spectrum analyzer- tuning room

[Hev]

Hello All

I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of Event
Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my PC,
but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).

Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.

I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.
And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
spectrum analyzer
31-band eq

You insight is, as always, much appreciated.

-hevusa
www.ROBOTmichaelDEATHspringer.com <---find me here

[hank alrich]

Hev wrote:

> I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of Event
> Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my PC,
> but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).

> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.

> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.
> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

> Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> spectrum analyzer
> 31-band eq

> You insight is, as always, much appreciated.

Putting myself potentially at risk of being excommunicated from The
Church of the Devine Backbeat, I humbly suggest you look over the
Behringer DEQ2496, which can be had for less than $350, includes a
"graphic" EQ, a parametric EQ, a dynamic EQ, feedback suppression both
settable and forgettable (auto <g>) and a functional 31-band RTA, and
some other stuff, too, (I think, but therefore could be wrong).

I recently installed three of these and was quite pleased. I am about to
spec one for a new church system in the nearest town, and will be
getting one to experiment with for my own uses shortly.

It's quite a lot of bangaroo for what's left of the dollar.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Hev wrote:

> I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of Event
> Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my PC,
> but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).

> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.

> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.
> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

> Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> spectrum analyzer
> 31-band eq

> You insight is, as always, much appreciated.

Putting myself potentially at risk of being excommunicated from The
Church of the Devine Backbeat, I humbly suggest you look over the
Behringer DEQ2496, which can be had for less than $350, includes a
"graphic" EQ, a parametric EQ, a dynamic EQ, feedback suppression both
settable and forgettable (auto <g>) and a functional 31-band RTA, and
some other stuff, too, (I think, but therefore could be wrong).

I recently installed three of these and was quite pleased. I am about to
spec one for a new church system in the nearest town, and will be
getting one to experiment with for my own uses shortly.

It's quite a lot of bangaroo for what's left of the dollar.

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

"Hev" > wrote in message

> Hello All
>
> I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home
> project studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got
> a set of Event Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for
> audio I/O into my PC, but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon
> (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
> visual. I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware
> versus software.

The *classic* high end solutions for room-tuning software include Spectra
Lab, Smaart, and ETF, not to mention Pure Bits.

If you search with Google with the words: room analysis software audio , you
will find plenty of options.

> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

Not at all. Having gone both routes many times, I can also see a lot of
romance to parametric equalization of rooms and speakers.

Graphic eq is conceptually easier to get initially, but parametric eq is
more flexible.

Since someone else already mentioned B*hr*hg*r, let me add the following
model number: PEQ 2200.

[Arny Krueger]

"Hev" > wrote in message

> Hello All
>
> I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home
> project studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got
> a set of Event Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for
> audio I/O into my PC, but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon
> (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
> visual. I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware
> versus software.

The *classic* high end solutions for room-tuning software include Spectra
Lab, Smaart, and ETF, not to mention Pure Bits.

If you search with Google with the words: room analysis software audio , you
will find plenty of options.

> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

Not at all. Having gone both routes many times, I can also see a lot of
romance to parametric equalization of rooms and speakers.

Graphic eq is conceptually easier to get initially, but parametric eq is
more flexible.

Since someone else already mentioned B*hr*hg*r, let me add the following
model number: PEQ 2200.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:30:14 -0400, "Hev"
> wrote:

>Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.

>31-band eq

This comes up fairly often on this newsgroup, and the answers
tend towards the complex and subtle. You'd be well served by
starting with a good Google search on topics like room
equalization and room modes.

The reason I've responded this way is that the questions are
more important than the answers in this case, maybe even more
than in most.

Good hunting,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:30:14 -0400, "Hev"
> wrote:

>Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.

>31-band eq

This comes up fairly often on this newsgroup, and the answers
tend towards the complex and subtle. You'd be well served by
starting with a good Google search on topics like room
equalization and room modes.

The reason I've responded this way is that the questions are
more important than the answers in this case, maybe even more
than in most.

Good hunting,

Chris Hornbeck

[EganMedia]

>This comes up fairly often on this newsgroup, and the answers
>tend towards the complex and subtle.

This group is a lot of things. Complex and subtle we aren't.

Nevertheless, to address the OP's concerns:

31 band graphics can be used to help flatten a monitor's small bumps and dips.
They aren't so great at treating the radical plots of an untreated or poorly
treated room. A parametric EQ can be set to more closely match the bandwidth
of offending room anomolies. Just be aware that treating a room with EQ rather
than acoustical treatment most often leads to corrupted audio playback in an
already corrupted room. If you "fix" the room's sound at the mix postion by
adding EQ, you have most likely distorted it further in other parts of the
room.

An RTA is great for finding the room's problems. Trapping and diffusion are
best for correcting those problems.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[EganMedia]

>This comes up fairly often on this newsgroup, and the answers
>tend towards the complex and subtle.

