Classical Equalizer Settings
jasonc...@earthlink.net
couldn't find anything in the search engine. Do people have preferences
vis a vis Equalizer settings for classical and opera? I know this is a
personal matter and that many of you will suggest trial and error based
on my own likes and dislikes, but I don't entirely trust my judgment in
these matters--and frankly don't understand the art/science of
Equalizers--and would love some pointers. Obviously, the settings on
iPods are inadequate. And one would probably want different settings
for modern orchestral, HIP, chamber, old mono, old mono sweetened, solo
instrumental, vocal recital, and opera... etc. My speakers, for the
record, are just adequate, although I'm saving up for an SACD at some
point down the road.
Thank you in advance for any advice.
sekhm...@gmail.com
<jasonc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I know this is a
>personal matter and that many of you will suggest trial and error based
>on my own likes and dislikes, but I don't entirely trust my judgment in
>these matters
You have to trust your own judgement. You're the one who's doing the
equalizing for your own listening pleasure.
And it's more than just a matter of likes and dislikes. Your speakers
have their own sound. Your room has its own sound. Each recording is
different. Your situation is utterly unique and no one tell you what to
do about it from a distance.
>and frankly don't understand the art/science of Equalizers
The science is that an equalizer breaks up the audio spectrum into an
number of pieces and gives you control over the relative loudness of
each piece.
If you could break up the light coming from a light bulb into a number
of pieces, each piece would be a different color. Then you could see
that there was too much yellow coming from the light bulb, and turn
down that piece. But if your room had a predominance of green
reflecting surfaces, you might want to turn down green as well.
Similarly, an equalizer gives you control over bass, upper bass, lower
midrange, midrange, etc.
The art of it is that listening to recordings is a exercise in personal
enjoyment. Play with the equalizer. Turn each control all the way up
one at a time, and listen to the sound. Then turn each one all the way
down one at a time and listen to the way that sounds. Then you'll get
an idea of what the equalizer can do and decide whether you want extra
shimmer on the strings or a bass you can wallow in.
And then next week you'll hate the sound and adjust it again.
>And one would probably want different settings
>for modern orchestral, HIP, chamber, old mono, old mono sweetened, solo
>instrumental, vocal recital, and opera... etc.
Theoretically, a perfect recording played over perfect speakers in a
perfect room will sound like the original performance, no matter how
many performers or what type of music. There is no "HIP sound", no
"chamber music sound", no "opera sound". Unless you want there to be.
And only you can decide what those sounds should sound like.
wkas...@comcast.net
jasonc...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I know this is a
> personal matter and that many of you will suggest trial and error based
> on my own likes and dislikes, but I don't entirely trust my judgment in
> these matters--and frankly don't understand the art/science of
> Equalizers--and would love some pointers.
It isn't just a matter of taste - different speakers and particularly
headphones may require different equalization. I know that I have to
modify the equalization on my MP3 MuVo any time I switch headphones.
> Obviously, the settings on iPods are inadequate.
What do iPods have? The Creative has a five band equalizer, which is
good enough for what I use it for.
Bill
Kalman Rubinson
There are no general pointers. Recordings (and ears and brains) vary
too much. I have a sophisticated PEQ in my system which I rarely ever
use. But you are right on one thing: iPods are inadequate. ;-)
Kal
Joe Martin
> > The science is that an equalizer breaks up the audio spectrum into an
> number of pieces and gives you control over the relative loudness of
> each piece.
Another aspect of the 'science' is that an equalizer adds a whole
series of components into the signal path that don't necessarily have
to be there, and generally speaking, that is not a good thing. Unless
you're willing to pay big bucks for high-end components, your equalizer
is probably filled with a series of cheap potentiometers that will only
degrade your signal, not matter what settings you use.
