[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:39:04 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Trevor, we've already been over this. For adjusting bass levels for
different recordings, tone controls are by far the best way to go,
IMO. I'm not talking about room correction, here.

**OK. If you're not interested in accurate reproduction (aka: High Fidelity)
then why bother dropping a bundle on an expensive preamp?

Bad logic. No room is perfect and no speaker offers what you seem to
be claiming for "High Fidelity" ("accuracy). There are just too many
variables to assume "High Fidelity" (accuracy) from a normal person's
system. After all, even the choice of speakers is simply based on what
the person hears, and no speaker system is universally "perfect" for
everyone (or presumably even a majority of people.

The perception of sound is highly personal, and if an EQ makes the
system "sound better" to the end user, then who are YOU to quibble
with that...

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

As an experiment I once made an amp that was flat only when the
bass/mid/treble controls were well away from the centre position. It was
amazing how few people could even get close to a real flat setting by
listening, even those who decry the use of all tone controls. It was
notable that a couple of musicians did better than most of the sound
engineers, and the non technical generally not knowing where to even
start.

This is a bad experiment given that its results are presented as they have
been. There's no doubt that it takes a while to learn how to use an
equalizer to correct the SQ of a suboptimal recording or system. Trevor
says nothing about how the users were educated to use an equalizer to
balance a system, so we can probably assume that there was little or no
listener training at all. Trevor's purported test seems to be like a
circus side show that was designed to embarrass and humiliate his
prospective customers into agreeing with him.

**I suggest you ask someone to teach you how to use a news reader. Clearly,
you're having considerable difficulty.


--
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
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve anything. Ever.

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

I suspect that there are any number, but still only a tiny minority of
all
commercial recordings, that were produced using minimalist techniques.
There
may not have been any overt tone controls or equalizers used during
production. Many were probably marketed to audiophiles. You know,
Sheffield and Mapleshade and the like.

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?



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Most microphones used for recording have frequency response deviations
+/- 5 dB in the audible range, either on-axis or off-axis or both. In
fact

almost all of them do. Many of these mics are celebrated for whatever
deviations from perfectly flat response that they have.

And many are loathed for it too.

Few really decent mics are that bad

Mics that are flat within +/- 5 dB over the 20-20 KHz range are like
hen's teeth, outside of measurement mics and mics patterned after them.

20-20kHz !

You said audible range !

Let's pick some numbers then. 16 Hz, 16 KHz?

Don't be silly.


In any case the important area is more like 50Hz - 12kHz.

That rather vastly understates the audible range, both top and bottom.

And using off-axis response as a back-up is obfuscation.

Most sound reaches most mics outside of a 5 or 10 degree off-axis cone.

Pardon ?

Based on direct observation of dozens of mics in practical use.

Never been in a studio then ?


For example, most if not all of the well-known minimalist and coincident
micing techniques put the center of the sound source 45 degrees or more
off-axis. With them, it is considered acceptable practice to have
important
sound sources up to 90 or more degrees off-axis.

I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.

And almost none of the music I listen to.


Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a vocalist missing even a 30
degree cone...

Live SR is different. Bad mic technique abounds. Don't expect the same in the
studio.

Graham

[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.


**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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

* VERY FEW recordings are made with analogue EQ anymore.

Simply not true. Most recordings are made via mixing boards, and the
majority of mixing boards that are in service are basically analog. Just
about every mixing board has equalization controls in the signal path,
most have them there permanently. Adjustment of the equalizers in mixing
boards is a normal function of skilled operators.

Which means, with all due respect to Trevor, that zero-phase is not
necessarily optimal.

Right, its neither a panacea nor a serious problem.

Perhaps in some cases, analog equalization may actually correct the phase
in a more accurate direction, by reversing the analog eq in the recording.
Who can say with certainty which is more likely to occur: accentuation or
reduction of phase errors?

Let's not make too much of phase errors, when they are applied to both
channels identically, and moderate.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Most microphones used for recording have frequency response
deviations
+/- 5 dB in the audible range, either on-axis or off-axis or both.
In
fact

almost all of them do. Many of these mics are celebrated for
whatever
deviations from perfectly flat response that they have.

And many are loathed for it too.

Few really decent mics are that bad

Mics that are flat within +/- 5 dB over the 20-20 KHz range are like
hen's teeth, outside of measurement mics and mics patterned after
them.

20-20kHz !

You said audible range !

Let's pick some numbers then. 16 Hz, 16 KHz?

Don't be silly.

Objecting to either pair of numbers would be silly.

In any case the important area is more like 50Hz - 12kHz.

That rather vastly understates the audible range, both top and bottom.

And using off-axis response as a back-up is obfuscation.

Most sound reaches most mics outside of a 5 or 10 degree off-axis
cone.

Pardon ?

Based on direct observation of dozens of mics in practical use.

Never been in a studio then ?

I've been a a number of recording studios. That's not unusual.

For example, most if not all of the well-known minimalist and
coincident
micing techniques put the center of the sound source 45 degrees or
more
off-axis. With them, it is considered acceptable practice to have
important
sound sources up to 90 or more degrees off-axis.

I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.

And almost none of the music I listen to.

Don't like classical?

Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a vocalist missing even a 30
degree cone...

Live SR is different. Bad mic technique abounds. Don't expect the same in
the
studio.

I haven't noticed any difference. An artist has been getting a sound he
likes for year by treating mics in a certain way. He goes into the studio
and the recording engineer starts lecturing him about how to use the same
mic. What's wrong with this picture?

Graham

[dizzy]

paul packer wrote:

Trevor, I think you're being a bit inflexible. You're assuming modern
recordings with good balance. What about older recordings and
historical material etc.

No kidding. He cannot seem to grasp my point that I want the bass
control for adjusting for each CD. Fooling-around with a parametric
EQ in that application would be a bit ridiculous.

Plus his "forget about hifi" is plain silly. If a recording sounds
better with some bass boost, it sounds better. 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.

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

Absolutely, and obviously, wrong.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

dizzy wrote:

I don't want to have this discussion in this thread. I know what
works for me.

That seems to be the rule of Dizzy - don't bother him with the relevant
facts.

WTF was that slam for, Krueger? I'm already sufficiently aware of the
facts regarding tone controls to suit my purposes, thank you.

The "discussion" that Trevor wanted to start has ALREADY been covered
in here, so I had no desire to rehash the SAME crap again. Only an
IDIOT would read my " I don't want to have this discussion in this
thread" remark and conclude that I don't want to be "bothered with the
relevant facts".

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.

And almost none of the music I listen to.

Don't like classical?

Not especially. I listen to it sometimes.


Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a vocalist missing even a 30
degree cone...

Live SR is different. Bad mic technique abounds. Don't expect the same in
the studio.

I haven't noticed any difference. An artist has been getting a sound he
likes for year by treating mics in a certain way. He goes into the studio
and the recording engineer starts lecturing him about how to use the same
mic. What's wrong with this picture?

How many bands / artists use U87s as live vocal mics ?

How many studios use SM58s to record vocals ?

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:

Trevor, I think you're being a bit inflexible. You're assuming modern
recordings with good balance. What about older recordings and
historical material etc.

No kidding. He cannot seem to grasp my point that I want the bass
control for adjusting for each CD. Fooling-around with a parametric
EQ in that application would be a bit ridiculous.

Plus his "forget about hifi" is plain silly. If a recording sounds
better with some bass boost, it sounds better. 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.

**I don't have a problem with people buggering up their sound systems with
tone controls. What makes no sense, is spending huge amounts on a high end
preamp to do that. Once you start using tone controls, you may as well go
find the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find, as that is what you have
reduced the quality of the system down to.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Randy Yates]

"Trevor Wilson" writes:

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:

Trevor, I think you're being a bit inflexible. You're assuming modern
recordings with good balance. What about older recordings and
historical material etc.

No kidding. He cannot seem to grasp my point that I want the bass
control for adjusting for each CD. Fooling-around with a parametric
EQ in that application would be a bit ridiculous.

Plus his "forget about hifi" is plain silly. If a recording sounds
better with some bass boost, it sounds better. 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.

**I don't have a problem with people buggering up their sound systems with
tone controls. What makes no sense, is spending huge amounts on a high end
preamp to do that. Once you start using tone controls, you may as well go
find the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find, as that is what you have
reduced the quality of the system down to.

Wrong. Tone controls can be designed to very exacting standards, where
practically all that changes is, as dizzy wrote, that the material is
reproduced with different EQ than the recording engineer intended.

In fact, it is even more convoluted than that. If the recording
engineer listened to his mastered sound using speakers, then his
perception of the sound was biased by those speakers' response and the
response of the room. It could very well be that, e.g., the bass one
gets in the reproduction environment with a bit of tone balancing is
closer to the intended EQ at the recording environment.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Trevor Wilson]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" writes:

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
paul packer wrote:

Trevor, I think you're being a bit inflexible. You're assuming modern
recordings with good balance. What about older recordings and
historical material etc.

No kidding. He cannot seem to grasp my point that I want the bass
control for adjusting for each CD. Fooling-around with a parametric
EQ in that application would be a bit ridiculous.

Plus his "forget about hifi" is plain silly. If a recording sounds
better with some bass boost, it sounds better. 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.

**I don't have a problem with people buggering up their sound systems
with
tone controls. What makes no sense, is spending huge amounts on a high
end
preamp to do that. Once you start using tone controls, you may as well go
find the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find, as that is what you
have
reduced the quality of the system down to.

Wrong. Tone controls can be designed to very exacting standards, where
practically all that changes is, as dizzy wrote, that the material is
reproduced with different EQ than the recording engineer intended.

In fact, it is even more convoluted than that. If the recording
engineer listened to his mastered sound using speakers, then his
perception of the sound was biased by those speakers' response and the
response of the room. It could very well be that, e.g., the bass one
gets in the reproduction environment with a bit of tone balancing is
closer to the intended EQ at the recording environment.

**None of which is remotely possible, unless the end user has references,
test equipment and experience. IOW: Tone controls are useless.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:25:54 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**I don't have a problem with people buggering up their sound systems with
tone controls. What makes no sense, is spending huge amounts on a high end
preamp to do that. Once you start using tone controls, you may as well go
find the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find, as that is what you have
reduced the quality of the system down to.

********. The source wasn't recorded through a purist system.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.

And almost none of the music I listen to.

Don't like classical?

Not especially. I listen to it sometimes.


Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a vocalist missing even a
30
degree cone...

Live SR is different. Bad mic technique abounds. Don't expect the same
in
the studio.

I haven't noticed any difference. An artist has been getting a sound he
likes for year by treating mics in a certain way. He goes into the studio
and the recording engineer starts lecturing him about how to use the same
mic. What's wrong with this picture?

How many bands / artists use U87s as live vocal mics ?

Few.

How many studios use U87s as recording vocal mics?

Few.

How many studios use SM58s to record vocals ?

Lots.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.

And almost none of the music I listen to.

Don't like classical?

Not especially. I listen to it sometimes.


Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a vocalist missing even a
30
degree cone...

Live SR is different. Bad mic technique abounds. Don't expect the same
in
the studio.

I haven't noticed any difference. An artist has been getting a sound he
likes for year by treating mics in a certain way. He goes into the studio
and the recording engineer starts lecturing him about how to use the same
mic. What's wrong with this picture?

How many bands / artists use U87s as live vocal mics ?

Few.

How many studios use U87s as recording vocal mics?

Few.

How many studios use SM58s to record vocals ?

Lots.

The same number that use them to drive nails.

Stephen

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.

And almost none of the music I listen to.

Don't like classical?

Not especially. I listen to it sometimes.

Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a vocalist missing even a
30 degree cone...

Live SR is different. Bad mic technique abounds. Don't expect the same
in the studio.

I haven't noticed any difference. An artist has been getting a sound he
likes for year by treating mics in a certain way. He goes into the studio
and the recording engineer starts lecturing him about how to use the same
mic. What's wrong with this picture?

How many bands / artists use U87s as live vocal mics ?

Few.

How many studios use U87s as recording vocal mics?

Few.

Au contraire. Why do you think there are so many 'U87 copies' to cater for those
with less bucks ?


How many studios use SM58s to record vocals ?

Lots.

Absolutely not, except maybe very amateur ones.

You need to get out a bit and see what technology is actually used to make hit
albums.

