Sonoman,
No word of a lie, I tried the same thing Wednesday night, and you are
right...at high volumes, the sound is so crisp and pure...loved it, pleasant
surprise! Mind you, sounded horribly plain at normal volume, but hey,
nothings perfect, right?

Rick
"Robert E. Watts" wrote in message
...
Hi Sonoman !

Never. I like painful treble, and unanimous bass.

But, I'm sure you realize that everyone's tastes are different !

bobwatts

--
Diesel Chevette World !
//////////*****\\\\\\\\\\
Bob Watts
Watts Carburetion Service
Whizzbang Computers
Cincinnati, Ohio
USA, Earth
Since 1984
\\\\\\\\\\*****//////////

http://w3.one.net/~watscarb/dieselvette.htm




"Sonoman" wrote in message
.. .
Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love
it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently
with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to
a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

Sonoman wrote:
Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

Well, that's the thing. The idea of an EQ is to flatten the response
curve of your system. Leaving the controls flat isn't doing much good,
because the response of your drivers and the car itself will color the
music

When I had my system set up, I used a 16 band EQ to smooth out the
response of the system. Then I used the bass and treble on my stereo to
pump up the bass and highs for a more dynamic sound.

I'm not going to lie - I hate it when my car is EQ'd to a even response.
I like big bass sounds, and strong highs. A flat response curve
sounds...well...flat.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lizard | thelizman1221.yahoo@com |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| teamROCS #007 / Technical Director / Founding Member |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| The TeamROCS Forum http://www.teamrocs.net/forum/ |
| |
| The Hoam Paige http://www.geocities.com/thelizman1221/ |
|
------------------------------------------------------------------

I prefer to limit EQ as much as possible. If I need more treble bite
then I choose brighter sounding speaker components. In short I try and
select/combine components for their tone/acoustic characteristics and
limit EQ tweeking whenever possible.

Now days studio engineers EQ things so much in the mix, and then on top
of that most of my local radio stations add their own EQ curve. The end
result is almost always too much boomy (50-90Hz) bass for my tastes. So
I have an EQ band set to 80 Hz, and this helps a little.

IN short IMHO a little EQ to tweek is a good thing.

Garrett


Sonoman wrote:

Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

The Lizard wrote in
:

Sonoman wrote:
Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I
love it, specially when cranking. How many people have their
systems currently with no equalization? I would like to find out
how common it is to listen to a flat signal coming out of t your
speakers?

Well, that's the thing. The idea of an EQ is to flatten the response
curve of your system.

That's one idea, but another is to liven up the response curve.

Leaving the controls flat isn't doing much
good, because the response of your drivers and the car itself will
color the music

True. Everything's colored, especially with today's synthesized mixes
and productions. The concept of "flat" really goes back to
reproducing a live sound without coloration.

Consider a trio - a drum set, an acoustic piano, and an upright bass.
The idea of "flat" is being able to reproduce the same sound from a
recording that you heard when the trio played live. This can only
happen if the microphones used for recording had an absolutely flat
response, the room acoustics were perfect, the position of the perfect
microphones was perfect, and the recording equipment itself had no
tonal effect on the recording. A virtually impossible environment.
So much for the purist's "true flat".

When I had my system set up, I used a 16 band EQ to smooth out the
response of the system. Then I used the bass and treble on my stereo
to pump up the bass and highs for a more dynamic sound.

Good theory. Even better than a 16-band is a parametric EQ. You can
effect the slope along with the amount of boost/cut at whatever
frequency. The tone controls on the HU simply put the icing on the
cake.

I'm not going to lie - I hate it when my car is EQ'd to a even
response. I like big bass sounds, and strong highs. A flat response
curve sounds...well...flat.

In almost any car, flat will sound bizarre unless the system's somehow
been pre-engineered and eq'd to compensate for acoustics and/or
deficiencies in the equipment.

IMO, the whole point of being able to alter the sound curve is to
enhance your listening pleasure. And we haven't even gotten into
compression, expansion, delay, time shift, etc. Whatever floats your
boat is good.

Regards,
Joe

I use alpine ERE-G180. Mainly for sub level.


