[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

People who refuse to make accurate measurements with properly
calibrated equipment inevitably wind up like a pilot trying to fly
without view of the ground or working gyro panels: in a self-plowed
hole in the ground. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about such things
when you are doing it all yourself.

You guys are cracked, man. We're not taling about an effort to
flatten the room using a super-dooper parametic EQ. We're talking
about a simple stereo with the ability to adjust tone to taste,
depending on the recording. Sheesh!

No "properly calibrated equipment" required!

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool, FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

In that case, you may as well
buy the cheapest, crappiest preamp you can find. It will do the same job.

Wrong.

**Nope. Right.

Wrong. And Doug Self agrees with me.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:53:30 GMT, dizzy wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

People who refuse to make accurate measurements with properly
calibrated equipment inevitably wind up like a pilot trying to fly
without view of the ground or working gyro panels: in a self-plowed
hole in the ground. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about such things
when you are doing it all yourself.

You guys are cracked, man. We're not taling about an effort to
flatten the room using a super-dooper parametic EQ. We're talking
about a simple stereo with the ability to adjust tone to taste,
depending on the recording. Sheesh!


I agree that that's not an unreasonable requirement. However, I feel
bound to add that in times past whenever I've found myself frequently
resorting to tone controls it's always been because something was out
of balance with the system;. Generally I never touch the tone
controls, though I like to have them there just in case.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Like I said, I've been using my NT1A (U87 clones)...

Hehehe... "U87 clone" oh right!

Tell us about your mic collection, Powell.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Like I said, I've been using my NT1A (U87 clones)...

Hehehe... "U87 clone" oh right!


Hey, for Arny it was a real upgrade. Replaced the NT1.

Wrong again, Harry. Until the NT1a buy, I had no LD mics at all.

[Arny Krueger]

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

dizzy wrote:

Just can't get it through your head that this is for adjusting for
different recordings, can you? "References and test equipement" not
required. "Ears" required.

Good point.

People who refuse to make accurate measurements with properly
calibrated equipment inevitably wind up like a pilot trying to fly
without view of the ground or working gyro panels: in a self-plowed
hole in the ground.

Not a bad metaphor.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about such things
when you are doing it all yourself.

(without reliable references). Even with reliable references, getting second
and third opinions can be a big help.

The twiode ****s have demonstrated
that again and again. I've been in houses several times with SET/horn
systems built entirely by owner that on first listen were completely
****ed up. As time went on and beer flowed, I started agreeing, sort
of, with them, partly to get more beer and partly out of a sense that I
may have been wrong in fact. Nope: the systems were utterly ****ed up,
in each and every case.

We've noticed similar things in the context of our audio club, but without
any need for people to be agreeable in order to obtain more beer. There
have been a lot of hosts over the years who were very proud of their
systems, while the group consensus was "Proud of what?" Of course there have
also been host systems where the group consensus was "Right on", or "Wow!".

People that built all their own stuff, and
didn't measure, and ignored timeworn facts like "mercury rectifiers
generate lots of hash and must be caged and RF-proofed"

The better idea is to simply realize that there has been no technical
justification for mercury rectifiers since the 1970s, if not earlier.

and "horn
treble units must be mounted with precision and solidly referenced to
the bass unit within one wavelength at their highest frequency".

That would be a new rule or a misstatement of an old one that goes like:

"Horn treble units must be mounted with precision and solidly referenced to
the bass unit within a small fraction of a wavelength at their lowest
operating frequency".

OTOH, simply reading test equipment without _at least reasonably
objective_ listening results in sound that is either very right or very
wrong, and very wrong is commoner than not.

Point well taken. I know of no effective audio professional who simply sets
things up solely "By the numbers". The reliability and applicability of
measurements continues to improve. Devices like the following can be very
effective:

http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/5090.pdf

However, among those who use it frequently, there is ample disagreement
within a narrow range about what the ideal target should be for measured
response.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...

You guys are cracked, man. We're not talking about an effort to
flatten the room using a super-dooper parametic EQ. We're talking
about a simple stereo with the ability to adjust tone to taste,
depending on the recording. Sheesh!

Agreed.

No "properly calibrated equipment" required!

