The processor doesn't know the difference . You cannot EQ seperatly instruments with this DEQ in most cases . It works based on threshold .
Sound above threshold is loud sound , sound below thresh hold is quiet sound .
everything makes sense your just ruining this thread and I don't know why. I mean you no harm .
Stop repeatin everything Hahahahah
Sound above threshold is loud sound , sound below thresh hold is quiet sound .
everything makes sense your just ruining this thread and I don't know why. I mean you no harm .
Stop repeatin everything Hahahahah
We are EQ ing to correct dynamic changes made to the whole signal from audio components . That should make sense to you.
We set it with threshold, gain , attack release , and ratio of the compressor/expander.
Loud and quiet sounds are loud and quiet sounds doesn't matter if one or ten instruments play. I use a thresh hold and it will work as programmed. If five instruments are below it will act on them . It can boost or cut this region. I have never said other wise .
If signal passes through a tube amp, tube amp compresses all instruments in that loudness region. To compensate we do perform the converse or correcting measure. We would not try to expand or compress just one instrument . We would apply it to the whole signal because the amp speaker wire or whatever also applied it to the whole signal.
Do you understand?
We set it with threshold, gain , attack release , and ratio of the compressor/expander.
Loud and quiet sounds are loud and quiet sounds doesn't matter if one or ten instruments play. I use a thresh hold and it will work as programmed. If five instruments are below it will act on them . It can boost or cut this region. I have never said other wise .
If signal passes through a tube amp, tube amp compresses all instruments in that loudness region. To compensate we do perform the converse or correcting measure. We would not try to expand or compress just one instrument . We would apply it to the whole signal because the amp speaker wire or whatever also applied it to the whole signal.
Do you understand?
Last edited:
Let me ask you a question. Why do you think dynamics have to be seperatley playing sounds?
Why do you think the DEQ works on separate sounds only? What indication is given In the manual of this?
What limitation specifically stops us from equalizing loud and quiet sound independently?
Would a hearing aid that is designed to compensate for dynamic compressions in a compromised ear be very affective if it did not function continuously and for complex signals ?
I think you are picturing a sound as a whole entity like the sound of a drum hit or the sound of a chord. Whereas we are talking about sound as vibration.
Perhaps the problem is communication semantics ( if not you truly are just trying to win an argument for the sake of winning)
The only way to manipulate whole sounds is by recording mixes of separate instruments. And this is in the mastering phase.
Does this clear it all up ?
Why do you think the DEQ works on separate sounds only? What indication is given In the manual of this?
What limitation specifically stops us from equalizing loud and quiet sound independently?
Would a hearing aid that is designed to compensate for dynamic compressions in a compromised ear be very affective if it did not function continuously and for complex signals ?
I think you are picturing a sound as a whole entity like the sound of a drum hit or the sound of a chord. Whereas we are talking about sound as vibration.
Perhaps the problem is communication semantics ( if not you truly are just trying to win an argument for the sake of winning)
The only way to manipulate whole sounds is by recording mixes of separate instruments. And this is in the mastering phase.
Does this clear it all up ?
Last edited:
I'm posing the same questions because YOU can't answer them. Ok, here's some more. I understand the math ( EE with graduate courses ) I understand the music (20 years as a recording engineer.) You may think you understand but you don't. You regurgitate but don't really understand. Why would you want harmonics below the threshold to be increased? An expander does not increase resolution. Just dynamic range, the real definition of DR . I go on because there are people who read this and think you know what your talking about. I know you will never get it.
If I am wrong that is a happy thing. Because it means I learned something. Mistakes are better than being right. I don't care to prove myself.
So go on.
I have answered just read the answers.
For the new question the answer is very simple. If an audio component expands sound ( reducing gain below a thresh hold) we would try to restore it by applying the converse effect. We don't necessarily want harmonics below the threshold to be increased. We would all sound below the threshold to be increased because expansion doesn't differentiate between harmonics, transients, fundamentals, only sound in volume regions affected by expansion needs to be corrected.
please define resolution and how I have implied it in this discussion.
Please state in quotations your definition of dynamic range with sources.
So go on.
I have answered just read the answers.
