that and we use the new KORN cd, the bass output is so high and crisp that you dont have a choice but to eq the thing correctly.

 |  IP: Logged

The R-2 has provided me with the best and most consistant results. I also use my Ivie PC-40 if I'm in a hurry but I try to avoid that. I usually use the Ivie for "A" chains cause I like the display better than the R-2 for this use. I always thought THX should have included a slower setting for this.
I've used about all the analyzers out there at one time or another from the old Altec(cool unit!)to a Klark Teknik to an IE-30, a Gold line, and some in between.

 |  IP: Logged

R2 (4-mic plex) and
Abacus ARTA-600 (single mic and plex).

The Abacus is a scope attachement and among other things, has the BEST ballistics of any analyzer I have ever used or seen. Furthermore, it simultaneously displays X-Y and RTA on the scope for the easiest A-chain set up of any system.

The most consistant B-chain results are with the R2, no question. In our THX theatres (I am an authorized THX recertification engineer) the check ups show that the EQ doesn't change from year to year, thereby killing the "inconsistant" results claimed by the people that don't believe in the prevailing B-chain tuning process.

Good results can be had with single mic systems though but it requires a better technician and one that knows his/her equipment. Remember, the analyzer isn't perfect and it's display has tolerence and even more importantly, the microphone(s) have their own response that is often far from flat! If you don't know the response of your mics, then you really are just fooling yourself into believing your display. One nice thing about the R2 system, is that the mics have offset files that are referenced to a calibrated microphone at Lucasfilm (that is checked regularly) to ensure consistant responses (this also allows us to check our other microphones).

I do measure both near field and far field. One can't exclude either since BOTH are important in film. Speech is not well simulated with a constant pink noise source whereas sustained sounds from music and effects are.

I think everyone has their own favorite mic placements (and direction) and mine is a product of my own experiences (yours may vary).

I do recommend walking the room with pink noise playing and listen to what your mic(s) are going to be telling you. Your ears should quide you as to where to place the mic(s) in the various areas of the room.

After tuning a room, listen to your results with a known sample of film (one that you have heard many times before and in different situations) in addition to other program material. Too many technicians tune just with their eyes (ie looking at the magical analyzer and believing everything it tells you). You should listen to your work and understand why it sounds the way it does (good or bad).

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

It has to do with what you are measuring, how you are measuring it and what environment you are measuring it in.

That is, you are measuring "pink noise", it is being left on such that it is in a steady state and is "built up" and the room you are measuring has some degree of reflections so that the frequencies will obey the laws of superposition and add/subtract. The high-frequencies, in particular will bounce around and by the time they reach your mic(s) have added up to a lower value than if you just measured the initial direct signal. As such, if you set your analyzer's display to "FLAT" you would find the room sounded increadably bright. The roll-off as defined by ISO-2969 and ANSI/SMPTE 202M is actually a real world approximation of what is needed. It is not correct for every room (or most for that matter). If you have a dead room (particularly small screening rooms) the roll off will be much less whereas for caverns the roll off will need to be more so.

Remember, most sounds in film are not like pink noise in nature, they are short, time wise and won't "build up" in the room like pink noise will.

Another thing to remember is that typical analog equalizers while can correct (equalize) level problems across the audio spectrum, they, by the time dependant nature of capacitive circuits, will introduce time-related problems that show up as phase inconsistancies. In short, DON'T OVER EQ. If possible, fix the room and speakers and don't EQ at all (normally not an option), having to EQ (on a frequency, by frequency basis) is an admission of failure or accomodation.

Steve

by getting somebody to play the same notes on the organ, and then duplicating the eq settings accordingly. The pipe organ pretty much puts out the same volume for all the notes, and is a warm and pleasing sound that most people enjoy...why not tune the sound to it!

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged