Whatever happened to graphic equalizers?
Barry
old Technics SH-8066 is playing up and I thought I'd have no trouble
replacing it with a better new model but nobody seems to stock ANY make of
equalizer.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003
Triffid
> Does anybody know where I can buy a decent graphic equalizer in the UK? My
> old Technics SH-8066 is playing up and I thought I'd have no trouble
> replacing it with a better new model but nobody seems to stock ANY make of
> equalizer.
>
>
Cash Converters! They've got hundreds of the things.
James Perrett
>
> Does anybody know where I can buy a decent graphic equalizer in the UK? My
> old Technics SH-8066 is playing up and I thought I'd have no trouble
> replacing it with a better new model but nobody seems to stock ANY make of
> equalizer.
>
Look at the PA market - that's about the only place where graphic
equalisers are seriously used nowadays. Klark Technik or BSS are
probably the best makes to go for although some people seem to like the
cheaper Behringer range of digital equalisers. I've tried using the
Behringer Ultracurve and didn't like it much.
Cheers.
James.
Arny Krueger
news:7SM%9.12414$RZ.1...@newsfep4-win.server.ntli.net
> Does anybody know where I can buy a decent graphic equalizer in the
> UK?
your friendly neighborhood professional audio store.
>My old Technics SH-8066 is playing up and I thought I'd have no
> trouble replacing it with a better new model but nobody seems to
> stock ANY make of equalizer.
That may be true among high end dealers. After all, some of their business
is based on selling what amount to be fixed-adjusted equalizers, so
equalizers that the consumer can adjust for himself is anathema.
Trevor Wilson
> Does anybody know where I can buy a decent graphic equalizer in the UK? My
> old Technics SH-8066 is playing up and I thought I'd have no trouble
> replacing it with a better new model but nobody seems to stock ANY make of
> equalizer.
**The words 'decent' and 'graphic equaliser' are incompatible. Wait for
digital equalisers to fall to sensible prices. BTW: What equipment are you
using to set your eq correctly? How do you know it is set correctly?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Barry
the resultant sound, not what somebody else says is correct.
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e402e67$0$9993$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Trevor Wilson
> It doesn't matter if the eq is set correctly, it matters only that "I"
like
> the resultant sound, not what somebody else says is correct.
**Ah, so you are not interested in fidelity. You just like what you like.
Fair enough. Some of us prefer an illusion of reality. Graphic equalisers
can NEVER do this. They can only subtract from the original. DIGITAL graphic
equalisers, are a while 'nuther bal game, however. They can preserve
information. Analogue equalisers can only destroy. Even worse, without 5,000
Squids worth of measurement tools, you can never get it right. Ever.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Keith G
>
> "Barry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ph40a.78$zA1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > It doesn't matter if the eq is set correctly, it matters only that "I"
> like
> > the resultant sound, not what somebody else says is correct.
>
> **Ah, so you are not interested in fidelity. You just like what you like.
> Fair enough.
Makes a change. Pity one or two of the 'technotwats' on this (general audio,
hobbyist) group can't accept this view with similar equanimity.
> Some of us prefer an illusion of reality.
What's 'real'......???
Trevor Wilson
"Keith G" <Kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:b1qmj9$13nujr$1...@ID-174693.news.dfncis.de...
**I was trying to be cynical. When I was 20, I had everything under the Sun
in my system. I had a graphic EQ, a dBx and all manner of crap to make the
sound 'better'. Then, I bought/built some decent equipment. I started with
the magnificent Bailey T-Lines (with Radford crossovers, of course), then a
georgeous Japanese, belt drive turntable (with magnetic suspension on the
bearings, 12" tone arm, etc, etc). To cap it off, I snared a brilliant
Marantz 1200B amplifier (the amplifier which proved to me that amplifiers DO
sound different). I chucked all my graphic EQs, dBxs and all that crap. I've
run my system without tone controls ever since. They're just not necessary.
>
> > Some of us prefer an illusion of reality.
>
> What's 'real'......???
**Tricky. I can tell you one thing: A graphic EQ can NEVER take you closer
to it. Never ever.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Ronnie McKinley" <mcki...@glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ois14v0ldtnub97ed...@4ax.com...
> In uk.rec.audio "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Keith G" <Kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>
> >>audio, hobbyist) group can't accept this view with similar equanimity.
> >
> >**I was trying to be cynical. When I was 20, I had everything under the
Sun
> >in my system. I had a graphic EQ,
>
>
>
**A poor choice of words, I agree. Personally, I think he would be crazy to
bother with ANY graphic eq. I thought I made myself clear on that point? If
someone is dumb enough to think that a graphic eq will solve any acoustic
issues (unless they use some SERIOUS test equipment), then I have a second
hand unit for them.
>
>
> Now that's what ya call, cynical.
**What's your point, Ronnie?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
>> It doesn't matter if the eq is set correctly, it matters only that "I"
like
>> the resultant sound, not what somebody else says is correct.
Agreed.
> **Ah, so you are not interested in fidelity. You just like what you
> like. Fair enough. Some of us prefer an illusion of reality. Graphic
> equalisers can NEVER do this.
Sheerest bigoted folderol.
>They can only subtract from the original.
Darn, the controls on my graphic equalizers go both plus and minus. Is this
a new feature for you or what, Trevor?
> DIGITAL graphic equalisers, are a while 'nuther bal game, however.
I've got one of those two. My best analog equalizers slightly outperform it.
Not that it sounds bad.
>They can preserve information. Analogue equalizers can only destroy.
If we took every recording out of your collection that went through an
analog equalizer Trevor, your collection of recordings would probably be
empty.
>Even worse, without 5,000 Squids worth of measurement tools,
> you can never get it right. Ever.
But you can get it better if your system needs equalization and you know
what you're doing.
Trevor Wilson
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ywf0a.132$lH2.9...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> But you can get it better if your system needs equalization and you know
> what you're doing.
**Without test equipment and reference to the original source - utterly
impossible.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> In uk.rec.audio "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> >> What he needs, Trevor, is a ("crafted") Spectro Acoustics 210R, eh?
> >
> >**A poor choice of words, I agree. Personally, I think he would be crazy
to
> >bother with ANY graphic eq. I thought I made myself clear on that point?
If
> >someone is dumb enough to think that a graphic eq will solve any acoustic
> >issues (unless they use some SERIOUS test equipment), then I have a
second
> >hand unit for them.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Now that's what ya call, cynical.
> >
> >**What's your point, Ronnie?
>
>
> eq" yet you flog them??
**No, I don't flog "them". I am flogging a SINGLE, traded in example of a 20
year old equaliser, from a client who decided that tone controls were a
complete and utter waste of time. What do you expect me to do with traded
stock? Send it to the crusher? Not likely. I'm a great fan of recycling. In
any case a customer who wants it can have it, as part of the pre/power/eq
package. I would still advise against the use of any eq, under any
circumstances.
.... reminds me of a guy I know (car sales
> guy) who was of the opinion all BMWs are overpriced shite until he got
> a job with the local BMW dealer ... now he's a boring asshole :)
**Obviously he had never driven an M3. Now he has, he may well be altering
his opinion. I thought the same thing about Porsches, too. That was, until I
actually drove a couple. They are expensive, but not over-priced.
>
> I don't recommend EQs either, but then I'm totally impartial.
**So am I. If a client wants one, I will advise against it. It he/she
insists, I'll buy one in. I don't stock 'em. Never will. Well, I may stock
digital eqs, when the price falls to a sane level.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> >> I don't recommend EQs either, but then I'm totally impartial.
> >
> >**So am I. If a client wants one, I will advise against it. It he/she
> >insists, I'll buy one in. I don't stock 'em. Never will. Well, I may
stock
> >digital eqs, when the price falls to a sane level.
>
>
**Why?
I stock what I want. Not what someone tells me to.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Jim Lesurf
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Barry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ph40a.78$zA1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > It doesn't matter if the eq is set correctly, it matters only that "I"
> like
> > the resultant sound, not what somebody else says is correct.
> **Ah, so you are not interested in fidelity. You just like what you
> like. Fair enough. Some of us prefer an illusion of reality.
You mean, like "stereo"? :-)
> DIGITAL graphic equalisers, are a while 'nuther bal game, however. They
> can preserve information. Analogue equalisers can only destroy.
Curious about this statement, Can you explain why you feel analogue
equalisers "can only destroy" information? Also - are you meaning
"information" in the sense defined for information theory, or something
else? I am not clear why you feel digital system can preserve info, but
analogue can't. Are not the two nominally the same in information theory
terms if the perform the same changes in response?
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
MMWaves http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/MMWave/Index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Jim Lesurf
Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **Tricky. I can tell you one thing: A graphic EQ can NEVER take you
> closer to it. Never ever.
As with an earlier posting, I am curious as to why you put this as an
absolute statement. Do you mean that there are no practical imperfections
of a real system that any eq could ever correct to produce an overall
improvement? I am curious as to why you feel this must *always* be the
case. Do you just mean, "In most/many cases where people have tended to use
them in a domestic situation, they are misguided?"
Trevor Wilson
"Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4bc00f3...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3e40eb04$0$8817$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
> Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> > **Tricky. I can tell you one thing: A graphic EQ can NEVER take you
> > closer to it. Never ever.
>
> As with an earlier posting, I am curious as to why you put this as an
> absolute statement. Do you mean that there are no practical imperfections
> of a real system that any eq could ever correct to produce an overall
> improvement?
**Nope. Er yep. Without a properly calibrated mic, RTA, standard test
recording, etc, it's all pretty much a waste of time.
I am curious as to why you feel this must *always* be the
> case. Do you just mean, "In most/many cases where people have tended to
use
> them in a domestic situation, they are misguided?"
**Yep. And, in most pro situations, as well.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e40d88f$0$9168$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Barry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ph40a.78$zA1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > It doesn't matter if the eq is set correctly, it matters only that "I"
> > like
> > > the resultant sound, not what somebody else says is correct.
>
> > **Ah, so you are not interested in fidelity. You just like what you
> > like. Fair enough. Some of us prefer an illusion of reality.
>
> You mean, like "stereo"? :-)
**Sure.
>
> > DIGITAL graphic equalisers, are a while 'nuther bal game, however. They
> > can preserve information. Analogue equalisers can only destroy.
>
> Curious about this statement, Can you explain why you feel analogue
> equalisers "can only destroy" information?
**For a bunch of reasons. Mostly because they cannot operate as precisely as
a digital eq, so phase information is damaged.
Also - are you meaning
> "information" in the sense defined for information theory, or something
> else?
**See above.
I am not clear why you feel digital system can preserve info, but
> analogue can't. Are not the two nominally the same in information theory
> terms if the perform the same changes in response?
**They're quite different. Apart from the possibility that phase information
is preserved in a digital eq, they possess a number of other advantages, as
well:
1) The chances of anyone generating a reasonably precise inverse curve of
the problem they are attempting to fix, with an analogue eq, even with vast
amounts of test equipment, is probably about the same as the user winning
next month's Euro-Lottery (or whatever it's called). It just will not
happen. Digital eqs, OTOH, can be theoretically configured in immense
nimbers of frequency points, slopes, Q's, etc. As such, their flexibilty is
such that they at least have a remote chance of meeting the desired inverse
curve.
