[dizzy]

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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy said:


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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?



Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

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

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

[Stephan Gipp]

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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?


I have a McIntosh pre-amp that has both tone controls and a loudness
control. However, I run the unit almost flat (just a little boost in
treble to compensate for my aging ears) and just a touch of 'loudness'.
So, not sure if it's worth the effort.

Stephan

[Trevor Wilson]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's use
and reference material.


--
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
.. .
Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's use
and reference material.

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.

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

[dizzy]

Stephan Gipp wrote:

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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

I have a McIntosh pre-amp that has both tone controls and a loudness
control. However, I run the unit almost flat (just a little boost in
treble to compensate for my aging ears) and just a touch of 'loudness'.
So, not sure if it's worth the effort.

I think it depends a lot on the music you like. A lot of the older
rock recordings I like to occasionally jam-to are way light on the
bass. I won't have a system without good (+/- 10dB) tone controls.

[Trevor Wilson]

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

"dizzy" wrote in message
. ..
Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


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? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.

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?


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

**Good for you. Forget high fidelity then. You have no chance, unless you
use a digital EQ and have some test equipment and the knowledge to use it
correctly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Trevor Wilson]

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.

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?


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

**Good for you. Forget high fidelity then. You have no chance, unless you
use a digital EQ and have some test equipment and the knowledge to use it
correctly.


Good ANALOG parametric EQ is often a better choice.

**Nope. It is better than regular tone controls, but not better than a
digtal one. Particularly since zero phase shift digital parametric EQs are
readily available. Whatever the choice, without reference and test
equipment, the end result is not high fidelity. It's just hit and miss.

Especially if the
source cannot be kept in the digital domain from source to the EQ.

**Nonsense.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Trevor Wilson]

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.



Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
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?

I would have thought you understood that not all (if any?) recordings are
perfect, and most have been made using analog EQ?

HiFi should not insist on your auditory/speaker systems being identical to
the recording/mastering engineers auditory/monitoring systems. Something the
evangelical purists fail to realise it seems. Real HiFi is where *YOU* can't
tell the difference between the original sound and the reproduced sound.
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.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.

Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
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?

I would have thought you understood that not all (if any?) recordings are
perfect, and most have been made using analog EQ?

**Points:

* VERY FEW recordings are made with analogue EQ anymore.
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used, were those which employed
no EQ.


HiFi should not insist on your auditory/speaker systems being identical to
the recording/mastering engineers auditory/monitoring systems.

**I never said it did. What cannot be done, however, is recreation of the
original musical event, by the uncontrolled use of tone controls, by
amateurs with no reference, no measurement equipment and no experience.

Something the
evangelical purists fail to realise it seems. Real HiFi is where *YOU*
can't
tell the difference between the original sound and the reproduced sound.

**That is what I said.

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.

**Non-sequitur.


--
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
.. .
Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.

Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
* VERY FEW recordings are made with analogue EQ anymore.

Which still leaves many millions of recordings that did.

* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used, were those which
employed
no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

HiFi should not insist on your auditory/speaker systems being identical
to
the recording/mastering engineers auditory/monitoring systems.

**I never said it did. What cannot be done, however, is recreation of the
original musical event, by the uncontrolled use of tone controls, by
amateurs with no reference, no measurement equipment and no experience.

Naturally, but most people are not trying for a reference measurement
system. They want it to *sound* right/good to *them* with the *music*
recordings they have available.
And just because NO tone controls are used by the listener doesn't guarantee
squat either!

Something the
evangelical purists fail to realise it seems. Real HiFi is where *YOU*
can't
tell the difference between the original sound and the reproduced sound.

**That is what I said.

No it is not, you insist that NO tone controls be used or it isn't HiFi..

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large
amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?
You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to listen
to if that is a prime requirement!
In fact **ALL** analog recordings used analog EQ in many stages of the
recording process, whether the engineer/producer added extra or not.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
* VERY FEW recordings are made with analogue EQ anymore.

Which still leaves many millions of recordings that did.

* 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.


HiFi should not insist on your auditory/speaker systems being identical
to
the recording/mastering engineers auditory/monitoring systems.

**I never said it did. What cannot be done, however, is recreation of the
original musical event, by the uncontrolled use of tone controls, by
amateurs with no reference, no measurement equipment and no experience.

Naturally, but most people are not trying for a reference measurement
system. They want it to *sound* right/good to *them* with the *music*
recordings they have available.

