t turn a 50€ budget speaker into a 1000€ system. But as long as systems like the CLR are not widespread it makes totally sense trying to use quality PA systems or existing active monitors as a monitor solution for the KPA. In many cases it´s not even the speakers themselves but the settings of crossovers and DSPs inside those "not so linear" fullrange speakers.


    It´s ok to say the KPA can´t do this, but don´t say it makes no sense.


  • I have to disagree. This is done with nearly every PA system, so why not use it for guitar monitoring? Sure, it won´t turn a 50€ budget speaker into a 1000€ system. But as long as systems like the CLR are not widespread it makes totally sense trying to use quality PA systems or existing active monitors as a monitor solution for the KPA. In many cases it´s not even the speakers themselves but the settings of crossovers and DSPs inside those "not so linear" fullrange speakers.


    It´s ok to say the KPA can´t do this, but don´t say it makes no sense.


    PA calibration follows the same outline.
    A fitting PA system is installed and then optimized by an experienced engineer to sound the best in this position, in this venue.


    Since a full stereo mix is of course more complex then 'just' a guitar signal, it makes sense to offer this kind of resolution in a PA system, whereas our implementation is squarly aimed at guitarists and their needs.


    so I say it again
    IMO a 31 band EQ makes no sense in the hands of a guitarist.

  • This whole FRFR discussion is something, that I don't understand.


    Linear speakers are never fully linear, that's true. But they try to.
    Modern studio monitors are very linear. I had the chance to participate in a comparison test of different studio monitors.
    The best of them sounded surprisingly equal, when different brands where compared.


    However there is no absolute linearity, since the perceived frequency responce differs with the room we listen, and the angle to the speakers etc.


    Is this a problem? Not at all.
    We all grew up listening to speakers here, there and everywhere, and in the car e.g.
    We listen to our favorite music by headphones, by kitchen radio, in our studio, by television. Some are better, some are worse.
    In the same way we have listened to our guitar heros. The speakers that we utilized have an impact to their studio guitar sound, as well as to the rest of the music. Did we bother? Not really. If we didn't like a speaker, it was due to the general perception of the music, not explicitly the guitar sound.


    Do you guys make your own music recordings with guitar embedded? You will run into the same situation as every other recording: It will be listened to by a variety of speakers.


    Now to the pure guitar sound of the Profiler, which is a studio sound. Still not a different situation. The guitar sound is colored by the speakers in the exact same way a piece of music would be colored with that guitar embedded.
    Would you ask for a complex EQ for correcting the frequency responce? Maybe yes. But the EQ should be set for the whole music, not just the guitar.


    I am aware that many guitarists are not used to the studio sound of a guitar, even though they have listened to studio sounds all their live.
    Users sometimes state profiles do not sound good through their speakers. Well, that's the sound of a guitar amp in a studio, heard through your speakers. Get used to it! it's reality.
    Play along some music through the same speakers, and the sound will make sense.


    Professional guitarists have got used to the studio sound of amps. They play in studios often, or by Inear monitors on stage. It is probably a similar situation like singers getting used to listen to their own recordings.


    EQ presets for different FRFR simply do not make sense.
    There is no pro guitarist or producer, that has ever asked us for a complex EQ or Highcut or Lowcut or correction curves for linear speakers. They know about the everpresent relativity of frequency responces, that is colouring music in whole as well as guitar sounds in detail.


    If you cannot handle linear speakers for your guitar sound, then play the profiler through a guitar speaker.
    But be aware that you have been listening to guitars by linear speakers for all your life, it's simply that the sound is odd to you when not embedded into music.

  • A 31 would be a bit overkill for electric guitar/bass treatment. I wouldn't mind a 12 to 16-band on the outputs though. Still, the one that is there now is very convenient for quick adjustments.


    In my case it would be used for different regular guitar cabs.


  • There is no pro guitarist or producer, that has ever asked us for a complex EQ or Highcut or Lowcut or correction curves for linear speakers. They know about the everpresent relativity of frequency responces, that is colouring music in whole as well as guitar sounds in detail.

    Well the reason that no producer asked for this is just that they are using studio monitors, mainly near or midfields. Those speakers are designed for linearity, not power. The KPA sounds fantastic when used with studio monitors, so why should anybody complain? Though i never used the new atomic CLRs, i heard they are very close to the sound of near fields. However, most other PA speakers or active monitors are just designed for different purposes. That doesn´t mean they are garbage and imo it would just be great for users if they could use the stuff they already own. And a precise EQ can make a huge difference here. I think this is just one of those things you just have to try out to see the the difference. I tested several PA speakers with this method and it really can make a big difference with rather small efforts.


