Adjust your Global EQ..... you may be surprised.

[mileskb]

So on a whim, and because I have easy access to a Real Time Analyzer and a reference microphone, I spent a few moments sending pink noise into the Helix and adjusting the Global EQ until the RTA showed essentially flat.   I then set the low cut at 72Hz and the High Cut at 9.5 KHz and WOW !!!!!!

 

Every patch I have now sounds soooo much better.

 

For speakers I'm using my go to Genz Benz custom cab that's loaded with EV 12's and is ported and a QSC 100 watt solid state stereo amp.

 

I think it's worth the few moments it takes to do this.   Even if you have an FRFR system, I'm guessing it's not as "flat" as you might expect.

 

I'll so some audio and some pictures to show what I did.   Don't get me wrong, the rig sounded great before, but it sounds so much better now.  So much more clarity.   I wish the global EQ was more like a 5 band instead of a 3 band, but playing with the freq, q and gain of each band worked well.   I don't think I increased ANY frequencies, it was all a matter of cutting, which is overall better anyway.

 

This all came about because I got to thinking that any time I set up a PA system, the first thing is to put a reference signal through (admittedly it's sometimes just familiar music) and I adjust the EQ on the mains so that reference sounds good in the room.  As the Helix is designed mainly to feed a PA, if I'm just using a speaker setup, even if it was PA speakers, or especially if it was PA (FRFR) speakers, I would set their EQ to a reference before I sent anything else.  I honestly didn't think it would make a difference, but it sure did.

[mileskb]

The frequency range of guitar is about 80hz to 1200hz so you can see in the pre-EQ shot of the RTA that this cabinet is definitely "enhanced" for guitar and I initially thought that was enough.  But harmonics play a big role so Flat Response is really what the Helix is looking for as in the post-EQ shot of the RTA.   The Global EQ curve on the Helix looks more dramatic than it is as it's really just pulling back those frequencies that the cab is enhancing, making it overall, more balanced.  

 

P.S. Ignor the EQ that I didn't crop out of the RTA photo.  It's not plugged in.

 

RTA pre-EQ

 

RTA post-EQ

 

My Global EQ setting.

[watch4king]

Thanks for posting this. I'll definitely look into it next time I take the helix out and give it a try.

[PierM]

This is good stuff! Thanks for sharing.

[DunedinDragon]

This isn't really a surprise to many who have been using modelers and FRFR setups for some time.  There's a fairly long thread on another forum discussing this exact thing and asking what cuts people are making on the low end and the high end.  I personally have a standard low cut of around 125 hz and a high cut of around 6 khz.  In many cases I'll tighten that up even more on the low end depending on the patch and the guitar I'm using, sometimes as high as 150 hz if I feel the lows are too mushy or boomy.

 

The consensus seems to be that everyone generally always cuts the low end, and sometimes they cut the highs.  On the Helix highs seem to be less of a problem due the better cabinet models than modelers like the HD500X.  Although the GENERAL frequency range of the guitar is considered to be 80 to 1200 Hz, in practice it's a lot wider than that when your dealing with different types of electric guitars and effects and personal preferences like pick attack.  For example, a Gretsch hollow body strung with 11's has a considerably deeper frequency response on the low end than most guitars, and a stratocaster strung with 9's has a considerably higher frequency response than most.

 

Ultimately it comes down to your ears and what works best for the type of rig you use....and some trial and error.  The main consideration for me is how I sit within the total frequency range of the band.  This is one of the reasons I tend to tighten up more on the low end since I want to give the bass guitar and kick drum plenty of space, but I want my low strings to still be heard adequately.

[ur2funky]

Can you tell me more about your Real Time Analyzer and a reference microphone please?

[BillBee]

Question: Why would you go global instead of a para eq and use a narrow Q to surgically remove the freqs? I only ask as its my understanding that there are other useful freqs in the areas that may get "tossed out with the bath" so to speak.

 

Note: I don't have a Helix but am curious.

[mileskb]

Can you tell me more about your Real Time Analyzer and a reference microphone please?

 

It's my old Behringer DSP 8000 workhorse and it's ECM 8000 reference microphone.  They have had many updates since this unit came out and for many years (likely even today) you'll see one of the versions in just about every major sounds install somewhere in the rack. It's actually an EQ/Feedback Destroyer/Delay but also has an RTA mode that is worth its weight in gold.  The reason it stood out at the time is that unlike a straight spectrum analyzer that showed the full spectrum, the Behringer looks at the frequencies that are on the EQ. so It was easy to translate...   see a +4 spike at 1 kHz = reduce 1 kHz by -4 on the main EQ.    Today with graphic EQ's and RTA's you can zap specific frequencies.  Not that many years ago... knowing the specific frequency meant doing math-on-the-fly to adjust the eq slider "closest" to the offending frequency.  