Not required, but it can help.

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool,

Agreed.

People who do go the way of measurement microphones, well-treated rooms, and
eqs also find tone controls of some kind to be advantageous.


FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

Even if the room is really quite well-done, recordings vary enough that it
can still be beneficial for one's personal listening pleasure to adjust
system FR from time to time.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Like I said, I've been using my NT1A (U87 clones)...

Hehehe... "U87 clone" oh right!

Tell us about your mic collection, Powell.
Quack, quack, quack...

I did cheap-out and built three free-stand acoustic
absorption panels (86" x33"). Each has 20 sq. ft.
of surface area with three layers of absorption
materials (4" total). Took about 12 hrs. to fabricate
and little more than $200 in materials. Worked well
recording talent for political radio spots. Two more
panels would add even more flexibility for a wider
range of projects.

[Powell]

"Harry Lavo" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Like I said, I've been using my NT1A (U87 clones)...

Hehehe... "U87 clone" oh right!


Hey, for Arny it was a real upgrade. Replaced the NT1.
Perhaps Arny can recomend a $200 Royer R122 PP ribbon
clone for me.
http://www.royerlabs.com/mics/R-122.html

[Sander deWaal]

Here in Ohio said:


Then why not just buy a home-theatre-system-in-a-box at your local
appliance store and then just twiddle the tone controls until it
"sounds good?"


I just DIY my amps etc. until it sounds good ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[R. Stanton]

On Oct 27, 11:06 am, Here in Ohio wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:58:04 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

That's the whole point. Until you can prove that you hear things the
way the owner does, you're basically out of luck to make a global
declaration such as the one that you made. of course, you can ALWAYS
say that you didn't like the sound - that's a given.It doesn't really matter how the owner hears things, if (s)he indeed
even hears things differently from others.

The sound of a door slamming is the sound of a door slamming is the
sound of a door slamming. It doesn't change, even if the people
hearing it do change and do hear "differently."

We thus have the original event as the reference and it is "right" no
matter who listens to it.

Feel free to put a blanket over your head because the door then sounds
"better" to you that way, but know that you are making changes to the
original sound.

With sane electronics, we get a flat response with more or less "what
goes in, goes out." Twisting a tone control to diverge from that flat
response may tickle your fancy, but is in no way accurate or faithful
to the original sound.

Decide that the recording doesn't sound right so you want to change
the sound? You don't stand much chance of just twiddling some knobs
and arriving at a result that is closer to being accurate - without
some knowledge of what was done to the original recording and some
measuring equipment to verifiy that you are indeed reversing the
effects of some poorly chosen EQ by the recording engineer.

If one has a flat system, and one plays a flat recording, there is no
need of equalization. But the majority of recordings are not flat.

If you have an old recording with too little bass, are you going to sit
there and listen to it as is, because turning up a bass control is
crude and unscientific?

Bob Stanton

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...

Decide that the recording doesn't sound right so you want to change
the sound? You don't stand much chance of just twiddling some knobs
and arriving at a result that is closer to being accurate - without
some knowledge of what was done to the original recording and some
measuring equipment to verifiy that you are indeed reversing the
effects of some poorly chosen EQ by the recording engineer.

Well, certainly, but I'm sure the OP doesn't care - look, I'd argue that
it's *impossible* to recreate the sound accurately anyway. Speakers are
never completely accurate, add to that speaker-room interactions and you
might as well give up if accuracy is all that matters to you.

What he clearly wants to do is some minor tone adjustment to make the
music sound more pleasing (perhaps realistic) to *him*. Why even drag
accuracy into it? What if the accurate reproduction sounds like crap?

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this hobby all about the enjoyment of music?

--
Bill

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:06:29 -0400, Here in Ohio
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:58:04 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


That's the whole point. Until you can prove that you hear things the
way the owner does, you're basically out of luck to make a global
declaration such as the one that you made. of course, you can ALWAYS
say that you didn't like the sound - that's a given.

It doesn't really matter how the owner hears things, if (s)he indeed
even hears things differently from others.

Ah, but it does, especially when you factor in all of the variables
inhyerent in room acoustics, listening position, hearing capabilities,
system sound, etc.

