Question for Trevor [Archive]

November 2nd 05, 07:20 PM

Robert Morein wrote:
> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog
> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>
> Why is your opinion so strong? Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather
> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is
> substantially more transparent? In my experience, eqs are among the most
> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut
> mode.
>
> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>
> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings
> listenable, where they may do quite well.
> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers
> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq
> anyway.
> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This
> accounts for the lack of popularity.
> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken,
> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in
> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher
> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be
> used to benefit.
> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more
> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at
> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
> equipment into a consumer installation.

With some trepidation I will post an answer from a consumer with no
technical competence. I've been buying and trying analogue equalisers
for some 30 years including a semiprofessional 1/3 octave Yamaha and a
professional defunct Olsson.
They did equalise but in every case it was a relief to get rid of them.
I could *hear* them. No DBT, no ABX a completely subjective response.
Taking it out was a change for cleaner sound. It is true though that I
may have been amplifying indisreetly.
Situation is entirely different with my two Behringer digital
equalisers. I was introduced to them by Roger Sanders of the "Inner
Ear" and am still grateful to him. I can not hear them over and above
the audio chain and though I do not exceed + 3db. nowadays, I used to
do so, and still could equalise all I wanted.
Ludovic Mirabel

November 2nd 05, 08:53 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog
>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>
>> Why is your opinion so strong? Even if you are correct that a digital eq
>> is
>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>> rather
>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq
>> is
>> substantially more transparent? In my experience, eqs are among the most
>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut
>> mode.
>>
>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>>
>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings
>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>> consumers
>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an
>> eq
>> anyway.
>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This
>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>> broken,
>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only
>> in
>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>> higher
>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can
>> be
>> used to benefit.
>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more
>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq
>> at
>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>
I essentially agree with all of the above.
A nice change.

> With some trepidation I will post an answer from a consumer with no
> technical competence. I've been buying and trying analogue equalisers
> for some 30 years including a semiprofessional 1/3 octave Yamaha and a
> professional defunct Olsson.
> They did equalise but in every case it was a relief to get rid of them.
> I could *hear* them. No DBT, no ABX a completely subjective response.

Certainly no ABX or DBT would be warranted for determing the differnce
between the before and after effects of an Equalizer, since the differnces
would be gross.

It would be interseting to see what sort of perfromance specs they had in
terms of dynamic range and signal to noise, etc.

> Taking it out was a change for cleaner sound. It is true though that I
> may have been amplifying indisreetly.

I assume from this you mean boosting the various frequency bands, correct?
If this is so, it is not surprizing that you didin't like the results, since
it is very likely that you never got near flat response.

> Situation is entirely different with my two Behringer digital
> equalisers. I was introduced to them by Roger Sanders of the "Inner
> Ear" and am still grateful to him. I can not hear them over and above
> the audio chain and though I do not exceed + 3db. nowadays, I used to
> do so, and still could equalise all I wanted.
> Ludovic Mirabel

Would it be correct to assume that in the case of the Behringer's you used
some sort of SPL meter to achieve the end results?

I would be very surprised if there weren't some room for further correction
somewhere in the bass region around 40-60 Hz and probably in the
neighborhood of 100 Hz, as typical rooms seem to show boost in those areas.
If you have a meter and tones check them and especially if you have a
subwoofer, you will likely find you can cut them and suffer no problems.
This should allow your sub to play louder when needed and remove any trace
of boominess which so many people seem to complain about when they install a
sub.

Do the Behringer's have memory for the curves you generate? If so any
experimentation that you don't like could easily be changed and the original
curves restored.

Trevor Wilson

November 2nd 05, 09:15 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog
> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>
> Why is your opinion so strong?

**Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I
have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power
equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and
knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired.
After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some
changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone
switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits
completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal
through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We
tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the
tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone
controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched
the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I
switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more
cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering
up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in
cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X
tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such
expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much.

Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
> rather
> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq
> is
> substantially more transparent?

**Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
transparent.

In my experience, eqs are among the most
> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut
> mode.
>
> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>
> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings
> listenable, where they may do quite well.

**Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted
to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the
requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).

> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers
> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an
> eq
> anyway.
> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This
> accounts for the lack of popularity.

**Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales.

> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken,
> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only
> in
> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
> higher
> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can
> be
> used to benefit.

**Yep.

> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more
> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at
> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
> equipment into a consumer installation.

**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack
the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

November 2nd 05, 10:26 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog
>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>
>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>
> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me.
> I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of
> switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything
> they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could
> make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1
> had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone
> circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed
> the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation
> circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many
> people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system).
> I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system.
> Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging
> resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole
> system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone
> circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew
> that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I
> bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I
> was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
> much.
>
Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years
ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.

> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>> rather
>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq
>> is
>> substantially more transparent?
>
> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
> transparent.
>
>
> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut
>> mode.
>>
>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>>
>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings
>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>
> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted
> to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the
> requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>
Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
everybody.

>
>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>> consumers
>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an
>> eq
>> anyway.
>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This
>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>
> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales.
>
>
>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>> broken,
>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only
>> in
>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>> higher
>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can
>> be
>> used to benefit.
>
> **Yep.
>
>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more
>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq
>> at
>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>
> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack
> the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>
>
I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and
when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
improvements.

Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for
everybody?

November 2nd 05, 10:57 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
>
oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative
virtues of analog
> >> equalizers, versus digital ones.
> >>
> >> Why is your opinion so strong? Even if you are correct
that a digital eq
> >> is
> >> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the
differences seem
> >> rather
> >> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly
that a digital eq
> >> is
> >> substantially more transparent? In my experience, eqs
are among the most
> >> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they
are used in the cut
> >> mode.
> >>
> >> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at
the consumer are:
> >>
> >> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making
some bad recordings
> >> listenable, where they may do quite well.
> >> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible
types for
> >> consumers
> >> to use, although most room correction problems are
beyond the reach of an
> >> eq
> >> anyway.
> >> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the
nontechnical user. This
> >> accounts for the lack of popularity.
> >> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with
ears.
> >> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a
system sound
> >> broken,
> >> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
> >> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could
be argued that only
> >> in
> >> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach
really needed. At
> >> higher
> >> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an
octave equalizer can
> >> be
> >> used to benefit.
> >> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor
detail. It is far more
> >> important for the user to make sure that his equipment
can drive the eq
> >> at
> >> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on
this forum, is
> >> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate
professional
> >> equipment into a consumer installation.
> >
> I essentially agree with all of the above.
> A nice change.
>
>
> > With some trepidation I will post an answer from a
consumer with no
> > technical competence. I've been buying and trying
analogue equalisers
> > for some 30 years including a semiprofessional 1/3
octave Yamaha and a
> > professional defunct Olsson.
> > They did equalise but in every case it was a relief to
get rid of them.
> > I could *hear* them. No DBT, no ABX a completely
subjective response.
>
> Certainly no ABX or DBT would be warranted for determing
the differnce
> between the before and after effects of an Equalizer,
since the differnces
> would be gross.
>
> It would be interseting to see what sort of perfromance
specs they had in
> terms of dynamic range and signal to noise, etc.
>
> > Taking it out was a change for cleaner sound. It is true
though that I
> > may have been amplifying indisreetly.
>
> I assume from this you mean boosting the various frequency
bands, correct?
> If this is so, it is not surprizing that you didin't like
the results, since
> it is very likely that you never got near flat response.
>
> > Situation is entirely different with my two Behringer
digital
> > equalisers. I was introduced to them by Roger Sanders of
the "Inner
> > Ear" and am still grateful to him. I can not hear them
over and above
> > the audio chain and though I do not exceed + 3db.
nowadays, I used to
> > do so, and still could equalise all I wanted.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Would it be correct to assume that in the case of the
Behringer's you used
> some sort of SPL meter to achieve the end results?
>
> I would be very surprised if there weren't some room for
further correction
> somewhere in the bass region around 40-60 Hz and probably
in the
> neighborhood of 100 Hz, as typical rooms seem to show
boost in those areas.
> If you have a meter and tones check them and especially
if you have a
> subwoofer, you will likely find you can cut them and
suffer no problems.
> This should allow your sub to play louder when needed and
remove any trace
> of boominess which so many people seem to complain about
when they install a
> sub.
>
> Do the Behringer's have memory for the curves you
generate? If so any
> experimentation that you don't like could easily be
changed and the original
> curves restored.
>
>
I use 2 of these
http://www.behringer.com/DSP8024/index.cfm?lang=ENG
and yes they have 99 memories. I use one as an analyser and
the other to control the bass in 2 subs. My room has a bass
hump at about 42Hz and dip at about 69Hz. Conventional
methods of adjustments (as you rightly pointed out) produced
unacceptable boom.

What is also a pleasant feature is that I can control them
with a laptop sitting at my listening position. It takes
over fully all of the functions of pre-sets, memory and
adjustments. It will also A-B the original setting and the
adjusted one so you can do comparisons.

The only downside to these units is that their potential
far outstrips my abilities to use them ;-)

BTW One day I had a play with the spare unit and used it as
a full range unit on my main speakers and with the ability
to "clean up" and re-EQ bad recordings I found that I was
starting to do it for each individual track on an album.
Mmmmm.... you can get carried away with these and lose sight
of what you are actually doing. i.e listening to music or
running a recording studio ;-)

Cheers TT

Trevor Wilson

November 3rd 05, 01:01 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>> analog
>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>
>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>
>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of
>> switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything
>> they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I
>> could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that
>> the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the
>> tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch
>> allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the
>> equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he.
>> like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to
>> his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and
>> played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small
>> improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in.
>> BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight
>> and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system
>> significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap
>> equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone
>> controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such
>> expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much.
>>
> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years
> ago.

**Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the
Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls.

If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.

**Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all. We were not
discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were discussing
high end equipment.

>
>
>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>>> rather
>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq
>>> is
>>> substantially more transparent?
>>
>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>> transparent.
>>
>>
>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut
>>> mode.
>>>
>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>>>
>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings
>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>
>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has
>> the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>
> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
> everybody.

**I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.

>
>>
>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>> consumers
>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of
>>> an eq
>>> anyway.
>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This
>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>
>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales.
>>
>>
>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>> broken,
>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>> only in
>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>> higher
>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can
>>> be
>>> used to benefit.
>>
>> **Yep.
>>
>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more
>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq
>>> at
>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>
>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>
>>
> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and
> when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
> improvements.

**And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you
STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments.

>
> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
> for everybody?

**Nope. But I do know what sounds best.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

November 3rd 05, 01:22 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>>> analog
>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>>
>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>>
>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
>>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
>>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of
>>> switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything
>>> they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I
>>> could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that
>>> the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the
>>> tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch
>>> allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the
>>> equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations
>>> (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments
>>> to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and
>>> played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small
>>> improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in.
>>> BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight
>>> and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system
>>> significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap
>>> equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone
>>> controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such
>>> expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much.
>>>
>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>> years ago.
>
> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the
> Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls.
>

But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>
> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.

More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only
help.

We were not
> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
> discussing high end equipment.
>
Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned.
>>
>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>>>> rather
>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
>>>> eq is
>>>> substantially more transparent?
>>>
>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>>> transparent.
>>>
And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
experiment with.

>>>
>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
>>>> cut
>>>> mode.
>>>>
>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings
>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>>
>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>>
>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>> everybody.
>
> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
>
You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up with
anything more than anecdote.

If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ you
can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.

>>>
>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>>> consumers
>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of
>>>> an eq
>>>> anyway.
>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
>>>> This
>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>>
>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>>> broken,
>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>>> only in
>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>>> higher
>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
>>>> can be
>>>> used to benefit.
>>>
>>> **Yep.
>>>
>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
>>>> more
>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq
>>>> at
>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>>
>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>
>>>
>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and
>> when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
>> improvements.
>
> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you
> STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments.
>
Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters,
because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are
corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements
done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and they
all conform you arre wrong.

Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

>>
>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
>> for everybody?
>
> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
>
FOR YOU!

dizzy

November 3rd 05, 03:13 AM

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:57:00 +0800, "TT" >
wrote:

>What is also a pleasant feature is that I can control them
>with a laptop sitting at my listening position. It takes
>over fully all of the functions of pre-sets, memory and
>adjustments. It will also A-B the original setting and the
>adjusted one so you can do comparisons.
>
>The only downside to these units is that their potential
>far outstrips my abilities to use them ;-)

How useful do you think they would be as a "bass control" to regularly
change bass levels for different recordings? Of course this needs to
be quite convenient - no laptop required. 8)

dizzy

November 3rd 05, 03:16 AM

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack
>the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.

Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so
useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room
correction).

dizzy

November 3rd 05, 03:17 AM

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:22:33 GMT, > wrote:

>Simple defeatable tone
>controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Right on!

November 3rd 05, 05:37 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack
>>the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>
> Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so
> useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room
> correction).
>
I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
bass?

One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
simple flexible parametric EQ.

surf

November 3rd 05, 02:37 PM

> wrote...
>
> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years
> ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for
> everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>
> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
> everybody.
>
> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
> for everybody?

Jeez, Mike, why are you acting like an asshole? Do you feel like since you
and Arny and the bicycle grease monkey can't hear differences, and ABX
supports your theories, you're above everyone with an differing opinion?
What are you going to do if we discover the earth isn't flat, apologize?

November 3rd 05, 02:45 PM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:57:00 +0800, "TT"
>
> wrote:
>
> >What is also a pleasant feature is that I can control
them
> >with a laptop sitting at my listening position. It takes
> >over fully all of the functions of pre-sets, memory and
> >adjustments. It will also A-B the original setting and
the
> >adjusted one so you can do comparisons.
> >
> >The only downside to these units is that their potential
> >far outstrips my abilities to use them ;-)
>
> How useful do you think they would be as a "bass control"
to regularly
> change bass levels for different recordings? Of course
this needs to
> be quite convenient - no laptop required. 8)
>

I primarily use one for bass control and once set to
optimise the room acoustics I then use the receiver's sub
control to change the level (volume). BTW I did see one pic
on the net about a guy's set up that had long interconnects
and one of these sat on a table next to his listening
position. Neat idea I thought. Also with 99 pre-sets and
IIRC 7 digit naming you could list settings by album and
track number.

Regards TT

Cheers TT

November 3rd 05, 07:03 PM

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote...
>>
>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>> years ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for
>> everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>>
>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>> everybody.
>>
>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
>> for everybody?
>
>
> Jeez, Mike, why are you acting like an asshole?

When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein, I might
start to give a ****. Your moral outrage seems just a bit feigned right
now.

Do you feel like since you
> and Arny and the bicycle grease monkey can't hear differences, and ABX
> supports your theories, you're above everyone with an differing opinion?

I think that when people are presented with reliable, repeatable, sound
evidence, that it ought to warrant consideration at least, and a cessation
of sweeping statements entirely.
Basing conslusions on 1 instance from 20 years ago sees just a bit much.

> What are you going to do if we discover the earth isn't flat, apologize?
Obligatory snot flinging noted.

Robert Morein

November 3rd 05, 07:46 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote...
> >>
> >> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
> >> years ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for
> >> everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
> >>
> >> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
> >> everybody.
> >>
> >> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
> >> for everybody?
> >
> >
> > Jeez, Mike, why are you acting like an asshole?
Because he is one. He is not talented enough to hide his true nature.
>
> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein, I
might
> start to give a ****. Your moral outrage seems just a bit feigned right
> now.

Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>
> Do you feel like since you
> > and Arny and the bicycle grease monkey can't hear differences, and ABX
> > supports your theories, you're above everyone with an differing opinion?
>
> I think that when people are presented with reliable, repeatable, sound
> evidence, that it ought to warrant consideration at least, and a cessation
> of sweeping statements entirely.

The best evidence is that provided by Ludovic, which suggests strongly that
ABX does not work for hifi comparisons.

George Middius

November 3rd 05, 08:04 PM

Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:

>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein

>Pot calling kettle black, noted.

Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still
further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.

..
..
..

Robert Morein

November 3rd 05, 09:22 PM

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>
>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>
>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>
> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still
> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>
I'm finding it an interesting mode of expression, sort of like the messaging
kids do with the tiny phone keypads.
We could assign about 25 numbers to each of Krueger's stock expressions.
A reply could be as simple as, "15, 9, 13", which translated, would mean
something like,
"Been there, done that. Failure to blah noted. X needs to buy a clue about
audio."

Robert Morein

November 3rd 05, 09:36 PM

November 3rd 05, 10:42 PM

Robert Morein

November 3rd 05, 11:02 PM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>>>> analog
>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>>>
>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
>>>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
>>>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of
>>>> switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything
>>>> they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I
>>>> could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that
>>>> the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed
>>>> the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This
>>>> switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through
>>>> the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several
>>>> configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make
>>>> subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12
>>>> o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass
>>>> switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched
>>>> the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more
>>>> cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were
>>>> buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this
>>>> was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed
>>>> my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
>>>> surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
>>>> much.
>>>>
>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>>> years ago.
>>
>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the
>> Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls.
>>
>
> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!
>
>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>>
>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
>
> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only
> help.
>
> We were not
>> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
>> discussing high end equipment.
>>
> Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
> controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned.
>>>
>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>>>>> rather
>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
>>>>> eq is
>>>>> substantially more transparent?
>>>>
>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>>>> transparent.
>>>>
> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
> experiment with.
>
>>>>
>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
>>>>> cut
>>>>> mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
>>>>> recordings
>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>>>
>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>>>
>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>>> everybody.
>>
>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
>>
> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
> with anything more than anecdote.
>
> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>>>> consumers
>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of
>>>>> an eq
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
>>>>> This
>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>>>
>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
>>>> locales.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>>>> broken,
>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>>>> only in
>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>>>> higher
>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
>>>>> can be
>>>>> used to benefit.
>>>>
>>>> **Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
>>>>> more
>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
>>>>> eq at
>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>>>
>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and
>>> when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
>>> improvements.
>>
>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
>> instruments.
>>
> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters,
> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem,
without any problem perceived by you. It simply means you cannot tell the
difference, which is fine. But you should not attempt to promote the RS
meter as a good solution, since many people are more sensitive to
differences of this nature.
Or do you conceitedly believe that your hearing is better than most
audiophiles?

Robert Morein

November 3rd 05, 11:02 PM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>>
>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>
>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still
>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>>
>>
> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
POS calling person ****, noted.

Clyde Slick

November 3rd 05, 11:19 PM

George M. Middius

November 3rd 05, 11:28 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> If irony killed.

.... then Mickey would not resist the urge to flush when he looks in the
mirror.

Robert Morein

November 3rd 05, 11:44 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "George Middius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
> >>
> >>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
> >>
> >>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
> >>
> >> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
still
> >> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
> >>
> >>
> > I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
> >
>
> If irony killed.
>
Ah yes, #14 in the Kruegarium.

dizzy

November 4th 05, 12:48 AM

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:37:12 GMT, > wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack
>>>the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>
>> Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so
>> useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room
>> correction).
>>
>I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
>on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
>to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
>bass?

Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.

And this is't my system. This is on all systems that I've heard in my
lifetime.

>One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
>http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
>simple flexible parametric EQ.

Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
"high end" stereo...

dizzy

November 4th 05, 12:54 AM

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT" >
wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>
>> How useful do you think they would be as a "bass control"
>> to regularly
>> change bass levels for different recordings? Of course
>> this needs to
>> be quite convenient - no laptop required. 8)
>
>I primarily use one for bass control and once set to
>optimise the room acoustics I then use the receiver's sub
>control to change the level (volume).

In other words, it would not work well for what I described. Oh well,
you gain features, you lose convenience, usually...

Clyde Slick

November 4th 05, 01:01 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>> >>
>> >>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>> >>
>> >>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>> >>
>> >> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
> still
>> >> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>> >
>>
>> If irony killed.
>>
> Ah yes, #14 in the Kruegarium.
>
>
Does Kruegarium trump Schopenhauer?

November 4th 05, 01:08 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>>
>>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>>>
>>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>>
>>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
>>> still
>>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>>>
>>>
>> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>>
>
> If irony killed.
>
>
Then I'd be one of the few left alive.

Clyde Slick

November 4th 05, 01:21 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>>>
>>>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>>>>
>>>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>>>
>>>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
>>>> still
>>>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>>>
>>
>> If irony killed.
>>
>>
> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>

Wouldn't it be ironic if
it were just the two of us, sweetie?

Clyde Slick

November 4th 05, 01:21 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>>>
>>>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>>>>
>>>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>>>
>>>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
>>>> still
>>>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>>>
>>
>> If irony killed.
>>
>>
> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>
>
>
Sorry, I thought you were MArgaret. Your just
not my type.

November 4th 05, 01:25 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:37:12 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>>lack
>>>>the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>
>>> Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so
>>> useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room
>>> correction).
>>>
>>I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
>>on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
>>to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
>>bass?
>
> Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
> boost it.

That's why I think a real 1/3 octave EQ that you set once and forget, is an
item that might be good for your system. If you don't have a sub or a
system that can get you down to the 20 Hz range, you should have one. Get
it EQ'd so that you know it's as flat ass possible, then see what stuff
sounds like.

Sometimes there just isn't a lot of bass in a particular recording because
it's wasn't used.
My preference is to have the system capable of flat response and then hear
what was recorded. I very seldom touch any tone control other than for the
reasons I've previously mentioned, hissy FM and so on.

I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
> just so light on the bass.

Not every bit of music or every musician feels the need. Solo guitar for
example, or folk music, just to name a couple.

You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
> bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.
>

For pop music, yes there tends to be palaple bass.

> And this is't my system. This is on all systems that I've heard in my
> lifetime.
>
Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response.

>>One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
>>http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
>>simple flexible parametric EQ.
>
> Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
> "high end" stereo...
>
Which high end? The one made up of snobs who think any form of active EQ is
bad or the one made up of people who know what a systme is supposed to do,
and use reasonable means to get it done.

My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's own
tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to be
applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can
practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if
you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass.

The unit here: http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed
with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste
when you think bass is lacking.

Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content for
the type ofsound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see what
the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and engineer
agreed).

dizzy

November 4th 05, 02:29 AM

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:21:00 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote:

> wrote:
>>
>> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>
>Wouldn't it be ironic if
>it were just the two of us, sweetie?

!

Clyde Slick

November 4th 05, 02:35 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:21:00 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>>
>>Wouldn't it be ironic if
>>it were just the two of us, sweetie?
>
> !
>

I thought it was Maggie, I just can't get her out of my mind.

Trevor Wilson

November 4th 05, 04:34 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>>>> analog
>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>>>
>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
>>>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
>>>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of
>>>> switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything
>>>> they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I
>>>> could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that
>>>> the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed
>>>> the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This
>>>> switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through
>>>> the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several
>>>> configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make
>>>> subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12
>>>> o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass
>>>> switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched
>>>> the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more
>>>> cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were
>>>> buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this
>>>> was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed
>>>> my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
>>>> surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
>>>> much.
>>>>
>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>>> years ago.
>>
>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the
>> Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls.
>>
>
> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

**So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In
what way/s?

>
>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>>
>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
>
> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only
> help.

**Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.

>
> We were not
>> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
>> discussing high end equipment.
>>
> Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
> controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned.

**Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.

>>>
>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>>>>> rather
>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
>>>>> eq is
>>>>> substantially more transparent?
>>>>
>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>>>> transparent.
>>>>
> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
> experiment with.

**Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.

>
>>>>
>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
>>>>> cut
>>>>> mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
>>>>> recordings
>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>>>
>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>>>
>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>>> everybody.
>>
>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
>>
> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
> with anything more than anecdote.

**I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If you
imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
following:

* Select a room.
* Measure that room's physical dimensions.
* Measure the room's problems.
* Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
* Post ALL the data here.

