Electronic Graphic Equalizers

[ChrisCoaster]

Background: These came out on the consumer level 20-25 years ago, but
never caught on. Instead of sliders/faders, each band had an "Up" and
"Down" button, and 11 total steps(+- 10dB and "0") or 13 total steps
if 12 dB up and down adjustment - displayed in LED. If I recall there
were 7- and 10-band models available, and many of them had at least 3
presets.

What happened to these and are they still available today? I want my
settings locked and out of the reach of curious pets(!).

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>Background: These came out on the consumer level 20-25 years ago, but
>never caught on. Instead of sliders/faders, each band had an "Up" and
>"Down" button, and 11 total steps(+- 10dB and "0") or 13 total steps
>if 12 dB up and down adjustment - displayed in LED. If I recall there
>were 7- and 10-band models available, and many of them had at least 3
>presets.

That sounds positively excruciating to set up.

>What happened to these and are they still available today? I want my
>settings locked and out of the reach of curious pets(!).

There are a bunch of digital equalizers from folks from EV and Symetrix
on down to Behringer that will let you do that.

Alternately you can buy a perfed metal cover with a lock from Mid-Atlantic
that you can bolt into the rack in front of your existing equalizer so
nobody can get to it easily.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 5, 8:14*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> >Background: *These came out on the consumer level 20-25 years ago, but
> >never caught on. *Instead of sliders/faders, each band had an "Up" and
> >"Down" button, and 11 total steps(+- 10dB and "0") or 13 total steps
> >if 12 dB up and down adjustment - displayed in LED. *If I recall there
> >were 7- and 10-band models available, and many of them had at least 3
> >presets.
>
> That sounds positively excruciating to set up.
>
> >What happened to these and are they still available today? *I want my
> >settings locked and out of the reach of curious pets(!).
>
> There are a bunch of digital equalizers from folks from EV and Symetrix
> on down to Behringer that will let you do that.
>
> Alternately you can buy a perfed metal cover with a lock from Mid-Atlantic
> that you can bolt into the rack in front of your existing equalizer so
> nobody can get to it easily.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
______________________

Actually, the whole POINT - which I forgot to include! - of this was
to mention that +6dB is +6dB - no uncertainty as with sliders. I
could program loudness curve, room-EQ, etc and retrieve each at the
press of a button. Not to mention no phase related issues as with
sliders, where the left 400Hz slider and right 400Hz slider might be
1/2 decibel off even if they "look" like they are both at -2dB.
Electronic push-button EQs don't have that problem.

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>Actually, the whole POINT - which I forgot to include! - of this was
>to mention that +6dB is +6dB - no uncertainty as with sliders. I
>could program loudness curve, room-EQ, etc and retrieve each at the
>press of a button. Not to mention no phase related issues as with
>sliders, where the left 400Hz slider and right 400Hz slider might be
>1/2 decibel off even if they "look" like they are both at -2dB.
>Electronic push-button EQs don't have that problem.

Sheesh, it's a graphic equalizer, it's off way more than a couple decibels
from your desired curve no matter how you set it. It's the sledgehammer of
equalization.

The only reason anyone uses a graphic equalizer is for PA applications where
it is very, very easy to immediately go to a given band and pull it down
when the system starts to ring. This is a convenient and powerful tool.

But it's certainly not a fine-grained tool, and you should not expect the
actual system response to look all that much like the shape the sliders
make. It is very, very bumpy to say the least.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 5, 10:36*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> >Actually, the whole POINT - which I forgot to include! - of this was
> >to mention that +6dB is +6dB - no uncertainty as with sliders. *I
> >could program loudness curve, room-EQ, etc and retrieve each at the
> >press of a button. *Not to mention no phase related issues as with
> >sliders, where the left 400Hz slider and right 400Hz slider might be
> >1/2 decibel off even if they "look" like they are both at -2dB.
> >Electronic push-button EQs don't have that problem.
>
> Sheesh, it's a graphic equalizer, it's off way more than a couple decibels
> from your desired curve no matter how you set it. *It's the sledgehammer of
> equalization.
>
> The only reason anyone uses a graphic equalizer is for PA applications where
> it is very, very easy to immediately go to a given band and pull it down
> when the system starts to ring. *This is a convenient and powerful tool..
>
> But it's certainly not a fine-grained tool, and you should not expect the
> actual system response to look all that much like the shape the sliders
> make. *It is very, very bumpy to say the least.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
___________________

I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
know what I mean? Unless those sliders have at least 2 inches of
total throw from min to max, it's kinda hard to judge it too close.

