"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 a

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!