"alon levy" wrote in message
s.com...
i set my eq on flat most of the time but latly i started reducing the
800-4000 hz curves just a bit (2-4 db) now the sound is even better.
give it a try.

also tell me what kind of eq your using?
--
alon levy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!
View this thread:
http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb2/sh...hreadid=151393

Right, it has to crank to sound awesome!
What is your setup? Mine currently is:

BA pro 6.5 in front
BA coax for minor rear fill
BA Pro 12" sub
Xtant 603x amp




"Rick Donnelly" wrote in message
.. .
Sonoman,
No word of a lie, I tried the same thing Wednesday night, and you are
right...at high volumes, the sound is so crisp and pure...loved it,
pleasant
surprise! Mind you, sounded horribly plain at normal volume, but hey,
nothings perfect, right?

Rick
"Robert E. Watts" wrote in message
...
Hi Sonoman !

Never. I like painful treble, and unanimous bass.

But, I'm sure you realize that everyone's tastes are different !

bobwatts

--
Diesel Chevette World !
//////////*****\\\\\\\\\\
Bob Watts
Watts Carburetion Service
Whizzbang Computers
Cincinnati, Ohio
USA, Earth
Since 1984
\\\\\\\\\\*****//////////

http://w3.one.net/~watscarb/dieselvette.htm




"Sonoman" wrote in message
.. .
Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I
love
it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently
with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen
to
a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

Right, got any tips to achieve a response fairly close to flat? I know it
depends on this and that, but where would be a good place to start?


"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote in message
...
No "equalization" generally does not result in flat response.

Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love
it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently
with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to
a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

Right, got any tips to achieve a response fairly close to flat? I know it
depends on this and that, but where would be a good place to start?

Get an EQ and have it RTA'd to flat. Then when you're done, adjust the EQ
so it sounds good to you instead.

Why are you obsessed with obtaining a flat freq response? It usually
sounds terrible. I would imagine most people enjoy coloration in sound
reproduction. Even in recording studios, if they achieved perfectly
flat response, everyone will be playing it back on a different system,
under different conditions. So they try to go for flat so the
coloration is not due to the recording. However I digress, as most
recordings are highly influenced by their intended audience.

This is like saying "yeah Dynaudios and Focal are great". How in hell
can one person like that much variance in sound? The two sound
completely different, yet there is a coloration exhibited by each that
appeals to a single individual while avoiding the colorations that
this individual finds offensive.

Oh well, I'm still curious as to your aspirations though.

Paul Hanley

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:48:45 -0400, "Sonoman"
wrote:

I use alpine ERE-G180. Mainly for sub level.


"alon levy" wrote in message
ws.com...
i set my eq on flat most of the time but latly i started reducing the
800-4000 hz curves just a bit (2-4 db) now the sound is even better.
give it a try.

also tell me what kind of eq your using?
--
alon levy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!
View this thread:
http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb2/sh...hreadid=151393

Damn you're confrontational today!

Yes, and my next sentence was that each has a coloration that appeals
to even a single person without the offensive qualities that some
exhibit.

Go to sleep already will ya!

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:43:38 -0400, "Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:

This is like saying "yeah Dynaudios and Focal are great". How in hell
can one person like that much variance in sound?

I like both.

I do as well for differet reason. However, in the house, I like the
Dyns for thie unbelieveable ability to produce basss from a 7"
speaker. Even the cheap units ( I have a pair of Audience 50s) do a
great job. However, I think they SUCK at imaging and transparency.

I've also heard the Focal polyglass line n the MTM config, whose
tweets were not as smooth as the Dyns in my somewhat live listening
room, but have a different bass quality. Actually, the Dyns are the
ones with a strange bass quality to them. Sort of dry, not just tight
which they are as well.

I haven't heard either one in a mobile environment.

On another note, I wonder what those ADS 235 coaxials that mainstreet
is selling for $139.00/pr would sound like as mini monitors! Sort of a
KEF type configurations (coincident drivers).

Paul

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:43:38 -0400, "Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:

This is like saying "yeah Dynaudios and Focal are great". How in hell
can one person like that much variance in sound?

I like both.

Bwahaha! I'm here only to annoy...

--
Mark Zarella
zarellam at upstate dot edu


"Paul Hanley" wrote in message
...
Damn you're confrontational today!

Yes, and my next sentence was that each has a coloration that appeals
to even a single person without the offensive qualities that some
exhibit.

Go to sleep already will ya!

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:43:38 -0400, "Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:

This is like saying "yeah Dynaudios and Focal are great". How in hell
can one person like that much variance in sound?

I like both.