-CC

[[email protected]]

On 2011-02-05 (ScottDorsey) said:
<snip>
>>with sliders, where the left 400Hz slider and right 400Hz slider
>>might be 1/2 decibel off even if they "look" like they are both at
>>-2dB. Electronic push-button EQs don't have that problem.
>Sheesh, it's a graphic equalizer, it's off way more than a couple
>decibels from your desired curve no matter how you set it. It's
>the sledgehammer of equalization.
Right, and imho pushbutton or other versions of a graphic
negate the very reasons I choose to employ one, as the man
says:

>The only reason anyone uses a graphic equalizer is for PA
>applications where it is very, very easy to immediately go to a
>given band and pull it down when the system starts to ring. This
>is a convenient and powerful tool.

Right, and the main use imho for a graphic. THis is why,
although I understand parametrics, etc. I"ll always want 31
band graphics for live sound applications. Quick and dirty.

>But it's certainly not a fine-grained tool, and you should not
>expect the actual system response to look all that much like the
>shape the sliders make. It is very, very bumpy to say the least.

IF you want the precision choose a parametric. HOrses for
courses <grin>.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 6, 12:17*am, wrote:
> On 2011-02-05 (ScottDorsey) said:
> <snip>
> * *>>with sliders, where the left 400Hz slider and right 400Hz slider
> * *>>might be 1/2 decibel off even if they "look" like they are both at
> * *>>-2dB. Electronic push-button EQs don't have that problem.
> * *>Sheesh, it's a graphic equalizer, it's off way more than a couple
> * *>decibels from your desired curve no matter how you set it. *It's
> * *>the sledgehammer of equalization.
> Right, and imho pushbutton or other versions of a graphic
> negate the very reasons I choose to employ one, as the man
> says:
>
> * *>The only reason anyone uses a graphic equalizer is for PA
> * *>applications where it is very, very easy to immediately go to a
> * *>given band and pull it down when the system starts to ring. *This
> * *>is a convenient and powerful tool.
>
> Right, and the main use imho for a graphic. *THis is why,
> although I understand parametrics, etc. I"ll always want 31
> band graphics for live sound applications. *Quick and dirty.
>
> * *>But it's certainly not a fine-grained tool, and you should not
> * *>expect the actual system response to look all that much like the
> * *>shape the sliders make. *It is very, very bumpy to say the least.

[Bill Graham]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
> Background: These came out on the consumer level 20-25 years ago, but
> never caught on. Instead of sliders/faders, each band had an "Up" and
> "Down" button, and 11 total steps(+- 10dB and "0") or 13 total steps
> if 12 dB up and down adjustment - displayed in LED. If I recall there
> were 7- and 10-band models available, and many of them had at least 3
> presets.
>
> What happened to these and are they still available today? I want my
> settings locked and out of the reach of curious pets(!).

Why? - My five cats control all my recording. They are getting pretty good
at it, too......

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
>I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
>know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
>frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
>know what I mean? Unless those sliders have at least 2 inches of
>total throw from min to max, it's kinda hard to judge it too close.

I would think if you had less than 2 inches of total throw you wouldn't
even be able to use it effectively for antifeedback use.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Perceived_Human_He=
>aring.png/800px-Perceived_Human_Hearing.png
>with a para?

I am on a text terminal so I can't see this.

If it's a Fletcher-Munson curve, though, you can't reproduce it with any
equalizer because it's level-dependant.

But in general, yes, you can create any equalization curve with a parametric,
though you may have chain more than one if you need a crazy number of filters.
It is the general-purpose equalization tool.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Perceived_Human_He=
>> aring.png/800px-Perceived_Human_Hearing.png
>> with a para?
>
> I am on a text terminal so I can't see this.
>
> If it's a Fletcher-Munson curve, though, you can't reproduce it with any
> equalizer because it's level-dependant.
>
It is, and the article on psychoacoustics that uses it doesn't mention
that inconvenient little fact, though it does refer to Fletcher-Munson
as well as Robinson and Dadson.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/5/2011 8:34 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:

> Actually, the whole POINT - which I forgot to include! - of this was
> to mention that +6dB is +6dB - no uncertainty as with sliders. I
> could program loudness curve, room-EQ, etc and retrieve each at the
> press of a button.

