Behringer FBQ 2496 Feedback Destroyer

Any good?

Anyone really used one?

If you only had one would you put it on the main PA of the monitors.

I mix a (loud) folkrock mainly in small venues. I use '58s and ride the faders for more vocal gain before feedback.

--------------------
The PSR

Personally I'd prefer a graphic EQ to a feedback destroyer. Much easier to set and then adjust mid gig should you need to!

And if you only have one, either Graphic or feedback destroyer, I'd definitely get the monitors sorted first. Remember proper microphone technique and a well set up system with correct speaker placement are imperative, not luxuries, IMO. These will probably help reduce feedback as much as the Behringer unit.

--------------------
www.sda-audio.co.uk

Perfectly useful in the right hands. I have two of the older version but I tend just to use one on the monitors. There's a persistent peak on my system which is evened out by two identical (l/r) wide, shallow filters (position 12, not to get mixed up with other filters).

On any particular gig once the system's set up I ring out the monitors using auto filters. Once the box has decided the frequency I flip the filter off 'auto' and double the value of whatever cut has been made. Bandwidth remains narrow.

Works for me. I've done the same with the other box on FOH at small gigs but prefer to use the DriveRack.

The Behringer is fine as long as you learn what everything does and use it creatively rather than what the manual suggests.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

>Any good?

They're pretty decent. Unlike the older version that shufflebeat mentions you just turn them on and forget 'em.

>Anyone really used one?

Yes.

>If you only had one would you put it on the main PA of the monitors.

Monitors, unless you know it's the PA causing problems.

Hey Guys,

Thanks for the info - in only one evening too. I've added one of these to "want" list. We have some gigs coming up soon so should be able to afford one.

Cheers

Peter

--------------------
The PSR

Had them but would always use graphic eqs in preference. A graphic across front of house is essential to tune your system to the room. It's a very rare day when I wouldn't want to improve the sound of any of my systems in any given room. But if you're having feedback issues in monitors and you can't deal with it any other way, then clearly that has to be priority. A graphic across both is preferable.

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Yes, the FBQ 2496 is a very useful tool. You can use a few of the (parametric) filters to sweeten most passively crossed-over speakers, which often have a few annoying peaks.

The rest of the filters can be used to zap some feedback during set-ip/soundcheck. But be careful! They can be a bit OTT ... use the least aggressive setting, and then lock it!

A FBQ 2496 is NOT an alternative to a graphic, however it is a useful addition to one. I'd use both.

As I interpret your last question, offhand I'd use one on channel on FOH and one on the monitor(s). Experimenting is the key.

Don't expect miracles ... but with care you should get better sounds.



--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Thanks for the replies Guy and Bob.

So, graphics would be better then?

I'm sure I couldn't set up a graphic to a room without a noise generator and a measurement mic. I don't worry too much about this. Would it make a vast improvement if I did?

I run two monitor mixes, one for the drummer and bass player the other for the guitarist / mandolin / banjo / bagpipe and vocalists and the main PA is stereo, so I would need two units to cover both main PA and monitor.

Comments?

Peter.

--------------------
The PSR

Yes, you'd need two GEQ's.

Setting up the FOH for the room does make a difference, try playing a well recorded, familiar/favourite CD (I have a playlist on my iPhone/iPad of three or four tracks stored as .wav's for best quality and use a line out adapter to avoid the headphone output's hyped low end). If you know the tracks well you should be able to tweak the GEQ by ear to get it sounding reasonable. Unless you have big room resonance issues (which often improve when the room is full of organic frequency diffusers, aka, humans) it should only need moderate EQ, less is usually more in this case.

For feedback identification there are several iDevice apps (and, I'm sure, Android apps) which do RTA (Real Time 'frequency' Analysis), I use 'SignalScope' by faber acoustical. It's not something I'd rely on in court but for identifying rogue feedback frequencies it's just fine (I will get around to doing the ear training so I don't need it...... one day :-)

Edited by Sam Spoons (14/02/13 10:30 PM)

No problems, glad to be of help.

Graphics wouldn't be 'better'! They are different tools. Both useful, as said earlier.

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

May I ask for eliminating feedback by EQing, if graphical EQ only should be used or if a parametric EQ can do the job also ?

Also if I haven't a hardware one, can I use a plugin in my DAW instead (e.g. ReaEQ in Reaper) ?

If yes, should I put it on mic'ed tracks only (vocals and sax) or on the overall mix ?

Quote nalooti:

---

May I ask for eliminating feedback by EQing, if graphical EQ only should be used or if a parametric EQ can do the job also ?

---

Parametrics will do the job fine, although obviously you are limited to how many bands you have on your parametric. For FOH sound using parametrics can produce a much more musical sound, and in fact when using digital desks I would almost always shape the FOH with a parametric and only touch the graphic for extra freq if I need to. Monitors are slightly different, and a graphic can sometimes be more useful. However, a combination of both is a great flexibility to have.

Quote:

---

Also if I haven't a hardware one, can I use a plugin in my DAW instead (e.g. ReaEQ in Reaper) ?

---

I've done this many times before, and it's perfectly practical to do if you've got a lower enough latency with your audio interface. Be careful while altering freq though as a software based approach can be tricky.

Quote:

---

If yes, should I put it on mic'ed tracks only (vocals and sax) or on the overall mix ?

---

For feedback elimination, or for shaping the overall FOH sound, you should out it on the main outs. You might also need to use EQ on the input channels to tweak the sound of the individual mics, but I would not normally use channel EQ to reduce feedback unless there was no other choice.

--------------------
www.exaviormusic.com
www.manninmusic.com Music Teacher, Isle of Man

Running PA through your computer might be theoretically possible but there are lots of reasons why everyone else doesn't do it already.

Dave, if you know something I don't I'd be very interested in running my gigs through some of my exotic boutique freeware.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Thank you for this clear and detailed answer

Quote Dave Rowles:

---

For feedback elimination, or for shaping the overall FOH sound, you should out it on the main outs. You might also need to use EQ on the input channels to tweak the sound of the individual mics, but I would not normally use channel EQ to reduce feedback unless there was no other choice.

---

May I ask why ?
Given that feedback is the result of the mic'ed tracks, it'd be natural to prevent/eliminate it there.
On the other hand, this is the mixed sound that is output to the FOH or monitors, so ...

Quote shufflebeat:

---

Running PA through your computer might be theoretically possible but there are lots of reasons why everyone else doesn't do it already.

---

I agree that people usually hesitate to use PC and soft in gigs rather than hardware pieces (FX, simulators, ...) that seems to be more reliable. Another reason to use hardware may be ease of use. Can you give some other reasons ?
These days I hear more and more people using PC in their gigs specially for very small bands (one or two persons with backtracks.

Dedicated Hardware advantages in no particular order:

*reliability
*it's a 19" rack unit
*each unit has a guarantee
*each unit can be moved to different parts of the system
*balanced ins/outs
*better converters than laptop converters if a digital unit
*very low latency if a digital unit

Laptop disadvantages in no particular order:

*higher & variable latency, depending on plugin
*likelihood of nasty PSU sounds
*over-complicated
*not such good converters
*easily stolen
*likely to be Windows...

Besides which, why not use the lappy for a nice convolution plate, for instance ... and ... Facebook!

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Yup, that's about it.

There may come a time when the interface/'brain'/controller combination takes over. I'll probably invest in 5th generation version like I do with everything else.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".