 

The Microphone, and again there are newer ones, is just a full spectrum "flat response" microphone if you will.  This has been my workhorse for setting up sound systems, but It's dated.   This "experiment" was just that.  

 

 

Question: Why would you go global instead of a para eq and use a narrow Q to surgically remove the freqs? I only ask as its my understanding that there are other useful freqs in the areas that may get "tossed out with the bath" so to speak.

 

Note: I don't have a Helix but am curious.

 

The Global EQ acts on ALL presets as opposed to having to add an EQ to each preset.  That being said, generally speakers don't have "spikes" (sometimes they do) and they are just bass, mid or treble heavy.   You can pull a range down and then fine tune things on each preset as someone above mentioned.

 

As example, set the Global high and low cuts as wide as you would ever want them.  Then when you want to tighten up a particular preset, only add the "extra" cuts on the presets that need them if that's the case.  

[mileskb]

This isn't really a surprise to many who have been using modelers and FRFR setups for some time.  There's a fairly long thread on another forum discussing this exact thing and asking what cuts people are making on the low end and the high end.  I personally have a standard low cut of around 125 hz and a high cut of around 6 khz.  In many cases I'll tighten that up even more on the low end depending on the patch and the guitar I'm using, sometimes as high as 150 hz if I feel the lows are too mushy or boomy.

 

The consensus seems to be that everyone generally always cuts the low end, and sometimes they cut the highs.  On the Helix highs seem to be less of a problem due the better cabinet models than modelers like the HD500X.  Although the GENERAL frequency range of the guitar is considered to be 80 to 1200 Hz, in practice it's a lot wider than that when your dealing with different types of electric guitars and effects and personal preferences like pick attack.  For example, a Gretsch hollow body strung with 11's has a considerably deeper frequency response on the low end than most guitars, and a stratocaster strung with 9's has a considerably higher frequency response than most.

 

Ultimately it comes down to your ears and what works best for the type of rig you use....and some trial and error.  The main consideration for me is how I sit within the total frequency range of the band.  This is one of the reasons I tend to tighten up more on the low end since I want to give the bass guitar and kick drum plenty of space, but I want my low strings to still be heard adequately.

 

Yep, ultimate getting the guitar placed "in the mix" is the goal.  Generally and traditionally that's the job of the person at FOH or doing the mixing in the studio, and sometimes unfortunately being at the mercy of the those people is not a good thing.  The Helix gives us more control of the situation.  Especially if we are doing our own recording, we can just lay down the nearly finished track. or provide a signal to the PA that may not need to be tweaked at all.    While placing instruments into the mix with EQ and compression has been around for awhile, Tom Scholz of Boston really unmasked the process in the early 80's for guitarists by providing the sound the audience will hear to the PA right from the rig and a separate sound for the stage, no microphones or other pre-amps and eq's to mess it up.  

 

While I've mostly used full range cabs over the years, they have been enhanced in one way or another for guitar, or I used Rockman gear which was already eq'd for pa speakers and certain full range cabinets. 

[HonestOpinion]

Yep, ultimate getting the guitar placed "in the mix" is the goal. Generally and traditionally that's the job of the person at FOH or doing the mixing in the studio, and sometimes unfortunately being at the mercy of the those people is not a good thing. The Helix gives us more control of the situation. Especially if we are doing our own recording, we can just lay down the nearly finished track. or provide a signal to the PA that may not need to be tweaked at all. While placing instruments into the mix with EQ and compression has been around for awhile, Tom Scholz of Boston really unmasked the process in the early 80's for guitarists by providing the sound the audience will hear to the PA right from the rig and a separate sound for the stage, no microphones or other pre-amps and eq's to mess it up.

 

While I've mostly used full range cabs over the years, they have been enhanced in one way or another for guitar, or I used Rockman gear which was already eq'd for pa speakers and certain full range cabinets.

Loved that Tom Scholz gear, sorry he ever stopped manufacturing it. Unbelievable what he was able to achieve with solid state equipment. Who knows what he would have come up with by now in the digital world.

[mdmayfield]

Also don't forget that any time you measure the response of speakers, you're also measuring the response of the space they're in. Most rooms that are found in houses (i.e. much smaller than most performance spaces) have crazy acoustics, with some frequencies that ring out, and many different frequencies that cancel in some physical places and reinforce in others.

