Could be my ears ........ but ..... "BRIGHT" PA

[Pirellithecat]

At a gig last weekend, there were a couple of comments about the "brightness" of the room and could we do anything to control it.
This resonated with my suspicion that our PA might actually be rather bright.
It's RCF 932's plus single sub. + Mackie ProFX 16v3 mixer. 
Only female vocals and a little rhythm guitar, plus drums going through it. 
I have compared it with a similar set up - Mackie SRM450 Mk2's plus 2 subs, and compared to that it is brighter (clinical?).

So, couple of questions.
1) Anyone else find the RCF offering a tad bright/clinical/revealing?
2)I can't accurately control the frequencies contributing to "brightness" with our Mixer/Speaker combination.  I have the chance to add a friends Stereo Graphic EQ unit to the outputs - any thoughts on trying this?
I know it's added complexity/gear etc, but is it worth a try?

I guess the alternative is to bite the bullet and move to a digital mixer with better EQing options - simpler on the gear front, but a steep learning curve. 

 
 

[nilebodgers]

I’d definitely try the graphic eq, a small tweak in the 2k-10k range is probably all that is necessary.

 

When I was doing sound a bright system was always my preference as it’s easy to tweak back a bit to sound more balanced, a dull system was much harder to deal with.

[BreadBin]

7 minutes ago, nilebodgers said:

I’d definitely try the graphic eq, a small tweak in the 2k-10k range is probably all that is necessary.

 

When I was doing sound a bright system was always my preference as it’s easy to tweak back a bit to sound more balanced, a dull system was much harder to deal with.

Exactly this, it's much easier to eq stuff out than in!

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

1 hour ago, Pirellithecat said:

  I have the chance to add a friends Stereo Graphic EQ unit to the outputs - any thoughts on trying this?

EQ isn't optional, it's mandatory. Without it you can't compensate for the room acoustics or tune out feedback. There was a time when I didn't have EQ. That would have been in the early 1980s. 😲

[Phil Starr]

My first instinct was the same as everyone else, it's down to the room. I too like to start with a bright clean sound, it all calms down as the room fills up and the bodies absorb a lot of the sound. Remember too that 'bright' isn't an objective description and it may be down to too little bass or low mids as much as over the top high mids and tops.

 

That final eq is just for that, correcting the sound to compensate for room acoustics. Ideally the sound coming from your mixer should be exactly what you want with each channel voice, guitar, bass etc eq'd as you want and sounding great through headphones (No I don't use them at every gig but good without any added room acoustics)

 

Some digital desks will analyse the room and do the final eq for you but with an analogue desk it's a common trick/hack to play a recording you know well and do the final eq on the graphic to make that sound 'right'. If a track you know well is right then the chances are good that your band will too. You want to take your 'perfect' mix to every room and not have to re-do everything for each room.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

55 minutes ago, Phil Starr said:

Some digital desks will analyse the room and do the final eq for you but with an analogue desk it's a common trick/hack to play a recording you know well and do the final eq on the graphic to make that sound 'right'.

I did that too, until 20 years ago, when I went to DSP with auto EQ. But you can manually tune EQ almost as easily with one of these on your phone https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=radonsoft.net.rta&hl=en_US

and one of these for your mixer http://www.flatkeys.co.uk/P!NG.php

[nilebodgers]

3 hours ago, Bill Fitzmaurice said:

EQ isn't optional, it's mandatory. Without it you can't compensate for the room acoustics or tune out feedback. There was a time when I didn't have EQ. That would have been in the early 1980s. 😲

This exactly. 
 

This is part of the revolution brought by affordable digital desks - there is always good eq at both the system and channel level.

[Chienmortbb]

On 23/06/2024 at 11:08, Pirellithecat said:

It's RCF 932's plus single sub.

When I auditioned the RCF ART 932s, I found them a bit bright, harsh  even (I broke my own rule there about using words to describe sound).

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

Harshness very often is the result of high THD. That can be sourced with too high a signal level anywhere in the chain, going all the way back to the channel input trim.

[Pirellithecat]

7 hours ago, Chienmortbb said:

When I auditioned the RCF ART 932s, I found them a bit bright, harsh  even (I broke my own rule there about using words to describe sound).

Dare I ask, what did you end up with instead? 

