I think it should be noted that when using a SPL meter or using a measurement mic to check the flatness after tuning you use dB(A) weighted because (A) is usually a more accurate representation of what humans actually hear. But dB(C) is what you use to see the boost you are actually creating
That is true, although our hearing gets more linear as you get up to around 83dBA. Above that, C weighting starts to become closer to what we hear than A weighting.
Love your videos and content Michael. I really need the A1's in Austin, TX to understand proper gain structure!! Granted, this video isn't about gain structure, but that topic is something I see you talk about and from my own audio education and 25 years in the field, I see you doing things the proper/good way to get the best results out of your audio and to overcome the inherent problems with electronic equipment (AKA, NOISE). Gain structure is a problem down here in Austin and it's a daily struggle for me to try to unteach bad habits!! Anyway.......my somewhat odd question about this video is........what program are you using when you're overlaying and recording mouse/graphics/arrows when you show us on your screen what you're referring to?? I see you're on a Mac, as am I, and I'm always having to add my graphics in post, would be great to do them in real time. Thanx Michael, keep up the great work!
Hey Michael enjoyed the video. How do you reconcile having a tilted system that imposes the same tonality across all inputs in the system? I'm specifically thinking about the imposition of proximity effect on directional microphones that already have a 6db/oct upward slope in addition to the system tilt.
Great question! You're right, having the system titled would impart that tonality to all inputs. My response would be that I would do any processing on the input itself to get it sounding right at the source. If that's accounting for any proximity effect issues that's a source problem, regardless if that source is being mixed for a broadcast feed, a couple of K12's on sticks, an IEM mix, or a large format PA.
I know you prioritize coverage over stereo in a live setup, but could you make a video of your ideal stereo setup for a church? Is there a way stereo can be implemented and what would be the best way? Thank you so much for your videos, they’re a huge wealth of knowledge and experience
Hey, Bob. Thanks for the question! I can do a video on that in the future, but here's the short answer. You'll like push your left and right speakers out wide, then angle them in across to their opposite rear corners. So, they would make an "X" across your audience. You would just have to make sure that your entire audience is within +-3dB of BOTH speakers. Stereo only "works" if you can hear both speakers clearly. That means you likely need a narrow room, or speakers with wide coverage, or both : )
@@MichaelCurtisAudio hey michael,i have seen a video with a wide venue , Which have 5 sets of linearrays hanging above mainstage Which is configured as left ,right ,left,right ,left. So that everyone can hear in stereo
@@fhvgvfgcgh4446 If each of the left/right zones have a sufficient amount of overlap I can see how that setup can create a stereo image for those who are in that zone. But if you're standing directly in front of one of the speakers you will hardly localize to one of the adjacent speakers. Level and timing will win, hands down. I'm not saying that you should never ever go for spatiality, I just think most engineers vastly overestimate how much of the audience actually gets a decent "stereo" experience.
Great video! Could you make a vide oabout eq soundsystems in room? I mean ex couple of big bluetooth speakers in living room. How to eq them wihout measuring systems and so on. Thanks!
Are you using the graphic eq to get to this target trace for tuning? Now I’ve seen your set up with matrixes for LR, Subs and broadcast. Do you adjust your eg on your LF or on the matrix? I am starting out and trying to understand how to get to these traces. I appreciate your time and help.
I watched an interview with Eddie Mapp recently and he tunes his PA linear, with no low “haystack” because he doesn’t want to add all that low frequency on to every mic. Obviously he’s a legendary heavy metal/rock mixer and is out with Pantera who aren’t exactly light in bass! Do we think instead he adds the low end on a channel/sub group level on exactly what needs it? I’m used to tuning with the added low frequency depending on the genre but is there an argument for doing it that other way?
Would you care to share the target traces? I use the open sound meter stock one and end up close to the first target trace you showed from Michael Lawrence.
what resource do you recommend for someone just starting out in this, sound and system design? And it would be nice if you had a playlist containing entry level knowledge
I would get Michael Lawrence's book, then if you are still wanting more, get Bob McCarthy's book. That's a great idea about an entry level playlist. You can get Michael's book here: www.amazon.com/Between-Lines-Concepts-System-Alignment/dp/B0BBL6QQ12/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=michael+lawrence+between+the+lines&qid=1662569172&s=books&sprefix=michael+lawrence+betwee%2Cstripbooks%2C204&sr=1-1
Question if I arrive to gig and I send pink noise to the pa with my smaart rig will I see the frequency response of the Pa in the Transfer function window
You can honestly use either pink noise or music to tune with, but you'll likely get more stable results with pink in a live room situation. Just make sure and use a transfer function measurement, NOT an RTA measurement. A dual--channel transfer function is comparative, meaning it shows you the difference between two different signals. And RTA is just single channel and just shows us the FFT of a signal signal broken into individual sine components.
Hey, question not directly related to this video. Just did not want to intrusively email you. I'm currently working on designing a system setup for a 2K tent with bars along the long sides. While busy in Mapp 3D I had a thought. I have 2 subs in cardioid in centre front of the stage and two subs on the Left and right side on the stage. Same Sub D&B B2 infra. due to the slight triangular shape of the subs placement I can phase align them on different locations along the X axes. So my thought was rather to have perfect alignment in the front why not around 5/8 of the room and have summation later to revive some of the lost impact and velocity over distance. It works out very nice in mapp 3d with the bars along side out of the sub but the field is very even. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this and if this is done and what it is called. Thanks :)
Sounds pretty cool, but I would need to look at the data more in action to give better feedback! My question to you is why you have three different zones for your subs? Why not all in the center? Why not all LR?
@@MichaelCurtisAudio the LR sub will give me the elevation I need to get the tops at the right hight. LR subs would give me allies and vallies, cardioid centre one is to prevent to much centre stage spill. Also it will give me a better coverage, solve the allies and vallies or at least give me more control to where they land. At least this is what I think. I’d like to share the file if you want it.
Couldn’t it be argued that like aux subs this is mixing up creative and engineering decisions because there is no single perfect solution for the target trace?
@@nils2868 Ok, got it! Now I understand your earlier question. Very interesting point. You're totally right in that using a target trace is definitely one of the more subjective decisions in system engineering. The difference between that and aux fed subs is that once you tune to a target curve and are happy with how your mix is translating that's not something you're adjusting on the fly or in the show. It's an overall decision you're making once, then moving on.