 

It's not uncommon in a small room to find differences in room response of 20dB or more between just a few Hz, especially in the bass and low mids. And - since it can't just be simple can it - the frequency responses changes completely if you move the mic (or your ears) just a couple inches one direction or another, so any EQ is at best a compromise.

 

For example, here's a spectral decay plot (EQ response + resonance in time) of a domestic room I once recorded in as measured by a sine sweep and a measurement mic in one specific position. This is even after extensive acoustic treatment:

 

 

Note the 17ish dB difference between about 80 Hz and 115 Hz, and the way that some frequencies ring out longer than others.

 

That's with quite a bit of broadband absorption; with no treatment the room was like this:

 

 

Note the much longer decay times of much narrower frequency ranges. This caused really bad "one-note bass" where certain notes would all sound the same because they would all excite the room acoustics near the same frequency.

 

In an untreated small room like that, EQ is limited in the amount it can help because it can't control ringing/resonance - only relative volume of frequencies.

 

This has rambled quite a bit, but my point is, take care when making global EQ settings based on measurements, because you're compensating for the speaker PLUS the room.

[mileskb]

I guess I should have mentioned that bit about the room. Very important. I had the reference mic about 1 foot on axis about 1/2 way up the cone.. I used enough volume so the room had little play if any.

 

If i was doing the room I would have pulled further back, but excellent point.

 

And again, the purpose of this is just to really know what your speakers are doing to the signal, if anything.

 

In my case, it was a few minutes well spent for the improvement.

 

FWIW. Glenn Delaune has got a Scholz preset coming out, and its damn close. I still have my Sustainer and EQ, so I'll be doing an A/B when it comes out.

[zooey]

I've thought about this a fair amount, though I haven't done the RTA thing yet. When I first tried Helix through my new and first FRFRs, I was kind of paralyzed, thinking I shouldn't make any presets until I'd made a well-reasoned decision about what global EQ to listen to them through. I thought about EQ-ing them by ear so I liked commercial recordings, and about trying IK's ARC System 2, which I have but haven't ever used, but probably should.

 

In the end, I decided that the PA isn't going to be flat, it's going to have local bumps lessened (if you're lucky), and a general curve the sound guy likes working with. The mics typically used for guitars aren't typically flat either, so what they typically get from guitars gets filtered through that, which affects their idea of a nice overall curve, and so on. Short version: There are lots of moving parts I can't reasonably compensate for or know ahead of time (though some of that I could if it's always my own PA).

 

So for now I'm doing what I and countless other players have done forever -- making my self happy with the sounds that are in my face from my rig. If it's too bright or too dull to fit in the mix, the FOH person will deal, like they always have. I don't really think there's anything I can do to get myself some ultimate vantage point where I can reliably make that decision for every future PA and room.

 

Ironing out narrow peaks and valleys is probably still useful, but overall response has so many layers to it, I'm not sure that's a target worth chasing.

 

By which I don't mean to diss anyone else's approach or invalidate their results, it's just where I am now, FWIW.

[mileskb]

I've thought about this a fair amount, though I haven't done the RTA thing yet. When I first tried Helix through my new and first FRFRs, I was kind of paralyzed, thinking I shouldn't make any presets until I'd made a well-reasoned decision about what global EQ to listen to them through. I thought about EQ-ing them by ear so I liked commercial recordings, and about trying IK's ARC System 2, which I have but haven't ever used, but probably should.

 

In the end, I decided that the PA isn't going to be flat, it's going to have local bumps lessened (if you're lucky), and a general curve the sound guy likes working with. The mics typically used for guitars aren't typically flat either, so what they typically get from guitars gets filtered through that, which affects their idea of a nice overall curve, and so on. Short version: There are lots of moving parts I can't reasonably compensate for or know ahead of time (though some of that I could if it's always my own PA).

 

So for now I'm doing what I and countless other players have done forever -- making my self happy with the sounds that are in my face from my rig. If it's too bright or too dull to fit in the mix, the FOH person will deal, like they always have. I don't really think there's anything I can do to get myself some ultimate vantage point where I can reliably make that decision for every future PA and room.

 

Ironing out narrow peaks and valleys is probably still useful, but overall response has so many layers to it, I'm not sure that's a target worth chasing.

 

By which I don't mean to diss anyone else's approach or invalidate their results, it's just where I am now, FWIW.

 

Very VERY valid point.   I setup my speakers primarily for ME.  I'm not currently playing in a band but plan on putting something together soon.  In the mean time, if opportunity comes up to play with some other folks I'll be using my cab to either just monitor myself. or possibly as my amp sound for rehearsals.  