2) Digital eqs can be automated, so that curves can be corrected, without
human intervention.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > As with an earlier posting, I am curious as to why you put this as an
> > absolute statement. Do you mean that there are no practical
> > imperfections of a real system that any eq could ever correct to
> > produce an overall improvement?
> **Nope. Er yep. Without a properly calibrated mic, RTA, standard test
> recording, etc, it's all pretty much a waste of time.
Those would also be a waste of time in the average sitting room.
> > I am curious as to why you feel this must *always* be the case. Do
> > you just mean, "In most/many cases where people have tended to use
> > them in a domestic situation, they are misguided?"
> **Yep. And, in most pro situations, as well.
So 99.9% of 'recording engineers' are wrong? There must be a huge opening
there for you, then.
--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Trevor Wilson
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4bc075a670...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <3e4230ba$0$9168$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > As with an earlier posting, I am curious as to why you put this as an
> > > absolute statement. Do you mean that there are no practical
> > > imperfections of a real system that any eq could ever correct to
> > > produce an overall improvement?
>
> > **Nope. Er yep. Without a properly calibrated mic, RTA, standard test
> > recording, etc, it's all pretty much a waste of time.
>
> Those would also be a waste of time in the average sitting room.
**Absolutely!
>
> > > I am curious as to why you feel this must *always* be the case. Do
> > > you just mean, "In most/many cases where people have tended to use
> > > them in a domestic situation, they are misguided?"
>
> > **Yep. And, in most pro situations, as well.
>
> So 99.9% of 'recording engineers' are wrong? There must be a huge opening
> there for you, then.
**Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
James Perrett
>
> "Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4bc00ef...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <3e40d88f$0$9168$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor Wilson
> > <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > DIGITAL graphic equalisers, are a while 'nuther bal game, however. They
> > > can preserve information. Analogue equalisers can only destroy.
> >
> > Curious about this statement, Can you explain why you feel analogue
> > equalisers "can only destroy" information?
>
> **For a bunch of reasons. Mostly because they cannot operate as precisely as
> a digital eq, so phase information is damaged.
>
Very few real world digital equalisers are linear phase. Those that do
exist are extremely expensive.
Cheers.
James.
Arny Krueger
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ywf0a.132$lH2.9...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >
> > But you can get it better if your system needs equalization and you know
> > what you're doing.
>
> **Without test equipment and reference to the original source - utterly
> impossible.
Al it takes is a good, well-trained pair of ears.
Dr Hfuhruhurr
Oh. I get it now.
You're right and everyone else is wrong. Personal opinions are not allowed,
and if they differ from yours, you get show down in flames.
::Pats Tony on head::
There there. Whatever you say. Right?
Feh!
Doc
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > So 99.9% of 'recording engineers' are wrong? There must be a huge
> > opening there for you, then.
> **Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are wrong.
Do you have any understanding of why EQ might be used during the recording
process?
--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.
Trevor Wilson
opening
> >> there for you, then.
> >
> >**Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are wrong.
>
>
**Not especially. Although the recording quality is reasonable, the material
is not to my taste.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e4238ac$0$9993$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > So 99.9% of 'recording engineers' are wrong? There must be a huge
> > > opening there for you, then.
>
> > **Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are
wrong.
>
> Do you have any understanding of why EQ might be used during the recording
> process?
**Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation is
poorly implemented.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" <d...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:b1u8vi$15rk6r$1...@ID-120805.news.dfncis.de...
**An incorrect statement. 99/9% of recording engineers and those who imagine
that an analogue graphic equaliser, operated without test equipment and
reference recordings, by untrained people, are wrong. That is not everyone.
Some engineers know what they are doing and SOME listeners realiser that
analogue graphic equalisers are a complete waste of time.
Personal opinions are not allowed,
> and if they differ from yours, you get show down in flames.
**Personal opinions are allowed, of course. I have provided reasons why I
think that analogue graphic eqs are a waste of time. Now: You tell me why
they are useful and how an untrained listener, without the use of test
equipment can set them correctly.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"James Perrett" <j...@soc.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3E425EEF...@soc.soton.ac.uk...
**I believe I have intimated that fact. Digital technology being what it is,
we are likely to see serious price falls in the next few years.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
**No, it takes much more.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Glenn Booth
In message <3e42b517$0$31038$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> writes
>
>"Ronnie McKinley" <mcki...@glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:rch44v8i0jc0m2l9t...@4ax.com...
>> Ah you must be a Blue Nile fan, Trevor.
>
>**Not especially. Although the recording quality is reasonable, the material
>is not to my taste.
I was seriously upset when I bought "A walk across the rooftops". I must
have got a lemon, as it was one of the noisiest pieces of vinyl I've
ever owned. I also agree about the material - I bought it on spec from
Audio Excellence in Cardiff, having heard a couple of tracks while
choosing a turntable. Wouldn't you know it, the two tracks they played
me were the only ones on the entire album that I liked. That was the
last Linn product I ever bought (if it even counts as a Linn product).
Regards,
--
Glenn Booth
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > Do you have any understanding of why EQ might be used during the
> > recording process?
> **Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation is
> poorly implemented.
How can you know this without being at the recording session?
--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e42bc00$0$31038$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > Do you have any understanding of why EQ might be used during the
> > > recording process?
>
> > **Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation is
> > poorly implemented.
>
> How can you know this without being at the recording session?
**When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal (either
too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that someone has cocked
things up. When listening to some of the old Mobile Fidelity recordings,
compared to the originals, it is easy to hear where the engineer added a
little 'zing' to the Mobile Fidelity ones. With non-acoustic instruments,
all bets are off.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
Prove it.
Trevor Wilson
**I cannot. Just as I cannot prove the non-existence of any supernatural
beings, I know with absolute certainty that none exist. Not so different
with audio equipment. I can provide some facts, from which evidence may be
drawn, however.
1) Look at the unsmoothed frequency response of a 'typical' good quality
loudspeaker. Now show me how a standard analogue graphic equaliser can hope
to compensate for the deficiencies. Show me how a 1/3rd octave EQ can do the
same thing. Show me how any of the above can be accomplished, without the
use of test equipment.
2) Every major (and most minor) speaker manufacturers use some kind of
measurement equipment to test their speakers. If a human ear was reliable
and repeatably accurate, I'm pretty certain that they could dispense with
that equipment and the trained operators to use it. What makes you think
that the average person can do better?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
tony sayer
Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> writes
>
I remember some years ago seeing a Quad ESL63 reproducing a square wave
and the output of the speaker being *listened* to with a B&K mic at 1
metre away, and the resultant scope trace was quite impressive!..
>If a human ear was reliable
>and repeatably accurate, I'm pretty certain that they could dispense with
>that equipment and the trained operators to use it. What makes you think
>that the average person can do better?
>
>
>--
>Trevor Wilson
>www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > **Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation
> > > is poorly implemented.
> > How can you know this without being at the recording session?
> **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that someone
> has cocked things up.
So you're saying all cymbals sound the same? Many will be pleased to know
that - it could save them a fortune.
> When listening to some of the old Mobile Fidelity
> recordings, compared to the originals, it is easy to hear where the
> engineer added a little 'zing' to the Mobile Fidelity ones. With
> non-acoustic instruments, all bets are off.
If you think this is *just* down to EQ, I'd suggest you listen to a few
different microphones - then try recording something like a cymbal to
analogue tape with them. Then send this tape off for LP mastering. After
this you *might* be in a position to comment that 99.9% of recording
engineers don't know what they're doing. And you still won't be the '0.1%'
who do.
--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.
trotsky
Dave Plowman wrote:
> In article <3e430a03$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>>**Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation
>>>>is poorly implemented.
>>>
>
>>>How can you know this without being at the recording session?
>>
>
>>**When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
>>(either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that someone
>>has cocked things up.
>
>
> So you're saying all cymbals sound the same?
Sure, just like mains cables.
Jim Lesurf
Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4bc0c4903a...@argonet.co.uk...
> > In article <3e42bc00$0$31038$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
> > Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Do you have any understanding of why EQ might be used during the
> > > > recording process?
> >
> > > **Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation
> > > is poorly implemented.
> >
> > How can you know this without being at the recording session?
> **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that someone
> has cocked things up.
The problem is that 'a cymbal' may sound different depending upon which
hall/studio it was recorded in, and where the microphones were placed.
Hence what you say may be correct for very gross alterations, but perhaps
not for more subtle changes.
When I first started listening to and enjoying BBC radio 3 I used to
criticse their proms broadcasts from the RAH as being far to 'dull' and
confused. However once I'd had the chance to actually start attending proms
I realised the BBC were doing a decent job or letting you hear what it was
like in the hall! If anything, they were giving a clearer result than you
could get when promming. :-)
Dave Plowman
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> > (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that
> > someone has cocked things up.
> The problem is that 'a cymbal' may sound different depending upon which
> hall/studio it was recorded in, and where the microphones were placed.
> Hence what you say may be correct for very gross alterations, but perhaps
> not for more subtle changes.
Whilst this is true, Jim, I'd assumed the comment referred to close mic'd
pop music where room acoustics don't have so much influence.
--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
Jim Lesurf
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4bc0f7f...@st-and.demon.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> > > (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that
> > > someone has cocked things up.
> > The problem is that 'a cymbal' may sound different depending upon
> > which hall/studio it was recorded in, and where the microphones were
> > placed. Hence what you say may be correct for very gross alterations,
> > but perhaps not for more subtle changes.
> Whilst this is true, Jim, I'd assumed the comment referred to close
> mic'd pop music where room acoustics don't have so much influence.
OK. Fair comment. That will change the argument. However will it not also
be the case that the sound will still depend upon the orientation of the
instrument w.r.t the mic? I have no real direct experience of this.
The Old Fogey
> > guy) who was of the opinion all BMWs are overpriced shite until he got
> > a job with the local BMW dealer ... now he's a boring asshole :)
>
> **Obviously he had never driven an M3. Now he has, he may well be altering
> his opinion. I thought the same thing about Porsches, too. That was, until I
> actually drove a couple. They are expensive, but not over-priced.
I drove an M3 - it was overpriced shite.
I've driven and ridden several BMWs and wouldn't give them house room.
If you want to lend me a Porsche or two....
Roger.
Dave Plowman
Seems few would agree with you considering how well they retain their
price when secondhand.
> I've driven and ridden several BMWs and wouldn't give them house room.
So you don't enjoy driving, then?
--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
Dave Plowman
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Whilst this is true, Jim, I'd assumed the comment referred to close
> > mic'd pop music where room acoustics don't have so much influence.
> OK. Fair comment. That will change the argument. However will it not also
> be the case that the sound will still depend upon the orientation of the
> instrument w.r.t the mic? I have no real direct experience of this.
Indeed; mic placement is very important in determining the eventual sound
of an instrument when close miking. The aforementioned cymbal will sound
very different if miked on the edge or centre.
--
*The beatings will continue until morale improves *
Chris Isbell
<jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When I first started listening to and enjoying BBC radio 3 I used to
>criticse their proms broadcasts from the RAH as being far to 'dull' and
>confused. However once I'd had the chance to actually start attending proms
>I realised the BBC were doing a decent job or letting you hear what it was
>like in the hall! If anything, they were giving a clearer result than you
>could get when promming. :-)
It's even worse than that. I went to a prom concert given by the
English Baroque Soloists at the RAH. The acoustics were so bad that
different part of the orchestra could not hear each other and were, as
a consequence, out of time and out of tune. When they came to the last
piece, they had a larger orchestra and that appeared to bring them
over the 'critical mass' and suddenly things got a lot, lot better.
