EQ going to the sound system

[jdjk7]

It's standard to do pre-EQ. But for me, I always preferred post, as it's very distracting to me when my sound out of the PA or monitor is different from what's coming out of my amp. My rig is designed to try to minimize the difference between the two.

 

[s0c9]

It's standard to do pre-EQ. But for me, I always preferred post, as it's very distracting to me when my sound out of the PA or monitor is different from what's coming out of my amp. My rig is designed to try to minimize the difference between the two.

Not trying to be combative or difficult here.. but..
How would you know ??
By that I mean.. different speakers (PA vs bass cab), room reflections, dynamics, back wall bounce, listening position (on stage vs out front), etc.
Out front, you are probably hearing stage wash combined w/ PA, room acoustics. It won't sound like what's coming out of your amp - even tho it's the SAME signal source!

I know for a fact (and from experience) that a clean, unaffected, flat EQ'd sound you send to FOH and hear on stage (with flat EQ on FOH console) CAN [and very often] sounds different thru the PA, both FROM the stage and out front. I'm pretty sure that @Wasnex and @4Mal will confirm that!

 

[4Mal]

It is sort of unrealistic to think that a bass rig on stage can do what my subs and array rig can do... After tuning out problems, I generally run a tilted EQ on my mains - many PA folks do as it is a familiar and comfortable sound for the audience.

If I get a similarly tilted bass signal - which happens a lot with post EQ, then I have to spend time amd Eq 'fixing' it. My perspective is that of a person that does a whole lot of 1 stage, multi band, quick change over events.

I live in a world of 20 minute change overs... If it takes extra time, it's coming out of your set. I am a complete zealot about maintaining the schedule. A band that runs over is probably not playing more festival dates with me...

If I'm doing FOH, I'm also providing backline and arranging for drums as well. I won't be a jerk about it if someone just has to use their amp - but I'm also not dealing with it beyond getting a line check. If what is coming down the line isn't up to par - the bass will be the very last thing I deal with. So those first few tunes, the bass might be quiet or thin or whatever while I sort everything else out.

When I play festival dates, I use provided backline and DI from my pedal board. I bought into the approach that my stage rig is merely a very high quality monitor for me and sometimes the drummer.

 

[Altitude]

EQ serves two purposes for us.

#1 is creating a tone we want. I use the same head with my jazz bass that I use with my P bass, but I EQ them differently at the head to create the tone I want people to hear. Granted, I don’t ever massively boost or cut anything, mainly tweaks.

#2 is adjusting for room acoustics. Important. This I think is better done at the FOH to the sum signal than trying to EQ each source separately.

I send post EQ. Whatever I send to the FOH is “flat” for their purposes, whether I’ve EQed it or not.

 

[Wasnex]

EQ serves two purposes for us.

#1 is creating a tone we want. I use the same head with my jazz bass that I use with my P bass, but I EQ them differently at the head to create the tone I want people to hear. Granted, I don’t ever massively boost or cut anything, mainly tweaks.

#2 is adjusting for room acoustics. Important. This I think is better done at the FOH to the sum signal than trying to EQ each source separately.

I send post EQ. Whatever I send to the FOH is “flat” for their purposes, whether I’ve EQed it or not.

You missed at least one that is highly relevant to this discussion:

#3 Compensating for Frequency response variance between cabs and drivers.

If the bass cab does not have the exact same frequency response as the PA cab, the EQ used to make the bass cab sound good is not valid for the PA cab.

IF the bass cab is identical to the PA cab, the efficacy of sending post EQ is higher. However, IMHO the EQ should still be set separately for different listening locations and intended purpose. This is to account for variation in the acoustic environment and better meet the needs of the intended audiences. To clarify: one audience is the bass player and the other audience is the actual audience.

Sending the DI post EQ only gives you an illusion of control. The audio tech can and will apply EQ on the mixer however he/she sees fit. In general dealing with a post EQ just makes the audio tech's job harder. If it's too much hassle, there is a bigger chance that the audio tech will decide it's not worth the effort. If you use only subtle tone shaping, post EQ should work fine, as long as you lock down your amp settings at soundcheck and don't make changes during the show. I personally like the freedom to make adjustments during the show...it's not unusual for the on stage show balance to vary from soundcheck.

 

[Altitude]

You missed at least one that is highly relevant to this discussion:

#3 Compensating for Frequency response variance between cabs and drivers.

If the bass cab does not have the exact same frequency response as the PA cab, the EQ used to make the bass cab sound good is not valid for the PA cab.

IF the bass cab is identical to the PA cab, the efficacy of sending post EQ is higher. However, IMHO the EQ should still be set separately for different listening locations and intended purpose. This is to account for variation in the acoustic environment and better meet the needs of the intended audiences. To clarify: one audience is the bass player and the other audience is the actual audience.

Sending the DI post EQ only gives you an illusion of control. The audio tech can and will apply EQ on the mixer however he/she sees fit. In general dealing with a post EQ just makes the audio tech's job harder. If it's too much hassle, there is a bigger chance that the audio tech will decide it's not worth the effort. If you use only subtle tone shaping, post EQ should work fine, as long as you lock down your amp settings at soundcheck and don't make changes during the show. I personally like the freedom to make adjustments during the show...it's not unusual for the on stage show balance to vary from soundcheck.

