Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have, a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV. Agreed, tone controls are pretty blunt instruments for correcting the tonal quality of recordings. OTOH a good 5 or 7 band parametric equalizer or better yet a 24,000 point FFT-based equalizer can be in the right hands, a pretty fine tool. Even 30 band graphic equalizers can be pretty darn useful. I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti-SM-57". It's pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that mic. It's amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it seems to be able to transform into listenable events, almost magically. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti- SM-57". It's pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that mic. It's amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it seems to be able to transform into listenable events, almost magically. And yet that unfortunate transducer (and its' cousin, the '58) are the "industry standard". Which is why I find it dificult to generate much respect for the pop-music "industry". I was at the AES in LA when the "Wall of Sound" paper was presented (by Ron Wickersham?) They revealed that they were unable to use any of the Shure mics because they couldn't find any that were consistent enough to use as a differential pair. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:57:41 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:29 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary controls. You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ). I have more than 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of high quality industrial electronics. Hmmm - well ok but I have 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of pro-audio. Withe kind of mark-ups common to my industry, that bass and treble circuit would have to cost about $60 in materials to translate to a $200 retail cost. Given that even conductive plastic pots can be had for a few dollars each - what had you in mind ? Penny & Giles rotary faders, like I use in my own passive controller, with ruthenium-tipped Pickering relays providing the tone bypass circuit. Nice - but serious overkill. Graham |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Jiyang Chen" wrote in message ... Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250 watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The speakers are Athena AS-f2. Can anyone recommend a good $450 or under amp for these speakers ? I already have the CD player. I've been looking into some A/v receivers, specifically the Harman Kardon AVR 330. It says that it'll deliver 55 watts into Surround front left and right, and 70 watts into Stereo. What's the difference between plugging the AS-f2 speakers into either one of the slots? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
Do you recall the 'Academy Curve' applied to film sound tracks ? Yer. A recording engineer I knew many years ago similarly had his own 'anti Academy Curve' filter. Fogures. His film sound tracks received a number of awards ! ;-) Probably not a coincidence. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have, a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV. Agreed, tone controls are pretty blunt instruments for correcting the tonal quality of recordings. OTOH a good 5 or 7 band parametric equalizer or better yet a 24,000 point FFT-based equalizer can be in the right hands, a pretty fine tool. Even 30 band graphic equalizers can be pretty darn useful. I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti-SM-57". It's pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that mic. It's amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it seems to be able to transform into listenable events, almost magically. Do you recall the 'Academy Curve' applied to film sound tracks ? A recording engineer I knew many years ago similarly had his own 'anti Academy Curve' filter. His film sound tracks received a number of awards ! ;-) Graham |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote ... I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti- SM-57". It's pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that mic. It's amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it seems to be able to transform into listenable events, almost magically. And yet that unfortunate transducer (and its' cousin, the '58) are the "industry standard". Which is why I find it dificult to generate much respect for the pop-music "industry". May I suggest that you reserve your disdain more for Shure Brothers and their apparent inability to make any better mic as a 'standard' ? There's no shortage of 'pop-music' sound engineers who loathe the SM57/8 along with its endless promotion. The 57 isn't even robust ! SM57s & 58s are bought mainly by ppl who listen to audio folklore rather than their ears. Graham |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:06:10 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:57:41 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:29 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary controls. You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ). I have more than 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of high quality industrial electronics. Hmmm - well ok but I have 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of pro-audio. Withe kind of mark-ups common to my industry, that bass and treble circuit would have to cost about $60 in materials to translate to a $200 retail cost. Given that even conductive plastic pots can be had for a few dollars each - what had you in mind ? Penny & Giles rotary faders, like I use in my own passive controller, with ruthenium-tipped Pickering relays providing the tone bypass circuit. Nice - but serious overkill. In the context of a 'high-end' pre-amplifier which could retail for several thousand dollars? No, just honest use of the best available components. Check what's *really* inside those megabuck preamps, and it's usually about thirty to fifty bucks worth of Alps pots and gold-plated switches - if you're lucky............ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Audio amp 40 watts, loudspeaker 19 watts; How to adapt? | Tech | |||
[Ohms Law] Watts and Impedance? | Tech | |||
tube watts not equal to transistor watts? | General |