The sound of a door slamming is the sound of a door slamming is the
sound of a door slamming. It doesn't change, even if the people
hearing it do change and do hear "differently."

However, you listen to 10 *recordings* of a door slamming and it might
sound differently each time, especially if listened to in 10 different
rooms by 10 different people.

We thus have the original event as the reference and it is "right" no
matter who listens to it.

But it's always subject to the hearing capabilities and biases of each
listener.

There really isn't a single system that offers total accuracy, so this
observation is just a bit of a red herring.

Feel free to put a blanket over your head because the door then sounds
"better" to you that way, but know that you are making changes to the
original sound.

Of course you are. No argument there. The whole issue hinges on the
idea of "high fidelity". Most people try to use the words themselves
to define what "high fidelity" is, but then go past it by claiming
that it means "total accuracy". But it doesn't say "ultimate
fidelity", just "high fidelity".

With sane electronics, we get a flat response with more or less "what
goes in, goes out."

As long as you have speakers in a room and discrete listening
positions, you're not going to get "flat FR". We always have to factor
in the person listening as well, and many people don't like "flat"
anyway. And who's to know what the final result should sound like
anyway, since most recordings are subject to the interpretation of the
producer, engineer and artist. Even with classical music that's
recorded with the minimum of interference, miking decisions have to be
made as to which listening position in the hall you want the recording
to mimic. And in popular music, there is far more latitude to play
"post engineer".

Twisting a tone control to diverge from that flat
response may tickle your fancy, but is in no way accurate or faithful
to the original sound.

Who cares If the result is a perceived improvement over what's
streaming through the speakers.

Decide that the recording doesn't sound right so you want to change
the sound? You don't stand much chance of just twiddling some knobs
and arriving at a result that is closer to being accurate - without
some knowledge of what was done to the original recording and some
measuring equipment to verifiy that you are indeed reversing the
effects of some poorly chosen EQ by the recording engineer.

Well, there you go. Even YOU admit that we are far away from "the
original sound" that you trumpeted earlier in your post. And you use
the word "accurate" again, using it as a cudgel. I would ask what it
has to do with a piece that has "poorly chosen EQ by the recording
engineer"...

And to say that you don't stand much chance of creating a more
pleasing sound through tone controls and EQ just isn't true, although
I will grant that it's far more difficult when using a parametric
equalizer, even if the results can be better than just tone controls
or graphic EQs. The latter two can be fairly intuitive and a little
trial and error is all that is required. And, if someone cares enough,
they can use tools to play "the accuracy card" in order to smooth out
any speaker or room irregularities (or listening position changes).

Ultimately, all that matters is how it sounds to the end user. It's as
simple as that.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:08:53 -0400, Here in Ohio
wrote:

Then why not just buy a home-theatre-system-in-a-box at your local
appliance store and then just twiddle the tone controls until it
"sounds good?"

If you buy such a system, then you definitely are going to need tone
controls. You can certainly make it sound "as good as possible" if you
do so, but this doesn't mean that you can get the best possible sound
by buying such a system instead of a better "audiophile-apporved"
system.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:54:45 -0400, Here in Ohio
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:15:03 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


With sane electronics, we get a flat response with more or less "what
goes in, goes out."

As long as you have speakers in a room and discrete listening
positions, you're not going to get "flat FR". We always have to factor

I didn't say that you would get a flat FR of the whole system, just
the electronics.

Speaker and/or room EQ is a whole different topic.

Hardly. Unless you're listening to your system via telepathy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On 27 Oct 2006 10:00:18 -0700, "R. Stanton"
wrote:


If one has a flat system, and one plays a flat recording, there is no
need of equalization. But the majority of recordings are not flat.

If you have an old recording with too little bass, are you going to sit
there and listen to it as is, because turning up a bass control is
crude and unscientific?

When I had a preamp with tone controls, I found that things sounded
worse when I played with the tone controls instead of just accepting
recordings as they were.

Ordinary bass and treble controls are very low-resolution tools for the
purpose. Sort of like flossing your teeth with a shovel. Hence, proper
parametric equalizers.