[Pirellithecat]

Thanks for the input everyone - I think that, for a live (pub) band, with a stressed out bass player trying to set-up and nursemaid the mixer, in the face of antediluvian band members, the prospect of a modern digital mixer which finds, and sorts, feedback, mic sensitivity, etc. etc. is going to be the way forward.
Might not be "the" best sound around, but as "Excellence is the enemy of the good" it's an almost irresistible proposition.  Just need to convince myself that digital wizardry can be trusted .... especially without the physical faders to grab hold of in an emergency ............ 
Damn!
And, as life is short, I might have to look at more benign PA speakers which, unlike the band, don't SHOUT at me ............ 

In the meantime I've borrowed a graphic equaliser ............    

[Phil Starr]

13 hours ago, Pirellithecat said:

And, as life is short, I might have to look at more benign PA speakers which, unlike the band, don't SHOUT at me ............ 

 

20 hours ago, Chienmortbb said:

When I auditioned the RCF ART 932s, I found them a bit bright, harsh  even

As you know I've been following your journey with interest.  Complete respect for your rational, methodical approach too, you've made a lot of progress.

 

I'm a bit surprised at you and John (Chienmort) both finding the RCF's harsh. I'd have expected the 932's with that lovely compression driver and lower crossover point to sound great with a female vocalist. I confess that's based upon specs only I haven't actually auditioned them but I suspect something else is going on. The trouble with the best speakers is that they are revealing and show up any problems elsewhere. if RCF have a 'house' sound then it is that of a studio monitor, revealing rather than easy listening. I chose RCF over the excellent Yamahas for that reason slightly more detail in the vocals rather than Yamahas slightly coloured, smoother sound. I think @Bill Fitzmaurice thoughts about distortion elsewhere in the chain might be woth examining. Was it one instrument or maybe the vocals responsible for the harshness?

[Jack]

14 hours ago, Pirellithecat said:

... Just need to convince myself that digital wizardry can be trusted .... especially without the physical faders to grab hold of in an emergency ............

If you're ever gigging anywhere near Newcastle (you're not a million miles away) then happy to loan you my mixer or I'll soundman for a gig if that helps? I've had my XR18 for something like 9 years now and there's no way I would go back to a desk desk.

[Pirellithecat]

1 hour ago, Phil Starr said:

 

As you know I've been following your journey with interest.  Complete respect for your rational, methodical approach too, you've made a lot of progress.

 

I'm a bit surprised at you and John (Chienmort) both finding the RCF's harsh. I'd have expected the 932's with that lovely compression driver and lower crossover point to sound great with a female vocalist. I confess that's based upon specs only I haven't actually auditioned them but I suspect something else is going on. The trouble with the best speakers is that they are revealing and show up any problems elsewhere. if RCF have a 'house' sound then it is that of a studio monitor, revealing rather than easy listening. I chose RCF over the excellent Yamahas for that reason slightly more detail in the vocals rather than Yamahas slightly coloured, smoother sound. I think @Bill Fitzmaurice thoughts about distortion elsewhere in the chain might be woth examining. Was it one instrument or maybe the vocals responsible for the harshness?

Thanks Phil, 
I suspect it's partly my ears .... I've always been a bit "bright-sensitive/averse" .   So it might not be the speaker per se, but more the limitations of the mixers ability to adjust the specific frequencies that are a little too pronounced.  Spent a few hours with a very experienced sound guy this week mixing a track which we'd put together "remotely" .   Although he has an analogue desk, being able to spend the time minutely adjusting each channel EQ/volume/compression etc. was interesting.  It brings home how VERY small amounts of EQ adjustment make big differences to the mix and if you have time and the ability to critically listen, a great mix can be achieved.   However, in the live situation, I just don't have the time or the ability to really listen to the FOH sound whilst "tweaking" and certainly not time to do that to each feed going into the mixer.   So, back to the excellent being the enemy of the good, I need an "overall" EQ adjustment which tames the excesses.  Thinking about it, I guess the complexity of using a digital mixer (so many more options) might not help!!  So maybe the Graphic equaliser will be the answer in the short term - although it'll be greeted with derision by he rest of the band!   Tin Hat came free with it though so ............. 

Actually - one final thought ........ how bright are the Shure SM58's compared to the SM58 Beta's - our vocalist has a fantastic and very powerful voice, which is really the main ingredient of the mix.  Maybe a different mic might be an idea ..........  

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

Just now, Pirellithecat said:

So maybe the Graphic equaliser will be the answer in the short term - although it'll be greeted with derision by he rest of the band! 

What's the name of the band? The Luddites?

[Pirellithecat]

1 hour ago, Jack said:

If you're ever gigging anywhere near Newcastle (you're not a million miles away) then happy to loan you my mixer or I'll soundman for a gig if that helps? I've had my XR18 for something like 9 years now and there's no way I would go back to a desk desk.

