Members dboomer Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 BTW you guys ever gonna bring back another mixer like you had with the RQ series I no longer work at Peavey ... just so we are clear. The FX series is very much like the RQ series but with a digital output section. I fought for a non-digital unit but I don't know the outcome. We'll both have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 No, it's not an opinion. It's an observation. I'm more than certain I can work an EQ as well as you or anyone else if not better. I've tested the use of both systems several times and the more exacting implementation of a AFS sounds better. The superior result of using a AFS is not only logical but stands up to testing and observation. Dropping references to the pro world is a logical mistake. Whether a pro uses something or not doesn't answer the question. I'm sure that people who haven't recognized the superiority of an AFS haven't implemented it properly. I've witnessed some pros do lousy jobs and some do great jobs. The question isn't whether a pro can get a good result not using an AFS it's wheter in an A/B comparison, what sounds better. In situations where feedback is problematic, I've observed along with other people that the AFS sounds better.http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#150Good luck to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alcohol Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 Good luck to you. Thanks, but this isn't a matter of luck it's a matter of observation. So. good luck to you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 No sir, that's your opinion. You have not seen us guys use a graphic, and you have not observed a feedback ferret doing a better job than us guys do. Specifically me. You have observed nothing, you have given your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alcohol Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 agedhorse, thanks for being more exacting. No I haven't seen you, so I don't know if you can do a better job or not. I highly doubt you have unusual skills with a 31 band Eq. But you're wrong, I have observed the difference between using a graphic eq and an AFS and an observation isn't merely an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 And I have observed a graphic doing a far better job than a feedback destroyer. In fact, generally I have seen more folks struggle with feedback while using a feedback destroyer than those with a 1/3 octave graphic. Since I haven't experienced feedback in a very long time, and I do not have any problems with sound quality, the feedback destroyer type devices are a "solution that has no problem" in my applications. How can it do a better job when what I do is just fine? I can certainly see how it could cause problems though. I can also see how it CAN be a good solution in some applications, especially when inexperienced folks are put in the position of mixing sound. It's a tool that must be matched to the right job... wouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight. How come you can't be open to ther people's opinions? Just because you haven't experienced what other folks here have doesn't mean you can't accept their opinions as valid eh? Again, I think maybe much of your stubborness might have to do with lack of exposure to a very wide field of sound reinforcement. It's a pretty big field, lots of different problems (and solutions) specific to each particular area of the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 In your opinion. Perhaps you haven't worked with somebody who grasps the eq concept really well. Guys like that do exist and they are pretty common in the pro world. I'm one of those guys who doesn't grasp any pro sound concept really well. Guys like me do exist and are pretty common in the amateur world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonotes Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'm one of those guys who doesn't grasp any pro sound concept really well. Guys like me do exist and are pretty common in the amateur world. I'm one of those guys too, and I like to get the perspective of experienced pro's, even though my applications may be well beneath their daily routine. And in that respect, Agedhorse, you stated that an auto feedback reduction device might be appropriate in some situations. Would you consider a bar band, with no dedicated sound tech, and mixing from the stage to be one of those situations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'm one of those guys too, and I like to get the perspective of experienced pro's, even though my applications may be well beneath their daily routine. And in that respect, Agedhorse, you stated that an auto feedback reduction device might be appropriate in some situations. Would you consider a bar band, with no dedicated sound tech, and mixing from the stage to be one of those situations? Possibly, but by far better results IMO will be obtained by first sorting out the issues that cause the problems to begin with. Decent mics, good speakers and positioning of the speakers, learning how to eq, not overusing compressors etc. By the time you get this stuff worked out, you will have even better sound and you will find that tne feedback destroyer works a lot better too. You may not even need one. IMO, it's always better solving the problem rather than masking the symptoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twostone Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 I no longer work at Peavey ... just so we are clear. The FX series is very much like the RQ series but with a digital output section. I fought for a non-digital unit but I don't know the outcome. We'll both have to wait and see. Darn that's ashame now we don't have a Peavey Rep. here no more. But still of fan of some of their products do loves the RQ series mixer pretty much a no brainer for a non tech guy my self. Might trade the old 231 FX EQ for a ferret d for monitor duties seems a great way to go for on stage mixing. Any thing to help speed up set up time is always a big plus in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flanc Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 Soundman is still at Peavey (I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SoundMan Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 Still representing. SoundMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Not Serial Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 when i was a kid i thought the logo said penvey, no joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twostone Posted October 4, 2007 Members Share Posted October 4, 2007 Still representing. SoundMan seems you guys respond faster here then on your peavey site took 3 days for a response once took 3 mins here go figure, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SoundMan Posted October 4, 2007 Members Share Posted October 4, 2007 The response time on our site usually depends on the complexity of the question. We have people that monitor the boards constantly, and they are pretty good, but sometimes they forward questions to me and the other engineers. That can add days to the answer time. BTW, I wish I could get that kind of response time out of most any other company I deal with. SoundMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted October 4, 2007 Members Share Posted October 4, 2007 So, Soundman...That's a really cool belt buckle in your avatar. Is that available for purchase??