image description


1.7 - Whats the point of having SMAART wizard only on the semi parametric?
  Forum Index » StudioLive General Discussion 
Author
Message
Pandamonium
Prenoob

Joined: 10/10/2010 09:57:15
Messages: 7
Offline

Wouldn't this be infinitely more useful if it worked with the 31 band graphic? Even better, an auto eq feature? Seems like a massive waste of time at the moment. I would rather just blast some pink noise through the system and eq with the rta in the graphic. The option to just play some pink noise from uc would be more useful than the wizard, I mean, you can't even really read to see what frequency is where in the wizard screen.
12thharmonic
Prenoob
[Avatar]

Joined: 29/08/2011 10:51:39
Messages: 41
Location: Central Coast Australia
Offline

It's about using fewer filters. Takes some practice tweaking gain and Q. You can still use the graphic for on the fly stuff. But this does make sense in an 'old school' and ,less is more' schools of thought. EQ(s) create propagation delays. You can cover many graphic filters with one parametric.

I sometimes tune wedges with two filters. Very smooth.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 20/11/2012 12:01:06

Mobile Recording, P.A./monitor, internet broadcasting.
StudioLive 24
AAVIM Stealth Audio System : SAS-X368 Rackmount PC : Intel Xeon Hexacore - 3.33 Ghz Processor. Silent Heatpipe CPU Cooler .Intel X58 Motherboard, 24 GB PC12800-XMS, DDR3 RAM, 1 x 500 GB ATA, 2 x 1TB SATA, 2 x Heatpipe Hard Drive Cooler/Dampener
Plextor DVD-R, Nvidia Quadro NVS 290 Graphics Card
ASUS dual core tower, old Dell laptop. IPUD2
24x8 55 meter core
4x turbo TMW 212 wedges
NS10M, Faderport, Nuendo, Cubase, m3w, jazler
Various mics, nothing tremendous. 58's, audix, A.T.
"There's no replacement for displacement"
http://foxmanpro.com
http://daipritchard.com
http://headonradionetwork.com
[WWW]
tysonviolin
Presonic
[Avatar]

Joined: 13/02/2011 06:07:21
Messages: 343
Offline

I'm in the camp with 12thharmonic
My parametric EQs do all the main work tuning the system. I only use the graphics when I need them. It seems that Presonus would give us a choice, however.
TROPO.BANDCAMP.COM
SL24
SL16
Apogee
Studio One Pro
Logic
Ableton
Mac Book Pro
UA
Vintech

[WWW]
Dennis Varillas
Prenoob

Joined: 21/12/2011 00:46:04
Messages: 79
Offline

I feel its more of a guide/starting point. Shooting the room at sound check will yield different results then if you were to shoot with the room full concert go-ers. However, it is a starting point to help YOUR EARS (which you have been training for years) and YOUR BRAIN (which you should think highly of bc of your personal experience) to make the final decisions on how to attack the out of hand freq. Next, you might as well ask for an "auto mix" feature IMO. Think of the Parametric eq in the new SMAART feature as light brush strokes towards a better mix. the fine detail comes with individual channel eq/comp'ing and your fader movements.

Cheers audio geek brother Pandamonium.
StudioLive 16.4.2
Audiobox 22VSL
Fader port
Studio One 2 Producer, Capture & Protools 10
Apple MacBook Pro 17" i7
Apple iPad w/ StudioLive Remote
Apple iPhone 5S w/ QMix
chrisatrational
Presonic
[Avatar]

Joined: 12/12/2011 19:02:02
Messages: 138
Location: Putnam, CT
Offline

Right, this update is really about bringing a tool that is used in more demanding and professional environments and making it accessible to everyone else. The system response wizard is an FFT transfer function, which gives far better and more pertinent information then an RTA is capable of (namely coherence for this implementation, however with the full version (Smaart v7) you can view insanely high resolution of magnitude, coherence, phase, and impulse response- enabling you to phase align sub systems, delays etc). The goal is to encourage proper workflow, that you show up to a gig, tune the system with as few Eq decisions as possible, leaving the Graphic Eq free for the during the show, on the fly, or act specific adjustments (more artistic then aesthetic). Think of the parametric Eq tuning as 'setting the table' for the mix engineer to do their work. or if its you mixing, then you have a tool that you can reset and use appropriately for the act on stage.

Yes, you could go back and fourth with a GEQ and get your tuning that way, but what's the point when you can achieve the same result in less time with less filters, and STILL have the GEq to tweak to taste?