And what's the POINT of doing that?

> Not to mention no phase related issues as with
> sliders, where the left 400Hz slider and right 400Hz slider might be
> 1/2 decibel off even if they "look" like they are both at -2dB.
> Electronic push-button EQs don't have that problem.

Phase? Just how do you set these equalizers anyway? Do you
look at a list of numbers and set the sliders that way?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:

> I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
> know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
> frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
> know what I mean?

I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
would you be interested in that level of precision when
you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
years ago?

You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 10:36 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> >Actually, the whole POINT - which I forgot to include! - of this was
> >to mention that +6dB is +6dB - no uncertainty as with sliders. I
> >could program loudness curve, room-EQ, etc and retrieve each at the
> >press of a button. Not to mention no phase related issues as with
> >sliders, where the left 400Hz slider and right 400Hz slider might be
> >1/2 decibel off even if they "look" like they are both at -2dB.
> >Electronic push-button EQs don't have that problem.
>
> Sheesh, it's a graphic equalizer, it's off way more than a couple decibels
> from your desired curve no matter how you set it. It's the sledgehammer of
> equalization.
>
> The only reason anyone uses a graphic equalizer is for PA applications
> where
> it is very, very easy to immediately go to a given band and pull it down
> when the system starts to ring. This is a convenient and powerful tool.
>
> But it's certainly not a fine-grained tool, and you should not expect the
> actual system response to look all that much like the shape the sliders
> make. It is very, very bumpy to say the least.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
___________________

I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
know what I mean? Unless those sliders have at least 2 inches of
total throw from min to max, it's kinda hard to judge it too close.

Chris, everything you are asking for and TONS more is in the under 250$
behringer deq 2496
George

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Perceived_Human_He=
>>aring.png/800px-Perceived_Human_Hearing.png
>>with a para?
>
> I am on a text terminal so I can't see this.
>
> If it's a Fletcher-Munson curve, though, you can't reproduce it with any
> equalizer because it's level-dependant.

actually , while I do not know if one can use it to duplicate F-M the
behringer DEQ 2496 does have a 'dynamic EQ" function that will adjust eq
according to level and as different levels are feed the unit the eq curve
will change to follow the level
I use it for dj's, when they exceed my level the bass drops out, when they
back off the bass comes back in

george

[polymod]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>> Background: These came out on the consumer level 20-25 years ago, but
>> never caught on. Instead of sliders/faders, each band had an "Up" and
>> "Down" button, and 11 total steps(+- 10dB and "0") or 13 total steps
>> if 12 dB up and down adjustment - displayed in LED. If I recall there
>> were 7- and 10-band models available, and many of them had at least 3
>> presets.
>>
>> What happened to these and are they still available today? I want my
>> settings locked and out of the reach of curious pets(!).
>
> Why? - My five cats control all my recording. They are getting pretty good
> at it, too......

Cats have very good ears.
I was on a session where a woman bought 10 siamese cats into the studio for
a recording.
Their intonation was impecable ;)

Poly

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
>
> > I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
> > know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
> > frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
> > know what I mean?
>
> I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
> would you be interested in that level of precision when
> you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
> years ago?
>
> You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.

Bingo. Surpsingly capable piece of kit.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

And the DEQ 2496 will actually have the same curve on both channels when
the sliders are set identically, which is never the case with a real
graphic EQ. Expect differences of as much as 6dB at some points from a
graphic with "identical" channel settings.

Back in the seventies when everyone was going berserk with graphics,
sometimes people would use them on tapes intended for LP release and....
it was not pretty.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> And the DEQ 2496 will actually have the same curve on both channels when
> the sliders are set identically, which is never the case with a real
> graphic EQ. Expect differences of as much as 6dB at some points from a
> graphic with "identical" channel settings.