But if your sound 'is' flat on a RTA - then you 'are' using equalization to
some degree to achieve it, (unless you have some sort of magic car that has
no cabin gain)...

n8


Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love
it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

But what are you listening to?? Talk radio?
When music is mastered at a production facility, volume levels are set for
the individual instruments and vocals... By adjusting for a flat RTA
response - your altering the way the sound was meant to be heard...

n8



If you EQ a speaker 'flat' in the near or direct field that is perfectly
correct. But if you then measure that same speaker in the farfield you'll
find
that it has downward slope at the listening position.

So "flat' is a relative term. Smooth octave to octave balance coupled
with
proper far-field bass-to-treble balance and spectral shape makes for
better
sound.

nevermind me - newsgroup reader 'just' realized there was allready several
replies to this post...
"Back to the time machine..."

n8



But if your sound 'is' flat on a RTA - then you 'are' using equalization
to
some degree to achieve it, (unless you have some sort of magic car that
has
no cabin gain)...

n8


Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love
it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently
with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to
a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

nevermind me - newsgroup reader 'just' realized there was allready several
replies to this post...
"Back to the time machine..."

n8


But what are you listening to?? Talk radio?
When music is mastered at a production facility, volume levels are set for
the individual instruments and vocals... By adjusting for a flat RTA
response - your altering the way the sound was meant to be heard...

n8



If you EQ a speaker 'flat' in the near or direct field that is perfectly
correct. But if you then measure that same speaker in the farfield
you'll
find
that it has downward slope at the listening position.

So "flat' is a relative term. Smooth octave to octave balance coupled
with
proper far-field bass-to-treble balance and spectral shape makes for
better
sound.

Regards,
Joe

Joe B perhaps? :-)

Mike

(Mike) wrote in news:20030725025252.21545.00000781@mb-
m07.aol.com:


Regards,
Joe

Joe B perhaps? :-)

Mike

Hi, Mike!

I am not obsessed with obtaining a flat response. I have been listening to
my system with the equalizer off (exept for the sub control) and in black
out mode (bass and treble set to null) on the alpine hu. I though it sounded
great when cranking, so I wanted to find out what people thought about it
(Why am I repeating myself?).

"Paul Hanley" wrote in message
...
Why are you obsessed with obtaining a flat freq response? It usually
sounds terrible.

No, it does not.

I would imagine most people enjoy coloration in sound
reproduction.

Right, I am experimenting with the coloration in my system.

Even in recording studios, if they achieved perfectly
flat response, everyone will be playing it back on a different system,
under different conditions. So they try to go for flat so the
coloration is not due to the recording. However I digress, as most
recordings are highly influenced by their intended audience.

This is like saying "yeah Dynaudios and Focal are great". How in hell
can one person like that much variance in sound? The two sound
completely different, yet there is a coloration exhibited by each that
appeals to a single individual while avoiding the colorations that
this individual finds offensive.

Oh well, I'm still curious as to your aspirations though.

I hope that answers your question.


Paul Hanley

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:48:45 -0400, "Sonoman"
wrote:

I use alpine ERE-G180. Mainly for sub level.


"alon levy" wrote in
message
ws.com...
i set my eq on flat most of the time but latly i started reducing the
800-4000 hz curves just a bit (2-4 db) now the sound is even better.
give it a try.

also tell me what kind of eq your using?
--
alon levy

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!
View this thread:
http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb2/sh...hreadid=151393

Like the KEF 101's (uni-q). I used to have a pair of those. Paired with a
sub they are excellent speakers. Sold them to get a pair of logans (aerius).
No regrets.


"Paul Hanley" wrote in message
...
I do as well for differet reason. However, in the house, I like the
Dyns for thie unbelieveable ability to produce basss from a 7"
speaker. Even the cheap units ( I have a pair of Audience 50s) do a
great job. However, I think they SUCK at imaging and transparency.

I've also heard the Focal polyglass line n the MTM config, whose
tweets were not as smooth as the Dyns in my somewhat live listening
room, but have a different bass quality. Actually, the Dyns are the
ones with a strange bass quality to them. Sort of dry, not just tight
which they are as well.

I haven't heard either one in a mobile environment.

On another note, I wonder what those ADS 235 coaxials that mainstreet
is selling for $139.00/pr would sound like as mini monitors! Sort of a
KEF type configurations (coincident drivers).