IMO, most lower-cost equipment will sound better if you not only do not
use an equalizer, but bypass the tone and balance controls (and thus
eliminate those potentiometers from your signal path, too) and then
adjust bass/treble and balance by properly placing your speakers. Of
course, you won't want to change your speaker positioning each for each
type of music you listen to, but I would argue against doing making
those kind of song-by-song or genre-by-genre changes anyway. Speaking
for myself, if I start making those kind of constant adjustments, I
lose my ability to focus on the *music*.
> snip
> Turn each control all the way up
> one at a time, and listen to the sound. Then turn each one all the way
> down one at a time and listen to the way that sounds. Then you'll get
> an idea of what the equalizer can do and decide whether you want extra
> shimmer on the strings or a bass you can wallow in.
>
> And then next week you'll hate the sound and adjust it again.
>
Exactimundo.
Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim
"Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:3u12vsF...@individual.net...
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:28:19 +0100, jasonc...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > And one would probably want different settings for modern orchestral,
> > HIP, chamber, old mono, old mono sweetened, solo instrumental, vocal
> > recital, and opera... etc.
>
> only one setting is good: FLAT.
>
> --
> Chel van Gennip
> Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Well, that depends. My listening room has tile floors and the front & rear
walls are trapezoidal!
My pawn-shop Yamaha EQ does come in handy. I set it where stuff sounds
decent and then leave it alone. Set it and forget it, Ron Popiel style.
- Russ (not Martha)
Kalman Rubinson
Well, perhaps he should have said that, for all the music, only one
setting is good: adjusted so that there's a FLAT response in the
room.
Kal
sekhm...@gmail.com
What about the volume control? That's a pot, too.
My comment about hating the sound next week applied to the learning
curve of using an equalizer. One soon learns what he wants out of it,
but until then, one shouldn't be afraid to start over. You learn a lot
in the process.
Eschewing eq, tone controls and a balance fader leaves one at the mercy
of the recording engineers, some of whom these days need a great deal
of hearing assistance.
And if one's HIPness extends to historical recordings, a _parametric_
equalizer is needed more often than not.
Joe Martin
would be to put your tone controls in a nuetral setting, listen to
something, then bypass the tone control and listen again. Unless
you're using fairly high-end gear, I can almost guarantee you'll hear a
difference, and the difference is the pot.
Of course, you can't hear all pots. Some are well-designed enough to
have virtually no sonic signature. But those tend to cost about $300 a
piece, so they're not usually used in gear costing less than $2k or so.
Most pots in the $50-100 range color the signal in ways that I can
honestly say I have no trouble hearing, and to my ears, equalizers tend
to color the sound in the same way. If they increase your enjoyment of
the music, then more power to you. Rather than turn this into another
obnoxious and endless audiofile thread, I will eave it at that.
Stephen Worth
Martin <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another aspect of the 'science' is that an equalizer adds a whole
> series of components into the signal path that don't necessarily have
> to be there, and generally speaking, that is not a good thing.
This is totally wrong. Even the most expensive speakers are imbalanced,
and inexpensive equipment is even more likely to benefit from
equalization. The amount of noise added to the signal by even an
inexpensive graphic equalizer is miniscule compared to the improvement.
See ya
Steve
--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/
Stephen Worth
Martin <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You want to hear a pot? It's not difficult. Easiest way to do it
> would be to put your tone controls in a nuetral setting, listen to
> something, then bypass the tone control and listen again. Unless
> you're using fairly high-end gear, I can almost guarantee you'll hear a
> difference, and the difference is the pot.
Are you speaking in theory here? Because it sure doesn't match my
experience. If you can hear noise at the neutral detent, there is
something wrong with your equalizer. What kind do you have? There are
equalizers selling on ebay nearly every day for a hundred bucks that
add no perceptible noise to the signal.
Joe Martin
Stephen Worth wrote:
, and generally speaking, that is not a good thing.
>
> This is totally wrong. Even the most expensive speakers are imbalanced,
> and inexpensive equipment is even more likely to benefit from
> equalization. The amount of noise added to the signal by even an
> inexpensive graphic equalizer is miniscule compared to the improvement.