This group is a lot of things. Complex and subtle we aren't.

Nevertheless, to address the OP's concerns:

31 band graphics can be used to help flatten a monitor's small bumps and dips.
They aren't so great at treating the radical plots of an untreated or poorly
treated room. A parametric EQ can be set to more closely match the bandwidth
of offending room anomolies. Just be aware that treating a room with EQ rather
than acoustical treatment most often leads to corrupted audio playback in an
already corrupted room. If you "fix" the room's sound at the mix postion by
adding EQ, you have most likely distorted it further in other parts of the
room.

An RTA is great for finding the room's problems. Trapping and diffusion are
best for correcting those problems.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Hev > wrote:
>
>I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
>studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of Event
>Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my PC,
>but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
>
>Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
>I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
>frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
>I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.

A spectrum analyzer won't tell you anything that you can't also get with
a sweep tone and your ears. A sound level meter helps, but is not essential.

The problem with the spectrum analyzer is also that most of them have very
wide bands. A modern FFT analyzer can be very useful because you can look
at narrow bands, but at low frequencies it can take forever to get a good
sample. Much easier just to use a sweep tone and listen.

>And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

No, equalizing out room problems is misguided and does not tune the room, it
just hides some of the problems. Tuning a room involves actually changing
the room configuration to fix the problems, not trying to hide the problems
with some cheesy electronics.

I suggest looking at the F. Alton Everest book on small studio acoustics
before doing anything at all.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Hev > wrote:
>
>I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
>studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of Event
>Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my PC,
>but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
>
>Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
>I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
>frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
>I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.

A spectrum analyzer won't tell you anything that you can't also get with
a sweep tone and your ears. A sound level meter helps, but is not essential.

The problem with the spectrum analyzer is also that most of them have very
wide bands. A modern FFT analyzer can be very useful because you can look
at narrow bands, but at low frequencies it can take forever to get a good
sample. Much easier just to use a sweep tone and listen.

>And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

No, equalizing out room problems is misguided and does not tune the room, it
just hides some of the problems. Tuning a room involves actually changing
the room configuration to fix the problems, not trying to hide the problems
with some cheesy electronics.

I suggest looking at the F. Alton Everest book on small studio acoustics
before doing anything at all.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Hev]

"EganMedia" > wrote in message
...
> >This comes up fairly often on this newsgroup, and the answers
>>tend towards the complex and subtle.
>
> This group is a lot of things. Complex and subtle we aren't.
>
> Nevertheless, to address the OP's concerns:
>
> 31 band graphics can be used to help flatten a monitor's small bumps and
> dips.
> They aren't so great at treating the radical plots of an untreated or
> poorly
> treated room. A parametric EQ can be set to more closely match the
> bandwidth
> of offending room anomolies. Just be aware that treating a room with EQ
> rather
> than acoustical treatment most often leads to corrupted audio playback in
> an
> already corrupted room. If you "fix" the room's sound at the mix postion
> by
> adding EQ, you have most likely distorted it further in other parts of the
> room.
>
> An RTA is great for finding the room's problems. Trapping and diffusion
> are
> best for correcting those problems.
>
>
> Joe Egan
> EMP
> Colchester, VT
> www.eganmedia.com

I did run across some RTA's while doing research. Joe, do you have a
specific model that you like? Or anyone else for that matter.


--

-Hev
find me here -->
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Hev]

"EganMedia" > wrote in message
...
> >This comes up fairly often on this newsgroup, and the answers
>>tend towards the complex and subtle.
>
> This group is a lot of things. Complex and subtle we aren't.
>
> Nevertheless, to address the OP's concerns:
>
> 31 band graphics can be used to help flatten a monitor's small bumps and
> dips.
> They aren't so great at treating the radical plots of an untreated or
> poorly
> treated room. A parametric EQ can be set to more closely match the
> bandwidth
> of offending room anomolies. Just be aware that treating a room with EQ
> rather
> than acoustical treatment most often leads to corrupted audio playback in
> an
> already corrupted room. If you "fix" the room's sound at the mix postion
> by
> adding EQ, you have most likely distorted it further in other parts of the
> room.
>
> An RTA is great for finding the room's problems. Trapping and diffusion
> are
> best for correcting those problems.
>
>
> Joe Egan
> EMP
> Colchester, VT
> www.eganmedia.com

I did run across some RTA's while doing research. Joe, do you have a
specific model that you like? Or anyone else for that matter.


--

-Hev
find me here -->
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.

Hardware. A tape measure will help you to find the main nodes just
from the dimensions of the room. It's as good a place to start as
you'll get with a spectrum analyzer. And by measuring the room, you'll
get a better sense of how to treat it to get rid of the worst
problems.

> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

No, but it's probably the worst way to tune a room. It's not bad for
correcting deficiences in a loudspeaker such as a boom from a port or
peak or dip in the crossover region, but an equalizer will do very
little in terms of tuning a room.