Paul

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:43:38 -0400, "Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:

This is like saying "yeah Dynaudios and Focal are great". How in hell
can one person like that much variance in sound?

I like both.

A. isn't pink noise supposed to be a "flat" sound? i.e. all frequencies
at
the same level?

No. That's white noise.

B. if it is a flat sound... then wouldn't it to go point that to hear the
original coloration in music, a flat RTA curve when inputing pink noise
would be accurate to reproduce said recorded music (not accounting for
cabin
gain and other accoustical properties in a car?)

Not really. That assumes two things: a) that your tastes are the same as
everybody else's, including the engineers; b) that the engineers' goal is to
produce the best quality sound. Both are generally not the case.

C. Therefore going flat with a pink noise track would be the purist's way
of listening to their music?

The purist way is to adjust it until it sounds best to you. RTAs are
utterly useless.

Why are you obsessed with obtaining a flat freq response? It usually
sounds terrible.

No, it does not.

It depends ENTIRELY on the cd that you're listening to. However, the notion
that flat freq response is usually considered the best for even a small
percentage of a typical listener's cd collection is a bit far-fetched. And
this is yet another reason why trunk-mount EQs are stupid, but that's
another topic...

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote in message
...
Why are you obsessed with obtaining a flat freq response? It usually
sounds terrible.

No, it does not.

It depends ENTIRELY on the cd that you're listening to. However, the
notion
that flat freq response is usually considered the best for even a small
percentage of a typical listener's cd collection is a bit far-fetched.
And
this is yet another reason why trunk-mount EQs are stupid, but that's
another topic...



If i did a system that was so bad that i needed a trunk mounted eq to make
it sound good,i'd rip it all out and start over.

Hi,
My home stereo has one button which gets rid of tone stack
(eq). Good feature to check quality of source material.
Tony



Sonoman wrote:

Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

When I installed my new system, I was really dissappointed at how ear
piercing the high frequencies were with my new components. What I
realized just the other day, was that the mid range on my EQ (10 band EQ
in my case) was too low. I have always listened to my music with the
lows and highs cranked up, with the mids in the lower positions. Well
.... when I brought the mids closer to 'flat', I was able to turn the
volume down, and obtain less ear piercing (what sounded to me like) high
frequencies. I also found out that my EQ has something called a
parametric EQ in it ... not sure what it does, but by turning it down,
my sub woofer was not over powering the rest of the music. So far, I
like the balance I have achieved.

says...
Every now and then I set my system flat (the alternative is minor
equalization). I have had my system flat now for a few weeks and I love it,
specially when cranking. How many people have their systems currently with
no equalization? I would like to find out how common it is to listen to a
flat signal coming out of t your speakers?

says...
Parametric eq is good. Not only does it let you change the effected
frequency and level, it lets you change the slope. On a graphic eq,
the frequency and slope are fixed. Only thing you can change is the
level (db).

I need to see more on the parametric EQ ... I don't think I really
understand what it does.

In article ,
Mike Sims wrote:

says...
Parametric eq is good. Not only does it let you change the effected
frequency and level, it lets you change the slope. On a graphic eq,
the frequency and slope are fixed. Only thing you can change is the
level (db).

I need to see more on the parametric EQ ... I don't think I really
understand what it does.


It would be like if the standard EQ controls slid sideways along the
frequency axis too. A parametric EQ targets very specific changes in
the sound. It's something you use to tune your system as a whole.
Tweaks from one CD to another is still best handled by a standard EQ.

says...

It's a standard graphic EQ with one parametric EQ band to tune in or out
a selectable bass frequency between 40 to 80 Hz. A dedicated parametric
EQ would have several channels and it might also have bandwidth
adjustments for each channel.

I guess what I'm getting at, is where is the newbie faq on Parametric
EQ's? I have no clue what this thing does at a technical level,
compared to what the standard EQ sliders do.

Check this out: http://www.rane.com/note122.html

Not exactly a 'newbie' FAQ, but it might help you to understand things
a bit better.

Regards,
Joe


Mike Sims wrote in
:

says...

It's a standard graphic EQ with one parametric EQ band to tune in
or out a selectable bass frequency between 40 to 80 Hz. A
dedicated parametric EQ would have several channels and it might
also have bandwidth adjustments for each channel.

I guess what I'm getting at, is where is the newbie faq on
Parametric EQ's? I have no clue what this thing does at a technical
level, compared to what the standard EQ sliders do.

