[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...

You guys are cracked, man. We're not talking about an effort to
flatten the room using a super-dooper parametic EQ. We're talking
about a simple stereo with the ability to adjust tone to taste,
depending on the recording. Sheesh!

Agreed.

No "properly calibrated equipment" required!

Not required, but it can help.

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool,

Agreed.

People who do go the way of measurement microphones, well-treated rooms, and
eqs also find tone controls of some kind to be advantageous.


FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

Even if the room is really quite well-done, recordings vary enough that it
can still be beneficial for one's personal listening pleasure to adjust
system FR from time to time.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Like I said, I've been using my NT1A (U87 clones)...

Hehehe... "U87 clone" oh right!

Tell us about your mic collection, Powell.
Quack, quack, quack...

I did cheap-out and built three free-stand acoustic
absorption panels (86" x33"). Each has 20 sq. ft.
of surface area with three layers of absorption
materials (4" total). Took about 12 hrs. to fabricate
and little more than $200 in materials. Worked well
recording talent for political radio spots. Two more
panels would add even more flexibility for a wider
range of projects.

[Powell]

"Harry Lavo" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Like I said, I've been using my NT1A (U87 clones)...

Hehehe... "U87 clone" oh right!


Hey, for Arny it was a real upgrade. Replaced the NT1.
Perhaps Arny can recomend a $200 Royer R122 PP ribbon
clone for me.
http://www.royerlabs.com/mics/R-122.html

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool,

Agreed.

People who do go the way of measurement microphones, well-treated rooms, and
eqs also find tone controls of some kind to be advantageous.


FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

Even if the room is really quite well-done, recordings vary enough that it
can still be beneficial for one's personal listening pleasure to adjust
system FR from time to time.

Exactly! Even if you've "flattened your system" with the super-duper
EQ and room treatments, recordings vary! You don't want to mess with
your super-duper EQ for every recording.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool,

Agreed.

People who do go the way of measurement microphones, well-treated rooms,
and
eqs also find tone controls of some kind to be advantageous.


FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

Even if the room is really quite well-done, recordings vary enough that it
can still be beneficial for one's personal listening pleasure to adjust
system FR from time to time.

Exactly! Even if you've "flattened your system" with the super-duper
EQ and room treatments, recordings vary! You don't want to mess with
your super-duper EQ for every recording.

Agreed.

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The best pre is no pre.

Optical players/DACs with a nice big volume knob and low impedance
outputs directly driving a power amp are the ultimate in quality.

I can sure see that. It's somewhat surprising you don't see DAC's
with remote volume-controls. Would be perfect for the purists...

If you do need a pre, and in some situations you might, it's amazing,
or disgusting depending on your perspective, how $2-10K units are
consistently trumped by homebrew Marantz 7/ Mac C22 clones, if the
power supply is isolated and good parts are used.

That's probably not a horrible way to go, either. I'm actually
thinking of building my own (using a proven design, of course).

The ultimate
enclosure is a three-chamber die casting with RF gasketed lid that is
19" with integral rack ears that was used as part of a Quintron paging
trensmitter enclosure. From time to time these come available at ye
olde hamfeste. A junked turbine igniter box works too if you don't mind
gutting it and for best results, cutting off the HV cigarette housings
and having them welded over.

While there pick up some books published before '63 or so. Pete
Millett needs them....

[TT]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Bret Ludwig wrote:

The best pre is no pre.

Optical players/DACs with a nice big volume knob and low
impedance
outputs directly driving a power amp are the ultimate in
quality.

I can sure see that. It's somewhat surprising you don't
see DAC's
with remote volume-controls. Would be perfect for the
purists...

You mean like the one I use?

http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html

And balanced outputs as well ;-)

Regards TT

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Possibly, but since Trevor claimed he prefered recordings made without
any
EQ, you would think he could then name one at least :-)

**That was not the question you asked. Want me to show you your question?

No, what I want you to show me is your answer :-)

("Several" is hardly specific)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used, were those which
employed
no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to disk LPs, for
instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.


**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve anything. Ever.

Funny then that no recording I know of has not used them.

**You need to get out more.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it is used on
recordings between artist and listener.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
I can't understand why
someone would want to listed to something sounds **sounds worse to
them** just for the smug satisfaction that they are listening to the
recording the way some nameless engineer thought was best.

Agreed, but in fact the recording and mastering engineers names are usually
listed on the CD credits :-)

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used,
were those which employed no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to disk
LPs, for instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.


**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve
anything. Ever.

Funny then that no recording I know of has not used
them.

**You need to get out more.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it
is used on recordings between artist and listener.

