Bret Ludwig wrote:
MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm
Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
and let you fix?"
A:
"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."
Everyone uses EQ all the time in the recording chain. What's your
point?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's soul. I guess
that his point is : look - a "Vinyl maven" uses equalisers and you
argue with my advice to the audio listener that he should use it to
compensate for deficiences of his recordings.
As you say anyone can see the necessity for equalisers in recording to
compensate for the recording venue, equipment used etc. But Arny's
"mavens" don't get their equalisers at Radio Shack, while he
recommended equalisers, any equalisers, for home use.
It is true that judging by most of what passes for recorded music some
of the mavens, don't seem to know what they are doing - not just with
their "equalisers"- but indeed what are they doing recording music when
they should be sweeping the studio corridors.
The situation at home is quite different. As I said before I used quite
a few analogue equalisers including a professional one (Orban) and I
loathed them all. The first equaliser I'm familiar with that is
inobtrusive is a Behringer digital. I set it once to compensate for my
room etc. and never touched it since..
Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.
Arny's advice is to put bluntly for the birds.
Ludovic Mirabel