In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Howard Ferstler

El Swipo said:

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Was there any plagiarism involved in either article?


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:

El Swipo said:

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Was there any plagiarism involved in either article?

GeoSynch

Have you anything intelligent or productive to say about
those equalizers?

You appear to be another RAO know nothing; one who
substitutes sophomoric remarks for genuine knowledge
concerning audio. I checked through some of your older posts
and at best all I could find of any that dealt with audio
were some shopping comments about LP turntables - a
borderline defunct technology.

You need to get out more.

Howard Ferstler

Howard squawked:

You need to get out more.

.... said the shut-in.


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:

Howard squawked:

You need to get out more.

... said the shut-in.

GeoSynch

Look, moron, why don't you pass on the insults and start
posting information (or even questions) about audio. Your
behavior now sets you up as your own worst enemy.

Howard Ferstler

Howie whined:

Look, moron, why don't you pass on the insults and start
posting information (or even questions) about audio.

Ok, here's a question: what percentage of your published
work is plagiarized and what percentage is not plagiarized?


GeoSynch

I wrote:

Howard squawked:

You need to get out more.

... said the shut-in.

BTW, your research capabilities are as arthritic as your prose:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...mailer.fsu.edu


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:


Howard squawked:

You need to get out more.

... said the shut-in.


GeoSynch










Not only a shut-in, but a promoter of libel and disinformation about others -
which he glorifies and praises in his fellow sociopathic liar, Krueger.

These 2 deserve each other.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
GeoSynch wrote:


Howard squawked:

You need to get out more.

... said the shut-in.


GeoSynch










Not only a shut-in, but a promoter of libel and disinformation about
others -
which he glorifies and praises in his fellow sociopathic liar, Krueger.

These 2 deserve each other.



Bruce J. Richman




Howard the Hack
The only part of his alleged writing that isn't plagarized is his constant
remarks about how high end is dead. Yet he keeps on hacking on about it...
It surely is true that high end died for Howard! Question is who cares and
who needs his diatribe.
Carl

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Not only a shut-in, but a promoter of libel and disinformation about
others - which he glorifies and praises in his fellow sociopathic
liar, Krueger.

Whatya call a purported health care professional who doesn't know that the
major mental health facility he referenced has been closed for upwards of 7
years? Bruce Richman!

GeoSynch wrote:


El Swipo said:

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Was there any plagiarism involved in either article?


GeoSynch










Was all the stolen material equalized?



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

GeoSynch wrote:

El Swipo said:

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Was there any plagiarism involved in either article?

Was all the stolen material equalized?

Yeah, it was clumsily run through the Ferstler Veg-o-matic,
but, alas, it didn't get sliced-and-diced enough to fool anybody.


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

GeoSynch wrote:

El Swipo said:

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Was there any plagiarism involved in either article?

Was all the stolen material equalized?

Yeah, it was clumsily run through the Ferstler Veg-o-matic,
but, alas, it didn't get sliced-and-diced enough to fool anybody.


GeoSynch










Howierd's middle name is Ronco.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

Howierd's middle name is Ronco.



Bruce J. Richman




Yeah and his writing certainly qualifies as the "Pocket Fisherman!"

Carl

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Howard Ferstler

They're alright.

You can quote me, with proper attribution.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:06:36 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Howard Ferstler

If you claim that you're going to use RAO as fodder for an article as
to why such newsgroups are helping further the demise of high end
audio, why do you think that anyone would be stupid enough to give you
the ammunition. You must think that people around here are as dumb as
you.

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:06:36 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Howard Ferstler

If you claim that you're going to use RAO as fodder for an article as
to why such newsgroups are helping further the demise of high end
audio, why do you think that anyone would be stupid enough to give you
the ammunition. You must think that people around here are as dumb as
you.

I just want to see if ANY of you are able to discuss audio.

Incidentally, the responses to my initial audio-related
posts are indeed further fodder for the article I am working
on. It is more proof that most high-end audio enthusiasts
(certainly those who are rabid enough in their approach to
post material here) are technical ignoramuses who are unable
to rationally discuss a hobby they claim to love.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message


In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Rane equipment is generally well-engineered and well-built. I have quite a
bit of it. I think I started out with a ME60, and it performed will in a
home environment.

The schematic of a THX-44 can be downloaded from
http://www.rane.com/pdf/thx44sch.pdf

My own take on the THX-44 is that I want to compare it to Rane equipment I
own like the PE15 parametric and the ME30 GE30, and ME60 1/3 octave
equalizers that I own. Compared to them, the phrase "Dumbed down for
consumers" comes to mind.