The U87 and derivatives is one of the highest rated vocal mikes ever. Normally
used with a 'spit screen' btw at a distance of ~ 12-18". I've also used it on
snare and it rocks !

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

How many studios use SM58s to record vocals ?

Lots.

The same number that use them to drive nails.

Along with EV 664s. ;~)

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.

And almost none of the music I listen to.

Don't like classical?

Not especially. I listen to it sometimes.

Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a vocalist missing even
a
30 degree cone...

Live SR is different. Bad mic technique abounds. Don't expect the
same
in the studio.

I haven't noticed any difference. An artist has been getting a sound
he
likes for year by treating mics in a certain way. He goes into the
studio
and the recording engineer starts lecturing him about how to use the
same
mic. What's wrong with this picture?

How many bands / artists use U87s as live vocal mics ?

Few.

How many studios use U87s as recording vocal mics?

Few.

Au contraire. Why do you think there are so many 'U87 copies' to cater for
those
with less bucks ?

For opener's they would properly called "U87 copies", and don't count as
U87s.

FWIW I have a pair of of U87 copies that I use for live sound - more
specifically Rode NT1As.

How many studios use SM58s to record vocals ?

Lots.

Absolutely not, except maybe very amateur ones.

Maybe in the UK. The UK no doubt uses a lot more European mics than we do
over here.

SM58s are mics that many would say that every studio in the US should have
a few, because they are so common outside the studio.

You need to get out a bit and see what technology is actually used to make
hit
albums.

You didn't qualify your question to include only "Studios that make hit
albums". However, even high end studios keep SM58s around and do work with
them. At least in the US.

The U87 and derivatives is one of the highest rated vocal mikes ever.
Normally
used with a 'spit screen' btw at a distance of ~ 12-18". I've also used it
on
snare and it rocks !

Like I said, I've been using my NT1A (U87 clones) for live sound for almost
a year. One is on stage right now, serving chimes. I've also used them for
vocals, choral, hi hats, and woodwinds. They are a tad hot close up, but
mellow-out nicely at a distance. Among popular-priced mics, they have the
lowest self-noise.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

How many studios use U87s as recording vocal mics?

Few.

Au contraire. Why do you think there are so many 'U87 copies' to cater for
those with less bucks ?

For opener's they would properly called "U87 copies"

Not the way I write.


and don't count as U87s.

I was primarily referring to real U87s. The fact there are so many copies is so
that the average Joe can buy something similar too. If all that was needed to
record great vocals was an SM58 there'd be no need for them would there ?

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy said:


The "discussion" that Trevor wanted to start has ALREADY been covered
in here, so I had no desire to rehash the SAME crap again. Only an
IDIOT would read my " I don't want to have this discussion in this
thread" remark and conclude that I don't want to be "bothered with the
relevant facts".


Try to get hold of one of those older Luxman amplifiers with the
"tilt" equalizer and the adjustable frequency and level controls.

I only know of some intergrated amps that have these functions, but
maybe they once made a preamp-only version as well.
Some googling around will help, there is even an entire website for
Lux aficionados IIRC.
Marvellous phono stages as well.

You'd have to reach back to the late '70s or the early '80s to find
one, so that means recapping at least, replacing pots at worst.

But they're very useable functions. IMO, and they're also the only EQ
I sometimes use.

That, or the Cello Palette (second mortgage? ;-) )

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

"Trevor Wilson" said:


**I don't have a problem with people buggering up their sound systems with
tone controls. What makes no sense, is spending huge amounts on a high end
preamp to do that. Once you start using tone controls, you may as well go
find the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find, as that is what you have
reduced the quality of the system down to.


I don't agree with you on this, Trevor (surprise!)

I found the Lux tilt eq and variable frequency tone controls very
useful in some situations (especially when playing LPs from the '70s).

Only problem for the OP might be that those units are at least 20
years old, and would be in need of an overhaul.

God knows mine did, but it performs flawlessly.
Controls dead center, FR dead flat.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip

**Not at all. Very contemporary recordings use analogue EQ.

In fact **ALL** analog recordings used analog EQ in many stages of the
recording process, whether the engineer/producer added extra or not.

**ONLY with VERY PRECISE reverse curves. This is a very different
situation
to uncontrolled use of tone controls, by amateurs, with zero experience,
zero references and zero measurement equipment.


In practice they weren't very precise, especially on the older
recordings I favor more and more as I age myself.

**They've been very precise, since the 1950s.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

In fact, it is even more convoluted than that. If the recording
engineer listened to his mastered sound using speakers, then his
perception of the sound was biased by those speakers' response and the
response of the room. It could very well be that, e.g., the bass one
gets in the reproduction environment with a bit of tone balancing is
closer to the intended EQ at the recording environment.

**None of which is remotely possible, unless the end user has references,
test equipment and experience. IOW: Tone controls are useless.

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

[Powell]

"dizzy" wrote
I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They
are stupid expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp
I'll ever buy" maybe justifiable?

Well, maybe. They do consistently get good reviews,
for more than 30 years. They also tend to have greater
flexibility and more features than most.


I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!)

A continuously variable loudness control can be is very
nice, indeed.


... and other nice features like a HT pass-thru. The
quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

The quality of components, fit-and-finish, the craftsmanship
of the cabinet all add up to real pride-of-ownership as well.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

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

Hehehe... "U87 clone" oh right!

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

Try to get hold of one of those older Luxman amplifiers with the
"tilt" equalizer and the adjustable frequency and level controls.

I only know of some intergrated amps that have these functions, but
maybe they once made a preamp-only version as well.
Some googling around will help, there is even an entire website for
Lux aficionados IIRC.
Marvellous phono stages as well.

You'd have to reach back to the late '70s or the early '80s to find
one, so that means recapping at least, replacing pots at worst.

But they're very useable functions. IMO, and they're also the only EQ
I sometimes use.

Not surprisingly, I also want a remote-control...

I'm beginning to entertain the idea of building a single-source (all I
need it for is CD) version of Self's "Precision Preamp '96". It's got
continously-variable turnover freqs on the tone controls and a decent
+/-10dB gain range.

I'm kept-away from a lot of current preamps (Rotel, NAD) due to the
ridiculously wimpy +/-5dB range on the controls.

[Trevor Wilson]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

In fact, it is even more convoluted than that. If the recording
engineer listened to his mastered sound using speakers, then his
perception of the sound was biased by those speakers' response and the
response of the room. It could very well be that, e.g., the bass one
gets in the reproduction environment with a bit of tone balancing is
closer to the intended EQ at the recording environment.

**None of which is remotely possible, unless the end user has references,
test equipment and experience. IOW: Tone controls are useless.

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

**Only if you don't care about high fidelity. In that case, you may as well
buy the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find. It will do the same job.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:


"dizzy" wrote in message
.. .
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

In fact, it is even more convoluted than that. If the recording
engineer listened to his mastered sound using speakers, then his
perception of the sound was biased by those speakers' response and the
response of the room. It could very well be that, e.g., the bass one
gets in the reproduction environment with a bit of tone balancing is
closer to the intended EQ at the recording environment.

**None of which is remotely possible, unless the end user has references,
test equipment and experience. IOW: Tone controls are useless.

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

**Only if you don't care about high fidelity.

Wrong.

In that case, you may as well
buy the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find. It will do the same job.

Wrong.

[Trevor Wilson]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:


"dizzy" wrote in message
. ..
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

In fact, it is even more convoluted than that. If the recording
engineer listened to his mastered sound using speakers, then his
perception of the sound was biased by those speakers' response and the
response of the room. It could very well be that, e.g., the bass one
gets in the reproduction environment with a bit of tone balancing is
closer to the intended EQ at the recording environment.

**None of which is remotely possible, unless the end user has
references,
test equipment and experience. IOW: Tone controls are useless.

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

**Only if you don't care about high fidelity.

Wrong.

**Then post a list of your measurement equipment, along with your reference
points for each and every recording you own, or intend to buy. If you cannot
provide that, then you are just making wild guesses and your system is not
high fidelity (when you use tone controls).


In that case, you may as well
buy the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find. It will do the same job.

Wrong.

**Nope. Right.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Harry Lavo]

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"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.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:00:47 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

**Only if you don't care about high fidelity.

Wrong.

