Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » third-octave vs. parametric EQ

   
Author Topic: third-octave vs. parametric EQ
Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-30-2008 07:48 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Why is it that most (all?) cinema processors use third-octive equalization for the stage channels? Wouldn't parametric equalization be more useful for working around room issues?

Is this just some historical artifact due to the measurement capabilities that existed in the 1970s when Dolby first started to work on cinema sound, or is there some reason why third-octave is still better or more useful today?

And why don't all processors have a simple "EQ bypass" switch for those who prefer to use external processing or equalization?

(Apologies if this is a stupid question; my B-chain experience is limited and I've never set up a "good" modern-style room. Maybe EQ is less necessary in a well-designed house.)

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-30-2008 08:19 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A couple of processors did use parametric eq., Eprad was one. If you have bad room issues that would solely require parametric to be able to "work around" then you should really tending to the room problem itself instead.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 06-30-2008 10:22 AM      Profile for Sam D. Chavez   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Good questions. You are right that it was built around technology of the time.

It still works pretty well and the filters are pretty gentle so you can't muck up the sound too much unless you are ham fisted.

The way to look at a Cat. No. 64 or other Octave based EQ device, is like the keys on a Piano. If you bang on all 27 keys at once you get a pretty horrific sound. If you play the Piano with some aptitude, you can get a an incredible sound.

Likewise 1/3 Octave EQ

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Minichino
Master Film Handler

Posts: 350
From: Haskell, NJ, USA
Registered: Dec 2005


 - posted 06-30-2008 10:42 AM      Profile for Robert Minichino   Author's Homepage   Email Robert Minichino   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Parametric EQs have been around for a long time. Third-octave EQs are a bit more intuitive to adjust than paras, especially if you're touching up the response by ear.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 06-30-2008 10:42 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Parametrics are certainly a superior way to EQ a room. Certainly and ideal room needs no EQ and that is the best way to be.

1/3-Octave remains primarily due to the level of techs out there setting up the processors. It is a 1:1 relationship between their measurement device (RTA) and the EQ pot. Parametrics would just confuse them...as they seem to do on the subwoofer where Dolby did use a single parametric (and Sony used two bands of parametric). The whole concept of frequency, Q, and Amplitude and how they interract seems to escape many.

You can generally do more with a mere 5 bands of parametric than 30-bands of graphic and cause less harm doing it!

As for bypassing EQ...Panastereo certainly offered it (in fact, each card has a bypass switch in addition to the global System Bypass). In the DSP world, some processors offer EQ bypass.

Please note...not all graphic EQs are the same. Some use variable Q (most) and some use constant-Q (good cinema processors use this type). The problem with variable Q graphics is that they often affect adjacent bands as the desired band is adjusted. Having an analyzer with greater resolution than the EQ will allow one to see just what they are doing to the signal. Too often I think techs are comforted to see their ruler-flat displays when in fact, they have a heavily over-eqed channel with much phase shifting and far less flat than their display indicates.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 06-30-2008 10:55 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When I first started out, we used Pultec parametrics in the recording studio. I thought they were the cat's meow. When I first encountered "graphic" equalizers, I though they were just a poor man's parametric and I wasn't impressed. When our CP50 was installed, I quickly found that 1/3rd octaves could be a bit more flexible for whole room eq and the "graphic" nature lends itself to more easily match the waveform anomolies displayed on an RTA.

And as Sam says, if you go about eqing with a gentle hand, GOOD 1/3rd octaves can be very effective. But of course all depends on the quality of the filters, how gently they overlap and what interaction they have with their adjacent controls. We've worked with some cheap 1/3rd octave units which interacted wildly between nodes and introduced harmonic distortions that were worse than any room anomolies. Gotta get the good stuff.

We now eq everything digitally as well as all channel configurations via SoundWeb Digital. It has different configurations for film vs. live vs. simple PA, as well as different eqs for audience size. The CProcessor eqs are flat.

Like Scott, I think it would be nice to be able to take the eq completely out of the CP circuit when using outboard eq. Zero-ing out the eq section can never be the same as bypassing it.

 |  IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005


 - posted 06-30-2008 11:39 AM      Profile for Louis Bornwasser   Author's Homepage   Email Louis Bornwasser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To the contrary; the Dolby EQ is subtractive; set them all at zero and nothing subtracts. Such is the mark of the side-chain design; minimum distortion.

btw: I think the in/out level,of the cat 64 is the same, so if would be possible to remove the cards and jumper around them. Louis

 |  IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 06-30-2008 02:22 PM      Profile for Sam D. Chavez   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I built a custom Cat. 64 holder with just such a bypass feature, mainly to see what the last tech was trying to "cure", before deciding whether to start all over or leave it mostly alone.

Louis is mostly correct. The Dolby Cat. No. 64 design is side chain, but it is not strictly subtractive.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 06-30-2008 06:12 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Could somebody please explain "Q"? I never truly understood that so I rarely touch it, especially since it is only on the subwoofer. I did a Google search for Q but I don't have time to sift through over 2 billion results.

 |  IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 06-30-2008 06:24 PM      Profile for John Hawkinson   Email John Hawkinson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Q is just the sharpness of the notch. How wide it is (how much of the frequency space it covers). It stands for "Quality factor" in signal processing.

--jhawk

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 06-30-2008 06:27 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, so if Q stands for Quality, I want to run around and turn the Q all the way up to the highest possible level on all my processors, right? If anyone complains, I'll tell 'em Jhawk told me to do it. [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 06-30-2008 07:47 PM      Profile for Sam D. Chavez   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
First part of the Q explanation was on the money. He must have taken a toke before the second sentence. Please forgive me, I just got back from Amsterdam.

Maximum Q = narrowest notch in this application. There is an explanation in the various Dolby manuals.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 06-30-2008 10:13 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Frank...your CSP-1200, if installed, has bypass switches on the back for each and every EQ (including subs and surrounds).

As for the Cat 64 as used on cinema processors does NOT have the same input/output levels...they are close though. 170mV input....150mV output...probably not enough to get worried over.

If you have any Cat 105s laying around (not the 105D...just the old 105), then you can plug them in place of the Cat 64 for bypass.

If you are interested in learning about "Q" or other audio aspects of equalization...I suggest giving the www.rane.com site a check. Look for "Rane Notes." There are many papers on all aspects of audio and they are generally quite good. You will find though, any discussion on Q is going to get somewhat math heavy though calculating the Q of a filter is not terribly complicated.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.