Also, about the "auto Eq" comment - This is something that we are very enthusiastically against. There are just too many variables in a sound system, and environment, to account for everything and make the proper decisions automatically. We don't know what speaker(s) you're using, their tolerances, their polarity, their power handling, manufacturer processing, a CAD of the room for proper sound prediction, or what the type of act you are tuning for (different styes require different tunings). However, YOU do know all of this stuff and can make a better decision then a blind computer. What I'm saying is, there is a bit of engineering you actually have to be responsible for. Use your ears, and brain, and you'll always make a better decision then any automatic Eq is capable of. The SRA wizard gives you a tool to make more accurate and informed decisions.
Chat with me on Skype = chris.tsanjoures
[Email] [WWW]
hemismith
Prenoob

Joined: 29/10/2012 05:32:38
Messages: 32
Location: Utah
Offline

The problem is the Q of the semi-parametric in the 16.4.2; it's virtually useless for feedback control or room tuning. You can get narrower filters with the graphic. The Hi-Q ought to be more like 6 or 7. It'd be nice if they updated it, or made it adjustable either in the system menu or via VSL. Or they could just make it higher for the outputs and leave it as is for the inputs.

Even the low seems wide to me for general uses though.
- Craig
ProRhino
Prenoob

Joined: 22/11/2012 09:30:18
Messages: 4
Offline

Being a Smaart 7 user, and using Transfer Functions to align stuff all the time, this is a great feature that will help the avg non pro audio guy or musician to be able to tune in the system using the proper techniques from the get go, Ideally in a perfect world this is done in a system processor but not everyone has that,

The PEQ on any of the entry level digital consoles are going to warp the phase a lot less, until you get into high end Digital Desks, and even then the PEQ's are still better for Phase Response.

When I test consoles in the shop before I take them out (especially digital ones), I like to see what the consoles are actually doing to the phase when you take the EQ to -12 or -15 (depending on brand)

I set up a Transfer Function to measure how much the Phase Warps when you push and pull the EQ bands, and the Studio Live PEQ's are way better then the 31 bands, not to mention that 31 bands are fixed notches. Vary rarely are the actual ringing frequencies always at those particular frequencies found on the 31 band

With that sad, Its also easier to create a PEQ for a wedge mix, save a preset for later use, or copy / load it to the other aux fat channels.
Copy and pasting 31 bands is not near as fast when your under the gun.

When show time comes around and all you geq's are flat, you have the ability to use those on the fly for anything that may flare up usually cause by temp changes, you'll also find that you will have to use a lot less +/- of the 31 bands because you're not using it to flatten out the response of the speaker, more so shape it for variables that may occur
Jerryd
Presonic

Joined: 28/07/2010 16:01:24
Messages: 698
Offline

hemismith wrote:The problem is the Q of the semi-parametric in the 16.4.2; it's virtually useless for feedback control or room tuning. You can get narrower filters with the graphic. The Hi-Q ought to be more like 6 or 7. It'd be nice if they updated it, or made it adjustable either in the system menu or via VSL. Or they could just make it higher for the outputs and leave it as is for the inputs.

Even the low seems wide to me for general uses though.


For feedback control -- it would be better if it is on the Input side..... the Source side. It doesn't make everyone PAY that way. Isolate at the source -- almost always due to a "Whisper singer or a breathy" singer. Zero in there and not on the Main out where the entire tonality of the band has to pay.

I do agree on your initial premise that it would be nice to have a range of higher Q's. I have been moaning over this since I got the board 3 years ago. Hang in there -- I am sure Presonus has some killer stuff in the works.
hemismith
Prenoob

Joined: 29/10/2012 05:32:38
Messages: 32
Location: Utah
Offline

Jerryd wrote:For feedback control -- it would be better if it is on the Input side..... the Source side. It doesn't make everyone PAY that way. Isolate at the source -- almost always due to a "Whisper singer or a breathy" singer. Zero in there and not on the Main out where the entire tonality of the band has to pay.

I agree. My order of business is first the monitors, then the inputs. But I figured most people just do the outputs. Based on this and ProRhino's comments it does seem that changing the PEQ's would be the best. This is also something that turned me off when I first looked at the board when it first came out, and I was hoping they'd have changed it by now. But I guess not enough people have complained. But maybe with Smaart the weakness will be more obvious.
- Craig
 
Forum Index » StudioLive General Discussion
Go to: