wrote in message
ink.net...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
"Mark D" wrote in message
...
Hi All, Sorry if this has been covered a zillion times before, but I
have some questions concerning Hi-End equipment, and thier features,
or
I should say, lack of.
I notice that many modern high end Pre-Amplifiers have an absence of
simple Tone Controls.
**Of course. "Simple" tone controls are useless. Utterly useless.
Utterly and completely useless.
Mostly because they are set for frequencies that azre not ususally a
problem in typical rooms
**That is part of it. They are completely arbitrary in their operation
too. The chances of solving a problem with tone controls (or fixed
frequency equalisers) is about the same as pulling off a big lottery win.
Without proper, CALIBRATED measurement equipment, adjusting even a
sophisticated EQ is a total crap shoot.
I basically understand the reasoning behind this, as the simpler the
chain, the less interference, or "destruction" I should say of the
purity of sound by introducing Tone Controls into the Pre-Amplifier's
Circuittry.
**There's actually more to it, than that, but (simple) tone controls
can and do damage sound quality.
How?
**They shift phase in a fashion which is almost guaranteed not to equal
the phase shift of the problem which may exist.
Do purists now cringe at the thought of having at least a Bass-Treble
Control on thier Pre-Amps?
**If they do not, they most certainly should.
Why?
**Because they **** up sound quality.
Still no how.
**I've answered this question elsewhere.
We would all assume with these modern Pre-Amps, that the signal
produced
would be flat from xxHz to xx,xxxHz, but I wonder what one now does
due
to inefficiencies in room acoustics, or the inefficiencies of a given
speaker?
**Indeed. What does one do? Here's what one SHOULD do:
One should buy a DIGITAL, zero phase shift equaliser
What happens if there is some phase shift?
**Musical information is damaged.
Is phase audible at all
frequenicies?
**That is a meaningless question. Please rephrase in a way in which it
can be answered.
I agree, badly asked. I meant to say how much phase shift is bad?
**Any phase shift which is audible is bad. Some listeners are untroubled by
quite large phase shift problems. Others are not.
Does it
affect some frequencies more than others?
**With graphic EQs, yes, of course. That is the fundamental problem with
graphic EQs.
How many examples of NON-MINIMUM phase equalizers are there.
**No idea.
Isn't it true that ANY 2 equalizers generting the same EQ curve will
create theh exact same phase shift?
**No.
(not possible with
"simple" analogue tone controls), a properly calibrated
microphone/preamp/processor and the knowledge to use the whole lot to
acheive the desired result. Adjusting it, so it sounds "good" is not
acceptable. All of that costs money, time and expertise.
It needs some sort of decent test tone generator and an spl meter.
**A CALIBRATED SPL meter. BIG difference. We're not discussing El CheapoT
Radio Shack things here.
Funny, I thought they were calibrated and that while they are not ruler
flat, their charcteristics are well known and one can easily compensate
for their deviations.
**Then you'd be wrong. VERY wrong. Radio Shack SPL meters (and their
equivalents) are built down to a price. As such, precision components are
not used. The sample to sample variations are large and readily audible.
They are useful for rough measurements, but useless for precision purposes.
We're discussing products which can, at least, be
capable of besting human hearing abilities. That is not a cheap exercise.
Does one with these caliber of systems now have to typically resort to
modifying thier speaker's x-overs, spend countless $100's, to $1,000's
of dollars in room treatments, call in the "sound techs-geek squad"
for
advice-testing or what?
**They might. Or not.
Is the addition of a simple Graphic EQ such a taboo thing nowadays?
**Indeed. A "simple" graphic EQ is worse than a "simple" tone control.
MUCH worse. They generally **** up sound quality very seriously indeed.
Worse, they're capable of misuse, causing even more problems.
I'll agree with you bout misuse, since too much boost can cause drivers to
become damaged. The rest of the above statement needs explanation.
**There is simply no chance that the specific EQ curves and frequencies of a
simple graphic EQ will match the problems which the user is attempting to
solve (outside the afore-mentioned lottery winning chance). A parametric EQ
has a MUCH better chance of solving the problems. These, of course, require
considerably more expertise to use correctly.
How are they worse? So far there's a lot of condemnation and sweeping
statements but no reasons why.
**There is more room for people to make more of a mess of any given
system. Additionally, simple graphic EQs exhibit relatively high 'Q'
adjustment points. A good 3rd Octave EQ overcomes much of the problems,
but still exhibits problems of its own. A digital EQ need not exibit any
flaws.
If you can obtain flat response through passive equalization, is it going
to be better or worse than active EQ?
**That would be akin to saying:
"If there is a God, then......"
Just as there is no God, there is no chance that a passive EQ can solve a
problem either.
I do see EQ's in abundance for the pro user, but really not much
available for the home audio user?
**Sure. Musos and 'sound engineers' are pretty hopeless (generally) at
what they do. Pop into a studio sometime and you'll understand.
Oh, I get it, they're supposed to treat an arena or every venue they
work in.
**Huh? I'm discussing STUDIOS and the incompetent morons who work in
them. Just listen to a typical, modern recording and you'll understand.
I do listen, and it seems to me that they are doing a pretty fair job with
the music I listen too.
**Our experiences are very different. They are, in the main, doing a crap
job.
Sometimes I don't like the way someting sounds, but
I assume it's the way things were agreed on in the mixdown process.
**Exactly. They mix the stuff, to compensate for the crap monitors and
impaired hearing they live with.
I'll wager
that most would sound (much) better, if the morons were unable to adjust
their equalisers.
While I only know one proferssional recording engineer, his philosophy was
get the room flat.
**A good start.
What is left out there? Is there such a thing as a good EQ that will
not
be a detriment to high-end audio components?
**Yep. A GOOD, zero phase shift DIGITAL EQ will do the trick.
Name some that aren't minimum phase.
**Most of the decent digital EQs will be zero phase shift. I've used Sabine,
but there are others.
Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people who own audio gear like
$12K Krell Amps, $7K Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems have no
need for such an animal?
**They may have need of such things, but whether they have the rest of
what is required is another story. A calibrated mic, knowledge and
experience don't come cheap.
It is not rocket science to read an spl meter and run some test tones.
Some ERQ's come with a caibrated mic and tone generator and set the
curve automatically.
**Really? OK, smart guy: Tell me where you put the microphone. (I have
followup questions, when you think you've answered correctly.)
No matter what I say here, you're going to argue with it, so why not just
tellus where you would do it. It should be interesting since you seem to
goitten so much other stuff wrong.
**I've goitten nothing wrong, so far. However, you stick the microphones in
the ear canals of the listener/s. The presence of a listener will affect
sound. More listeners will require more measurements and more adjustments.
There will be a time (not far away) when these adjustments will be automatic
and continuous. Until that time the AVERAGE listener is far better off
without any form of tone controls.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au