31 Band EQ, DBX Driverack, or something else?

[juan162]

Hi all,

I was wondering if you guys could give me some suggestions. I am interested in purchasing a 31 dual band EQ (or something) for my live performance rig. The reason I want to purchase an EQ unit is that for the past 3-4 years I've mixed sound for the local High School musical productions and want to be able to ring out the room and have better control of feedback aside from the 3 band EQ on my Mackie mixing board.

My question is two-fold. Given what I want to do, should I purchase a 31 dual band EQ or something else. I also did some research on the DBX driverack and it sounds like it could be an easy, no brainer approach but I've generally found that any unit that promises too much tends to disappoint. If I should get the 31 band EQ, what should I get? Given my limited use of the equipment, I don't want to spend more than $300-$400 for it.

Thanks in advance.

Juan

[RawDepth]

The driverack products are primarily crossover units that have EQ thrown in as a secondary feature. It is there so you can contour and adjust for different speaker characteristics and filter slopes.

I wouldn't attempt to use them only as a front-of-house EQ. It would be too inconvenient to use if you don't make use of the crossover features. Not to mention unnecessary spending.

I say this because...your question made it sound like you only wanted an EQ and not a crossover.

dbx does make good graphic EQs.

[stevieb]

I own two Behringer (eek!) Sharc feedback-eliminators. They do try to do too much, but I have found them useful in ringing out a room- you set them up and let them go, and then, a few minutes later, the room is rung out pretty well. It SHOULD be a time-saver, but I usually am so enamored of the process, I stand there and watch, thus not using the time saved to do something else... Anyway, I am NOT recommending them as a silver bullett, but they do help, and I have gotten by without a 31-band eq on some occasions by having them. Best thing- they are available cheap- so cheap that I am keeping mine, if for no reason than they would bring so little cash I might as well hold onto them- might come in handy one day.

[juan162]

RawDepth,

You are correct in that I am not planning to use it as a crossover. I primarily just want to ring out the room and prevent feedback. I do a pretty good job as it is, but I know I can do better if I had more control over the EQ. I figured that this was the best solution, but it's so easy to get caught up with other products.

juan162

[juan162]

stevieb,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at those products. I think I should go witht the EQ first, though,

Juan162

[oretez]

While I wouldn't suggest it as panacea (I tend to focus on recording and am happy whenever possible to leave live sound reinforcement to someone else, unfortunately that is frequently, these days, not possible) you might check out the ART HQ231. It is a dual 1/3 octave eq with a somewhat interesting approach to 'ringing' out a room it that it attempts to use LED brightness as a measure for band energy

While I am not at a point of recommending it outright, since when I am compelled to do sound reinforcement it inevitably means I am 'multi tasking' with far too few hands to do anything perfectly I am at this point trying to pretend that this approach is helpful

Initially I haven't found the filters to be significantly more disappointing then the dBX units I had been using (initially anyway I've kept the dBX units in my racks and used them either as inserts or on the monitor bus, and I always had an old parametric with digital controls that permitted me to do many of the things that traditional auto feedback eliminators do (as well as normal surgical eq))

feed back, typically, is not my biggest problem (except when some decides the best way to 'reinforce'/amplify a banjo is to stick an SM58 inside the instrument, or variations on the theme) but the LED's do seem to help when I need to shift gears among a variety of tasks

[xstatic]

If it were me, I would pass on the Driverack idea for just EQ purposes. Like mentioned earlier, it is far to slow and clunky for just using it as an EQ. In fact, I would pass on DBX altogether for your intended use you described and have a serious look at a used Ashly EQ. The Ashley EQ's are going to be easier to nail your feedback frequencies with. The Ashley's just aren't as "soft" sounding as many other EQ's, but are also more audibly responsive.

As far as EQ's with the little ligths on the individual EQ faders, I personally would avoid that. I have had to use stuff like that way more often than I would care to admit. The problem is that the pretty lights are just about that, pretty lights. I can not tell you how many times for fun I have flipped that feature inline just to mock it at how it is so often wrong. Frequencies feeding back that aren't lit very much, lit up frequencies that aren't an issue etc....