**Certainly. It may not be high fidelity though.

And just because NO tone controls are used by the listener doesn't
guarantee
squat either!

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


Something the
evangelical purists fail to realise it seems. Real HiFi is where *YOU*
can't
tell the difference between the original sound and the reproduced
sound.

**That is what I said.

No it is not, you insist that NO tone controls be used or it isn't HiFi..

**Correct.


--
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
.. .
Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large
amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those
which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?

**Yes. Several.

You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to
listen
to if that is a prime requirement!

**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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...

Trevor wrote:

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.

Nonsense. The routine use of equalization during the recording process
dates back to no later than the early 1950s with the introduction of the
Pultec equalizer. Digital equalizers have only been in routine use since the
late 1980s. That means that for over 40 years and tens of thousands of
recordings, analog equalization has been the rule. Trevor is implicitly
dismsising the vast majority of all LPs and analog master tapes. Program
equalization during recording and production is almost always done by ear.

The real problem is that the high end audio industry has suceeded in
creating a global hysterical fear of program equalization in the minds of
most of their consumers. Audiophiles have been mis-educated to believe that
they have change out parts of their system to adjust sonic balance, rather
than use equipment that is designed to have frequency response that is
adjusted by the end-user. Certainly, this is a good strategy for getting
consumers to churn their systems and produce used but servicable equipment
that dealers and mark up heavily and sell used.

Back in the late 1960s when consumer equipment with equalizers first came
out, a number of dealers shared with me that they feared that this feature
would become popular, and that consumers would be able to make inexpensive
equipment sound better than "it should" to optimize the dealer's profits.


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.

In fact, the tone control technology of choice for bass, treble and anything
in-between is parametric equalization.

I'm not talking about room correction, here.

Room correction is best applied by acoustic means, at least until a fairly
high level of refinement has been achieved. Electronic equalization of most
room faults is usually a band-aid at best, and a figuratively a fairly
small, ineffective and dirty band-aid at that. However a dirty band-aid can
be better than nothing at all.

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.

However, Trevor's idea of the facts can be a mixed bag. Sometimes he has
things right, and then there are the other times. Now that ME went out of
business and his livlihood no is no longer tied to damning power amps with
negative feedback, Trevor at least can start making some sense when he talks
about power amps and negative feedback loops.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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 still leaves many millions of recordings that did.

* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used, were those which
employed no EQ.

Trevor does not realize that most microphones are intentionally colored so
that they have a function similar to that of equalizers. For example, most
microphones that are in service are cardioids, and have what is known as the
"proximity effect". A well-trained vocalist will manipulate the proximity
effect and directional characteristics of their mic to completement their
voice. I have three different mics that I use with the vocalists that I
regularly work with. Each was chosen to completment their voice and singing
style. Each mic receives equalization in the mixing console to adapt the
mic and how the vocalist to both the monitoring system and the main house
system.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

HiFi should not insist on your auditory/speaker systems being
identical to
the recording/mastering engineers auditory/monitoring systems.

Yeas, that would be a stupid goal. But, its one what plays into the hands of
merchandisers and manufacturers because it puts one of the strongest tools
for obtaining the holy grail of audiophilia permanently out of reach.

**I never said it did. What cannot be done, however, is recreation of
the
original musical event, by the uncontrolled use of tone controls, by
amateurs with no reference, no measurement equipment and no experience.

In essence, an excluded-middle argument. Trevor is basically arguing that
since equalization doesn't work well when used the worst possible way, it
shouldn't be used at all.

Naturally, but most people are not trying for a reference measurement
system. They want it to *sound* right/good to *them* with the *music*
recordings they have available.

Tone controls and equalizers can be effective tools for this purpose. People
have to have them to use them, and they need guidance and experience to use
them effectively.

**Certainly. It may not be high fidelity though.

There is essentially no such thing as perfect high fidelity. But it really
helps to have good tools available for approximating it as well as it
possible.

And just because NO tone controls are used by the listener doesn't
guarantee squat either!

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

Horsefeathers. The mixing console I use the most used to be an analog
console (Mackie SR-32) with very limited analog tone controls. However they
were far more powerful and flexible than consumer audio bass and treble
controls.

About 20 months ago we replaced the analog SR32 with an 02R96 digital
console which has 4-band parametric equalizers on just about every input and
output. The 02R96 has enabled a major improvement in sound quality, mostly
through the use of its equalizers. I have about 40 equalizers in the signal
path, all of which were adjusted by ear.