The deq also lets you define a response curve and then it will auto EQ your
system to match the desired response you told it to achieve, though in the
end one should always trust their ears over any auto eq program
George

[PStamler]

On Feb 6, 12:40*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
> > On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
>
> > > I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
> > > know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
> > > frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
> > > know what I mean?
>
> > I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
> > would you be interested in that level of precision when
> > you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
> > years ago?
>
> > You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.
>
> Bingo. Surprisingly capable piece of kit.

It also has a delay function, useful for live-sound use.

To my ears it's the only good product I've ever heard that was made by
Behringer. (They also sell a decent cable tester, but that's OEMd for
them by someone else.)

Peace,
Paul

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 12:40 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
> > On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
>
> > > I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
> > > know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
> > > frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
> > > know what I mean?
>
> > I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
> > would you be interested in that level of precision when
> > you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
> > years ago?
>
> > You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.
>
> Bingo. Surprisingly capable piece of kit.

It also has a delay function, useful for live-sound use.

To my ears it's the only good product I've ever heard that was made by
Behringer. (They also sell a decent cable tester, but that's OEMd for
them by someone else.)

Peace,
Paul

Paul try the DCX 2496
and I just ordered 3 of the first edition behringer/midas union digital
desks the x32 though nobody in the usa has heard one yet, delivery will be
mid summer at the earliest
George

[hank alrich]

PStamler > wrote:

> On Feb 6, 12:40 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> > Mike Rivers > wrote:
> > > On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want to
> > > > know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
> > > > frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or 3.6,
> > > > know what I mean?
> >
> > > I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
> > > would you be interested in that level of precision when
> > > you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
> > > years ago?
> >
> > > You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.
> >
> > Bingo. Surprisingly capable piece of kit.
>
> It also has a delay function, useful for live-sound use.
>
> To my ears it's the only good product I've ever heard that was made by
> Behringer. (They also sell a decent cable tester, but that's OEMd for
> them by someone else.)
>
> Peace,
> Paul

I suspect that the crossover from that series, DCX2496, is as capable
for its task. I hope to get one of those and experiment some. I know
that at one point George Gleason used those in place of factory
processors for one of his Meyer rigs. That interests me because I still
have my old UPA1A's and but a single M1A1 processor. I don't use them
often enough now to wnat to spend for another Meyer processor to go
stereo, but if I could seriously supplant those with the Beri, I'd do
it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> PStamler > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 6, 12:40 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
>> > Mike Rivers > wrote:
>> > > On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want
>> > > > to
>> > > > know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
>> > > > frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or
>> > > > 3.6,
>> > > > know what I mean?
>> >
>> > > I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
>> > > would you be interested in that level of precision when
>> > > you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
>> > > years ago?
>> >
>> > > You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.
>> >
>> > Bingo. Surprisingly capable piece of kit.
>>
>> It also has a delay function, useful for live-sound use.
>>
>> To my ears it's the only good product I've ever heard that was made by
>> Behringer. (They also sell a decent cable tester, but that's OEMd for
>> them by someone else.)
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>
> I suspect that the crossover from that series, DCX2496, is as capable
> for its task. I hope to get one of those and experiment some. I know
> that at one point George Gleason used those in place of factory
> processors for one of his Meyer rigs. That interests me because I still
> have my old UPA1A's and but a single M1A1 processor. I don't use them
> often enough now to wnat to spend for another Meyer processor to go
> stereo, but if I could seriously supplant those with the Beri, I'd do
> it.
>
Hank, nothing does the dynamic crossover point like the meyers processor,
nor do they have the sense feature
but that being said , yes you can get a wonderful sound out of the dcx and
the uPA
let me know if you are still selling the upas might be worth a trip your way
using picking up the speakers as a excuse :-)
watch fleabay, the m1's sell from 125 up to 300$
about the same as a dcx would cost you