--
Chris Isbell
Southampton
UK
Glenn Booth
In message <5c404d12.03020...@posting.google.com>, The Old
Fogey <roger....@sun.com> writes
>"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>news:<3e418e5a$0$2327$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
>
>> > guy) who was of the opinion all BMWs are overpriced shite until he got
>> > a job with the local BMW dealer ... now he's a boring asshole :)
>>
>> **Obviously he had never driven an M3. Now he has, he may well be altering
>> his opinion. I thought the same thing about Porsches, too. That was, until I
>> actually drove a couple. They are expensive, but not over-priced.
>
>I drove an M3 - it was overpriced shite.
Agreed. It did have the capacity to scare me silly however (not too
hard, my 1300 Marina did that a couple of times). I got out after
driving the M3 feeling like I'd been in one of the chase scenes from a
Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Regards,
--
Glenn Booth
Glenn Booth
In message <4bc124cdb7...@argonet.co.uk>, Dave Plowman
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <4bc1121...@st-and.demon.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Whilst this is true, Jim, I'd assumed the comment referred to close
>> > mic'd pop music where room acoustics don't have so much influence.
>
>> OK. Fair comment. That will change the argument. However will it not also
>> be the case that the sound will still depend upon the orientation of the
>> instrument w.r.t the mic? I have no real direct experience of this.
>
>Indeed; mic placement is very important in determining the eventual sound
>of an instrument when close miking. The aforementioned cymbal will sound
>very different if miked on the edge or centre.
In my limited experience of micing cymbals, it also varies a lot with
how 'on axis' the mic is wrt to the cymbal. I once did a lot of rock/pop
live sound work, and I found I could change the cymbal sound
significantly by just changing the orientation of the mic a few degrees.
Of course, this happens to a degree with all instruments, and varies
with the microphone to a huge degree, but cymbals seem particularly
sensitive.
Regards,
--
Glenn Booth
Dave Plowman
Glenn Booth <glenn...@qtlg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> OK. Fair comment. That will change the argument. However will it not
> >> also be the case that the sound will still depend upon the
> >> orientation of the instrument w.r.t the mic? I have no real direct
> >> experience of this.
> >
> >Indeed; mic placement is very important in determining the eventual
> >sound of an instrument when close miking. The aforementioned cymbal
> >will sound very different if miked on the edge or centre.
> In my limited experience of micing cymbals, it also varies a lot with
> how 'on axis' the mic is wrt to the cymbal. I once did a lot of rock/pop
> live sound work, and I found I could change the cymbal sound
> significantly by just changing the orientation of the mic a few degrees.
> Of course, this happens to a degree with all instruments, and varies
> with the microphone to a huge degree, but cymbals seem particularly
> sensitive.
Yes - it's because very few mics maintain their DP at all frequencies -
they will tend to become more directional at HF and more 'omni' at LF. So
a cymbal, having a high fundamental frequency, will magnify this effect.
--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.
Jim Lesurf
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <Awa+xMPq7$Q+EwT$@qtlg.demon.co.uk>, Glenn Booth
> <glenn...@qtlg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> OK. Fair comment. That will change the argument. However will it
> > >> not also be the case that the sound will still depend upon the
> > >> orientation of the instrument w.r.t the mic? I have no real direct
> > >> experience of this.
> > >
> > >Indeed; mic placement is very important in determining the eventual
> > >sound of an instrument when close miking. The aforementioned cymbal
> > >will sound very different if miked on the edge or centre.
> > In my limited experience of micing cymbals, it also varies a lot with
> > how 'on axis' the mic is wrt to the cymbal.
> Yes - it's because very few mics maintain their DP at all frequencies -
> they will tend to become more directional at HF and more 'omni' at LF.
> So a cymbal, having a high fundamental frequency, will magnify this
> effect.
This is the kind of reason why I tend to divide up the audio chain into the
'part 1' (recording/broadcast part) and 'part 2' (domestic replay part) I
mentioned in another posting recently. Even if you stand in the studio or
hall, you may not be hearing what the mics are actually picking up. Thus it
becomes difficult to decide what 'original' you should be hearing when
reproducing the result.
Instead, I tend to approach this in two ways.
One is to ask if the replay system is producing the patterns which were
recorded/broadcast. This has the advantage of being measurable/observable,
but does not necessarily tell you if you will like the result when playing
a particular item! :-)
The other is only really applicable to situations where you have your own
'mental picture' of what is expected. This is useful in cases where you are
expecting to hear a reproduction of an 'event' like a concert in a concert
hall with a 'convincing' acoustic and layout. You can then listen and judge
how convincing the result is in making you feel you are sitting at an
actual concert. Can't really measure this, so have to assess it on the
basis of personal experience, etc. Thus it can be a very personal matter.
The difficulty is that with studio recordings in particular it becomes
debatable what you *should* expect to hear.
The more you try to pin down things like "What does a piano sound like?"
the harder it seems to be to get a clear answer apart from, "That sounds
OK" (or not!). To me, the real difficulties here are not so much with
things like cd players, amplifiers, etc, but with acoustics and how we
hear.
Dave Plowman
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> This is the kind of reason why I tend to divide up the audio chain into
> the 'part 1' (recording/broadcast part) and 'part 2' (domestic replay
> part) I mentioned in another posting recently. Even if you stand in the
> studio or hall, you may not be hearing what the mics are actually
> picking up. Thus it becomes difficult to decide what 'original' you
> should be hearing when reproducing the result.
Absolutely. Since the introduction of multi-mic techniques, it sort of
ceased to be so important to have a well balanced orchestra for recording
purposes - or indeed scoring the piece so it made sense in acoustic terms.
So you could have open brass against solo vocals, for example, which just
wouldn't work in the concert hall without the intervention of electronics.
And even with the best balanced orchestra in a superb accoustic, the mics
will be in the optimum place where there are no seats...;-)
--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.
Lee Edward Armstrong
Dave Plowman wrote:
> > **Nope. Er yep. Without a properly calibrated mic, RTA, standard test
> > recording, etc, it's all pretty much a waste of time.
>
> Those would also be a waste of time in the average sitting room.
Why...on both accounts ???
A computer based RTA can be relativly cheap / free....a calibrated mic can be
got for £40....you could do the whole kaboodle of testing for under a £100.
As for a graphic....I'll agree some of the flashy light varing band type that
are sold on midi systems, or even some of the main stream hifi brands are
very hit and miss.....but some of the more pro gear, constant Q or even
parametric designs if used properly can equalise out room anomalies that
can't easily be done by moving an odd bit of furniture/speakers.
As with everything used properly they can benifit, abused and ....
Cya,
Lee
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e430a03$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
> Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4bc0c4903a...@argonet.co.uk...
> > > In article <3e42bc00$0$31038$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
> > > Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > Do you have any understanding of why EQ might be used during the
> > > > > recording process?
> > >
> > > > **Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation
> > > > is poorly implemented.
> > >
> > > How can you know this without being at the recording session?
>
> > **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> > (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that someone
> > has cocked things up.
>
> The problem is that 'a cymbal' may sound different depending upon which
> hall/studio it was recorded in, and where the microphones were placed.
> Hence what you say may be correct for very gross alterations, but perhaps
> not for more subtle changes.
**Mic placement IS what engineers get paid for. It is also what they get
wrong a goodly amount of the time, Trying to fix bad mic techniques with an
EQ is just lazy and dumb.
>
> When I first started listening to and enjoying BBC radio 3 I used to
> criticse their proms broadcasts from the RAH as being far to 'dull' and
> confused. However once I'd had the chance to actually start attending
proms
> I realised the BBC were doing a decent job or letting you hear what it was
> like in the hall! If anything, they were giving a clearer result than you
> could get when promming. :-)
**Absolutely. The differences between studio and live can be substantial.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
Lee Edward Armstrong <ju...@darklyte.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Plowman wrote:
Oh no I didn't....
> > > **Nope. Er yep. Without a properly calibrated mic, RTA, standard test
> > > recording, etc, it's all pretty much a waste of time.
> >
> > Those would also be a waste of time in the average sitting room.
--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > The problem is that 'a cymbal' may sound different depending upon
> > which hall/studio it was recorded in, and where the microphones were
> > placed. Hence what you say may be correct for very gross alterations,
> > but perhaps not for more subtle changes.
> **Mic placement IS what engineers get paid for. It is also what they get
> wrong a goodly amount of the time, Trying to fix bad mic techniques with
> an EQ is just lazy and dumb.
Why would an engineer try and fix wrong mic placement with EQ when all he
has to do is move it? Or are you just making this up as you go along?
--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e457098$0$8817$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > The problem is that 'a cymbal' may sound different depending upon
> > > which hall/studio it was recorded in, and where the microphones were
> > > placed. Hence what you say may be correct for very gross alterations,
> > > but perhaps not for more subtle changes.
>
> > **Mic placement IS what engineers get paid for. It is also what they get
> > wrong a goodly amount of the time, Trying to fix bad mic techniques with
> > an EQ is just lazy and dumb.
>
> Why would an engineer try and fix wrong mic placement with EQ when all he
> has to do is move it? Or are you just making this up as you go along?
**The topic is fixing dodgy recordings with graphic EQs. It is certainly
apparent (to me) that goodly number of incompetent engineers (which is to
say: most of them) try to fix their mistakes with equalisation. Let's face
it: An engineer would rather move a slider, that get off his fat, lazy arse
and move the mic. Well, most of them, anyway. There's some good'uns out
there.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e430a03$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > > **Yes. I can also identify many instances of where this equalisation
> > > > is poorly implemented.
>
> > > How can you know this without being at the recording session?
>
> > **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> > (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that someone
> > has cocked things up.
>
> So you're saying all cymbals sound the same? Many will be pleased to know
> that - it could save them a fortune.
**Absolutely not. In fact, I recall when I supplied some new equipment to a
client (an amateur drummer), he remarked that now he could finally not only
identify that cybals were being struck, but that he could identify what they
were being struck with and what brand the cymbals were.
>
> > When listening to some of the old Mobile Fidelity
> > recordings, compared to the originals, it is easy to hear where the
> > engineer added a little 'zing' to the Mobile Fidelity ones. With
> > non-acoustic instruments, all bets are off.
>
> If you think this is *just* down to EQ, I'd suggest you listen to a few
> different microphones - then try recording something like a cymbal to
> analogue tape with them. Then send this tape off for LP mastering. After
> this you *might* be in a position to comment that 99.9% of recording
> engineers don't know what they're doing. And you still won't be the '0.1%'
> who do.
**I never suggested that I could engineer a recording well. I don't have the
talent, nor the inclination. I don't know enough about microphone placement
and type, nor the different constraints placed on various instruments, in
various rooms. Equally, I would suggest that a goodly number of recording
engineers don't have the talent, either. And THAT is a major problem. As for
my comments about Mobile Fidelity recordings, please re-read what I wrote.
AFAIK, MFSL obtained master tapes and then made their own records from those
tapes. It is clear (to me) that some of these recordings have been 'mucked
about with', because I also own the originals. The MFSL ones are noticably
'hotter' in the HF.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > Why would an engineer try and fix wrong mic placement with EQ when all
> > he has to do is move it? Or are you just making this up as you go
> > along?