This has been explained here dozens of times (and will probably be
again as a result of your question).




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.

Hardware. A tape measure will help you to find the main nodes just
from the dimensions of the room. It's as good a place to start as
you'll get with a spectrum analyzer. And by measuring the room, you'll
get a better sense of how to treat it to get rid of the worst
problems.

> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?

No, but it's probably the worst way to tune a room. It's not bad for
correcting deficiences in a loudspeaker such as a boom from a port or
peak or dip in the crossover region, but an equalizer will do very
little in terms of tuning a room.

This has been explained here dozens of times (and will probably be
again as a result of your question).




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Bob Smith]

"Hev" > wrote:

> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.
> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> spectrum analyzer
> 31-band eq
>
> You insight is, as always, much appreciated.

EQ is not the best way to tune a room. Rooms have modes, reflections,
diffusions, resonances and a lot of other properties based on construction
details. These properties may vary wildly as you move about the room. To
learn more visit Ethan Winer's excellent site:

http://www.realtraps.com

Look for the Acoustic Info tab and read everything you find.

A reasonable way to experiment and learn a lot for not too much money; look
at ETF5 and a Behringer ECM8000 mic (if you don't already have an omni that
can be used for a measurement mic). Granted, results will be far more
accurate using something like an ACO Pacific 4012+7046 capsule but the
ECM8000 will work well enough.

http://www.acoustisoft.com

Now using the ETF5 program, a laptop, appropriate audio interface,
measurement mic, amplifier and speaker do the following:

On a clear day, no wind, no rain, very little residual ambient noise put
your speaker on a stand at least a couple of meters off the ground. Make
sure you have at least a two meter sphere of clearance (no objects of any
kind) around the speaker. Put the measurement mic 0.5 meter in front of the
speaker and measure the frequency response of the speaker following the
directions given by Acoustisoft. Those deviations from a flat response may
be candidates for EQ and the results MAY or MAY NOT improve the overall
perceived performance of the speaker.

Now take the same speaker and place it in it's normal position in the room.
Put the measurement mic at the listening position at ear level. Make another
measurement. Note how different the frequency response is from that one
measured in the pseudo free space. These deviations are caused by the room.
Move the measurement mic 0.25 meter in any direction and make yet another
measurement. Note again the frequency response and how it differs
considerably from the previous measurement. By now it should become apparent
that EQ might make some positive improvement at a single listening position
in the room. Moving the listening position by even a small amount and any
applied EQ is likely to make the frequency response worse.

Room construction and treatments are complex topics. Read F. Alton Everest's
books and Ethan Winer's articles. There are many more but these represent a
good start.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
http://www.bsstudios.com
we organize chaos

[Bob Smith]

"Hev" > wrote:

> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.
> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> spectrum analyzer
> 31-band eq
>
> You insight is, as always, much appreciated.

EQ is not the best way to tune a room. Rooms have modes, reflections,
diffusions, resonances and a lot of other properties based on construction
details. These properties may vary wildly as you move about the room. To
learn more visit Ethan Winer's excellent site:

http://www.realtraps.com

Look for the Acoustic Info tab and read everything you find.

A reasonable way to experiment and learn a lot for not too much money; look
at ETF5 and a Behringer ECM8000 mic (if you don't already have an omni that
can be used for a measurement mic). Granted, results will be far more
accurate using something like an ACO Pacific 4012+7046 capsule but the
ECM8000 will work well enough.

http://www.acoustisoft.com

Now using the ETF5 program, a laptop, appropriate audio interface,
measurement mic, amplifier and speaker do the following:

On a clear day, no wind, no rain, very little residual ambient noise put
your speaker on a stand at least a couple of meters off the ground. Make
sure you have at least a two meter sphere of clearance (no objects of any
kind) around the speaker. Put the measurement mic 0.5 meter in front of the
speaker and measure the frequency response of the speaker following the
directions given by Acoustisoft. Those deviations from a flat response may
be candidates for EQ and the results MAY or MAY NOT improve the overall
perceived performance of the speaker.

Now take the same speaker and place it in it's normal position in the room.
Put the measurement mic at the listening position at ear level. Make another
measurement. Note how different the frequency response is from that one
measured in the pseudo free space. These deviations are caused by the room.
Move the measurement mic 0.25 meter in any direction and make yet another
measurement. Note again the frequency response and how it differs
considerably from the previous measurement. By now it should become apparent
that EQ might make some positive improvement at a single listening position
in the room. Moving the listening position by even a small amount and any
applied EQ is likely to make the frequency response worse.

Room construction and treatments are complex topics. Read F. Alton Everest's
books and Ethan Winer's articles. There are many more but these represent a
good start.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
http://www.bsstudios.com
we organize chaos

[Hev]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1095854222k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> > frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> > I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus
software.
>
> Hardware. A tape measure will help you to find the main nodes just
> from the dimensions of the room. It's as good a place to start as
> you'll get with a spectrum analyzer. And by measuring the room, you'll
> get a better sense of how to treat it to get rid of the worst
> problems.

