In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Thanks for tacitly admitting that they are often on. However,
they're not the only eq in the audio production chain, so their
status is not critical to my argument.

Eq is appropriate to audio production.

It's (Eq) appropriate to audio of many more flavors than just
production.

However, it is not a requirement: there are good recordings
without eq.

That's open to interpretation.

No, it isn't. Eq is not a requirement for recording.

It can't be avoided for the reasons I laid out.

Synthesis.

AFAIK there are no sonically transparent
microphones. In fact, there isn't even much more than a foggy idea
of what sonically transparent microphone would do.

How does this require eq?

It doesn't require eq, it shows how eq is hard to avoid.

The following is Arny's attempt to redefine "equalization" to include
choice of microphone.

An engineer has an artist to record. He picks a mic and makes a recording.
The producer or his proxy doesn't like the sound quality. A different mic is
chose in many cases. Loop.

Often it is well-known that the artist uses a certain mic because it
modifies the artists voice to have the desired timbre.

All mics modify the sounds they pick up. In fact we are still so screwed up
about speakers that our judgments of microphones are relative to colorations
in the speakers commonly used to audition microphones.

In many cases eq is needed to produce a recording that evokes the (generally
unobtainable by simple means) sound of the live performance. In other cases
there's no interest in reproducing the live performance. Instead, we want
some unnatural fantasy not yet part of the real world.

Reality is usually somewhere in-between. We often want a recording that
evokes strong memories of and rather closely represents the artist's work
witnessed live, were they more reliable performers than they actually are
and perhaps were the room a better sounding room than it actually is.

None of this has anything requires eq.

In audio production microphones are routinely chosen to get a certain
desired kind of coloration. It is well-known that with few exceptions
microphones used in audio production are audibly non-flat, even
on-axis. Bottom line, equalization by means of microphone
colorations remains an irreducible component of audio production.

Your graphic eq is full of microphones?

No, my microphones are full of equalization. They are a different equalizer
for every different angle that sound approaches them from, perhaps with some
symmetry.

No, they are not.

http://www.strathfield.com/glossary....=E&glossid=495

"An equaliser is used to fine tune a system by altering the frequency
balance of an audio signal."

That's a pretty good definition - one that relates to a common
implementation of equalization.

However, wire isn't the only medium that carries audio signals.

You mean air? Those are sound waves, not audio signal.

Notice the phrase "fine tune".

The phrase "fine tune" can be interpreted as excluding your use of an
equalizer to remove the sound of a jet plane. That was not fine tuning on
the scale of general use of equalizers, it was hitting the recording with a
BIG hammer.

No, a surprisingly small hammer. All it took was one parametric with a
steep curve centered on a bass frequency.

My definition, is a tad more general - equalizers are devices that change
the timbre of music and other sounds. IOW, an equalizer is device that
alters the frequency balance of an audio signal remembering that audio
signals are carried by a number of different mediums including wire and air.

Omigod, you *do* mean air. That is not the common definition of
equalizer. I doubt it's a even a special one.

How do you include microphones, which operate on sound waves, in a
definition of 'equalizer'?

Air and wire are just different mediums for carrying audio signals.

Like speakers and phono cartridges, microphones are devices that alter the
frequency balance of audio signals.

Sound guys pride
themselves on having the right tool for the job, from audiophile
approved to pop production flexible.

Don't musicians do that too?

And, the right tool for the job is often some kind of equalizer.

If there's a jet rumbling through your best take, I recommend it.

...and other than tacitly admitting that you're scared crapless of
equalizers and like to play the big prick, what's your point?

Keep a civil tongue.

...and back at you.

I don't remember calling you a prick or saying you're scared crapless of
anything.

I produced a choir recording that had a jet rumbling through a best take.
Eq fixed it.

That's good. But it grants no license to suggest that this is the only valid
use, or a primary use of eq.

The normal use of equalizers is generally far more subtle than something
gross like making undesired parts of the recording become inaudible.

Equalizers are usually used to change timbre to suit someone's tastes.
Sometimes the timbre is changed because the original timbre is irritating or
different from life, and other times timbre is changed purely due to
personal taste. Most of the time the reason for changing timbre is somewhere
in-between.

Yep, that's how they're often used.

This one's parametric, and it's inexpensive:

http://www.behringer.com/02_products...&CFID=26384&CF
TOKEN=83594569

I've heard nice things said about it. The last Behringer thingie
I bought, and the thing before it were true and genuine great
values. Behringer-bashing seems to be a less popular sport these
days on Usenet.

I'm curious about the "digital patch bay" Ultramatch Pro, but I
don't have a current need for it.

I wouldn't call an Ultramatch a digital patch bay, but that's
another story. Lets get closure on equalizers, eh?

Behringer calls it that.

Umm, some marketing guy needed a nifty phrase for an advertisement.

That, and it has lotso' inputs and outputs.

So do lots of things that aren't patch bays.

Behringer's web site
http://www.behringer.com/02_products...C2496&lang=eng

...calls the "Ultramatch" a "24-Bit/96 kHz A/D-D/A & Sample Rate
Converter" which is far more factual. It probably has some of the
same or highly similar electronic pieces and technical performance
as high end audio boxes selling for many times more.

That's the interesting thing about it for me.

Enjoy! But its purposes are far afield of a discussion of equalization.

I've seen miracles with combinations of eqs and compressors.

Eqs are one thing in my book and compressors are something else. My
favorite application of compressor-type technology is dynamic range
expansion. That's the business of unsquishing music so it sounds
more lively, like it did when actually performed.

The combination can tame a wild recording that would be otherwise
unlistenable. Some things need to be squished.

Some performers and directors need more technical training.

Not in the cases I have in mind.

What to do if musicians make recordings that are unlistenable?

Plan A: Manage the musicians so they behave more professionally and produce
recordings that are listenable.

Not the case. These are professionals giving good performances.

Plan B: Equalize, compress, edit and mix until you've got this derivative
artistic work that bears a vague resemblance to the original performance(s),
but is in some sense more listenable.

That's why I called it a "miracle" to take a recording made in a
relatively uncontrolled environment, say, a live radio broadcast, and
transform it into a good representation of the performance. IIRC, the
performances are recorded onto two tracks, so no remixing, and live, so
no editing.