Have you tried this site?

http://www.eatel.net/~amptech/elecdisc/caraudio.htm

There's an eq section...and every other section too!


"Mike Sims" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Check this out: http://www.rane.com/note122.html

Not exactly a 'newbie' FAQ, but it might help you to understand things
a bit better.

Nice article, but even it assumes a level of knowledge when it comes to
various terminology. I sort of understand the function of a parametric
EQ, and got the idea that you normally have one P.EQ for each band on
the EQ.

I need some book recommendations. I have an electronics degree, and
have been an audio nut since 1986, but I really think I need to somehow
put the words to the sound ... looking at the graphs and what not really
does no good when you cannot perceive what the signal will sound like
before and after the given graph.

Make sense?

Know any good books for entry level audio engineering?

Hi Mark,

HURRAH. Some sense on this newsgroup... how refreshing...

muffbuster (owns an RTA, but never took it in the car...)

In article , Mark Zarella wrote:

C. Therefore going flat with a pink noise track would be the purist's way
of listening to their music?

The purist way is to adjust it until it sounds best to you. RTAs are
utterly useless.

Hi Joe,

I have to disagree with you here...

I'm not exactly a purist, but I am fussy about reproducing what's on
the recording.

And that's what you're actually buying... the recording. Your system
doesn't care about the mics, the room, or the recording equipment. It
only cares about what it's being fed... that is, the sound of the
recording. The artist has the control over everything that goes into
the CD and they should do their best to "capture" the essence of the
performance.

I'm far more interested in making sure that the recording sounds as
good as it can... based on making my system as close as possible to the
proverbial "straight wire with gain." Since speakers are not capable of
reproducing *exactly* what they are fed- especially in a car with its
problems with speaker location, eq is a "crutch" that brings us closer
to reproducing the recording...

Just my 4 cents worth.

smiles,
Jamie

In article , Joe
wrote:

True. Everything's colored, especially with today's synthesized mixes
and productions. The concept of "flat" really goes back to
reproducing a live sound without coloration.

Consider a trio - a drum set, an acoustic piano, and an upright bass.
The idea of "flat" is being able to reproduce the same sound from a
recording that you heard when the trio played live. This can only
happen if the microphones used for recording had an absolutely flat
response, the room acoustics were perfect, the position of the perfect
microphones was perfect, and the recording equipment itself had no
tonal effect on the recording. A virtually impossible environment.
So much for the purist's "true flat".

Hi Mike,

I guess I'll take a shot here.

The EQ control on your unit is *not* a parametric control, it's
referred to as a paragraphic control.

Paragraphic EQs allow the user to affect two parameters:

Level (how loud it is)
Frequency (what frequency is the center frequency of the control)

You installed this paragraphic EQ. It has an adjustable bass control.
You want to boost the Low Boom of your system, so you set it to 40 Hz
and crank it up.

That's it. You hear it more at 80 Hz because there is more musical
information at 80 Hz in most music and it's relatively easy to
reproduce the frequencies around 80 Hz compared to 40.

A parametric EQ includes another parameter:

Q

Q is a measure of how wide (low Q) or narrow (high Q) the spread of
affected frequencies is for the EQ. Here are two examples:

Bill installs a parametric EQ. He wants to add some bass, but he does
not want the increase in bass to affect the midbass. He sets the
Frequency to 40 Hz and the Q to a medium number so that when he adjusts
the EQ to a higher level, it does not affect his midbass.

Harry installs a parametric EQ. He wants to take out a really sharp
peak in response around 4KHz. The peak is centered at 4 KHz, but only
has a 200 Hz spread (that is from 3900 to 4100.) He sets the frequency
to 4 KHz and cranks the Q way up to tighten the spread of frequencies.
He then lowers the level of that band to take out the peak without
affecting too much of the sound outside the affected area.

Tom installs a parametric EQ. His system has a depressed midrange from
1000 to 4000 Hz. He sets his frequency to 2500 and sets the Q to a
relatively low number. Now, when he adjusts the control, it affects the
entire midrange with a very broad spread of affected frequencies.

I hope this makes sense. Parametric EQs are very powerful tools, but
you really have to understand how they work to get the most out of
them. Paragraphic controls are much easier to work with, but don't
quite have the same power to change how the system sounds.

YMMV.

muffbuster


In article , Mike Sims
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Check this out: http://www.rane.com/note122.html

Not exactly a 'newbie' FAQ, but it might help you to understand things
a bit better.