> **The topic is fixing dodgy recordings with graphic EQs. It is certainly
> apparent (to me) that goodly number of incompetent engineers (which is
> to say: most of them) try to fix their mistakes with equalisation.
Do you mean equalisation or a graphic EQ?
> Let's face it: An engineer would rather move a slider, that get off his
> fat, lazy arse and move the mic.
I take it this is how you run your business since you attribute this to
others?
> Well, most of them, anyway. There's some good'uns out there.
Judging by your comments I'd say your not a fit person to judge.
--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> > > (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that
> > > someone has cocked things up.
> >
> > So you're saying all cymbals sound the same? Many will be pleased to
> > know that - it could save them a fortune.
> **Absolutely not. In fact, I recall when I supplied some new equipment
> to a client (an amateur drummer), he remarked that now he could finally
> not only identify that cybals were being struck, but that he could
> identify what they were being struck with and what brand the cymbals
> were.
Just let me get this straight. You say that equipment you sell will
correct a badly recorded cymbal? Or just make some cymbals sound 'better'?
Methinks you're going round in circles here.
> >
> > > When listening to some of the old Mobile Fidelity
> > > recordings, compared to the originals, it is easy to hear where the
> > > engineer added a little 'zing' to the Mobile Fidelity ones. With
> > > non-acoustic instruments, all bets are off.
> >
> > If you think this is *just* down to EQ, I'd suggest you listen to a
> > few different microphones - then try recording something like a cymbal
> > to analogue tape with them. Then send this tape off for LP mastering.
> > After this you *might* be in a position to comment that 99.9% of
> > recording engineers don't know what they're doing. And you still won't
> > be the '0.1%' who do.
> **I never suggested that I could engineer a recording well. I don't have
> the talent, nor the inclination. I don't know enough about microphone
> placement and type, nor the different constraints placed on various
> instruments, in various rooms.
But you claim to know enough that it's down to the use of graphic
equalisers? Err, someone with golden ears such as yours would soon find
out the best mic positions by experimentation - that's how most do it,
although they'll start from a base of rote.
> Equally, I would suggest that a goodly number of recording engineers
> don't have the talent, either.
You definitely mean recording engineers?
> And THAT is a major problem. As for my
> comments about Mobile Fidelity recordings, please re-read what I wrote.
> AFAIK, MFSL obtained master tapes and then made their own records from
> those tapes. It is clear (to me) that some of these recordings have been
> 'mucked about with', because I also own the originals. The MFSL ones are
> noticably 'hotter' in the HF.
Now you've moved on to mastering engineers. Who will do what they're told
by the marketing boys.
--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
Barry
matters is the
listener's happy with the resultant sound quality. I prefer a sound that
has the higher frequencies boosted via an equaliser maybe because my 48 year
old ears are lacking - that is my choice FULL STOP. You think a
system sounds better with no tone controls etc. and you're welcome to YOUR
opinion.
Neither opinion is right or wrong, it's the choice of the individual. It's
a bit much to be told you're "dumb" to like equalizers - deaf maybe : )
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e45ab75$0$2327$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > Why would an engineer try and fix wrong mic placement with EQ when all
> > > he has to do is move it? Or are you just making this up as you go
> > > along?
>
> > **The topic is fixing dodgy recordings with graphic EQs. It is certainly
> > apparent (to me) that goodly number of incompetent engineers (which is
> > to say: most of them) try to fix their mistakes with equalisation.
>
> Do you mean equalisation or a graphic EQ?
**Most would use far more sophisticated devices than the simple graphic EQs
used by many domestic listeners.
>
> > Let's face it: An engineer would rather move a slider, that get off his
> > fat, lazy arse and move the mic.
>
> I take it this is how you run your business since you attribute this to
> others?
**I'll allow you this one, last insult. I have never insulted you. I see no
reason why you should start now. This thread is not about me, or my
business. It is about equalisation, as used by domestic users. My business
has nothing to do with anything. I blame engineers for bad recordings, since
it seems obvious to me (and a goodly number of others) that they are to
blame for the sorry state of many recordings. Please note, that I do not
refer to ALL engineers. Just most of them.
>
> > Well, most of them, anyway. There's some good'uns out there.
>
> Judging by your comments I'd say your not a fit person to judge.
**I've been listening to music critically, for the best part of 35 years.
I'd say that I am well qualified to judge.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e45c6ed$0$2327$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > > **When you hear (say) a cymbal, which sounds nothing like a cymbal
> > > > (either too bright or too dull), it is reasonable to assume that
> > > > someone has cocked things up.
> > >
> > > So you're saying all cymbals sound the same? Many will be pleased to
> > > know that - it could save them a fortune.
>
> > **Absolutely not. In fact, I recall when I supplied some new equipment
> > to a client (an amateur drummer), he remarked that now he could finally
> > not only identify that cybals were being struck, but that he could
> > identify what they were being struck with and what brand the cymbals
> > were.
>
> Just let me get this straight. You say that equipment you sell will
> correct a badly recorded cymbal?
**Nope. In comparison to the crap which that particular client owned
previously, the equipment I supplied him, allowed him to hear what a well
recorded cymbal sounded like. Badly recorded cymbals still sound like badly
recorded cymbals.
Or just make some cymbals sound 'better'?
> Methinks you're going round in circles here.
**Nope. You're reading more into my words, than I wrote.
>
> > >
> > > > When listening to some of the old Mobile Fidelity
> > > > recordings, compared to the originals, it is easy to hear where the
> > > > engineer added a little 'zing' to the Mobile Fidelity ones. With
> > > > non-acoustic instruments, all bets are off.
> > >
> > > If you think this is *just* down to EQ, I'd suggest you listen to a
> > > few different microphones - then try recording something like a cymbal
> > > to analogue tape with them. Then send this tape off for LP mastering.
> > > After this you *might* be in a position to comment that 99.9% of
> > > recording engineers don't know what they're doing. And you still won't
> > > be the '0.1%' who do.
>
> > **I never suggested that I could engineer a recording well. I don't have
> > the talent, nor the inclination. I don't know enough about microphone
> > placement and type, nor the different constraints placed on various
> > instruments, in various rooms.
>
> But you claim to know enough that it's down to the use of graphic
> equalisers?
**Some is. Some isn't. I've watched recording engineers at work. Some cannot
help themselves. They must 'improve' the sound, at all costs.
Err, someone with golden ears such as yours would soon find
> out the best mic positions by experimentation - that's how most do it,
> although they'll start from a base of rote.
**I never claimed to possess golden ears. Ever. In fact, quite the reverse.
I do appreciate carefully and well recorded material, though. I don't enjoy
listening to crap.
>
> > Equally, I would suggest that a goodly number of recording engineers
> > don't have the talent, either.
>
> You definitely mean recording engineers?
**Yup.
>
> > And THAT is a major problem. As for my
> > comments about Mobile Fidelity recordings, please re-read what I wrote.
> > AFAIK, MFSL obtained master tapes and then made their own records from
> > those tapes. It is clear (to me) that some of these recordings have been
> > 'mucked about with', because I also own the originals. The MFSL ones are
> > noticably 'hotter' in the HF.
>
> Now you've moved on to mastering engineers. Who will do what they're told
> by the marketing boys.
**I'm sure they are. I am equally certain that in today's music market, the
maketing boys get to call most of the shots.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > **The topic is fixing dodgy recordings with graphic EQs. It is
> > > certainly apparent (to me) that goodly number of incompetent
> > > engineers (which is to say: most of them) try to fix their mistakes
> > > with equalisation.
> >
> > Do you mean equalisation or a graphic EQ?
> **Most would use far more sophisticated devices than the simple graphic
> EQs used by many domestic listeners.
A very broad generalization. Some of the best sounding equalisers are old
in design and simple compared to a graphic.
> > > Let's face it: An engineer would rather move a slider, that get off
> > > his fat, lazy arse and move the mic.
> > I take it this is how you run your business since you attribute this
> > to others?
> **I'll allow you this one, last insult. I have never insulted you. I see
> no reason why you should start now.
You've insulted my profession - so I don't see why yours should be immune
especially since you claim to know better than not only recording
engineers but also the makers of the equipment which you 'improve'.
> This thread is not about me, or my
> business. It is about equalisation, as used by domestic users.
Which you've broadened into the use of such things in a recording
environment - a whole new ball game.
> My business has nothing to do with anything. I blame engineers for bad
> recordings, since it seems obvious to me (and a goodly number of others)
> that they are to blame for the sorry state of many recordings. Please
> note, that I do not refer to ALL engineers. Just most of them.
You only blame the engineers - not the talent, producers etc?
> > > Well, most of them, anyway. There's some good'uns out there.
> >
> > Judging by your comments I'd say your not a fit person to judge.
> **I've been listening to music critically, for the best part of 35
> years. I'd say that I am well qualified to judge.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
--
*It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
Keith G
message news:gnte4vc73kv07ueb8...@4ax.com...
> In uk.rec.audio "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote
> >> others?
> >
> >**I'll allow you this one, last insult. I have never insulted you. I see
no
> >reason why you should start now.
>
>
Better yet, set your Newsgroup Reader's filters to 'Block Bullshitters' and
take out a few more at the same time......
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e47728d$0$8831$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > > **The topic is fixing dodgy recordings with graphic EQs. It is
> > > > certainly apparent (to me) that goodly number of incompetent
> > > > engineers (which is to say: most of them) try to fix their mistakes
> > > > with equalisation.
> > >
> > > Do you mean equalisation or a graphic EQ?
>
> > **Most would use far more sophisticated devices than the simple graphic
> > EQs used by many domestic listeners.
>
> A very broad generalization. Some of the best sounding equalisers are old
> in design and simple compared to a graphic.
**No. ALL analogue equalisers bugger up the sound. Every one. Some make it
much worse than others, but they all do damage. A decent digital EQ may be
capable of doing far less damage.
>
> > > > Let's face it: An engineer would rather move a slider, that get off
> > > > his fat, lazy arse and move the mic.
>
> > > I take it this is how you run your business since you attribute this
> > > to others?
>
> > **I'll allow you this one, last insult. I have never insulted you. I see
> > no reason why you should start now.
>
> You've insulted my profession - so I don't see why yours should be immune
> especially since you claim to know better than not only recording
> engineers but also the makers of the equipment which you 'improve'.
**Points:
* I have (had) no idea what your profession is. Ergo: I could not insult it.
* I reserved my insults (truth telling, to be precise) for those engineers
who are incompetant. A good engineer will not feel slighted by my words.
* I do not know more that the engineers who design the equipment I improve.
I am just not constrained by accountants. They are. (Again, you're making
this personal)
>
> > This thread is not about me, or my
> > business. It is about equalisation, as used by domestic users.
>
> Which you've broadened into the use of such things in a recording
> environment - a whole new ball game.
**No. Many people are so frustrated by the appalling sound quality of many
recordings, that they feel a graphic EQ will solve their problems.
>
> > My business has nothing to do with anything. I blame engineers for bad
> > recordings, since it seems obvious to me (and a goodly number of others)
> > that they are to blame for the sorry state of many recordings. Please
> > note, that I do not refer to ALL engineers. Just most of them.