Trevor probably has a little dance he does to dismiss RIAA eq.

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro analog tape machines
work.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

OTOH, simply reading test equipment without _at least
reasonably objective_ listening results in sound that
is either very right or very wrong, and very wrong is
commoner than not.

Point well taken. I know of no effective audio
professional who simply sets things up solely "By the
numbers".

What do you mean by "sets things up"?

Anything involving system integration, installation, or repair.


Professional grade
studios are designed by an acoustic architect, "by the
numbers", using calibration equipment for performance
testing and verification once constructed.

On a good day.

Are you suggesting they have a quick listen to it afterwards &
start all over again if they're not entirely happy with
the results? :-)

So Paul are you saying that:

(1) It's not necessary to listen to the studio at all - it was designed
right and that is that.

(2) If the customer doesn't like it exactly as built, he can go and hang.

(3) If a studio doesn't sound just right as designed, then there is no
choice but but start over again from scratch.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro analog tape machines
work.

Why did you specify pro ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro
analog tape machines work.

Why did you specify pro ?

As you n doubt know, Trevor is a repair tech. Old enough to have worked on
many consumer analog tape decks. I suspect that his expectations of consumer
machines were something like mine - along the lines of "what do you expect".

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

OTOH, simply reading test equipment without _at least
reasonably objective_ listening results in sound that
is either very right or very wrong, and very wrong is
commoner than not.

Point well taken. I know of no effective audio
professional who simply sets things up solely "By the
numbers".

What do you mean by "sets things up"?

Anything involving system integration, installation, or repair.


Professional grade
studios are designed by an acoustic architect, "by the
numbers", using calibration equipment for performance
testing and verification once constructed.

On a good day.

Are you suggesting they have a quick listen to it afterwards &
start all over again if they're not entirely happy with
the results? :-)

So Paul are you saying that:

(1) It's not necessary to listen to the studio at all - it was designed
right and that is that.

(2) If the customer doesn't like it exactly as built, he can go and hang.

(3) If a studio doesn't sound just right as designed, then there is no
choice but but start over again from scratch.

No.

You said "I know of no effective audio professional who simply sets
things up solely "By the numbers"."

I am saying it is effectively standard practice, when you get into the
realms of professional facilities.

You can't listen to a room until it is constructed, and once you have
a suspended floor installed, soffit mounted speakers, walls and
ceilings loaded with absorbers, it better bloody sound right.

Arny's drivelling.

He's never been in such a situation but can't resist making things up as if he
had been to inflate his ego.

If he thinks the end client can 'go and hang' he's dreaming !


Graham

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

If he thinks the end client can 'go and hang' he's dreaming !

He lives in a dreamworld, by my reckoning.

I'm sure you're right, but that's because the real world kicked him out.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro analog tape machines
work.

Indeed, or even amateur ones.
And I'm still puzzled about his original distinction that digital EQ is OK,
but not analog EQ, which implies the analog filters used for pre-emphasis
etc are also crook, then argues that ALL EQ is evil, but apparently *not*
NAB, RIAA, etc.
I guess the paradox has eluded his thinking so far.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used, were those which
employed
no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to disk LPs, for
instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.

**And the reverse EQ curve is precise in any decent equipment. The problem
with tone controls, is that ZERO precision occurs. The result is hit and
miss. Mostly miss.



**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve anything. Ever.

Funny then that no recording I know of has not used them.

**You need to get out more.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it is used on
recordings between artist and listener.

**I understand quite well thanks. What you need to understand is that an
amateur, with no test equipment and no reference has ZERO chances of making
a recording closer to the original musical event.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.

**And the reverse EQ curve is precise in any decent equipment. The problem
with tone controls, is that ZERO precision occurs. The result is hit and
miss. Mostly miss.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it is used on
recordings between artist and listener.

**I understand quite well thanks. What you need to understand is that an
amateur, with no test equipment and no reference has ZERO chances of
making
a recording closer to the original musical event.

Not so, he has EVERY chance of making the listening experience more
enjoyable for himself, with his equipment, in his listening environment.
Why should *they* care whether it is "correct" for you?

But where does your original distinction between analog EQ and Digital EQ
fit into this argument anyway?

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro
analog tape machines work.

Indeed, or even amateur ones.

AFAIK Trevor has ample experience working with those.

Apparently, he thinks that the pro machines that were used to produce so
many recordings that he enjoys came from a different, eq-free universe.

And I'm still puzzled about his original distinction that
digital EQ is OK, but not analog EQ, which implies the
analog filters used for pre-emphasis etc are also crook,

Pro tape machines should give Trevor considerable cause for pause. They
routinely use analog minimum-phase filters to compensate for things like
non-minimum-phase effects like head gap losses.

then argues that ALL EQ is evil, but apparently *not* NAB, RIAA, etc.

