System balance for LP?

[MiNE 109]

Just wondering how I would go about it. My system has no tone controls.
My speakers sound their best where they are no matter what the source
is. My cd player is not compromised in quality. My turntable is in good
condition.

What would I do different?

Stephen

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Just wondering how I would go about it. My system has no tone
> > controls.
>
> You can buy boxes that are nothing but tone controls for reasonable prices.
> They are called equalizers.

So I need to equalize my system to make it favor lps? As it it, I don't
hear a difference in system performance.

> They work well when connected between preamps and power amps. You can buy
> them on eBay for reasonable prices. My favorite pieces are the Rane ME-30
> and ME-60, along with the Rane PE-15.

The description says it the eq bands are narrow enough not to have
"interaction" with adjacent bands. Still, lots of stuff in the signal
path.

This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:

http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
TOKEN=83594569

> > My speakers sound their best where they are no matter what
> > the source is.
>
> That's a good thing.
>
> >My cd player is not compromised in quality. My
> > turntable is in good condition.
>
> > What would I do different?
>
> Put your ears to work adjusting audio components that can sound seriously
> different, lots of different ways.

Recordings, I guess.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Just wondering how I would go about it. My system has no tone
>>> controls.

>> You can buy boxes that are nothing but tone controls for reasonable
>> prices. They are called equalizers.

> So I need to equalize my system to make it favor lps?

Or CDs or whatever.

> As it it, I don't hear a difference in system performance.

If it's not broke don't fix it.

>> They work well when connected between preamps and power amps. You
>> can buy them on eBay for reasonable prices. My favorite pieces are
>> the Rane ME-30 and ME-60, along with the Rane PE-15.

> The description says it the eq bands are narrow enough not to have
> "interaction" with adjacent bands. Still, lots of stuff in the signal
> path.

You've obviously never looked seriously at what happens during normal audio
production.

> This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:

> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
> TOKEN=83594569

I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie I bought,
and the thing before it were true and genuine great values.
Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these days on Usenet.

Comparing parametric with fractional-octave (graphic), I find
fractional-octave or graphic more intuitive, but parametric is more likely
to be a more exact compensation for physical issues.

You should understand what "frequency" and "bandwidth" are to work well
with a parametric. All you really need to understand is "frequency" to use a
graphic eq.

I think that the golden ear fave is parametric.

A skilled worker can fix most things with either. For example just about
every current Big-3 car radio has a 4 band (or more) parametric per
loudspeaker location (i.e., 4 in most cars), both standard and premium
systems. No factory-set graphics because they would cost a lot more to
implement.

>>> My speakers sound their best where they are no matter what
>>> the source is.

>> That's a good thing.

>>> My cd player is not compromised in quality. My
>>> turntable is in good condition.

>>> What would I do different?

>> Put your ears to work adjusting audio components that can sound
>> seriously different, lots of different ways.

> Recordings, I guess.

Here's your chance to experience one reason why. See former comments about
audio production.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Just wondering how I would go about it. My system has no tone
> >>> controls.
>
> >> You can buy boxes that are nothing but tone controls for reasonable
> >> prices. They are called equalizers.
>
> > So I need to equalize my system to make it favor lps?
>
> Or CDs or whatever.
>
> > As it it, I don't hear a difference in system performance.
>
> If it's not broke don't fix it.

I can do that!

> >> They work well when connected between preamps and power amps. You
> >> can buy them on eBay for reasonable prices. My favorite pieces are
> >> the Rane ME-30 and ME-60, along with the Rane PE-15.
>
> > The description says it the eq bands are narrow enough not to have
> > "interaction" with adjacent bands. Still, lots of stuff in the signal
> > path.
>
> You've obviously never looked seriously at what happens during normal audio
> production.

Yes, I have. Those mixing board eqs aren't always on. Sound guys pride
themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
approved to pop production flexible.

> > This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:
>
> > http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
> > TOKEN=83594569
>
> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie I bought,
> and the thing before it were true and genuine great values.
> Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these days on Usenet.

I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I don't
have a current need for it.

> Comparing parametric with fractional-octave (graphic), I find
> fractional-octave or graphic more intuitive, but parametric is more likely
> to be a more exact compensation for physical issues.
>
> You should understand what "frequency" and "bandwidth" are to work well
> with a parametric. All you really need to understand is "frequency" to use a
> graphic eq.
>
> I think that the golden ear fave is parametric.
>
> A skilled worker can fix most things with either. For example just about
> every current Big-3 car radio has a 4 band (or more) parametric per
> loudspeaker location (i.e., 4 in most cars), both standard and premium
> systems. No factory-set graphics because they would cost a lot more to
> implement.

I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.

> >>> My speakers sound their best where they are no matter what
> >>> the source is.
>
> >> That's a good thing.
>
> >>> My cd player is not compromised in quality. My
> >>> turntable is in good condition.
>
> >>> What would I do different?
>
> >> Put your ears to work adjusting audio components that can sound
> >> seriously different, lots of different ways.
>
> > Recordings, I guess.
>
> Here's your chance to experience one reason why. See former comments about
> audio production.

I have recordings.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Dormer" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>> So I need to equalize my system to make it favor lps?

>> Or CDs or whatever.

> So according to Krueger - Stephen needs to use an equalizer to
> "favour" CD's.

> Or vinyl or whatever.

You can't read or reason, can you Dormer? If one favors everything then one
favors nothing.

> I've yet to meet anybody with a quality turntable who inserts outboard
> equalization of any kind in the signal path. Enthusiasts tend to work
> toward getting a system balanced and working right in the chosen
> listening environment...

Equalizer paranoia seems to come with vinyl bigotry. The irony is in the use
of equalizers for vinyl mastering, and I mean in addition to the truly
massive pre-emphasis and de-emphasis that is standard with vinyl.

>>> As it, I don't hear a difference in system performance.

>> If it's not broke don't fix it.

> You said that vinyl "never sounded as good" when you made changes to
> your system. So, it was working - and you broke it. Well done!

One cracks eggs to make omelets. Were then now, I'd just plug in an
equalizer of my choice and make everything sound fine, were there no other
reasonable option but equalization.

>> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie I
>> bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great values.
>> Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these days on
>> Usenet.

> That's because Behringer are known for ripping off other manufacturers
> designs, riding on the coattails of other peoples creativity and hard
> work. I'm sure this is beyond your comprehension, but some people have
> standards.

Let's see. The last people to pursue that tack against Behringer were AFAIK
Mackie. Mackie had their day in or near court and didn't prevail.
Subsequently Mackie failed as a business and is under new ownership and
management. One might think that Mackie was getting solid competition from
Behringer and went crying to mama. Mama wanted to see some compelling facts
and Mackie came up a day late and a dollar (or several million per the
sell-out) short.

>> I think that the golden ear fave is parametric.

> Only an idiot would use a graphic where a parametric is applicable.

Only an idiot would say something that categorical about any flavor of
equalizer. My favorite graphic has up to 12000 bands, at least 100 dB very
clean range for boost or cut, and zero phase shift. Now show me a parametric
that even comes close...

[Margaret von Busenhalter]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul Dormer" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >>> So I need to equalize my system to make it favor lps?
>
> >> Or CDs or whatever.
>
> > So according to Krueger - Stephen needs to use an equalizer to
> > "favour" CD's.
>
> > Or vinyl or whatever.
>
> You can't read or reason, can you Dormer? If one favors everything then
one
> favors nothing.
>
> > I've yet to meet anybody with a quality turntable who inserts outboard
> > equalization of any kind in the signal path. Enthusiasts tend to work
> > toward getting a system balanced and working right in the chosen
> > listening environment...
>
> Equalizer paranoia seems to come with vinyl bigotry. The irony is in the
use
> of equalizers for vinyl mastering, and I mean in addition to the truly
> massive pre-emphasis and de-emphasis that is standard with vinyl.
>
> >>> As it, I don't hear a difference in system performance.
>
> >> If it's not broke don't fix it.
>
> > You said that vinyl "never sounded as good" when you made changes to
> > your system. So, it was working - and you broke it. Well done!
>
> One cracks eggs to make omelets. Were then now, I'd just plug in an
> equalizer of my choice and make everything sound fine, were there no other
> reasonable option but equalization.
>
> >> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie I
> >> bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great values.
> >> Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these days on
> >> Usenet.
>
> > That's because Behringer are known for ripping off other manufacturers
> > designs, riding on the coattails of other peoples creativity and hard
> > work. I'm sure this is beyond your comprehension, but some people have
> > standards.
>
> Let's see. The last people to pursue that tack against Behringer were
AFAIK
> Mackie. Mackie had their day in or near court and didn't prevail.
> Subsequently Mackie failed as a business and is under new ownership and
> management. One might think that Mackie was getting solid competition from
> Behringer and went crying to mama. Mama wanted to see some compelling
facts
> and Mackie came up a day late and a dollar (or several million per the
> sell-out) short.
>
> >> I think that the golden ear fave is parametric.
>
> > Only an idiot would use a graphic where a parametric is applicable.
>
> Only an idiot would say something that categorical about any flavor of
> equalizer. My favorite graphic has up to 12000 bands,

Luckily there are so many of "yourselves" to tweak it.