>
> See ya
> Steve
>
I beg to differ. The idea that you can use an inexpensive equalizer to
make up for deficiencies in the original recording or in speakers and
still get a natural sound is contrary to my experience. But to each
his own.
Stephen Worth
Martin <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I beg to differ. The idea that you can use an inexpensive equalizer to
> make up for deficiencies in the original recording or in speakers and
> still get a natural sound is contrary to my experience.
It requires a tone generator and an analytical ear. If you are just
randomly noodling looking for a pleasant setting, you'll probably end
up drifting off into a weird unbalanced response that is worse than
where you started. You have to know what you're doing. An equalizer is
a simple piece of equipment that isn't simple to use properly. But once
you get it adjusted properly, you can just leave it and not worry about
it.
An equalizer is important because every single speaker made has an
unbalanced response. Variations as small as +/- 1db in one frequency
can make a big difference in other frequencies due to masking. When you
hear what totally flat sounds like, you realize how important it is.
Most audiophiles spend thousands of dollars splitting hairs dividing
already inaudible distortion levels and noise floors into smaller and
smaller divisions, and worrying about frequencies they can't even hear,
when the real problem with their system is much more basic and much
less subtle.
Balance is everything. Every serious audiophile should have an
equalizer and should know how to use it.
Joe Martin
Stephen Worth wrote:
[snip] If you are just
> randomly noodling looking for a pleasant setting, you'll probably end
> up drifting off into a weird unbalanced response that is worse than
> where you started. You have to know what you're doing.
I will gladly grant you that I have no pretensions of knowing what I'm
doing--only knowing what I like to hear. At one point I did some
experimentation with a couple of equalizers--I tried various settings,
making adjustments by ear alone, and what I found was for me, a given
setting might make a particular recording--or even a passage in a
recording--sound better, but the same setting would make another
recording sound worse. I decided to get more scientific, brought in a
tone generator, a microphone, and after much fiddling found an EQ
setting that was "totally flat." Unfortunately, though "acoustically
correct," it sounded terrible when I tried to listen to music!
[snip]
Every serious audiophile should have an
> equalizer and should know how to use it.
>
I am proud to say I cannot consider myself a serious audiophile. No
wonder I have such a poor opinion of equalizers.
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>It requires a tone generator and an analytical ear.
What's needed is a sound measurement tool because even the most
'analytical' ear adapts and is fooled.
>Balance is everything. Every serious audiophile should have an
>equalizer and should know how to use it.
What is needed is acoustical measurements to see what to do with the
EQ (or, if in fact, it is really needed).
OTOH, if you are only concerned with making it sound pleasant, twirl
away.
Kal
Stephen Worth
Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> >It requires a tone generator and an analytical ear.
>
> What's needed is a sound measurement tool because even the most
> 'analytical' ear adapts and is fooled.
Measurement equipment is good for roughing the settings, but
we don't listen with equipment. We listen with our ears. Sound
balancing is exactly like color balancing in photography. Analyzers
will get you close, but you need to make the final adjustment by
eye, or by ear. If you use the tone generator properly, and balance
for the harmonics as you balance for the fundamentals, you
can end up with amazing results using your ears.
Vaneyes
Joe Martin wrote:
>
> I am proud to say I cannot consider myself a serious audiophile. No
> wonder I have such a poor opinion of equalizers.
You're not alone. Plumb-bobbing putts makes more sense.
Regards
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Measurement equipment is good for roughing the settings, but
>we don't listen with equipment. We listen with our ears. Sound
>balancing is exactly like color balancing in photography. Analyzers
>will get you close, but you need to make the final adjustment by
>eye, or by ear. If you use the tone generator properly, and balance
>for the harmonics as you balance for the fundamentals, you
>can end up with amazing results using your ears.
According to your ears.
