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
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.

**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.