[dizzy]

Here in Ohio wrote:

On 27 Oct 2006 10:00:18 -0700, "R. Stanton"
wrote:

If one has a flat system, and one plays a flat recording, there is no
need of equalization. But the majority of recordings are not flat.

If you have an old recording with too little bass, are you going to sit
there and listen to it as is, because turning up a bass control is
crude and unscientific?

When I had a preamp with tone controls, I found that things sounded
worse when I played with the tone controls instead of just accepting
recordings as they were.

Funny, because every single person I've ever known in my life feels
otherwise. To find someone playing their stereo "flat" is truly a
rare occurance.

Of course, they are generally not wealthy nor snobby enough to buy
preamps with no tone controls...

[dizzy]

Bill Riel wrote:

Well, certainly, but I'm sure the OP doesn't care - look, I'd argue that
it's *impossible* to recreate the sound accurately anyway. Speakers are
never completely accurate, add to that speaker-room interactions and you
might as well give up if accuracy is all that matters to you.

Exactly!

What he clearly wants to do is some minor tone adjustment to make the
music sound more pleasing (perhaps realistic) to *him*. Why even drag
accuracy into it? What if the accurate reproduction sounds like crap?

Exactly!

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this hobby all about the enjoyment of music?

Exactly!

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool,

Agreed.

People who do go the way of measurement microphones, well-treated rooms, and
eqs also find tone controls of some kind to be advantageous.


FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

Even if the room is really quite well-done, recordings vary enough that it
can still be beneficial for one's personal listening pleasure to adjust
system FR from time to time.

Exactly! Even if you've "flattened your system" with the super-duper
EQ and room treatments, recordings vary! You don't want to mess with
your super-duper EQ for every recording.

[dizzy]

Here in Ohio wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:53:30 GMT, dizzy wrote:

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool, FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

Then why not just buy a home-theatre-system-in-a-box at your local
appliance store and then just twiddle the tone controls until it
"sounds good?"

You're a funny guy!

[dizzy]

Here in Ohio wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:16:12 GMT, dizzy wrote:

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:19:54 GMT, dizzy wrote:

There is some bass, it's just at insufficient levels on the CD.
Boosting it with a bass control isn't "the perfect world", but it's
better than listening flat, by a long shot.

Unless they were using bass pedals, there isn't an awful lot happening
below 40 Hz in a rock recording. Electric bass, kick drum, and floor
toms don't go that low.

Your point is?

That what you were adding was not bass, because of both the genre and
the way tone controls work.

Just say no to drugs.

[dizzy]

Here in Ohio wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:15:03 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

With sane electronics, we get a flat response with more or less "what
goes in, goes out."

As long as you have speakers in a room and discrete listening
positions, you're not going to get "flat FR". We always have to factor

I didn't say that you would get a flat FR of the whole system, just
the electronics.

Speaker and/or room EQ is a whole different topic. (But it isn't
something you can use tone controls on effectively either.)

Better than nothing.

Besides that, people rapidly get used to an unflat response as long as
it doesn't change.

Ultimately, all that matters is how it sounds to the end user. It's as
simple as that.

Statements like this are used to justify all kinds of junk. :-)

Yeah, and other statements are used to justify mega-buck amps, cables,
CD players, etc. Which is more stupid?

[Arny Krueger]

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

For the 99.9% of people who do not go the way of calibrated
microphones and super-duper digital EQ's, tone controls are a valuable
tool,

Agreed.

People who do go the way of measurement microphones, well-treated rooms,
and
eqs also find tone controls of some kind to be advantageous.


FAR better then sitting there at the utter mercy of Joe Blow
recording engineer, your speakers, and your room (all of which, when
added up, will NO WAY will be "flat" or "high fi" or whatever some
smug and deluded person may THINK it is.)

Even if the room is really quite well-done, recordings vary enough that it
can still be beneficial for one's personal listening pleasure to adjust
system FR from time to time.

Exactly! Even if you've "flattened your system" with the super-duper
EQ and room treatments, recordings vary! You don't want to mess with
your super-duper EQ for every recording.

Agreed.

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The best pre is no pre.

Optical players/DACs with a nice big volume knob and low impedance
outputs directly driving a power amp are the ultimate in quality.