**Then post a list of your measurement equipment, along with your reference
points for each and every recording you own, or intend to buy. If you cannot
provide that, then you are just making wild guesses and your system is not
high fidelity (when you use tone controls).

Prove that YOU are correct.

Hint: you can't.

Sorry.

[dave weil]

On 26 Oct 2006 18:24:47 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

People who refuse to make accurate measurements with properly
calibrated equipment inevitably wind up like a pilot trying to fly
without view of the ground or working gyro panels: in a self-plowed
hole in the ground. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about such things
when you are doing it all yourself. The twiode ****s have demonstrated
that again and again. I've been in houses several times with SET/horn
systems built entirely by owner that on first listen were completely
****ed up. As time went on and beer flowed, I started agreeing, sort
of, with them, partly to get more beer and partly out of a sense that I
may have been wrong in fact. Nope: the systems were utterly ****ed up,
in each and every case.

Well, it may have been ****ed up FOR YOU. Nothing unusual for
different people to have different opinions about the same music being
played through the same stereo in the same room at the same time.
That's what's called "being human". The cause could be something as
simple as the individuals' different hearing curves, but there are
other factors involved as well, such as listening bias.

That's the whole point. Until you can prove that you hear things the
way the owner does, you're basically out of luck to make a global
declaration such as the one that you made. of course, you can ALWAYS
say that you didn't like the sound - that's a given.

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

People who refuse to make accurate measurements with properly
calibrated equipment inevitably wind up like a pilot trying to fly
without view of the ground or working gyro panels: in a self-plowed
hole in the ground. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about such things
when you are doing it all yourself.

You guys are cracked, man. We're not taling 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!

No "properly calibrated equipment" required!

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, 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.)

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

In that case, you may as well
buy the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find. It will do the same job.

Wrong.

**Nope. Right.

Wrong. And Doug Self agrees with me.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:53:30 GMT, dizzy wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

People who refuse to make accurate measurements with properly
calibrated equipment inevitably wind up like a pilot trying to fly
without view of the ground or working gyro panels: in a self-plowed
hole in the ground. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about such things
when you are doing it all yourself.

You guys are cracked, man. We're not taling 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!


I agree that that's not an unreasonable requirement. However, I feel
bound to add that in times past whenever I've found myself frequently
resorting to tone controls it's always been because something was out
of balance with the system;. Generally I never touch the tone
controls, though I like to have them there just in case.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"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.

Wrong again, Harry. Until the NT1a buy, I had no LD mics at all.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

dizzy wrote:

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

Good point.

People who refuse to make accurate measurements with properly
calibrated equipment inevitably wind up like a pilot trying to fly
without view of the ground or working gyro panels: in a self-plowed
hole in the ground.

Not a bad metaphor.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about such things
when you are doing it all yourself.

(without reliable references). Even with reliable references, getting second
and third opinions can be a big help.

The twiode ****s have demonstrated
that again and again. I've been in houses several times with SET/horn
systems built entirely by owner that on first listen were completely
****ed up. As time went on and beer flowed, I started agreeing, sort
of, with them, partly to get more beer and partly out of a sense that I
may have been wrong in fact. Nope: the systems were utterly ****ed up,
in each and every case.

We've noticed similar things in the context of our audio club, but without
any need for people to be agreeable in order to obtain more beer. There
have been a lot of hosts over the years who were very proud of their
systems, while the group consensus was "Proud of what?" Of course there have
also been host systems where the group consensus was "Right on", or "Wow!".

People that built all their own stuff, and
didn't measure, and ignored timeworn facts like "mercury rectifiers
generate lots of hash and must be caged and RF-proofed"

The better idea is to simply realize that there has been no technical
justification for mercury rectifiers since the 1970s, if not earlier.

and "horn
treble units must be mounted with precision and solidly referenced to
the bass unit within one wavelength at their highest frequency".

That would be a new rule or a misstatement of an old one that goes like:

"Horn treble units must be mounted with precision and solidly referenced to
the bass unit within a small fraction of a wavelength at their lowest
operating frequency".

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". The reliability and applicability of
measurements continues to improve. Devices like the following can be very
effective:

http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/5090.pdf

However, among those who use it frequently, there is ample disagreement
within a narrow range about what the ideal target should be for measured
response.