dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:37:38 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:47:50 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Ironically, the SVS
20-39 Ultra sub I reviewed a while back for TSS also had a
parametric equalizer built in, although it was only a
single-band job.

Wouldn't a single band cover the entire low bass range? If so, why
would you need another band?

The SVS unit's single-band equalizer was fully adjustable as
to center frequency (anywhere from 20 to 80 Hz), degree of
cut (it could only cut, not boost), and Q (width of
corrected range). It was designed to flatten out the primary
resonant peak. The Velodyne DD models have multi-band
parametric equalizers built in, for serious fine tuning the
response curve. The outboard Rane THX-44 equalizer that I
use (and which I have also reviewed) has a two-band
parametric for the subwoofer channel between 20 and 80 Hz,
in addition to combination graphic and parametric
equalization for the three front channels above 80 Hz.

That wasn't really responsive to my question.

Why on earth would you need multi-band parametrics for such a narrow
frequency band? Wouldn't that be "overkill"?

For the sake of example...lets say you have a suckout at 60 Hz and a
big boom at 40Hz. How would you propose to correct this with a single
band equalizer?

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:37:38 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Why on earth would you need multi-band parametrics for
such a narrow
frequency band? Wouldn't that be "overkill"?

For the sake of example...lets say you have a suckout at
60 Hz and a
big boom at 40Hz. How would you propose to correct this
with a
single band equalizer?

Good shot Scott, right over Weil's head. So, you can fire
that low, after all!

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:42:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

ScottW wrote:
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:37:38 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Why on earth would you need multi-band parametrics for
such a narrow
frequency band? Wouldn't that be "overkill"?

For the sake of example...lets say you have a suckout at
60 Hz and a
big boom at 40Hz. How would you propose to correct this
with a
single band equalizer?

Good shot Scott, right over Weil's head. So, you can fire
that low, after all!

See, THIS is precisely the reason why you're so despised here on RAO.
Even an exchange of information isn't immune from cheap shots from
you. Is it any wonder why there's so little on the group? You proclaim
that George is primarily responsible for the dire state of the group,
but this shows that it's YOU.

You are basically hell-bent on making RAO unusable. You've done a
pretty good job of advancing your agenda, THAT'S for sure.

Arny Krueger wrote:
ScottW wrote:
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:37:38 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Why on earth would you need multi-band parametrics for
such a narrow
frequency band? Wouldn't that be "overkill"?

For the sake of example...lets say you have a suckout at
60 Hz and a
big boom at 40Hz. How would you propose to correct this
with a
single band equalizer?

Good shot Scott, right over Weil's head. So, you can fire
that low, after all!


You need some serious psychotherapy. I understand the Smith & Wesson
clinic in your neighborhood can help.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...


You need some serious psychotherapy. I understand the Smith & Wesson
clinic in your neighborhood can help.


He can always 'take the bus'.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 31 May 2005 19:08:35 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Why on earth would you need multi-band parametrics for such a narrow
frequency band? Wouldn't that be "overkill"?

For the sake of example...lets say you have a suckout at 60 Hz and a
big boom at 40Hz. How would you propose to correct this with a single
band equalizer?

That's a good point.

Of course, personally, I would use my graphic to control the 40 hz and
let the parametric to take care of the 60hz (since my EQ would only
catch 63). But not everyone would want to introduce another component.
I COULD also use the parametric on an SAE preamp that I have as well
g.

I guess that the ideal solution is simply using one of the Rane 10
band parametrics. Now THAT'S an overkill situation chuckle.

dave weil wrote:
On 31 May 2005 19:08:35 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

Why on earth would you need multi-band parametrics for such a narrow
frequency band? Wouldn't that be "overkill"?

For the sake of example...lets say you have a suckout at 60 Hz and a
big boom at 40Hz. How would you propose to correct this with a single
band equalizer?

That's a good point.

Of course, personally, I would use my graphic to control the 40 hz and
let the parametric to take care of the 60hz (since my EQ would only
catch 63). But not everyone would want to introduce another component.
I COULD also use the parametric on an SAE preamp that I have as well
g.

I guess that the ideal solution is simply using one of the Rane 10
band parametrics. Now THAT'S an overkill situation chuckle.

