FRFR Users

[hideout]

It would seem that today is FRFR Topic day.

 

Anyway, my JBL EON 610 has a programmable EQ built in and I'm wondering if those of you that use an active speaker that also has the same feature, have used it to tailor the speaker's sound for your Helix.  Or do you just use the Helix's Global EQ?  I ask because I think the two methods might have some differences in effectiveness.

[amsdenj]

I have tried it, but find that Helix global EQ is more convenient and easier to change. In my case, our band uses EON610s for monitors and EON612s for FOH top (we has subs too). So the EQ I do for my monitor also applies pretty well to FOH. I also like to get the sound as close as possible in the IR/cabinet model by choosing the mic and mic position. This is followed by the low and high-cut in the IR/cab block, and last by EQ later in the signal chain.

 

Where EQ in the EON610 would be most useful is if your Helix output is going to more than one FRFR and they have significantly different EQ needs. This would be a good case for adjusting the EQ in the speaker itself.

 

People have found issues with the EON Connect app. It may introduce some inconvenience and reliability issues in your signal chain. I try to avoid depending on it.

[hideout]

People have found issues with the EON Connect app. It may introduce some inconvenience and reliability issues in your signal chain. I try to avoid depending on it.

Agreed. The Bluetooth implementation on the JBL leaves a a lot to be desired. However, for the most part, it is a "set and forget it" type of thing for me. Other manufacturers' EQ systems may be better in their UI. I ask mainly because I think there may be an advantage to using an EQ designed for the speaker.

[ric1966]

I have an EON 612. No issues with Bluetooth; it has always worked as advertised. My band uses JBL 515XTs for the FOH tops, and we back their low EQ knob down to 10 o'clock since we also run subs. I took a few hours to get my basic patches sounding good on the 515s and then used the custom EQ on my 612 to get those same tweaked patches sounding close to how they sound on the 515s. Now when I build patches using my 612, I have reasonable assurance they will sound good out front through the mains.

[AlexKenivel]

If you build a patch on your wedge where the EQ isn't flat, the patch won't Translate the same to other sound systems unless its been EQed the same way. Keep that in mind

[rvroberts]

Set up your patches flat - then if you get on a boomy stage, you can give yourself a little clarity back with the EQ on the box. You will only need this on a bad sounding stage, and you don't want to do it with global EQ as you will be having that effect out front where everything could sound very different. If the FOH is reasonably tuned, they are already compensating for the room.

[DunedinDragon]

Here's the key question.  If you try to change the frequency response curve of your FRFR, how are you going to know what you will sound like through the PA?  The PA is likely to have the same, or close enough, response curve as the default setting of your FRFR.  That assumes, of course, you've got a decent FRFR.

 

Would I use Global EQ?  I wouldn't, but that's because I use a lot of different amp models, a lot of different styles of music, and a several different guitars when I play.  If you tend to use a very limited set of amps, and pretty much the same style of music with a single guitar, then Global EQ might be more convenient.  There is nothing you can do with the Global EQ that can't be done, and likely done better within the patch.  But it really all boils down to how you intend to use your Helix.

[ric1966]

All great points! In my case, I almost exclusively perform through the same FOH rig. So my solution was to make my FRFR monitor wedge sound as close as I could to the mains we use. Basically, I used the global EQ on my EON 612 to make it respond like a 515XT. The older, larger speaker (515) is not as flat as the newer EON, but I believe it better represents most of the FOH systems out there. I say this because I have tried my patches through other mains and they sound about the same, at least within my personal range of acceptability. I think a typical audience would be hard pressed to notice any difference.

[amsdenj]

Here's the key question.  If you try to change the frequency response curve of your FRFR, how are you going to know what you will sound like through the PA?  The PA is likely to have the same, or close enough, response curve as the default setting of your FRFR.  That assumes, of course, you've got a decent FRFR.

The FOH speakers and your monitor are in different places and used for different purposes. Any guesses we make about FOH sound from behind the speakers while playing live is likely at best a guess. How you tune your monitor could be quite different and than FOH because its purpose it to support your playing, the feedback between you, your guitar and the amplifier. FOH has to be done by someone else or setup during sound check. And its for the audience and room but needs to reflect the performers concept of their tone too.

 

Would I use Global EQ?  I wouldn't, but that's because I use a lot of different amp models, a lot of different styles of music, and a several different guitars when I play.  If you tend to use a very limited set of amps, and pretty much the same style of music with a single guitar, then Global EQ might be more convenient.  There is nothing you can do with the Global EQ that can't be done, and likely done better within the patch.  But it really all boils down to how you intend to use your Helix.

Agreed.

[DunedinDragon]

The FOH speakers and your monitor are in different places and used for different purposes. Any guesses we make about FOH sound from behind the speakers while playing live is likely at best a guess. How you tune your monitor could be quite different and than FOH because its purpose it to support your playing, the feedback between you, your guitar and the amplifier. FOH has to be done by someone else or setup during sound check. And its for the audience and room but needs to reflect the performers concept of their tone too.

 

 

 Well I'd say I'd have agreed more with some of what you're saying maybe 10 or 15 years ago, but not as much with the changes that have been occurring in sound reinforcement and modeling technology certainly within the last decade or so.

 

The live sound systems that have come into popular use in the last decade or so are far better at faithful reproduction of signals than what was available prior to that.  Even on a limited budget FOH systems are not anything like that of the passive speaker systems of old in that they have very similar frequency response profiles.  Prior to that it was anybody's guess what a given speaker system's profile might be.  There are minor differences but by and large the profile of an Alto isn't terribly different than that of a Renkus-Heinz.  So a digitally produced signal whether it be from a modeler, a drum kit (acoustic or electronic) using triggers and samples, or even electronic keyboards can be assumed to be a true and faithful representation of what the artist wants.  Rooms may vary with frequency hot spots, deadness, ambient noise, and other factors...but that's not a channel issue.  Those kind of things affect all channels equally and should be dealt with using an equalizer across all channels before final output whether that be to the monitor system or the house system.  Of course this really only applies to direct digitally produced signals, not mic'd signals.

 

I've tested this concept frequently with our own system which consists of a QSC Line Array of KLA12's.  Because the array sits atop a pole I can easily turn it toward the stage and with flat channel EQs and no room EQ corrections it clearly matches the tone I hear from the DXR12, or at least close enough that I can't tell the difference.  The same is true for the drummer who uses triggers and samples and monitors using a Mackie Thump.  That advantage is only available if you build your patches using a comparable system.  The same holds true when we play at venues with different but comparable systems.  It's one of the key advantagew of this type of technology.

[spikey]

The reason I enjoy FRFR speaker systems is because when I playback the guitar track on my HR824 studio monitors (also very flat), I don't usually have to re-EQ the guitar track. Its tones match the FRFR tones on my guitar system. Another way to say this is that the tones I'm getting with FRFR pretty closely match what my studio tracks sound like, which the very purpose of having it that way. Moving on to the PA FoH setup- Now, if the PA (FoH) sounds close (guitar wise) to the FRFR guitar stage monitor tones then IMHO the EQ (which should be flat as well) is set correctly for that channel. If it doesn't sound close you need to have a talk with the sound guy, cause it ain't (again, IMO) the FRFR guitar monitors fault. Thats the beauty of FRFR systems, and the FoH should be (within reason depending on the room of course) close to that (flatness EQ wise) as well. As always, YMMV.  :)

[amsdenj]

Well I'd say I'd have agreed more with some of what you're saying maybe 10 or 15 years ago, but not as much with the changes that have been occurring in sound reinforcement and modeling technology certainly within the last decade or so.

Maybe I didn't make my point very clear. Its not that FOH and monitor speakers can't accurately reproduce a tone. You're absolutely right, modern PA technology has come a long way in effective sound reproduction at a reasonable cost and convenience.