>
> You only blame the engineers - not the talent, producers etc?
**Sure. Bad engineers are PART of the problem. Not the only part of the
problem.
>
> > > > Well, most of them, anyway. There's some good'uns out there.
> > >
> > > Judging by your comments I'd say your not a fit person to judge.
>
> > **I've been listening to music critically, for the best part of 35
> > years. I'd say that I am well qualified to judge.
>
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
**Sure. 25 years of involvement in all facets of the audio business and lots
of listening, is not "A little knowledge". It's quite a bit.
--
Trevor Wilson (Looking forward to the new version of Let It Be, without the
input of Phil Spector)
www.rageaudio.com.au
Keith G
<snip a ton of stuff about EQ's - never owned one, never used one, never
wanted one.....>
> > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
> **Sure. 25 years of involvement in all facets of the audio business and
lots
> of listening, is not "A little knowledge". It's quite a bit.
Yes it is.
> Trevor Wilson (Looking forward to the new version of Let It Be, without
the
> input of Phil Spector)
Whaaat? - Woss up with the original version FFS?
One of the all-time greatest songs ever, in my book! Very simple, very
poignant - written when everything was starting to turn to shit for one of
the most important (modern) bands of all time!
Arny Krueger
> **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one. Some make it
> much worse than others, but they all do damage. A decent digital EQ may be
> capable of doing far less damage.
Horsefeathers.
I'd rebut every claim but I just did it and it apparently did no good at
all.
We've got the same lose cannon firing the identical same off-target shots.
I guess this is Trevor's new religion to replace Christianity in his life,
or some such.
Dave Plowman
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one. Some
> > make it much worse than others, but they all do damage. A decent
> > digital EQ may be capable of doing far less damage.
> Horsefeathers.
> I'd rebut every claim but I just did it and it apparently did no good at
> all.
> We've got the same lose cannon firing the identical same off-target
> shots.
> I guess this is Trevor's new religion to replace Christianity in his
> life, or some such.
But I'll bet he likes vinyl which has a built in equaliser in the
pre-amp. ;-)
--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *
Trevor Wilson
> In article <qp72a.19$9w.35...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > > **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one. Some
> > > make it much worse than others, but they all do damage. A decent
> > > digital EQ may be capable of doing far less damage.
>
> > Horsefeathers.
>
> > I'd rebut every claim but I just did it and it apparently did no good at
> > all.
>
> > We've got the same lose cannon firing the identical same off-target
> > shots.
>
> > I guess this is Trevor's new religion to replace Christianity in his
> > life, or some such.
>
> But I'll bet he likes vinyl which has a built in equaliser in the
> pre-amp. ;-)
**You haven't been paying attention. My main argument against *any* EQ is
that it is impossible for the average listener to provide an inverse EQ
curve to compensate for any problems. Guess what the RIAA curves does? Do I
need to explain this to an alleged audio professional?
Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal issue and not
relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:qp72a.19$9w.35...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3e48049b$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one. Some make
it
> > much worse than others, but they all do damage. A decent digital EQ may
be
> > capable of doing far less damage.
>
> Horsefeathers.
>
> I'd rebut every claim but I just did it and it apparently did no good at
> all.
**Please point me to the part of the thread where you did so. I will comment
accordingly.
>
> We've got the same lose cannon firing the identical same off-target shots.
>
> I guess this is Trevor's new religion to replace Christianity in his life,
> or some such.
**I don't need the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or Jesus of Nazareth in my
life. The whole thing is just too silly for words.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Keith G" <Kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:b29h22$1973vg$1...@ID-174693.news.dfncis.de...
**I agree. Let It Be was a stunning piece of music. However, I recently
heard that Sir Paul was unhappy with Spector's input (into the LP) and was
to re-release the album without Spector's additions. It should be something
to look forward to.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > But I'll bet he likes vinyl which has a built in equaliser in the
> > pre-amp. ;-)
> **You haven't been paying attention. My main argument against *any* EQ is
> that it is impossible for the average listener to provide an inverse EQ
> curve to compensate for any problems.
And the EQ or shaped response built in to most microphones? Do you object
to that too?
> Guess what the RIAA curves does? Do I need to explain this to an alleged
> audio professional?
Not alleged - it's how I earn my living. You may comment on my opinions,
but that's fact.
> Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal issue and
> not relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
Anything which shows up your other quirks is relevant.
--
*I want it all and I want it delivered
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e494a21$0$8817$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > But I'll bet he likes vinyl which has a built in equaliser in the
> > > pre-amp. ;-)
>
> > **You haven't been paying attention. My main argument against *any* EQ
is
> > that it is impossible for the average listener to provide an inverse EQ
> > curve to compensate for any problems.
>
> And the EQ or shaped response built in to most microphones? Do you object
> to that too?
**Most, but not all. I have already stated that I have limited experience
with microphones and their placement, with the sole exception of testing
loudspeakers. I use a calibrated mic for that purpose. I also have some
limited experience with PZM style mics, when used in various applications.
Both types exhibit an essentially flat response.
>
> > Guess what the RIAA curves does? Do I need to explain this to an alleged
> > audio professional?
>
> Not alleged - it's how I earn my living. You may comment on my opinions,
> but that's fact.
**It is also a fact that the RIAA curve is (or should be) the precise
inverse of the method by which the LP was produced. As long as the two
curves are the precise mirror image of each other, there is no problem. It
seems you may have forgotton this basic fact. And, again, for the record: My
MAJOR objection to any equalisation, as used by domestic listeners, is the
inability of those listeners to adjust the EQ with any sort of precision. I
have several other objections as well.
>
> > Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal issue and
> > not relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
>
> Anything which shows up your other quirks is relevant.
**You'd think. However, I am not discussing personal opinion or personal
preference. I am discussing facts and logic. My quirks are not relevant.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > And the EQ or shaped response built in to most microphones? Do you
> > object to that too?
> **Most, but not all. I have already stated that I have limited
> experience with microphones and their placement, with the sole exception
> of testing loudspeakers. I use a calibrated mic for that purpose. I also
> have some limited experience with PZM style mics, when used in various
> applications. Both types exhibit an essentially flat response.
But neither would be used on the sort of recording you're complaining
about. Or the ones you don't.
> >
> > > Guess what the RIAA curves does? Do I need to explain this to an
> > > alleged audio professional?
> >
> > Not alleged - it's how I earn my living. You may comment on my
> > opinions, but that's fact.
> **It is also a fact that the RIAA curve is (or should be) the precise
> inverse of the method by which the LP was produced. As long as the two
> curves are the precise mirror image of each other, there is no problem.
> It seems you may have forgotton this basic fact.
I haven't forgotten it. And not all RIAA carves are the mirror image of
each other.
> And, again, for the record: My MAJOR objection to any equalisation, as
> used by domestic listeners, is the inability of those listeners to
> adjust the EQ with any sort of precision. I have several other
> objections as well.
Even although it improves the sound of some speakers or a small room?
I notice you modify speakers. Do you change the frequency response of some?
> >
> > > Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal issue
> > > and not relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the
> > > facts.
> >
> > Anything which shows up your other quirks is relevant.
> **You'd think. However, I am not discussing personal opinion or personal
> preference. I am discussing facts and logic. My quirks are not relevant.
You're not discussing facts - you're expressing an opinion.
--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŚ.Ś.just don't point!
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e4965a5$0$9168$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > And the EQ or shaped response built in to most microphones? Do you
> > > object to that too?
>
> > **Most, but not all. I have already stated that I have limited
> > experience with microphones and their placement, with the sole exception
> > of testing loudspeakers. I use a calibrated mic for that purpose. I also
> > have some limited experience with PZM style mics, when used in various
> > applications. Both types exhibit an essentially flat response.
>
> But neither would be used on the sort of recording you're complaining
> about. Or the ones you don't.
**I don't know that. AFAIK, PZMs have been successfully used in various
applications. Pianos, f'rinstance. Like I said, though: Recording techniques
is not my area of expertise. I cannot discuss it intelligently.
>
> > >
> > > > Guess what the RIAA curves does? Do I need to explain this to an
> > > > alleged audio professional?
> > >
> > > Not alleged - it's how I earn my living. You may comment on my
> > > opinions, but that's fact.
>
> > **It is also a fact that the RIAA curve is (or should be) the precise
> > inverse of the method by which the LP was produced. As long as the two
> > curves are the precise mirror image of each other, there is no problem.
> > It seems you may have forgotton this basic fact.
>
> I haven't forgotten it. And not all RIAA carves are the mirror image of
> each other.
**Then the ones that aren't, are wrong. The RIAA curve of an amplifier
should precisely mirror that of the recording. That is not rocket science.
It just requires reasonable precision passive components. Anything else is
wrong.
>
> > And, again, for the record: My MAJOR objection to any equalisation, as
> > used by domestic listeners, is the inability of those listeners to
> > adjust the EQ with any sort of precision. I have several other
> > objections as well.
>
> Even although it improves the sound of some speakers or a small room?
**Unless the user has access to lots of equipment and knows the precise
nature of the problem/s, it cannot be done.
> I notice you modify speakers. Do you change the frequency response of
some?
**If you mean:
*Eliminating (or reducing) unwanted resonance problems.
*Dealing with premature inductor saturation (and consequent distortion
production).
*Replacing unreliable, short life-span bipolar electrolytics, with film type
caps.
*Correcting poorly chosen alignments.
*Replacing poorly chosen drivers.
*Etc.
Then, yes, I do. Mostly, however, the speaker's fundamental frequency
response is unchanged (except the above-mentioned resonance issues and worn
caps). I always figure that the client has chosen a particular speaker for
it's basic performance and leave that unaltered. I just do the stuff that
the manufacturer cannot do, due to cost constraints. Air cored inductors and
film caps are much more expensive than ferrite core and elctros,
f'rinstance. As is cabinet damping. I
>
> > >
> > > > Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal issue
> > > > and not relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the
> > > > facts.
> > >
> > > Anything which shows up your other quirks is relevant.
>
> > **You'd think. However, I am not discussing personal opinion or personal
> > preference. I am discussing facts and logic. My quirks are not relevant.
>
> You're not discussing facts - you're expressing an opinion.
**Nope. My quirks (as you put it) are not relevant. Besides you have no idea
what my preference/s is/are. You're engaging in wild speculation. Very
risky, in any argument.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e48049b$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > > **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one. Some
> > > > make it much worse than others, but they all do damage. A decent
> > > > digital EQ may be capable of doing far less damage.
> **You haven't been paying attention. My main argument against *any* EQ is
> that it is impossible for the average listener to provide an inverse EQ
> curve to compensate for any problems.
Trevor, you really need a remedial writing course, because per the comment I
responded to (reproduced above), that is NOT what you wrote. You didn't talk
about operator training, you talked about limitations of the equipment.
> Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal issue and
not
> relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
Trevor, after you've mangled the facts and then revised your mangling, who
can tell?
Trevor Wilson
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3e494a21$0$8817$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3e48049b$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > > > > **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one. Some
> > > > > make it much worse than others, but they all do damage. A decent
> > > > > digital EQ may be capable of doing far less damage.
>
> > **You haven't been paying attention. My main argument against *any* EQ
is
> > that it is impossible for the average listener to provide an inverse EQ
> > curve to compensate for any problems.