 

That being said, as I just really only backed off the low end a bit and added high and low cuts...  I'm guessing it's going to work just fine on most PA systems anyway when the time comes.  In fact my Global EQ looks a lot like how I end up EQ'ing a lot of guitars for other people when I'm running FOH.   Hmmm so maybe it's just what I like to hear.  :)   

[mileskb]

Ok... I obviously have too much time on my hands .... "ta ta ta take it away from me"  (how many will get that reference...

 

Speaking of references....  (rimshot)...   So I took the reference mic and pointed it at my Sony MDR 7506 headsets and took some pics of the RTA with and without the Global EQ.   Interesting that the Global EQ really only took away above and below the cuts.  It didn't have much affect on the already fairly flat response.  

 

I confirmed by putting on the headsets and playing, that while all my favorite presets sound pretty damn good without the global EQ engaged, they seem to come alive with a little more detail when I engage it using the above settings.

 

Frankly I would have expected that leaving the global off would have sounded better in the headsets, but that's not the case.   I would have also expected the global EQ to affect the signal in the headsets a little more and possible degrade the audio...  that was NOT the case.  

 

This is fun..   It's like I have a new rig and as much as I liked the old one.. the new one sounds better !!! (and it's the same one but with Global EQ turned on).    I have to think that my choice of pink noise, and the audio output of the laptop line-out had some affect on the signal I was using too..  I have a signal generator somewhere that I might have to dig out.   I find this stuff fascinating...  almost as much as I enjoy playing.

 

RTA of Sony MDR 7506 headsets WITHOUT global eq.

 

RTA of Sony MDR 7506 headsets WITH global eq.

 

My Global EQ Settings.

 

[Jmetti]

Thanks.. sounds great

[jmp22684]

Hello!

 

A lot of EQing I feel is quite new to me. I only know some of the very basics from reading and then constantly tweaking my old HD500 DT50 setup.

 

Now I don't have a proper mic to do what you did; I have an e609, sm58 and a cheap AKG vocal condenser mic... So I probably can't do this correctly do the speakers yet.

 

However what I do have is an RM32ai I am running the helix through into prx715s. I have an RTA and spectrograph available to me on this and also an RTA in StudioOne Artist that comes with the RM32ai.

 

Could you explain just a little about what frequencies you are trying to level out and what ranges you try and get the end result in using the RTA? OR if there is a good write up somewhere. I just saw this post so I haven't looked into that myself yet.

 

Even with out having the proper mic to measure the speakers them selves I do notice that my RTA is all over the place. Should I level this out even though I don't have the mic? And again I am just wondering about the frequency curve you would set this up for. Still all extremely new to me and plan on doing a lot of learning over the next couple montha not only for the helix but for the new PA system as well.

[roscoe5]

Thank you so much!  I used an online pink noise generator over USB to Helix into my Mesa M9 2x12 + 1" horn combo and used the Free Android RTA Analyzer app and my phone mic .  I had peaks at 280 Hz and 4kHz, cut them a bit with global eq, and voila...much better sound overall.  A LOT closer to flat response.

 

I could see how you could be more precise with better test mics, equipment, and 10+ band global eq.  But this was a big improvement.

 

I wonder if Line 6 could build in a response flattening, room compensation algorithm into Helix where you could plug a test mic into the mic input at a gig or space and it could run pink noise and / or a sine sweep through your rig to flatten things out via auto-adjusting a 10-30 band global eq.  Could be part of your sound check.  I would assume you would hold the mic near your head and stand in your stage position.  

 

Of course you would probably want to only apply this to your stage output 1/4" from Helix and not XLR to the board.

[davidb7170]

That's what I do - volume & eq only on my 1/4" out to my pa "FRFR" speaker that isn't really flat, so I global eq it to take out the vocal mid peak at around 3kHz. I would like to get my hands on an RTA to adjust it more, but just by ear, I have it much better than before. Then with the volume knob, I adjust my stage volume to suit without messing up my levels to the FOH system, and the sound man is very happy with my sound out front.

 

Are RTA's horrendously expensive? I'd like to investigate those... Any reasonable ones around?

 

Dave

[mileskb]

Even with out having the proper mic to measure the speakers them selves I do notice that my RTA is all over the place. Should I level this out even though I don't have the mic? And again I am just wondering about the frequency curve you would set this up for. Still all extremely new to me and plan on doing a lot of learning over the next couple montha not only for the helix but for the new PA system as well.

 

The short answer...  