>
> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>>>> consumers
>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of
>>>>> an eq
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
>>>>> This
>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>>>
>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
>>>> locales.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>>>> broken,
>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>>>> only in
>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>>>> higher
>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
>>>>> can be
>>>>> used to benefit.
>>>>
>>>> **Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
>>>>> more
>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
>>>>> eq at
>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>>>
>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and
>>> when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
>>> improvements.
>>
>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
>> instruments.
>>
> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters,

**No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one with
more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.

> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are
> corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements
> done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and
> they all conform you arre wrong.

**About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No argument
from me.

>
> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

**When will you stop beating your wife?

>
>>>
>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
>>> for everybody?
>>
>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
>>
> FOR YOU!

**Accuracy is best.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Robert Morein

November 4th 05, 04:52 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:37:12 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>>>lack
>>>>>the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so
>>>> useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room
>>>> correction).
>>>>
>>>I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they
>>>put
>>>on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some
>>>way
>>>to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
>>>bass?
>>
>> Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
>> boost it.
>
> That's why I think a real 1/3 octave EQ that you set once and forget, is
> an item that might be good for your system. If you don't have a sub or a
> system that can get you down to the 20 Hz range, you should have one. Get
> it EQ'd so that you know it's as flat ass possible, then see what stuff
> sounds like.
>
> Sometimes there just isn't a lot of bass in a particular recording because
> it's wasn't used.
> My preference is to have the system capable of flat response and then hear
> what was recorded. I very seldom touch any tone control other than for
> the reasons I've previously mentioned, hissy FM and so on.
>
> I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
>> just so light on the bass.
>
> Not every bit of music or every musician feels the need. Solo guitar for
> example, or folk music, just to name a couple.
>
> You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
>> bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.
>>
>
> For pop music, yes there tends to be palaple bass.
>
>> And this is't my system. This is on all systems that I've heard in my
>> lifetime.
>>
> Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response.
>
>
>
>>>One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
>>>http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
>>>simple flexible parametric EQ.
>>
>> Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
>> "high end" stereo...
>>
> Which high end? The one made up of snobs who think any form of active EQ
> is bad or the one made up of people who know what a systme is supposed to
> do, and use reasonable means to get it done.
>
> My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's
> own tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to
> be applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can
> practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if
> you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass.
>
> The unit here: http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed
> with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste
> when you think bass is lacking.
>
> Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content
> for the type ofsound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see
> what the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and
> engineer agreed).
Mikey, the concept of equalizing for flat room response is not accepted by
anybody. Ask Arny for verification of this.

November 4th 05, 04:54 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
>>>>> still
>>>>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If irony killed.
>>>
>>>
>> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be ironic if
> it were just the two of us, sweetie?
Only if this became a political rather than audio NG.
That might still include Arny and Scott though.

Clyde Slick

November 4th 05, 04:59 AM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If irony killed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't it be ironic if
>> it were just the two of us, sweetie?
> Only if this became a political rather than audio NG.
> That might still include Arny and Scott though.
>

I thought you were Maggie.
I have the hots for her.

November 4th 05, 05:08 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>>>>> analog
>>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
>>>>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
>>>>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass
>>>>> of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst
>>>>> anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my
>>>>> client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be.
>>>>> I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'.
>>>>> It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled
>>>>> 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits,
>>>>> but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in
>>>>> several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls
>>>>> to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to
>>>>> the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the
>>>>> bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I
>>>>> switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became
>>>>> more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were
>>>>> buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this
>>>>> was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed
>>>>> my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
>>>>> surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
>>>>> much.
>>>>>
>>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
>>> the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
>>> controls.
>>>
>>
>> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!
>
> **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In
> what way/s?
>
It had very little then, even less now.
>>
>>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
>>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>>>
>>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
>>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
>>
>> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
>> only help.
>
> **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
> can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.
>
>>
>> We were not
>>> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
>>> discussing high end equipment.
>>>
>> Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
>> controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already
>> mentioned.
>
> **Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.
>
That's still your opinion. They still should be available and they were
never intended for correcting room problems. They were more likely meant to
compensate for the poor quality speakers of the day. Still for taming FM
hiss and the noise from poorly recorded or cared for LP's they have a
purpose.

>>>>
>>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
>>>>>> eq is
>>>>>> substantially more transparent?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>>>>> transparent.
>>>>>
>> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
>> experiment with.
>
> **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.
>
No arguement there, but you seem to think that they are beyond the
capability of the average person, when in fact all you have to do is be able
to follow simple directions.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
>>>>>> cut
>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
>>>>>> recordings
>>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
>>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>>>>
>>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>>>> everybody.
>>>
>>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
>>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
>>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
>>>
>> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
>> with anything more than anecdote.
>
> **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If
> you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
> following:
>
> * Select a room.
> * Measure that room's physical dimensions.
> * Measure the room's problems.
> * Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
> * Post ALL the data here.
>
The point is not about whether they can solve all the problems but if they
are useless or not.

They are far from useless if they make things sound better and IMO they can
and have done.

>>
>> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
>> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>>>>> consumers
>>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
>>>>>> of an eq
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
>>>>> locales.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>>>>> broken,
>>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>>>>> only in
>>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>>>>> higher
>>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>> used to benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
>>>>>> eq at
>>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
>>>> and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
>>>> improvements.
>>>
>>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
>>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
>>> instruments.
>>>
>> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
>> meters,
>
> **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
> with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
> calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.
>
Are you blind? I've posted multiple example of people who disagree with you
and have done the measurements to back it up.

You are simply and completely wrong.

>> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are
>> corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
>> measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive
>> meters and they all conform you arre wrong.
>
> **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
> argument from me.
>
With the corrections added in they are definitely accurate enough to make a
1/3 octave EQ make a major improvement in the sound of anybody's system. I
know becuase I've done so.
>>
>> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?
>
> **When will you stop beating your wife?
>
So, you still refuse to add anyting of any possoble use, you prefer being a
prissy little ****. Everything I've posted on this subject has been with
the aim of helping someone who wants to do an EQ. You have done nothing but
bitch and moan about how it's impossible to do so.

BTW plenty of knowldegabel people disagree with you on where to put the mic.

Where do figure the best place(s) to put it for an WQ are?

>>>>
>>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
>>>> for everybody?
>>>
>>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
>>>
>> FOR YOU!
>
> **Accuracy is best.
>
>
Which is sometimes not possible without an EQ.

Robert Morein

November 4th 05, 07:21 AM

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> ink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
> >>>>>> analog
> >>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home
to
> >>>>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time)
Yamaha
> >>>>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass
> >>>>> of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst
> >>>>> anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my
> >>>>> client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would
be.
> >>>>> I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled
'Direct'.
> >>>>> It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled
> >>>>> 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits,
> >>>>> but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in
> >>>>> several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls
> >>>>> to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls
to
> >>>>> the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the
> >>>>> bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I
> >>>>> switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system
became
> >>>>> more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits
were
> >>>>> buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that
this
> >>>>> was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I
bypassed
> >>>>> my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
> >>>>> surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
> >>>>> much.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
> >>>> years ago.
> >>>
> >>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
> >>> the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
> >>> controls.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!
> >
> > **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today?
In
> > what way/s?
> >
> It had very little then, even less now.
> >>
> >>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
> >>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
> >>>
> >>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
> >>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
> >>
> >> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
> >> only help.
> >
> > **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
> > can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.
> >
> >>
> >> We were not
> >>> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
> >>> discussing high end equipment.
> >>>
> >> Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable
tone
> >> controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already
> >> mentioned.
> >
> > **Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.
> >
> That's still your opinion. They still should be available and they were
> never intended for correcting room problems. They were more likely meant
to
> compensate for the poor quality speakers of the day. Still for taming FM
> hiss and the noise from poorly recorded or cared for LP's they have a
> purpose.
>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
> >>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences
seem
> >>>>>> rather
> >>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a
digital
> >>>>>> eq is
> >>>>>> substantially more transparent?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
> >>>>> transparent.
> >>>>>
> >> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
> >> experiment with.
> >
> > **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.
> >
> No arguement there, but you seem to think that they are beyond the
> capability of the average person, when in fact all you have to do is be
able
> to follow simple directions.
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
> >>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in
the
> >>>>>> cut
> >>>>>> mode.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
> >>>>>> are:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
> >>>>>> recordings
> >>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
> >>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the
client
> >>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
> >>>>>
> >>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
> >>>> everybody.
> >>>
> >>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
> >>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
> >>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
> >>>
> >> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
> >> with anything more than anecdote.
> >
> > **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If
> > you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
> > following:
> >
> > * Select a room.
> > * Measure that room's physical dimensions.
> > * Measure the room's problems.
> > * Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
> > * Post ALL the data here.
> >
> The point is not about whether they can solve all the problems but if they
> are useless or not.
>
> They are far from useless if they make things sound better and IMO they
can
> and have done.
>
> >>
> >> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
> >> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
> >>>>>> consumers
> >>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
> >>>>>> of an eq
> >>>>>> anyway.
> >>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
> >>>>>> This
> >>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
> >>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
> >>>>> locales.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
> >>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
> >>>>>> broken,
> >>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
> >>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued
that
> >>>>>> only in
> >>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed.
At
> >>>>>> higher
> >>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave
equalizer
> >>>>>> can be
> >>>>>> used to benefit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Yep.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
> >>>>>> more
> >>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive
the
> >>>>>> eq at
> >>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
> >>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate
professional
> >>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since
they
> >>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
> >>>> and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some
remarkable
> >>>> improvements.
> >>>
> >>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
> >>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
> >>> instruments.
> >>>
> >> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
> >> meters,
> >
> > **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
> > with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
> > calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.
> >
> Are you blind? I've posted multiple example of people who disagree with
you
> and have done the measurements to back it up.
>
> You are simply and completely wrong.
>
>
> >> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there
are
> >> corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
> >> measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more
expensive
> >> meters and they all conform you arre wrong.
> >
> > **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
> > argument from me.
> >
> With the corrections added in they are definitely accurate enough to make
a
> 1/3 octave EQ make a major improvement in the sound of anybody's system.
I
> know becuase I've done so.
> >>
> >> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?
> >
> > **When will you stop beating your wife?
> >
> So, you still refuse to add anyting of any possoble use, you prefer being
a
> prissy little ****. Everything I've posted on this subject has been with
> the aim of helping someone who wants to do an EQ. You have done nothing
but
> bitch and moan about how it's impossible to do so.
>
> BTW plenty of knowldegabel people disagree with you on where to put the
mic.
>
> Where do figure the best place(s) to put it for an WQ are?
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's
best
> >>>> for everybody?
> >>>
> >>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
> >>>
> >> FOR YOU!
> >
> > **Accuracy is best.
> >
> >
> Which is sometimes not possible without an EQ.
>
Or with one. Ask Arny to explain this to you. "Flat response" is not
achievable in a room unless the surfaces are specially constructed.

Trevor Wilson

November 4th 05, 07:51 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>>>> analog
>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>>>
>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
>>>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
>>>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of
>>>> switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything
>>>> they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I
>>>> could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that
>>>> the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed
>>>> the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This
>>>> switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through
>>>> the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several
>>>> configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make
>>>> subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12
>>>> o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass
>>>> switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched
>>>> the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more
>>>> cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were
>>>> buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this
>>>> was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed
>>>> my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
>>>> surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
>>>> much.
>>>>
>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>>> years ago.
>>
>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the
>> Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls.
>>
>
> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

**So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In
what way/s?

>
>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>>
>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
>
> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only
> help.

**Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.

>
> We were not
>> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
>> discussing high end equipment.
>>
> Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
> controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned.

**Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.

>>>
>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>>>>> rather
>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
>>>>> eq is
>>>>> substantially more transparent?
>>>>
>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>>>> transparent.
>>>>
> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
> experiment with.

**Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.

>
>>>>
>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
>>>>> cut
>>>>> mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
>>>>> recordings
>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>>>
>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>>>
>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>>> everybody.
>>
>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
>>
> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
> with anything more than anecdote.

**I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If you
imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
following:

* Select a room.
* Measure that room's physical dimensions.
* Measure the room's problems.
* Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
* Post ALL the data here.

>
> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>>>> consumers
>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of
>>>>> an eq
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
>>>>> This
>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>>>
>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
>>>> locales.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>>>> broken,
>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>>>> only in
>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>>>> higher
>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
>>>>> can be
>>>>> used to benefit.
>>>>
>>>> **Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
>>>>> more
>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
>>>>> eq at
>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>>>
>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and
>>> when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
>>> improvements.
>>
>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
>> instruments.
>>
> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters,

**No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one with
more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.

> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are
> corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements
> done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and
> they all conform you arre wrong.

**About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No argument
from me.

>
> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

**When will you stop beating your wife?

>
>>>
>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
>>> for everybody?
>>
>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
>>
> FOR YOU!

**Accuracy is best.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

dave weil

November 4th 05, 07:55 AM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>>I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
>>on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
>>to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
>>bass?
>
>Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
>boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
>just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
>bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.

The fact that you can't figure out why shows why you're just out to
lunch in this whole discussion.

dave weil

November 4th 05, 07:58 AM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>
>>One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
>>http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
>>simple flexible parametric EQ.
>
>Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
>"high end" stereo...

So you're just a price and looks snob.

Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
get your snob on.

paul packer

November 4th 05, 10:30 AM

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:28:31 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Clyde Slick said:
>
>> If irony killed.
>
>... then Mickey would not resist the urge to flush when he looks in the
>mirror.

He has a mirror over the toilet?

paul packer

November 4th 05, 10:34 AM

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT" >
wrote:

>Regards TT
>
>Cheers TT

There are two of you?

November 4th 05, 11:33 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT"
>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Regards TT
> >
> >Cheers TT
>
> There are two of you?

No. But I wish there was I would have sent the other one to
work today ;-)

TT (the other one that isn't me) ;-)

Clyde Slick

November 4th 05, 12:05 PM

> wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>

>>
>> **Accuracy is best.
>>
>>
> Which is sometimes not possible without an EQ.
>
>

LOL!!
That says it all.

paul packer

November 4th 05, 12:51 PM

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 19:33:52 +0800, "TT" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Regards TT
>> >
>> >Cheers TT
>>
>> There are two of you?
>
>No. But I wish there was I would have sent the other one to
>work today ;-)

Why? Aren't you the boss? :-)

November 4th 05, 04:23 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>>>>> analog
>>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
>>>>> me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
>>>>> pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass
>>>>> of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst
>>>>> anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my
>>>>> client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be.
>>>>> I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'.
>>>>> It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled
>>>>> 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits,
>>>>> but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in
>>>>> several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls
>>>>> to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to
>>>>> the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the
>>>>> bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I
>>>>> switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became
>>>>> more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were
>>>>> buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this
>>>>> was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed
>>>>> my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
>>>>> surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
>>>>> much.
>>>>>
>>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
>>> the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
>>> controls.
>>>
>>
>> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!
>
> **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In
> what way/s?
>
>>
>>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
>>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>>>
>>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
>>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
>>
>> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
>> only help.
>
> **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
> can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.
>
>>
>> We were not
>>> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
>>> discussing high end equipment.
>>>
>> Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
>> controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already
>> mentioned.
>
> **Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.
>
>>>>
>>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
>>>>>> eq is
>>>>>> substantially more transparent?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>>>>> transparent.
>>>>>
>> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
>> experiment with.
>
> **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
>>>>>> cut
>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
>>>>>> recordings
>>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
>>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>>>>
>>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>>>> everybody.
>>>
>>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
>>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
>>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
>>>
>> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
>> with anything more than anecdote.
>
> **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If
> you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
> following:
>
> * Select a room.
> * Measure that room's physical dimensions.
> * Measure the room's problems.
> * Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
> * Post ALL the data here.
>
>>
>> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
>> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>>>>> consumers
>>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
>>>>>> of an eq
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
>>>>> locales.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>>>>> broken,
>>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>>>>> only in
>>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>>>>> higher
>>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>> used to benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
>>>>>> eq at
>>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
>>>> and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
>>>> improvements.
>>>
>>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
>>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
>>> instruments.
>>>
>> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
>> meters,
>
> **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
> with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
> calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.
>
>> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are
>> corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
>> measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive
>> meters and they all conform you arre wrong.
>
> **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
> argument from me.
>
>>
>> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?
>
> **When will you stop beating your wife?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
>>>> for everybody?
>>>
>>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
>>>
>> FOR YOU!
>
> **Accuracy is best.
>
>
Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an equalizer to
smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.

November 4th 05, 04:24 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and
>>>>>>>>> Morein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey
>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If irony killed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be ironic if
>>> it were just the two of us, sweetie?
>> Only if this became a political rather than audio NG.
>> That might still include Arny and Scott though.
>>
>
> I thought you were Maggie.
> I have the hots for her.
Eeeewww.

November 4th 05, 04:24 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pot calling kettle black, noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
>>>>> still
>>>>> further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If irony killed.
>>>
>>>
>> Then I'd be one of the few left alive.
>>
>>
>>
> Sorry, I thought you were MArgaret. Your just
> not my type.
Phew!

Trevor Wilson

November 6th 05, 03:23 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
>>>>>>> analog
>>>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home
>>>>>> to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time)
>>>>>> Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1
>>>>>> had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish
>>>>>> alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked
>>>>>> my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would
>>>>>> be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled
>>>>>> 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was
>>>>>> labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone
>>>>>> circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the
>>>>>> preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone
>>>>>> controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone
>>>>>> controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I
>>>>>> switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging
>>>>>> resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The
>>>>>> whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate.
>>>>>> The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst
>>>>>> I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years
>>>>>> previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a
>>>>>> dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well
>>>>>> built equipment could benefit so much.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
>>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
>>>> the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
>>>> controls.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!
>>
>> **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today?
>> In what way/s?

**Still waiting.

>>
>>>
>>>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
>>>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
>>>>
>>>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
>>>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
>>>
>>> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
>>> only help.
>>
>> **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
>> can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.

**I'm pleased we agree.

>>
>>>
>>> We were not
>>>> discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
>>>> discussing high end equipment.
>>>>
>>> Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable
>>> tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already
>>> mentioned.
>>
>> **Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.

**I'm pleased we agree.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
>>>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences
>>>>>>> seem rather
>>>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a
>>>>>>> digital eq is
>>>>>>> substantially more transparent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
>>>>>> transparent.
>>>>>>
>>> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
>>> experiment with.
>>
>> **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.

**I'm pleased we agree.

>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
>>>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
>>>>>>> cut
>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
>>>>>>> recordings
>>>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
>>>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
>>>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
>>>>> everybody.
>>>>
>>>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
>>>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
>>>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
>>>>
>>> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
>>> with anything more than anecdote.
>>
>> **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If
>> you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
>> following:
>>
>> * Select a room.
>> * Measure that room's physical dimensions.
>> * Measure the room's problems.
>> * Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
>> * Post ALL the data here.

**Still waiting.

>>
>>>
>>> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
>>> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
>>>>>>> consumers
>>>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
>>>>>>> of an eq
>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
>>>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
>>>>>> locales.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
>>>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
>>>>>>> broken,
>>>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>>>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
>>>>>>> only in
>>>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
>>>>>>> higher
>>>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>> used to benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
>>>>>>> eq at
>>>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
>>>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
>>>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
>>>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
>>>>> and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some
>>>>> remarkable improvements.
>>>>
>>>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
>>>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
>>>> instruments.
>>>>
>>> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
>>> meters,
>>
>> **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
>> with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
>> calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.
>>
>>> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there
>>> are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
>>> measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive
>>> meters and they all conform you arre wrong.
>>
>> **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
>> argument from me.
>>
>>>
>>> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?
>>
>> **When will you stop beating your wife?
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's
>>>>> best for everybody?
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
>>>>
>>> FOR YOU!
>>
>> **Accuracy is best.
>>
>>
> Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
> different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an equalizer to
> smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.

**Focus on the word: "proper".

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

dizzy

November 6th 05, 11:48 PM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:55:31 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>>I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
>>>on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
>>>to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
>>>bass?
>>
>>Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
>>boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
>>just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
>>bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.
>
>The fact that you can't figure out why shows why you're just out to
>lunch in this whole discussion.

Wrong again.

dizzy

November 6th 05, 11:54 PM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:58:07 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>>One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
>>>http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
>>>simple flexible parametric EQ.
>>
>>Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
>>"high end" stereo...
>
>So you're just a price and looks snob.

Wanting to have all your components matched in quality level makes one
a "snob"?

As for price, is everyone who buys a $1,000+ preamp a "snob"?

Also, I'm curious, if you think that a majority of owners of $1,000+
preamps, most of whom are apparently so concerned with purity that
they cannot allow a tone-control defeat-switch come between them and
their music, would have a $99 EQ in the circuit?

>Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
>box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
>get your snob on.

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions. Or are you just being antagonist because I've been
trouncing you in our debates?

dizzy

November 7th 05, 12:00 AM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:25:27 GMT, > wrote:

>Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response.

Then some of those systems should be "too bassy", and you would
occasionally see a bass knob set to "attenuate". ***NEVER***

>My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's own
>tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to be
>applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can
>practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if
>you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass.
>
>The unit here: http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed
>with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste
>when you think bass is lacking.

Looks like a neat thing... I'm leary, though, of inserting another
A/D and D/A step in the chain, though... My Benchmark DAC1 would be
kind of "wasted" then...

I really prefer the most simple solution, with tone controls.

>Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content for
>the type ofsound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see what
>the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and engineer
>agreed).

Not if it sounds bad, which most recordings would...

ScottW

November 7th 05, 12:01 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:58:07 -0600, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>>
>>>>One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
>>>>http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
>>>>simple flexible parametric EQ.
>>>
>>>Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
>>>"high end" stereo...
>>
>>So you're just a price and looks snob.
>
> Wanting to have all your components matched in quality level makes one
> a "snob"?
>
> As for price, is everyone who buys a $1,000+ preamp a "snob"?
>
> Also, I'm curious, if you think that a majority of owners of $1,000+
> preamps, most of whom are apparently so concerned with purity that
> they cannot allow a tone-control defeat-switch come between them and
> their music, would have a $99 EQ in the circuit?
>
>>Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
>>box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
>>get your snob on.
>
> You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
> conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

ScottW

Lionel

November 7th 05, 12:14 AM

ScottW a écrit :

No more France ****ing ? Already tired ?
You aren't very resistant ****er...
Poor Mrs ScottW. :-)

Clyde Slick

November 7th 05, 12:31 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...

>>>Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
>>>boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
>>>just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
>>>bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.
>>

It's all according to the drums, which are pretty loud, just acoustically.
On the stage, the drummer wants and needs to hear the bass over his drums.
This comes from the bass amp on stage, not from the stage monitors, which
are too weak
and not placed in that regard. So, the bass amp is way up in bar set ups.
Not to mention the other room factors which, exacerbate the bass.

[email protected]

November 7th 05, 01:27 AM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
> >>>>>>> analog
> >>>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home
> >>>>>> to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time)
> >>>>>> Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1
> >>>>>> had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish
> >>>>>> alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked
> >>>>>> my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would
> >>>>>> be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled
> >>>>>> 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was
> >>>>>> labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone
> >>>>>> circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the
> >>>>>> preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone
> >>>>>> controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone
> >>>>>> controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I
> >>>>>> switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging
> >>>>>> resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The
> >>>>>> whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate.
> >>>>>> The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst
> >>>>>> I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years
> >>>>>> previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a
> >>>>>> dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well
> >>>>>> built equipment could benefit so much.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
> >>>>> years ago.
> >>>>
> >>>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
> >>>> the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
> >>>> controls.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!
> >>
> >> **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today?
> >> In what way/s?
>
> **Still waiting.
>
Hard to say, you've contributed so little information, mostly you
condemned tone controls.
Your comments on the RS meter are simply wrong based on the
observations of several different people from elsewhere on the net,
some of which included measurements and calibrations.