 

But that's not the issue here. Rather its that the same speakers (EON610 monitor and EON612's for FOH for me) are being used for very different purposes. The FOH needs to be a reproduction of your guitar tone in the context of the larger room, the audience and in the mix with the rest of the band. Your monitor mix however is just for you, is a lot closer to you, is usually pointed right at you, and is for supporting your interaction with the tone, not how it is presented to the audience.

 

My point is that the EQ for these two very different roles may be quite different, regardless of the speakers used.

[DunedinDragon]

Maybe I didn't make my point very clear. Its not that FOH and monitor speakers can't accurately reproduce a tone. You're absolutely right, modern PA technology has come a long way in effective sound reproduction at a reasonable cost and convenience.

 

But that's not the issue here. Rather its that the same speakers (EON610 monitor and EON612's for FOH for me) are being used for very different purposes. The FOH needs to be a reproduction of your guitar tone in the context of the larger room, the audience and in the mix with the rest of the band. Your monitor mix however is just for you, is a lot closer to you, is usually pointed right at you, and is for supporting your interaction with the tone, not how it is presented to the audience.

 

My point is that the EQ for these two very different roles may be quite different, regardless of the speakers used.

 

 

I think this is where things begin to cross over into personal preferences and practices.  When I'm performing in the band, I'm not running the PA, so it's very important to me and to the rest of the band that our stage sound and stage mix be the standard for what the FOH is supposed to sound like so we're confident about what the audience is hearing.  In practice that's not typically a big problem because our basic stage sound is pretty consistent so it's typically a process of getting the monitor mix correct for non amplified things like voices and harmonica.  Once that's set it's pretty easy to gauge and compare it to the FOH sound during the sound check.  Since we primarily depend on gain levels and EQ's used in our recording mix to determine the channel settings, anything that varies from the stage mix is typically going to be fixed with the board's graphic equalizer for the room.

 

This is why in practice for us the guitar and drum channels need no individual channel EQ treatment because they didn't need it during recording.  Because the vocals and other instruments ideal EQ has been pre-determined everything else for them also falls to the board graphic EQ for room adjustments.  It's just a simplified process to make sound checks faster and more accurate.  It's a process we've developed over the last 9 years together that tends to work best for us for keeping a consistent sound venue to venue..

[jbuhajla]

It would seem that today is FRFR Topic day.

 

Anyway, my JBL EON 610 has a programmable EQ built in and I'm wondering if those of you that use an active speaker that also has the same feature, have used it to tailor the speaker's sound for your Helix.  Or do you just use the Helix's Global EQ?  I ask because I think the two methods might have some differences in effectiveness.

 

I just got the same speakers last week. If I have the speakers on stands, I put them into "main" mode. That way they are set to a flat response eq preset. If I have them on the floor as wedges (as I do most of the time) I have them in "monitor" mode which is flat response preset, but with some bass rolled off due to the proximity of the speaker to the floor and bass coupling. Other than that, I do all eq'ing within my helix presets. 

[drewherring12]

 Well I'd say I'd have agreed more with some of what you're saying maybe 10 or 15 years ago, but not as much with the changes that have been occurring in sound reinforcement and modeling technology certainly within the last decade or so.

 

The live sound systems that have come into popular use in the last decade or so are far better at faithful reproduction of signals than what was available prior to that.  Even on a limited budget FOH systems are not anything like that of the passive speaker systems of old in that they have very similar frequency response profiles.  Prior to that it was anybody's guess what a given speaker system's profile might be.  There are minor differences but by and large the profile of an Alto isn't terribly different than that of a Renkus-Heinz.  So a digitally produced signal whether it be from a modeler, a drum kit (acoustic or electronic) using triggers and samples, or even electronic keyboards can be assumed to be a true and faithful representation of what the artist wants.  Rooms may vary with frequency hot spots, deadness, ambient noise, and other factors...but that's not a channel issue.  Those kind of things affect all channels equally and should be dealt with using an equalizer across all channels before final output whether that be to the monitor system or the house system.  Of course this really only applies to direct digitally produced signals, not mic'd signals.

