# Ringing out and Equalizing a FOH with onstage monitors



## Subby (Nov 1, 2011)

All, 
I am looking for suggestions and techniques people use to ring out/EQ an onstage monitor system and a FOH system. Do you do the FOH system separately, followed by the onstage monitor system separately then them both together? Or is it better to do them all at once?

Last week, I spent a couple of hours ringing out the onstage monitors for the musical I'm working on (Rocky Horror) so the players could hear more out of the monitors. I did NOT get a chance to fully ring out the FOH speakers, though. That night I had some major feedback issues. The additional gain from the monitors plus of the FOH pushed things over the edge.

So going forward, do I want to ring out the FOH system before turning on the monitors, or do them all at once? What techniques have others found that work well when using onstage monitors and FOH systems when feedback is an issue?

Thanks
Subby


----------



## Footer (Nov 1, 2011)

What are you sending to the onstage wedges? Are you working on an analog or digital console? Are all the channels on the console full? I assume there is not a monitor desk... Also, what kind of mics are you using? Do you have any spare graphic equalizers? Is there a graphic equalizer on each monitor mix? 

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


----------



## waynehoskins (Nov 1, 2011)

FOH and Monitor equalization generally have two different goals. For FOH, sound quality is the chief goal; you ideally want the system to be as linear and transparent as possible, though in some cases you may want a more subjectively tailored response. Generally most of your microphones are on stage, so feedback rejection at FOH isn't usually a major hurdle. For Monitors, you want to give the performers what they need to perform, as loud as they need it (within reason and the laws of physics). This often means more drastic notch filters in the monitor chains.

They're separate systems, so I'd tune them as such. Ringing out monitors with an open mic is a common technique, but I'd probably do that as a second step after pre-notching peaks in their response. High-pass filters are a great thing to put in most monitor systems from the start; they help cut down on some of the mud and let the important stuff punch through on stage.

You can often use the published datasheets as a starting point for tuning, inserting appropriate notch filters where there are response peaks. Analysis tools like SMAART are really nice as well. In the end, listen to each system with recordings you're familiar with, to make sure they sound the way they should. 

A trick that can give you a bit more gain-before-feedback at FOH is delay. For me, the extra feedback rejection is a happy side effect of time-aligning the system to itself and back to stage.


----------



## museav (Nov 1, 2011)

Where to start....

Probably with Kyle's comments regarding identifying how the system is configured and what tools you have to work with.

Next might be identifying the process you used to 'ring out' the system. Especially important here is what you did to improve gain before feedback, did you focus on things like relative microphone and speaker positions and patterns or focus on adjustments with the mixer and processing? Remember that you are dealing with acoustical feedback so acoustical solutions to increasing gain before feedback are often more effective.

Also, how closely did the conditions during the 'ringing out' process resemble those during actual use? Did you have all the related microphones on the actors and them on stage as they would be during a performance? It can be important to come as close as possible to the actual conditions during a performance, there are a myriad of tales of how details such as costume elements dramatically affected feedback.

The house versus stage question is a common one and different people have different views. The house and stage monitor systems will usually interact to some degree and likely have to be viewed as two components of one acoustical system. However, my perspective is that you and the actors are there for the audience so while you need to do what you can for the people on stage as that does affect the performance, if compromises have to be made the house should be the priority and preferably be the least compromised.

For both the house and monitors you may need to consider and balance both gain before feedback and sound quality. There are many facets to this but in general it is a factor of priorities and, to link back to the first point, the tools available. If you cannot make many changes with mics and speakers or their locations and/or have a poor acoustical condition then getting acceptable gain before feedback may become a priority over the sound quality. If all you have or are comfortable using is a one octave graphic equalizer then that will affect what you might want to or be able to do. You could cut a band to help with gain before feedback but that could affect a sufficiently wide frequency bad as to audibly impact the audio quality, much less if the problem frequency lies between two bands and requires an even broader adjustment.


----------



## Subby (Nov 2, 2011)

Footer said:


> What are you sending to the onstage wedges? Are you working on an analog or digital console? Are all the channels on the console full? I assume there is not a monitor desk... Also, what kind of mics are you using? Do you have any spare graphic equalizers? Is there a graphic equalizer on each monitor mix?
> 
> Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


 
Onstage wedges are getting the piano and vocals folded back to the actors. I am working with a Yamaha 01V96 digital board. No, I don't run the channels at full, and you are correct, there is no monitor desk. The mics are Sennheiser EW100 G2 body packs with ME2 elements. I'm not a huge fan of the ME2 because they have such a high sensitivity/output and make using them with monitors difficult. I have 31-band graphic equalizers for each the L and R of the FOH, as well as one on the mix that goes to the foldback monitors (not one for each monitor, as the monitors are tied together in series).