BTW, the major reason the 02R96 has so many equalizers is not due to any SQ
advantage that is inherent in digital. In fact its digital equalizers
closely simulate the amplitude and phase characteristics of the
corresponding analog equlizers. The advantage of digital is that digital
technology made it possible to actually fit maybe 60 or 70 4-band parametric
equlizers and their controls in a box the size of a regular analog mixer
(with space inside to spare). Implemented in analog, 60 4-band parametric
equalizers might prety well fill two 6 foot high 19" equipment racks, and
cost 50% to 250% more than just the digital console.

Something the evangelical purists fail to realise it seems. Real HiFi
is where *YOU*
can't tell the difference between the original sound and the
reproduced sound.

IME that's highly unlikely in most listening rooms. Sad truth but usually
the case.

Interestingly enough, partially due to the effective use of equalizers, we
can play recordings of performances that origionally happened in our main
performance space and provide a better sonic facsimile of the live
performance that we recorded. In some cases we've played recordings of
synthesized pipe organs and approximated the sound of our acoustic organ
well enough to confuse audience members who are casual, first time
listeners.

**That is what I said.

No it is not, you insist that NO tone controls be used or it isn't HiFi..

**Correct.

Hey, whatever helps Trevor pay his bills, eh?

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.



Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

Agreed.

**Nope. Not ever.

Nonsense on the same scale as the anti-loop feedback nonsense that Trevor
used to parrot around here.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:55:14 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large
amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those
which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?

**Yes. Several.

You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to
listen
to if that is a prime requirement!

**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.


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. Though I rarely use them myself, I have found
tone controls useful (even just to modify a slightly fierce top end)
and prefer amps with them.

[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?

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

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

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those
which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?

**Yes. Several.

Still haven't heard of that one, however one record out of millions is
hardly an endorsement of your claim.

You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to
listen
to if that is a prime requirement!

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

How does that support your claim?

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.

Yes, but still suffer the same problems all analog filters do.

This is a very different situation
to uncontrolled use of tone controls, by amateurs, with zero experience,
zero references and zero measurement equipment.

It depends on whether they are listening to music or test tones I guess.

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?

**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.

For example, I doubt that any of the recordings in the EMI "Great Recordings
Of The Century" series were totally free of explicit, overt equalization.

For another example, the recordings I make of band and choir competitions
are made with no overt equalizers in the signal chain. Of course, we use
microphones with known, non-flat frequency response characteristics. We
orient and position those mics in ways that have additional audible
consequences in the amplitude, frequency and phase domains.

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.

If someone complains that our recordings at band and choir competitions
sound a little flat (in a bad way) or dry, we just say that we don't have
time to properly master them. Most of these recordings sound pretty good,
but they might sound better with a little more eq. ;-)

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"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?

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

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

There's the Mapleshade catalog.

Stephen

[Mr.T]

"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 :-)
Even the Sheffield direct cut disks used EQ for example.

For example, I doubt that any of the recordings in the EMI "Great
Recordings
Of The Century" series were totally free of explicit, overt equalization.

The operative word being "overt". There is still EQ involved.

For another example, the recordings I make of band and choir competitions
are made with no overt equalizers in the signal chain. Of course, we use
microphones with known, non-flat frequency response characteristics. We
orient and position those mics in ways that have additional audible
consequences in the amplitude, frequency and phase domains.

So true.

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.

Even worse, the frequency response varies with the polar pattern in all
directional microphones.

If someone complains that our recordings at band and choir competitions
sound a little flat (in a bad way) or dry, we just say that we don't have
time to properly master them. Most of these recordings sound pretty good,
but they might sound better with a little more eq. ;-)

Yep, and the listener is free to apply his own if he wants, except for TW
that is :-)

MrT.

[Eeyore]

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

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

* VERY FEW recordings are made with analogue EQ anymore.

Jaw hits the floor !

Is this some kind of joke ??

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"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 :-)

Even the Sheffield direct cut disks used EQ for example.

Since Sheffield were shooting into the LP format, they had to control the
input to the cutting lathe a whole lot more than a modern recordists needs
to control the input to a CD recorder. For example, one wrong blast on a
trumpet driving an old time cutting with a Harmon mute, and some very
expensive smoke would be driven out of the cutting head.

For example, I doubt that any of the recordings in the EMI "Great
Recordings
Of The Century" series were totally free of explicit, overt equalization.

The operative word being "overt". There is still EQ involved.