> >>>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
> >>>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
> >>>>
> >>>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
> >>>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
> >>>
> >>> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
> >>> only help.
> >>
> >> **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
> >> can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.
>
>
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
> >>>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences
> >>>>>>> seem rather
> >>>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a
> >>>>>>> digital eq is
> >>>>>>> substantially more transparent?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
> >>>>>> transparent.
> >>>>>>
> >>> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
> >>> experiment with.
> >>
> >> **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.
>
> **I'm pleased we agree.
>
On the issue of tone controls being less useful than a 1/3 octave EQ,
there's nothing to argue about. It doesn't make tone controls useless,
however since you've been given a couple of reasons why they would be
helpful.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
> >>>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
> >>>>>>> cut
> >>>>>>> mode.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
> >>>>>>> are:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
> >>>>>>> recordings
> >>>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
> >>>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
> >>>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
> >>>>> everybody.
> >>>>
> >>>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
> >>>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
> >>>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.
> >>>>
> >>> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
> >>> with anything more than anecdote.
> >>
> >> **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense.

Mostly you speak in sweeping condemnations with damn little actual
info.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
> >>> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
> >>>>>>> consumers
> >>>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
> >>>>>>> of an eq
> >>>>>>> anyway.
> >>>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the non technical user.
> >>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
> >>>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
> >>>>>> locales.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
> >>>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
> >>>>>>> broken,
> >>>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.

Not in my experience or that of anybody I know that has an Equalizer.
They all used an RS meter with corrections and test tones and were all
happy with the end result after EQ.

> >>>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
> >>>>>>> only in
> >>>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
> >>>>>>> higher
> >>>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
> >>>>>>> can be
> >>>>>>> used to benefit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **Yep.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
> >>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
> >>>>>>> eq at
> >>>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
> >>>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
> >>>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
> >>>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
> >>>>> and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some
> >>>>> remarkable improvements.
> >>>>
> >>>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
> >>>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
> >>>> instruments.
> >>>>

They are precise enough when used with teh corrections I've posted from
several people, some of whom have compared them to calibrated devices.

> >>> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
> >>> meters,
> >>
> >> **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
> >> with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
> >> calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.
> >>
> >>> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there
> >>> are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
> >>> measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive
> >>> meters and they all conform you arre wrong.
> >>
> >> **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
> >> argument from me.
> >>
With the corrections for their variance, they are precise enough to do
an EQ.
> >>>
> >>> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?
> >>
> >> **When will you stop beating your wife?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's
> >>>>> best for everybody?
> >>>>
> >>>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
> >>>>
> >>> FOR YOU!
> >>
> >> **Accuracy is best.
> >>
> >>
> > Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
> > different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an equalizer to
> > smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.
>
> **Focus on the word: "proper".
>
>
I have and I know from several sources that once the corrections are
factored in, the RS meter is suitable for a room EQ. I also know that
I've tried to be helpful and you've done nothing but bitch. How about
some of the benefit of your expertise, then we can compare that to what
other people say and see if there's some agreement. THX doesn't agree
with you, so where do you say the mic should go.

dave weil

November 7th 05, 06:02 AM

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:48:02 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:55:31 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>>>I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
>>>>on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
>>>>to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
>>>>bass?
>>>
>>>Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
>>>boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
>>>just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
>>>bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.
>>
>>The fact that you can't figure out why shows why you're just out to
>>lunch in this whole discussion.
>
>Wrong again.

You're the one who "honestly can't figure out" why the bass from a
live band is so much stronger than a CD on a home system.

dave weil

November 7th 05, 06:06 AM

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:54:18 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:58:07 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>>
>>>>One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
>>>>http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
>>>>simple flexible parametric EQ.
>>>
>>>Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
>>>"high end" stereo...
>>
>>So you're just a price and looks snob.
>
>Wanting to have all your components matched in quality level makes one
>a "snob"?
>
>As for price, is everyone who buys a $1,000+ preamp a "snob"?
>
>Also, I'm curious, if you think that a majority of owners of $1,000+
>preamps, most of whom are apparently so concerned with purity that
>they cannot allow a tone-control defeat-switch come between them and
>their music, would have a $99 EQ in the circuit?

If they wouldn't, then that's their preference. If they're happy with
the sound, why should they bother?

>>Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
>>box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
>>get your snob on.
>
>You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
>conclusions. Or are you just being antagonist because I've been
>trouncing you in our debates?

I'm not being antagonistic (or an antagonist). YOU'RE the one
bemoaning a problem that doesn't have to exist. You're the one being a
bonehead. You've been given a solution that you won't even bother
checking out. I can't help it if you so inflexible that you only want
a certain configuration for your system.

dave weil

November 7th 05, 06:09 AM

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
>> conclusions.
>
> It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
>digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
>dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

November 7th 05, 09:44 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:25:27 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response.
>
> Then some of those systems should be "too bassy", and you would
> occasionally see a bass knob set to "attenuate". ***NEVER***
>
Some people just don't know how much is too much.

I define too bassy as having more than there was put into the rcording. IOW
if the response at 150 Hz was 85 Db then when I paly it back it should be
the same, assuming I'm playing at the same level. Same for any other
frequency.

It may well be that you just like more bass than was intended to be put on
the recording.
The only way to have a good idea, is to have a system that's providing you
with flat response. If you like more bass than the recording has on it, I
don't know that I would call that a fault of the recording, that's just the
way they chose.

>>My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's
>>own
>>tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to be
>>applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can
>>practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if
>>you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass.
>>
>>The unit here: http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed
>>with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste
>>when you think bass is lacking.
>
> Looks like a neat thing... I'm leary, though, of inserting another
> A/D and D/A step in the chain, though... My Benchmark DAC1 would be
> kind of "wasted" then...
>
> I really prefer the most simple solution, with tone controls.
>
>>Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content
>>for
>>the type of sound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see
>>what
>>the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and engineer
>>agreed).
>
> Not if it sounds bad, which most recordings would...
>
What kind of music are you listening to?

If your object is hi-fi, then it would seem that you would want to hear the
playback as it was recorded. If yo want to boost teh bass after that, then
you're now dealing with your prefernce and the amount of bass that right for
your ears is up to you.

I like recordings that have deep bass, but I also enjoy solo guitar and
violin music as well.
I have a recording of Jascha Heifetz with no bass response at all, that
gives me chills, because of the artistry, which is how I approach music in
the first place.

Your rules for how you enjoy music are your own, I just offered you a
guideline that can be achieved through active EQ, which is generally a set
and forget process. First flatten out eh room with the EQ and then forget
it. Some EQ's have memory as I've mentioned, so you could come up with
several curves that match your feelings for a particular amount of bass to
go with particular musical tastes or groups of recordings

At the prices for some of the units available, it's a very low cost way to
get a much better clue about how the music was intended to sound as opposed
to how the room makes it sound.

Robert Morein

November 7th 05, 04:57 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >>
> > >> > wrote in message
> > >> ink.net...
> > >>>
> > >>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> > >>> ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> > wrote in message
> > >>>> ink.net...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>> You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues
of
> > >>>>>>> analog
> > >>>>>>> equalizers, versus digital ones.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Why is your opinion so strong?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought
home
> > >>>>>> to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time)
> > >>>>>> Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The
C1
> > >>>>>> had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to
acomplish
> > >>>>>> alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I
asked
> > >>>>>> my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects
would
> > >>>>>> be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled
> > >>>>>> 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was
> > >>>>>> labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the
tone
> > >>>>>> circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the
> > >>>>>> preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the
tone
> > >>>>>> controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the
tone
> > >>>>>> controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I
> > >>>>>> switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging
> > >>>>>> resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference!
The
> > >>>>>> whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and
accurate.
> > >>>>>> The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly.
Whilst
> > >>>>>> I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many
years
> > >>>>>> previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for
a
> > >>>>>> dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well
> > >>>>>> built equipment could benefit so much.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience
TWENTY
> > >>>>> years ago.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it,
because
> > >>>> the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
> > >>>> controls.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!
> > >>
> > >> **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to
today?
> > >> In what way/s?
> >
> > **Still waiting.
> >
> Hard to say, you've contributed so little information, mostly you
> condemned tone controls.
> Your comments on the RS meter are simply wrong based on the
> observations of several different people from elsewhere on the net,
> some of which included measurements and calibrations.
>
>
> > >>>> If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for
everybody
> > >>>>> everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence
or
> > >>>> abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.
> > >>>
> > >>> More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility
can
> > >>> only help.
> > >>
> > >> **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls
(it
> > >> can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end
equipment.
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
> > >>>>>>> superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences
> > >>>>>>> seem rather
> > >>>>>>> small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a
> > >>>>>>> digital eq is
> > >>>>>>> substantially more transparent?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very
impressively
> > >>>>>> transparent.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>> And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
> > >>> experiment with.
> > >>
> > >> **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic
EQ.
> >
> > **I'm pleased we agree.
> >
> On the issue of tone controls being less useful than a 1/3 octave EQ,
> there's nothing to argue about. It doesn't make tone controls useless,
> however since you've been given a couple of reasons why they would be
> helpful.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In my experience, eqs are among the most
> > >>>>>>> transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in
the
> > >>>>>>> cut
> > >>>>>>> mode.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the
consumer
> > >>>>>>> are:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
> > >>>>>>> recordings
> > >>>>>>> listenable, where they may do quite well.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
> > >>>>>> adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the
client
> > >>>>>> has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do
not).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good
for
> > >>>>> everybody.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave
EQ
> > >>>> having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
> > >>>> approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery
win.
> > >>>>
> > >>> You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back
up
> > >>> with anything more than anecdote.
> > >>
> > >> **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense.
>
> Mostly you speak in sweeping condemnations with damn little actual
> info.
> >
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an
EQ
> > >>> you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
> > >>>>>>> consumers
> > >>>>>>> to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the
reach
> > >>>>>>> of an eq
> > >>>>>>> anyway.
> > >>>>>>> 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the non technical
user.
> > >>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>> accounts for the lack of popularity.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable
test
> > >>>>>> equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
> > >>>>>> locales.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
> > >>>>>>> 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system
sound
> > >>>>>>> broken,
> > >>>>>>> and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
>
> Not in my experience or that of anybody I know that has an Equalizer.
> They all used an RS meter with corrections and test tones and were all
> happy with the end result after EQ.
>
> > >>>>>>> 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued
that
> > >>>>>>> only in
> > >>>>>>> this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really
needed. At
> > >>>>>>> higher
> > >>>>>>> frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave
equalizer
> > >>>>>>> can be
> > >>>>>>> used to benefit.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> **Yep.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is
far
> > >>>>>>> more
> > >>>>>>> important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive
the
> > >>>>>>> eq at
> > >>>>>>> the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum,
is
> > >>>>>>> problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate
professional
> > >>>>>>> equipment into a consumer installation.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since
they
> > >>>>>> lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket
science
> > >>>>> and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some
> > >>>>> remarkable improvements.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed
and
> > >>>> you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
> > >>>> instruments.
> > >>>>
>
> They are precise enough when used with teh corrections I've posted from
> several people, some of whom have compared them to calibrated devices.
>
> > >>> Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
> > >>> meters,
> > >>
> > >> **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say
one
> > >> with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any
important,
> > >> calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.
> > >>
> > >>> because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because
there
> > >>> are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
> > >>> measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more
expensive
> > >>> meters and they all conform you arre wrong.
> > >>
> > >> **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
> > >> argument from me.
> > >>
> With the corrections for their variance, they are precise enough to do
> an EQ.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?
> > >>
> > >> **When will you stop beating your wife?
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's
> > >>>>> best for everybody?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> **Nope. But I do know what sounds best.
> > >>>>
> > >>> FOR YOU!
> > >>
> > >> **Accuracy is best.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
> > > different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an
equalizer to
> > > smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.
> >
> > **Focus on the word: "proper".
> >
> >
> I have and I know from several sources that once the corrections are
> factored in, the RS meter is suitable for a room EQ.
FALSE.

I also know that
> I've tried to be helpful and you've done nothing but bitch.
FALSE.
> How about
> some of the benefit of your expertise, then we can compare that to what
> other people say and see if there's some agreement. THX doesn't agree
> with you, so where do you say the mic should go.
>
Trevor is right, and you are wrong.
But, since you are a dumb person, this is only to be expected.