FYI - the monitors are along the downstage edge of the stage, aimed upstage.


----------



## Footer (Nov 2, 2011)

Subby said:


> Onstage wedges are getting the piano and vocals folded back to the actors. I am working with a Yamaha 01V96 digital board. No, I don't run the channels at full, and you are correct, there is no monitor desk. The mics are Sennheiser EW100 G2 body packs with ME2 elements. I'm not a huge fan of the ME2 because they have such a high sensitivity/output and make using them with monitors difficult. I have 31-band graphic equalizers for each the L and R of the FOH, as well as one on the mix that goes to the foldback monitors (not one for each monitor, as the monitors are tied together in series).
> 
> FYI - the monitors are along the downstage edge of the stage, aimed upstage.


 
I would first slide the monitors to the side of the stage, that *might* cut down on some of the pick up (assuming most of the show actors are staged facing the audience and the mic elements are point towards their mouths with the elements facing DS). Your dealing with an omni mic here, so there is no real rear/side rejection so the change will be minimal. 

Second, use the graph on the monitors to cut thew worst frequencies that are feeding back. That should help a bit. 

Finally, and this is a bit of a streatch but it should work, make a monitor split. If you have the channels on the console, patch each mic input into two separate channels (say 1 and 17). Send the 1st channel to FOH, the 2nd channel to monitors. Put both channels in the same fader group, so one fader controls the other. With this setup you can have one EQ that feeds FOH and the EQ on the second channel feed onstage. 

And... if that doesn't work, drop the vocal feed to stage. Body mics and onstage monitors really don't go together well. The reason you can get so much headroom during a rock show onstage is due to the rear rejection of the mics used. You don't have that with standard body mics. This is one reason you are starting to see more and more theatres switch to headsets like the Isomax and E6. 

Point blank, hot monitors and head worn mics are usually the worst idea of all time. Handheld mics are bad enough. One thing or another is going to have to give, and without buying new mics, your kind of stuck.


----------



## Subby (Nov 2, 2011)

Let me tell you how I approach EQing and ringing out the system.

I start with all graphic EQ's leveled out in the middle positions. I work on monitor placement and aiming, but I am limited as to where I can put things. The monitors in this case are placed along the downstage edge of the stage and aimed upstage. They are spaced and aimed such that when I play my CD that I use for testing (because I know what its suppose to sound like) the sound is even and uniform as possible across as much of the area that I am trying to cover. Since the players move about the stage, the more uniform things across the space are the better. I adjust the equalizers by ear to get the sound from the CD to where I like it, to see if there are obvious dips or peaks in the monitors' sound.

Next, I add the mics in and start the ringing out process. I do not have access to the actors, so the best I can do is tape the mic elements to a mic stand at the appropriate heights, making sure that the mic elements protrude at least an inch or two from the mic stand, and usually as close to the monitor as reasonable. One question is, should I place all the mics together or spread them out across the stage? I think putting them together is best since then the sound into the mics will in phase with each other as much as possible so they add constructively and give the maximum gain amounts, whereas if I place them around the stage I fear I would get some phase cancelation at certain frequencies, masking a potential peak in the response. If time permits, after I get done ringing out with the mics at a common location, I'll move them all to another location and ring that out, then another, then I may split them up across the stage at the last step, but there is usually not time for this.

I then repeat this procedure for the FOH system, using multiple mic placements. And then I will turn on both systems and repeat the ringing out to catch any additional peaks that turn up due to the two systems interacting with each other.

One thing I like to do for each graphic EQ is record the levels of each of the faders for each mic location and then look at their average and standard deviations to help determine the best EQ levels to cover the space.

In addition to using the dBx graphic EQ's, I also have Behringer FBQ2496 feedback destroyers in series with the dBx's. I don't really use these as feedback destroyers, rather they provide me 20 fully parametric filters that can have very high Q's to use for narrowband ringing points. They also help me identify frequencies when my ear is having trouble. They also let me know when I have the room tuned well because the handful of filters that I leave setup as automatic FBD filters will not fire when things are dialed in.

This is the procedure I use. Comments? What steps do you go thru? Please be as explicit as possible and, if you could, comment as to why you do certain steps. That's what I'm interested in.