Nice article, but even it assumes a level of knowledge when it comes to
various terminology. I sort of understand the function of a parametric
EQ, and got the idea that you normally have one P.EQ for each band on
the EQ.

I need some book recommendations. I have an electronics degree, and
have been an audio nut since 1986, but I really think I need to somehow
put the words to the sound ... looking at the graphs and what not really
does no good when you cannot perceive what the signal will sound like
before and after the given graph.

Make sense?

Know any good books for entry level audio engineering?

This all makes the assumption that "ideal" is what the engineers say it is.
However, this is usually not true, as much of today's music is geared
towards the radio crowd.

--
Mark Zarella
zarellam at upstate dot edu


"muffbuster" wrote in message
...
Hi Joe,

I have to disagree with you here...

I'm not exactly a purist, but I am fussy about reproducing what's on
the recording.

And that's what you're actually buying... the recording. Your system
doesn't care about the mics, the room, or the recording equipment. It
only cares about what it's being fed... that is, the sound of the
recording. The artist has the control over everything that goes into
the CD and they should do their best to "capture" the essence of the
performance.

I'm far more interested in making sure that the recording sounds as
good as it can... based on making my system as close as possible to the
proverbial "straight wire with gain." Since speakers are not capable of
reproducing *exactly* what they are fed- especially in a car with its
problems with speaker location, eq is a "crutch" that brings us closer
to reproducing the recording...

Just my 4 cents worth.

smiles,
Jamie

In article , Joe
wrote:

True. Everything's colored, especially with today's synthesized mixes
and productions. The concept of "flat" really goes back to
reproducing a live sound without coloration.

Consider a trio - a drum set, an acoustic piano, and an upright bass.
The idea of "flat" is being able to reproduce the same sound from a
recording that you heard when the trio played live. This can only
happen if the microphones used for recording had an absolutely flat
response, the room acoustics were perfect, the position of the perfect
microphones was perfect, and the recording equipment itself had no
tonal effect on the recording. A virtually impossible environment.
So much for the purist's "true flat".

Hey Muff!

says...

Q is a measure of how wide (low Q) or narrow (high Q) the spread of
affected frequencies is for the EQ. Here are two examples:

This sounds familiar (Q) ... Its been a while since my last electronics
class, but I recall this in my radio communications class (I think).

Harry installs a parametric EQ. He wants to take out a really sharp
peak in response around 4KHz. The peak is centered at 4 KHz, but only
has a 200 Hz spread (that is from 3900 to 4100.) He sets the frequency
to 4 KHz and cranks the Q way up to tighten the spread of frequencies.
He then lowers the level of that band to take out the peak without
affecting too much of the sound outside the affected area.

That is simply bitchen!

I hope this makes sense. Parametric EQs are very powerful tools, but
you really have to understand how they work to get the most out of
them. Paragraphic controls are much easier to work with, but don't
quite have the same power to change how the system sounds.

Indeed ... I think I should look into a parametric EQ for my system. For
some reason, my speakers reproduce some (literally) painful high
frequencies ... it seems to be within the third slider from the right on
my EQ (10k maybe?), but taking that slider all the way down affects the
rest of the audio, and it is difficult to find the balance I want.

Any recommendations on a good parametric EQ?

muffbuster wrote in
:

Hi Joe,

I have to disagree with you here...

I'm not exactly a purist, but I am fussy about reproducing what's on
the recording.

And that's what you're actually buying... the recording. Your system
doesn't care about the mics, the room, or the recording equipment.
It only cares about what it's being fed... that is, the sound of the
recording.

OK, but I think we have different reference points as to what "flat"
is. I'm comparing the original live performance to what you'll hear
over your system. I think you're comparing the original _recording_
to what you'll hear over your system.

The artist has the control over everything that goes into
the CD and they should do their best to "capture" the essence of the
performance.

Depending on the artist's contract, that may or may not be true. Some
artists have very little input as to what the final recording will
sound like. It's really up to the producer and management team.

I'm far more interested in making sure that the recording sounds as
good as it can... based on making my system as close as possible to
the proverbial "straight wire with gain." Since speakers are not
capable of reproducing *exactly* what they are fed- especially in a
car with its problems with speaker location, eq is a "crutch" that
brings us closer to reproducing the recording...