MvB

[dave weil]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:24:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>If it's not broke don't fix it.

>One cracks eggs to make omelets.

Obviously, *someone* is a bit confused.

I get this visual of Arnold spining on his head like a break dancer...

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Just wondering how I would go about it. My system has no tone
> >>>>> controls.
> >>
> >>>> You can buy boxes that are nothing but tone controls for reasonable
> >>>> prices. They are called equalizers.
> >>
> >>> So I need to equalize my system to make it favor lps?
> >>
> >> Or CDs or whatever.
> >>
> >>> As it it, I don't hear a difference in system performance.
> >>
> >> If it's not broke don't fix it.
> >
> > I can do that!
> >
> >>>> They work well when connected between preamps and power amps. You
> >>>> can buy them on eBay for reasonable prices. My favorite pieces are
> >>>> the Rane ME-30 and ME-60, along with the Rane PE-15.
> >>
> >>> The description says it the eq bands are narrow enough not to have
> >>> "interaction" with adjacent bands. Still, lots of stuff in the
> >>> signal path.
> >>
> >> You've obviously never looked seriously at what happens during
> >> normal audio production.
> >
> > Yes, I have. Those mixing board eqs aren't always on.
>
> Thanks for tacitly admitting that they are often on. However, they're not
> the only eq in the audio production chain, so their status is not critical
> to my argument.

Eq is appropriate to audio production. However, it is not a requirement:
there are good recordings without eq.

> > Sound guys pride
> > themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
> > approved to pop production flexible.
>
> And, the right tool for the job is often some kind of equalizer.

If there's a jet rumbling through your best take, I recommend it.

> >>> This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:
> >>
> >>>
> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
> >>> TOKEN=83594569
> >>
> >> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie I
> >> bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great values.
> >> Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these days on
> >> Usenet.
>
> > I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I don't
> > have a current need for it.
>
> I wouldn't call an Ultramatch a digital patch bay, but that's another story.
> Lets get closure on equalizers, eh?

Behringer calls it that.

> >> Comparing parametric with fractional-octave (graphic), I find
> >> fractional-octave or graphic more intuitive, but parametric is more
> >> likely to be a more exact compensation for physical issues.
> >>
> >> You should understand what "frequency" and "bandwidth" are to work
> >> well with a parametric. All you really need to understand is
> >> "frequency" to use a graphic eq.
> >>
> >> I think that the golden ear fave is parametric.
> >>
> >> A skilled worker can fix most things with either. For example just
> >> about every current Big-3 car radio has a 4 band (or more)
> >> parametric per loudspeaker location (i.e., 4 in most cars), both
> >> standard and premium systems. No factory-set graphics because they
> >> would cost a lot more to implement.
>
> > I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.
>
> Eqs are one thing in my book and compressors are something else. My favorite
> application of compressor-type technology is dynamic range expansion. That's
> the business of unsquishing music so it sounds more lively, like it did when
> actually performed.

The combination can tame a wild recording that would be otherwise
unlistenable. Some things need to be squished.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message


> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Thanks for tacitly admitting that they are often on. However,
>> they're not the only eq in the audio production chain, so their
>> status is not critical to my argument.

> Eq is appropriate to audio production.

It's appropriate to audio of many more flavors than just production.

>However, it is not a requirement: there are good recordings without eq.

That's open to interpretation. AFAIK there are no sonically transparent
microphones. In fact, there isn't even much more than a foggy idea of what
sonically transprent microphone would do.

In audio production microphones are routinely chosen to get a certain
desired kind of coloration. It is well-known that with few exceptions
microphones used in audio production are audibly non-flat, even on-axis.
Bottom line, equalization by means of microphone colorations remains an
irreducible component of audio production.

The good news is that in the mainstream, we got rid of coloration by means
of vinyl record production.


>>> Sound guys pride
>>> themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
>>> approved to pop production flexible.

>> And, the right tool for the job is often some kind of equalizer.

> If there's a jet rumbling through your best take, I recommend it.

....and other than tacitly admitting that you're scared crapless of
equalizers and like to play the big prick, what's your point?

>>>>> This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:

>> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
>>>>> TOKEN=83594569

>>>> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie I
>>>> bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great
>>>> values. Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these
>>>> days on Usenet.

>>> I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I
>>> don't have a current need for it.
>>
>> I wouldn't call an Ultramatch a digital patch bay, but that's
>> another story. Lets get closure on equalizers, eh?

> Behringer calls it that.

Umm, some marketing guy needed a nifty phrase for an advertisement.

Behringer's web site
http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=SRC2496&lang=eng

....calls the "Ultramatch" a "24-Bit/96 kHz A/D-D/A & Sample Rate Converter"
which is far more factual. It probably has some of the same or highly
similar electronic pieces and technical performance as high end audio
boxes selling for many times more.


>>> I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.

>> Eqs are one thing in my book and compressors are something else. My
>> favorite application of compressor-type technology is dynamic range
>> expansion. That's the business of unsquishing music so it sounds
>> more lively, like it did when actually performed.

> The combination can tame a wild recording that would be otherwise
> unlistenable. Some things need to be squished.

Some performers and directors need more technical training.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for tacitly admitting that they are often on. However,
> >> they're not the only eq in the audio production chain, so their
> >> status is not critical to my argument.
>
> > Eq is appropriate to audio production.
>
> It's appropriate to audio of many more flavors than just production.
>
> >However, it is not a requirement: there are good recordings without eq.
>
> That's open to interpretation.

No, it isn't. Eq is not a requirement for recording.

> AFAIK there are no sonically transparent
> microphones. In fact, there isn't even much more than a foggy idea of what
> sonically transprent microphone would do.

How does this require eq?

> In audio production microphones are routinely chosen to get a certain
> desired kind of coloration. It is well-known that with few exceptions
> microphones used in audio production are audibly non-flat, even on-axis.
> Bottom line, equalization by means of microphone colorations remains an
> irreducible component of audio production.

Your graphic eq is full of microphones?

http://www.strathfield.com/glossary.asp?Index=E&glossid=495

"An equaliser is used to fine tune a system by altering the frequency
balance of an audio signal."

How do you include microphones, which operate on sound waves, in a
definition of 'equalizer'?

> The good news is that in the mainstream, we got rid of coloration by means
> of vinyl record production.

I'll just walk past this one.

> >>> Sound guys pride
> >>> themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
> >>> approved to pop production flexible.
>
> >> And, the right tool for the job is often some kind of equalizer.
>
> > If there's a jet rumbling through your best take, I recommend it.
>
> ...and other than tacitly admitting that you're scared crapless of
> equalizers and like to play the big prick, what's your point?

Keep a civil tongue. I produced a choir recording that had a jet
rumbling through a best take. Eq fixed it.

> >>>>> This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:
>
> >> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
> >>>>> TOKEN=83594569
>
> >>>> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie I
> >>>> bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great
> >>>> values. Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these
> >>>> days on Usenet.
>
> >>> I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I
> >>> don't have a current need for it.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't call an Ultramatch a digital patch bay, but that's
> >> another story. Lets get closure on equalizers, eh?
>
> > Behringer calls it that.
>
> Umm, some marketing guy needed a nifty phrase for an advertisement.

That, and it has lotso' inputs and outputs.

> Behringer's web site
> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=SRC2496&lang=eng
>
> ...calls the "Ultramatch" a "24-Bit/96 kHz A/D-D/A & Sample Rate Converter"
> which is far more factual. It probably has some of the same or highly
> similar electronic pieces and technical performance as high end audio
> boxes selling for many times more.

That's the interesting thing about it for me.

> >>> I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.
>
> >> Eqs are one thing in my book and compressors are something else. My
> >> favorite application of compressor-type technology is dynamic range
> >> expansion. That's the business of unsquishing music so it sounds
> >> more lively, like it did when actually performed.
>
> > The combination can tame a wild recording that would be otherwise
> > unlistenable. Some things need to be squished.
>
> Some performers and directors need more technical training.

Not in the cases I have in mind.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>>> Thanks for tacitly admitting that they are often on. However,
>>>> they're not the only eq in the audio production chain, so their
>>>> status is not critical to my argument.