Right. I've already collected the rooms dimensions (don't have them on me).
My mind is straining to remember all the information obtained from my
acoustics class in college, but I do remember the dimensions relating to the
nodes. I remember one class where the teacher played various low frequency
tones and made us walk through the room, observing the volume differences
that coincide with the nodes.

Wouldn't a spectrum anayzer be helpful in that it gives a visual while
mixing though? Do you use a visual of any sort while mixing?

> > And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> No, but it's probably the worst way to tune a room. It's not bad for
> correcting deficiences in a loudspeaker such as a boom from a port or
> peak or dip in the crossover region, but an equalizer will do very
> little in terms of tuning a room.
>
> This has been explained here dozens of times (and will probably be
> again as a result of your question).

I didn't realize it was that common of a question. I guess seeing the
graphic EQ's at live venues is where some of the confusion is created.

What actually lead me to ask the questions was during my research of sound
absorption products such as auralex. Sound absorption is the first method I
was going to try to treat the room but I thought the EQ could fine tune
things after the sound absorption was installed. Obviously the EQ is not the
way to go. From answers here it seems EQ would cause new problems and
probably adds unneeded noise to the signal chain.

I'm still unsure of what the most cost effective solution is to treating the
room with sound absorption products.

-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Hev]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1095854222k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> > frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> > I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus
software.
>
> Hardware. A tape measure will help you to find the main nodes just
> from the dimensions of the room. It's as good a place to start as
> you'll get with a spectrum analyzer. And by measuring the room, you'll
> get a better sense of how to treat it to get rid of the worst
> problems.

Right. I've already collected the rooms dimensions (don't have them on me).
My mind is straining to remember all the information obtained from my
acoustics class in college, but I do remember the dimensions relating to the
nodes. I remember one class where the teacher played various low frequency
tones and made us walk through the room, observing the volume differences
that coincide with the nodes.

Wouldn't a spectrum anayzer be helpful in that it gives a visual while
mixing though? Do you use a visual of any sort while mixing?

> > And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> No, but it's probably the worst way to tune a room. It's not bad for
> correcting deficiences in a loudspeaker such as a boom from a port or
> peak or dip in the crossover region, but an equalizer will do very
> little in terms of tuning a room.
>
> This has been explained here dozens of times (and will probably be
> again as a result of your question).

I didn't realize it was that common of a question. I guess seeing the
graphic EQ's at live venues is where some of the confusion is created.

What actually lead me to ask the questions was during my research of sound
absorption products such as auralex. Sound absorption is the first method I
was going to try to treat the room but I thought the EQ could fine tune
things after the sound absorption was installed. Obviously the EQ is not the
way to go. From answers here it seems EQ would cause new problems and
probably adds unneeded noise to the signal chain.

I'm still unsure of what the most cost effective solution is to treating the
room with sound absorption products.

-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <PZj4d.9873$464.3895@trnddc01>, Hev > wrote:
>
>I'm still unsure of what the most cost effective solution is to treating the
>room with sound absorption products.

That depends what kind of absorption you need and what frequencies are a
problem. And that's why you need to get the F. Alton Everest book.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <PZj4d.9873$464.3895@trnddc01>, Hev > wrote:
>
>I'm still unsure of what the most cost effective solution is to treating the
>room with sound absorption products.

That depends what kind of absorption you need and what frequencies are a
problem. And that's why you need to get the F. Alton Everest book.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Hev]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Hev wrote:
>
> > I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> > studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of
Event
> > Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my
PC,
> > but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire
maybe).
>
> > Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> > I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> > frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> > I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus
software.
> > And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> > Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> > spectrum analyzer
> > 31-band eq
>
> > You insight is, as always, much appreciated.
>
> Putting myself potentially at risk of being excommunicated from The
> Church of the Devine Backbeat, I humbly suggest you look over the
> Behringer DEQ2496, which can be had for less than $350, includes a
> "graphic" EQ, a parametric EQ, a dynamic EQ, feedback suppression both
> settable and forgettable (auto <g>) and a functional 31-band RTA, and
> some other stuff, too, (I think, but therefore could be wrong).
>
> I recently installed three of these and was quite pleased. I am about to
> spec one for a new church system in the nearest town, and will be
> getting one to experiment with for my own uses shortly.
>
> It's quite a lot of bangaroo for what's left of the dollar.

That Behringer model does indeed seem like a lot of bang for the buck. I
might not use it for this application but I could see myself using it for
other things in the future. Thanks Hank.