BTW, the Rane equipment I own generally seems to want to last forever. In
the rare event it breaks down, its generally easy to repair. The schematics
are online, and the chassis are spacious and easy to access. Of the dozen or
so Rane pieces I've owned going back to the 1980's, I have only had to
replace a voltage regulator chip in one of them, and that was just recently.
It was a standard off-the shelf part, and replacement took less than an
hour.

At this time Rane equipment is kinda pricey, except perhaps as compared to
high end audio. The obvious question in my mind is how does the PE15S, PE15,
PE17, ME30 and ME60 shape up functionally, performance-wise, and
economically as compared to say, the far less costly similar Behringer
pieces. Behringer has historically been the brand that people love to hate,
but a number of products in their current product line are well-respected.

I also own a Behr PEQ 2200, and have checked it out pretty thoroughly and it
generally outperforms the PE15 I compared it to. I don't know how the Behr
equipment will last (only time will tell), but it retails for a fraction of
Rane prices, is readily available, and can often be found on eBay. I think I
paid about $75 for the PEQ in like-new condition in the box with manual. In
contrast, PE15s have cost me like $150 used in the past.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message


In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed the Rane
THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had also reviewed
the THX-22 version.

I would love to have some feedback regarding these two
components.

Rane equipment is generally well-engineered and well-built. I have quite a
bit of it. I think I started out with a ME60, and it performed will in a
home environment.

Actually, I reviewed the ME60 at the same time I reviewed
the THX-22, and felt the former was superior, at least in
terms of adjustment finesse. The lower price of the THX-22
would make it preferable to some individuals. Both reviews
appeared in issue 83 of The Sensible Sound. My review of the
THX-44 appeared in issue 98.

I still use two different THX-22 models and I also use the
THX-44. With three systems, I need three equalizers. I also
use an AudioControl C-131 in my main system (along with one
of the THX-22 units). I never did a formal review of the AC
unit, although I did print some comments about it in one
issue of TSS. I find it to be a bit noisy for something so
expensive. It is also too big.

My own take on the THX-44 is that I want to compare it to Rane equipment I
own like the PE15 parametric and the ME30 GE30, and ME60 1/3 octave
equalizers that I own. Compared to them, the phrase "Dumbed down for
consumers" comes to mind.

Yes, it is definitely a consumer product, as opposed to the
more refined other Rane models. I find the parametric
sections a bit awkward to use (the adjustment scales are
unrefined), but the graphic section is quite good.

At this time Rane equipment is kinda pricey, except perhaps as compared to
high end audio....

Actually, the AudioControl C-131 is also pricey. I think
that each mono unit lists for over $500, and that is
considerably more expensive than a single ME60 that has two
channels.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed
the Rane THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had
also reviewed the THX-22 version.

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

Powell wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed
the Rane THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had
also reviewed the THX-22 version.

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.











Powell, since you're responding to this egomaniacal windbag and libel-spewing
audio clown, please ask him to demonstrate his scientific integrity by telling
us once again about his double blind tests. As I understand it, and as most
other RAO normals understand it, they've been conclusively shown to be bogus by
several experienced audio professionals. Therefore, his writings (which may
also be at least partially plagiarized) aren't worth the toilet paper they are
written on.

I've suggested that he and Krueger, as part of their mutual love fest and
rehabilitation consider both finger painting and basket weaving. Both require
a minimm amount of social interaction and help to hide their limited
communication and social skills. OTOH, they can alway ciontinue responding to
the internal voices in their head telling them about EHEE & RAO conspiracy
theories.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
PY 2543 (Florida)

Hereafter the trigger of Dr. Richman hystery :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact to be honset Bruce I don't like you.
Your position, your role of RAO's psychologist expert is, IMHO, totally
*biased* and *hypocrite*.
To explain you clearly my state of mind since the begining of our
exchange I think that Dave statements were "factual" without any
passion. Doing so he has exprimed the ethical and deontological reserve
that, IMHO, should be your attribute on a public forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

Powell wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote


In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed
the Rane THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had
also reviewed the THX-22 version.


Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.