>>> Eq is appropriate to audio production.

>> It's (Eq) appropriate to audio of many more flavors than just
production.

>>> However, it is not a requirement: there are good recordings
>>> without eq.
>
>> That's open to interpretation.

> No, it isn't. Eq is not a requirement for recording.

It can't be avoided for the reasons I laid out.

>> AFAIK there are no sonically transparent
>> microphones. In fact, there isn't even much more than a foggy idea
>> of what sonically transparent microphone would do.

> How does this require eq?

It doesn't require eq, it shows how eq is hard to avoid.

An engineer has an artist to record. He picks a mic and makes a recording.
The producer or his proxy doesn't like the sound quality. A different mic is
chose in many cases. Loop.

Often it is well-known that the artist uses a certain mic because it
modifies the artists voice to have the desired timbre.

All mics modify the sounds they pick up. In fact we are still so screwed up
about speakers that our judgments of microphones are relative to colorations
in the speakers commonly used to audition microphones.

In many cases eq is needed to produce a recording that evokes the (generally
unobtainable by simple means) sound of the live performance. In other cases
there's no interest in reproducing the live performance. Instead, we want
some unnatural fantasy not yet part of the real world.

Reality is usually somewhere in-between. We often want a recording that
evokes strong memories of and rather closely represents the artist's work
witnessed live, were they more reliable performers than they actually are
and perhaps were the room a better sounding room than it actually is.

>> In audio production microphones are routinely chosen to get a certain
>> desired kind of coloration. It is well-known that with few exceptions
>> microphones used in audio production are audibly non-flat, even
>> on-axis. Bottom line, equalization by means of microphone
>> colorations remains an irreducible component of audio production.

> Your graphic eq is full of microphones?

No, my microphones are full of equalization. They are a different equalizer
for every different angle that sound approaches them from, perhaps with some
symmetry.

> http://www.strathfield.com/glossary.asp?Index=E&glossid=495

> "An equaliser is used to fine tune a system by altering the frequency
> balance of an audio signal."

That's a pretty good definition - one that relates to a common
implementation of equalization.

However, wire isn't the only medium that carries audio signals.

Notice the phrase "fine tune".

The phrase "fine tune" can be interpreted as excluding your use of an
equalizer to remove the sound of a jet plane. That was not fine tuning on
the scale of general use of equalizers, it was hitting the recording with a
BIG hammer.

My definition, is a tad more general - equalizers are devices that change
the timbre of music and other sounds. IOW, an equalizer is device that
alters the frequency balance of an audio signal remembering that audio
signals are carried by a number of different mediums including wire and air.

> How do you include microphones, which operate on sound waves, in a
> definition of 'equalizer'?

Air and wire are just different mediums for carrying audio signals.

Like speakers and phono cartridges, microphones are devices that alter the
frequency balance of audio signals.

>>>>> Sound guys pride
>>>>> themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
>>>>> approved to pop production flexible.

Don't musicians do that too?

>>>> And, the right tool for the job is often some kind of equalizer.

>>> If there's a jet rumbling through your best take, I recommend it.

>> ...and other than tacitly admitting that you're scared crapless of
>> equalizers and like to play the big prick, what's your point?

> Keep a civil tongue.

....and back at you.

> I produced a choir recording that had a jet rumbling through a best take.
Eq fixed it.

That's good. But it grants no license to suggest that this is the only valid
use, or a primary use of eq.

The normal use of equalizers is generally far more subtle than something
gross like making undesired parts of the recording become inaudible.

Equalizers are usually used to change timbre to suit someone's tastes.
Sometimes the timbre is changed because the original timbre is irritating or
different from life, and other times timbre is changed purely due to
personal taste. Most of the time the reason for changing timbre is somewhere
in-between.

>>>>>>> This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:
>>>>>>>
http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
TOKEN=83594569

>>>>>> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie
>>>>>> I bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great
>>>>>> values. Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these
>>>>>> days on Usenet.

>>>>> I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I
>>>>> don't have a current need for it.

>>>> I wouldn't call an Ultramatch a digital patch bay, but that's
>>>> another story. Lets get closure on equalizers, eh?

>>> Behringer calls it that.

>> Umm, some marketing guy needed a nifty phrase for an advertisement.

> That, and it has lotso' inputs and outputs.

So do lots of things that aren't patch bays.

>> Behringer's web site
>> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=SRC2496&lang=eng

>> ...calls the "Ultramatch" a "24-Bit/96 kHz A/D-D/A & Sample Rate
>> Converter" which is far more factual. It probably has some of the
>> same or highly similar electronic pieces and technical performance
>> as high end audio boxes selling for many times more.

> That's the interesting thing about it for me.

Enjoy! But its purposes are far afield of a discussion of equalization.

>>>>> I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.

>>>> Eqs are one thing in my book and compressors are something else. My
>>>> favorite application of compressor-type technology is dynamic range
>>>> expansion. That's the business of unsquishing music so it sounds
>>>> more lively, like it did when actually performed.

>>> The combination can tame a wild recording that would be otherwise
>>> unlistenable. Some things need to be squished.

>> Some performers and directors need more technical training.

> Not in the cases I have in mind.

What to do if musicians make recordings that are unlistenable?

Plan A: Manage the musicians so they behave more professionally and produce
recordings that are listenable.

Plan B: Equalize, compress, edit and mix until you've got this derivative
artistic work that bears a vague resemblance to the original performance(s),
but is in some sense more listenable.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >>>> Thanks for tacitly admitting that they are often on. However,
> >>>> they're not the only eq in the audio production chain, so their
> >>>> status is not critical to my argument.
>
> >>> Eq is appropriate to audio production.
>
> >> It's (Eq) appropriate to audio of many more flavors than just
> production.
>
> >>> However, it is not a requirement: there are good recordings
> >>> without eq.
> >
> >> That's open to interpretation.
>
> > No, it isn't. Eq is not a requirement for recording.
>
> It can't be avoided for the reasons I laid out.

Synthesis.

> >> AFAIK there are no sonically transparent
> >> microphones. In fact, there isn't even much more than a foggy idea
> >> of what sonically transparent microphone would do.
>
> > How does this require eq?
>
> It doesn't require eq, it shows how eq is hard to avoid.

The following is Arny's attempt to redefine "equalization" to include
choice of microphone.

> An engineer has an artist to record. He picks a mic and makes a recording.
> The producer or his proxy doesn't like the sound quality. A different mic is
> chose in many cases. Loop.
>
> Often it is well-known that the artist uses a certain mic because it
> modifies the artists voice to have the desired timbre.
>
> All mics modify the sounds they pick up. In fact we are still so screwed up
> about speakers that our judgments of microphones are relative to colorations
> in the speakers commonly used to audition microphones.
>
> In many cases eq is needed to produce a recording that evokes the (generally
> unobtainable by simple means) sound of the live performance. In other cases
> there's no interest in reproducing the live performance. Instead, we want
> some unnatural fantasy not yet part of the real world.
>
> Reality is usually somewhere in-between. We often want a recording that
> evokes strong memories of and rather closely represents the artist's work
> witnessed live, were they more reliable performers than they actually are
> and perhaps were the room a better sounding room than it actually is.

None of this has anything requires eq.

> >> In audio production microphones are routinely chosen to get a certain
> >> desired kind of coloration. It is well-known that with few exceptions
> >> microphones used in audio production are audibly non-flat, even
> >> on-axis. Bottom line, equalization by means of microphone
> >> colorations remains an irreducible component of audio production.
>
> > Your graphic eq is full of microphones?
>
> No, my microphones are full of equalization. They are a different equalizer
> for every different angle that sound approaches them from, perhaps with some
> symmetry.

No, they are not.

> > http://www.strathfield.com/glossary.asp?Index=E&glossid=495
>
> > "An equaliser is used to fine tune a system by altering the frequency
> > balance of an audio signal."
>
> That's a pretty good definition - one that relates to a common
> implementation of equalization.
>
> However, wire isn't the only medium that carries audio signals.

You mean air? Those are sound waves, not audio signal.

> Notice the phrase "fine tune".
>
> The phrase "fine tune" can be interpreted as excluding your use of an
> equalizer to remove the sound of a jet plane. That was not fine tuning on
> the scale of general use of equalizers, it was hitting the recording with a
> BIG hammer.

No, a surprisingly small hammer. All it took was one parametric with a
steep curve centered on a bass frequency.

> My definition, is a tad more general - equalizers are devices that change
> the timbre of music and other sounds. IOW, an equalizer is device that
> alters the frequency balance of an audio signal remembering that audio
> signals are carried by a number of different mediums including wire and air.

Omigod, you *do* mean air. That is not the common definition of
equalizer. I doubt it's a even a special one.

> > How do you include microphones, which operate on sound waves, in a
> > definition of 'equalizer'?
>
> Air and wire are just different mediums for carrying audio signals.
>
> Like speakers and phono cartridges, microphones are devices that alter the
> frequency balance of audio signals.
>
> >>>>> Sound guys pride
> >>>>> themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
> >>>>> approved to pop production flexible.
>
> Don't musicians do that too?
>
> >>>> And, the right tool for the job is often some kind of equalizer.
>
> >>> If there's a jet rumbling through your best take, I recommend it.
>
> >> ...and other than tacitly admitting that you're scared crapless of
> >> equalizers and like to play the big prick, what's your point?
>
> > Keep a civil tongue.
>
> ...and back at you.

I don't remember calling you a prick or saying you're scared crapless of
anything.

> > I produced a choir recording that had a jet rumbling through a best take.
> Eq fixed it.
>
> That's good. But it grants no license to suggest that this is the only valid
> use, or a primary use of eq.
>
> The normal use of equalizers is generally far more subtle than something
> gross like making undesired parts of the recording become inaudible.
>
> Equalizers are usually used to change timbre to suit someone's tastes.
> Sometimes the timbre is changed because the original timbre is irritating or
> different from life, and other times timbre is changed purely due to
> personal taste. Most of the time the reason for changing timbre is somewhere
> in-between.

Yep, that's how they're often used.

> >>>>>>> This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:
> >>>>>>>
> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
> TOKEN=83594569
>
> >>>>>> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie
> >>>>>> I bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great
> >>>>>> values. Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these
> >>>>>> days on Usenet.
>
> >>>>> I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I
> >>>>> don't have a current need for it.
>
> >>>> I wouldn't call an Ultramatch a digital patch bay, but that's
> >>>> another story. Lets get closure on equalizers, eh?
>
> >>> Behringer calls it that.
>
> >> Umm, some marketing guy needed a nifty phrase for an advertisement.
>
> > That, and it has lotso' inputs and outputs.
>
> So do lots of things that aren't patch bays.
>
> >> Behringer's web site
> >> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=SRC2496&lang=eng
>
> >> ...calls the "Ultramatch" a "24-Bit/96 kHz A/D-D/A & Sample Rate
> >> Converter" which is far more factual. It probably has some of the
> >> same or highly similar electronic pieces and technical performance
> >> as high end audio boxes selling for many times more.
>
> > That's the interesting thing about it for me.
>
> Enjoy! But its purposes are far afield of a discussion of equalization.
>
> >>>>> I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.
>
> >>>> Eqs are one thing in my book and compressors are something else. My
> >>>> favorite application of compressor-type technology is dynamic range
> >>>> expansion. That's the business of unsquishing music so it sounds
> >>>> more lively, like it did when actually performed.
>
> >>> The combination can tame a wild recording that would be otherwise
> >>> unlistenable. Some things need to be squished.
>
> >> Some performers and directors need more technical training.
>
> > Not in the cases I have in mind.
>
> What to do if musicians make recordings that are unlistenable?

> Plan A: Manage the musicians so they behave more professionally and produce
> recordings that are listenable.

Not the case. These are professionals giving good performances.

> Plan B: Equalize, compress, edit and mix until you've got this derivative
> artistic work that bears a vague resemblance to the original performance(s),
> but is in some sense more listenable.

That's why I called it a "miracle" to take a recording made in a
relatively uncontrolled environment, say, a live radio broadcast, and
transform it into a good representation of the performance. IIRC, the
performances are recorded onto two tracks, so no remixing, and live, so
no editing.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message


> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article ,

>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>>>

>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>>>>> Thanks for tacitly admitting that they are often on. However,
>>>>>> they're not the only eq in the audio production chain, so their
>>>>>> status is not critical to my argument.

>>>>> Eq is appropriate to audio production.

>>>> It's (Eq) appropriate to audio of many more flavors than just
>> production.

>>>>> However, it is not a requirement: there are good recordings
>>>>> without eq.
>
>>>> That's open to interpretation.

>>> No, it isn't. Eq is not a requirement for recording.

>> It can't be avoided for the reasons I laid out.

> Synthesis.

Why not say XYZZY? Makes as much sense!

>>>> AFAIK there are no sonically transparent
>>>> microphones. In fact, there isn't even much more than a foggy idea
>>>> of what sonically transparent microphone would do.

>>> How does this require eq?

>> It doesn't require eq, it shows how eq is hard to avoid.

> The following is Arny's attempt to redefine "equalization" to include
> choice of microphone.

No it's my attempt to convince Stephen of a fact, which is that microphones
are often chosen based on how they accomplish outcome that is essentially
the same as that which can be accomplished by equalization. In both cases
the frequency balance of the audio signal is altered.

Stephen tries to push the odd view that a sound wave isn't a kind of an
audio signal. In fact a sound wave is an audio signal that is being carried
by air.

>> An engineer has an artist to record. He picks a mic and makes a
>> recording. The producer or his proxy doesn't like the sound quality.
>> A different mic is chose in many cases. Loop.

>> Often it is well-known that the artist uses a certain mic because it
>> modifies the artists voice to have the desired timbre.

>> All mics modify the sounds they pick up. In fact we are still so
>> screwed up about speakers that our judgments of microphones are
>> relative to colorations in the speakers commonly used to audition
>> microphones.

>> In many cases eq is needed to produce a recording that evokes the
>> (generally unobtainable by simple means) sound of the live
>> performance. In other cases there's no interest in reproducing the
>> live performance. Instead, we want some unnatural fantasy not yet
>> part of the real world.

>> Reality is usually somewhere in-between. We often want a recording
>> that evokes strong memories of and rather closely represents the
>> artist's work witnessed live, were they more reliable performers
>> than they actually are and perhaps were the room a better sounding
>> room than it actually is.

> None of this has anything requires eq.

Next time in English?

>>>> In audio production microphones are routinely chosen to get a
>>>> certain desired kind of coloration. It is well-known that with few
>>>> exceptions microphones used in audio production are audibly
>>>> non-flat, even on-axis. Bottom line, equalization by means of
>>>> microphone colorations remains an irreducible component of audio
>>>> production.

>>> Your graphic eq is full of microphones?

>> No, my microphones are full of equalization. They are a different
>> equalizer for every different angle that sound approaches them from,
>> perhaps with some symmetry.

> No, they are not.

Unsupported denial speaks to state of mind, not reasonableness of a claim.

>>> http://www.strathfield.com/glossary.asp?Index=E&glossid=495

>>> "An equaliser is used to fine tune a system by altering the
>>> frequency balance of an audio signal."

>> That's a pretty good definition - one that relates to a common
>> implementation of equalization.

>> However, wire isn't the only medium that carries audio signals.

> You mean air? Those are sound waves, not audio signal.

Wrong. Audio signals are audio signals regardless of the medium carrying
them. Saying that sound waves aren't an audio signal because they are
carried by in air is as senseless as saying that an optical digital signal
isn't an audio signal because it is being carried by light.

>> Notice the phrase "fine tune".

>> The phrase "fine tune" can be interpreted as excluding your use of an
>> equalizer to remove the sound of a jet plane. That was not fine
>> tuning on the scale of general use of equalizers, it was hitting the
>> recording with a BIG hammer.

> No, a surprisingly small hammer. All it took was one parametric with a
> steep curve centered on a bass frequency.

That's a big hammer compared to a more typical application which would be an
octave wide dip only 1 dB deep.

>> My definition, is a tad more general - equalizers are devices that
>> change the timbre of music and other sounds. IOW, an equalizer is
>> device that alters the frequency balance of an audio signal
>> remembering that audio signals are carried by a number of different
>> mediums including wire and air.

> Omigod, you *do* mean air. That is not the common definition of
> equalizer. I doubt it's a even a special one.

As I've already shown, your problem Stephen is that you have a very narrow
view of what constitutes an audio signal.

>> > How do you include microphones, which operate on sound waves, in a
>>> definition of 'equalizer'?

>> Air and wire are just different mediums for carrying audio signals.

>> Like speakers and phono cartridges, microphones are devices that
>> alter the frequency balance of audio signals.

No comment Stephen, does that mean that you finally get it?

>>>>>>> Sound guys pride
>>>>>>> themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
>>>>>>> approved to pop production flexible.

>> Don't musicians do that too?

>>>>>> And, the right tool for the job is often some kind of equalizer.

>>>>> If there's a jet rumbling through your best take, I recommend it.

>>>> ...and other than tacitly admitting that you're scared crapless of
>>>> equalizers and like to play the big prick, what's your point?

>>> Keep a civil tongue.

>> ...and back at you.

> I don't remember calling you a prick or saying you're scared crapless
> of anything.

So Stephen you want us to believer that those are the only two possible ways
to be uncivil?

LOL!

>>> I produced a choir recording that had a jet rumbling through a
>>> best take. Eq fixed it.

>> That's good. But it grants no license to suggest that this is the
>> only valid use, or a primary use of eq.

>> The normal use of equalizers is generally far more subtle than
>> something gross like making undesired parts of the recording become
>> inaudible.

>> Equalizers are usually used to change timbre to suit someone's
>> tastes. Sometimes the timbre is changed because the original timbre
>> is irritating or different from life, and other times timbre is
>> changed purely due to personal taste. Most of the time the reason
>> for changing timbre is somewhere in-between.

> Yep, that's how they're often used.

Finally!

>>>>>>>>> This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:

>> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1951&CFID=26384&CF
>> TOKEN=83594569

>>>>>>>> I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer
>>>>>>>> thingie I bought, and the thing before it were true and
>>>>>>>> genuine great values. Behringer-bashing seems to be a less
>>>>>>>> popular sport these days on Usenet.

>>>>>>> I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I
>>>>>>> don't have a current need for it.

>>>>>> I wouldn't call an Ultramatch a digital patch bay, but that's
>>>>>> another story. Lets get closure on equalizers, eh?

>>>>> Behringer calls it that.

>>>> Umm, some marketing guy needed a nifty phrase for an advertisement.

>>> That, and it has lotso' inputs and outputs.

>> So do lots of things that aren't patch bays.

>>>> Behringer's web site
>>>> http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=SRC2496&lang=eng

>>>> ...calls the "Ultramatch" a "24-Bit/96 kHz A/D-D/A & Sample Rate
>>>> Converter" which is far more factual. It probably has some of the
>>>> same or highly similar electronic pieces and technical performance
>>>> as high end audio boxes selling for many times more.

>>> That's the interesting thing about it for me.

>> Enjoy! But its purposes are far afield of a discussion of
>> equalization.

>>>>>>> I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.
>>
>>>>>> Eqs are one thing in my book and compressors are something else.
>>>>>> My favorite application of compressor-type technology is dynamic
>>>>>> range expansion. That's the business of unsquishing music so it
>>>>>> sounds more lively, like it did when actually performed.
>>
>>>>> The combination can tame a wild recording that would be otherwise
>>>>> unlistenable. Some things need to be squished.
>>
>>>> Some performers and directors need more technical training.
>>
>>> Not in the cases I have in mind.

>> What to do if musicians make recordings that are unlistenable?

>> Plan A: Manage the musicians so they behave more professionally and
>> produce recordings that are listenable.

> Not the case. These are professionals giving good performances.

Something unlistenable is a good performance?

>> Plan B: Equalize, compress, edit and mix until you've got this
>> derivative artistic work that bears a vague resemblance to the
>> original performance(s), but is in some sense more listenable.

> That's why I called it a "miracle" to take a recording made in a
> relatively uncontrolled environment, say, a live radio broadcast, and
> transform it into a good representation of the performance.

Obviously the performance wasn't all that unlistenable in the first place.

> IIRC, the performances are recorded onto two tracks, so no remixing, and
live,
> so no editing.

Is this the good news or the bad news?

IME remixing is preferable to compression because intelligently chosen,
rather than algorithmically-chosen changes to amplitude are being made. An
intelligent mixing engineer can know the aesthetic goals for the entire
musical piece and alter dynamics accordingly, while a compressor can't
possibly have an idea, because it is not even a fraction as intelligent as a
person.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
MiNE 109 > wrote:

> None of this has anything requires eq.

None of this has anything THAT requires eq. Hmm, still not very good.

None of this requires eq.

Stephen

[Moi]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:12:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote in >:

>"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> MiNE 109 > wrote:
>>
>>> None of this has anything requires eq.
>>
>> None of this has anything THAT requires eq. Hmm, still not very good.
>>
>> None of this requires eq.
>
>You've missed the point again. An audio signal is an audio signal whether
>being carried by air, water, land, wire, optical, you name it. An equalizer
>is something that changes frequency balance, whether it's a mic, a phono
>cartridge, a speaker, or (heaven forbid!) a purpose-built easily adjustable
>dedicated electronic device.

This is a ridiculously loose and unworkable definition of the term
"equalizer" in the context of audio engineering. According to what
you say above, if I cup my hands over my ears I'm using an equalizer,
and if I flip my middle finger up at you while I'm doing so then I've
just introduced a high-pass filter.

Arny, one day maybe you'll get over playing audio engineer on the
Internet. There are many other things you could have devoted your
time to (programming simple Visual Basic front ends, reading the
bible, etc), why not go with what you're good at?

[Arny Krueger]

"Moi" > wrote in message


> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:12:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote in >:

>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> MiNE 109 > wrote:

>>>> None of this has anything requires eq.

>>> None of this has anything THAT requires eq. Hmm, still not very
>>> good.

>>> None of this requires eq.

>> You've missed the point again. An audio signal is an audio signal
>> whether being carried by air, water, land, wire, optical, you name
>> it.

>> An equalizer is something that changes frequency balance,
>> whether it's a mic, a phono cartridge, a speaker, or (heaven
>> forbid!) a purpose-built easily adjustable dedicated electronic
>> device.

> This is a ridiculously loose and unworkable definition of the term
> "equalizer" in the context of audio engineering.

So Moi, since when did you become such an authority about audio engineering?

Got any (believable) credentials?

>According to what
> you say above, if I cup my hands over my ears I'm using an equalizer,
> and if I flip my middle finger up at you while I'm doing so then I've
> just introduced a high-pass filter.

Pretty much, yes.

Thanks for pointing out that flipping up the middle finger in that posture
produces what appears at first listening to be a high-pass filter. I didn't
know that! I'll have to investigate it because it's a great example of a
crude acoustical filter (equalizer).

> Arny, one day maybe you'll get over playing audio engineer on the
Internet.

So Moi, since when did you become an authority about audio engineering?

No matter what Moi, you just proved yourself to be a blithering idiot.
Again! You seem to know at least a few of what seem to be correct facts,
and then you reach the wrong conclusion!

What a maroon!

BTW Moi, since you don't believe a word I say, why not review this with John
Atkinson?

> There are many other things you could have devoted your
> time to (programming simple Visual Basic front ends, reading the
> bible, etc), why not go with what you're good at?

I'm not very good at making figurative horses drink after leading them to
the water...

[Moi]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:50:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote in >:

>"Moi" > wrote in message

>
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:12:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote in >:
>
>>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> MiNE 109 > wrote:
>
>>>>> None of this has anything requires eq.
>
>>>> None of this has anything THAT requires eq. Hmm, still not very
>>>> good.
>
>>>> None of this requires eq.
>
>>> You've missed the point again. An audio signal is an audio signal
>>> whether being carried by air, water, land, wire, optical, you name
>>> it.
>
>>> An equalizer is something that changes frequency balance,
>>> whether it's a mic, a phono cartridge, a speaker, or (heaven
>>> forbid!) a purpose-built easily adjustable dedicated electronic
>>> device.
>
>> This is a ridiculously loose and unworkable definition of the term
>> "equalizer" in the context of audio engineering.
>
>So Moi, since when did you become such an authority about audio engineering?
>
>Got any (believable) credentials?

I'm not claiming myself as an authority, just stating a fact in that
what you said is a ridiculously loose and unworkable definition of the
term "equalizer."

>>According to what
>> you say above, if I cup my hands over my ears I'm using an equalizer,
>> and if I flip my middle finger up at you while I'm doing so then I've
>> just introduced a high-pass filter.
>
>Pretty much, yes.

Like I said, a loose and unworkable definition. It has nothing to do
with what most people mean when they talk about equalizers in the
context of audio. It's very irrelevant to anything important in the
real world (just like most of what you talk about).

>> Arny, one day maybe you'll get over playing audio engineer on the
>Internet.
>
>So Moi, since when did you become an authority about audio engineering?

What does my authority (or lack thereof) have to do with you getting
over playing audio engineer on the Internet?

>BTW Moi, since you don't believe a word I say, why not review this with John
>Atkinson?

Because I have no interest in doing so. It's you I'm talking with,
not John Atkinson.

>I'm not very good at making figurative horses drink after leading them to
>the water...

So I've noticed. The main problems seem to be horrendously poor
communication skills, a hostile/paranoid outlook in general, and a
total disregard for people's individual differences (preferences,
likes, dislikes, etc). You know -- the things that make humans human.

I'd mention your complete self-centeredness/self-absorption and
hubris, but I've already done so in a previous posting.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > MiNE 109 > wrote:
> >
> >> None of this has anything requires eq.
> >
> > None of this has anything THAT requires eq. Hmm, still not very good.
> >
> > None of this requires eq.
>
> You've missed the point again. An audio signal is an audio signal whether
> being carried by air, water, land, wire, optical, you name it. An equalizer
> is something that changes frequency balance, whether it's a mic, a phono
> cartridge, a speaker, or (heaven forbid!) a purpose-built easily adjustable
> dedicated electronic device.

http://www.rane.com/par-e.html

"EQ ( equalizer )A class of electronic filters designed to augment or
adjust electronic or acoustic systems. Equalizers can be fixed or
adjustable, active or passive . Indeed, in the early years of telephony
and cinema, the first equalizers were fixed units designed to correct
for losses in the transmission and recording of audio signals. Hence,
the term equalizer described electronic circuits that corrected for
these losses and made the output equal to the input. Equalizers commonly
modify the frequency response of the signal passing through them; that
is, they modify the amplitude versus frequency characteristics."

Signal, not sound.

[Moi]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:07:37 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote in >:

>In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> You've missed the point again. An audio signal is an audio signal whether
>> being carried by air, water, land, wire, optical, you name it. An equalizer
>> is something that changes frequency balance, whether it's a mic, a phono
>> cartridge, a speaker, or (heaven forbid!) a purpose-built easily adjustable
>> dedicated electronic device.
>
>http://www.rane.com/par-e.html
>
>"EQ ( equalizer )A class of electronic filters designed to augment or
>adjust electronic or acoustic systems. Equalizers can be fixed or
>adjustable, active or passive . Indeed, in the early years of telephony
>and cinema, the first equalizers were fixed units designed to correct
>for losses in the transmission and recording of audio signals. Hence,
>the term equalizer described electronic circuits that corrected for
>these losses and made the output equal to the input. Equalizers commonly
>modify the frequency response of the signal passing through them; that
>is, they modify the amplitude versus frequency characteristics."

Yep -- that's the real-world definition of an equalizer (as compared
to Arny's idealized/dreamed-up fantasies). He really does make a
crappy "audio engineer," wouldn't you say?

[Moi]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:45:46 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote in
>:

>Moi said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> Arny, one day maybe you'll get over playing audio engineer on the
>> Internet. There are many other things you could have devoted your
>> time to (programming simple Visual Basic front ends, reading the
>> bible, etc), why not go with what you're good at?
>
>You left out the Kroo's two main skills -- whoring out the Kroobitch
>in a "back alley" and flogging his poor son's death to score cheap
>pity points on Usenet.

Not even gonna touch those, but allow me to revise my statement: Just
about anything but pretending to be a "knowledgeable audio engineer"
on Usenet would clearly suit Krueger better.

A good audio type has got to have at least a normal ear (for sound
quality), and ideally would be "golden-eared." This is Krueger's
major failing when it comes to audio, and all the charts, graphs and
obscure references to 1960's AES papers in the world doesn't change a
thing.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
Moi > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:07:37 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote in >:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> You've missed the point again. An audio signal is an audio signal whether
> >> being carried by air, water, land, wire, optical, you name it. An equalizer
> >> is something that changes frequency balance, whether it's a mic, a phono
> >> cartridge, a speaker, or (heaven forbid!) a purpose-built easily adjustable
> >> dedicated electronic device.
> >
> >http://www.rane.com/par-e.html
> >
> >"EQ ( equalizer )A class of electronic filters designed to augment or
> >adjust electronic or acoustic systems. Equalizers can be fixed or
> >adjustable, active or passive . Indeed, in the early years of telephony
> >and cinema, the first equalizers were fixed units designed to correct
> >for losses in the transmission and recording of audio signals. Hence,
> >the term equalizer described electronic circuits that corrected for
> >these losses and made the output equal to the input. Equalizers commonly
> >modify the frequency response of the signal passing through them; that
> >is, they modify the amplitude versus frequency characteristics."
>
> Yep -- that's the real-world definition of an equalizer (as compared
> to Arny's idealized/dreamed-up fantasies). He really does make a
> crappy "audio engineer," wouldn't you say?

As he's redefined "sound" as "signal", I guess he's no longer connected
with audio at all.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message


> http://www.rane.com/par-e.html
>
> "EQ ( equalizer )A class of electronic filters designed to augment or
> adjust electronic or acoustic systems. Equalizers can be fixed or
> adjustable, active or passive . Indeed, in the early years of
> telephony and cinema, the first equalizers were fixed units designed
> to correct for losses in the transmission and recording of audio
> signals. Hence, the term equalizer described electronic circuits that
> corrected for these losses and made the output equal to the input.
> Equalizers commonly modify the frequency response of the signal
> passing through them; that is, they modify the amplitude versus
> frequency characteristics."

> Signal, not sound.

Sound is a signal.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

>
> As he's redefined "sound" as "signal", I guess he's no longer
> connected with audio at all.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

signal:

c : a detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage, current, or
magnetic field strength) by which messages or information can be
transmitted.

Are variations in air pressure a detectable physical quantity or not?

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > http://www.rane.com/par-e.html
> >
> > "EQ ( equalizer )A class of electronic filters designed to augment or
> > adjust electronic or acoustic systems. Equalizers can be fixed or
> > adjustable, active or passive . Indeed, in the early years of
> > telephony and cinema, the first equalizers were fixed units designed
> > to correct for losses in the transmission and recording of audio
> > signals. Hence, the term equalizer described electronic circuits that
> > corrected for these losses and made the output equal to the input.
> > Equalizers commonly modify the frequency response of the signal
> > passing through them; that is, they modify the amplitude versus
> > frequency characteristics."
>
> > Signal, not sound.
>
> Sound is a signal.

Electronic filters don't work directly on sound.

Sound is not an electrical signal.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > As he's redefined "sound" as "signal", I guess he's no longer
> > connected with audio at all.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>
> signal:
>
> c : a detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage, current, or
> magnetic field strength) by which messages or information can be
> transmitted.
>
> Are variations in air pressure a detectable physical quantity or not?

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/signal

3. [n] * an electric quantity (voltage or current or field strength)
whose modulation represents coded information about the source from
which it comes

End quote.

Doesn't mention sound. Even if it did, equalizers don't work on sound.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> As he's redefined "sound" as "signal", I guess he's no longer
>>> connected with audio at all.
>>
>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>>
>> signal:
>>
>> c : a detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage,
>> current, or magnetic field strength) by which messages or
>> information can be transmitted.
>>
>> Are variations in air pressure a detectable physical quantity or not?
>
> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/signal
>
> 3. [n] an electric quantity (voltage or current or field strength)
> whose modulation represents coded information about the source from
> which it comes
>
> End quote.

Typical denial of reality "debating trade" tactics.

> Doesn't mention sound. Even if it did, equalizers don't work on sound.

Sorry Stephen, but just because you find a definition that isn't the same as
mine doesn't mean that the definition I presented isn't valid. I can find
other definitions for signal at the M-W site that are similar to the one you
presented, but they obviously don't invalidate the one I presented.

Stepehn, if you want to drag this one out with every debating trade trick in
the book, find another player. I'm out of this discussion with you unless
you can straighten out your act and find something interesting to say.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>
> >>> As he's redefined "sound" as "signal", I guess he's no longer
> >>> connected with audio at all.
> >>
> >> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> >>
> >> signal:
> >>
> >> c : a detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage,
> >> current, or magnetic field strength) by which messages or
> >> information can be transmitted.
> >>
> >> Are variations in air pressure a detectable physical quantity or not?
> >
> > http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/signal
> >
> > 3. [n] an electric quantity (voltage or current or field strength)
> > whose modulation represents coded information about the source from
> > which it comes
> >
> > End quote.
>
> Typical denial of reality "debating trade" tactics.

I call it support.

> > Doesn't mention sound. Even if it did, equalizers don't work on sound.
>
> Sorry Stephen, but just because you find a definition that isn't the same as
> mine doesn't mean that the definition I presented isn't valid. I can find
> other definitions for signal at the M-W site that are similar to the one you
> presented, but they obviously don't invalidate the one I presented.

Your definition doesn't mention sound either; it gives electro-magnetic
examples. Are semaphore flags signal? Traffic lights?

Microphones don't alter sound. They transform it into electrical signal,
however imperfectly.

> Stepehn, if you want to drag this one out with every debating trade trick in
> the book, find another player. I'm out of this discussion with you unless
> you can straighten out your act and find something interesting to say.

My horse has wings and flies.

Stephen

Sometimes the truth is boring.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

Stephen changes his tune of denial, which makes things interesting enough to
reply to, ate least to the degree one last post.

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message


> Your definition doesn't mention sound either; it gives
> electro-magnetic examples. Are semaphore flags signal? Traffic lights?

Heck yes. Most histories of the theory and development of signaling start
out with a system of semaphore towers in France ca. 1870.

This one starts a bit earlier:

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9809/msg00155.html

notice all the electrically signaling methods that are included.

> Microphones don't alter sound. They transform it into electrical
> signal, however imperfectly.

Oh, GMAB. Anybody capable of critical listening who has listened to the
output of microphone(s), amplified as cleanly as possible, while standing
right in front of the performers knows that microphones alter the timbre of
the sonic signals they convert from the acoustic domain to the electrical
domain. If you want a real thrill put a bunch of different mics in front of
a performer, and compare.

Here are some examples of how various microphones change the timbre of
acoustical signals:

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/mictest/mictest.html

http://www.fxguidry.com/mictest1/

A microphone is well-modeled as a collection of equalizers, one for every
different direction that sound approaches from.

One reason why simple equalization doesn't do a perfect job of correcting
and simulating microphones is that at the point the equalizer is typically
introduced, there is only one composite signal, and not different signals
for different directions.

You can't model or undo the action of many distinct equalizers with just
one!

Therefore products like the Antares mic modeler are doomed forever to be
suboptimal and flawed.

The other problem is that the equalization introduced by microphones is
generally compromised by the fact that building acoustical equalizers is not
as well understood as the business of building electrical equalizers.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Stephen changes his tune of denial, which makes things interesting enough to
> reply to, ate least to the degree one last post.

And I suppose I'm suddenly interesting again.

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Your definition doesn't mention sound either; it gives
> > electro-magnetic examples. Are semaphore flags signal? Traffic lights?
>
> Heck yes. Most histories of the theory and development of signaling start
> out with a system of semaphore towers in France ca. 1870.
>
> This one starts a bit earlier:
>
> http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9809/msg00155.html
>
> notice all the electrically signaling methods that are included.

How does an equalizer work on semaphore? By bribing the relay operator
as in "The Three Musketeers"?

> > Microphones don't alter sound. They transform it into electrical
> > signal, however imperfectly.
>
> Oh, GMAB.

Are you arguing that microphones *don't* transform sound into electrical
signal?

> Anybody capable of critical listening who has listened to the
> output of microphone(s), amplified as cleanly as possible, while standing
> right in front of the performers knows that microphones alter the timbre of
> the sonic signals they convert from the acoustic domain to the electrical
> domain. If you want a real thrill put a bunch of different mics in front of
> a performer, and compare.

The Stereophile Test CD1 is at least a decade old.

> Here are some examples of how various microphones change the timbre of
> acoustical signals:
>
> http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/mictest/mictest.html
>
> http://www.fxguidry.com/mictest1/
>
> A microphone is well-modeled as a collection of equalizers, one for every
> different direction that sound approaches from.
>
> One reason why simple equalization doesn't do a perfect job of correcting
> and simulating microphones is that at the point the equalizer is typically
> introduced, there is only one composite signal, and not different signals
> for different directions.
>
> You can't model or undo the action of many distinct equalizers with just
> one!
>
> Therefore products like the Antares mic modeler are doomed forever to be
> suboptimal and flawed.
>
> The other problem is that the equalization introduced by microphones is
> generally compromised by the fact that building acoustical equalizers is not
> as well understood as the business of building electrical equalizers.

"Acoustic equalizers"? You mean those foam balls on microphones? Why do
you think they call them "acoustic" if not to distinguish them from
ordinary electronic equalizers?

Or do you mean that Shakti room harmonizer or Mpingo discs? Room
treatments? Rooms?

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Stephen changes his tune of denial, which makes things interesting
>> enough to reply to, ate least to the degree one last post.
>
> And I suppose I'm suddenly interesting again.
>
>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Your definition doesn't mention sound either; it gives
>>> electro-magnetic examples. Are semaphore flags signal? Traffic
>>> lights?
>>
>> Heck yes. Most histories of the theory and development of signaling
>> start out with a system of semaphore towers in France ca. 1870.
>>
>> This one starts a bit earlier:
>>
>> http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9809/msg00155.html
>>
>> notice all the electrically signaling methods that are included.
>
> How does an equalizer work on semaphore? By bribing the relay operator
> as in "The Three Musketeers"?
>
>>> Microphones don't alter sound. They transform it into electrical
>>> signal, however imperfectly.
>>
>> Oh, GMAB.
>
> Are you arguing that microphones *don't* transform sound into
> electrical signal?
>
>> Anybody capable of critical listening who has listened to the
>> output of microphone(s), amplified as cleanly as possible, while
>> standing right in front of the performers knows that microphones
>> alter the timbre of the sonic signals they convert from the acoustic
>> domain to the electrical domain. If you want a real thrill put a
>> bunch of different mics in front of a performer, and compare.
>
> The Stereophile Test CD1 is at least a decade old.
>
>> Here are some examples of how various microphones change the timbre
>> of acoustical signals:
>>
>> http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/mictest/mictest.html
>>
>> http://www.fxguidry.com/mictest1/
>>
>> A microphone is well-modeled as a collection of equalizers, one for
>> every different direction that sound approaches from.
>>
>> One reason why simple equalization doesn't do a perfect job of
>> correcting and simulating microphones is that at the point the
>> equalizer is typically introduced, there is only one composite
>> signal, and not different signals for different directions.
>>
>> You can't model or undo the action of many distinct equalizers with
>> just one!
>>
>> Therefore products like the Antares mic modeler are doomed forever
>> to be suboptimal and flawed.
>>
>> The other problem is that the equalization introduced by microphones
>> is generally compromised by the fact that building acoustical
>> equalizers is not as well understood as the business of building
>> electrical equalizers.

> "Acoustic equalizers"? You mean those foam balls on microphones?

Not necessarily. In fact it is generally hoped that foam balls are sonically
transparent at important voice frequencies.

>Why do you think they call them "acoustic" if not to distinguish them from
> ordinary electronic equalizers?

I never said that the equalizers of different kinds should not be
distinguished from each other. Neither did I say that the various means of
signaling should never be distinguished from each other.

However, just because we distinguish them doesn't mean that their functions
can't overlap or be similar, or work together.

A classic example of different kinds of equalizers working together would be
electrical and bass roll-offs that are built into many microphones to
compensate for acoustical bass boost due to the proximity effect.

> Or do you mean that Shakti room harmonizer or Mpingo discs?

Why bring snake oil into a technical discussion?

>Room treatments? Rooms?

Acoustic equalizer in room meet compensating acoustic equalizer in the form
of room treatment. Bass traps would be an example of that.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen changes his tune of denial, which makes things interesting
> >> enough to reply to, ate least to the degree one last post.
> >
> > And I suppose I'm suddenly interesting again.
> >
> >> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Your definition doesn't mention sound either; it gives
> >>> electro-magnetic examples. Are semaphore flags signal? Traffic
> >>> lights?
> >>
> >> Heck yes. Most histories of the theory and development of signaling
> >> start out with a system of semaphore towers in France ca. 1870.
> >>
> >> This one starts a bit earlier:
> >>
> >> http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9809/msg00155.html
> >>
> >> notice all the electrically signaling methods that are included.
> >
> > How does an equalizer work on semaphore? By bribing the relay operator
> > as in "The Three Musketeers"?
> >
> >>> Microphones don't alter sound. They transform it into electrical
> >>> signal, however imperfectly.
> >>
> >> Oh, GMAB.
> >
> > Are you arguing that microphones *don't* transform sound into
> > electrical signal?
> >
> >> Anybody capable of critical listening who has listened to the
> >> output of microphone(s), amplified as cleanly as possible, while
> >> standing right in front of the performers knows that microphones
> >> alter the timbre of the sonic signals they convert from the acoustic
> >> domain to the electrical domain. If you want a real thrill put a
> >> bunch of different mics in front of a performer, and compare.
> >
> > The Stereophile Test CD1 is at least a decade old.
> >
> >> Here are some examples of how various microphones change the timbre
> >> of acoustical signals:
> >>
> >> http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/mictest/mictest.html
> >>
> >> http://www.fxguidry.com/mictest1/
> >>
> >> A microphone is well-modeled as a collection of equalizers, one for
> >> every different direction that sound approaches from.
> >>
> >> One reason why simple equalization doesn't do a perfect job of
> >> correcting and simulating microphones is that at the point the
> >> equalizer is typically introduced, there is only one composite
> >> signal, and not different signals for different directions.
> >>
> >> You can't model or undo the action of many distinct equalizers with
> >> just one!
> >>
> >> Therefore products like the Antares mic modeler are doomed forever
> >> to be suboptimal and flawed.
> >>
> >> The other problem is that the equalization introduced by microphones
> >> is generally compromised by the fact that building acoustical
> >> equalizers is not as well understood as the business of building
> >> electrical equalizers.
>
> > "Acoustic equalizers"? You mean those foam balls on microphones?
>
> Not necessarily. In fact it is generally hoped that foam balls are sonically
> transparent at important voice frequencies.
>
> >Why do you think they call them "acoustic" if not to distinguish them from
> > ordinary electronic equalizers?
>
> I never said that the equalizers of different kinds should not be
> distinguished from each other. Neither did I say that the various means of
> signaling should never be distinguished from each other.

You did say that microphones are equalizers.

> However, just because we distinguish them doesn't mean that their functions
> can't overlap or be similar, or work together.
>
> A classic example of different kinds of equalizers working together would be
> electrical and bass roll-offs that are built into many microphones to
> compensate for acoustical bass boost due to the proximity effect.

Don't those work on the electrical signal after the sound has been
transduced? Besides, the "acoustic equalizer" is an "acoustic *pressure*
equalizer".

> > Or do you mean that Shakti room harmonizer or Mpingo discs?
>
> Why bring snake oil into a technical discussion?

Anything that changes the frequency balance is an eq according to you.

> >Room treatments? Rooms?
>
> Acoustic equalizer in room meet compensating acoustic equalizer in the form
> of room treatment. Bass traps would be an example of that.

Of what?

[George M. Middius]

Moi said:

> Arnii makes a lousy "audio engineer," as he's well demonstrated.
> Fwiw, he makes a lousy "audio philosopher" as well... not to mention
> the fact that he has a set of tin ears.

And a head full of feces.

[Moi]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:12:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote in >:

>"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>>> Why do you think they call them "acoustic" if not to distinguish
>>>> them from ordinary electronic equalizers?
>
>>> I never said that the equalizers of different kinds should not be
>>> distinguished from each other. Neither did I say that the various
>>> means of signaling should never be distinguished from each other.
>
>> You did say that microphones are equalizers.
>
>Right, microphones are combinations of acoustic and electrical equalizers
>since distinguishing the two seems to be important.

Microphones are transducers, you moron. If their frequency response
isn't flat, it's usually because it's difficult to design things like
microphones, phono cartridges, speakers, headphones, etc. to produce a
flat frequency response -- these devices are mechanical in nature.

The frequency response can be made *intentionally* non-flat or less
flat, but that still doesn't make them equalizers. Are you slow, or
just stupid?

[Arny Krueger]

"Moi" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:12:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote in >:
>
>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why do you think they call them "acoustic" if not to distinguish
>>>>> them from ordinary electronic equalizers?
>>
>>>> I never said that the equalizers of different kinds should not be
>>>> distinguished from each other. Neither did I say that the various
>>>> means of signaling should never be distinguished from each other.
>>
>>> You did say that microphones are equalizers.
>>
>> Right, microphones are combinations of acoustic and electrical
>> equalizers since distinguishing the two seems to be important.
>
> Microphones are transducers, you moron.

That, too.

Moi, your command of the obvious is often grotesquely flawed (see below),
but this one time you are right. Microphones are transducers.

However Moi I need to break you in on a new fact you obviously never heard
before. An audio component can have multiple functions. IOW, it can do more
than one thing. An example of this would be an integrated amplifier which is
both an amplifier and a preamplifier. I hope you take this to heart, as you
will be tested on it shortly and the results of the test will be put in your
permanent record.

> If their frequency response
> isn't flat, it's usually because it's difficult to design things like
> microphones, phono cartridges, speakers, headphones, etc. to produce a
> flat frequency response -- these devices are mechanical in nature.

Moi, your claims about the difficulty of making microphones with flat
response are discredited by devices made and sold routinely by DPA,
Earthworks, Panasonic, (surprisingly) Behringer, and many others.

> The frequency response can be made *intentionally* non-flat or less
> flat, but that still doesn't make them equalizers.

So you say Moi, but you are on record saying many strange and
not-so-wonderful things. Letsee, yesterday revealed truth from Moi included
the claim that Plextor was a producer of cheap garbage, right?

BTW Moi, have you thanked Middius, Dormer and Richman for making a fool out
of you this morning?

>Are you slow, or just stupid?

I'm not the smartest guy in the world but it seems that I'm not as slow or
as stupid as you are, Moi.

[Moi]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:55:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote in >:

>So you say Moi, but you are on record saying many strange and
>not-so-wonderful things. Letsee, yesterday revealed truth from Moi included
>the claim that Plextor was a producer of cheap garbage, right?

Yep, their latest CD-RW drives are overpriced and no better than the
typical Lite-On or AOpen drive. They're resting on their laurels at
this point, afaic.

>BTW Moi, have you thanked Middius, Dormer and Richman for making a fool out
>of you this morning?

Your obsession with these three people is of no concern to me -- I've
spoken with them a few times on this newsgroup and that's the extent
of my interest.

>>Are you slow, or just stupid?
>
>I'm not the smartest guy in the world but it seems that I'm not as slow or
>as stupid as you are, Moi.

Your word against mine on that one, we'll have to agree to disagree
<chuckle>.

[Arny Krueger]

"Moi" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:55:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote in >:
>
>> So you say Moi, but you are on record saying many strange and
>> not-so-wonderful things. Letsee, yesterday revealed truth from Moi
>> included the claim that Plextor was a producer of cheap garbage,
>> right?
>
> Yep, their latest CD-RW drives are overpriced and no better than the
> typical Lite-On or AOpen drive.

That nicely contradicts your claim that they are cheap garbage. You said
that they are not cheap but instead they are overpriced, and you've compared
them to some pretty acceptable pieces of hardware.

Hey Moi you don't need Middius, Graham, and Dormer to cut you off at the
knees, you've done a pretty good job of it all by yourself.

>They're resting on their laurels at this point, afaic.

No help for your initial claim that they were cheap junk.

>> BTW Moi, have you thanked Middius, Dormer and Richman for making a
> fool out of you this morning?

> Your obsession with these three people is of no concern to me -- I've
> spoken with them a few times on this newsgroup and that's the extent
> of my interest.

It's quite clear Moi that you have no lack of desire to look stupid early
and often.

>>> Are you slow, or just stupid?

>> I'm not the smartest guy in the world but it seems that I'm not as
>> slow or as stupid as you are, Moi.

> Your word against mine on that one, we'll have to agree to disagree
> <chuckle>.

The facts are quite clear, Moi. You make stupid claims, you can't support
yourself, and then you even contradict yourself while trying to defend
yourself. You get no respect from the wannabe-ruling clique, even though you
pander to them.

You obviously should have stayed away from RAO while you were only as far
behind as you were when you left here in March or so, with your tail between
your legs.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:49:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Fact of the matter is that I own or have owned products by VPI

I was just wondering which VPI product you've owned.

TIA.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:49:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Fact of the matter is that I own or have owned products by VPI
>
> I was just wondering which VPI product you've owned.

I believe that information is in the google archives.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:37:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:49:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fact of the matter is that I own or have owned products by VPI
>>
>> I was just wondering which VPI product you've owned.
>
>I believe that information is in the google archives.

Nice non-responsive answer. What are you trying to hide?

<s******>

BTW, I simply was curious.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:37:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:49:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fact of the matter is that I own or have owned products by VPI
>>
>> I was just wondering which VPI product you've owned.
>
>I believe that information is in the google archives.

The only references I can find that link you to VPI are the ones where
you talked about borrowing a VPI turntable to do some testing.

What am I missing? Can you supply a reference?

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> >>> Fact of the matter is that I own or have owned products by VPI
> >>
> >> I was just wondering which VPI product you've owned.
> >
> >I believe that information is in the google archives.
>
> The only references I can find that link you to VPI are the ones where
> you talked about borrowing a VPI turntable to do some testing.
>
> What am I missing? Can you supply a reference?

Hardly™. It's so much easier for Mr. **** to conclude that Google
has just lied to you.

[tor 2 u]

Arny Krueger wrote in message >:

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> > On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:49:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Fact of the matter is that I own or have owned products by VPI
> >
> > I was just wondering which VPI product you've owned.
>
> I believe that information is in the google archives.
>


Can you believe the nerve of that ****ing waiter? Hey Weil, why don't
you shove your VPI where the sun don't shine? We all know what an
under-achiever you are, if somebody gave you a TNT you'd probably hock
it to buy drugs. At least Arny had the guts to buy one before he figured
out its a rip-off.




Stop picking on Arny Krueger!