[Trevor Wilson]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.



Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.

Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.

Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large
amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?
You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to listen
to if that is a prime requirement!
In fact **ALL** analog recordings used analog EQ in many stages of the
recording process, whether the engineer/producer added extra or not.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large
amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those
which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?

**Yes. Several.

You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to
listen
to if that is a prime requirement!

**Not at all. Very contemporary recordings use analogue EQ.

In fact **ALL** analog recordings used analog EQ in many stages of the
recording process, whether the engineer/producer added extra or not.

**ONLY with VERY PRECISE reverse curves. This is a very different situation
to uncontrolled use of tone controls, by amateurs, with zero experience,
zero references and zero measurement equipment.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[paul packer]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:55:14 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
. au...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large
amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those
which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?

**Yes. Several.

You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to
listen
to if that is a prime requirement!

**Not at all. Very contemporary recordings use analogue EQ.

In fact **ALL** analog recordings used analog EQ in many stages of the
recording process, whether the engineer/producer added extra or not.

**ONLY with VERY PRECISE reverse curves. This is a very different situation
to uncontrolled use of tone controls, by amateurs, with zero experience,
zero references and zero measurement equipment.


Trevor, I think you're being a bit inflexible. You're assuming modern
recordings with good balance. What about older recordings and
historical material etc. Though I rarely use them myself, I have found
tone controls useful (even just to modify a slightly fierce top end)
and prefer amps with them.

[dizzy]

paul packer wrote:

Trevor, I think you're being a bit inflexible. You're assuming modern
recordings with good balance. What about older recordings and
historical material etc.

No kidding. He cannot seem to grasp my point that I want the bass
control for adjusting for each CD. Fooling-around with a parametric
EQ in that application would be a bit ridiculous.

Plus his "forget about hifi" is plain silly. If a recording sounds
better with some bass boost, it sounds better. I can't understand why
someone would want to listed to something sounds **sounds worse to
them** just for the smug satisfaction that they are listening to the
recording the way some nameless engineer thought was best.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
**Indeed it is. Such recordings suffer badly, in comparison to those
which
eschew the use of analogue EQ.

Can you name any?

**Yes. Several.

Still haven't heard of that one, however one record out of millions is
hardly an endorsement of your claim.

You would certainly have a ***VERY*** limited number of recordings to
listen
to if that is a prime requirement!

**Not at all. Very contemporary recordings use analogue EQ.

How does that support your claim?

In fact **ALL** analog recordings used analog EQ in many stages of the
recording process, whether the engineer/producer added extra or not.

**ONLY with VERY PRECISE reverse curves.

Yes, but still suffer the same problems all analog filters do.

This is a very different situation
to uncontrolled use of tone controls, by amateurs, with zero experience,
zero references and zero measurement equipment.

It depends on whether they are listening to music or test tones I guess.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip

**Not at all. Very contemporary recordings use analogue EQ.

In fact **ALL** analog recordings used analog EQ in many stages of the
recording process, whether the engineer/producer added extra or not.

**ONLY with VERY PRECISE reverse curves. This is a very different
situation
to uncontrolled use of tone controls, by amateurs, with zero experience,
zero references and zero measurement equipment.


In practice they weren't very precise, especially on the older
recordings I favor more and more as I age myself.

**They've been very precise, since the 1950s.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.



Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

Agreed.

**Nope. Not ever.

Nonsense on the same scale as the anti-loop feedback nonsense that Trevor
used to parrot around here.