ScottW

November 8th 05, 12:32 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>> You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
>>> conclusions.
>>
>> It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
>>digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
>>dependent than input dependent.
>
> Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

I knew you couldn't get it.

ScottW

George M. Middius

November 8th 05, 01:22 AM

Scottiedork geeked:

> >> It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
> >>digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
> >>dependent than input dependent.

> > Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

> I knew you couldn't get it.

How many enjuhnears does it take to clean the lint out of a bellybutton?

dave weil

November 8th 05, 02:36 PM

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
>>>> conclusions.
>>>
>>> It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
>>>digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
>>>dependent than input dependent.
>>
>> Oh joy - engineer geek humor...
>
> I knew you couldn't get it.

Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
take it out of your pocket.

ScottW

November 8th 05, 06:38 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
> >>>> conclusions.
> >>>
> >>> It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
> >>>digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
> >>>dependent than input dependent.
> >>
> >> Oh joy - engineer geek humor...
> >
> > I knew you couldn't get it.
>
> Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
> springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
> take it out of your pocket.

Poor Dave, substituting imagination for knowledge will always fail
you.

ScottW

dave weil

November 8th 05, 07:35 PM

On 8 Nov 2005 10:38:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
>> >>>> conclusions.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
>> >>>digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
>> >>>dependent than input dependent.
>> >>
>> >> Oh joy - engineer geek humor...
>> >
>> > I knew you couldn't get it.
>>
>> Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
>> springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
>> take it out of your pocket.
>
> Poor Dave, substituting imagination for knowledge will always fail
>you.

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life. I guess I'll take "failure".

ScottW

November 8th 05, 07:49 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2005 10:38:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
> >> >>>> conclusions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
> >> >>>digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
> >> >>>dependent than input dependent.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh joy - engineer geek humor...
> >> >
> >> > I knew you couldn't get it.
> >>
> >> Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
> >> springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
> >> take it out of your pocket.
> >
> > Poor Dave, substituting imagination for knowledge will always fail
> >you.
>
> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
> horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

> I guess I'll take "failure".

We'll keep that in mind as you try to convince us that your la-la land
has any connection to the real world.

ScottW

George Middius

November 8th 05, 08:57 PM

Scottie dorked:

>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>> horribly flat and drab life.

> We'll keep that in mind as you try to convince us that your la-la land
>has any connection to the real world.

Maybe what dave is saying that it's impossible to enjoy art if you have no inner
life. Does that make sense, or would you prefer to go measure something
meaningless?

..
..
..

dave weil

November 8th 05, 08:59 PM

On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>> horribly flat and drab life.
>
> How could you possibly know?

That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
devoid of imagination?

Oh wait, you do, virtually every day on this newsgroup.

ScottW

November 8th 05, 11:19 PM

George Middius wrote:
> Scottie dorked:
>
> >> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
> >> horribly flat and drab life.
>
> > We'll keep that in mind as you try to convince us that your la-la land
> >has any connection to the real world.
>
> Maybe what dave is saying that it's impossible to enjoy art if you have no inner
> life.

Maybe. Maybe not. I am amused by your implied claim to an inner
life.
I guess that must be required when your outer life is so dysfunctional.

>Does that make sense, or would you prefer to go measure something
> meaningless?

Another irrelevant smear by the left. You go girl.

ScottW

ScottW

November 8th 05, 11:22 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
> >> horribly flat and drab life.
> >
> > How could you possibly know?
>
> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
> devoid of imagination?
>
> Oh wait, you do, virtually every day on this newsgroup.

While you consistently give us insight into a life devoid of
knowledge.

Are you sure you don't intend to post in rec.Iminsane.andILikeit?

ScottW

November 8th 05, 11:43 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>>> horribly flat and drab life.
>>
>> How could you possibly know?
>
> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
> devoid of imagination?
>

You expect him to read from your diary? :-)

dave weil

November 8th 05, 11:46 PM

On 8 Nov 2005 15:22:12 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>> >> horribly flat and drab life.
>> >
>> > How could you possibly know?
>>
>> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
>> devoid of imagination?
>>
>> Oh wait, you do, virtually every day on this newsgroup.
>
> While you consistently give us insight into a life devoid of
>knowledge.
>
> Are you sure you don't intend to post in rec.Iminsane.andILikeit?

Why, are you the head honcho there?

PS, you even screw up your punchline. Good job, Scottie.

dave weil

November 8th 05, 11:49 PM

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:43:39 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>>>> horribly flat and drab life.
>>>
>>> How could you possibly know?
>>
>> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
>> devoid of imagination?
>>
>
>You expect him to read from your diary? :-)

No, because he doesn't have that much imagination.

Now, back to your meds.

November 9th 05, 12:49 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:43:39 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>>>>> horribly flat and drab life.
>>>>
>>>> How could you possibly know?
>>>
>>> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
>>> devoid of imagination?
>>>
>>
>>You expect him to read from your diary? :-)
>
> No, because he doesn't have that much imagination.
>
> Now, back to your meds.
>
They're with me always now.
Fentanyl patches.

dizzy

November 9th 05, 01:10 AM

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:06:30 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>I'm not being antagonistic (or an antagonist). YOU'RE the one
>bemoaning a problem that doesn't have to exist. You're the one being a
>bonehead. You've been given a solution that you won't even bother
>checking out. I can't help it if you so inflexible that you only want
>a certain configuration for your system.

Well, even if I did have an EQ (presumably to flatten my system), I'd
want tone controls. I wouldn't want to futz with an EQ for each CD I
listen to. Tone controls are perfect to adjust for the differences in
the "bassiness" of the recording.

dizzy

November 9th 05, 01:18 AM

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:02:02 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>You're the one who "honestly can't figure out" why the bass from a
>live band is so much stronger than a CD on a home system.

It couldn't have anything to do with the 18" woofers, could it? 8)

But that does not explain what seems to me to be inadequate bass
levels on most CD's. The relative volumes should still be there. Are
they afraid that people don't have enough power or speaker, so they
dial-back the bass? I don't know the answer.

Ruud Broens

November 9th 05, 01:30 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "dave weil" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > Now, back to your meds.
: >
: They're with me always now.
: Fentanyl patches.
:
opium-on-steroids type of painkiller (we're talking micrograms/hr)
usually prescribed for chronic cases
so is this the aftermath of the operations
or do you have to keep using those permanently ?

Rudy

dizzy

November 9th 05, 01:31 AM

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:44:25 GMT, > wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote in message
>
>It may well be that you just like more bass than was intended to be put on
>the recording.

That may be true, but still does not excuse the *definitely* low
volume of the bass on *most* CD's.

>The only way to have a good idea, is to have a system that's providing you
>with flat response. If you like more bass than the recording has on it, I
>don't know that I would call that a fault of the recording, that's just the
>way they chose.

"They" are dolts, for making the bass so weak. Is it an ego ("I'm the
star, not the bassist.") thing? Is it for fear of John Doe's woofer
bottoming out? I don't know.

>If your object is hi-fi, then it would seem that you would want to hear the
>playback as it was recorded. If yo want to boost teh bass after that, then
>you're now dealing with your prefernce and the amount of bass that right for
>your ears is up to you.
>
>I like recordings that have deep bass, but I also enjoy solo guitar and
>violin music as well.

And there's no "bass" in that stuff anyway.

>Your rules for how you enjoy music are your own, I just offered you a
>guideline that can be achieved through active EQ, which is generally a set
>and forget process. First flatten out eh room with the EQ and then forget
>it.

I'd still want tone controls to adjust for each recording, though.

>Some EQ's have memory as I've mentioned, so you could come up with
>several curves that match your feelings for a particular amount of bass to
>go with particular musical tastes or groups of recordings

I'm very skeptical about that. It reminds me of the "oh so
intelligent" engineers who have designed modern receivers that have
tone controls that adjust in 2dB steps. They _just don't get it_.

>At the prices for some of the units available, it's a very low cost way to
>get a much better clue about how the music was intended to sound as opposed
>to how the room makes it sound.

That digital 1/3 octive one you pointed to does seem like a neat
thing... I'll considering getting one and trying it.

ScottW

November 9th 05, 05:20 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 8 Nov 2005 15:22:12 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>>> >> horribly flat and drab life.
>>> >
>>> > How could you possibly know?
>>>
>>> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
>>> devoid of imagination?
>>>
>>> Oh wait, you do, virtually every day on this newsgroup.
>>
>> While you consistently give us insight into a life devoid of
>>knowledge.
>>
>> Are you sure you don't intend to post in rec.Iminsane.andILikeit?
>
> Why, are you the head honcho there?

You stalker you.

>
> PS, you even screw up your punchline. Good job, Scottie.

But if I didn't, you'd be left speechless. <chuckle>

ScottW

ScottW

November 9th 05, 05:30 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:43:39 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>>>>> horribly flat and drab life.
>>>>
>>>> How could you possibly know?
>>>
>>> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
>>> devoid of imagination?
>>>
>>
>>You expect him to read from your diary? :-)
>
> No, because he doesn't have that much imagination.

Yet in this world of usenet you have imagined all my attributes or lack
thereof.
So if I lack imagination, it's really the fault of your imagination.
Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. I'm sure your imagination will conjure up
something awful to compensate for my imagination.

Happy imagining!

ScottW

dave weil

November 9th 05, 09:47 AM

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:30:52 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:43:39 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
>>>>>> horribly flat and drab life.
>>>>>
>>>>> How could you possibly know?
>>>>
>>>> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
>>>> devoid of imagination?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You expect him to read from your diary? :-)
>>
>> No, because he doesn't have that much imagination.
>
> Yet in this world of usenet you have imagined all my attributes or lack
>thereof.

Based on what you write, of course.

>So if I lack imagination, it's really the fault of your imagination.

Or the fault of your postings.

>Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. I'm sure your imagination will conjure up
>something awful to compensate for my imagination.

Perhaps it could be your weeping for the Governator.

>Happy imagining!

You union-buster you! At least you still have some slim hope there...

ScottW

November 9th 05, 05:39 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:30:52 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:43:39 GMT, > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
> >>>>>> horribly flat and drab life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How could you possibly know?
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
> >>>> devoid of imagination?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>You expect him to read from your diary? :-)
> >>
> >> No, because he doesn't have that much imagination.
> >
> > Yet in this world of usenet you have imagined all my attributes or lack
> >thereof.
>
> Based on what you write, of course.

What happenned to your imagination? Is that failing you too?
>
> >So if I lack imagination, it's really the fault of your imagination.
>
> Or the fault of your postings.

My little posting can deprive you of imagination. Wow... I have the
power :).

>
> >Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. I'm sure your imagination will conjure up
> >something awful to compensate for my imagination.
>
> Perhaps it could be your weeping for the Governator.

He's a dumbass. I voted for McClintock.

>
> >Happy imagining!
>
> You union-buster you! At least you still have some slim hope there...

If nothing else... the teachers union is deeply in debt. That will
muzzle them for awhile and when the membership finds out... Kerr will
be toast.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/2005/112948021666737.html

I can't believe the people were too stupid to even oppose
gerrymandering. Oh well... at least SD finally shut up the liberal
Mayor candidate, Frye.

ScottW

November 9th 05, 06:01 PM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:44:25 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote in message
>>
>>It may well be that you just like more bass than was intended to be put on
>>the recording.
>
> That may be true, but still does not excuse the *definitely* low
> volume of the bass on *most* CD's.
>
It's not an experience I've had. I tend to figure the CD's have what they
are supposed to have. I know I'm not going to get the same sensation of
bass at home as in a live concert, unless I get a lot more subwoofer
drivers. One 12 or 15" woofer won't do it. That may be why the Infinite
Baffle advocates are so devoted to their methods. Most of them have 4 or
more 12" drivers providing bass. I'd blame my system way before I'd start
claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

Have you ever EQ'd your system or even had the room response plotted for
your listening space? If not, then that's where you should start.

