image description


UC 1.7 Main Out Parametric EQ Clarification
  Forum Index » StudioLive General Discussion 
Author
Message
b_dann_b
Presonic
[Avatar]

Joined: 09/03/2011 13:03:37
Messages: 254
Location: Melbourne
Offline

Just need someone to confirm:

the 16.4.2 has semi parametric on the fat channel including the mains as well as the 31 band EQs.
the 24.4.2 has full parametric on the fat channel including the mains as well as the 31 band EQs.

so with the Smaart Room analysis on UC1.7 does this add a full paramentirc for the main out on the 16.4.2 that can only be accessed when the wizard is run? or is it just using the FAT channel semi parametric ?

Cant work this out from the docos and videos.
thanks in advance.
Audio Engineer
Network Administrator - Win2003/2008 server, WinXP/7, Cisco, OSX, OSX Server

StudioLive 16.4.2
AudioBox 1818VSL
2 X Digimax FS
4 X Nexo PS10
2 X Nexo LS500 Subwoofers
2 X Camco Techton 38.4 Amps

MacBook Pro - i7 2.2ghz, 8gb RAM
OSX Lion 10.7.4, Win7 64bit Ultimate (virtualised with Parallels)
Jerryd
Presonic

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

b_dann_b wrote:Just need someone to confirm:

the 16.4.2 has semi parametric on the fat channel including the mains as well as the 31 band EQs.
the 24.4.2 has full parametric on the fat channel including the mains as well as the 31 band EQs.

so with the Smaart Room analysis on UC1.7 does this add a full paramentirc for the main out on the 16.4.2 that can only be accessed when the wizard is run? or is it just using the FAT channel semi parametric ?

Cant work this out from the docos and videos.
thanks in advance.


It uses the main out Fat channel parametric. You can adjust it from the VSL or you can manually adjust the EQ on the board. Doesn't make any difference. To use the Hi-Q - you have to engage it at the board.
hemismith
Prenoob

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

Unfortunately semi-parametric, at least with the Q value it uses, is pretty poor for this purpose.
- Craig
Jerryd
Presonic

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

hemismith wrote:Unfortunately semi-parametric, at least with the Q value it uses, is pretty poor for this purpose.


Well that kind of depends...... This could go many ways..... but to be fair -- this is an additional tool that could help very poor systems sound a little better with little to no time to spare.

I am a firm believer in using reputable speakers with their designed controller and amps. Why? Because the gain structure will be right, the crossover set, delay in place (for that box and drivers inside) and the driver flaws corrected. So from there - the ability to fire up the Smaart Wizard and capture a trend that is occurring in a venue would be ideal. If you need a narrower Q than what the Semi Parametric offers -- then you more than likely have a system issue.

The onboard parametric here isn't meant to be a System Fixer in minute detail but more like a tonal shaper due to poor frequency response or acoustic factors.

A four band FULL parametric still wouldn't be enough to address system issues. Now using a Lake Processor -- you could do alot.
hemismith
Prenoob

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

True, there are many aspects of equipment and setup that can go a long ways towards fixing issues. But there are almost always issues that are functions of environment that can't be fixed that way. I agree that the semi-parametric appears to be designed for tonal shaping, but for source weaknesses or mix preferences. For room acoustics they are too wide (ideally), no better than a graphic EQ. Whether a 4-band will suffice or not is simply a function of how bad it is. I generally don't like to cut more than 1 or 2 feedback frequencies anyway. For the room or system response (of which feedback is of course dependent) there is no such thing as pefecttion and you do what you can. Yes, more might be ideal but 1 or 2 adjustments might help a lot. The issue is Presonus is integrating Smaart with the semi-parametric EQ, which means they intend it to be used to fix the problems Smaart identifies, but it could do it better if the filters were narrower (better meaning without affecting more than needs to be).

To me in this class the point of getting a digital mixer is to get rid of outboard equipment, and it could easily meet that goal with a couple easy changes.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 25/11/2012 18:23:37

- Craig
 
Forum Index » StudioLive General Discussion
Go to: