wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...
Isn't it time for you to offer up an I stand corrected regarding tone
controls, EQ and Radio Shack SPL meters?

**No. Rat Shack SPL meters are EXACTLY as I say they a They're fine
for rough and ready measurements. They are not by any measure useful as
accurate devices.

Denial of reality noted.

**WTF?

The fact is they are not what you claim

**Rat Shack SPL meters are EXACTLY as I claim. They're fine for rough and
ready measurements. That is it.

and that
they are used by professionals

**Sure they are. Even professionals need a rough and ready measurement
occasionally. I use mine that way. When I want PROPER, ACCURATE
measurements, I use a system which has a calibration standard, with
tracability.

along with corrections and have been measured
against precision devices and their differences noted.

**You still don't get it, do you? EVERY SINGLE Rat Shack SPL meter is
different from every other one. Correction curves are an AVERAGE only.
They're not accurate.

SVSubwoofers
recomends them and publsihes the corrections on their website.

**I don't care what SVSubwoofers (whoever the Hell they are) suggest. Rat
Shack SPL meters are OK for rough measurements. They are not precision
instruments.


Tone controls may be of some use,

That some small retraction.

**Read the words in context.


IF the problem being addressed can be
precisely matched by those tone controls AND the user has the requisite
equipment and expertise to adjust those controls. The chances of this are
approximately equivalent to that of a big lottery win.

Not if you have a RS meter and test tones along with the corrections.

**You still don't get it, do you? All EQs (which includes tone controls),
except parametics and digital EQs have rigidly set curves. If the desired EQ
does not match the curve in the EQ (or tone control), you're screwed. THAT
is what makes tone controls and EQs useless.


Equalisers come in several flavours. For the sake of simplicity, I will
lump them into four, broad groups and assume that the listener owns and
can properly use the rather sophisticated testing equipment, which is
VITAL to ensure adequate results (Yes, I know it is an
over-simplification):

Standard, analogue octave EQs. These are both better and worse than tone
controls, in their actions. Since frequencies and 'Q' cannot be adjusted,
they are of limited usefulness. These are marginally more likely of being
able to be adjusted correctly than a big lottery win.

Third octave analogue EQs. These are SIGNIFICANTLY more useful than
octave EQs. For obvious reasons. A good result is much more likely. About
the same as winning a mid range prize in a lottery.

It really depends on the user having test tones and an spl meter like the
RS with corrections and knowing where the problems are. A 1/3 octave EQ
can do more than lesser ones, but knowing where the problems lie is the
key.

**Exactly. Considerable expertise is required. After all, not even you know
where to place microphones. What chance does an amatuer have? Even so, 1/3rd
octave EQs still have preset curves, which may be of no use in a particular
situation.


Parametric analogue EQs. MUCH more useful than any of the above. A good
deal more experience is also required to get the best from these guys
too. However, I do acknowledge that these critters CAN solve problems.

But they can't smooth out a room the way a graphic EQ can.

**HUH? They can and do a MUCH better job. The last parametic I used (a
digital one, BTW) was configured to represent a 31 band parametric EQ. Can't
beat that for flexibility.


Digital, zero phase shift EQs.

They are all minimum phase devices.

**I said: ZERO phase shift.


Now we're talking. When used with the right
measurement equipment (nothing branded Radio Shack) these guys are
capable of doing the job that people THINK tone controls can do (but
actually cannot).


So the professionals who recomend the Radio Shack meters with the
correction, who have measured them to come up with the corrections and
state that they are very standardized form unit to unit are wrong and you
are right.

**Correct.

What does Dick Pierce say?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au