Kal
Stephen Worth
Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> According to your ears.
I trust my ears more than I trust a box full of wires! Don't you?
Stephen Worth
Martin <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I decided to get more scientific, brought in a
> tone generator, a microphone, and after much fiddling found an EQ
> setting that was "totally flat." Unfortunately, though "acoustically
> correct," it sounded terrible when I tried to listen to music!
Pink noise calibration doesn't work very well. It works a lot better to
do a sweep across the frequency spectrum, looking for bumps and dips.
Once you achieve flat response, all recordings will sound good... at
least all recordings that have been mixed and monitored on well
calibrated systems. (That leaves out most current pop music.)
Nick Sun
speakers out there are flat in term of phase. A flat gain can only tell
half of the story.
Bob Lombard
"Nick Sun" <xiao...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:1132194218.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bl
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>In article <n4inn1hs4aptfofrm...@4ax.com>, Kalman
>Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>> According to your ears.
>
>I trust my ears more than I trust a box full of wires! Don't you?
Actually, I trust mine more than I trust yours and, I expect, you
might say the same. And that's why I trust measurements, as well..
Kal
Stephen Worth
Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Actually, I trust mine more than I trust yours
That wasn't what we were discussing... We were opining on
whether we trust our own ears or a machine. I'm sure if you
ran a tone sweep and balanced it by ear, you would be much
happier with the results than if you trusted a pink noise
analyzer without checking it. I'm not suggesting that someone
else should balance your system for you.
Stephen Worth
Nick Sun <xiao...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Well, there's another thing puzzles me is that there are not many
> speakers out there are flat in term of phase.
There aren't many rooms that have flat phase. If you keep your speakers
no more than 6 to 8 feet apart, it won't be a problem. Unless you're
trying to fill the Hollywood Bowl with sound, you don't have that much
to worry about.
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>In article <o2tnn19ofku75o5fq...@4ax.com>, Kalman
>Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I trust mine more than I trust yours
>
>That wasn't what we were discussing... We were opining on
>whether we trust our own ears or a machine. I'm sure if you
>ran a tone sweep and balanced it by ear, you would be much
>happier with the results than if you trusted a pink noise
>analyzer without checking it. I'm not suggesting that someone
>else should balance your system for you.
But that is the fallacy of trusting ONLY your ears. If one grants, as
you seem to, that the results would be different if each of us did the
balancing to our own ears, then at least one of us is coloring the
sound and making it inaccurate to cater to his preference. That's OK
if that's your goal.
Kal
---MIKE---
spectrum analyzer. After making all the adjustments for a "flat"
response, the sound was awful - much too bright. Someone suggested
cutting the response by .9 dB per octave starting about 2K. This made a
big difference. Further improvements were made following Rane's advice
to use mostly cuts (and not boosts) with the equalizer. After that, I
had to make some slight cuts at 400, 500 and 630. Now the response is
quite smooth for most (but not all) recordings. I find the balance
varies from day to day. I don't know whether it's the weather, my
physical state, or what.
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Kalman Rubinson
(---MIKE---) wrote:
>I tried to equalize my room using a 1/3 octave Rane equalizer and a Rane
>spectrum analyzer.
1/3 octave is totally inadequate. The analyser should be capable of
1Hz resolution in the range below 100Hz and the EQ should be a
multiband parametric. Otherwise, it's like doing photo retouching
with a floormop.
Kal
Don Rice
> Forgive me if this has been raised before--I have never posted here and
>
> couldn't find anything in the search engine. Do people have preferences
>
> vis a vis Equalizer settings for classical and opera? I know this is a
> personal matter and that many of you will suggest trial and error based
>
> on my own likes and dislikes, but I don't entirely trust my judgment in
>
> these matters--and frankly don't understand the art/science of
> Equalizers--and would love some pointers. Obviously, the settings on
> for modern orchestral, HIP, chamber, old mono, old mono sweetened, solo
>
> record, are just adequate, although I'm saving up for an SACD at some
> point down the road.
