Eq'ing the Gsub

How do

I'm using a pair of Fane xb loaded g-sub's for a D & B gig at the weekend, and was wondering if anyone had any eq'ing advice?

I'll be using a behringer 3/4 way crossover and one of their ULTRA-GRAPH PRO GEQ3102 31 band eqs. [http://www.behringer.com/GEQ3102/index.cfm?lang=eng]

Both subs will be powered by a PV2600.

ta.

edit: spelling.


Edited by pooju - 26 June 2007 at 1:14pm

yeah the peavy will not but powerful enough to get the most out of the fanes, obviously it would be better to have a bigger amp or one per box run bridged at least.

But as they're new drivers we didn't want to spanner them too hard, 2000w in that type of box, isn't that bit too much? Do mean to allow for headroom and minimize distortion, or are you talking about the actual output vs. output quoted by manual, doesn't this all depend on your gain structure?

It must be an old burger van tale that the fanes need running in, cheers for clearing that up.

Agreed, headroom is definitely important like you say, don't think anyone will disagree with that, cheers for the heads-up all the same.

If an amp that isn't straining, and hence distorting through clipped signal etc, is whats needed, but as long as there is a clean signal, i.e. a good gain structure, there should be no problem right? only a loss in output/efficiency?

what i meant was that its the signal level/quality that's going to make the drivers pop no?  Much in the same way a bad signal on 50w through a 1850 can still blow it.

300W above AES as  headroom ok i see,  but not at the same signal level that you need to get the same output from 600w alone right [even though you shouldn't be running it that low]?

We could have properly powered one cab but isn't it better -in terms of driver wear and tear- to underpower two as long as its got a clean signal- more cones, more air coupling, etc. Obviously the effect not as noticeable with just the two cabs but in principle right?

a member of this forum who powers his punishers with 500w as appose to the recommended 1500w, did so precisely to get less wear and tear on the drivers no?

Admittedly this is a slighty different - but related - issue due to the fact that they're horns not reflexes, but there's still some coupling with reflexes right in a mono stack as we had it? - like the looney linkup at Lakota, couldn't they have given more power to less bins and achieved a similar spl output, not as a deep - or distorted - mind, but similar?

got a bit off the point i know, that clearer? any thoughts? -  or eve ... eq  advice   ?

ta.

edit: grammar.



Edited by pooju - 05 July 2007 at 5:33pm

Cheers Levyte357 [and robbo]

Lol, i  haven't been very clear!

I thought i'd listened and agreed: robbo is dead right: risky under powering them, like you both say headroom/ appropriate power for the job, improve depth of the sound etc.  a pair of matrix's or a second  peavey bridged could be loooooovely.

all i was trying to say was that despite putting the g-sub at more risk by removing any headroom and overstretching the amp,  as long as the signal is clean we've potentially minimized possible damage. 

I.e. with a weaker amp you'd have to increase the signal level - more than you would with a bigger amp - to the point of clipping [removing head room], to attain the highest output, also reducing the reproduction quality. If that same high signal level was given to an amp of appropriate [2000k] power it be *no good for the drivers. Make sense?

Obviously you wouldn't need the same high signal on an amp of appropriate power,  like you both say headroom. Its bad practice to run it with a weaker amp as we did, its just that was what was available at the time, and luckily in this situation no more volume was need.

Just thought what i said might have made the logic behind robbo 's comments clearer - or not  as its  turned out.

edit: * left the not out!






Edited by pooju - 05 July 2007 at 6:29pm