-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Hev]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Hev wrote:
>
> > I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> > studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of
Event
> > Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my
PC,
> > but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire
maybe).
>
> > Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> > I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> > frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> > I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus
software.
> > And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> > Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> > spectrum analyzer
> > 31-band eq
>
> > You insight is, as always, much appreciated.
>
> Putting myself potentially at risk of being excommunicated from The
> Church of the Devine Backbeat, I humbly suggest you look over the
> Behringer DEQ2496, which can be had for less than $350, includes a
> "graphic" EQ, a parametric EQ, a dynamic EQ, feedback suppression both
> settable and forgettable (auto <g>) and a functional 31-band RTA, and
> some other stuff, too, (I think, but therefore could be wrong).
>
> I recently installed three of these and was quite pleased. I am about to
> spec one for a new church system in the nearest town, and will be
> getting one to experiment with for my own uses shortly.
>
> It's quite a lot of bangaroo for what's left of the dollar.

That Behringer model does indeed seem like a lot of bang for the buck. I
might not use it for this application but I could see myself using it for
other things in the future. Thanks Hank.

-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Hev]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Hev" > wrote in message
>
> > Hello All
> >
> > I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home
> > project studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got
> > a set of Event Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for
> > audio I/O into my PC, but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon
> > (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
> > Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
> >
> > I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> > frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
> > visual. I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware
> > versus software.
>
> The *classic* high end solutions for room-tuning software include Spectra
> Lab, Smaart, and ETF, not to mention Pure Bits.
>
> If you search with Google with the words: room analysis software audio ,
you
> will find plenty of options.
>
> > And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> Not at all. Having gone both routes many times, I can also see a lot of
> romance to parametric equalization of rooms and speakers.
>
> Graphic eq is conceptually easier to get initially, but parametric eq is
> more flexible.
>
> Since someone else already mentioned B*hr*hg*r, let me add the following
> model number: PEQ 2200.

What??? Do you guys work for Behringer?
I actually did a bit of soldiering work for them when I was living in the
Seattle area.

Thanks for the suggestion.

--
-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Hev]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Hev" > wrote in message
>
> > Hello All
> >
> > I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home
> > project studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got
> > a set of Event Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for
> > audio I/O into my PC, but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon
> > (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
> > Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
> >
> > I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> > frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
> > visual. I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware
> > versus software.
>
> The *classic* high end solutions for room-tuning software include Spectra
> Lab, Smaart, and ETF, not to mention Pure Bits.
>
> If you search with Google with the words: room analysis software audio ,
you
> will find plenty of options.
>
> > And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> Not at all. Having gone both routes many times, I can also see a lot of
> romance to parametric equalization of rooms and speakers.
>
> Graphic eq is conceptually easier to get initially, but parametric eq is
> more flexible.
>
> Since someone else already mentioned B*hr*hg*r, let me add the following
> model number: PEQ 2200.

What??? Do you guys work for Behringer?
I actually did a bit of soldiering work for them when I was living in the
Seattle area.

Thanks for the suggestion.

--
-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Hev]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Hev > wrote:
> >
> >I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> >studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of
Event
> >Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my
PC,
> >but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
> >
> >Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
> >
> >I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> >frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> >I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus
software.
>
> A spectrum analyzer won't tell you anything that you can't also get with
> a sweep tone and your ears. A sound level meter helps, but is not
essential.
>
> The problem with the spectrum analyzer is also that most of them have very
> wide bands. A modern FFT analyzer can be very useful because you can look
> at narrow bands, but at low frequencies it can take forever to get a good
> sample. Much easier just to use a sweep tone and listen.

I see your point. I have never tried doing a sweep and listening for
anomalies. I should do that before and after treating the walls with sound
absorption for an A/B.

> >And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> No, equalizing out room problems is misguided and does not tune the room,
it
> just hides some of the problems. Tuning a room involves actually changing
> the room configuration to fix the problems, not trying to hide the
problems
> with some cheesy electronics.

Understood. I think I was misguided by seeing all the 31 band EQ's at live
venues.

> I suggest looking at the F. Alton Everest book on small studio acoustics
> before doing anything at all.

Did an Amazon.com search and got a bunch of titles. Can you narrow it down
to a title that would best suit my needs?

Thanks for your reply.
--
-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Hev]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Hev > wrote:
> >
> >I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> >studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of
Event
> >Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my
PC,
> >but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
> >
> >Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
> >
> >I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> >frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a
visual.
> >I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus
software.
>
> A spectrum analyzer won't tell you anything that you can't also get with
> a sweep tone and your ears. A sound level meter helps, but is not
essential.
>
> The problem with the spectrum analyzer is also that most of them have very
> wide bands. A modern FFT analyzer can be very useful because you can look
> at narrow bands, but at low frequencies it can take forever to get a good
> sample. Much easier just to use a sweep tone and listen.

I see your point. I have never tried doing a sweep and listening for
anomalies. I should do that before and after treating the walls with sound
absorption for an A/B.