>
>
It's possible that you may have been mislead into believing that there
are "correct" settings for different types of music by the settings
offered on some of the digital players like Winamp or the Windows
player. These settings are fictions of the manufacturers imaginations.
Many posters here suggested (in one way or another) that you find the
"best" setting for you and your system, and forget it. That's what I
would suggest.
--
Don Rice
To email me, place a "1" between the "Don" and the "Rice"
don1rice
Steven de Mena
"Kalman Rubinson" <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:45cqn1pbtceub1e87...@4ax.com...
> Otherwise, it's like doing photo retouching
> with a floormop.
>
> Kal
LOL. I love that analogy!
Steve
Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio
<k...@nyu.edu> writes
>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:43:54 -0500, twinmo...@webtv.net
>(---MIKE---) wrote:
>
>>I tried to equalize my room using a 1/3 octave Rane equalizer and a Rane
>>spectrum analyzer.
>
>1/3 octave is totally inadequate.
I disagree completely - this is not a matter of precise filtering to
remove or boost very specific frequencies - itself a far more difficult
and potentially disastrous task for the enthusiastic amateur armed with
a parametric EQ. It's a dangerous enough weapon in the hands of some
so-called professionals!
I do side with the 'leave it alone' camp personally, but at most you're
going to want to make very gentle and subtle changes across general
frequency bands. If anything, in most hands 1/3rd of an octave is
probably too precise!
The difficulty in achieving the required sound is one that Mike
describes and is typical of the 'untrained' ear - you tends to
overcompensate as your hearing becomes desensitised to the changes
already made. Keeping a sense of proportion and balance over long
periods of listening is very difficult, as your brain quickly
acclimatises to the 'new' sound - but when you come back to it afresh it
sounds all wrong.
I'm not saying this in any way to disparage Mike, or anyone else who's
tried this and ultimately felt disappointed or dissatisfied. Even the
very best sound engineers would admit to difficulties doing this - and
if they don't then they're not as good as they think they are...
>The analyser should be capable of
>1Hz resolution in the range below 100Hz and the EQ should be a
>multiband parametric. Otherwise, it's like doing photo retouching
>with a floormop.
He's not described the resolution of the analyser. Even so, the whole
process is probably more trouble than it's worth for most systems. As
someone else pointed out, you're usually better off leaving the EQ flat
and tweaking speaker positions and room furnishings before resorting to
this kind of thing - unless you're prepared to get someone in to
configure it for you, or there's a specific problem that needs dealing
with (in which case you ought to think about replacing your equipment).
--
Andrew Rose - Managing Director - SARL Pristine Audio
As acclaimed on BBC Radio Three's CD Review programme
As recommended in The Gramophone, The Sunday Times & The Daily Telegraph
www.pristineaudio.com - Audio Restoration and Remastering Services
www.pristineaudiodirect.com - Historic Classical Downloads and CDs
mdhjwh
Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio wrote:
>
> I disagree completely - this is not a matter of precise filtering to
> remove or boost very specific frequencies - itself a far more difficult
> and potentially disastrous task for the enthusiastic amateur armed with
> a parametric EQ. It's a dangerous enough weapon in the hands of some
> so-called professionals!
>
Snip<.......etc
All very true with one important exception. Equalization/room
compensation of frequencies below, say, 150 hz can be achieved with
relative ease by amatuers with a devices such as that included with
Velodyne's DD range of sub-woofers. The on-board software combined with
either a TV monitoror PC screen readout, measurements taken at the
listening position that can be stored and compared etc makes such tasks
a breeze for the non-technical. That is , if they can make sense of the
appalling user manual, and that's another story.
Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio
mdhjwh <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> writes
certain frequency with a purpose-made tool I wouldn't quibble. Clearly
getting the balance right when adding a sub-woofer to an existing system
will require some careful tweaking to get it right!