[hank alrich]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > PStamler > wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 6, 12:40 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> >> > Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >> > > On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
> >> > > > frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or
> >> > > > 3.6,
> >> > > > know what I mean?
> >> >
> >> > > I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
> >> > > would you be interested in that level of precision when
> >> > > you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
> >> > > years ago?
> >> >
> >> > > You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.
> >> >
> >> > Bingo. Surprisingly capable piece of kit.
> >>
> >> It also has a delay function, useful for live-sound use.
> >>
> >> To my ears it's the only good product I've ever heard that was made by
> >> Behringer. (They also sell a decent cable tester, but that's OEMd for
> >> them by someone else.)
> >>
> >> Peace,
> >> Paul
> >
> > I suspect that the crossover from that series, DCX2496, is as capable
> > for its task. I hope to get one of those and experiment some. I know
> > that at one point George Gleason used those in place of factory
> > processors for one of his Meyer rigs. That interests me because I still
> > have my old UPA1A's and but a single M1A1 processor. I don't use them
> > often enough now to wnat to spend for another Meyer processor to go
> > stereo, but if I could seriously supplant those with the Beri, I'd do
> > it.
> >
> Hank, nothing does the dynamic crossover point like the meyers processor,
> nor do they have the sense feature
> but that being said , yes you can get a wonderful sound out of the dcx and
> the uPA
> let me know if you are still selling the upas might be worth a trip your way
> using picking up the speakers as a excuse :-)
> watch fleabay, the m1's sell from 125 up to 300$
> about the same as a dcx would cost you

Thanks, George!

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>
>actually , while I do not know if one can use it to duplicate F-M the
>behringer DEQ 2496 does have a 'dynamic EQ" function that will adjust eq
>according to level and as different levels are feed the unit the eq curve
>will change to follow the level
>I use it for dj's, when they exceed my level the bass drops out, when they
>back off the bass comes back in

It would be interesting implement an active loudness control that way, just
to see how it works.

Still, I'm not sure loudness controls have any place in a calibrated listening
environment anyway. But it could be useful for passive listening in place of
the usual solution of just crushing everything so it's at the same level.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 6, 12:44*pm, "polymod" > wrote:

>
> Cats have very good ears.
> I was on a session where a woman bought 10 siamese cats into the studio for
> a recording.
> Their intonation was impecable ;)
>
> Poly
______________

Were they blue, seal, chocolate, lilac, or red-point siamese? This is
a finer point to consider as the lilac and blue-points are especially
sensitive over 21kHZ, whilst the very common chocolate points are
rather flat from 40Hz up to 18 - kind of the SM-58 of cats. I could
delve into this further, but at the risk of complicating my own
thread. ;)

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
>Were they blue, seal, chocolate, lilac, or red-point siamese? This is
>a finer point to consider as the lilac and blue-points are especially
>sensitive over 21kHZ, whilst the very common chocolate points are
>rather flat from 40Hz up to 18 - kind of the SM-58 of cats. I could
>delve into this further, but at the risk of complicating my own
>thread. ;)

Try up to 85 Khz. They have very small ears, and are evolved for very
accurate imaging in both the ears-forward and ears-back mode.

You want "Hearing Range of the Domestic Cat" by Rickye S. Heffner and
Henry E. Heffner, Hearing Research 19(1985) 85-88.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 6, 9:58*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
> >Were they blue, seal, chocolate, lilac, or red-point siamese? *This is
> >a finer point to consider as the lilac and blue-points are especially
> >sensitive over 21kHZ, whilst the very common chocolate points are
> >rather flat from 40Hz up to 18 - kind of the SM-58 of cats. *I could
> >delve into this further, but at the risk of complicating my own
> >thread. *;)
>
> Try up to 85 Khz. *They have very small ears, and are evolved for very
> accurate imaging in both the ears-forward and ears-back mode.
>
> You want "Hearing Range of the Domestic Cat" by Rickye S. Heffner and
> Henry E. Heffner, Hearing Research 19(1985) 85-88.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
__________________
Scott: I was being a wiseacre about the cats!!

Seriously though, the first equalizers I ever had the pleasure of
playing with were of the graphic variety.

The technology exists today to build an EQ with adjustable setpoints,
not to mention assignability anywhere from 5 to 50(!!), range of
adjustment(+-10, +-15), High-Q(narrow band) Lo-Q9wide-band). Forget
all that dynamic control stuff, the product I need will spend 90% of
its time on my home stereo rack.

Question is - WHY is something like the above not being built?

Look at what was out in 1986:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/1985%20JVC%20electronic%20graphic%20equalizer/shaorin-chan/MacGyver%20System/DSCF0831.jpg

Display doubles as settings/spectro analyzer. Look closely, up/down
buttons beneath amber display. You set it and forget it! Settings
are LOCKED. This stuff should have taken off like Tom Cruise in top
gun! Sliders get bumped. Sliders get dirty. Sliders ...SUCK.