I can sure see that. It's somewhat surprising you don't see DAC's
with remote volume-controls. Would be perfect for the purists...

If you do need a pre, and in some situations you might, it's amazing,
or disgusting depending on your perspective, how $2-10K units are
consistently trumped by homebrew Marantz 7/ Mac C22 clones, if the
power supply is isolated and good parts are used.

That's probably not a horrible way to go, either. I'm actually
thinking of building my own (using a proven design, of course).

The ultimate
enclosure is a three-chamber die casting with RF gasketed lid that is
19" with integral rack ears that was used as part of a Quintron paging
trensmitter enclosure. From time to time these come available at ye
olde hamfeste. A junked turbine igniter box works too if you don't mind
gutting it and for best results, cutting off the HV cigarette housings
and having them welded over.

While there pick up some books published before '63 or so. Pete
Millett needs them....

[TT]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Bret Ludwig wrote:

The best pre is no pre.

Optical players/DACs with a nice big volume knob and low
impedance
outputs directly driving a power amp are the ultimate in
quality.

I can sure see that. It's somewhat surprising you don't
see DAC's
with remote volume-controls. Would be perfect for the
purists...

You mean like the one I use?

http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html

And balanced outputs as well ;-)

Regards TT

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Possibly, but since Trevor claimed he prefered recordings made without
any
EQ, you would think he could then name one at least :-)

**That was not the question you asked. Want me to show you your question?

No, what I want you to show me is your answer :-)

("Several" is hardly specific)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used, were those which
employed
no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to disk LPs, for
instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.


**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve anything. Ever.

Funny then that no recording I know of has not used them.

**You need to get out more.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it is used on
recordings between artist and listener.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
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.

Agreed, but in fact the recording and mastering engineers names are usually
listed on the CD credits :-)

MrT.

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

Here in Ohio wrote:

On 27 Oct 2006 10:00:18 -0700, "R. Stanton"
wrote:

If one has a flat system, and one plays a flat recording, there is no
need of equalization. But the majority of recordings are not flat.

If you have an old recording with too little bass, are you going to sit
there and listen to it as is, because turning up a bass control is
crude and unscientific?

When I had a preamp with tone controls, I found that things sounded
worse when I played with the tone controls instead of just accepting
recordings as they were.

Funny, because every single person I've ever known in my life feels
otherwise. To find someone playing their stereo "flat" is truly a
rare occurance.

For many years the setup I had using pro gear simply didn't have any tone
controls.

Graham

[paul packer]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:44:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Ordinary bass and treble controls are very low-resolution tools for the
purpose. Sort of like flossing your teeth with a shovel.

Care to post a picture of that, Arnie?

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used,
were those which employed no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to disk
LPs, for instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.


**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve
anything. Ever.

Funny then that no recording I know of has not used
them.

**You need to get out more.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it
is used on recordings between artist and listener.

Trevor probably has a little dance he does to dismiss RIAA eq.

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro analog tape machines
work.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

OTOH, simply reading test equipment without _at least
reasonably objective_ listening results in sound that
is either very right or very wrong, and very wrong is
commoner than not.

Point well taken. I know of no effective audio
professional who simply sets things up solely "By the
numbers".

What do you mean by "sets things up"?

Anything involving system integration, installation, or repair.


Professional grade
studios are designed by an acoustic architect, "by the
numbers", using calibration equipment for performance
testing and verification once constructed.

On a good day.

Are you suggesting they have a quick listen to it afterwards &
start all over again if they're not entirely happy with
the results? :-)

So Paul are you saying that:

(1) It's not necessary to listen to the studio at all - it was designed
right and that is that.

(2) If the customer doesn't like it exactly as built, he can go and hang.

(3) If a studio doesn't sound just right as designed, then there is no
choice but but start over again from scratch.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro analog tape machines
work.

Why did you specify pro ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro
analog tape machines work.

Why did you specify pro ?

As you n doubt know, Trevor is a repair tech. Old enough to have worked on
many consumer analog tape decks. I suspect that his expectations of consumer
machines were something like mine - along the lines of "what do you expect".

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

OTOH, simply reading test equipment without _at least
reasonably objective_ listening results in sound that
is either very right or very wrong, and very wrong is
commoner than not.