I seem to recall that he gives them a pass becuase they are based on
complementary eq. IOW, the RIAA eq used to cut LPs (all 40+ dB of it!) is
complemented by the RIAA wq used to play them back.

I guess the paradox has eluded his thinking so far.

The devil is in the details.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
.. .
What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.

**And the reverse EQ curve is precise in any decent
equipment. The problem with tone controls, is that ZERO
precision occurs. The result is hit and miss. Mostly
miss.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places
it is used on recordings between artist and listener.

**I understand quite well thanks. What you need to
understand is that an amateur, with no test equipment
and no reference has ZERO chances of making a recording
closer to the original musical event.

Not so, he has EVERY chance of making the listening
experience more enjoyable for himself, with his
equipment, in his listening environment. Why should
*they* care whether it is "correct" for you?

But where does your original distinction between analog
EQ and Digital EQ fit into this argument anyway?

BTW, a fair amount of digital eq in use, duplicates the amplitude and phase
characteristics of analog minimum-phase filters.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message


I should say I don't have first hand experience either,
to be fair, but have been fortunate enough to witness
builds from start to finish. Just happen to have friends
who have achieved success in that area. They share
something in common: worked *bloody* hard to get where
they are, used time productively that could otherwise be
spent, for example, debating on usenet. :-)

Wow, the man cuts himself off at the legs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

OTOH, simply reading test equipment without _at least
reasonably objective_ listening results in sound that
is either very right or very wrong, and very wrong is
commoner than not.

Point well taken. I know of no effective audio
professional who simply sets things up solely "By the
numbers".

What do you mean by "sets things up"?

Anything involving system integration, installation, or
repair.


Professional grade
studios are designed by an acoustic architect, "by the
numbers", using calibration equipment for performance
testing and verification once constructed.

On a good day.

Are you suggesting they have a quick listen to it
afterwards & start all over again if they're not
entirely happy with
the results? :-)

So Paul are you saying that:

(1) It's not necessary to listen to the studio at all -
it was designed right and that is that.

(2) If the customer doesn't like it exactly as built, he
can go and hang.

(3) If a studio doesn't sound just right as designed,
then there is no choice but but start over again from
scratch.

No.

You said "I know of no effective audio professional who
simply sets things up solely "By the numbers"."

Right, I'm talking about what I know. I live in a world where theory and
simulation are often used for design, but the final results are judged using
the ears. I have personally experienced all sorts of things developed this
way - speakers, rooms, audio components, recordings, carsound audio, etc.

I am saying it is effectively standard practice, when you
get into the realms of professional facilities.

You also said that you have no personal experiences to back this statement
up. I doubt that you even have personal contact with people who do this sort
of thing. I do. They do the best they can based on theory and simulation,
and then they listen to the results. If changes are necessary then they
effect them.

You can't listen to a room until it is constructed, and
once you have a suspended floor installed, soffit mounted
speakers, walls and ceilings loaded with absorbers, it
better bloody sound right.

There are all sorts of ways to tune a room once its built. Obviously, one
hopes to be very close once the construction phase is complete. But one need
not redo everything from scratch to effect a wothwhile change.

Futhermore a number of modern rooms are built from the start to be
adjustable. I'm thinking about two major performance rooms in the Detroit
area whose acoustics can be changed in real time.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

[Trevor] then argues that ALL EQ is evil, but apparently *not* NAB, RIAA,
etc.

I seem to recall that he gives them a pass becuase they are based on
complementary eq. IOW, the RIAA eq used to cut LPs (all 40+ dB of it!) is
complemented by the RIAA wq used to play them back.

Such EQ as typically implemented regularly has quite significant errors.

Most RIAA playback EQ is fairly inaccurate and only approximates the correct
curve due to poor filter implementation and the use of standard component
values.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used,
were those which employed no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to disk
LPs, for instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.


**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve
anything. Ever.

Funny then that no recording I know of has not used
them.

**You need to get out more.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it
is used on recordings between artist and listener.

Trevor probably has a little dance he does to dismiss RIAA eq.

**You lying weasel. Read my original pst and apologise. I said NOTHING about
PRECISE EQ curves, complemented by PRECISE reverse EQ curves. I was very
specific about UNCONTROLLED amateurs adjusting their equipment with TONE
CONTROLS without test equipment and without references. Sheesh! WFT is wrong
with you? Can't you read?


I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro analog tape machines
work.