Just my 4 cents worth.

smiles,
Jamie

Jamie, I generally agree with you, but I've heard recordings that
absolutely suck in terms of tonal balance, eq, etc. If these
recordings were played on a truly flat system, they'd sound horrible.
So sometimes it's desirable to be able to _not_ reproduce that
straight wire and effect it to your taste.

Regards,
Joe


In article , Joe
wrote:

True. Everything's colored, especially with today's synthesized
mixes and productions. The concept of "flat" really goes back to
reproducing a live sound without coloration.

Consider a trio - a drum set, an acoustic piano, and an upright
bass. The idea of "flat" is being able to reproduce the same sound
from a recording that you heard when the trio played live. This
can only happen if the microphones used for recording had an
absolutely flat response, the room acoustics were perfect, the
position of the perfect microphones was perfect, and the recording
equipment itself had no tonal effect on the recording. A virtually
impossible environment. So much for the purist's "true flat".

Not to mention the fact that a lot of producers/engineers simply do a
bad job.

Regards,
Joe


"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote in
:

This all makes the assumption that "ideal" is what the engineers say
it is. However, this is usually not true, as much of today's music
is geared towards the radio crowd.

--
Mark Zarella
zarellam at upstate dot edu


"muffbuster" wrote in message
...
Hi Joe,

I have to disagree with you here...

I'm not exactly a purist, but I am fussy about reproducing what's
on the recording.

And that's what you're actually buying... the recording. Your
system doesn't care about the mics, the room, or the recording
equipment. It only cares about what it's being fed... that is, the
sound of the recording. The artist has the control over everything
that goes into the CD and they should do their best to "capture"
the essence of the performance.

I'm far more interested in making sure that the recording sounds as
good as it can... based on making my system as close as possible to
the proverbial "straight wire with gain." Since speakers are not
capable of reproducing *exactly* what they are fed- especially in a
car with its problems with speaker location, eq is a "crutch" that
brings us closer to reproducing the recording...

Just my 4 cents worth.

smiles,
Jamie

In article , Joe
wrote:

True. Everything's colored, especially with today's synthesized
mixes and productions. The concept of "flat" really goes back to
reproducing a live sound without coloration.

Consider a trio - a drum set, an acoustic piano, and an upright
bass. The idea of "flat" is being able to reproduce the same
sound from a recording that you heard when the trio played live.
This can only happen if the microphones used for recording had an
absolutely flat response, the room acoustics were perfect, the
position of the perfect microphones was perfect, and the
recording equipment itself had no tonal effect on the recording.
A virtually impossible environment. So much for the purist's
"true flat".

Indeed ... I think I should look into a parametric EQ for my system. For
some reason, my speakers reproduce some (literally) painful high
frequencies ... it seems to be within the third slider from the right on
my EQ (10k maybe?), but taking that slider all the way down affects the
rest of the audio, and it is difficult to find the balance I want.

Sometimes the tonal quality of the speakers themselves or their installation
is very difficult to overcome with an EQ. You may want to give the
installation another try, or even try throwing a different set of speakers
in there at least for testing purposes. What speakers are you using anyway?

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile says...
Indeed ... I think I should look into a parametric EQ for my system. For
some reason, my speakers reproduce some (literally) painful high
frequencies ... it seems to be within the third slider from the right on
my EQ (10k maybe?), but taking that slider all the way down affects the
rest of the audio, and it is difficult to find the balance I want.

Sometimes the tonal quality of the speakers themselves or their installation
is very difficult to overcome with an EQ. You may want to give the
installation another try,

Ummm ... I already cut my door panels ... are you suggesting that I
actually move the tweeters somewhere else?

or even try throwing a different set of speakers
in there at least for testing purposes.

I would need access to some to test.

What speakers are you using anyway?

I am using the Diamond Audio M661 component speakers.

Sometimes the tonal quality of the speakers themselves or their
installation
is very difficult to overcome with an EQ. You may want to give the
installation another try,

Ummm ... I already cut my door panels ... are you suggesting that I
actually move the tweeters somewhere else?

This is why you always test before cutting!


or even try throwing a different set of speakers
in there at least for testing purposes.

I would need access to some to test.

Circuit City and Best Buy both have 30 day return policies.

What speakers are you using anyway?

I am using the Diamond Audio M661 component speakers.

That would explain it. If you're sensitive to highs like I am, I hope you
don't have those things on-axis...