Point well taken. I know of no effective audio
professional who simply sets things up solely "By the
numbers".

What do you mean by "sets things up"?

Anything involving system integration, installation, or repair.


Professional grade
studios are designed by an acoustic architect, "by the
numbers", using calibration equipment for performance
testing and verification once constructed.

On a good day.

Are you suggesting they have a quick listen to it afterwards &
start all over again if they're not entirely happy with
the results? :-)

So Paul are you saying that:

(1) It's not necessary to listen to the studio at all - it was designed
right and that is that.

(2) If the customer doesn't like it exactly as built, he can go and hang.

(3) If a studio doesn't sound just right as designed, then there is no
choice but but start over again from scratch.

No.

You said "I know of no effective audio professional who simply sets
things up solely "By the numbers"."

I am saying it is effectively standard practice, when you get into the
realms of professional facilities.

You can't listen to a room until it is constructed, and once you have
a suspended floor installed, soffit mounted speakers, walls and
ceilings loaded with absorbers, it better bloody sound right.

Arny's drivelling.

He's never been in such a situation but can't resist making things up as if he
had been to inflate his ego.

If he thinks the end client can 'go and hang' he's dreaming !


Graham

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

If he thinks the end client can 'go and hang' he's dreaming !

He lives in a dreamworld, by my reckoning.

I'm sure you're right, but that's because the real world kicked him out.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro analog tape machines
work.

Indeed, or even amateur ones.
And I'm still puzzled about his original distinction that digital EQ is OK,
but not analog EQ, which implies the analog filters used for pre-emphasis
etc are also crook, then argues that ALL EQ is evil, but apparently *not*
NAB, RIAA, etc.
I guess the paradox has eluded his thinking so far.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
* The BEST recordings, when analogue EQ was used, were those which
employed
no EQ.

In your opinion, but can you actually name any?

**Yes. Several.

I've never heard of that one. Who's the artist?

**Several recodings. All of the Sheffield direct to disk LPs, for
instance.

What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.

**And the reverse EQ curve is precise in any decent equipment. The problem
with tone controls, is that ZERO precision occurs. The result is hit and
miss. Mostly miss.



**Indeed. However, tone controls cannot improve anything. Ever.

Funny then that no recording I know of has not used them.

**You need to get out more.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it is used on
recordings between artist and listener.

**I understand quite well thanks. What you need to understand is that an
amateur, with no test equipment and no reference has ZERO chances of making
a recording closer to the original musical event.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
What crap. ALL vinyl recording require much analog EQ.

**And the reverse EQ curve is precise in any decent equipment. The problem
with tone controls, is that ZERO precision occurs. The result is hit and
miss. Mostly miss.

You need to understand what EQ is, and ALL the places it is used on
recordings between artist and listener.

**I understand quite well thanks. What you need to understand is that an
amateur, with no test equipment and no reference has ZERO chances of
making
a recording closer to the original musical event.

Not so, he has EVERY chance of making the listening experience more
enjoyable for himself, with his equipment, in his listening environment.
Why should *they* care whether it is "correct" for you?

But where does your original distinction between analog EQ and Digital EQ
fit into this argument anyway?

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

I'm wondering whether Trevor knows much about how pro
analog tape machines work.

Indeed, or even amateur ones.

AFAIK Trevor has ample experience working with those.

Apparently, he thinks that the pro machines that were used to produce so
many recordings that he enjoys came from a different, eq-free universe.

And I'm still puzzled about his original distinction that
digital EQ is OK, but not analog EQ, which implies the
analog filters used for pre-emphasis etc are also crook,

Pro tape machines should give Trevor considerable cause for pause. They
routinely use analog minimum-phase filters to compensate for things like
non-minimum-phase effects like head gap losses.

then argues that ALL EQ is evil, but apparently *not* NAB, RIAA, etc.

I seem to recall that he gives them a pass becuase they are based on
complementary eq. IOW, the RIAA eq used to cut LPs (all 40+ dB of it!) is
complemented by the RIAA wq used to play them back.

I guess the paradox has eluded his thinking so far.

The devil is in the details.