But it sounds to me like Mike's trying to adjust his overall sound,
which is a different matter altogether...
Kalman Rubinson
<and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
>In message <45cqn1pbtceub1e87...@4ax.com>, Kalman Rubinson
><k...@nyu.edu> writes
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:43:54 -0500, twinmo...@webtv.net
>>(---MIKE---) wrote:
>>
>>>I tried to equalize my room using a 1/3 octave Rane equalizer and a Rane
>>>spectrum analyzer.
>>
>>1/3 octave is totally inadequate.
>
>I disagree completely -
Your points (deleted) are valid and it certainly depends on your
goals. If you are using the EQ as a subjective tone control, then 1/3
octave is adequate as would be bass/treble cut and shelf controls.
OTOH, if your goal is to adjust FR to eliminate or minimize the
response variations of the system in the room, you need more precise
tools for measurement and for adjustment. Without high resolution
measurements, many adjustments are crap shoots and that accounts for
the dissatisfaction often expressed by those who "correct" the
response but find the resulting sound dead or otherwise
unsatisfactory. They made an adjustment but not the correct one!
The EQ in the Velodyne DD subs is a good tool and Velodyne has just
released a stand-alone version of the EQ, the SMS-1. It works very
well for frequencies below 120Hz but getting it right depends on the
visual feedback from its measurement feature.
Of course, this is going far afield of the OPs original question.
Most people simply use tone controls and EQ as they do salt and
pepper; they adjust to taste. That's fine, too.
Kal
---MIKE---
>>But it sounds to me like Mike's trying to
>> adjust his overall sound, which is a
>> different matter altogether...
When I first got the equalizer it was to try and correct bass problems.
Then I got the analyzer (also 1/3 octave) and experimented with the
overall sound. The sound now is generally good but certain CDs require
adjustment (which is made with tone controls or a speaker control).
Matthew Silverstein
> Well, perhaps he should have said that, for all the music, only one
> setting is good: adjusted so that there's a FLAT response in the
> room.
This may be a ridiculous question, but could you explain what a flat
response is?
Matty
Kalman Rubinson
Yes. One in which no frequency band is emphasized or depressed and
all frequencies are reproduced equally. An ideal, of course.
Kal
Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio
Silverstein <msil...@yahoo.com> writes
An even volume at all frequencies.
With most loudspeakers if you do a frequency sweep at a constant level
from lowest bass to above the range of human hearing you'll hear peaks
and troughs in volume - this may be due to inadequacies in the speakers
or other equipment, it may be a deliberate design feature, or it may be
resonances in the room.
Hence the use of an equaliser to try to smooth out these anomalies -
though this assumes that the same amount of boost is required at low
volumes as at high volumes (tonal characteristics may be different at
different levels) and doesn't account for our own non-flat frequency
response at differing levels (hence the old 'loudness' control on
amplifiers, designed to boost certain frequencies at low levels).
Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio
<k...@nyu.edu> writes
>
>Of course, this is going far afield of the OPs original question.
>Most people simply use tone controls and EQ as they do salt and
>pepper; they adjust to taste. That's fine, too.
>
go for the sound you like the best, however it's achieved.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, even getting the fine tuning "right" with a
load of careful EQ work may still only result in it being "right" at a
specific volume - as such I'd still caution against wasting too much
time on this - especially (as originally suggested) having different
settings for different sorts of music, which is usually a cheap bit of
gimmickry used to sell inadequate "hi-fi" systems IMO...
--
Andrew Rose - Managing Director - SARL Pristine Audio
As acclaimed on BBC Radio Three's CD Review programme
As recommended in The Gramophone, The Sunday Times & The Daily Telegraph
www.pristineaudio.com - Audio Restoration and Remastering Services
www.pristineaudiodirect.com - Historic Classical Downloads and CDs
Tel: +33 (0)5 53 82 18 57 - from the UK: 0844 484 6088 (local call rates apply)
Fax: +33 (0)5 53 82 18 58 - from the UK: 0780 068 2163 (national call rates)
TVA Reg No: FR94453842528
All e-mails are scanned for viruses by NOD-32 before sending.
