"MiNE 109" wrote in message


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.

Why not say XYZZY? Makes as much sense!

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.

No it's my attempt to convince Stephen of a fact, which is that microphones
are often chosen based on how they accomplish outcome that is essentially
the same as that which can be accomplished by equalization. In both cases
the frequency balance of the audio signal is altered.

Stephen tries to push the odd view that a sound wave isn't a kind of an
audio signal. In fact a sound wave is an audio signal that is being carried
by air.

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.

Next time in English?

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.

Unsupported denial speaks to state of mind, not reasonableness of a claim.

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.

Wrong. Audio signals are audio signals regardless of the medium carrying
them. Saying that sound waves aren't an audio signal because they are
carried by in air is as senseless as saying that an optical digital signal
isn't an audio signal because it is being carried by light.

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.

That's a big hammer compared to a more typical application which would be an
octave wide dip only 1 dB deep.

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.

As I've already shown, your problem Stephen is that you have a very narrow
view of what constitutes an audio signal.

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.

No comment Stephen, does that mean that you finally get it?

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.

So Stephen you want us to believer that those are the only two possible ways
to be uncivil?

LOL!

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.

Finally!

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.

Something unlistenable is a good performance?

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.

Obviously the performance wasn't all that unlistenable in the first place.

IIRC, the performances are recorded onto two tracks, so no remixing, and
live,
so no editing.

Is this the good news or the bad news?

IME remixing is preferable to compression because intelligently chosen,
rather than algorithmically-chosen changes to amplitude are being made. An
intelligent mixing engineer can know the aesthetic goals for the entire
musical piece and alter dynamics accordingly, while a compressor can't
possibly have an idea, because it is not even a fraction as intelligent as a
person.