| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Trevor
You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog
equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
Robert Morein wrote: You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. With some trepidation I will post an answer from a consumer with no technical competence. I've been buying and trying analogue equalisers for some 30 years including a semiprofessional 1/3 octave Yamaha and a professional defunct Olsson. They did equalise but in every case it was a relief to get rid of them. I could *hear* them. No DBT, no ABX a completely subjective response. Taking it out was a change for cleaner sound. It is true though that I may have been amplifying indisreetly. Situation is entirely different with my two Behringer digital equalisers. I was introduced to them by Roger Sanders of the "Inner Ear" and am still grateful to him. I can not hear them over and above the audio chain and though I do not exceed + 3db. nowadays, I used to do so, and still could equalise all I wanted. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. I essentially agree with all of the above. A nice change. With some trepidation I will post an answer from a consumer with no technical competence. I've been buying and trying analogue equalisers for some 30 years including a semiprofessional 1/3 octave Yamaha and a professional defunct Olsson. They did equalise but in every case it was a relief to get rid of them. I could *hear* them. No DBT, no ABX a completely subjective response. Certainly no ABX or DBT would be warranted for determing the differnce between the before and after effects of an Equalizer, since the differnces would be gross. It would be interseting to see what sort of perfromance specs they had in terms of dynamic range and signal to noise, etc. Taking it out was a change for cleaner sound. It is true though that I may have been amplifying indisreetly. I assume from this you mean boosting the various frequency bands, correct? If this is so, it is not surprizing that you didin't like the results, since it is very likely that you never got near flat response. Situation is entirely different with my two Behringer digital equalisers. I was introduced to them by Roger Sanders of the "Inner Ear" and am still grateful to him. I can not hear them over and above the audio chain and though I do not exceed + 3db. nowadays, I used to do so, and still could equalise all I wanted. Ludovic Mirabel Would it be correct to assume that in the case of the Behringer's you used some sort of SPL meter to achieve the end results? I would be very surprised if there weren't some room for further correction somewhere in the bass region around 40-60 Hz and probably in the neighborhood of 100 Hz, as typical rooms seem to show boost in those areas. If you have a meter and tones check them and especially if you have a subwoofer, you will likely find you can cut them and suffer no problems. This should allow your sub to play louder when needed and remove any trace of boominess which so many people seem to complain about when they install a sub. Do the Behringer's have memory for the curves you generate? If so any experimentation that you don't like could easily be changed and the original curves restored. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable improvements. Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. I essentially agree with all of the above. A nice change. With some trepidation I will post an answer from a consumer with no technical competence. I've been buying and trying analogue equalisers for some 30 years including a semiprofessional 1/3 octave Yamaha and a professional defunct Olsson. They did equalise but in every case it was a relief to get rid of them. I could *hear* them. No DBT, no ABX a completely subjective response. Certainly no ABX or DBT would be warranted for determing the differnce between the before and after effects of an Equalizer, since the differnces would be gross. It would be interseting to see what sort of perfromance specs they had in terms of dynamic range and signal to noise, etc. Taking it out was a change for cleaner sound. It is true though that I may have been amplifying indisreetly. I assume from this you mean boosting the various frequency bands, correct? If this is so, it is not surprizing that you didin't like the results, since it is very likely that you never got near flat response. Situation is entirely different with my two Behringer digital equalisers. I was introduced to them by Roger Sanders of the "Inner Ear" and am still grateful to him. I can not hear them over and above the audio chain and though I do not exceed + 3db. nowadays, I used to do so, and still could equalise all I wanted. Ludovic Mirabel Would it be correct to assume that in the case of the Behringer's you used some sort of SPL meter to achieve the end results? I would be very surprised if there weren't some room for further correction somewhere in the bass region around 40-60 Hz and probably in the neighborhood of 100 Hz, as typical rooms seem to show boost in those areas. If you have a meter and tones check them and especially if you have a subwoofer, you will likely find you can cut them and suffer no problems. This should allow your sub to play louder when needed and remove any trace of boominess which so many people seem to complain about when they install a sub. Do the Behringer's have memory for the curves you generate? If so any experimentation that you don't like could easily be changed and the original curves restored. I use 2 of these http://www.behringer.com/DSP8024/index.cfm?lang=ENG and yes they have 99 memories. I use one as an analyser and the other to control the bass in 2 subs. My room has a bass hump at about 42Hz and dip at about 69Hz. Conventional methods of adjustments (as you rightly pointed out) produced unacceptable boom. What is also a pleasant feature is that I can control them with a laptop sitting at my listening position. It takes over fully all of the functions of pre-sets, memory and adjustments. It will also A-B the original setting and the adjusted one so you can do comparisons. The only downside to these units is that their potential far outstrips my abilities to use them ;-) BTW One day I had a play with the spare unit and used it as a full range unit on my main speakers and with the ability to "clean up" and re-EQ bad recordings I found that I was starting to do it for each individual track on an album. Mmmmm.... you can get carried away with these and lose sight of what you are actually doing. i.e listening to music or running a recording studio ;-) Cheers TT |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all. We were not discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were discussing high end equipment. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable improvements. **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments. Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? **Nope. But I do know what sounds best. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls. But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO! If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all. More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only help. We were not discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were discussing high end equipment. Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to experiment with. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win. You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up with anything more than anecdote. If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable improvements. **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments. Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters, because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and they all conform you arre wrong. Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong? Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? **Nope. But I do know what sounds best. FOR YOU! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:57:00 +0800, "TT"