Kalman Rubinson
<and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
>In message <mfmrn19vfv9i10uic...@4ax.com>, Kalman Rubinson
><k...@nyu.edu> writes
>>
>>Of course, this is going far afield of the OPs original question.
>>Most people simply use tone controls and EQ as they do salt and
>>pepper; they adjust to taste. That's fine, too.
>>
>Exactly! Ultimately, unless you have specific reasons not to, you should
>go for the sound you like the best, however it's achieved.
As stated, it depends on your goals. Enjoyment is a primary one but
not the only one.
>As I've mentioned elsewhere, even getting the fine tuning "right" with a
>load of careful EQ work may still only result in it being "right" at a
>specific volume - as such I'd still caution against wasting too much
>time on this - especially (as originally suggested) having different
>settings for different sorts of music, which is usually a cheap bit of
>gimmickry used to sell inadequate "hi-fi" systems IMO...
I am with you there!
Kal
mdhjwh
Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio wrote:
> In message <1132315690.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> mdhjwh <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> writes
> >
> >Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I disagree completely - this is not a matter of precise filtering to
> >> remove or boost very specific frequencies - itself a far more difficult
> >> and potentially disastrous task for the enthusiastic amateur armed with
> >> a parametric EQ. It's a dangerous enough weapon in the hands of some
> >> so-called professionals!
> >>
> >Snip<.......etc
> >
> >All very true with one important exception. Equalization/room
> >compensation of frequencies below, say, 150 hz can be achieved with
> >relative ease by amatuers with a devices such as that included with
> >Velodyne's DD range of sub-woofers. The on-board software combined with
> >either a TV monitoror PC screen readout, measurements taken at the
> >listening position that can be stored and compared etc makes such tasks
> >a breeze for the non-technical. That is , if they can make sense of the
> >appalling user manual, and that's another story.
> >
> Fair enough - if there's a specific balance problem to be fixed at a
> certain frequency with a purpose-made tool I wouldn't quibble. Clearly
> getting the balance right when adding a sub-woofer to an existing system
> will require some careful tweaking to get it right!
>
> But it sounds to me like Mike's trying to adjust his overall sound,
> which is a different matter altogether...
>
sufficiently advanced digital room correction (after room
treatment/damping is put in place) will be user friendly enough to be
practical but that will only correct for room effects. Correcting for
each individual recording with a graphic equalizer takes us into the
realm of impossible subjectivism and the unreliability of acoustic
memory. All I could suggest as practical would be tone controls of the
more flexible kind such as Quad are known for but even then these can
induce some peculiar phase distortions.
An altogether different approach can be made with older LP's of known
equalization by using something like a Manley "Steellhead" phone
pre-amp's flexible equalization settings but none of this achieves what
our original poster so optimistically prays for.
We are sadly unable to influence recording compaines sufficiently to
get it right in the first instance but tha'ts where I suspect the
greatest improvements can be made, at the point of recording and
mastering. No use trying ot shut the barn door though after the bull's
escaped.
Stephen Worth
Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> But that is the fallacy of trusting ONLY your ears. If one grants, as
> you seem to, that the results would be different if each of us did the
> balancing to our own ears, then at least one of us is coloring the
> sound and making it inaccurate to cater to his preference. That's OK
> if that's your goal.
You were the one who said that you trusted your ears more than mine.
Now you're saying I'm the one who says that results would be different
for each of us... I didn't say that, and I'm not talking about
preferences... I'm talking about flat response.
If you have normal hearing, you hear pretty much like everyone else
with normal hearing. There might be a little difference at the outside
range of hearing, but in the core, it would be pretty close. However, I
doubt you hear at all like a pink noise analyzer or a microphone.