**Non-sequitur. Read my comments.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.

**And the reverse EQ curve is precise in any decent equipment. The
problem
with tone controls, is that ZERO precision occurs. The result is hit and
miss. Mostly miss.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it is used on
recordings between artist and listener.

**I understand quite well thanks. What you need to understand is that an
amateur, with no test equipment and no reference has ZERO chances of
making
a recording closer to the original musical event.

Not so, he has EVERY chance of making the listening experience more
enjoyable for himself, with his equipment, in his listening environment.
Why should *they* care whether it is "correct" for you?

**Because we're discussing HIGH FIDELITY. I have no problems with people
enjoying their sound system any way they wish. With tone controls in use,
however, the result is no longer high fidelity. It is something else.


But where does your original distinction between analog EQ and Digital EQ
fit into this argument anyway?

**Read what I wrote and, perhaps, you'll understand. I doubt it though. You
and Mr Krueger are fools. You can't even read what is written.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Possibly, but since Trevor claimed he prefered recordings made without
any
EQ, you would think he could then name one at least :-)

**That was not the question you asked. Want me to show you your question?

No, what I want you to show me is your answer :-)

**Done and done.


("Several" is hardly specific)

**It is a very precise answer to your question. If you want to know
something else, then you'll need to ask. I can't read you mind.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Possibly, but since Trevor claimed he prefered recordings made without
any
EQ, you would think he could then name one at least :-)

**That was not the question you asked. Want me to show you your question?

No, what I want you to show me is your answer :-)

**Done and done.


("Several" is hardly specific)

**It is a very precise answer to your question. If you want to know
something else, then you'll need to ask. I can't read you mind.

How about I try: Trever, would you name, say, 2 recordings that are done
without equalization?

I'm honestly curious.

--
Bill

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Possibly, but since Trevor claimed he prefered recordings made
without
any
EQ, you would think he could then name one at least :-)

**That was not the question you asked. Want me to show you your
question?

No, what I want you to show me is your answer :-)

**Done and done.


("Several" is hardly specific)

**It is a very precise answer to your question. If you want to know
something else, then you'll need to ask. I can't read you mind.

How about I try: Trever, would you name, say, 2 recordings that are done
without equalization?

**Anything done by Sheffield Labs. That would include:

Lincoln Mayorga - Missing Linc I and II
Dave Grusin - Discovered Again (A simply extraordinary recording, IMO)
James Newton Howard & Friends

I have another half dozen in my collection, but I can't reach them right
now. Otherwise, I could list a bunch more for you.



I'm honestly curious.

**Go listen to the Dave Grusin sometime. The LP is stunning.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
**That was not the question you asked. Want me to show you your
question?

No, what I want you to show me is your answer :-)
("Several" is hardly specific)

**It is a very precise answer to your question. If you want to know
something else, then you'll need to ask. I can't read you mind.

OK, if you think "several" is a *specific* answer to what vinyl recordings
didn't use any analog EQ, then no point me arguing I guess.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
How about I try: Trever, would you name, say, 2 recordings that are done
without equalization?

**Anything done by Sheffield Labs. That would include:

Lincoln Mayorga - Missing Linc I and II

I have them, and III. They still used analog EQ at many stages
unfortunately. But I have a thousand CD's I'd rather listen to anyway.

**Go listen to the Dave Grusin sometime. The LP is stunning.

Yes it was good for vinyl, but surely you've worn it out by now if that's
all you can listen to :-)

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used,
were those which employed no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to
disk LPs, for instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.

**And the reverse EQ curve is precise in any decent
equipment.


It turns out that the current IEC definition of RIAA eq is defined to be
non-complementary, with an added roll-off on the playback side.

http://www.euronet.nl/~mgw/backgroun...kground_1.html

The problem with tone controls, is that ZERO
precision occurs. The result is hit and miss. Mostly miss.

Trevor still seems to think that no recordings are equalized by ear when
they are made. The fact is that equalization by ear is pretty much the the
universal rule when recordings are made for distribution. People who do
this are sometimes called "recording engineers" and "mastering engineers".

[dave weil]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:42:14 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Not so, he has EVERY chance of making the listening experience more
enjoyable for himself, with his equipment, in his listening environment.
Why should *they* care whether it is "correct" for you?

**Because we're discussing HIGH FIDELITY. I have no problems with people
enjoying their sound system any way they wish. With tone controls in use,
however, the result is no longer high fidelity. It is something else.

That would be fine if you use a scope trace as a reference.

The rest of us use speakers.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

It turns out that the current IEC definition of RIAA eq is defined to be
non-complementary, with an added roll-off on the playback side.

The 20Hz roll-off is optional.

Graham