>
> Trevor, you really need a remedial writing course, because per the comment
I
> responded to (reproduced above), that is NOT what you wrote. You didn't
talk
> about operator training, you talked about limitations of the equipment.
**You're not paying attention either, it seems. I have been most consistent,
throughout this thread that the average listener has neither the equipment,
nor the training to set up an equaliser correctly, in order to counteract
any perceived problems.
>
> > Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal issue and
> not
> > relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
>
> Trevor, after you've mangled the facts and then revised your mangling,
who
> can tell?
**Mangled what? You have conveniently stripped out My Plowman's comments,
thus completely mangling this part of the thread.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
Let me refresh your memory:-
************
From: Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au>
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to graphic equalizers?
Date: Thu, Thu Feb 6 10:25:00 2003
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio
> So 99.9% of 'recording engineers' are wrong? There must be a huge opening
> there for you, then.
**Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are wrong.
***********
Just what is that if not wild speculation?
--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e499b5e$0$9168$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > You're not discussing facts - you're expressing an opinion.
>
> > **Nope. My quirks (as you put it) are not relevant. Besides you have no
> > idea what my preference/s is/are. You're engaging in wild speculation.
> > Very risky, in any argument.
>
> Let me refresh your memory:-
>
> ************
>
> From: Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Whatever happened to graphic equalizers?
> Date: Thu, Thu Feb 6 10:25:00 2003
> Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio
>
> > So 99.9% of 'recording engineers' are wrong? There must be a huge
opening
> > there for you, then.
>
> **Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are wrong.
>
> ***********
>
> Just what is that if not wild speculation?
**A factual statement, based on what I have heard in most modern recordings.
Maybe more than 0.1% of modern recordings are excellent. I just have yet to
hear them.
You, I suspect, were making some kind of reference to what YOU THINK I
prefer vis a vis LPs and CDs. The media is largely irrelevant, if the
recording engineer has got his job done right. Most of the time, he/she does
not.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Vhi2a.457$%f6.26...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:3e494a21$0$8817$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:3e48049b$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>>>>> **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one.
>>>>>> Some make it much worse than others, but they all do damage. A
>>>>>> decent digital EQ may be capable of doing far less damage.
>>
>>> **You haven't been paying attention. My main argument against *any*
>>> EQ
> is
>>> that it is impossible for the average listener to provide an
>>> inverse EQ curve to compensate for any problems.
>>
>> Trevor, you really need a remedial writing course, because per the
>> comment I responded to (reproduced above), that is NOT what you
>> wrote. You didn't talk about operator training, you talked about
>> limitations of the equipment.
> **You're not paying attention either, it seems.
Well Trevor, are you writing in an expository fashion, or are you trying to
write in some sort of inscrutable code?
> I have been most
> consistent, throughout this thread that the average listener has
> neither the equipment, nor the training to set up an equalizer
> correctly, in order to counteract any perceived problems.
Of course that's horsefeathers as well. Trevor, you're making the classic
mistake of presuming that everybody is as perceptually disabled as you are.
>>> Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal
>>> issue and not
>>> relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
>> Trevor, after you've mangled the facts and then revised your
>> mangling, who can tell?
> **Mangled what? You have conveniently stripped out My Plowman's
> comments, thus completely mangling this part of the thread.
I'll give you another chance, Trevor.
Since it's totally and categorically wrong to say that the hardware can't
work, and it's totally and categorically wrong to say that users can't make
good use of equalizers, what do you wish to say to redeem yourself?
Dave Plowman
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > **Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are
> > wrong.
> >
> > ***********
> >
> > Just what is that if not wild speculation?
> **A factual statement, based on what I have heard in most modern
> recordings.
And it hasn't occurred to you that either your judgement or indeed the
equipment your playing it on could be wrong?
> Maybe more than 0.1% of modern recordings are excellent. I
> just have yet to hear them.
> You, I suspect, were making some kind of reference to what YOU THINK I
> prefer vis a vis LPs and CDs. The media is largely irrelevant, if the
> recording engineer has got his job done right. Most of the time, he/she
> does not.
Really? And you think vinyl can easily and always reproduce a cymbal
accurately? Or indeed analogue tape?
--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.
Trevor Wilson
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3e49be40$0$8831$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vhi2a.457$%f6.26...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:3e494a21$0$8817$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>
> >> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:3e48049b$0$21720$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>
> >>>>>> **No. ALL analogue equalizers bugger up the sound. Every one.
> >>>>>> Some make it much worse than others, but they all do damage. A
> >>>>>> decent digital EQ may be capable of doing far less damage.
> >>
> >>> **You haven't been paying attention. My main argument against *any*
> >>> EQ
> > is
> >>> that it is impossible for the average listener to provide an
> >>> inverse EQ curve to compensate for any problems.
> >>
> >> Trevor, you really need a remedial writing course, because per the
> >> comment I responded to (reproduced above), that is NOT what you
> >> wrote. You didn't talk about operator training, you talked about
> >> limitations of the equipment.
>
> > **You're not paying attention either, it seems.
>
> Well Trevor, are you writing in an expository fashion, or are you trying
to
> write in some sort of inscrutable code?
**I am writing clearly and concisely. It seems that you are the only one who
cannot understand what I am trying to say.
>
> > I have been most
> > consistent, throughout this thread that the average listener has
> > neither the equipment, nor the training to set up an equalizer
> > correctly, in order to counteract any perceived problems.
>
> Of course that's horsefeathers as well. Trevor, you're making the classic
> mistake of presuming that everybody is as perceptually disabled as you
are.
**Nope. Although, I would suggest that even though I am vastly better
equipped that the average listener (Calibrated mic, LMS, Spectra Plus, etc)
and am equipped with a reasonable amount of experience, even I would not
presume to be able remove flaws from a system using an analogue equaliser.
Too hard, way too imprecise to be of any use and the extra problems
introduced by analogue equalisers would mean that the result is worse than
it was before.
>
> >>> Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal
> >>> issue and not
> >>> relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
>
> >> Trevor, after you've mangled the facts and then revised your
> >> mangling, who can tell?
>
> > **Mangled what? You have conveniently stripped out My Plowman's
> > comments, thus completely mangling this part of the thread.
>
> I'll give you another chance, Trevor.
**So, it is appropriate to mangle a post between Mr Plowman and myself and
claim that I made it so?
>
> Since it's totally and categorically wrong to say that the hardware can't
> work, and it's totally and categorically wrong to say that users can't
make
> good use of equalizers, what do you wish to say to redeem yourself?
**Nothing. I have stated the facts. You prove to me that an analogue
equaliser can be set up, by an average listener, without the use of test
equipment and without doing damage to the sound. I have provided the reasons
why they cannot work. It is up to you to show otherwise. In your answer, you
may care to provide before and after response plots of an average
loudspeaker in an average room, WITHOUT smoothing. I look forward to your
response plots.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
OK, you have a mental block.
> Too hard, way too imprecise to be of any use and the extra problems
> introduced by analogue equalisers would mean that the result is worse than
> it was before.
That's not any kind of universal rule.
> > >>> Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal
> > >>> issue and not
> > >>> relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
> > >> Trevor, after you've mangled the facts and then revised your
> > >> mangling, who can tell?
> > > **Mangled what? You have conveniently stripped out My Plowman's
> > > comments, thus completely mangling this part of the thread.
> > I'll give you another chance, Trevor.
> **So, it is appropriate to mangle a post between Mr Plowman and myself and
> claim that I made it so?
I'm just trying to make sense of reality on one hand, and your posturing on
the other.
> > Since it's totally and categorically wrong to say that the hardware
can't
> > work, and it's totally and categorically wrong to say that users can't
> make
> > good use of equalizers, what do you wish to say to redeem yourself?
> **Nothing. I have stated the facts. You prove to me that an analogue
> equaliser can be set up, by an average listener, without the use of test
> equipment and without doing damage to the sound.
Can't do that since you are in Australia and I'm in a different continent.
>I have provided the reasons why they cannot work.
They're not reasons, just assertions and anecdotes.
> It is up to you to show otherwise. In your answer, you
> may care to provide before and after response plots of an average
> loudspeaker in an average room, WITHOUT smoothing. I look forward to your
> response plots.
Is that all you mean by "doing damage to the sound" - measured results?
Seems too easy.
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e4a1c72$0$1526$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > **Based on what I have heard in 99.9% of recordings, yes, they are
> > > wrong.
> > >
> > > ***********
> > >
> > > Just what is that if not wild speculation?
>
> > **A factual statement, based on what I have heard in most modern
> > recordings.
>
> And it hasn't occurred to you that either your judgement or indeed the
> equipment your playing it on could be wrong?
**Nope. When I listen to my Also Sprach Zarathustra (Zubin Mehta, of
course), I hear a beautifully played, well recorded, excellently engineered
recording. When I hear my Sonny Rollins, Way Out West, I hear a sublimely
well made recording. When I hear my Pointer Sisters LP, I hear crap.
>
> > Maybe more than 0.1% of modern recordings are excellent. I
> > just have yet to hear them.
>
> > You, I suspect, were making some kind of reference to what YOU THINK I
> > prefer vis a vis LPs and CDs. The media is largely irrelevant, if the
> > recording engineer has got his job done right. Most of the time, he/she
> > does not.
>
> Really?
**Yes, really.
> And you think vinyl can easily and always reproduce a cymbal
> accurately?
**I have no idea what this question has to do with anything, but, no, not
always. Given enough care, cymbals can be well reproduced by vinyl.
Particularly since vinyl has an upper frequency response limit which
theoretically far eclipses almost any other system. My own cartridge
measures -3dB at 60kHz.
> Or indeed analogue tape?
**A half track Studer, running at 15ips. Easy. Last one I measured was 3dB
down at 29kHz @ 0VU.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dave Plowman
> > Or indeed analogue tape?
Think you might find accurate reproduction has rather more to it than just
frequency response, but I doubt you'd be interested.
--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *
Arny Krueger
> **I have no idea what this question has to do with anything, but, no, not
> always. Given enough care, cymbals can be well reproduced by vinyl.
Sine well-reproduced is vague and subjective, who can argue.
> Particularly since vinyl has an upper frequency response limit which
> theoretically far eclipses almost any other system.
Response without dynamic range and/or durability is practically meaningless.
>My own cartridge measures -3dB at 60kHz.
There's actually a fair amount of practical experience with trying to
recover signals from vinyl in the 30 KHz range. After a few playings under
even ideal circumstances, those signals are highly attenuated, distorted and
sometimes even wiped clean.
The audible significance of response > 20 KHz is well-known, per many
peer-reviewed scientific papers, to be zero.
Trevor Wilson
> In article <3e4b6072$0$10323$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > And you think vinyl can easily and always reproduce a cymbal
> > > accurately?
>
> > **I have no idea what this question has to do with anything, but, no,
> > not always. Given enough care, cymbals can be well reproduced by vinyl.
> > Particularly since vinyl has an upper frequency response limit which
> > theoretically far eclipses almost any other system. My own cartridge
> > measures -3dB at 60kHz.
>
> > > Or indeed analogue tape?
>
> > **A half track Studer, running at 15ips. Easy. Last one I measured was
> > 3dB down at 29kHz @ 0VU.
>
> Think you might find accurate reproduction has rather more to it than just
> frequency response, but I doubt you'd be interested.
