Ringing Out The Room – Channel or Overall PEQ?

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions Ringing Out The Room – Channel or Overall PEQ?

This topic contains 170 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of zzzzzzris zzzzzzris 6 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 171 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47231
    Profile photo of DoctorG
    DoctorG
    Participant

    Dick,

    If you’ll be objective for a moment, you are the one who started this “battle” by taking me to task for things you misinterpreted. You just made incorrect assumptions about what I was saying. You said I wanted an argument, but you are the one who started the argument.

    Perhaps, as you said, I didn’t express myself in terms or vernacular that you’re accustomed to. But the proper approach would have been to simply answer the OP’s question in your terms, not berate me for trying to be of help. You even took me to task for not using simple sentences! Just why is it that you feel the need to berate everyone?

    Is it even possible that there may be some gaps in your knowledge? I’ve never met anyone who seems to think he knows it all, as you seem to. Might there be anything in this field where you have misconceptions? Is it even possible that you could misunderstand what someone has said?

    I am impressed by what you appear to know about audio, but how is it that you have established yourself as the most astute individual on this forum?

    I really hate it when I seem to have made an enemy — that was never my intent. I suspect that you may have some psychological issue that you need to face. Think about it. Just what is your problem?

    #47233
    Profile photo of coffee_king
    coffee_king
    Participant

    Please everyone CHILL OUT 🙂
    I have now read Dick’s document and it was both interesting and helpful, so many thanks for that.

    #47235
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    I would suggest you guys kiss and make up or I would recommend to the moderators to take down this thread. I would hate to see that. It is a great place to learn. Sure we all have our own skill sets and knowledge base but we need to be civil in expressing our opinions. I have been in this industry in some way darn near 50yrs now. Started when I was a teenager. I have done just about everything you can imagine. I feel very lucky. I am pretty much self taught. I never claim to have the level of knowledge that both of you seem to on the science. I understand most of it but have just never dug in that deep. Mine is mostly practical knowledge from having done it a lot. i just try to help out folks if the subject is something I feel I know or have experienced. I never want to be portrayed as an ‘expert’. I don’t think any of us know it all.

    #47236
    Profile photo of coffee_king
    coffee_king
    Participant

    I’ve been playing around with my PA in my garage today (Ive now put it in my house which I’m sure the neighbours are going to love) getting it to feedback/resonate and attempting to sort it by both the overall PEQ and GEQ.
    I must admist I’m finding it a lot easier to do with the GEQ at the moment.
    I’ll keep at it though.
    Cheers for the advise everyone.

    #47237
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    Just remember. That will change with every venue. No two the same.

    #47238
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    What makes the PEQ little more difficult to use is finding the correct center frequency. As already stated many times the bands of the GEQ (as it is integrated inside the Qu) are much wider, so you’re operating more with a broom than a tweezer. The integrated RTA isn’t precise enough telling you the correct center frequency either. Try to feed a sine (from the signal generator, for example) to the RTA and you’ll see a bell shaped response of the RTA, not a single peak (see below).
    You have two options finding the PEQ frequency. The loud variant is using a narrow Q, rising the gain on the band a little and sweeping the frequency to the right spot. Take care of your ears and neighbours, …not recommended!
    The more clever approach is using a better (higher resolution) RTA which directly displays the frequencies of peaking bands. You may even determine problematic frequencies before you hear feedback. I’m using the 1/24 octave version of TrueRTA which I registered years ago before smartphones exist. I guess nowadays you will find a nice app.

    The reason for the bell shaped response of the integrated RTA is based on its implementation. Obviously the Qu-RTA does not implement FFT (=high DSP load, slow for higher resolution) but more a peak detection on bandbass filters (=less DSP load, quicker response). A RTA suitable for feedback detection should do FFT calculation as TrueRTA does. Feeding a sine will show a single peak not a wide range.

    #47239
    Profile photo of GCumbee
    GCumbee
    Participant

    Also be careful in ringing not to trash your HF drivers. I have seen it happen. Replace all EAW drivers in a church few years ago over that. Long sustained HF feedback trying to ring a system. Makes for ugly blackened coils.

    #47240
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    The RTA reasonably matches the GEQ in width though IIRC from ringing out the church (I took in the QU for the siggen and RTA)

    #47246
    Profile photo of coffee_king
    coffee_king
    Participant

    Just remember. That will change with every venue. No two the same.

    Totally. I’m finding it all quiet interesting now to be honest.

    #47247
    Profile photo of [XAP]Bob
    [XAP]Bob
    Participant

    It’s the techniques that stay the same.
    PA positioning is first up on my list…

    #47262
    Profile photo of audiokla
    audiokla
    Participant

    a very special thank for Dick’s PDF Document.

    Very helpful und useable.

    Great to send me this

    Greetings from Germany (Klaus)

    #47280
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    Hey guys
    I found this thread both very informative but also sad. It’s great to debate about stuff and dispute things as that’s how we all learn. No one knows things without learning from someone else, unless they are a genius who discovers or invents things and doesn’t need anyone else’s input (don’t know many of them !!). I just wish DR and Doc didn’t insult each other. There is no need for that here. None of us knows it all. And as my long time ago maths teacher used to say ” There’s no such thing as a stupid question”. It might appear to be stupid to someone who has more knowledge, but to the person asking it isn’t. So please please be courteous and respectful to each other. I enjoyed the knowledge both Dick and Doc shared and it gave me food for thought. I love debates. I hate insulting arguments. Keep sharing……peace !!!

    Just one small point of clarification I would like to make. It is confusing talking about a narrow Q, no such thing really. A narrow octave bandwidth relates to a high Q value and a low Q value is associated with a wide octave bandwidth. Q = (sq.rt (2 to power of N))/((2 to power
    of N)- 1). where N = octave bandwidth
    I know what you mean (well I think I do) in that by a narrow Q you mean a narrow octave bandwidth ??
    Barry

    #47285
    Profile photo of robbocurry
    robbocurry
    Participant

    Careful Barry, sounds like you are baiting D&D to start again?! 😉

    #47287
    Profile photo of gilly
    gilly
    Participant

    Bring it on…..:-)

    #47289
    Profile photo of robbocurry
    robbocurry
    Participant

    lol!

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 171 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.