Pardon my negative logic - that's exactly what I meant.

For another example, the recordings I make of band and choir competitions
are made with no overt equalizers in the signal chain. Of course, we use
microphones with known, non-flat frequency response characteristics. We
orient and position those mics in ways that have additional audible
consequences in the amplitude, frequency and phase domains.

So true.

Mapleshade once said they used Crown PZM mics. Here's a spec sheet on
Crown's latest-greatest for recrording:

http://www.crownaudio.com/pdf/mics/137203.pdf

Note figure 1 - the frequency response. Either response curve could be
easily be heard as being different from flat in an ABX test with most kinds
of music.

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.

Even worse, the frequency response varies with the polar pattern in all
directional microphones.

I know of no practical microphones that aren't audibly directional to some
degree. AFAIK *all* of the popular recording mics priced high and low, are
audibly directional to a great degree.

If someone complains that our recordings at band and choir competitions
sound a little flat (in a bad way) or dry, we just say that we don't have
time to properly master them. Most of these recordings sound pretty
good,
but they might sound better with a little more eq. ;-)

Yep, and the listener is free to apply his own if he wants, except for TW
that is :-)

I suspect that Trevor and particular, and the high end audio biz in general
are trying to practice what IBM called "Account control" in the old days.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

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.

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.

[Eeyore]

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 !

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


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 ?


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.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Most sound reaches most mics outside of a 5 or 10 degree off-axis cone.

Not necessarily with close mic studio recordings, but some never the less.

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.

Which is why some prefer M/S recording instead if the sound source/s are not
spread too widely. At least one mic is then on axis.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

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.

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.

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...

[Arny Krueger]

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Most sound reaches most mics outside of a 5 or 10 degree off-axis cone.

Not necessarily with close mic studio recordings, but some never the
less.

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.

Which is why some prefer M/S recording instead if the sound source/s are
not
spread too widely. At least one mic is then on axis.

I disagree. The main stated advantage of coincident pairs whether XY or MS
is the fact that the outputs of the two mics have near-identical phase for
any reasonable source. This gives you the nice spread you mentioned, but
also mono compatibility. A lot of modern music gets mixed down to mono along
the way.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.
Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

It's not a problem with a real omni though.

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

True, especially so when hand held, many like holding the mic vertical, and
therefore 90deg off axis.
Not a problem with studio recordings though.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Which is why some prefer M/S recording instead if the sound source/s are
not
spread too widely. At least one mic is then on axis.

I disagree. The main stated advantage of coincident pairs whether XY or MS
is the fact that the outputs of the two mics have near-identical phase for
any reasonable source. This gives you the nice spread you mentioned, but
also mono compatibility. A lot of modern music gets mixed down to mono
along
the way.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Are you saying one mic is not on
axis with M/S, or that there is no advantage in having one on axis polar
response?

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I wasn't talking about coincident pairs.

Thus eliminating a lot of real world live recording sessions.
Also true for spaced omnis, etc.

It's not a problem with a real omni though.

AFAIK, outside of measurement mics and mics that emulate them, there are no
true omnis. And, all but the tiniest measurement mics (which must be noisy
or expensive or both) are somewhat directional in the upper audio range.

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

True, especially so when hand held, many like holding the mic vertical,
and
therefore 90deg off axis.

Or 60 degrees or 45. No matter, almost all mics are directional enough to
have audible FR characteristics at those angles.

Not a problem with studio recordings though.

Hand held mics are sometimes used in studios. Musicians want to work with
something that is familiar. Also, some musicians intentially modulate their
voices by using mics at various distances and angles, related to the music
they are singing at the time.

[Arny Krueger]

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Which is why some prefer M/S recording instead if the sound source/s
are
not
spread too widely. At least one mic is then on axis.

I disagree. The main stated advantage of coincident pairs whether XY or
MS
is the fact that the outputs of the two mics have near-identical phase
for
any reasonable source. This gives you the nice spread you mentioned, but
also mono compatibility. A lot of modern music gets mixed down to mono
along
the way.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Are you saying one mic is not
on
axis with M/S,

Of course that is true for all angles but 0 and 90.

or that there is no advantage in having one on axis polar response?

In general, mics pick up most of the sound they reproduce, off-axis. Either
someone intentionally or accidentally oriented the mic that way, or there's
enough coming from other sources include the room to make a difference.

Mics that have good on-axis response, but suck badly off-axis, generally get
poor or mediocre reputations.