**Sure it does. When it comes to cymbals, however, frequency response is
just about all that is required. If you have evidence to the contrary,
please present it.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3e4b6072$0$10323$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > **I have no idea what this question has to do with anything, but, no,
not
> > always. Given enough care, cymbals can be well reproduced by vinyl.
>
> Sine well-reproduced is vague and subjective, who can argue.
**Again, you comments are difficult to understand, since you have made an
unitelligible statement and have removed Mr Plowman's question. I responded
in a way which was commmensurate with Mr Plowman's question. As you would
realise, if you had taken the time to read the entire thread.
>
> > Particularly since vinyl has an upper frequency response limit which
> > theoretically far eclipses almost any other system.
>
> Response without dynamic range and/or durability is practically
meaningless.
**Again, my response was made within the confines of Mr Plowman's question/s
(which you conveniently snipped).
>
> >My own cartridge measures -3dB at 60kHz.
>
> There's actually a fair amount of practical experience with trying to
> recover signals from vinyl in the 30 KHz range. After a few playings under
> even ideal circumstances, those signals are highly attenuated, distorted
and
> sometimes even wiped clean.
**Again, my response was made within the confines of Mr Plowman's question/s
(which you conveniently snipped). I do not, nor have I ever disputed, the
limitations of vinyl reproduction.
>
> The audible significance of response > 20 KHz is well-known, per many
> peer-reviewed scientific papers, to be zero.
**Is that so? Please list them, so I can review them as well. "Many" means
how many, exactly?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
**No, I don't. What I do have is lots of experience and some nice test
equipment and the skills to use it. I also know that with all that test
equipment and skill, an analogue equaliser cannot help an average system, in
any meaningful way. I also know that the average listener has bugger all in
the way of test equipment and skill and has about the same chance of setting
his/her equaliser in a helpful fashion. I also know that an analogue
equaliser will damage the phase response of the system it is connected to.
>
> > Too hard, way too imprecise to be of any use and the extra problems
> > introduced by analogue equalisers would mean that the result is worse
than
> > it was before.
>
> That's not any kind of universal rule.
**Sure it is. Whilst not applicable in 100% of cases, it is applicable in
(my best guess) 99.99999% of cases. That is statistically near enough to
"all cases".
>
> > > >>> Again, my preference vis a vis source material is a personal
> > > >>> issue and not
> > > >>> relevant to this discussion. Please try to stick to the facts.
>
> > > >> Trevor, after you've mangled the facts and then revised your
> > > >> mangling, who can tell?
>
> > > > **Mangled what? You have conveniently stripped out My Plowman's
> > > > comments, thus completely mangling this part of the thread.
>
> > > I'll give you another chance, Trevor.
>
> > **So, it is appropriate to mangle a post between Mr Plowman and myself
and
> > claim that I made it so?
>
> I'm just trying to make sense of reality on one hand, and your posturing
on
> the other.
**Then stop mangling posts. You have managed to destroy the meaning behind
my words.
>
> > > Since it's totally and categorically wrong to say that the hardware
> can't
> > > work, and it's totally and categorically wrong to say that users can't
> > make
> > > good use of equalizers, what do you wish to say to redeem yourself?
>
> > **Nothing. I have stated the facts. You prove to me that an analogue
> > equaliser can be set up, by an average listener, without the use of test
> > equipment and without doing damage to the sound.
>
> Can't do that since you are in Australia and I'm in a different continent.
**Course you can. Measure a 'typical' loudspeaker in a 'typical' room.
Present the graph UNSMOOTHED. Now, get to work with your graphic EQ and show
me how you can make that curve any better. Present the before and after
graphs. Easy enough. You don't even need a calibrated mic, since we are only
doing a comparison.
>
> >I have provided the reasons why they cannot work.
>
> They're not reasons, just assertions and anecdotes.
**Nope. Facts. If you want to refute them, present the graphs.
>
> > It is up to you to show otherwise. In your answer, you
> > may care to provide before and after response plots of an average
> > loudspeaker in an average room, WITHOUT smoothing. I look forward to
your
> > response plots.
>
> Is that all you mean by "doing damage to the sound" - measured results?
>
>
> Seems too easy.
**Then get on with it. Don't forget those pesky phase plots.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Jim Lesurf
Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> Particularly since vinyl has an upper frequency response limit which
> theoretically far eclipses almost any other system. My own cartridge
> measures -3dB at 60kHz.
Curious to know: "-3dB" with respect to what as a reference level? And what
test disc?
So far as I recall for cartridges, as the signal frequency rises, it is
usual for the distortion at a given level to rise, and for the max level
that can be tracked to fall. Hence I'd suspect the above would only apply
for signal levels well below the nominal 0dB normally used for LP. I would
also expect tip mass, contact area shape etc, to mean any LP played to be
likely to lose any features at these frequencies quite rapidly as the
stylus deformed them away after a few playings - unless again the signal
level was very low. IIRC when developers test new designs for things like
this they get through a lot of test discs. :-)
I am also unsure how many of the microphones, mixing desks, etc, people
have used to make LPs ever manage to record anything like 60kHz onto an LP.
When KH did a survey of mics a while ago for HFN mag he had his doubts that
the extended response of some of the newer digital systems was ever going
to be required by the output many mics produce.
TBH I would not say that "Vinyl" as such has a "frequency response" in
isolation. We need to consider the cutter, etc, as well as the effects of
replay. If what I recall about LP cutters is correct, they are mostly
unlikely to be able to record much at such high frequencies. Partly due to
the power requirements as they are mass-controlled at HF. Partly due to the
cutter system open loop gain falling at HF.
This makes me wonder what test disc you used to get the figure you quote. I
am wondering if it had to be recorded at slow-speed. If so, this would
affect other aspects of performance if the method was applied for real
music.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
MMWaves http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/MMWave/Index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Trevor Wilson
"Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4bc4398...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3e4b6072$0$10323$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
> Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Particularly since vinyl has an upper frequency response limit which
> > theoretically far eclipses almost any other system. My own cartridge
> > measures -3dB at 60kHz.
>
> Curious to know: "-3dB" with respect to what as a reference level? And
what
> test disc?
**Buggered if I know. As soon as I can dig out the magazine, I'll let you
know.
>
> So far as I recall for cartridges, as the signal frequency rises, it is
> usual for the distortion at a given level to rise, and for the max level
> that can be tracked to fall. Hence I'd suspect the above would only apply
> for signal levels well below the nominal 0dB normally used for LP. I would
> also expect tip mass, contact area shape etc, to mean any LP played to be
> likely to lose any features at these frequencies quite rapidly as the
> stylus deformed them away after a few playings - unless again the signal
> level was very low. IIRC when developers test new designs for things like
> this they get through a lot of test discs. :-)
**All true. However, under ideal conditions, vinyl is capable of superb
performance. Durability, is not vinyl's finest attribute.
>
> I am also unsure how many of the microphones, mixing desks, etc, people
> have used to make LPs ever manage to record anything like 60kHz onto an
LP.
> When KH did a survey of mics a while ago for HFN mag he had his doubts
that
> the extended response of some of the newer digital systems was ever going
> to be required by the output many mics produce.
**Possibly. My own measurement mic is supplied with a curve, showing a
response to 20kHz @ 0dB, 30kHz @ -4dB and 40kHz @ -10.5dB. Naturally, the
curve is fed into the test equipment, thus providing a flat response to
40kHz.
>
> TBH I would not say that "Vinyl" as such has a "frequency response" in
> isolation. We need to consider the cutter, etc, as well as the effects of
> replay. If what I recall about LP cutters is correct, they are mostly
> unlikely to be able to record much at such high frequencies. Partly due to
> the power requirements as they are mass-controlled at HF. Partly due to
the
> cutter system open loop gain falling at HF.
**Sure, which is why many high end masters were cut at half speed.
>
> This makes me wonder what test disc you used to get the figure you quote.
I
> am wondering if it had to be recorded at slow-speed. If so, this would
> affect other aspects of performance if the method was applied for real
> music.
**Possibly. My own test disc delivers very impressive square waves, when
required. As you are aware, the leading and trailing edges contain a good
deal of HF energy.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
> **Is that so? Please list them, so I can review them as well. "Many" means
> how many, exactly?
This list should help you get started:
Which Bandwidth is Necessary for Optimal Sound Transmission?
Author(s): Plenge, G.; Jakubowski, H.; Schöne, P.
Publication: JAES Volume 28 Number 3 pp. 114·119; March 1980
Snow WB. Audible frequency ranges of music, speech and noise. J Acoust Soc
Am 3: 155-166, 1931
High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator 955218
bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Clark, David
Publication: JAES Volume 30 Number 5 pp. 330-338; May 1982
Durrant JD, and Lovrinc JH. Bases of Hearing Science., Hagerstown, MD:
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1977.
Examination of Audio-Bandwidth Requirements for Optimum Sound Signal
Transmission Author(s): Muraoka, Teruo; Iwahara, Makoto; Yamada, Yasuhiro
Publication: JAES Volume 29 Number 1/2 pp. 2·9; January 1981
Arny Krueger
All unfounded, unsupported assertions.
>
> > > Too hard, way too imprecise to be of any use and the extra problems
> > > introduced by analogue equalisers would mean that the result is worse
than
> > > it was before.
> >
> > That's not any kind of universal rule.
>
> **Sure it is. Whilst not applicable in 100% of cases, it is applicable in
> (my best guess) 99.99999% of cases. That is statistically near enough to
> "all cases".
All unfounded, unsupported assertions.
Trevor, this *experiment* is performed routinely by sound reinforcment
engineers. I've done it myself many times. The results are generally
positive. The benefits of equalization to the frequency response of speaker
systems is well known and generally effective.
> > >I have provided the reasons why they cannot work.
> > They're not reasons, just assertions and anecdotes.
> **Nope. Facts. If you want to refute them, present the graphs.
I don't need to reinvent the wheel
Perception of Perceived Sound in Rooms: Some Results of the Athena Project
2562748 bytes (CD aes16)
Author(s): Schuck, Peter L.; Olive, Sean E.; Ryan, James G.; Toole, Floyd
E.; Sally, Sharon L.; Bonneville, Marc E.; Momtahan, Kathy L.; Verreault,
Eric S.
Publication: AES Paper 12-006; Conference: The AES 12th International
Conference: The Perception of Reproduced Sound; June 1993
Transient Response Equalization of Sealed-Box Loudspeakers 504701 bytes (CD
aes4)
Author(s): Staggs, Victor
Publication: JAES Volume 30 Number 12 pp. 906-911; December 1982
The Mirror Filter嫂 New Basis for Linear Equalization and Nonlinear
Distortion Reduction of Woofer Systems 1459125 bytes (CD aes12)
Author(s): Klippel, Wolfgang
Publication: AES Preprint 3221; Convention 92; March 1992
Are Equalized Closed-Boxes Preferable to Vented-Boxes? 856826 bytes (CD
aes11)
Author(s): Zaustinsky, Eugene
Publication: AEs Preprint 2415; Convention 81; November 1986
Is Sophisticated Loudspeaker Crossover Design Possible Without Sophisticated
Measurements? 2372923 bytes (CD aes10)
Author(s): Zaustinsky, Eugene
Publication: AES Preprint 2032; Convention 74; October 1983
Signal Processing Considerations for Acoustic Environment Correction 1647093
bytes (CD aes17)
Author(s): Genereux, Ronald
Publication: AES Paper DSP-14; Conference: AES UK Conference: DSP; September
1992
Jim Lesurf
Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4bc4398...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> **All true. However, under ideal conditions, vinyl is capable of superb
> performance. Durability, is not vinyl's finest attribute.