Thanks
Subby


----------



## Footer (Nov 2, 2011)

Subby said:


> Let me tell you how I approach EQing and ringing out the system.
> 
> I start with all graphic EQ's leveled out in the middle positions. I work on monitor placement and aiming, but I am limited as to where I can put things. The monitors in this case are placed along the downstage edge of the stage and aimed upstage. They are spaced and aimed such that when I play my CD that I use for testing (because I know what its suppose to sound like) the sound is even and uniform as possible across as much of the area that I am trying to cover. Since the players move about the stage, the more uniform things across the space are the better. I adjust the equalizers by ear to get the sound from the CD to where I like it, to see if there are obvious dips or peaks in the monitors' sound.
> 
> ...


 
Where are you making the cuts, on the graph, on the console, or both? I have not done wireless audio for a muscial in awhile, but when I did I just used one mic onstage and made cuts with that. 

I would first forget EQing to your CD onstage. Keep it flat and dry and make cuts where you need to get headroom. 

Finally, get rid of the feedback destroyer. They are more trouble then they are worth. It essentially makes a guessing game the entire show. Also, after you make cuts in your EQ and the feedback destroyer takes over, you have little to nothing left. If you must use it, I would only run it on the monitor mixes.


----------



## DuckJordan (Nov 2, 2011)

You didn't read his post well footer he isn't using the feedback extermination option on the equipment.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Footer (Nov 2, 2011)

DuckJordan said:


> You didn't read his post well footer he isn't using the feedback extermination option on the equipment.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


 
Ok. Thanks.


----------



## TassieBogan (Nov 2, 2011)

Footer said:


> Body mics and onstage monitors really don't go together well. The reason you can get so much headroom during a rock show onstage is due to the rear rejection of the mics used. You don't have that with standard body mics. This is one reason you are starting to see more and more theatres switch to headsets like the Isomax and E6.
> 
> Point blank, hot monitors and head worn mics are usually the worst idea of all time. Handheld mics are bad enough. One thing or another is going to have to give, and without buying new mics, your kind of stuck.



Seconded.

Without a cardioid style mic or a dedicated monitors board you're probably going to find it's like pushing excrement up an inclined plane. 

Incidentally if i'm doing monitors from FOH with outboard EQ's it's a lot easier to just unpatch the graphics, carry them down to stage and re-patch them at the other end of the line send. Saves a lot of time hoofing it up and down the isles.


----------



## museav (Nov 2, 2011)

Many of the feedback destroyer devices allow you to define the filters as fixed/manual or automatic and when in manual mode and used as a multi-band parametric EQ they can be a very useful tool. In fact, the ability some units have to run them in automatic mode to assign the filters and then switch those filters to being fixed once assigned can be very helpful for those who want some of the advantages of a parametric equalizer but don't have the knowledge or tools to properly set one on their own.

One thing I question in the process is starting it with getting a CD to sound good on stage. Is the primary goal really to have it sound good on stage? Or is it to hear certain aspects on stage or sound good in the audience? Since both the monitors and the microphones will likely be less directional at lower frequencies, the more you can limit low frequency content the better. That may mean both high pass/low cut filters being engaged on the mixer for the microphone channels and limiting the low frequency content to the monitor speakers. The 01V96 does not have a dedicated high pass filter but you can assign the first band of the four band EQ as a variable frequency high pass filter. And using Footer's trick of split inputs, you could even have different high pass settings for house and monitor feeds.

It can be rather surprising how much being against a chest or under a hat brim or any of a number of conditions can affect the response and directionality of a microphone. Realistically, it is physics at play and you really need to have some time with the actors in costume on the stage with all the sets and props in place to be able to optimize the system settings.

While it is great that you are considering the effect of NOM or the Number of Open Microphones and how it affects the resulting combined level, also consider that microphones in different locations will have different interactions with the space as well. For example, maybe there is a reflection off a side wall, balcony front or set piece that affects some locations on stage. A person turning toward a set piece or holding a book in front of them while speaking or singing could create a situation that is not reflected (sorry, unintended pun) by having all the mics center stage pointing in one direction.

Thinking about the average EQ settings puts you way ahead on many people. At the same time, averaging may not be the best approach. If one location requires a significant cut then that cut is required due to that condition regardless of what you find at other locations, if you average it back out you are simply reducing the potential gain before feedback if someone may be at that location. A simple example, if one location requires a 10dB cut and four other locations require no cut the average is 2dB, however that would be an 8dB loss in potential gain before feedback of someone might be at the one problematic location. This is one of the challenges of using equalization, rather than device locations, device patterns, acoustical treatment, etc. to address gain before feedback as addressing all the potential situations can readily become a matter of making readily audible changes in order to get a significant improvement. Footer's suggestion to split the inputs is one way to apply more extreme equalization of individual inputs for the monitor sends without as severely affecting the house sound (and vice versa).