 

1. Helix is supposedly designed to use with Full Range Flat Response speakers.
2. Using the pink noise and RTA I saw by speakers were not as flat as I thought., so using the Global EQ, I coaxed them to flat.
3. As I am playing guitar, and this is somewhat to taste, I really don't need anything below 75hz or above 8.5 kHz. These numbers vary slightly depending on who you ask, but as the high cut and low cut are not shelves but gradual, it's a good place to start.

Someone asked about RTA's... there are free apps, but they are dependant on the quality of what they are running on.  I found the microphones on smartphones to not be great, but conceivably we should be able to actually use the Helix...   Hmmmm

 

Off to experiment.

 

( an hour or so passed )

 

Proof of concept.

 

Brought up empty patch

 

 

Path #1.  Output from Laptop line-out to Return 1/2 Input routed to XLR outs only.  (Global EQ only affects XLR and Line Outs)

XLR's go to my stereo amp and speakers.               

 

Path #2.  Reference Mic into Microhpone Jack (phantom on for mic) routed to USB 1/2 outputs.

 

SAVED PRESET !!!!! (the second time)

 

Went to http://onlinetonegenerator.com/noise.htmland started the Pink noise which per Path #1 I hear in the speakers.

 

Found an RTA application (I'm still looking for a good one) and installed.  Set the RTA to listen to the Line6 output (from the USB).

 

With this setup I was able to make the 800-1200 hz range really flat.   My initial Global EQ setting above still leaned a little toward bass at the lower end of the guitar range (800 hz) which was fine.   I flattened the speakers out with the RTA and went back to my Gutiar presets and found I like a little more bottom end back in again so I just made some very minor tweaks.  

 

What I noticed is that using Global EQ, starting with my settings above, minor adjustments are much easier and much more noticeable.  

 

Bottom line...   This makes for an easy self contained setup.

 

One could argue all day if this is helpful or not, but what I will say...  I now realize I can haul my 6-space loaded rack case back out to the studio and if I want to play around with RTA's and such, I just need my reference mic and a cable in my rehearsal room.  My laptop is already plugged in anyway.

 

Its the ability to do stuff like this on the fly that I really like my Helix more and more every day.  I mean seriously, with just a laptop and a mic, I can use the Helix as the audio routing to set up Global EQ not only on the Helix, but when I'm setting up sound systems.  Heckuvah lot less gear to lug around.

[GDan]

Any chance of some audio clips?

[HonestOpinion]

Some great technical analysis on this topic. I still prefer to make the EQ adjustments for my presets on a per preset basis and reserve the global EQ for adjusting to the room or equipment I am playing through during a given performance. Yes, if you have someone qualified on the board they can perform that function but that is not always the case. I can definitely see where the global EQ can be a great quick fix however if you have not already EQ'd your presets individually.

[mileskb]

Any chance of some audio clips?

Yep.. coming soon.

[cabkphillips]

I've been having a lot of trouble getting my helix to not sound boxy and/or muddy and this might be the trick I've been looking for. I do have a quick (dumb) question. When you run the pink noise in the helix are you running it through a untouched channel or some other method?

[scottlh]

Thanks for the post - helped a lot

[GlennDeLaune]

This is a good method but I think you may be Blanketing the sound. I've been taking "sound imprints" for my upcoming Artists Patches Volume II and I notice all of my sound imprints are boosting the high end range. Our ears tell us there is too much "fizz" but when you isolate a guitar track from a famous recording the high end is so much greater than what our ears perceive to be what we think is normal in a mix of a full band. I think you have to create your patches within a real world mix of a full band. You'll find you need to boost the high end mid range to get through the mix. Don't cut that High end too much!!

[mileskb]

I've been having a lot of trouble getting my helix to not sound boxy and/or muddy and this might be the trick I've been looking for. I do have a quick (dumb) question. When you run the pink noise in the helix are you running it through a untouched channel or some other method?

 

I ran the pink noise into the Helix return 1 on an empty path. 

 

 

This is a good method but I think you may be Blanketing the sound. I've been taking "sound imprints" for my upcoming Artists Patches Volume II and I notice all of my sound imprints are boosting the high end range. Our ears tell us there is too much "fizz" but when you isolate a guitar track from a famous recording the high end is so much greater than what our ears perceive to be what we think is normal in a mix of a full band. I think you have to create your patches within a real world mix of a full band. You'll find you need to boost the high end mid range to get through the mix. Don't cut that High end too much!!

 

True true..   Boosting upper-mids is generally what I do when running FOH to put the guitars out front for a lead rather than touch a fader. 