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 6, 9:58*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
> >Were they blue, seal, chocolate, lilac, or red-point siamese? *This is
> >a finer point to consider as the lilac and blue-points are especially
> >sensitive over 21kHZ, whilst the very common chocolate points are
> >rather flat from 40Hz up to 18 - kind of the SM-58 of cats. *I could
> >delve into this further, but at the risk of complicating my own
> >thread. *;)
>
> Try up to 85 Khz. *They have very small ears, and are evolved for very
> accurate imaging in both the ears-forward and ears-back mode.
>
> You want "Hearing Range of the Domestic Cat" by Rickye S. Heffner and
> Henry E. Heffner, Hearing Research 19(1985) 85-88.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
______________________

Here's a better photo of that GR-777:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/taurusaficionado/2620332888/sizes/o/in/photostream/

That other photo stunk, sorry.

[hank alrich]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:

> The technology exists today to build an EQ with adjustable setpoints,
> not to mention assignability anywhere from 5 to 50(!!), range of
> adjustment(+-10, +-15), High-Q(narrow band) Lo-Q9wide-band). Forget
> all that dynamic control stuff, the product I need will spend 90% of
> its time on my home stereo rack.
>
> Question is - WHY is something like the above not being built?

Will you PLEASE look at the "lowly" Behringer DEQ2496. You are NOT
thinking of something "new", you are covering ground that has been
covered.

You can download the manual.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/2011 11:33 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not talking about the measured response Scott, I at least want
>>> to know if I'm dialing in, say, 4 dB of cut or boost at a specific
>>> frequency that I'm actually setting it to exactly 4dB, not 4.5 or
>>> 3.6, know what I mean?
>>
>> I know what you mean, but why are you doing this? And why
>> would you be interested in that level of precision when
>> you're looking at a crude piece of consumer gear from 25
>> years ago?
>>
>> You'd probably be happy with a Behringer DEQ2496.
>
> Bingo. Surpsingly capable piece of kit.

Also has a function to flatten out pass-band ripple on each band, even at 32
bands.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/6/2011 10:21 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:

> The technology exists today to build an EQ with adjustable setpoints,
> not to mention assignability anywhere from 5 to 50(!!), range of
> adjustment(+-10, +-15), High-Q(narrow band) Lo-Q9wide-band). Forget
> all that dynamic control stuff, the product I need will spend 90% of
> its time on my home stereo rack.
>
> Question is - WHY is something like the above not being built?

Limited market. You can get all of that with any of a big
handful of EQ plug-ins for a DAW, and it's in that working
environment where there's a desire (not necessarily a need,
but that's a different issue) to have precise and repeatable
settings. In that environment, you can listen over and over
and find what you consider to be exactly the right settings
without having a preconceived notion of what they should be.

When it comes to a hardware equalizer, though, people want
controls that they can reach and operate quickly and with
more intuition than deep thought and careful listening and
comparison. It's the reason why Behringer sells more of
their graphic equalizers with mechanical sliders than they
sell of the digital version.

Over on the consumer side, there are a few "automatic"
equalizers that include an analyzer. On the "semi-pro" side,
there are a few similar products such as the JBL MSC1 and
self-correcting powered speakers.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> And the DEQ 2496 will actually have the same curve on both channels when
>> the sliders are set identically, which is never the case with a real
>> graphic EQ. Expect differences of as much as 6dB at some points from a
>> graphic with "identical" channel settings.
>
>The deq also lets you define a response curve and then it will auto EQ your
>system to match the desired response you told it to achieve, though in the
>end one should always trust their ears over any auto eq program
>George

All those things give me the willies... none of the ones I have ever used
have improved the sound.

Even the Dolby method where you take five third-octave measurements from
different locations and average them seems just like asking for trouble.

Now, the automatic feedback notching is a whole other matter....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>Scott: I was being a wiseacre about the cats!!

I know, but you should know about cat hearing because it explains a lot of
things about how humans localize sound as well. Also it explains why cats
just stare into space at something that isn't there; they are hearing things
that we can't hear.