----------



## TimmyP1955 (Nov 3, 2011)

No actor foldback. If they can't hear each other (or themselves), turn the music down, or teach them to project.


----------



## Ric (Nov 3, 2011)

Are you looking at what may be the real problem(s)?

Is this a live band on stage, in a pit ?
Perhaps the band are just too loud, and everyone singing is struggling to hear themselves live. *If so turn them down!*

Ringing out monitors would be ok, IF there was fixed mic in that position, but with headset mics, you have no real chance of reducing feedback that way. The mics are generally high gain, and usually omni directional, and of course your performers roam all over the stage, changing their distance from the foldback speakers. Each mic on each perfomer will affect the tone/eq balance , and you can't ring out for that. 

Ringing out the FOH ...never ! That needs to be set for the best quality sound overall in the room, not have the guts taken out of it to stop feedback.

Why are you getting feedback in the FOH system anyway? Are your speakers badly positioned so that the performers are under or in front of them?

I suggest that you get your perfomers on stage for a mic soundcheck, one at a time. Adjust their tones via each desk channel on their mics with NO foldback, such that they work well and sound good from FOH. If there is feedback at this stage you have a postioning issue i.e performers are too close to the FOH system, or are trying to make the FOH volume too loud for the type of mic you're using, or the performers are just singing/speaking too **** quiet !

If there's no feedback at this stage, then you know where the problem is; human volumes. Adjust band levels to get a working balance on stage, ideally the perfomers should be able to hear themselves sing with out ANY vocal foldback. If the band are so loud that you feel you need it, then give the bare minimum to get the job done. 

The type of mic you're using will pick up everything, and the standard rule applies; loudest sound to the microphone wins. if it's loud onstage the head mics will just pick it up, and you're then boosting that through the system. 

If it's too loud on stage, and then you keep pushing up the FOH volume to compensate i.e try and 'get over' the stage volume, you are creating the FOH feedback, not solving the real issue.

It may sound like a hard task, but turning things down onstage is the best way to be able to turn it up in the house!


----------



## Subby (Nov 11, 2011)

All, 
Thanks for the discussion, things are going better.

While adjusting the equalization for each performer, I was getting some high frequency (~8kHz and above) despite having these frequencies heavily attenuated with the onboard digital LPF's. However, when I reset and started again, the issue went away. I suspect I hit a problem in that I may have 'over equalized' or tried to get too much out of the onboard equalizers. Has anyone else had issues with digital board equalizers producing unwanted frequency remnants when trying to get too much out of them?

I am now working on spreading the EQing out across the individual channel EQ's, the mix EQ's, and the outboard graphic EQ's.

Subby


----------



## museav (Nov 11, 2011)

Subby said:


> While adjusting the equalization for each performer, I was getting some high frequency (~8kHz and above) despite having these frequencies heavily attenuated with the onboard digital LPF's. However, when I reset and started again, the issue went away. I suspect I hit a problem in that I may have 'over equalized' or tried to get too much out of the onboard equalizers. Has anyone else had issues with digital board equalizers producing unwanted frequency remnants when trying to get too much out of them?


By reset do you mean a complete reset of the mixer? If so that makes me wonder if something might have been routed pre-EQ such that the channel EQ did not affect it.

In general, that is one of the areas I see as both a benefit and a potential negative with many digital consoles as where processing is inserted and signals are derived is quite flexible on many digital consoles, the potential benefit, but those selections may not be readily apparent to the operator, the potential negative.


Subby said:


> I am now working on spreading the EQing out across the individual channel EQ's, the mix EQ's, and the outboard graphic EQ's.


I find it best on that to always consider what you are trying to do and whether an adjustment you are making really applies to a single channel, a bus or the overall output, then make that adjustment at the right point.


----------



## envoy (Oct 5, 2012)

*Ringing out a sound system by yourself.*

]Note by Mod.: Not a necropost! This post moved here from another location. Thanks.[

Hello Everyone,

Is there an effective way to equalize (ring-out) a small sound system?

The economy is forcing me to do more jobs alone and equalizing a headtable comprised of (3) wireless table microphones, Podium mic and a lav -is nerve racking. I hate having to run back and forth trying to top feedback as I adjust the levels.

The tech table is usually located midway or in the back. Has anyone found a solution to this?

Thank you in advance.


E.


----------