>>The only way to have a good idea, is to have a system that's providing you
>>with flat response. If you like more bass than the recording has on it, I
>>don't know that I would call that a fault of the recording, that's just
>>the
>>way they chose.
>
> "They" are dolts, for making the bass so weak. Is it an ego ("I'm the
> star, not the bassist.") thing? Is it for fear of John Doe's woofer
> bottoming out? I don't know.
>
As I said, that's not a problem I have ever noticed, I think there's as much
bass as should be. I also know I can't have a bank of 30" woofers in my
room. I also don't have the kind of devices that are used in live concerts
to extend the bass. Devides like this http://www.zzounds.com/item--DBX120A
are part of the live sound equipment many people use to increase the bass,
often to well below what the instruments themselves can generate. Unless
you have the same sort of tools, you can't get the same sort of sound.
Recordings have to created for what the average person can play back without
damage to their equipment.

>>If your object is hi-fi, then it would seem that you would want to hear
>>the
>>playback as it was recorded. If yo want to boost teh bass after that,
>>then
>>you're now dealing with your prefernce and the amount of bass that right
>>for
>>your ears is up to you.
>>
>>I like recordings that have deep bass, but I also enjoy solo guitar and
>>violin music as well.
>
> And there's no "bass" in that stuff anyway.
>
>>Your rules for how you enjoy music are your own, I just offered you a
>>guideline that can be achieved through active EQ, which is generally a set
>>and forget process. First flatten out the room with the EQ and then
>>forget
>>it.
>
> I'd still want tone controls to adjust for each recording, though.
>
Short of having someone construct you some sort of preamp with those tone
controls or using an equalizer, this being the real world, there's not much
that can be done until enough consumers start demanding them.

>>Some EQ's have memory as I've mentioned, so you could come up with
>>several curves that match your feelings for a particular amount of bass to
>>go with particular musical tastes or groups of recordings
>
> I'm very skeptical about that. It reminds me of the "oh so
> intelligent" engineers who have designed modern receivers that have
> tone controls that adjust in 2dB steps. They _just don't get it_.
>
Then generate your own, it's not that difficult. The equalizers I've seen
are very flexible in the amount of boost or cut and the increments are only
what you apply, not fixed numbers of dB.

>>At the prices for some of the units available, it's a very low cost way to
>>get a much better clue about how the music was intended to sound as
>>opposed
>>to how the room makes it sound.
>
> That digital 1/3 octive one you pointed to does seem like a neat
> thing... I'll considering getting one and trying it.
>
Hope it helps.

dave weil

November 9th 05, 06:09 PM

On 9 Nov 2005 09:39:14 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Based on what you write, of course.
>
> What happenned to your imagination? Is that failing you too?

I don't knnow. Nnow you seem to be flounderinng inn your ownn
nnannites.

November 9th 05, 06:26 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> :
> : "dave weil" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > Now, back to your meds.
> : >
> : They're with me always now.
> : Fentanyl patches.
> :
> opium-on-steroids type of painkiller (we're talking micrograms/hr)
> usually prescribed for chronic cases
> so is this the aftermath of the operations
> or do you have to keep using those permanently ?
>
> Rudy
>
Definitely opiate, but not opium, no steroids according to the package
insert, just Fentanyl and alcohol, plus the silicone adhesive.

It's partly from the fact that I can't take NSAID's for awhile, until fusion
of the spine, and because the elevated pain from the multiple incidents of
stenosis.

My fondest wish is to be pain medication free at the soonest possible
moment, or at least for there to be something like Torodol that can be used
long term and not destroy other organs the way Torodol can do your liver.

ScottW

November 9th 05, 07:45 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 09:39:14 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Based on what you write, of course.
> >
> > What happenned to your imagination? Is that failing you too?
>
> I don't knnow. Nnow you seem to be flounderinng inn your ownn
> nnannites.

The heights (of should I say depths....) of Weil knowledge and
imagination revealed.
Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

ScottW

dave weil

November 9th 05, 08:13 PM

On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
>to breath?

Shame that you never learned proper English.

ScottW

November 9th 05, 08:48 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
> >to breath?
>
> Shame that you never learned proper English.

But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.

ScottW

dave weil

November 9th 05, 09:34 PM

On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
>> >to breath?
>>
>> Shame that you never learned proper English.
>
> But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
>nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.

Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
the Singha.

Hope you enjoyed your brown bag.

ScottW

November 9th 05, 11:08 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
> >> >to breath?
> >>
> >> Shame that you never learned proper English.
> >
> > But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
> >nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.
>
> Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
> the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
> the Singha.
>

Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
scraping your paws.

ScottW

dave weil

November 9th 05, 11:33 PM

On 9 Nov 2005 15:08:07 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
>> >> >to breath?
>> >>
>> >> Shame that you never learned proper English.
>> >
>> > But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
>> >nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.
>>
>> Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
>> the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
>> the Singha.
>>
>
> Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
>You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
>scraping your paws.

Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
hang your "butte" on.

How was YOUR lunch? Are you still so underutilized at work that you
have to spend your time on newsgroups?

ScottW

November 10th 05, 12:06 AM

dave weil wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 15:08:07 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dave weil wrote:
> >> >> On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
> >> >> >to breath?
> >> >>
> >> >> Shame that you never learned proper English.
> >> >
> >> > But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
> >> >nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.
> >>
> >> Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
> >> the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
> >> the Singha.
> >>
> >
> > Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
> >You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
> >scraping your paws.
>
> Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
> hang your "butte" on.
>
> How was YOUR lunch?

I skipped lunch. You want to hear about my bran flakes for
breakfast?

>Are you still so underutilized at work that you
> have to spend your time on newsgroups?

This tripe takes time for you to produce? Who would have thunk it.

But, as you've been told before, I don't get paid by the hour.
Do you know your data retention is as bad as NAND flash at extreme
cold?

ScottW

paul packer

November 10th 05, 12:18 AM

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:33:25 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>> Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
>>You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
>>scraping your paws.
>
>Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
>hang your "butte" on.
>
>How was YOUR lunch? Are you still so underutilized at work that you
>have to spend your time on newsgroups?

Boys, boys!....

Ruud Broens

November 10th 05, 12:46 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
: Do you know your data retention
: is as bad as NAND flash at extreme
: cold?
:
: ScottW

...that lionel thing issa catching on, no ?
: -)

dave weil

November 10th 05, 01:19 AM

On 9 Nov 2005 16:06:47 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
>> hang your "butte" on.
>>
>> How was YOUR lunch?
>
> I skipped lunch. You want to hear about my bran flakes for
>breakfast?

No thanks. It should be floating just about now.

November 11th 05, 07:56 PM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:06:30 -0600, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not being antagonistic (or an antagonist). YOU'RE the one
>>bemoaning a problem that doesn't have to exist. You're the one being a
>>bonehead. You've been given a solution that you won't even bother
>>checking out. I can't help it if you so inflexible that you only want
>>a certain configuration for your system.
>
> Well, even if I did have an EQ (presumably to flatten my system), I'd
> want tone controls. I wouldn't want to futz with an EQ for each CD I
> listen to. Tone controls are perfect to adjust for the differences in
> the "bassiness" of the recording.
>
The best way to get realistic bass is to have drivers that can go as low as
the notes played on the recording and to move a lot of air. One very smart
person who used ot post here, said that for realistic low frequency response
in a normal room, a minimum of 3 subwoofers is required. There is always a
problem with rooms and the way they affect speakers. In my room, there are
humps at 50 and 100, Hz and dips elsewhere, that when smoothed out make the
low end much more convincing.

Given the sound coming from some car stereo systems, it's possible to get
deep powerful bass, but it takes plenty of amplifier power and enough
drivers to move enough air to get that puch in the chest feeling that a live
concert gives you. Yes it has to be on the recording as well, but as
several people have noted, that doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

DIY subwoofers are pretty inexpensive and if you use pro audio amplifiers to
drive them you can add 3 subwoofers such as the ones you find at
SVSubwoofers cylinders, for about $1000.00, assuming 3 12" Adire Shiva
drivers and 3 Behringer A500 amps bridged to mono for 500 watts of power
into each sub.

With an Equalizer to control the bass at least and enough subs moving the
right amount of air, I doubt very much that you would have much to complain
about in terms of lack of bass.

That being said, I agree that simple tone controls should be included on any
preamp, for reasons I've already given.

With all due respect you seem just a bit hysterical about a percieved lack
of bass, which is probably why you've gotten some of the responses that were
a bit hostile.
I'm pretty sure you post to RAHE under a different name and if I'm correct,
then you stated your case there in a much less hostile way.

If you can swing it, I strongly recomend you try some of the solutions I've
mentioned to maximize your enjoyment and get all the bass you could
reasonably want.

dizzy

November 13th 05, 03:09 AM

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:01:15 GMT, > wrote:

> I'd blame my system way before I'd start
>claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
recordings. The best have plenty even when played flat. The average
just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
tolerable.

dizzy

November 13th 05, 03:18 AM

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:56:08 GMT, > wrote:

>With an Equalizer to control the bass at least and enough subs moving the
>right amount of air, I doubt very much that you would have much to complain
>about in terms of lack of bass.

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.

>That being said, I agree that simple tone controls should be included on any
>preamp, for reasons I've already given.
>
>With all due respect you seem just a bit hysterical about a percieved lack
>of bass, which is probably why you've gotten some of the responses that were
>a bit hostile.
>I'm pretty sure you post to RAHE under a different name and if I'm correct,
>then you stated your case there in a much less hostile way.

No, I do not post in RAHE.

>If you can swing it, I strongly recomend you try some of the solutions I've
>mentioned to maximize your enjoyment and get all the bass you could
>reasonably want.

Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
subs.

November 13th 05, 06:20 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:01:15 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> I'd blame my system way before I'd start
>>claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.
>
> Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
> different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
> recordings.

Agreed, but that doesn't by definition make any of them deficient in bass,
it only means that teh recordings with less bass were done that way for
reasons that are known only to the artist(s) and the engineer.

The best have plenty even when played flat.

The ones you like best are that way for sure, it doesn't mean the others are
lacking except as it applies to you taste.

The average
> just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
> absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
> tolerable.
>
Again, you're talking about your taste.

November 13th 05, 06:20 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:56:08 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>With an Equalizer to control the bass at least and enough subs moving the
>>right amount of air, I doubt very much that you would have much to
>>complain
>>about in terms of lack of bass.
>
> Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
> about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
> situation, and the stupidity that led to it.
>

And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

>>That being said, I agree that simple tone controls should be included on
>>any
>>preamp, for reasons I've already given.
>>
>>With all due respect you seem just a bit hysterical about a percieved lack
>>of bass, which is probably why you've gotten some of the responses that
>>were
>>a bit hostile.
>>I'm pretty sure you post to RAHE under a different name and if I'm
>>correct,
>>then you stated your case there in a much less hostile way.
>
> No, I do not post in RAHE.
>
>>If you can swing it, I strongly recomend you try some of the solutions
>>I've
>>mentioned to maximize your enjoyment and get all the bass you could
>>reasonably want.
>
> Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
> pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
> switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
> subs.
>
How are they situated? Both in the same corner or some other arrangement?

Sander deWaal

November 13th 05, 08:08 PM

dizzy > said:

>> I'd blame my system way before I'd start
>>claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

>Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
>different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
>recordings. The best have plenty even when played flat. The average
>just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
>absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
>tolerable.

What happened to "respecting the view of the artist and the recording
engineer"? :-)

If anything, I found I have to turn the bass levels *down* on most
(pop music) recordings.
With most jazz and classical, they can saty in the "neutral" position.

If you want good tone controls that last and have precise
characteristics, either build such a stage yourself or buy an early
'80s preamplifier from Yamaha, Onkyo or even Kenwood or Sony.
Replace the pots in there with Alps or Noble types.
They're available in "B" or linear characteristics, even with a click
in the middle.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

November 13th 05, 09:54 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> dizzy > said:
>
>>> I'd blame my system way before I'd start
>>>claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.
>
>>Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
>>different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
>>recordings. The best have plenty even when played flat. The average
>>just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
>>absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
>>tolerable.
>
>
> What happened to "respecting the view of the artist and the recording
> engineer"? :-)
>
That notion left the building about the same time as people started trying
to tune their systems to some arbitrary notion of what sounds "musical" to
them, instead of trying to get flat response. Either you get the system to
perform so that every frequency coming out the speakers is at the same SPL
level when driven by the same amount of power, or you throw that out the
window and tune it according to your taste. I prefer the former and have
never found any need to endlessly fiddle with the settings except in the
case of hissy FM reception or old LP's.

