Reply To: Ringing Out The Room – Channel or Overall PEQ?

[DoctorG]

Dick,
You make some good points, however, your experience appears to be limited. I’ve only been doing this for 50 years or so, and I haven’t been in every possible situation, but I tend to make good observations. My comments made it clear that I wasn’t trying to write the book that could be written on this topic, but I could write that book. I was simply trying to point out the issues that needed to be considered, not cover every aspect, and my experience has proven that all the factors I mentioned are indeed pertinent, including the fact that different vocalists can generate different feedback.

My doctorate is in chemical physics, so I understand physics fairly well. Feedback will not occur at a frequency that is not generated in the room in some manner – that’s simple physics. A GEQ is better for eliminating feedback for several reasons, but I’ll just name a couple. Generally, a GEQ will have narrower Q at each frequency, so it can be used to remove feedback, which tends to be a specific frequencies, without unduly affecting overall sound. A true PEQ, where one can narrow or widen the Q is great, but there are usually only three or four of these for a given channel. Most GEQs have 28 to 31 bands, so more feedback frequencies can be tuned out. The more bands one has on a GEQ, the narrower the Q. If you are lucky enough to have a fully parametric 31-band GEQ, then you’re in good shape. Most inexpensive digital mixers don’t have these, as you pointed out.

You seemed to have a problem with what I said about condenser mics. Apparently, you just haven’t used any good condenser mics. Possibly all you know about are SM58s. The low- and high-frequency response of condensers is significantly greater than dynamic mics, and their transducers are much more sensitive, so a different type and amount of EQ is needed, at least that has been my experience. Maybe you just need to compare the frequency response curves of different mics – you do know what I’m talking about, right?

You said, “Again, this is sort of OK, but the statement is rather rigid and many clarifications need to be made to to situational variables.” I stated “I’m assuming you know the factors that you need to consider with each of these.” My statement is only rigid if you assume it is. I was just suggesting one possible procedure that has worked for me many times, but what one needs to do is dependent on the situation at hand. It is not feasible in a forum like this to cover every aspect of every possible situation.

You seem to be good at picking fights. You chose not to read my comments carefully and misinterpreted several of them. I don’t feel it is necessary to point out all of the instances. I just chose a few. I noticed that you failed to offer any advice before I made my comments — why was that, if you’re so knowledgeable? Why don’t you go ahead and give us the procedures one should follow and provide all the clarifications needed? I’d like the opportunity to critique your recommendations. And BTW, there is a 1024 KB maximum file size for our comments, I think. I doubt that you’ll exceed it.