Assuming you have normal hearing, like I do, I would bet that you would
find that an experienced ear gets you a lot closer to flat than a
machine does. Analyzers are great for getting you in the ballpark. But
you need to do the final refinements with the equipment you actually
hear with.
Stephen Worth
---MIKE--- <twinmo...@webtv.net> wrote:
> I tried to equalize my room using a 1/3 octave Rane equalizer and a Rane
> spectrum analyzer. After making all the adjustments for a "flat"
> response, the sound was awful - much too bright.
Spectrum analyzers on the whole don't work very well. A friend of mine
had the opportunity to work with JBL's frequency response system for
balancing live sound installations, and he said that he could have done
MUCH better with an HP signal generator and his ears.
The big problem with pink noise analysis is that it doesn't take
frequency masking into account. Imbalances in one frequency can affect
the harmonics, causing the gradual gain as the frequencies rise that
you experienced.
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>In article <gqbpn154j1uo7vc76...@4ax.com>, Kalman
>Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>> But that is the fallacy of trusting ONLY your ears. If one grants, as
>> you seem to, that the results would be different if each of us did the
>> balancing to our own ears, then at least one of us is coloring the
>> sound and making it inaccurate to cater to his preference. That's OK
>> if that's your goal.
>
>You were the one who said that you trusted your ears more than mine.
>Now you're saying I'm the one who says that results would be different
>for each of us..
What I was getting at is that each of us trusts our own ears more than
those of others because each of us has different preferences, biases
and physiology.
>I didn't say that, and I'm not talking about
>preferences... I'm talking about flat response.
Yup and I am saying that you cannot get a decent flat response without
measurements. By ear, you only get a subjective approximation.
>If you have normal hearing, you hear pretty much like everyone else
>with normal hearing. There might be a little difference at the outside
>range of hearing, but in the core, it would be pretty close. However, I
>doubt you hear at all like a pink noise analyzer or a microphone.
>Assuming you have normal hearing, like I do, I would bet that you would
>find that an experienced ear gets you a lot closer to flat than a
>machine does. Analyzers are great for getting you in the ballpark. But
>you need to do the final refinements with the equipment you actually
>hear with.
If you really believe that, you have been fooled a lot and there's
little I can say to convince you otherwise.
Kal
record...@gmail.com
mdhjwh wrote:
> Maybe one day when the technology is
> sufficiently advanced digital room correction (after room
> treatment/damping is put in place) ... [much snippage]
How can a non-tech/non-engineering person learn to do room treatment?
Every time I read about it, my eyes glaze over.
Bob Lombard
Steve about something inside his. Even putting your heads
together won't meld that dichotomy, bone conduction not
being very good at transferring neurons.
bl
Stephen Worth
<thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> C'mon guys. Kal is talking about something outside his head,
> Steve about something inside his. Even putting your heads
> together won't meld that dichotomy, bone conduction not
> being very good at transferring neurons.
I was supervising a sound mix once for a TV show... There was a
bit of noise where a pot was open where it shouldn't have been.
I told the engineer exactly where it fell in the track, and asked
him to fix it. He played over the spot in the track two or three
times with his eyes glued to his VU meters. "No, there's nothing
there..."
I told him to play it again and close his eyes and just listen.
"Ohhhh... OK! I hear it. I'll fix that."
Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio
<ne...@vintageip.com> writes
>In article <11324148...@r2d2.vermontel.net>, Bob Lombard
><thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
>> C'mon guys. Kal is talking about something outside his head,
>> Steve about something inside his. Even putting your heads
>> together won't meld that dichotomy, bone conduction not
>> being very good at transferring neurons.
>
>I was supervising a sound mix once for a TV show...
Why weren't you at the desk?
Stephen Worth
Pristine Audio <and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
> Why weren't you at the desk?
On this particular series, I was the producer. I was supervising for
the director because I had a lot of experience in post.