10 band would be overkill but I can easily see someone using 3 or 4
bands if they really wanted the deepest flattest bass response they
could get.

One to handle LF cutoff. Most subs have one built in. Driving a sub
below what it can handle is just gonna yield distortion. Another to
boost bass and extend useful output. Another to quelch the inevitable
bloom, and a fourth to address the inevitable suckout. Parametrics are
easily tailored to address the frequency ranges needing a tweak while
others would be a lot more difficult to prevent more harm than good.

This post specifically intended to show Arny Kreuger how humans use
usenet.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

This post specifically intended to show Arny Kreuger how
humans use
usenet.

Been there, done that tens of thousands of times.

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...

ScottW wrote:

This post specifically intended to show Arny Kreuger how
humans use usenet.

Been there, done that tens of thousands of times.


how come you're still such an asshole then?

Surf wrote:

how come you're still such an asshole then?

An insightful reader will read this post and know the
answer.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Surf wrote:

how come you're still such an asshole then?

An insightful reader will read this post and know the
answer.


its because you are mentally ill.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Surf said to Mr. ****:

how come you're still such an asshole then?

Arnii just explained that. He thinks monkeys are the height of sophistication
and classiness. One day, when Arnii stops eating his you-know-whats, the monkeys
will consider him a potential playmate. Until then, even the monkeys will shun
his company.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

This post specifically intended to show Arny Kreuger how
humans use
usenet.

Been there, done that tens of thousands of times.


he said 'humans', asshole.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

ScottW wrote:

10 band would be overkill but I can easily see someone using 3 or 4
bands if they really wanted the deepest flattest bass response they
could get.

One to handle LF cutoff. Most subs have one built in. Driving a sub
below what it can handle is just gonna yield distortion. Another to
boost bass and extend useful output. Another to quelch the inevitable
bloom, and a fourth to address the inevitable suckout. Parametrics are
easily tailored to address the frequency ranges needing a tweak while
others would be a lot more difficult to prevent more harm than good.

I rarely see more than two problem artifacts when I measure
subwoofer performance in typical rooms. Usually there will
be a peak at one frequency, in combination with a dip
somewhere else. Rarely will there be two audibly significant
peaks or even two dips that add up to much.

A parametric has the advantage of allowing the user to hit
the peak/dip elimination bulls eye better than what he would
be able to do with a graphic job, simply because not all
peaks and dips line up the way a graphic can precisely deal
with them.

However, to make good use of a parametric one needs a good
measuring device. Ironically, most of those are RTAs that
use measurements at the standard 1/3-octave points that
graphic equalizers also deal with. Yes, you can use test
discs with specific tones at individual frequencies (The
Bass Mekanic, for instance), but one will be shocked to see
just how much the bass bumps up and down even at discrete
frequencies in close proximity.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that multi-band (10 band, or perhaps the
8-band job with the Velodyne DD subs) parametric is not a
bad idea after all. Using it right would be a lot of work,
however, and of course it would only hit the bulls eye at
one rather tight listening position.

Howard Ferstler

ScottW wrote:

dave weil wrote:

That wasn't really responsive to my question.

Why on earth would you need multi-band parametrics for such a narrow
frequency band? Wouldn't that be "overkill"?

For the sake of example...lets say you have a suckout at 60 Hz and a
big boom at 40Hz. How would you propose to correct this with a single
band equalizer?

It would be impossible. The best you could do is cut the
peak at 40 Hz and then adjust the overall subwoofer level to
deliver the flattest output obtainable. Note that the Rane
THX-44 I reviewed in issue 98 of The Sensible Sound has a
two-band parametric just for the subwoofer channel. That
unit could handle the problem you noted quite well.

One important point. When dealing with standing wave peaks
and dips if you cut off a peak at one listening position
there will probably be a significant dip at the same
frequency at another listening position. If you boost out a
dip at one location you will probably get a serious peak at
another listening position.

The solution? Get a room and listening position that has the
fewest peak/dip problems at the largest number of locations,
and then use a moderate amount of equalization to flatten
things out at the very best of those locations - the ones
you occupy the most.

Howard Ferstler