> >And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> No, equalizing out room problems is misguided and does not tune the room,
it
> just hides some of the problems. Tuning a room involves actually changing
> the room configuration to fix the problems, not trying to hide the
problems
> with some cheesy electronics.

Understood. I think I was misguided by seeing all the 31 band EQ's at live
venues.

> I suggest looking at the F. Alton Everest book on small studio acoustics
> before doing anything at all.

Did an Amazon.com search and got a bunch of titles. Can you narrow it down
to a title that would best suit my needs?

Thanks for your reply.
--
-Hev
Find Me Here:
www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:59:27 GMT, "Hev" > wrote:

>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> I suggest looking at the F. Alton Everest book on small studio acoustics
>> before doing anything at all.
>
>Did an Amazon.com search and got a bunch of titles. Can you narrow it down
>to a title that would best suit my needs?

"Sound Studio Construction on a Budget", 1997, is a good start.
Then his earlier "Master Handbook of Acoustics". Both are very
readable. Measure twice, cut once.

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:59:27 GMT, "Hev" > wrote:

>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> I suggest looking at the F. Alton Everest book on small studio acoustics
>> before doing anything at all.
>
>Did an Amazon.com search and got a bunch of titles. Can you narrow it down
>to a title that would best suit my needs?

"Sound Studio Construction on a Budget", 1997, is a good start.
Then his earlier "Master Handbook of Acoustics". Both are very
readable. Measure twice, cut once.

Chris Hornbeck

[Deaf Mellon MESA]

"Hev" > wrote in message >...
> Hello All
>
> I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of Event
> Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my PC,
> but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
>
> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.
> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> spectrum analyzer
> 31-band eq
>
> You insight is, as always, much appreciated.
>
> -hevusa
> www.ROBOTmichaelDEATHspringer.com <---find me here

I would look at acoustic treatments, bass traps, room configuration,
and the like before spending on hardware. Realtraps
http://www.realtraps.com/ is a good place to begin. Talk to Ethan at
Realtraps. I bought some of his Mini-Traps, they work great!!

DaveT

[Deaf Mellon MESA]

"Hev" > wrote in message >...
> Hello All
>
> I've finally thrown out enough junk in the den to set up my home project
> studio. I've been collecting gear for a while and finally got a set of Event
> Precision 8's. I love em'. I use an aardvark Q10 for audio I/O into my PC,
> but I'm probably looking to upgrade soon (Tascam DM-24 w/firewire maybe).
>
> Anyway, to my real question: tuning the room.
>
> I'm thinking of getting a spectrum analyzer to help find the rough
> frequencies in the room and to help my mixes perhaps by giving me a visual.
> I need suggestions here... what are the options? Hardware versus software.
> And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> Is there an RNC kind of answer to the following:
> spectrum analyzer
> 31-band eq
>
> You insight is, as always, much appreciated.
>
> -hevusa
> www.ROBOTmichaelDEATHspringer.com <---find me here

I would look at acoustic treatments, bass traps, room configuration,
and the like before spending on hardware. Realtraps
http://www.realtraps.com/ is a good place to begin. Talk to Ethan at
Realtraps. I bought some of his Mini-Traps, they work great!!

DaveT

[Mike Rivers]

In article <PZj4d.9873$464.3895@trnddc01> writes:

> Right. I've already collected the rooms dimensions (don't have them on me).
> My mind is straining to remember all the information obtained from my
> acoustics class in college

There's a spreadsheet-like calculator on Ethan Winer's web site. Plug
your room dimensions into it and you'll see where the modes are.
Frequencies that are widely spaced are usually not things you need to
worry about, when there are a number clustered near one frequency,
that's a frequency where nasty stuff will build up. You need to figure
out where to put absorbers to kill some of that buildup.

> Wouldn't a spectrum anayzer be helpful in that it gives a visual while
> mixing though? Do you use a visual of any sort while mixing?

Some people like to use that as a check, but it's really all about
what you hear. If your ears and your eyes are telling you different
things, which do you believe? Either you have a bad monitoring
environment or you have lousy taste. It's easier to fix the
environment.

> I didn't realize it was that common of a question. I guess seeing the
> graphic EQ's at live venues is where some of the confusion is created.

In a performance venue, you aren't usually compensating for the room
acoustics other than perhaps to roll off some low and high end. You
can't take a sledge hammer to the concert hall or club, so you do what
you can. (unless it's a dance gig, in which case you use the graphic
equalizer to remove midrange from the mix because those people like to
hear boom and sizzle)

> What actually lead me to ask the questions was during my research of sound
> absorption products such as auralex. Sound absorption is the first method I
> was going to try to treat the room but I thought the EQ could fine tune
> things after the sound absorption was installed.

Maybe, but what you'll be fine tuning is the response of the system,
which you can hear better once you get the room problems solved. Other
than the people who want to know what the best $under-200 powered
monitors are, we spend a couple of grand on reasonably accurate
speakers. Not much point in doing that if the room won't let you hear
what they sound like.

