Attenuate highest highs?

On 22/02/2020 7:48 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
> On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:36:32 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **Why? XLRs are very good connectors. They're robust, easy to wire up
>> and earth makes first and breaks last. Adapters are easy to source.
>
> Because:
>
> The system in question is a home audio system.

**Irrelevant. XLRs are VERY common in higher end domestic systems. XLRs
are an entirely appropriate connector and inexpensive.

> The system in question is quite vintage, using RCA jacks exclusively.

**Sure. Most are. However, 2 female and 2 male XLR connectors/adapters
are not a crazy idea.


> The individual asking for suggestions is of limited means, physically and, likely, financially.

**Possibly. Which is why I pointed to an eBay sale. The Behringer is a
cheap option and, IME, cheaper than a quality, analogue, paramtetric EQ.
Either way, I already provided the most suitable solution, which could
cost almost nothing - room treatments. Room treatements will almost
certainly solve the problem.

> The individual in question may have to move on short notice.

**Irrelevant. XLRs can be disconnected and re-connected as rapidly as RCAs.

> Adapters may be easy to source, but that does not make the cost of the equalizer together with the four (4) adapter needed cheap.

**Sure. However, a standard 10 band EQ is almost a waste of time. At the
very minimum, a parametric EQ is the only item worth bothering with.
Parametric (analogue) EQs tend to be expensive, unless one is looking
for a digital parametric EQ. I related a story about an ancient,
analogue parametric I recently bought and re-sold for a substantial sum.
A second hand Behringer can be a much cheaper option. And one that has
some significant advantages. That said, I will stand by my original
suggestion - room treatments are the best option. They can be cheap,
effective and easily removable.

>
> Generally, when giving advice, it is both courteous and common sense to make the suggestions fit the conditions at hand, and not add needless levels of complexity.

**I agree. Room treatments will be, by a long margin, the best option.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 21/02/2020 12:18 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
> Snark Warning!

> This pretty much summarizes my approach to speaker placement. There are overly bright rooms,

**Yep. And these are, far and away, the worst rooms for listening to
reproduced music.


there are overly dull rooms.


**Ummm, no. The BEST room to hear a music reproduction system in is an
anechoic (or, more properly: Near anechoic) room. I've done so on
several occasions and it never fails to demonstrate just how vital room
reflections are to destroying the integrity of recorded music.

But in the typical household, they are the rare exception. For the
most part, speaker placement is bunged by practical needs such as 'the
speakers can't go there because...', there by requiring compromises, not
always pleasant. And in the case of Shaun's speaker/amp/sub-woofer
system, I expect that electronic equalization will be the most practical
solution, and also the most transferable of the options should he have
to move. I admit to keeping an equalizer - but it hardly gets used as I
am also blessed with an understanding wife who allows me to put the
speakers where they 'want' to be in both listening areas. That one pair
are Maggies makes her even more remarkable.

**Maggies are particularly critical WRT placement and room effects, due
to the bipolar nature of the sound.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au