Thanks Jack - that's a very generous offer!  However, we don't really get past the Middle East, let alone making it all the way out to the  Far (N) East!!  

[Pirellithecat]

Just now, Bill Fitzmaurice said:

What's the name of the band? The Luddites?

The Antediluvians  🤣
To be fair, it's mostly just me who wants the sound to be "better", most audiences (exception last gig) don't mention the sound quality (it's usually just the VOLUME!)  
Mostly though they just stand there drooling over the vocalist and the shredding guitard, whilst consuming inadvisably large quantities of alcohol! 😭

 

[Phil Starr]

11 hours ago, Pirellithecat said:

Actually - one final thought ........ how bright are the Shure SM58's compared to the SM58 Beta's - our vocalist has a fantastic and very powerful voice, which is really the main ingredient of the mix.  Maybe a different mic might be an idea

Hold that thought.

 

I did wonder if it could be an issue with better speakers revealing something that's been there before but has become apparent as the sound has got better. Brighter is a bit subjective the Beta's are a lot more revealing and open sounding but I think quite sweet certainly not shouty. I actually quite like them. The SM58 is a real workhorse but showing it's age and sounds quite muffled compared with more modern mics. I'd use them for backing vocals, they are undemanding of the singer and some times you don't need the weakness of your third vocal exposed, they'll cover a multitude of sins Mic's are a really personal thing and most of them take advantage of peaks in the upper register to enhance voices and help them to cut through a mix. That means a mic suits some people more than another will. In my duo my partner uses a Beta58 and I use a Sennheiser E935, we've tried swapping but neither of us felt happy with the swap.

 

The Sennheiser 935 sounds particularly good for many female vocalists. I play in two bands both female fronted and both singers borrowed my mic and wouldn't return it until they had bought their own.

 

How do you eq her voice? Do you use any echo or delay or other processing? How is her mic technique?

[Pirellithecat]

Well ........ Easy bit first .......
Mic technique - getting better, sings very close to the Mic and still "cups" the Mic "Bulb" from time to time (I have explained - and its now pretty rare). 
Wondering about adding a little more compression on this particular Mic ....... currently just a "tad"! 
In terms of FX - usually use Reverb plus a small amount of delay - bit limited on the Mackie, as the delay is a combo with Reverb so I've been experimenting with just Reverb of various types.
In terms of EQ ....... well this is a trade off, as we have to manage feedback via monitor, and, as vocal mics are in front of drums AND Guitar cabs  they pick up lots of mid range "bloom".  So, usually there is the HPF on, bass rolled off a fair bit, as is the treble, with as much of the Mids (freq/volume) as we can manage without monitor feedback.  In an ideal world I'd cut some of the upper mids (1500/1800) and the lower mids (400/500 ish) but can't do that on my Analogue desk.   So a bit compromised really.  (Monitor has significant "Cut" across the range!). 
Indeed, the Graphic Equaliser might be best used to tailor the monitor(s) leaving the FOH EQ with more options. 

 I might check ot a few Mics though .............  
 Feel free to point out any obvious errors!!!   

[Phil Starr]

6 hours ago, Pirellithecat said:

Feel free to point out any obvious errors!!!

Ha ha, I'm not even going to contemplate trying to mix for you at a distance It does all look fine though given the limitations of your desk. I'm really cautious about adding in compression for live work, unless singers are really strong and you can keep the gain down it so often leads to feedback issues. If I was mixing FOH and not behind the speakers playing bass it would be fine because you can be on it quickly, but if you are mixing and playing it's just another headache.

 

Back to the issue of over brightness I think you have to try the graphic on FOH first since you are pointing to the FOH speakers as the source of the problem. No harm in experimenting with it in the monitor mix at rehearsals though, obviously.