> I'm still unsure of what the most cost effective solution is to treating the
> room with sound absorption products.

It's not a clear-cut decision. You need to consider a lot of things.
There are some consultants that can help, and sometimes it's worth
paying one to get the benefit of his experience. Acoustics isn't black
magic, but there are some things that aren't always intuitive and it
helps to have someone around who can get a sense of what's happening
by walking around and listening.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <PZj4d.9873$464.3895@trnddc01> writes:

> Right. I've already collected the rooms dimensions (don't have them on me).
> My mind is straining to remember all the information obtained from my
> acoustics class in college

There's a spreadsheet-like calculator on Ethan Winer's web site. Plug
your room dimensions into it and you'll see where the modes are.
Frequencies that are widely spaced are usually not things you need to
worry about, when there are a number clustered near one frequency,
that's a frequency where nasty stuff will build up. You need to figure
out where to put absorbers to kill some of that buildup.

> Wouldn't a spectrum anayzer be helpful in that it gives a visual while
> mixing though? Do you use a visual of any sort while mixing?

Some people like to use that as a check, but it's really all about
what you hear. If your ears and your eyes are telling you different
things, which do you believe? Either you have a bad monitoring
environment or you have lousy taste. It's easier to fix the
environment.

> I didn't realize it was that common of a question. I guess seeing the
> graphic EQ's at live venues is where some of the confusion is created.

In a performance venue, you aren't usually compensating for the room
acoustics other than perhaps to roll off some low and high end. You
can't take a sledge hammer to the concert hall or club, so you do what
you can. (unless it's a dance gig, in which case you use the graphic
equalizer to remove midrange from the mix because those people like to
hear boom and sizzle)

> What actually lead me to ask the questions was during my research of sound
> absorption products such as auralex. Sound absorption is the first method I
> was going to try to treat the room but I thought the EQ could fine tune
> things after the sound absorption was installed.

Maybe, but what you'll be fine tuning is the response of the system,
which you can hear better once you get the room problems solved. Other
than the people who want to know what the best $under-200 powered
monitors are, we spend a couple of grand on reasonably accurate
speakers. Not much point in doing that if the room won't let you hear
what they sound like.

> I'm still unsure of what the most cost effective solution is to treating the
> room with sound absorption products.

It's not a clear-cut decision. You need to consider a lot of things.
There are some consultants that can help, and sometimes it's worth
paying one to get the benefit of his experience. Acoustics isn't black
magic, but there are some things that aren't always intuitive and it
helps to have someone around who can get a sense of what's happening
by walking around and listening.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Bob Cain]

Hev wrote:


> That Behringer model does indeed seem like a lot of bang for the buck. I
> might not use it for this application but I could see myself using it for
> other things in the future. Thanks Hank.

I had the prececessor to this unit and it added an
incredible amount of LF noise even set flat. It gathers
dust. Is the newer one better in that regard?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

Hev wrote:


> That Behringer model does indeed seem like a lot of bang for the buck. I
> might not use it for this application but I could see myself using it for
> other things in the future. Thanks Hank.

I had the prececessor to this unit and it added an
incredible amount of LF noise even set flat. It gathers
dust. Is the newer one better in that regard?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[hank alrich]

Bob Cain wrote:

> Hev wrote:

> > That Behringer model does indeed seem like a lot of bang for the buck. I
> > might not use it for this application but I could see myself using it for
> > other things in the future. Thanks Hank.

> I had the prececessor to this unit and it added an
> incredible amount of LF noise even set flat. It gathers
> dust. Is the newer one better in that regard?

Absolutely, this one has no flies on it that I've found yet. Now, when I
get one here I'll beat on it in ways I didn't with the three installed
in a dance studio in Austin TX. While that wasn't a control room type of
listening environment I did listen via the Senn HD280's, and in one room
it's 4 Bag End TA2000's and a D12E sub driven by Crest PL400's. I think
I'd have noticed unacceptable noise.

The units were clean, clear, and very versatile. I also plan to give the
Beri DCX2496 a whirl. Hopefully I'll get enough stuff off of my plate in
the next couple of weeks to get on with subjecting the Beri's to secret
investigations here at the mountain.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Bob Cain wrote:

> Hev wrote:

> > That Behringer model does indeed seem like a lot of bang for the buck. I
> > might not use it for this application but I could see myself using it for
> > other things in the future. Thanks Hank.

> I had the prececessor to this unit and it added an
> incredible amount of LF noise even set flat. It gathers
> dust. Is the newer one better in that regard?

Absolutely, this one has no flies on it that I've found yet. Now, when I
get one here I'll beat on it in ways I didn't with the three installed
in a dance studio in Austin TX. While that wasn't a control room type of
listening environment I did listen via the Senn HD280's, and in one room
it's 4 Bag End TA2000's and a D12E sub driven by Crest PL400's. I think
I'd have noticed unacceptable noise.