Powell, since you're responding to this egomaniacal windbag and libel-spewing
audio clown, please ask him to demonstrate his scientific integrity by telling
us once again about his double blind tests. As I understand it, and as most
other RAO normals understand it, they've been conclusively shown to be bogus by
several experienced audio professionals. Therefore, his writings (which may
also be at least partially plagiarized) aren't worth the toilet paper they are
written on.

I've suggested that he and Krueger, as part of their mutual love fest and
rehabilitation consider both finger painting and basket weaving. Both require
a minimm amount of social interaction and help to hide their limited
communication and social skills. OTOH, they can alway ciontinue responding to
the internal voices in their head telling them about EHEE & RAO conspiracy
theories.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
PY 2543 (Florida)

Lionel "Conditioned Reflex" Chapuis begs for recognition:

auditory hallucinations deleted - new medication recommended


Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

snip

Your post hit my server at 2:57 a.m... can't sleep?
Lets talk about that, Doc .

Powell wrote:

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money.

Do you mean DSP based ones aren't ?

Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics

Uh ? What are *microdynamics* ?

and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

Are you seriously suggesting that simple bass and treble controls,
properly centred, *dull* the signal ?


Graham.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Powell wrote:

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money.

Do you mean DSP based ones aren't ?

It all depends on what you are looking for. If you want a box that will make
things sound different when you operate the controls, equalizers are a good
value. If you're looking for he Holy Grail of audio, they probably aren't.
But, you knew that.

Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics

Uh ? What are *microdynamics* ?

Something that is very important to Powell. Other than that, it's pretty
hard to get many coherent deeper thoughts about audio out of Powell. He has
a very, ummm metaphysical view of audio technology.

and articulation of the human voice.

Powell only records himself speaking, from the best I can determine.

Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

I don't think so. I think that people figured out that preamps should stick
to the basics, and leave other functions to other hardware.

Are you seriously suggesting that simple bass and treble controls,
properly centred, *dull* the signal ?

Obviously, not if properly designed and implemented. However, all consumer
audio gear has been properly designed and properly implemented. Again, you
knew that.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Uh ? What are *microdynamics* ?

Something that is very important to Powell. Other than
that, it's pretty hard to get many coherent deeper thoughts
about audio out of Powell. He has a very, ummm
metaphysical view of audio technology.

Hehehe... yes, I resemble that remark.


and articulation of the human voice.

Powell only records himself speaking, from the best
I can determine.

The human voice, in general, is the most difficult
aspect of audio reproduction. Number one with a
bullet in my musical preference.

I was listening to 3 A.M. Eternal by The KLF the other
day (RAP music) and was wondering how kids extract
(auditory perception) the understanding of the words
being spoken. A spectrum analysis indicated heavy
lower midrange prominence, the boom, boom, boom.
It tended to obscured the male voice. Female voice
was clearer being shifted further up the spectrum.
Because much of the rap music is spoken by male
voices, how do kids hear the words... isn’t that the
point of the tune (poetry)?

Powell wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote

Uh ? What are *microdynamics* ?

Something that is very important to Powell. Other than
that, it's pretty hard to get many coherent deeper thoughts
about audio out of Powell. He has a very, ummm
metaphysical view of audio technology.

Hehehe... yes, I resemble that remark.


and articulation of the human voice.

Powell only records himself speaking, from the best
I can determine.

The human voice, in general, is the most difficult
aspect of audio reproduction. Number one with a
bullet in my musical preference.

I was listening to 3 A.M. Eternal by The KLF the other
day (RAP music) and was wondering how kids extract
(auditory perception) the understanding of the words
being spoken. A spectrum analysis indicated heavy
lower midrange prominence, the boom, boom, boom.
It tended to obscured the male voice. Female voice
was clearer being shifted further up the spectrum.
Because much of the rap music is spoken by male
voices, how do kids hear the words... isnt that the
point of the tune (poetry)?











Contrary to what so-called audio person Krueger has claimed, there is nothing
mysterious or metaphysical about terms such as "microdynamics". The term is
generally understood by most audio hobbyists and audio writers doing reviews.
Just as macrodynamics refer to relatively gross and easily heard differences
between the loudest and softest passages in a piece of music, microdynamics
refer to relatively small differences in level between passages of music in
which volume differences from note to note are harder to discern.

Also, evaluation of loudspeakers generally includes listening to how well a
given product reproduces both male and female voices. As Powell correctly
points out, some audio systems, taken as a whole, are simply much better than
others at enabling listeners to understand what the singers are saying.

