EV to Xilica settings

[Zim.]

x

 

 

[PrestonTom]

Let me make a couple of general comments since others may try and do something similar, with perhaps other pieces of equipment. These are things you need to find out about the particular DSP units that you are using. 

 

PEQ filters (parametric equalization)

They can be defined in different ways. Most units use what are called "Symmetrical Constant Q" while others may use "Proportional Q" filters (eg, the miniDSP units). It can make a difference.

 

Shelving filters

Where the transition occurs (frequency) can be defined as the frequency  that is at the center of the transition. Or it can be defined as the -3 dB (or +3dB) point of the transition. These can lead to very different outcomes. 

 

So my friendly advice is that you look at the manual of the Electrovoice unit and also the manual of the "other unit" to see what nomenclature they use.

 

I am sorry to nit pick, but in the past, this discrepancy has wasted a bunch of my time. Hopefully, you won't also have to go through this rite of passage. 

 

Good Luck,

-Tom

[Chris A]

15 hours ago, Zim. said:

If one is using a different combo than the Jub/402/K691,  is there a simple conversion to correct the dissimilar parameters between the two processors or does one need to measure response, with the Xilica in use, to determine the correct shelf filters?

First, the best way around all of the angst of different implementations of shelving filters is to take a measurement using REW or even TrueRTA to verify the frequency response (at least). REW provides other means/plots with each measurement that can be useful.  This is a very powerful approach.

 

Secondly, it is the shelving filter difference between the EV processors and the Xilica processors which is the real heart of the issue you are asking about (in my experience).  I have found that using a 1.5 to 2 octave bandwidth for the shelving filter in the Xilica approximates what the EV shelving filter used by Roy in the original EV K-691 settings was doing (and note that there is still a pretty large difference in results using 1.5 octave vs. 2 octave).  You can easily try this and listen carefully--as it costs nothing to try it, and it can be easily returned to prior preset values that were in use without further issues.  I'd recommend starting with a 1.5 octave setting.

 

As far as any use of "non-standard" horn, compression driver, or even DSP crossover combinations, that's why I've offered my services to help dial in these new combinations since I've successfully helped many others do it using REW measurements in room.  The good thing about this process (i.e., the user takes REW measurements and emails to me, I return an .xdat configuration file to flatten response, and continuing with subsequent measurements until desired flatness of response or tailoring of that flatness by desired house curve is achieved) is that the quality of the measurements themselves can be assessed through looking at the various plots that are generated with each measurement.  Measurement issues can be identified and corrected using this approach. 

 

At any rate, once the low cost of the calibrated microphone is sunk for doing measurements (assuming computer and cables are already available), the rest of this process and its results are free of cost. If there is any dissatisfaction, the prior settings used can be instantly returned to.  The cost is very low and the potential is very high for increasing listening pleasure--a much greater benefit to cost ratio than any other alternatives typically employed by audio enthusiasts.

 

Chris

[Zim.]

x