 

If your singer is a real belter then you might find you can use compression, I'm wondering here if she is just too loud in places and needs to back off the mic a tad when she is really going for it vocally. I suppose the question is whether the PA sounds bright all the time or that it is just noticeable a few times in the gig. I've recorded gigs from time to time with a portable recorder to identify problems. Good luck if it is a problem with vocals or guitar, I've found in the past that what I see as a purely technical problem is seen as criticism and my 'helpful' advice not wanted

 

I think you're reaching the point though where you are outgrowing your mixer. You want it to do stuff it won't do. I was concerned about mixing live on a tablet with no physical controls until I tried it. Having a tablet on my mic stand is so much better than a substantial desk somewhere close by on a cramped stage. I lucked out when I made the move and went for something actually designed for live work with fabulous software, the RCF M18, sadly now discontinued. I was wondering what I'd buy in your situation. I'm not a fan of the Behringer X series, the interface is just too cluttered for my taste, not very intuitive and I don't expect to have to add a router because the provided one doesn't work well, it does have more flexibility than it's rivals though, it's a really powerful machine. The Zoom has physical faders and is nice and simple but the fx/eq options are limited and you only get a few of the advantages of going digital, it isn't really designed for live bands. I'd probably opt for the A&H CQ series now but they are a step up in price. The Mackie DL16S looks interesting though, I'm just hoping my RCF keeps going though

 

 

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

12 hours ago, Pirellithecat said:

Indeed, the Graphic Equaliser might be best used to tailor the monitor(s) leaving the FOH EQ with more options.

Did I fail to mention you need separate EQs for monitors and mains? 🫢 EQ adjusts the response to suit the room. However, the room consists of two separate entities, on the stage and in the audience. On the stage you're trying to get maximum intelligibility without feedback, in the audience you're trying to get the best overall sound quality. Seldom the twain do meet. 

[police squad]

Having just re-read this from the start

 

Over the years I have noticed how different desks sound different to each other. 

I know that sounds a bit daft but 24 years ago I bought a Peavey XR800 powered desk and matched it to Electro Voice SX100+ cabs.

My vocal sound through this little system was (and still is actually) really really good. Full and deep with no harshness or feedback, SM58s all the way here.

 

15 years or so ago I bought a new Wharfedale powered system (it was cheap and suited my needs) and an Allen and Heath Zed-FX22. It sounded pretty good most of the time until one day I noticed a horrible harshness, in a horrible sounding room. I couldn't EQ out, I just turned the whole thing down a little.

 

3 years later I ditched the Wharfedales and went QSC K12 plus 2 Ksub. Awesome, really lovely, natural and rich sounding.

I also did many gigs without the subs (sounded great) but my 22 channel desk was a bit big to lug about, so I bought a Behringer something. 8 inputs, small with eq. Yep it sounded ok or so I thought.

 

I got used to how it sounded, then it started to play up, making weird white noise, which when I turned the FX off, it was fine.

 

So I dragged out the old AH ZED-FX

 

OH MY!! Like night and day.

 

So I bought a smaller AH ZED-FX and it's wonderful. 

 

My point here, it could be your desk. It must be worth trying a different desk

[JPJ]

On 26/06/2024 at 23:16, Phil Starr said:

 

The Sennheiser 935 sounds particularly good for many female vocalists. I play in two bands both female fronted and both singers borrowed my mic and wouldn't return it until they had bought their own.

 

That Sennheiser is a lovely mic and works really well with female vocals, but it’s a bit of a beast to get used to after the venerable SM58. I thought it was me until a recent multi-band event mixed by a very competent and locally recognised sound engineer, who like me, struggled to EQ it to avoid feedback from the monitors. Once you’ve tamed it, its a really good mic, nice and clear, but don’t on any account plug another mic into that channel - the comparison is shocking 😂

[Chienmortbb]

On 26/06/2024 at 09:25, Phil Starr said:

'm a bit surprised at you and John (Chienmort) both finding the RCF's harsh.

It must have been the pollen count but I was wrong in that it was the 912s I auditioned. I did an A/B against the HH Tensor TR1201. The bottom end of the 912s was marginally better than the HH, but overall sound was probably better from the HH. AS you may remember, in the end I decided that neither were worth the money and the 912 was particularly poor value considering the higher price.

 

 

[Chienmortbb]

On 28/06/2024 at 12:37, JPJ said:

That Sennheiser is a lovely mic and works really well with female vocals, but it’s a bit of a beast to get used to after the venerable SM58. I thought it was me until a recent multi-band event mixed by a very competent and locally recognised sound engineer, who like me, struggled to EQ it to avoid feedback from the monitors. Once you’ve tamed it, its a really good mic, nice and clear, but don’t on any account plug another mic into that channel - the comparison is shocking 😂

On the hill above  my old house in Poole is Sontronics. I bought one of their SOLO mics when it was released.  I love this mic as it sounded how my voice did when recorded  with a really good studio mic. It is more akin to the 945, being a super cardioid but it does show that thinking out of the SM58 box works well if you take the time. Don't get me wrong the SM58 is a fine mic but the design is over 50 years old and what once was the outstanding performer is now amongst the also-rans.