 

This was more an exercise in not assuming the final stages (amp and speaker) are full range and flat.  In my case I have custom cabinet with EV12L speakers..  While the specs on the speakers are fairly flat, they are in a closed cab with 4 ports.  This cab always sounded great, but as I stated at the top... I just wanted to see how flat it really was.... and it wasn't far off... but making it flatter had quite the dramatic affect on tone from the Helix in a good way. It's actually convinced me that I really need to get some FRFR's ASAP.  In the mean time,  I'm actually considering putting my EQ in line just before my power amp and really flattening out the cabinet and that's how it really should be.  Even the current FRFR options generally have a DSP that you must place in "Flat" mode if that's what you want.  

[hankmadison]

I tried this global EQ setting on my rig and really liked the way it sounds. I tried to setup a stereo EQ block with the same settings at the end of the chain in a preset (so I could just have it as an "effect" and wouldn't have to enter the global EQ settings each time there was a firmware update). But the stereo EQ block doesn't sound the same as the Global EQ when A/B comparing. Seems like the low pass is different.

 

Any others try this?

[DunedinDragon]

Low Pass filters generally are designed more with some form of curve rather than a pure abrupt frequency gate.  This may be what you're experiencing.  At any rate, it's typically pretty rare the you will have globals reset with an update.  This is the first time I've ever seen it happen either on the Helix or on theHD500X.  But that may be why they encourage people to only use globals to adjust for the sound differences at different venues where you my play live.  Even so, resetting global values isn't that big of a deal.  Only takes a minute or two.

[robbieb61]

My take on all of this would be...what does it sound like in the P.A. system out front that the audience is listening to? 

For instance...you use an analyzer, run your noise, have your ref mic and you get your FRFR cab tweaked out perfectly. But then your signal is going out to the "mains" of the P.A. for people to hear in the crowd. 
That EQ you worked so hard on is useless now. 

If the P.A. is set up correctly out front it's already been room analyzed and eq'ed. So wouldn't you want to be sending your signal with NO global eq on it to the P.A. system out front? 

[mileskb]

If the P.A. is set up correctly out front it's already been room analyzed and eq'ed. So wouldn't you want to be sending your signal with NO global eq on it to the P.A. system out front? 

 

Maybe ????     When I originally did this, it was because I wondered if the amp and cabinet I had that was supposed to be FLAT at least in the guitar range... wasn't.   So I compensated for it with the Global EQ and everything sounds better.   I probably should just put a dedicated EQ on the input of my stereo amp and compensate with that.   But it started as a curiosity...  Helix is designed to be used with an FRFR, was my setup really FRFR?...  answer no...   used global eq to fix it.

 

So regarding playing out...  assuming sending the output to FOH from Helix...  in a perfect world, check to see if the venue system is really FRFR and if not, compensate for it.   Not likely practical, in my case, probably want to either mute the Global EQ or... device some sort of quick test...

 

That last bit... a quick test... might be possible and easier than I initially thought.   Just set everything up ready to play...  and have a patch setup to work with a laptop analyzer and the Helix...    Just run the analyzer mic out into the center of the room and send the white noise out to the PA from the Helix, the mic picks it up and the Helix routes that to the analyzer to see if the PA is really flat.  If not... compensate with the Global EQ.  Granted a little crude, but better than nothing.   Might not even be worth the effort, but then again, most of the PA's I have seen are ANYTHING but flat.    They are usually top AND bottom heavy, like an old school home stereo setup for listening to Hip Hop.     Not a guarantee, but a fairly reliable tell is to look at that vocal strips on the FOH board.   If they are pushing the mids and upper mids.. on the vocals..  the system likely isn't flat.

[zooey]

If the P.A. is set up correctly out front it's already been room analyzed and eq'ed. So wouldn't you want to be sending your signal with NO global eq on it to the P.A. system out front? 

Don't think so. You want your rig and FOH to have the same EQ, so what you hear is the same as what goes out front.

 

Which is hard, since you have no idea how the FOH system is EQ'd. Chances are it's not flat though, since that's not generally what people like, and I say that from from decades of running live sound professionally. Typically PAs have that sexy exaggerated low end and hyped pseudo-detailed high end, like your car stereo probably has. A quality PA should have any narrow anomalies ironed out, so it's flat in that sense, but the overall curve is probably something like that, but unknowable to you.

 

Which says a couple things to me...

- EQ-ing out any narrow peaks and valleys IS worthwhile

- EQ your rig and presets to they make you happy onstage, don't worry about the rest, and let the house sound person do what they do

[mileskb]

Don't think so. You want your rig and FOH to have the same EQ, so what you hear is the same as what goes out front.