I’m going to write something that I realize might seem combative. Here it is:

As human beings it does make sense for each of us to try to avoid creating unnecessary problems for our cohorts. Within that guidance, my goal is to create the best possible product for the audience, not to make life easier for the sound guy. Usually he feels the same about me, but indeed now and then I run across someone who prefers easy to good.

Taken to extreme - I’m sure it would be less effort for sound engineers if all bass players only carried one kind of bass - let’s say we all played P basses. Marvelous. Easy, sound team knows exactly how to work with those, they can spend their time on something else. But, clearly, in some cases that decision would not be of benefit to the product.

More directly to your point - if I send the FOH a signal with a 2db boost at 800hz because I like how the bass sounds that way, and the engineer for some reason determines 800hz rings in the room and backs it off, he and I are both doing our jobs and it’s no big deal. If on the other hand I send that signal and he backs it off because it’s the not the way he thinks a bass should sound, he’s doing my job and not his.

 

[ezstep]

I generally use a 2x12 cab onstage with the horn around 75% rolled down. Out front, the guy is using two 1x18 subs or possibly four 1x18 subs, either two 1x15 + horn tops or two 1x12 + horn tops or possibly four 1x12 + horn tops or four 1x15 + horn tops. No way my 2x12 is going to reproduce the exact sound coming through the FOH, and no way the FOH is going to reproduce the exact sound coming through my stage rig. Too many variables. Ideally, you will not hear the FOH speakers - you are behind them. (No way a single 1x12 or 1x15 stage monitor is going to reproduce faithfully the exact FOH sound, but that is a discussion for another day.)

Don't overthink this. Pick one and stick to it. If you are at a venue with sound and soundman provided, make sure to meet him and introduce yourself before the show, iron out a few details. He and you will appreciate it later. If you use the same soundman gig after gig after gig, then he will figure it out quickly. Do your job and let him do his. Just keep in mind - what YOU hear is not what the AUDIENCE hears. Not exactly.

 

[logdrum]

Give them 2 if you use a lot of effects and then HPF your effected sound a lot, no less than 80 Hz. If you have a clean sound , just give them pre-EQ

To be fair on a big show, they spend at least 45 minutes on the drums and bass not so much. A majority of bass players boost bass which causes all kinds of sound problems, and that stigma will always stay.

 

[Wasnex]

I’m going to write something that I realize might seem combative. Here it is:

As human beings it does make sense for each of us to try to avoid creating unnecessary problems for our cohorts. Within that guidance, my goal is to create the best possible product for the audience, not to make life easier for the sound guy. Usually he feels the same about me, but indeed now and then I run across someone who prefers easy to good.

Taken to extreme - I’m sure it would be less effort for sound engineers if all bass players only carried one kind of bass - let’s say we all played P basses. Marvelous. Easy, sound team knows exactly how to work with those, they can spend their time on something else. But, clearly, in some cases that decision would not be of benefit to the product.

More directly to your point - if I send the FOH a signal with a 2db boost at 800hz because I like how the bass sounds that way, and the engineer for some reason determines 800hz rings in the room and backs it off, he and I are both doing our jobs and it’s no big deal. If on the other hand I send that signal and he backs it off because it’s the not the way he thinks a bass should sound, he’s doing my job and not his.

While I agree the audio tech should try to understand and honor you tone concept, there will always be a difference between what you think bass should sound like and what the audio tech thinks bass should sound like. Also, even if you could agree 100% on tone, the audio tech may make different choices because he/she has a different task. You are most likely focused on creating a specific sound, while the audio tech is trying to create the best possible mix. If you don't like the way someone mixes...don't hire them again.

As I said in my last post:

If you use only subtle tone shaping, post EQ should work fine

However, an 800hz boost through your bass rig may sound great on stage, and it may consistently sound like through the PA. If it sounds like you are failing to meet your own tone goals, and you are also making the audio tech's job harder. So perhaps it would be better to try and work with the audio tech, rather than making assumptions.

 

[Altitude]

While I agree the audio tech should try to understand and honor you tone concept, there will always be a difference between what you think bass should sound like and what the audio tech thinks bass should sound like. Also, even if you could agree 100% on tone, the audio tech may make different choices because he/she has a different task. You are most likely focused on creating a specific sound, while the audio tech is trying to create the best possible mix. If you don't like the way someone mixes...don't hire them again.

As I said in my last post:


However, an 800hz boost through your bass rig may sound great on stage, and it may consistently sound like through the PA. If it sounds like you are failing to meet your own tone goals, and you are also making the audio tech's job harder. So perhaps it would be better to try and work with the audio tech, rather than making assumptions.

I think there’s about 95% overlap in what we each are saying here. I sense a tiny bit of the-sound man-knows-better-than-you that I can’t entirely get with. He either does or he doesn’t, is the whole of it, and the art is figuring out which it is and making the event work for the audience.

I had a certain recording experience where I took in 3 basses and used all of them. Even I couldn’t tell you which track has which now, because the engineer made them all sound the same. I guess that colors my opinion.

