why shouldnt i eq my monitors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maskedman72
  • Start date Start date
M

maskedman72

Member
people say it is not good to eq your mix monitors. why is that? i eq mine all of the time and my mixes sound good. anytime i try mixing without eq the mix sounds bad.
my reasoning for monitor eq is that if your mixes consistently come out with not enough treble than eq you monitors and cut some treble. that way you make up for it by adding more treble when mixing and your treble will be better,and the same for low end. if i use no eq on my monitors than my mixes come out too low end heavy,so i boost the low end on my monitor eq thus not adding too much low end in the mix. mabyee my ears just need to adjust to not mixing on non eq'd monitors? i would like to ba able to mix on flat monitors but it just dosent work.
(i use passive event 20/20's)
 
Not to be disrespectful, but would that be another way of saying that either you don't like the sound of your monitors, or haven't quite learned what 'normal' should sound like on them?
At least you didn't go to 'knotches and boosts to fix the room nodes' land.:D
Wayne
 
Sounds like the room is giving you trouble. I would try and fix the acoustics in the room before touching the EQ. In the meantime, I would learn how to translate mixes in your current setup.

Part of the problem with EQ is that its processing will color the sound, possibly masking frequencies that you would otherwise pick up on. While the mix will always sound good on your system, it may not sound so good on a boombox, car stereo, etc.

Cy
 
Before you 'EQ' your monitors (to either color them or attempt to flatten them a bit) you might want to check what characteristics they have first.

We all know about looking at the curve of the frequency response supplied by the manufacturer. That's a place to start to see the general 'color'. Another thing to do is to stick a RTA mic (like an ECM8000) about 1 foot away from a speaker (turn the other one off) and measure the curve for yourself. At the range of 1 foot the room should mostly be out of the picture.

I did it last night myself using a DEQ2496 1/6 octave spectrum analyzer and pink noise (at 85dB SPL) to get a rough idea. Assuming I missed higher granularity peaks or dips that I'll catch later with experiment #2 I did see something I didn't like. Right at the 1.5KHz crossover I have a 1/3 octave dip of about 6-7dB !

So now I have a place to dig further in experiment #2 which is to use a full resolution spectrum (like CurveEQ), or just stick with the SPL meter in the DEQ2496 (better idea) and Ethan Winers recommended minirator tones at the 1.5KHz area and plot out what it really looks like. Possibly I'll use some pulses too along with ETF for some serious curve analysis.

So - long story short ! Ha Ha too late. I'm considering bumping the EQ up maybe 2-3dB at the crossover to flatten my response.

My budget really doesen't have $1500 for a better set of nearfields right now so I may have to stick a bandaid on it for now. I think having a hole that big near the most sensitive part of your hearing (it's about an octave away) is not good - really bad in fact.

I found all this out while 'tuning' my room a bit - I thought gee wonder how flat (or colored) the speakers really are and what are they putting out into the room ?

kylen
 
Last edited:
kylen said:

We all know about looking at the curve of the frequency response supplied by the manufacturer. That's a place to start to see the general 'color'. Another thing to do is to stick a RTA mic (like an ECM8000) about 1 foot away from a speaker (turn the other one off) and measure the curve for yourself. At the range of 1 foot the room should mostly be out of the picture.

I did it last night myself using a DEQ2496 1/6 octave spectrum analyzer and pink noise (at 85dB SPL) to get a rough idea. Assuming I missed higher granularity peaks or dips that I'll catch later with experiment #2 I did see something I didn't like. Right at the 1.5KHz crossover I have a 1/3 octave dip of about 6-7dB !

So now I have a place to dig further in experiment #2 which is to use a full resolution spectrum (like CurveEQ), or just stick with the SPL meter in the DEQ2496 (better idea) and Ethan Winers recommended minirator tones at the 1.5KHz area and plot out what it really looks like. Possibly I'll use some pulses too along with EFT for some serious curve analysis.

So - long story short ! Ha Ha too late. I'm considering bumping the EQ up maybe 2-3dB at the crossover to flatten my response.


kylen
Measuring with a non-gated signal will get room measurments, with sound traveling at about 1.1 ft/millisecond your first reflection will be (most likely) from the floor. You could try a ground-plane measurment outside in a parking-lot (place a mic on the ground and aim the speaker at it at an angle) if you want to know what your speakers are doing on-axis. But the off axis sound of a speaker has as much, if not more, to do with the sound of a speaker.
 
Thanks ds21, that helps give me some things to think about !

Also - I goofed up and had the peak hold on the spectrum - holy cow that kind of chaged things. It looks better now that it's off !

Anyway - with the keywords and info you gave me I can do some more research and think about the measurements. I'm just getting started in this area so I appreciate the help. Measureing outside seems like the real way to remove the room for sure !

