EQ for multisource system help...

[hann]

I've just installed a multi source system recently on the guitar... a K&K powermix trinity...

thing is.. the preamp is supposed to be EQ to "set-and-forget" so that I can hide it further in the body...
I've played it a couple times for service and i'm not sure i've EQ-ed it optimally so I was hoping for some suggestions...

Most of my sound will come from the PWM, followed by UST, then a lil of the mic.
I've also read that the PWM will give the main body of the sound, the UST provides the bass definition, and the mic for the shimmery highs? is this the general concensus?

Cos I think the mic is giving the highs a lil harshness when I pushed up the treble EQ and i hear too much of the pick attack (which i'll solve by using a diff pick or re-positioning the mic) so it's really an EQ question.

So.. should I EQ each individually in such a way that each of the sources should sound good by itself, or do I need to EQ to a "bigger picture" i.e. EQ the PWM optimally, and EQ the other 2 to mix well with the PWM, even if the other 2 indivually may not sound so good?

Or

Just set everything flat, and do my EQ externally via a preamp?

[tadmania]

EQs are little volume controls, really, and have the problems commonly associated with the "above the middle" strategy of using them. One thing you might try is to cut unwanted signal instead of increasing what you do want, then raising the volume of the amp to make up for the loss. You can get a cleaner outcome from this very easily. Think of the same relations between the frequencies, but at a position averaging closer to the detente, or flat, position.

[hann]

"above the middle"? care to elaborate?

I've heard from a recording engineer and before that yeah i should cut instead of add.. only add if after cuttin to the max it's still not enough..

what do u mean "same relations between the frequencies"?

[tadmania]

Say that your EQ is set in a curve, or at certain knob positions. Set the relationships the same without "adding" volume at any point, but by subtracting signal in proportion to the frequency relationships that work for you. By the "middle" position I mean "flat".

Also, beware that "highs" in sound reinforcement are often actaully distortion. Give your ear a chance to acclimate to cleaner sound before you boost the highs too awful much.

[rmyAddison]

Tad, EQ's are not little volume controls, not when they're used "to purpose". Thinking of EQ as volume controls is the most common misconception, fact.

Hann,

That is a very interesting system, I would love to hear one. Having just seen David Wilcox and his amazing and expensive 6 source system...there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I actually read the manual (I am interested), once installed you have 3 gain, volume and 3-band EQ's to play with.

Think of gain as sensitivity to the signal, the factory presets are probably fine or very close, if you have to turn up the volume a lot higher on one of the sources the gain may need to be raised. Gain is set it and forget it once dialed in.

There are two ways to approach this, the first is what I do with my on board Aura; EQ each source by itself (others turned off) to get it's best sound, then do a blend of the sources using their volume controls. EQ as a general rule should be used to cut not boost, very slight boost is OK but it's usually better to cut than boost, and with only 3 bands a little goes a long way.

The other way would be to use the EQ to shape the frequency response of the overall sound.

"Most of my sound will come from the PWM, followed by UST, then a lil of the mic. I've also read that the PWM will give the main body of the sound, the UST provides the bass definition, and the mic for the shimmery highs? is this the general concensus?"

From that information I would "try" setting the PWM's EQ (bass -1, mid flat, treble -1) for midrange emphasis; UST EQ (bass flat, mid -1, treble -1) for bass emphasis; Mic (bass -1, mid -1, treble flat) for treble emphasis. Then your volume controls somewhat effect EQ more than blend. Want more bass, increase the UST or cut the others, want more treble increase the mic or cut the others, want more midrange increase the PWM or cut the others. I would think this method a little more versatile.

I am using -1 to be a slight cut, think a clock face with 12 o'clock being the flat position, a -1 cut is maybe 10-11 o'clock.

Anyway those are the two methods I would try and see which sounds best. I would love to hear some sound bytes, I have a very expensive Martin I am considering installing a Pendulum system (probably a few grand), I would love to hear what the K&K can do, they make good stuff.

Hope this helped, sound bytes please..............

[hann]

hey rich,

that's a very clear explaination!

I'll spend some time in church trying out all the combinations to hear what's best...

I'd prob wanna try the 1st method cos the most impt judge is my own ear right?

the 2nd way seems abit mechanical.. and K&K did reply my email saying usually they scoop the PWM mids for a more natural sound.. and I've also realized that the UST doesn't really add bass more than it gives it definition? so when I turned up the UST, it didn't necc. make the bass alot louder, just made the bass notes more distinct..

yeah i'll try to make a recording sometime this week . =)

[rmyAddison]

Hann,

I can see a lot of playing around with a 3 source system and I would definitely go with any advise you get straight from K&K. I have spent a ton of time with my much simpler Aura system so the Trinity will take some hours for sure.

Again, I really am curious to hear some samples, have fun!

[heylow]

Hann,

Re: The mic....just some thoughts.

I wouldn't describe what the mic does as "shimmery highs" and it shouldn't get grainy or harsh if you set the controls optimally and position it well.

The literature that came with my Trinity system recommended cutting all the EQ controls on the mic and maybe adding a tiny bit of treble back in. I find this to be good advice, and I'm not even adding any treble back in...and I'm using PLENTY of mic on 3 different guitars.