 

[brianrost]

Pre for me. One of my amps has no direct out so I use a DI box with that one.

Let the soundman do what he wants with it.

 

[Wasnex]

I sense a tiny bit of the-sound man-knows-better-than-you that I can’t entirely get with.

Yes, I think a skilled audio tech out in the audience chamber is in a better position to evaluate and make adjustments to the mix than someone who is on stage behind the PA.

I am not saying that the audio tech is going to mix exactly like you want. Then again, it's unlikely that you would be able to create the exact mix you would want either. Unfortunately it typically does not work that way. Usually you simply do the best you can, and often the result is far from ideal.

If you were to ask every person in your band to create the ideal mix, IMHO most likely the mixes will be noticeably different. My point is everyone has a different idea of how each instrument should sound and how the mix should sound overall...it's not just the audio tech. The point is the audio tech can't make everyone happy, and they really should not try to do the impossible.

That does not mean you should accept an audio tech that does not mix the way you and your bandmates want. If there is consensus in the band that the audio tech is not working out, hire someone else. Unfortunately if someone else is hiring the audio tech, you may not be able to call the shots. In this case, the choice may be don't work at a certain venue.

Ultimately if you and your audio tech(s) are happy with a a post DI with a boost at 800hz...I don't have any concern for your specific situation . My concern is more general. While I agree post EQ can work and can even be preferrable in some situations, it does have a much higher tendency of causing problems than Pre. A big part of the problem is because it doesn't actually work the way most people think it does.

 

[Altitude]

Yes, I think a skilled audio tech out in the audience chamber is in a better position to evaluate and make adjustments to the mix than someone who is on stage behind the PA.

I am not saying that the audio tech is going to mix exactly like you want. Then again, it's unlikely that you would be able to create the exact mix you would want either. Unfortunately it typically does not work that way. Usually you simply do the best you can, and often the result is far from ideal.

If you were to ask every person in your band to create the ideal mix, IMHO most likely the mixes will be noticeably different. My point is everyone has a different idea of how each instrument should sound and how the mix should sound overall...it's not just the audio tech. The point is the audio tech can't make everyone happy, and they really should not try to do the impossible.

That does not mean you should accept an audio tech that does not mix the way you and your bandmates want. If there is consensus in the band that the audio tech is not working out, hire someone else. Unfortunately if someone else is hiring the audio tech, you may not be able to call the shots. In this case, the choice may be don't work at a certain venue.

Ultimately if you and your audio tech(s) are happy with a a post DI with a boost at 800hz...I don't have any concern for your specific situation . My concern is more general. While I agree post EQ can work and can even be preferrable in some situations, it does have a much higher tendency of causing problems than Pre. A big part of the problem is because it doesn't actually work the way most people think it does.

Every organization has people in overlapping roles.

My job is to make the bass sound like I want it to in the band. Sound engineer’s job is to make the band sound good in the room.

Those roles do bump into one another. But neither role player can claim that their role is the more important and neither should do the other’s job.

 

[Zbysek]

My job, as a Bass player, is to play Bass.

That’s the way I see it…

 

[Wasnex]

Every organization has people in overlapping roles.

My job is to make the bass sound like I want it to in the band. Sound engineer’s job is to make the band sound good in the room.

Those roles do bump into one another. But neither role player can claim that their role is the more important and neither should do the other’s job.

Agreed. I would add that ideally they should negotiate and work things out for the common good rather than being inflexible and combative. Not necessarily as easy as it sounds.

I think it's important to recognize that compromise means no one gets exactly what the want. Neither the musicians, nor the audio tech, nor audience. However, I think a priority should be given to making the paying public's experience as good as it can be...and that is typically more directly the audio tech's domain than the musicians. The musicians are the source of the sound, but the audio tech packages it for the audience.

The musicians control is a bit less direct: Ideally the musicians should choose an audio tech who shares tone goals and has a compatible artistic vision. This won't eliminate the gap between your artistic vision and what the audience hears...but it will reduce the gap.

 

[mambo4]

This thread has made me realize another advantage of pursuing a "tone is in the fingers" approach.
My signal is always "post fingers" so tonal variation that comes from my technique won't ever be left out.

 

[Zbysek]

my goal is to create the best possible product for the audience, not to make life easier for the sound guy.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

My experience is that if I make the sound guy’s life easier, it usually results in better product for the audience…

 

[Windreaper]

The answer to all the "what to send to FoH" threads is the same: it's good if it sounds good. Learn how to dial in a good live tone and no sound guy is going to complain you're sending them a wet signal.

To answer OP's question specifically, always pre. The amp EQ is there to make the amp sound good, sending a post-EQ feed robs you of the ability to make adjustments to your amp without altering the DI signal. If you need to shape the tone you're sending to FoH, do that on your board.

 

[Altitude]

Those two things are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

My experience is that if I make the sound guy’s life easier, it usually results in better product for the audience…

Sounds like the sound guy making your job harder.

 

[Wasnex]

Sounds like the sound guy making your job harder.

I am getting the idea you don't think there is any mutual benefit to people helping each other.