>Seriously though, the first equalizers I ever had the pleasure of
>playing with were of the graphic variety.

That was the case for a lot of people who got introduced to equalization in
the seventies. Thankfully, things are better than they were back then.

>The technology exists today to build an EQ with adjustable setpoints,
>not to mention assignability anywhere from 5 to 50(!!), range of
>adjustment(+-10, +-15), High-Q(narrow band) Lo-Q9wide-band). Forget
>all that dynamic control stuff, the product I need will spend 90% of
>its time on my home stereo rack.
>
>Question is - WHY is something like the above not being built?

Sure it is. The Behringer one we have talked about is very popular. The
Sabine EQ box will do it too, and EV makes some digital boxes that will also
do this.

If all you want is third-octave centers, you can even do it with the dbx ddp.

>Look at what was out in 1986:
>http://media.photobucket.com/image/1985%20JVC%20electronic%20graphic%20equa=
>lizer/shaorin-chan/MacGyver%20System/DSCF0831.jpg
>
>Display doubles as settings/spectro analyzer. Look closely, up/down
>buttons beneath amber display. You set it and forget it! Settings
>are LOCKED. This stuff should have taken off like Tom Cruise in top
>gun! Sliders get bumped. Sliders get dirty. Sliders ...SUCK.

Sliders are quick and convenient and let you make changes rapidly, though,
and that's what the graphic is all about.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:
<snip>

>>Display doubles as settings/spectro analyzer. Look closely, up/down
>>buttons beneath amber display. You set it and forget it! Settings
>>are LOCKED. This stuff should have taken off like Tom Cruise in top
>>gun! Sliders get bumped. Sliders get dirty. Sliders ...SUCK.

> Sliders are quick and convenient and let you make changes rapidly,
> though, and that's what the graphic is all about.

wHich is why I still use them, especially for tuning stage
monitors. Old blind man doesn't have time to guess at a
display, ring out them thar monitors and get on with it.

But, if that's what you're looking for, as many have said,
the Behringer product is probably what you're looking for.
tHey, and others Scott mentioned have already invented that
wheel. For some of us, in such applications those physical
sliders, with all their inherent disadvantages are still the go-to tool because they're quick, and often I don't have
time to fart around when I'm doing such work. I don't have
time to look for a knowledgeable pair of eyes that work, and sometimes don't have them available because i hired a couple know nothings to schlep gear.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Bill Graham]

polymod wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>> Background: These came out on the consumer level 20-25 years ago,
>>> but never caught on. Instead of sliders/faders, each band had an
>>> "Up" and "Down" button, and 11 total steps(+- 10dB and "0") or 13
>>> total steps if 12 dB up and down adjustment - displayed in LED. If
>>> I recall there were 7- and 10-band models available, and many of
>>> them had at least 3 presets.
>>>
>>> What happened to these and are they still available today? I want
>>> my settings locked and out of the reach of curious pets(!).
>>
>> Why? - My five cats control all my recording. They are getting
>> pretty good at it, too......
>
> Cats have very good ears.
> I was on a session where a woman bought 10 siamese cats into the
> studio for a recording.
> Their intonation was impecable ;)
>
> Poly

Yes. I use mine for guard work. When there is a strange noise anywhere
around my property, the cats stop whatever it is they are doing and freeze,
looking in the direction of the strange sound. This alerts me without the
barking of a dog or making any noise that might alarm an intruder.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>>
>> Were they blue, seal, chocolate, lilac, or red-point siamese? This
>> is a finer point to consider as the lilac and blue-points are
>> especially sensitive over 21kHZ, whilst the very common chocolate
>> points are rather flat from 40Hz up to 18 - kind of the SM-58 of
>> cats. I could delve into this further, but at the risk of
>> complicating my own thread. ;)
>
> Try up to 85 Khz. They have very small ears, and are evolved for very
> accurate imaging in both the ears-forward and ears-back mode.
>
> You want "Hearing Range of the Domestic Cat" by Rickye S. Heffner and
> Henry E. Heffner, Hearing Research 19(1985) 85-88.
> --scott

I have a 7 year old male who responds to a dog whistle. I can blow it at any
time, and after a few minutes, he comes running down the block to see what I
want. ( I picked him up in a Burger King parking lot the day before
Thanksgiving, 2004)