 

I've tested this concept frequently with our own system which consists of a QSC Line Array of KLA12's.  Because the array sits atop a pole I can easily turn it toward the stage and with flat channel EQs and no room EQ corrections it clearly matches the tone I hear from the DXR12, or at least close enough that I can't tell the difference.  The same is true for the drummer who uses triggers and samples and monitors using a Mackie Thump.  That advantage is only available if you build your patches using a comparable system.  The same holds true when we play at venues with different but comparable systems.  It's one of the key advantagew of this type of technology.

 

 

I was just having this conversation the other day. Used to be owning a PA was a big deal. Huge, ungodly heavy racks of amps and effects. Gigantic heavy wood speakers. And if it was low end it sounded like you were singing through a muffler. Nowadays you can go buy a couple powered speakers, a digital mixer with all sorts of built in EQs and gates and effects, and have a really nice sounding simple PA for relatively cheap. 

[DunedinDragon]

I was just having this conversation the other day. Used to be owning a PA was a big deal. Huge, ungodly heavy racks of amps and effects. Gigantic heavy wood speakers. And if it was low end it sounded like you were singing through a muffler. Nowadays you can go buy a couple powered speakers, a digital mixer with all sorts of built in EQs and gates and effects, and have a really nice sounding simple PA for relatively cheap. 

 

We live in an amazing times for musicians.  It's easy to forget that the same advances that resulted in the Helix have benefited us in so many areas.  Not just PA's but also in keyboards, drums, recording, guitar construction, etc.  Exceptional quality at amazing prices compared to what it once was.  It's just a shame that so few can actually make a living wage from doing it like we did back in the days of expensive, crappy equipment.....

[spikey]

It's just a shame that so few can actually make a living wage from doing it like we did back in the days of expensive, crappy equipment.....

 

 

Aint it the truth! Add into that mix > here in the panhandle we play two kinds of music. Country AND Western!  :P

[mapletop]

hi,i see alot of the foh sound.in my band pa we dont mic anything so all the sound is coming out of my frfr.have a alto 210 now.looking to upgrade friends have said check out the alto 312,headrush which i know is same but no preamp for mic.dont know if that changes sound or not.jbl eon 612,line 6 l2 or 3 t little to much.dont know if its worth the price diff.anybody help? thanks guys

[Vanilla_Icecream]

On 3/26/2017 at 7:38 PM, DunedinDragon said:

Here's the key question.  If you try to change the frequency response curve of your FRFR, how are you going to know what you will sound like through the PA?  l PA is likely to have the same, or close enough, response curve as the default setting of your FRFR.  ...

 

 

I took my FRFR Peavey RBN110s outdoors (no room resonance) with no people for a km or so, and plugged in some well known and well-recorded live ambient concert recordings to RBN aux in. Turned it seriously up, then tweaked its eq (lighty) to find a sweet spot in the RBN EQ where it sounds concert-like (as much as a 10-inch 50hz FRFR can). I listen for where the live ambience begins to sound just like a real paddock full of people, and the music is kickin.

 

Then I note and save RBN110 eq setting. All done with speakers at the height I use live of course.

 

While still outdoors I tune the Helix global eq to match my live patch's to the settled on RBN110 eq, then compare these to how they sit within the ambient live recording sound.

 

Once more or less happy with that I sound-check it indoors at gig level with the band to fine-tune the global eq for room surface resonance with normal speaker placement.

 

I do this because I figure the guy on the desk carefully tuned the PA for a similar live eq curve. So that what he gets to the desk should need little eq tweaking from there. Only minor low eq trimming for resonance within which ever room we play.

 

I just don't want a mixing guy feeling they must make some arbitary eq curve changes. So I tell them I want a perfectly flat eq as the starting point setting at the desk, and then only make fine-tuning changes from there---if any.

 

That works very well for me. Like anything, you get better at dialing it in over time.

 

 

[mapletop]

i was just thinking about the headrush 112 and the alto 312. there saying get the headrush for the frfr and the alto for pa.well say you were just going from helix to pa foh which ever.isnt that playing the helix  into a pa?so how does saying dont use helix thru pa speakers for frfr when you can run right out the helix to the pa same type speakers.im looking for new frfr is all