Occaisonally you find an album that for whatever reason seems to be lacking
in bass, but that for me is a rare occurance. I have 2 CD's of Greatest
Hits by the Lovin' Spoonful, the older one is just gawd awful in terms of
sonics, the newer on is all the same songs plus more that have been
remastered, and the difference is remarkable.

It seems pretty clear to me that if you want the kind of hammering bass you
get at a live concert, no matter the venue, you need to move a lot more air
than one subwoofer can provide in an average sized room. I think the 3
subwoofer recomendation that JJ made a few years ago, is probably right on
the money. Now I have a whole new thing to drive my wife batty over, how to
get 3 subwoofers into my smallish listening room. Proabably by using
Sonotube instead of MDF cabinets, ala' SVS and earlier Hsu designs. 16"
tubes with five cubic feet internal volume and 2 more Shiva drivers and this
time powered by the Behringer A 500 amps in bridged mono.

> If anything, I found I have to turn the bass levels *down* on most
> (pop music) recordings.
> With most jazz and classical, they can saty in the "neutral" position.
>

Turn it down????? Never. I like a bigh thumpin' bottom end in music except
when it's just there for a dance beat.

> If you want good tone controls that last and have precise
> characteristics, either build such a stage yourself or buy an early
> '80s preamplifier from Yamaha, Onkyo or even Kenwood or Sony.
> Replace the pots in there with Alps or Noble types.
> They're available in "B" or linear characteristics, even with a click
> in the middle.
>
I like the idea of the flexibility of the Behringer DEQ2496. 1/3 octave
graphic EQ plus 10 bands of Parametric, plus 3 Dynamic EQ's, 64 memories,
RTA, Pink Noise generator, a virtual paragraphic option which allows each of
the graphics to be controlled like a parametric, a compressor/expander with
peak limeter as well as a stereo image width function with delays, and most
importantly, a bypass switch! Not bad for 300 bucks.

Ruud Broens

November 13th 05, 10:30 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
:
: >
: > What happened to "respecting the view of the artist and the recording
: > engineer"? :-)
: >
: That notion left the building about the same time as people started trying
: to tune their systems to some arbitrary notion of what sounds "musical" to
: them, instead of trying to get flat response. Either you get the system to
: perform so that every frequency coming out the speakers is at the same SPL
: level when driven by the same amount of power, or you throw that out the
: window and tune it according to your taste. I prefer the former and have
: never found any need to endlessly fiddle with the settings except in the
: case of hissy FM reception or old LP's.:

: I like the idea of the flexibility of the Behringer DEQ2496. 1/3 octave
: graphic EQ plus 10 bands of Parametric, plus 3 Dynamic EQ's, 64 memories,
: RTA, Pink Noise generator, a virtual paragraphic option which allows each of
: the graphics to be controlled like a parametric, a compressor/expander with
: peak limeter as well as a stereo image width function with delays, and most
: importantly, a bypass switch! Not bad for 300 bucks.
:
hmm, same question as for Arny re: colour adjustments on his tv set:

The DEQ2496 is presumably used _just for eq_, iow you will NOT
use dyn eq., comp., exp., stereo im. width as those would definately
get you in the 'according to taste' territory, Michael. Right ?
Rudy

dizzy

November 14th 05, 12:46 AM

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:21 GMT, > wrote:

>>The best have plenty even when played flat.
>
>The ones you like best are that way for sure, it doesn't mean the others are
>lacking except as it applies to you taste.

Many are lacking. There's a line which can be crossed which says
"defective" to most reasonable people. As I've said before, many of
these may be old rock CD's which are not relevant to most in this
group, but they exist nonetheless. For example, when you have a power
trio like Rush, and the bass is MUCH quieter than the other sounds,
something is WRONG with that recording. That bass SHOULD be thumpin,
and whoever mastered the CD is an incompetent.

dizzy

November 14th 05, 12:54 AM

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, > wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>
>> Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
>> about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
>> situation, and the stupidity that led to it.
>
>And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
>available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
the issue.

>> Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
>> pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
>> switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
>> subs.
>>
>How are they situated? Both in the same corner or some other arrangement?

Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
them against the wall behind my main speakers.

*I modded my crossover with a switch to accept and route to both sides
the mono LFE signal from my surround-sound receiver (which is only
used for movies).

dave weil

November 14th 05, 05:43 AM

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:54:18 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
>>> about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
>>> situation, and the stupidity that led to it.
>>
>>And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
>>available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.
>
>I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
>the issue.

Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.

November 14th 05, 08:29 PM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
>>> about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
>>> situation, and the stupidity that led to it.
>>
>>And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble
>>adjustments
>>available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.
>
> I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
> the issue.
>
>>> Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
>>> pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
>>> switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
>>> subs.
>>>
>>How are they situated? Both in the same corner or some other arrangement?
>
> Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
> them against the wall behind my main speakers.
>
There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
subwoofers.
Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that shows
something different.
You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
available for download. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0

> *I modded my crossover with a switch to accept and route to both sides
> the mono LFE signal from my surround-sound receiver (which is only
> used for movies).
>
Given that once you get below 80 Hz there is no stereo, that would seem the
best bet.
The xover must be steep enough to block anything above 80 Hz and IIRC Hsu
does that, if not, if the xover is selectable you can always try a lower
frequency.

November 14th 05, 08:33 PM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:21 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>>The best have plenty even when played flat.
>>
>>The ones you like best are that way for sure, it doesn't mean the others
>>are
>>lacking except as it applies to you taste.
>
> Many are lacking. There's a line which can be crossed which says
> "defective" to most reasonable people. As I've said before, many of
> these may be old rock CD's which are not relevant to most in this
> group, but they exist nonetheless. For example, when you have a power
> trio like Rush, and the bass is MUCH quieter than the other sounds,
> something is WRONG with that recording. That bass SHOULD be thumpin,
> and whoever mastered the CD is an incompetent.
>
Certainly I've noticed that there is a definite differnce between the live
sound and the recorded sound and I don't kow why they made the choices they
did. I remember going to a Yes concert with my wife who is a fan and they
had several 30" woofers that when they kicked in bass was generated that
actually made my shirt move like a flag in the wind. Never gotten anything
like that from one of their recordings thoug, not even the DVD's.

Schizoid Man

November 14th 05, 11:57 PM

ScottW wrote:

>>Are you still so underutilized at work that you
>>have to spend your time on newsgroups?
>
>
> This tripe takes time for you to produce? Who would have thunk it.

Thunk? Obviously, you're not spending nearly enough time on your tripe. ;-)

dizzy

November 15th 05, 12:45 AM

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:43:34 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:54:18 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
>>>> about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
>>>> situation, and the stupidity that led to it.
>>>
>>>And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
>>>available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.
>>
>>I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
>>the issue.
>
>Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.

What is that supposed to mean?

dizzy

November 15th 05, 12:56 AM

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:29:58 GMT, > wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>
>> Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
>> them against the wall behind my main speakers.
>>
>There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
>subwoofers.
>Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
>corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that shows
>something different.
>You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
>available for download. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0

I have read some of the Harmon white-papers in the past. I researched
the issue pretty well, really. I could not find a consensus. In the
end, my room setup doesn't give me a whole lot of practical options -
a few inches forward and back...

November 15th 05, 07:09 AM

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:29:58 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
>>> them against the wall behind my main speakers.
>>>
>>There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
>>subwoofers.
>>Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
>>corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that
>>shows
>>something different.
>>You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
>>available for download.
>>http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0
>
> I have read some of the Harmon white-papers in the past. I researched
> the issue pretty well, really. I could not find a consensus. In the
> end, my room setup doesn't give me a whole lot of practical options -
> a few inches forward and back...
>
One method that is reliable I'm told, is to put the sub in your listening
position and then place yourself at various places around the room where you
might put the sub, and listen, when it sounds best, put the sub there. Of
course, if the sub is heavy, this could be a problem. :-)

dave weil

November 15th 05, 01:43 PM

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:45:45 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:43:34 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:54:18 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
>>>>> about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
>>>>> situation, and the stupidity that led to it.
>>>>
>>>>And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
>>>>available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.
>>>
>>>I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
>>>the issue.
>>
>>Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.
>
>What is that supposed to mean?

Since you seem rather dense, I'll spell it out for you.

The market determines which features it wants in a product. When most
products in a market segment share either a feature or the LACK of a
feature, it means that the market has spoken. You don't seem to
recognize that you seem to be in the extreme minority regarding tone
controls on "high end" preamps. To rail against the manufacturers is
as stupid as getting "****ed off" about a feature on a consumer good.
YOU can't even recognize that the manufacturers are only following the
trend of the market. You might as well complain about the fact that
there are very few pink preamps.

The sad thing is that your situation is so easily remedied by getting
a programmable digital preamp. It's a far more flexible solution. I
think that it's just some latent luddite tendencies of yours coming
through.

dave weil

November 15th 05, 01:45 PM

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:56:42 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:29:58 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
>>> them against the wall behind my main speakers.
>>>
>>There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
>>subwoofers.
>>Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
>>corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that shows
>>something different.
>>You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
>>available for download. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0
>
>I have read some of the Harmon white-papers in the past. I researched
>the issue pretty well, really. I could not find a consensus. In the
>end, my room setup doesn't give me a whole lot of practical options -
>a few inches forward and back...

If that's the case, then you're likely in a situation where you could
never get really deep bass like you would find in live situations
because your room is just too darn small. It's like wishing for really
deep bass from a 6 in. woofer. The physics just won't support it.

dizzy

November 16th 05, 01:18 AM

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:43:23 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:45:45 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:43:34 -0600, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.
>>
>>What is that supposed to mean?
>
>Since you seem rather dense, I'll spell it out for you.

That's very ironic, coming from someone who I thrashed in our debate,
in the process pointing out your illogic, dishonesty, and inability to
understand simple concepts.

>The market determines which features it wants in a product. When most
>products in a market segment share either a feature or the LACK of a
>feature, it means that the market has spoken. You don't seem to
>recognize that you seem to be in the extreme minority regarding tone
>controls on "high end" preamps.

Another example of your tragic inability to get even the simplest
things right. Of course I'm in the minority. Unlike the majority, I
am intelligent and educated. I do not think a tone-control
defeat-switch will hurt my sound, for example.

>To rail against the manufacturers is
>as stupid as getting "****ed off" about a feature on a consumer good.

Most of the "high end" manufacturers cater to people with more money
than sense, and who are snobs who seek prestige and appearance above
performance. No crime in them doing their best to make a profit, but
I'm certainly justified in my opinion that the state of the market is
stupid.

The high-end doesn't design for best price/performence. Not even
close. This leaves a barren wasteland between mass-market junk and
the over-priced, feature-reduced, "high end".

Then there's the "brilliant" designs from NAD and Rotel, that have
tone controls but only +/-5 dB boost or cut, so they brag about how
their k00l, snobby tone-controls "don't effect the sound as much as
traditional tone controls". WTF? Why don't you let ME decide if I
want to stop at 5dB or not? Yes, that's a STUPID design!

>YOU can't even recognize that the manufacturers are only following the
>trend of the market.

A statement so stupid and obviously incorrect I suspect that you are
lying intentionally. It cannot be any more obvious that I not only
have recognized "the trend", but indeed "the trend" is precisely what
I've been complaining about.

>You might as well complain about the fact that
>there are very few pink preamps.

Another stupid statement from you.

>The sad thing is that your situation is so easily remedied by getting
>a programmable digital preamp.

I don't like that solution, as I have already explained to you.
Suffering from reading comprehension problems?

>It's a far more flexible solution.

I greatly prefer a solution that is in-between the "pure simplicity"
of no tone controls whatsoever and the "complexity" of adding a A/D,
DSP, and D/A into the audio chain. Why have all that just to replace
a bass control? Why mess with a complex EQ just to tweak bass levels
for various recordings?

Obviously, these concepts are really hard for a simpleton such as
yourself to grasp. I suppose you think my preferences are "weird" and
inexplicable.

>I think that it's just some latent luddite tendencies of yours coming
>through.

There's nothing latent about your stupidity, of that I am certain.