The units were clean, clear, and very versatile. I also plan to give the
Beri DCX2496 a whirl. Hopefully I'll get enough stuff off of my plate in
the next couple of weeks to get on with subjecting the Beri's to secret
investigations here at the mountain.

--
ha

[david]

In article >, Scott Dorsey
> wrote:

> >And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> No, equalizing out room problems is misguided and does not tune the room, it
> just hides some of the problems. Tuning a room involves actually changing
> the room configuration to fix the problems, not trying to hide the problems
> with some cheesy electronics.


Scott certainly is right about first fixing your control room. Get help
from someone in your area with a clue about this. Personally, I don't
think there are many people with a clue in this area. I certainly would
never design my own control room.

And once you've done everything you realistically can with the room, I
certainly would also recommend a nice 31 band like a Klark Teknik and
borrowing/renting a nice analyzer like a Klark Teknik.

Most important is the person doing the tweeking. I hire the guy who did
my control room. I'm usually the one standing at the mix position
moving the mic in a circle while he fiddles about. Really like the eq
curve he goes for on the analyzer. (Top & bottom with a very specific
rolled off.)

My control room needs a tweak around 4 times a year. Remember, your big
speakers' output is not some universal constant. They change over time
with use. I have the room redone at the change of seasons.

Am not talking big changes on the KT eq. But the difference is
strikingly noticeable when the playback is set up right. Very wide
imaging. Nice accurate bottom. Mixes that go out into the world with
very happy clients.




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[david]

In article >, Scott Dorsey
> wrote:

> >And is a 31 band eq the only way to go to tune a room?
>
> No, equalizing out room problems is misguided and does not tune the room, it
> just hides some of the problems. Tuning a room involves actually changing
> the room configuration to fix the problems, not trying to hide the problems
> with some cheesy electronics.


Scott certainly is right about first fixing your control room. Get help
from someone in your area with a clue about this. Personally, I don't
think there are many people with a clue in this area. I certainly would
never design my own control room.

And once you've done everything you realistically can with the room, I
certainly would also recommend a nice 31 band like a Klark Teknik and
borrowing/renting a nice analyzer like a Klark Teknik.

Most important is the person doing the tweeking. I hire the guy who did
my control room. I'm usually the one standing at the mix position
moving the mic in a circle while he fiddles about. Really like the eq
curve he goes for on the analyzer. (Top & bottom with a very specific
rolled off.)

My control room needs a tweak around 4 times a year. Remember, your big
speakers' output is not some universal constant. They change over time
with use. I have the room redone at the change of seasons.

Am not talking big changes on the KT eq. But the difference is
strikingly noticeable when the playback is set up right. Very wide
imaging. Nice accurate bottom. Mixes that go out into the world with
very happy clients.




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[Bob Olhsson]

"david" > wrote in message
...
> And once you've done everything you realistically can with the room, I
> certainly would also recommend a nice 31 band like a Klark Teknik and
> borrowing/renting a nice analyzer like a Klark Teknik.

I wouldn't. You can hear why by patching one across your 2-buss. I wouldn't
put anything in my monitor path that I'd be at all hesitant to place in my
program path.

The only analyzer that's ok is one which can separate the sound from the
speaker from that coming from the room. This will correct speaker system
deficiencies only. Coloring the monitors can't reverse room colorations and
only adds to the confusion.

The major studios REALLY learned this one the hard way back in the 1970s.



--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Bob Olhsson]

"david" > wrote in message
...
> And once you've done everything you realistically can with the room, I
> certainly would also recommend a nice 31 band like a Klark Teknik and
> borrowing/renting a nice analyzer like a Klark Teknik.

I wouldn't. You can hear why by patching one across your 2-buss. I wouldn't
put anything in my monitor path that I'd be at all hesitant to place in my
program path.

The only analyzer that's ok is one which can separate the sound from the
speaker from that coming from the room. This will correct speaker system
deficiencies only. Coloring the monitors can't reverse room colorations and
only adds to the confusion.

The major studios REALLY learned this one the hard way back in the 1970s.



--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Bob Olhsson]

"david" > wrote in message
...
> And once you've done everything you realistically can with the room, I
> certainly would also recommend a nice 31 band like a Klark Teknik and
> borrowing/renting a nice analyzer like a Klark Teknik.

I wouldn't. You can hear why by patching one across your 2-buss. I wouldn't
put anything in my monitor path that I'd be at all hesitant to place in my
program path.

The only analyzer that's ok is one which can separate the sound from the
speaker from that coming from the room. This will correct speaker system
deficiencies only. Coloring the monitors can't reverse room colorations and
only adds to the confusion.

The major studios REALLY learned this one the hard way back in the 1970s.



--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com