 

Which is hard, since you have no idea how the FOH system is EQ'd. Chances are it's not flat though, since that's not generally what people like, and I say that from from decades of running live sound professionally. Typically PAs have that sexy exaggerated low end and hyped pseudo-detailed high end, like your car stereo probably has. A quality PA should have any narrow anomalies ironed out, so it's flat in that sense, but the overall curve is probably something like that, but unknowable to you.

 

Which says a couple things to me...

- EQ-ing out any narrow peaks and valleys IS worthwhile

- EQ your rig and presets to they make you happy onstage, don't worry about the rest, and let the house sound person do what they do

 

Yeah.. what he said.   I had typed a similar response but my pc froze...  anyway....

 

The only thing I have to add is that I initially did this because Helix is designed to run out a FRFR system and I thought my system was flat, and it wasn't.   

 

Also...  it might be possible to quickly test a house system if you have the mic and software at the gig.  Just after all is setup, run the mic to the center of the room, and play the white noise through the helix.  Route the mic through to your analyzer software and adjust the global to compensate.   Not perfect.. but .. as Zooey said and I totally concur.  I haven't seen a properly setup FOH system in years... ever that I can remember.   I generally bring my own main eq and put it into the main inserts when I'm running FOH.   I don't usually have time set it up fully, but I have some tunes I listen to that I know how should sound and I dial it close.  It's been years since I've even seen an EQ (besides my own) and a PA system, no matter how elaborate... and when I did...  it was generally set the day they installed the system and "supposedly" never touched again... dispite the new carpeting, new furnature, the new board, and speakers re-located....  "don't dare touch that eq... we spent lots of money to have someone set it up 23 years ago"...   LOL...  that cracks me up.

 

Anyway...  As I said... it was an experiment initially to see what would happen if I compensated for my speakers NOT being flat as I thought they were...   

[ncockerill]

This is a good method but I think you may be Blanketing the sound. I've been taking "sound imprints" for my upcoming Artists Patches Volume II and I notice all of my sound imprints are boosting the high end range. Our ears tell us there is too much "fizz" but when you isolate a guitar track from a famous recording the high end is so much greater than what our ears perceive to be what we think is normal in a mix of a full band. I think you have to create your patches within a real world mix of a full band. You'll find you need to boost the high end mid range to get through the mix. Don't cut that High end too much!!

What Glenn says is absolutely true. The patches I initially created sounded GREAT alone, but were getting totally lost in the band mix. The more I tweaked my sound to fit better in the mix, the less "attractive" it sounded alone. I ended up with a bit more mid/highs than you might imagine, and definitely more than you would dial in if just listening solely to the guitar.

 

Isolating the guitar track from some of our favorite, most popular tracks may surprise you......their sounds aren't necessarily EQ'ed perfectly.......but they are perfect for the song and the mix.

[zooey]

Isolating the guitar track from some of our favorite, most popular tracks may surprise you......their sounds aren't necessarily EQ'ed perfectly.......but they are perfect for the song and the mix.

I'd love the opportunity to listen to the mutlitracks of some favorite tracks to explore this. Not usually possible though. There's a smattering of that sort of material out there, no idea where it comes from, but I'd love to pick and choose.

[HonestOpinion]

What Glenn says is absolutely true. The patches I initially created sounded GREAT alone, but were getting totally lost in the band mix. The more I tweaked my sound to fit better in the mix, the less "attractive" it sounded alone. I ended up with a bit more mid/highs than you might imagine, and definitely more than you would dial in if just listening solely to the guitar.

 

Isolating the guitar track from some of our favorite, most popular tracks may surprise you......their sounds aren't necessarily EQ'ed perfectly.......but they are perfect for the song and the mix.

 

This is so true! What cuts through when drums, bass, keys, horns, etc.. are cranking is very often not that pleasing when you are practicing alone and building presets. You have to be able to anticipate that extra edge you will require for your mix in the band or at least build your presets with enough latitude to dial it in when needed.

[robbieb61]

Don't think so. You want your rig and FOH to have the same EQ, so what you hear is the same as what goes out front.

 

Which is hard, since you have no idea how the FOH system is EQ'd. Chances are it's not flat though, since that's not generally what people like, and I say that from from decades of running live sound professionally. Typically PAs have that sexy exaggerated low end and hyped pseudo-detailed high end, like your car stereo probably has. A quality PA should have any narrow anomalies ironed out, so it's flat in that sense, but the overall curve is probably something like that, but unknowable to you.

 

Which says a couple things to me...