Secondly, with the gain/volume relationship. This is where that stuff really comes in. A little too much gain on that mic (or any other) makes it awfully grainy. Backing off the gain can be a really great idea. In fact, solo the mic and listen....you should be able to hear when it hits the sweet spot. It takes surprisingly little gain to get there.

One more thing....position. If you have the mic pointed directly at the strings, you will get lots of pick noise. I have done some experimenting and found that placing the mic pointing pretty much at the floor, spanning across the g, b, and e strings, sitting basically right in the soundhole and closer to the neck (kind of half in-half out...sort of where a mag pickup might be...on roughly the same plain as the guitar's top, sticking out a tad) gets really great, natural sounding results on all 3 of my guitars. As the mic is omni, it still picks up correctly but without the "right at the capsule" zippy-ness.

All in all, this nets me a very nice "air" around the guitar sound...not "highs" per se, but "space" and "breath". (Obviously your results may differ, but experimenting with placement is the key here.)


Re: that last question...

You should definitely be ultimately EQing for the bigger picture but be sure to be aware of what each individual component is doing. I mean, nothing should be all out of whack individually but it should all be contributing to the whole. For instance, my PWM sounds great on its own, but may be a little "dull-ish" because I am leaving a bit of room for the mic. 2 signals with "sweet" top end might just be a little too "sweet" when mixed together!


Hope this helps some. Good luck in your setup!


[dt]

[hann]

Hi David,
thanks for the tip! =)

if you're cutting all EQs and not pushing the treble back in.. then why cut all the EQ controls at all?! since they'll be in the same "balance" right?

Yeah I was wonderin if my gain was too high as well but it's ALOT lower than the PWM and the UST gain so I thought something was wrong! =)

that mic position u described seems totally bizarre to me! but i better try it out!!!
haven't done too much experimenting on the position actually...

looks like i'll be spending alot of time in church this wk!!!!

[heylow]

Originally Posted by hann

Hi David,
thanks for the tip! =)

if you're cutting all EQs and not pushing the treble back in.. then why cut all the EQ controls at all?! since they'll be in the same "balance" right?

You know, I kind of thought the same thing at first but, for whatever reason, it turned out to consistently sound better than anything else I tried. If you check out the manual to the Quantum Blender at the K&K site, you'll see the blurb I'm talking about. What can I say? It worked!

Originally Posted by hann

that mic position u described seems totally bizarre to me! but i better try it out!!!
haven't done too much experimenting on the position actually...

Again, don't ask me exactly why it works, but it does very well....for me at least! Also, I just did some poking around and happened to find THIS (scroll down to the pic).

Dieter himself installed this one...I totally forgot about this photo! Funny. Mine is almost exactly the same way except mine is literally under the G, B, and E strings equally and a little further away from the neck. Also, mine is actually mounted from the opposite side, reaching across the soundhole (not that it matters). But, yeah...there it is!

Give it a shot!

I'd be curious as to how you end up using the UST in relation to the rest of the stuff. I could totally see it coming in handy in a band situation without having to give up the K&K sound.


[dt]

[Doug Young]

I installed that system in a guitar a while back, It's got a ton of power, obviously, but setting it all up is something you could easily spend your life on, especially since all the EQ is inside the guitar so it's hard to adjust while you're playing. I didn't find much use in trying to get each one to sound good individually. I had better luck by starting with either the UST or the SBTs alone, getting it to sound good, then adding in the other to taste, and tweaking the EQ on it, then adding the mic to taste and tweaking it. It's hard to EQ each individually and know what it will contribute the final mix. But there are so many variables.

Funny thing is, after several months of tweaking constantly, I found the setting that worked best for me (Your mileage may vary greatly, obviously). My final setting was mic off, UST off, SBT set flat, no EQ. At which point I took that huge mass of wires out and went back the simple K&K passive mini, because that was basically what I had settled on.

[hann]

wow that's an interesting pic.. looks like i'll have to remount my mic though.. cos it won't be far enough to reach so far!

doug, the PWM by itseld sounded best? gosh.. if only i'd have read that line sooner!! haha

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by hann

wow that's an interesting pic.. looks like i'll have to remount my mic though.. cos it won't be far enough to reach so far!

doug, the PWM by itseld sounded best? gosh.. if only i'd have read that line sooner!! haha

Of course it might have simply been the feeling of relief at not having to face that row of 12 dials one more time.

[heylow]

Originally Posted by hann

wow that's an interesting pic.. looks like i'll have to remount my mic though.. cos it won't be far enough to reach so far!

doug, the PWM by itseld sounded best? gosh.. if only i'd have read that line sooner!! haha

Are you sure? I have mine mounted on the bridge side of the soundhole and just kind of swing it across in sort of a "light question mark" shape. it's probably about an inch away from the neck side or so. All three of mine are fine this way....I guess it depends where you mounted them, though.

I like the PWM by itself and all....but I just can't live without the mic!


[dt]

[hann]

mm maybe cos i put it on the bracing instead.. which is a tad further in.. the space under the soundboard didn't seem like enough space to mount it...

david, could i ask what u used to mount the mic? i'm using duallock fasteners but it doesn't look entirely secure.. maybe a pic of urs could be useful. =)