The original idea was to remove as much of the room as possible and see how the speaker response looks by itself. Someone told me not to get too close to the speaker because of boundry effect - so I gotta watch for that too it looks like. As I drag the mic back from 1 foot to about 3 feet I can see more of the room coming into the spectrum and the bass and lo-mids begin to develop larger peaks and dips - standing waves I assume. Not very scientific but it gives me something to think about and compare as I put more insulation, absorption, diffusion and traps in.

kylen :)
 
It's funny. I just received a flyer from Sweetwater telling me I needed to buy the new Dbx DriveRack designed for the studio! I guess I should expect retailers and manufacturers to play fast and light with the truth!

(Gearslutz.com! I thought it was more PC to treat excessive gear purchasing as a syndrome rather than a moral shortcomming!)
 
Ethan, I hope you don't mind if I do. :D It's good a good reinforcement of lessons. Helps them sink in better.

From said post:
"...More important, the physical size of the deepest null point is very small. I've measured 15 dB level changes across a span of only four inches, and a 20 dB difference 18 inches away. So unless you're willing to mix with your head in a vise, you can't make the response flat for even one seat let alone the entire work area in front of a console."

"Yet another issue is the nulls can be very deep.
Even if you could EQ out the nulls with severe EQ boost, other places in the room where that frequency was correct or too loud will now be way too loud. Try to explain that to a producer on the couch in the back of the room..."

So bottom line is, even if you do eq for that spot, you've messed up the power response in the rest of the room, which fights the effort in the form of R/T build up?
Even in a well-treated room, are these effects reduced to the point where attempting to correct down to a few db of resolution helpful? Doesn't it all come down to us as listeners having to 'average out' the warts and learn how our system sounds and relates to the outside world?
Thanks in advance. Great stuff all around.
Wayne
 
Wayne,

> even if you do eq for that spot, you've messed up the power response in the rest of the room, which fights the effort in the form of R/T build up? <

Frequency response and reverb time are completely different, even though they are both improved with acoustic treatment.

> Even in a well-treated room, are these effects reduced to the point where attempting to correct down to a few db of resolution helpful? <

Great question. Even in a well treated room there will be deep nulls. But they're not as deep as without treatment, and I think they span a smaller area. I have two rooms in my house that have plenty of bass traps, and I can still measure deep nulls in some places. But the overall audible effect is much fuller bass that is also much more even around the room.

> Doesn't it all come down to us as listeners having to 'average out' the warts and learn how our system sounds and relates to the outside world? <

Yes, but not nearly as much once you have enough bass traps.

--Ethan
 
Why can't you EQ your monitors? Well, you can..... in some very limited cases.

First of all, if you're just talking about adjusting the response of your monitors apart from the room, then EQ is OK. Whether its an actual electronic filter, or simply the electro-mechanical design of the drivers, EVERY speaker uses some form of EQ to flatten out its response. Better speakers require less, but this is a valid way flatten out the response of a less then ideal monitor. You just want to make sure that you're really adjusting the speaker response and not the room. A ground plane measurement like ds21 mentioned is a good way to confirm this. Also you wan to use the most mild form or EQ you can to achieve your goal. Graphic EQs are BAD, while simple shelf type filters do little harm.

How about EQing the room? There are three answers.... No, sort of, and yes.

No, you can't use EQ to compensate for room acoustic issues in the upper bass and higher frequencies. The sound wavelengths at these frequencies are small compared to the room dimensions. Your brain can distinguish between the direct sound from the monitors and the reflected sound in the room. If you try to EQ the monitor/room system for flat response you are making the monitor response itself un-flat. You brain gives the most weight to this direct sound from the monitors when judging the spectral balance of the sound.

Yes, you can EQ the room/monitor system in the bass.... sort of. In the frequency band where the wavelengths are similar in scale to the room dimensions it is possible to use EQ to fix problems, but with a big caveat. At these wavelengths your brain cannot distinguish the direct and reflected sounds. You can compensate for room modes with EQ, BUT only at a very specific location like the listening position. If you move just a little from that position, the compensation is completely wrecked. In fact, you will likely make the situation much worse. Usually EQ is not a very good idea in this frequency band.

Yes, you can EQ the room/monitor system in the deep bass where the wavelengths are large compared to the room dimensions. In this frequency range there is no distinction whatsoever between direct and reflected sound. The room and the monitors work as an inseparable unit. EQ is a valid way of flattening out the reponse in this case.

Hope this helps.:)

Thomas

http://barefootsound.com
 
Thomas,

> You can compensate for room modes with EQ, BUT only at a very specific location like the listening position. <

I recently did some measurements to settle an argument in the rec.audio.tech newsgroup, and it turns out the area you could compensate for is too small to be useful. I found the center of a deep null in my studio and put a mike there. Four inches away - equal to turning your head - the response was 15 dB higher. 18 inches away - like sliding your chair over to access the next 16 channels on your mixer - the response was 20 dB higher.

--Ethan
 
I'm planning to locally 'equalize' the bass around my listening position a bit by setting a crossover (80-90Hz I think) for the signal sent to the nearfields and utilizing a moveable subwoofer(s?) placing it in the correct spot for the room.

That would be following my other acoustic calibration steps...

kylen
 
Back
Top