    It´s a not so easy to really capture a room sound to really display but i will try to create a few sound samples. Maybe you could setup a test scenario too or we might come together to do this... I think it´s really worth giving it a try...

  • Well the reason that no producer asked for this is just that they are using studio monitors, mainly near or midfields. Those speakers are designed for linearity, not power. The KPA sounds fantastic when used with studio monitors, so why should anybody complain? Though i never used the new atomic CLRs, i heard they are very close to the sound of near fields. However, most other PA speakers or active monitors are just designed for different purposes. That doesn´t mean they are garbage and imo it would just be great for users if they could use the stuff they already own. And a precise EQ can make a huge difference here. I think this is just one of those things you just have to try out to see the the difference. I tested several PA speakers with this method and it really can make a big difference with rather small efforts.


    It´s a not so easy to really capture a room sound to really display but i will try to create a few sound samples. Maybe you could setup a test scenario too or we might come together to do this... I think it´s really worth giving it a try...


    Well, if you have a PA that needs adjustments in sound, this should never be made on the instrument. This should be done by an external eq while listening to music that you are familiar with, or by using an analyzer and pink noise.
    All linear speakers are designed to run the sound of any kind of instrument, and whole music, without exception.
    We will not equip the profiler with all kinds of funktions to compensate possible shortcomings of external equipment, where these shortcomings are not guitar related whatsoever.
    If speakers you own already were good in the past, the do not need extensive equalizing now. By using a 31 band graphic eq for adapting it it to a guitar sound, you will very likely de-adjust it from the linear responce.

  • Well the reason that no producer asked for this is just that they are using studio monitors, mainly near or midfields. Those speakers are designed for linearity, not power. The KPA sounds fantastic when used with studio monitors, so why should anybody complain? Though i never used the new atomic CLRs, i heard they are very close to the sound of near fields. However, most other PA speakers or active monitors are just designed for different purposes. That doesn´t mean they are garbage and imo it would just be great for users if they could use the stuff they already own. And a precise EQ can make a huge difference here. I think this is just one of those things you just have to try out to see the the difference. I tested several PA speakers with this method and it really can make a big difference with rather small efforts.


    It´s a not so easy to really capture a room sound to really display but i will try to create a few sound samples. Maybe you could setup a test scenario too or we might come together to do this... I think it´s really worth giving it a try...

    Couldn't have said it better, my thoughts exactly.


    Now, why is it *so* important to shave off a bit of the excessive bottom end, add some low mids and cut some of the brittleness in the top end? Nitpickin?' Are we, guitarists, an obnoxious and spoiled kind who are obsessive about our live tone for no reason other than torturing manufacturers and their tech support team?


    I wish :)


    The truth is, I improvise most of my solos on stage. Maybe that's a bit different from the average guitarist, I really don't know. But if my live tone isn't *happening*, I actually play worse. In fact, IMHO, *much* worse. It takes half the fun out of playing guitar, and I don't make a lot of money playing out, so fun is basically *all* I have. I know all this is very subjective, so here are a few more objective things that can make or break my tone, that is, make it inspiring or uninspiring:


    - Ear piercing highs: particularly, it seems, in the 3kHz region, where coincidentally the human ear is very sensitive, and worse, where a lot of FRFR manufacturers put their crossover points. Too much highs can make playing single lines very unpleasant because of varying degrees of icepickyness.


    - Now with the KPA the logical solution would be lowering the highs or presence in the master/monitor EQ, but when the point where icepickyness is gone is reached, the tone becomes muffled and somewhat lifeless.


    - Excessive low end, especially below 100Hz, commonly referred to as "fartiness" or "boominess" is also a strong mood killer.


    - Take away enough bass in the master/monitor EQ to reduce boominess, and the resulting tone will often be thin and lacking "balls".



    I've read you guys talking about the fact that the tone from an amp will always be different from what the KPA produces, which is the tone of a miked amp. BUT when I hear a recording that has awesome guitar tones, they're always polished in the direction of what the guitar amp actually sounds like, so as far as I can see the engineer works on the tone captured through the microphone in order to overcome the limitations of that process and make it sound more like the original amp. That is what I would like to hear from my "FRFR" monitor, if possible - it would mean a world of difference to me, really.

  • 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