wrote: What is also a pleasant feature is that I can control them with a laptop sitting at my listening position. It takes over fully all of the functions of pre-sets, memory and adjustments. It will also A-B the original setting and the adjusted one so you can do comparisons. The only downside to these units is that their potential far outstrips my abilities to use them ;-) How useful do you think they would be as a "bass control" to regularly change bass levels for different recordings? Of course this needs to be quite convenient - no laptop required. 8) |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room correction). |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:22:33 GMT, wrote:
Simple defeatable tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned. Right on! |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room correction). I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted bass? One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly simple flexible parametric EQ. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote...
Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? Jeez, Mike, why are you acting like an asshole? Do you feel like since you and Arny and the bicycle grease monkey can't hear differences, and ABX supports your theories, you're above everyone with an differing opinion? What are you going to do if we discover the earth isn't flat, apologize? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:57:00 +0800, "TT" wrote: What is also a pleasant feature is that I can control them with a laptop sitting at my listening position. It takes over fully all of the functions of pre-sets, memory and adjustments. It will also A-B the original setting and the adjusted one so you can do comparisons. The only downside to these units is that their potential far outstrips my abilities to use them ;-) How useful do you think they would be as a "bass control" to regularly change bass levels for different recordings? Of course this needs to be quite convenient - no laptop required. 8) I primarily use one for bass control and once set to optimise the room acoustics I then use the receiver's sub control to change the level (volume). BTW I did see one pic on the net about a guy's set up that had long interconnects and one of these sat on a table next to his listening position. Neat idea I thought. Also with 99 pre-sets and IIRC 7 digit naming you could list settings by album and track number. Regards TT Cheers TT |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"surf" wrote in message ... wrote... Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? Jeez, Mike, why are you acting like an asshole? When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein, I might start to give a ****. Your moral outrage seems just a bit feigned right now. Do you feel like since you and Arny and the bicycle grease monkey can't hear differences, and ABX supports your theories, you're above everyone with an differing opinion? I think that when people are presented with reliable, repeatable, sound evidence, that it ought to warrant consideration at least, and a cessation of sweeping statements entirely. Basing conslusions on 1 instance from 20 years ago sees just a bit much. What are you going to do if we discover the earth isn't flat, apologize? Obligatory snot flinging noted. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message nk.net... "surf" wrote in message ... wrote... Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? Jeez, Mike, why are you acting like an asshole? Because he is one. He is not talented enough to hide his true nature. When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein, I might start to give a ****. Your moral outrage seems just a bit feigned right now. Pot calling kettle black, noted. Do you feel like since you and Arny and the bicycle grease monkey can't hear differences, and ABX supports your theories, you're above everyone with an differing opinion? I think that when people are presented with reliable, repeatable, sound evidence, that it ought to warrant consideration at least, and a cessation of sweeping statements entirely. The best evidence is that provided by Ludovic, which suggests strongly that ABX does not work for hifi comparisons. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. .. .. .. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I'm finding it an interesting mode of expression, sort of like the messaging kids do with the tiny phone keypads. We could assign about 25 numbers to each of Krueger's stock expressions. A reply could be as simple as, "15, 9, 13", which translated, would mean something like, "Been there, done that. Failure to blah noted. X needs to buy a clue about audio." |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I'm finding it an interesting mode of expression, sort of like massaging a woman with tiny pads. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls. But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO! If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all. More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only help. We were not discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were discussing high end equipment. Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to experiment with. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win. You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up with anything more than anecdote. If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable improvements. **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments. Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters, because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, without any problem perceived by you. It simply means you cannot tell the difference, which is fine. But you should not attempt to promote the RS meter as a good solution, since many people are more sensitive to differences of this nature. Or do you conceitedly believe that your hearing is better than most audiophiles? |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. POS calling person ****, noted. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
Clyde Slick said: If irony killed. .... then Mickey would not resist the urge to flush when he looks in the mirror. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. Ah yes, #14 in the Kruegarium. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:37:12 GMT, wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room correction). I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted bass? Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak. And this is't my system. This is on all systems that I've heard in my lifetime. One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly simple flexible parametric EQ. Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a "high end" stereo... |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT"
wrote: "dizzy" wrote: How useful do you think they would be as a "bass control" to regularly change bass levels for different recordings? Of course this needs to be quite convenient - no laptop required. 8) I primarily use one for bass control and once set to optimise the room acoustics I then use the receiver's sub control to change the level (volume). In other words, it would not work well for what I described. Oh well, you gain features, you lose convenience, usually... |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. Ah yes, #14 in the Kruegarium. Does Kruegarium trump Schopenhauer? |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. Then I'd be one of the few left alive. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. Then I'd be one of the few left alive. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were just the two of us, sweetie? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. Then I'd be one of the few left alive. Sorry, I thought you were MArgaret. Your just not my type. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"dizzy" wrote in message news  On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:37:12 GMT, wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room correction). I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted bass? Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't boost it. That's why I think a real 1/3 octave EQ that you set once and forget, is an item that might be good for your system. If you don't have a sub or a system that can get you down to the 20 Hz range, you should have one. Get it EQ'd so that you know it's as flat ass possible, then see what stuff sounds like. Sometimes there just isn't a lot of bass in a particular recording because it's wasn't used. My preference is to have the system capable of flat response and then hear what was recorded. I very seldom touch any tone control other than for the reasons I've previously mentioned, hissy FM and so on. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are just so light on the bass. Not every bit of music or every musician feels the need. Solo guitar for example, or folk music, just to name a couple. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak. For pop music, yes there tends to be palaple bass. And this is't my system. This is on all systems that I've heard in my lifetime. Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response. One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly simple flexible parametric EQ. Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a "high end" stereo... Which high end? The one made up of snobs who think any form of active EQ is bad or the one made up of people who know what a systme is supposed to do, and use reasonable means to get it done. My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's own tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to be applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass. The unit he http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste when you think bass is lacking. Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content for the type ofsound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see what the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and engineer agreed). |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:21:00 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
wrote: Then I'd be one of the few left alive. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were just the two of us, sweetie? ! |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:21:00 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: wrote: Then I'd be one of the few left alive. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were just the two of us, sweetie? ! I thought it was Maggie, I just can't get her out of my mind. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls. But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO! **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In what way/s? If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all. More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only help. **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment. We were not discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were discussing high end equipment. Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned. **Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to experiment with. **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win. You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up with anything more than anecdote. **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the following: * Select a room. * Measure that room's physical dimensions. * Measure the room's problems. * Correct those problems with "simple tone controls" * Post ALL the data here. If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable improvements. **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments. Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters, **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important, calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected. because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and they all conform you arre wrong. **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No argument from me. Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong? **When will you stop beating your wife? Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? **Nope. But I do know what sounds best. FOR YOU! **Accuracy is best. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message ink.net... "dizzy" wrote in message news On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:37:12 GMT, wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. Which is one reason why the humble set of bass/treble controls is so useful (for boosting bass on bass-light recordings, not for room correction). I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted bass? Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't boost it. That's why I think a real 1/3 octave EQ that you set once and forget, is an item that might be good for your system. If you don't have a sub or a system that can get you down to the 20 Hz range, you should have one. Get it EQ'd so that you know it's as flat ass possible, then see what stuff sounds like. Sometimes there just isn't a lot of bass in a particular recording because it's wasn't used. My preference is to have the system capable of flat response and then hear what was recorded. I very seldom touch any tone control other than for the reasons I've previously mentioned, hissy FM and so on. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are just so light on the bass. Not every bit of music or every musician feels the need. Solo guitar for example, or folk music, just to name a couple. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak. For pop music, yes there tends to be palaple bass. And this is't my system. This is on all systems that I've heard in my lifetime. Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response. One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly simple flexible parametric EQ. Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a "high end" stereo... Which high end? The one made up of snobs who think any form of active EQ is bad or the one made up of people who know what a systme is supposed to do, and use reasonable means to get it done. My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's own tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to be applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass. The unit he http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste when you think bass is lacking. Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content for the type ofsound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see what the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and engineer agreed). Mikey, the concept of equalizing for flat room response is not accepted by anybody. Ask Arny for verification of this. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. Then I'd be one of the few left alive. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were just the two of us, sweetie? Only if this became a political rather than audio NG. That might still include Arny and Scott though. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey: When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein Pot calling kettle black, noted. Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is still further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is. I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one. If irony killed. Then I'd be one of the few left alive. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were just the two of us, sweetie? Only if this became a political rather than audio NG. That might still include Arny and Scott though. I thought you were Maggie. I have the hots for her. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls. But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO! **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In what way/s? It had very little then, even less now. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all. More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only help. **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment. We were not discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were discussing high end equipment. Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned. **Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system. That's still your opinion. They still should be available and they were never intended for correcting room problems. They were more likely meant to compensate for the poor quality speakers of the day. Still for taming FM hiss and the noise from poorly recorded or cared for LP's they have a purpose. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to experiment with. **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ. No arguement there, but you seem to think that they are beyond the capability of the average person, when in fact all you have to do is be able to follow simple directions. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win. You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up with anything more than anecdote. **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the following: * Select a room. * Measure that room's physical dimensions. * Measure the room's problems. * Correct those problems with "simple tone controls" * Post ALL the data here. The point is not about whether they can solve all the problems but if they are useless or not. They are far from useless if they make things sound better and IMO they can and have done. If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable improvements. **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments. Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters, **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important, calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected. Are you blind? I've posted multiple example of people who disagree with you and have done the measurements to back it up. You are simply and completely wrong. because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and they all conform you arre wrong. **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No argument from me. With the corrections added in they are definitely accurate enough to make a 1/3 octave EQ make a major improvement in the sound of anybody's system. I know becuase I've done so. Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong? **When will you stop beating your wife? So, you still refuse to add anyting of any possoble use, you prefer being a prissy little ****. Everything I've posted on this subject has been with the aim of helping someone who wants to do an EQ. You have done nothing but bitch and moan about how it's impossible to do so. BTW plenty of knowldegabel people disagree with you on where to put the mic. Where do figure the best place(s) to put it for an WQ are? Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? **Nope. But I do know what sounds best. FOR YOU! **Accuracy is best. Which is sometimes not possible without an EQ. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question for Trevor
wrote in message k.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of analog equalizers, versus digital ones. Why is your opinion so strong? **Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so much. Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY years ago. **Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls. But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO! **So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In what way/s? It had very little then, even less now. If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment. **Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all. More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only help. **Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment. We were not discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were discussing high end equipment. Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned. **Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system. That's still your opinion. They still should be available and they were never intended for correcting room problems. They were more likely meant to compensate for the poor quality speakers of the day. Still for taming FM hiss and the noise from poorly recorded or cared for LP's they have a purpose. Even if you are correct that a digital eq is superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem rather small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital eq is substantially more transparent? **Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively transparent. And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to experiment with. **Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ. No arguement there, but you seem to think that they are beyond the capability of the average person, when in fact all you have to do is be able to follow simple directions. In my experience, eqs are among the most transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the cut mode. My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a 1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad recordings listenable, where they may do quite well. **Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not). Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for everybody. **I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win. You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up with anything more than anecdote. **I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the following: * Select a room. * Measure that room's physical dimensions. * Measure the room's problems. * Correct those problems with "simple tone controls" * Post ALL the data here. The point is not about whether they can solve all the problems but if they are useless or not. They are far from useless if they make things sound better and IMO they can and have done. If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not. 2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for consumers to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of an eq anyway. 3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user. This accounts for the lack of popularity. **Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many locales. 4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears. 5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound broken, and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed. 6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that only in this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At higher frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer can be used to benefit. **Yep. 7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far more important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the eq at the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional equipment into a consumer installation. **Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly. I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable improvements. **And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision instruments. Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters, **No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important, calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected. Are you blind? I've posted multiple example of people who disagree with you and have done the measurements to back it up. You are simply and completely wrong. because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and they all conform you arre wrong. **About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No argument from me. With the corrections added in they are definitely accurate enough to make a 1/3 octave EQ make a major improvement in the sound of anybody's system. I know becuase I've done so. Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong? **When will you stop beating your wife? So, you still refuse to add anyting of any possoble use, you prefer being a prissy little ****. Everything I've posted on this subject has been with the aim of helping someone who wants to do an EQ. You have done nothing but bitch and moan about how it's impossible to do so. BTW plenty of knowldegabel people disagree with you on where to put the mic. Where do figure the best place(s) to put it for an WQ are? Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best for everybody? **Nope. But I do know what sounds best. FOR YOU! **Accuracy is best. Which is sometimes not possible without an EQ. Or with one. Ask Arny to explain this to you. "Flat response" is not achievable in a room unless the surfaces are specially constructed. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