- EQ-ing out any narrow peaks and valleys IS worthwhile

- EQ your rig and presets to they make you happy onstage, don't worry about the rest, and let the house sound person do what they do

Pretty much every room I ever played in had a P.A. that had been analyzed and eq'ed.  Including the rooms where I bring in my own personal P.A. (I have a DBX PA Drive Rack in my rack and a reference mic...so I white noise every room I play in and EQ the room...as do most pro's)

And yeah, there's always a lot of power going to the subs of a good P.A.

But none of that really matters if you simply use the low cut on the cab model OR if the sound guy knows what he's doing and engages the low cut button on your channel.

 

My point was that if you use your global EQ to tweak your Helix to make whatever rig your using flat...then you are going to be sending a signal out ot the P.A. that is not gonna be what you might want it to be. 

Even if a PA is set up to be bass heavy or mid-heavy....you would still be sending out an altered signal that isn't gonna sound too good in the P.A.

Under most circumstances it might not be that big of a difference and the soundman may simply have to play with eq controls on the mixer channel that your guitar is assigned to.

 

I was kinda thinking of people who end up doing radical global eq to get their onstage monitor sounding right and end up with a bad "real" sound going to the PA. 

 

So far...I've never had to touch the global EQ. And every room, and every engineer I've worked with here in Vegas has been blown away by the Helix. :)

 

I've also used it here in my home studio. And again...never touched the global EQ. 

 

I look at it like this...none of my "real" amp rigs over the last 38 years ever had "global eq"...heh-heh, so why start now? You shouldn't really need it. 

But that's just my opinion and experience. I suppose your mileage may vary. 

[DunedinDragon]

If you're working with an experienced soundman, he can likely take the edges (low bass rumble, brittle high end) of your patches in the same way as you would with global EQ.  However, depending on a soundman to take care of that sort of thing is like playing russian roullette.  It depends on having a decent soundman.

 

The fact is, I've never had a problem with my patches sounding bad in a PA, because I send the PA a signal I know is good because I'm using a stage monitor that is equivalent to his FOH speakers.  Generally all he needs to do is leave my channel flat and EQ the sound for the room.  In other words, global eq is the soundman's responsibility.  My stage monitor is only there to benefit me and the rest of the band.  And the patch is designed to fit into the overall band and not get lost in the mix.  That's MY responsibility.

 

I know Line 6 is insistent that global EQ should be used only to address differences in the room you're playing in.  But that really is only important, in my opinion, if you're NOT routing your sound through the PA.  If you're using a PA and you're managing your own stage sound and volume, there's no real problem with using global eq as a quick way to address minor adjustments (like very high and low frequency cutoffs).

 

I would agree that it's probably not as necessary with the Helix as the Helix provides ample ways of addressing these type of adjustments on a patch by patch basis.

[mileskb]

Pretty much every room I ever played in had a P.A. that had been analyzed and eq'ed. 

- Lucky guy... haven't seen one really ever, unless I did it... well maybe one.. I just don't ever remember it.

 

My point was that if you use your global EQ to tweak your Helix to make whatever rig your using flat...then you are going to be sending a signal out ot the P.A. that is not gonna be what you might want it to be. 

- Absolutely  

 

I look at it like this...none of my "real" amp rigs over the last 38 years ever had "global eq"...heh-heh, so why start now? You shouldn't really need it. 

But that's just my opinion and experience. I suppose your mileage may vary. 

- That's interesting.  Almost every rig I've had that was using a rack (non combo amp) had an eq.  Or if it didn't, I wished it did.  MXR 10-band was my first.. the old AC model.  A royal pain actually, but never left home without it.  Loved the Rockman EQ's..  

 

 

If you're working with an experienced soundman, he can likely take the edges (low bass rumble, brittle high end) of your patches in the same way as you would with global EQ.  However, depending on a soundman to take care of that sort of thing is like playing russian roullette.  It depends on having a decent soundman.

 

I totally agree with both.   In strictly THIS case, I would likely bypass the global EQ unless the engineer asked for something..  

 

As I said at the top...  The idea was to see what would happen if I actually made it a "flat" system.   It does sound better... on that system.   Might sound like crap everywhere else...  probably does...   That wasn't the point.  Everyone is aware Global EQ has a bypass right?  

 

As far as what happens on an album, that's a whole notha bowl of bananas.  Recording, producing/mixing, mastering, all designed to make a recording sound good on its intended media.  What Glenn noticed is absolutely spot on, however it's unlikely those guitars were recorded that way.  That all happened after they were recorded.  I always try to get the musicians to sound as best as they can "in the room" with as little technology applied as possible.   Then once their gone, we try to make the magic happen.   

[shanecgriffo]

it probably wont hurt to say to the soundguy "which is best.?" then play with and without your global eq setting , during soundcheck.. it would take all of 20 seconds maybe