None of this is considered unusual except to radical anti-subjective-opinion,
anti-individual-preference zealots who discount almost everything that can't be
accounted for by their specifications uber alles preconceptions. Needless to
say, for those bigots, even the reading of a subjective review or discussion of
individual preferences would be anathema.

Bruce J. Richman

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message


Are you seriously suggesting that simple bass and treble controls,
properly centred, *dull* the signal ?

Obviously, not if properly designed and implemented. However, all consumer
audio gear has been properly designed and properly implemented. Again, you
knew that.

But of course ;-)


Graham

"Powell" said:

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking phase
correction per band.

This is one EQ I'd sure want to have in my system!

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking phase
correction per band.

This is one EQ I'd sure want to have in my system!

"Cello Palette"... thought company was sold to ML, no?
Cello is still manufacturing products?

"Powell" wrote in message

"Sander deWaal" wrote

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking
phase correction per band.

This is one EQ I'd sure want to have in my system!

"Cello Palette"... thought company was sold to ML, no?
Cello is still manufacturing products?

Interesting story:

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/...worldcom.shtml

July 2002:

"Most high end audio enthusiasts know and respect the cult of personality
based around Mr. Mark Levinson, especially his last, highly touted brand of
gear and AV showrooms - Cello. Back in the wild, late 1990's, a financier
and audio enthusiast named Rick Adams, actually bought both Cello Ltd. (the
electronics company) and the Cello Music and Film showrooms in New York and
Los Angeles from Mr. Levinson and various other investors. He was flush with
cash from the sale of a past technology company called UUNet which he sold
to the now infamous WorldCom.

(This business was apparently known as "Simply Home Entertainment")

"Adams poured money and resources into Cello's custom installation business
like no one ever had before in the history of AV. The new New York and Los
Angeles showrooms were truly monuments to the high art form of audio, video
and recording. Teams of designers, nationally prominent AV sales talent like
David Daniels and Nick Lucci powered the business model. Ultimately, the
Cello concept couldn't live up to its lofty sales projections especially
when the economy finally settled down in 2000.

"Adams soon thereafter pulled the plug on most of the Cello project and sold
off most of its assets.

"The recording studios, formerly known as Oceanway, still bear the Cello
name as does the trendy and well regarded restaurant in NY which boasts a
top listing for food in New York on the Zagat guide.

"Powell" said:

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking phase
correction per band.

This is one EQ I'd sure want to have in my system!

"Cello Palette"... thought company was sold to ML, no?
Cello is still manufacturing products?

After Mark Levinson the man left Mark Levinson the company, he founded
Cello. There were very few products, but of outstanding quality IMO.
ML is now a part of Harman inc.

Whatever happened the past 5 years with the company I don't know, but
according to Arny's info, they've gone.
Occasionally, Cello gear can be found second hand.
At mad prices, note.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal wrote:

"Powell" said:

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking phase
correction per band.

Can you explain what 'continuous tracking phase correction' is supposed to
be please ?


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Sander deWaal wrote:

"Powell" said:

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking
phase correction per band.

Can you explain what 'continuous tracking phase correction' is
supposed to be please ?

I'd speculate that they had a variable all-pass network for each band,
ganged onto the same variable control.

Here's a fairly good review of it:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...lo/index4.html

It appears that the eq controls are actually switches, so its no problem to
gang up as many circuit elements, whether resistiive or capacitive, as
required to obtain the required function in the analog domain.

Pooh Bear said:

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking phase
correction per band.

Can you explain what 'continuous tracking phase correction' is supposed to
be please ?

As you probably know, an equalizer doesn't only cut or boost a chosen
frequency, it also alters the phase at said corner frequency.
Each band in this EQ is followed by a converse bandpass filter that
corrects for the altered phase per band.
Think of it as correction of time delay within the chosen band.

An equalizer without this system will smear out phase of band signals
all over the place. This can seriously affect the soundstage.
Because of the effect of the freq. tampering, it won't be noticed
quickly, but the effect is there.

I believe some ( all?) digital equalizers don't suffer from this
phenomena.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal said:

Each band in this EQ is followed by a converse bandpass filter that
corrects for the altered phase per band.

Ouch. Make that all-pass, please. It's getting late and my bed is
calling.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal wrote:

Pooh Bear said:

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking phase
correction per band.

Can you explain what 'continuous tracking phase correction' is supposed to
be please ?

As you probably know, an equalizer doesn't only cut or boost a chosen
frequency, it also alters the phase at said corner frequency.

Indeed !

I've heard it said that this may be part of the 'character' of EQ.

For example - in one of my areas of expertise, namely mixing consoles, it is
intruiging that 'British EQ' seems very popular with users for it's
'involvement' as hi-fi ppl might say.


Each band in this EQ is followed by a converse bandpass filter that
corrects for the altered phase per band.
Think of it as correction of time delay within the chosen band.

OK - I follow the principle in theory at least.


An equalizer without this system will smear out phase of band signals
all over the place. This can seriously affect the soundstage.

Isn't this where the discussion gets subjective ?


Because of the effect of the freq. tampering, it won't be noticed
quickly, but the effect is there.

Not sure what you mean by 'tampering' here.


I believe some ( all?) digital equalizers don't suffer from this
phenomena.

I'm just starting to investigate DSP EQ. It is certainly more flexible. If I
understand correctly, it is possible to model most / all ? classic analogue EQ
configurations and also create entirely new ones with entirely different phase
characteristics. It's possible that modelling classic analogue EQ may actually
be slightly more difficult than one might imagine.

Of course then there's the issue of how exactly the ear responds to phase
information to deal with !

Graham

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

Pooh Bear said:

I know of at least one exception:
The Cello Palette.
This is the only analog EQ I know about with continuous tracking
phase correction per band.

Can you explain what 'continuous tracking phase correction' is
supposed to be please ?

As you probably know, an equalizer doesn't only cut or boost a chosen
frequency, it also alters the phase at said corner frequency.

That's either moot or good news, because equalizers are often used to
compensate for losses or excess gains elsewhere in the system. Most natural
processes have a characteristic called *minimum phase* which means that they
have a certain combination of phase and amplitude responses over the range
of frequencies. You are objecting to on the grounds apparently that all
phase shift is a bad thing.

In fact, if you compensate for a minimum phase peak or dip with a minimum
phase filter, you correct both the phase and amplitude response. If you
compensate for a minimum phase peak or dip with a non phase shifting filter
such as the Cello, you dont correct the phase and amplitude response.

Therefore, this characteristic of equalizers that you criticize Sander, is
in fact an important benefit in many situations.


Each band in this EQ is followed by a converse bandpass filter that
corrects for the altered phase per band.
Think of it as correction of time delay within the chosen band.

Unfortunately this often ends up adding additional phase shifts to the
system that the equalizer has been brought in to correct.

An equalizer without this system will smear out phase of band signals
all over the place.

Wrong, an equalizer with this system is probably an audible defiicit.

This can seriously affect the soundstage.

That is another old wife's story. In fact, phase shift applied to both
channels has negligable effect on soundstage.

Because of the effect of the freq. tampering, it won't be noticed
quickly, but the effect is there.

Wrong, the purported phase correction is often a detriment to accurate phase
response. Furthermore, the ear is tolerant of a great deal of phase shift if
it is applied equally to both channels.

I believe some ( all?) digital equalizers don't suffer from this
phenomena.

Digital equalizers can be built with just about combination of phase shift
and amplitude response that is desired. Often they are built to precisely
emulate tranditional analog equalizers, because that is the best combination
of phase shift and amplitude response to emulate, for the reasons I just
gave.

Powell wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

In a recent issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed
the Rane THX-44 equalizer. In an earlier issue I had
also reviewed the THX-22 version.

Analog equalizers in high end audio (stereo) are generally
a waste of time and money. Thirty-one pots only serve to
dull out microdynamics and articulation of the human voice.
Many of the high quality pre-amps manufactured over the
last 20 years come without any bass or treble control
whatsoever, for this reason.

I spend a lot of time analyzing vocal recordings (I also
review recordings for The Sensible Sound, as well as
components), and I found no problems with the unit. My
biggest gripe with some equalizers involved their noise
levels.

I am not sure at all what "microdynamics" are, by the way.
However, simply maladjusting a unit (without use of good
measuring gear) would make for all sorts of problems.
However, all of them would be related to a skewed frequency
response (thanks to the maladjusting) and not to anything
mysterious.

In issue 95 of The Sensible Sound I graphically show just
what a good equalizer can do with even good speakers. This
article, plus one in issue 94, were part of a two-part
discussion essay, plus graphics, on the frequency responses
of over a dozen speakers I had previously reviewed. There
was a huge price spread between the speakers. After doing a
lot of AB comparisons I substantiated my view that some
low-cost speakers could give some very expensive models a
serious run for the money.

Howard Ferstler