I would not argue with either statement. :-)
It also occurs to me to add that a cartridge having an extended HF response
may be a 'good sign' in some ways. The extended response may be a sign of
low tip mass, well-controlled stylus shape, etc. These may have benefits at
lower frequencies in lowering distortion and wear. Hence the extended
response may be desirable for reasons other than any need to extract
ultrasonic components from the disc.
> >
> > I am also unsure how many of the microphones, mixing desks, etc,
> > people have used to make LPs ever manage to record anything like 60kHz
> > onto an
> LP.
> > When KH did a survey of mics a while ago for HFN mag he had his doubts
> that
> > the extended response of some of the newer digital systems was ever
> > going to be required by the output many mics produce.
> **Possibly. My own measurement mic is supplied with a curve, showing a
> response to 20kHz @ 0dB, 30kHz @ -4dB and 40kHz @ -10.5dB. Naturally,
> the curve is fed into the test equipment, thus providing a flat response
> to 40kHz.
Well, I also have some (B&K) mics that have a fairly extended and flat
response. I don't know much about current recording practice, but I would
however suspect that most sound recording/broadcast engineers don't use
mics with such a flat, extended response. Thus I suspect that measurement
microphones may not be a reliable guide here. Certainly KH's recent
measurements seemed to confirm this. Also, IIRC I think that measurements
on commercial LPs in the past indicated that ultrasonic compoents tended to
be rare, low-level, and often might be due to distortion products. This may
have changed, though.
> **Possibly. My own test disc delivers very impressive square waves, when
> required. As you are aware, the leading and trailing edges contain a
> good deal of HF energy.
Yes. Although you need to be careful in interpeting the shape of such
waveforms due to the RIAA behaviour and the tendency of the record/replay
system to distort HF. Hence the actual sinewave response may not be
reliably indicated by observing a squarewave as the system may be
significantly nonlinear. Similarly, we need to be careful about any
tendency for the cartridge to 'balance' any equivalent problems with the
cutting of the test LP.
Arny Krueger
> In article <3e4cb7f9$0$10327$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
> Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > "Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4bc4398...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> > **All true. However, under ideal conditions, vinyl is capable of superb
> > performance. Durability, is not vinyl's finest attribute.
> I would not argue with either statement. :-)
> It also occurs to me to add that a cartridge having an extended HF
response
> may be a 'good sign' in some ways. The extended response may be a sign of
> low tip mass, well-controlled stylus shape, etc. These may have benefits
at
> lower frequencies in lowering distortion and wear. Hence the extended
> response may be desirable for reasons other than any need to extract
> ultrasonic components from the disc.
All very true, but it's ground that was beat to death long before the advent
of the CD.
> > > I am also unsure how many of the microphones, mixing desks, etc,
> > > people have used to make LPs ever manage to record anything like 60kHz
> > > onto an LP.
I did a study of cardiod microphones. I found only one with response > 30
KHz, the Sennheiser MKH 800. AFAIK, street price is about $1800.
Omni's with extended response are easier to find for *reasonable* prices,
such as Earthworks.
The recording art as we know it today is basically a world composed of
cardiod microphones, so the absence of viable offerings in this product
category is very significant.
> > > When KH did a survey of mics a while ago for HFN mag he had his doubts
that
> > > the extended response of some of the newer digital systems was ever
> > > going to be required by the output many mics produce.
> > **Possibly. My own measurement mic is supplied with a curve, showing a
> > response to 20kHz @ 0dB, 30kHz @ -4dB and 40kHz @ -10.5dB. Naturally,
> > the curve is fed into the test equipment, thus providing a flat response
> > to 40kHz.
Measurement mic = omni.
> Well, I also have some (B&K) mics that have a fairly extended and flat
> response.
As do I. I used them to make recordings for my PCABX web site. You can see
solid evidence of recordings with considerable > 20 KHz energy at
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm . I've shown these to
people with vinyl mastering backgrounds, and asked them if they would like
to cut me some lacquers with the condition that they not be low-pass
filtered
in any way. Everybody laughs!
> I don't know much about current recording practice, but I would
> however suspect that most sound recording/broadcast engineers don't use
> mics with such a flat, extended response.
Let's look at the most popular sound recording/broadcast mic in the world
which is the Shure SM-57/58 (essentially the same capsule, different
wrapper). Its > 150 Hz response is can be summarized as a mild peak at 5
KHz, slightly wiggly response to maybe 12 KHz and die.
>Thus I suspect that measurement
> microphones may not be a reliable guide here. Certainly KH's recent
> measurements seemed to confirm this.
> Also, IIRC I think that measurements
> on commercial LPs in the past indicated that ultrasonic components tended
to
> be rare, low-level, and often might be due to distortion products.
> This may have changed, though.
I would take the HFN test record on 180 gram vinyl as a good example of the
modern SOTA in disk cutting. It's advantage over musical recordings is that
we can possibly know for sure what was intended to be recorded there.
Given that there is for practical purposes *no* SIGNIFICANT production of
new LP titles with audiophile pretensions... It seems likely that SACD and
DVD-A are going to take considerable momentum from this market, at least
until they collapse in the marketplace.
> > **Possibly. My own test disc delivers very impressive square waves, when
> > required. As you are aware, the leading and trailing edges contain a
> > good deal of HF energy.
> Yes. Although you need to be careful in interpreting the shape of such
> waveforms due to the RIAA behavior and the tendency of the record/replay
> system to distort HF. Hence the actual sinewave response may not be
> reliably indicated by observing a squarewave as the system may be
> significantly nonlinear. Similarly, we need to be careful about any
> tendency for the cartridge to 'balance' any equivalent problems with the
> cutting of the test LP.
The slings, arrows and follies of judging audio system performance with
square waves is well known.
One well-known example of this is the fact that *nobody* can hear the
difference between a 10 KHz sine wave and a 10 KHz square wave if the
playback system is reasonably free of distortion and the levels are matched.
Dave Plowman
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > **Possibly. My own test disc delivers very impressive square waves,
> > when required. As you are aware, the leading and trailing edges
> > contain a good deal of HF energy.
> Yes. Although you need to be careful in interpeting the shape of such
> waveforms due to the RIAA behaviour and the tendency of the record/replay
> system to distort HF. Hence the actual sinewave response may not be
> reliably indicated by observing a squarewave as the system may be
> significantly nonlinear. Similarly, we need to be careful about any
> tendency for the cartridge to 'balance' any equivalent problems with the
> cutting of the test LP.
A mistracking cartridge can produce a fairly decent square wave while
attempting to play a sine wave. ;-)
--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*
Dave Plowman
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Let's look at the most popular sound recording/broadcast mic in the
> world which is the Shure SM-57/58
Hmm. It might well be one of the best selling mics, but not in
broadcasting circles IMHO - or for sound recording. Live work is something
else. I'd guess that for broadcast and recording work the credit would go
to something like a U87 or derivative. If you ignore personals - and I
wish I could - perhaps the most widely used mic for location recording
would be the 416, old though it may be. Not sure what the flavour of the
month is for radio presenters these days.
> (essentially the same capsule, different
> wrapper). Its > 150 Hz response is can be summarized as a mild peak at 5
> KHz, slightly wiggly response to maybe 12 KHz and die.
It's a mic designed for close miking vocals and to reject unwanted pickup.
And to knock in the odd nail, or discipline the drummer. That it gets used
for totally unsuitable apps never ceases to amaze me.
--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *
Glenn Booth
In message <4bc4b87bc2...@argonet.co.uk>, Dave Plowman
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <6E73a.119$EC6.19...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> (essentially the same capsule, different
>> wrapper). Its > 150 Hz response is can be summarized as a mild peak at 5
>> KHz, slightly wiggly response to maybe 12 KHz and die.
>
>It's a mic designed for close miking vocals and to reject unwanted pickup.
>And to knock in the odd nail, or discipline the drummer. That it gets used
>for totally unsuitable apps never ceases to amaze me.
SM57s and 58s get used for damn near *everything* on a PA rig (short of
maybe a drum overhead). I've opened mike flight cases on a few occasions
and seen nothing but these, with maybe an AKG D224e for use as an
overhead. I've even seen them used as currency for bartering.
I've personally never been a great fan, except for the 57 on guitar
cabs, but successful they surely are; almost anyone knows what they're
going to get if they stick one in front of something that makes a noise.
I once mixed foldback for John Ottway (who does a pretty wild stage
show), and his roadie told me that he gets through about one a night on
average. Sometimes they fly into the crowd, sometimes he eats them. The
ones he brought were all dented to hell, but they still sounded like
SM58s.
Arny's observation on the Frequency response is spot on, though - a lump
at 5kHz, and almost nothing above 12k.
--
Regards,
Glenn Booth
Trevor Wilson
**I think we can dispense with the 1931 paper, but, of the "many" papers
written, so you think you can find something a little later than 1982?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Chris Morriss
Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> writes
>
>**I think we can dispense with the 1931 paper, but, of the "many" papers
>written, so you think you can find something a little later than 1982?
>
>
>--
>Trevor Wilson
>www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
Why? Have our ears evolved so quickly that we now hear differently from
the way that people did in 1931?
Sound reproduction techniques may have changed, our ears haven't.
Chris Morriss
Also at chris....@lakecommunications.com
Trevor Wilson
"Chris Morriss" <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:980vOAAz...@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3e4f6a74$0$10326$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
> Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> writes
> >
> >**I think we can dispense with the 1931 paper, but, of the "many" papers
> >written, so you think you can find something a little later than 1982?
> >
> >
> >--
> >Trevor Wilson
> >www.rageaudio.com.au
> >
> >
>
> Why? Have our ears evolved so quickly that we now hear differently from
> the way that people did in 1931?
**Our ears havn't, but ideas, materials and techniques have. In 1931, there
was no way of reproducing wide frequency ranges with low distortion.
>
> Sound reproduction techniques may have changed, our ears haven't.
> Chris Morriss
**Correct. Techniques have altered, however. Up until the 1940s, most
researchers beleived that the full 20Hz - 20kHz bandwidth was not required.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
> "Chris Morriss" <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:980vOAAz...@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <3e4f6a74$0$10326$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Trevor
>> Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> writes
>>>
>>> **I think we can dispense with the 1931 paper, but, of the "many"
>>> papers written, so you think you can find something a little later
>>> than 1982?
>> Why? Have our ears evolved so quickly that we now hear differently
>> from the way that people did in 1931?
> **Our ears havn't, but ideas, materials and techniques have. In 1931,
> there was no way of reproducing wide frequency ranges with low
> distortion.
Means of sound *reproduction* aren't needed, as scientifically valid
experiments can be done with live sounds such as tones produced by tuning
forks.
>> Sound reproduction techniques may have changed, our ears haven't.
>> Chris Morriss
> **Correct. Techniques have altered, however. Up until the 1940s, most
> researchers believed that the full 20Hz - 20kHz bandwidth was not
> required.
I guess you need to catch up on your reading, Trevor. That sort of thinking
didn't die in the 1940s. It's extant to this day.