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaredMTFD Posted October 4, 2007 Members Share Posted October 4, 2007 I don't have one now, because I usually don't need it and I can take care of the problem myself. However, I have used one in the past quite a bit with another band that had on the in the rack...and it worked very well without altering the sound. Headroom was still good, and the filters were very precise and accurate. I'd get another one if I felt the need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SoundMan Posted October 4, 2007 Members Share Posted October 4, 2007 Why sure.... https://www.costore.com/peavey/productthumbnails.asp SoundMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twostone Posted October 5, 2007 Members Share Posted October 5, 2007 Possibly, but by far better results IMO will be obtained by first sorting out the issues that cause the problems to begin with. Decent mics, good speakers and positioning of the speakers, learning how to eq, not overusing compressors etc. By the time you get this stuff worked out, you will have even better sound and you will find that tne feedback destroyer works a lot better too. You may not even need one. IMO, it's always better solving the problem rather than masking the symptoms. Yea AH you may be right key words knowing how to EQ, but gotta remember lotta folks just wanna plug in and play and don't wanna spend to much time on the technical side of problem solving. IMO for non experienced PA users I believe this would be the way to go. I agree for a trained or experienced SE would decline any use of a ferret because he knows his way around a good quality GEQ and recognizes problematic FB frequency just by ear. I went to a website posted here once that actually test you on which frequency was the FB frequency of course I spent a few days playing around with it but failed every time. So I bought the Peavey GEQ with FLS doesn't rid it but helps you found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted October 5, 2007 Members Share Posted October 5, 2007 Why sure....https://www.costore.com/peavey/productthumbnails.aspSoundMan Dang! How cool! I was actully just kidding around since your avatar looks like a belt buckle...didn't know it really was! Hehehehe! Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 5, 2007 Members Share Posted October 5, 2007 Learning how to configure things to avoid the cause is why the pros (in general) don't have kinds of problems the local bands have. Having good tools and knowing how to use them avoids much of the issue entirely. It's like having good woodworking tools and knowing how to build cabinetry. These guys know how to build things without making the mistakes that require fancy patching skills. Build it right and you don't have to worry about bandaid patch fixes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted October 6, 2007 Members Share Posted October 6, 2007 Learning how to configure things to avoid the cause is why the pros (in general) don't have kinds of problems the local bands have. Having good tools and knowing how to use them avoids much of the issue entirely. Certainly more experience and bigger budgets help in this area and you should do all you can to by way of proper equipment , speaker placement and mic selection ... but once you'ce doe all of that where do you go? The other thing about this is that pros in general are probably working in larger physical spaces as a rule. It's much easier to avoid feedback when you have a big stage and a 30' ceiling. On the other hand when you are playing in a little club with an 8 foot ceiling it is much more difficult to deal with so local bands are faced with lower skill levels, budget equipment and more frequently very difficult acoustic spaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 7, 2007 Members Share Posted October 7, 2007 True, but generally a feedback destroyer type device is chosen as the FIRST solution and the other more important (IMO) things you mention are completely ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted October 7, 2007 Members Share Posted October 7, 2007 I wouldn't say completely ignored ... but not executed as optimally as possible. But then that goes for mic selection, gain structure, chennel eq and everything else that a seasoned pro has learned over the years that a noobie is just learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohnnyGraphic Posted October 7, 2007 Members Share Posted October 7, 2007 I wouldn't say completely ignored ... but not executed as optimally as possible. But then that goes for mic selection, gain structure, chennel eq and everything else that a seasoned pro has learned over the years that a noobie is just learning. I agree. And I think that without a seasoned pro looking over a noobie's shoulders and training/helping them, a feedback ferret type of device is much better than having to learn on their own. Especially if the 'on the job training' consisted of setting up in tiny bars every week or so. A nice middle ground would be an EQ with little lights over the offending frequencies. Hmmm, like a EQ with FLS? I know it's helped me! I actually have a dbx feedback killer thingy and a Peavey EQ with FLS. Both serve a purpose and is money well spent in my opinion for a guy like me in my particular position. With the very little time I have to devote to such pursuits, I find it easier to set it and forget it. Also I find that the learning curve of which frequency is which, is much faster since there is also a visual cue as 'where' on the EQ those frequencies are at. Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.