[oretez]

Don't disagree with you (concerning any auto 'feedback' detection) particularly if you are in a space reasonably suited to the type of audio production (on which you are working). Have access to appropriate gear (appropriate budget), have reasonable cooperation from participants. Have time for a reasonable sound check and enough (and appropriately experienced) tech hands to monitor the production effectively. . In the years I've been doing this (and as I might have mentioned will avoid doing sound reinforcement if at all possible) am still waiting for more then two of these 'reasonables' to show in the same place at the same time.

Have nothing against Ashley EQ, don't work for ART, while, in my experience there are actually some filters in the ART EQ boxes wouldn't consider them to be upscale. The HQ231 is not designed as feedback identifier, locator, destroyer, it's lights are merely supposed to reflect relative 'power' of a frequency band. In typical conditions in which I work I have found the concept and implementation to be useful. Though it is doubtful that I'd typically use the lights, generally speaking, as a 'feedback' control. Generally speaking I find the hearing limitations of performers and individual monitor requirements to be far more challenging, with regard to controlling feedback, then anything, except the worst of rooms, strictly FOH. But then I don't typically work in ear bleed genre's. So? Turning the M*&&$F*&#$ thing down works pretty well for me. I'm still comfortable with the idea of 'feeling' the music, just prefer situations in which the possibility of hearing it is also taken into account. If strip EQ doesn't help I'd typically patch a parametric on the insert.

Generally speaking I find multi mode parametric EQ to be far more effective in controlling feed back then anything but turning the F*&&#Yr down . . . And that is what the auto units are attempting to do . . . Trying to think if I even own one . . . Don't carry one but certainly wouldn't not use it if it worked . . . In middle of the set do what ever is fastest, (turn it down) what ever interferes with performance the least. (which might not entail turning it down) In between sets try to sort out what changed and physically reposition elements (relation ship of mics to speakers, etc.)

[ocnor]

Originally Posted by oretez

Generally speaking I find multi mode parametric EQ to be far more effective in controlling feed back then anything but turning the F*&&#Yr down . . . And that is what the auto units are attempting to do

The Behringer Feedback Destroyer "IS" a multi-band parametric EQ which can be used in auto or manual modes [or a combination of both]. The Q goes down to 1/64th octave which makes the filters far less intrusive than most other EQs. The trick is to only use it for the vocal monitors. Never run instruments through a feedback destroyer because it won't work correctly.

[RawDepth]

Originally Posted by ocnor

...The trick is to only use it for the vocal monitors. Never run instruments through a feedback destroyer because it won't work correctly.

My band once had a sound company who used these on the stage monitors. The monitors started out sounding full and natural. But by the end of our first set they sounded like a $3 telephone. The feedback destroyers had pulled down vital frequencies, then we called for more volume to make up for the loss, then they pulled down more frequencies, etc., etc... And there was not very much feedback to begin with. It was just arbitrarily pulling down certain frequencies. We sang a lot of high harmonies and we may have been confusing it.

Anyway, a semi-skilled human on a regular EQ could have done far better.

[ocnor]

Originally Posted by RawDepth

My band once had a sound company who used these on the stage monitors. The monitors started out sounding full and natural. But by the end of our first set they sounded like a $3 telephone. The feedback destroyers had pulled down vital frequencies, then we called for more volume to make up for the loss, then they pulled down more frequencies, etc., etc... And there was not very much feedback to begin with. It was just arbitrarily pulling down certain frequencies. We sang a lot of high harmonies and we may have been confusing it.

Anyway, a semi-skilled human on a regular EQ could have done far better.

Just another case of someone that didn't RTFM. The sound guy obviously didn't have the filters set correctly. What you've described also sounds like what happens when guitars or keyboards are being sent via routing or bleeding through the filters. The feedback destroyer hears a sustaining frequency and assumes that it's feedback. There are several different ways to set the filters and stop that from happening but you have to RTFM and understand how it works.

[stevieb]

I agree with ocnor. The Sharc's have learning filters that are set when you ring-in the system, and also has on-the-fly filters that wait to detect a feeding-back frequency, then squash it. Thing is, the on-the-fly filters CAN be turned off- either by limiting the number you assign to be on, or by urning them ALL off. Sounds like that was not done by the soundman.

In fairness, the little things are not the easiest to use- a common problem with inexpensive little boxes that are made to be over-acheivers (which the often fail to do- they are programmed to do a LOT of things, but often don't do those things very WELL.) The soundman may have overlooked the on-the-fly filters.