How the hell do I get my Pafl out or even just the main bus through the headphones pre geq and peq. It’s driving me crazy. Should be an option. If not way to drop the ball Allen and Heath.
I just want to be able to eq my main bus and not hear it in the headphones. Pa only!
I’m making another post after this how some fader voodoo affected my show. I’m not a happy customer right now.
Hmm…it must be broke!
I recommend to use matrixes for PA, this is useful as you might want to PAFL mains, or record it, etc.
ddff
I figured out a work around in the meantime. I will just pfl the ipod before it hits the main bus and eq the mains…rather just have it work like an analog though and not here the eq outa the muffs
Hmm…it must be broke!
As already stated…
send your mains to a Stereo Matrix and setup your iLive to output the mains from the output of the Stereo Matrix.
Now you can PFL either post or pre eq.
I know problems can be frustrating, but it probably doesn’t help to flame the manufacturer for something that is a training / user problem, not a design flaw.
There is pretty much a way to do everything on the iLive if you think outside the box.
Millst. Thanks for your input. You think it would be just as logical or even easier to add apre post eq button on the pfal section. It is a computer after all. In the meantime I will have to do this instead. Thanks again.
Hmm…it must be broke!
I would say that most of the users of iLives are not making drastic front of house GEQ changes, certainly not big enough to warrant a pre / post EQ feed for PFL.
If you need to do it, there is a way (using matrices) so I’d doubt this would warrant a feature request.
I can’t remember the last gig where I adjusted more than two GEQ bands by more than 3dB and I would suggest that if you are having to do that much GEQ manipulation, you have far greater problems to worry about than whether the PFL is post or pre GEQ.
Millst. Read up on dave ratts theory if you haven’t about getting the pa to sound like thr headphones. Its a great reference.
Hmm…it must be broke!
Dave Ratt is a great engineer.
He also has at his disposal, multi million dollar PA systems and top of the range PA gear which already sounds great out of the box.
If you were to ask Dave Ratt about whether his theory is still relevant on a smaller sytem where the engineer was having to make drastic GEQ modification in order to achieve the goal, then I think you would find his answer would be… “Hell No, thats not what I meant it for”.
Senheiser make great headphones, they don’t make loudspeaker systems.
I can’t for one moment think why I would want to make my PA system sound like a pair of Sehneiser headphones where the element is 20mm away from my ears and the PA system is suspended from the roof 50 meters from me. They are fundamentally different acoustic spaces and coupling that will never sound even remotely similar.
GEQ (actually any EQ) is fundamentally adjusting phase, whenever you muck with time / phase, you muck with the sound and degade it. A minimalist approach to EQ will always yield better results. (High pass filters are different, I use them until the cows come home).
You gain far more in quality by changing mics, or speakers than you do from changing EQ to try and improve sound. EQ is a sound management tool, not a sound enhancement tool and this is what Dave is alluding to. Notice how he uses words like… correction, repair etc.
A good sounding PA doesn’t need any EQ to make it sound better, all you should be doing is reducing the frequencies that are a problem in a space. If you start using GEQ to alter the sound of a PA system to match your headphones, you are on a slippery slope to failsville. On the type of systems that Dave uses, this might involve maybe 1dB or 2dB of adjustment at a few specific frequencies, not a smiley face EQ. If you are making drastic EQ changes, there is something else wrong.
Dave Ratt has come up with some great ideas that have changed the way large scale PA’s are setup, but he has also come up with a lot of ideas that have failed (thats the nature of trying new stuff). Just because he publishes a new idea, doesn’t make it the new gosphel in live sound reinforcement, it just makes it a new idea to try and evaluate and see what works. It also doesn’t make the ideal scalable down to smaller systems. What works in a 50,000 seat arena, does not necessarily work in a 500 seat hall.
He has done some stellar work on cardiod sub patterns that I now use all the time but it simply doesn’t work on a system below a certain size.
…one of his points were that no matter if you have a cold…hung over whatever, your headphones can be a good rreference and then you can soundcheck without actually using the pa. Hood on any level. Club or arena. If you wanna talk about this further please email me. Dont wanna get to offtopic.
Not to mention some pa’s sound like garbage with to much tweeters and somedays when you mix on that system you have to use a lot of eq just to manage things. Theres nothing wrong with 12 db cuts. I just dont want to hear that in the phones.
Hmm…it must be broke!
quote:
Originally posted by tendersoundI just dont want to hear that in the phones.
That’s why all users seem to agree on not eq-ing mains, but allways feeding matrices and eq those instead. There you have your functionality. Too bad if the system uses 2 busses extra in such a setup, but that’s how it is 
Wouter
IDR32, R72, Dante, Mixpad
laptop, TP-Link TL-WR1043ND</font id=“size1”></font id=“navy”>
quote:
Not to mention some pa's sound like garbage with to much tweeters and somedays when you mix on that system you have to use a lot of eq just to manage things. Theres nothing wrong with 12 db cuts. I just dont want to hear that in the phones.
That’s a bit of a stretch, but I’ll agree that if you need 12 db, cuts to sound decent you have a fundamental design problem or something nasty about the acoustic space.
iDr48/T-112/MADI/Dante