For the new question the answer is very simple. If an audio component expands sound ( reducing gain below a thresh hold) we would try to restore it by applying the converse effect. We don't necessarily want harmonics below the threshold to be increased. We would all sound below the threshold to be increased because expansion doesn't differentiate between harmonics, transients, fundamentals, only sound in volume regions affected by expansion needs to be corrected.
please define resolution and how I have implied it in this discussion.
Please state in quotations your definition of dynamic range with sources.
Last edited:
Why do I want to restore the dynamics relationships? (not necessarily dynamic range, because thats the range between loudest and softest sounds)
Because the whole point of the original post with the article was that audio components sound so different because their dynamic relationships (dynamics being the ratio between loud and soft sounds) are so different. Call it an article which is not elaborate in theory or description of supporting concepts, but introduces ideas for discussion. The dynaudio add also discusses this idea.
This thread is not about remastering. Never said that you just keep trying to imply that I am trying to remaster multi track audio after its been output to single track with DEQ because you want to win an argument.
I am just trying to learn.
So please answer my questions, and educate me by re iterating the theories I have posted. I would love to be shown wrong and learn something .
Because the whole point of the original post with the article was that audio components sound so different because their dynamic relationships (dynamics being the ratio between loud and soft sounds) are so different. Call it an article which is not elaborate in theory or description of supporting concepts, but introduces ideas for discussion. The dynaudio add also discusses this idea.
This thread is not about remastering. Never said that you just keep trying to imply that I am trying to remaster multi track audio after its been output to single track with DEQ because you want to win an argument.
I am just trying to learn.
So please answer my questions, and educate me by re iterating the theories I have posted. I would love to be shown wrong and learn something .
Last edited:
BTW the DEQ does not just take the loudest and softest sound and separate them more in loudness, it works on a range of sound intensities, and the rate of variation in that range is set with the ratio, and near the cutoff with the variable knee setting.
This is why I keep using the term ratio.
I want to pick your brain a bit since you have more experience than me. Why is the the DEQ even in a commercial equalizer?
What is the main pro application of a dynamic EQ?
Thanks
This is why I keep using the term ratio.
I want to pick your brain a bit since you have more experience than me. Why is the the DEQ even in a commercial equalizer?
What is the main pro application of a dynamic EQ?
Thanks
Last edited:
If I don't understand these concepts how is it that I come up with these ideas out of my head after thinking about it, and then find references to back it up after i have been challenged?
Is my ability to elaborate on concepts a sign that I do not understand them?
Why have you made personal attacks and statements about my learning capacity instead of elaborating on concepts to illustrate the failures?
Do you take this silly website so seriously that you can't stand the thought of being judged by winning or loosing arguments? Because if so just let it go and lets be friends.
We are all right and wrong sometimes.
Is my ability to elaborate on concepts a sign that I do not understand them?
Why have you made personal attacks and statements about my learning capacity instead of elaborating on concepts to illustrate the failures?
Do you take this silly website so seriously that you can't stand the thought of being judged by winning or loosing arguments? Because if so just let it go and lets be friends.
We are all right and wrong sometimes.
Resolution is hearing the quiet stuff under the loud stuff. Dynamics are the difference between the quiet and the loud parts. Not at the same instant. Expanders only work on dynamics. The only thing in your system that compress the dynamic range is the loudspeaker, and that's only at high levels. IMHO Your chasing a ghost. (Trying to fix something that's not broken.). Now trying to regain the dynamics that have been destroyed by the mixer/producer (loudness wars) is another story. That's the real problem.
Thanks or the reply . I do appreciate it.
Since you don't define your terms with sources I will have to dismiss that as your concept and not a technical standard .
Your concept of dynamics seems limited to the comparison of two levels max loud and max quiet, when in fact we are talking about a distribution of the relationship across a range of frequency and intensity.
The discussions has talked about joule heating and losses contributing to attenuation and compression.
This is the compression at high volumes. But in my listening I have indicated that applying compression has Improved realism at low levels, and even at moderate levels as well.
This is possibly due to many factors. Most notably non linearity of the ear at varried volume. The main point would be that music recorded at a volume will not sound right dynamically unless played back at the same volume. This is where the original loudness control on old receivers came into play. Right? Or no?
But in another capacity there may be expander effects from components at the low power limit. Where things just start to conduct , and function.
Speakers are nonlinear in mechanical sense and inertia , varying compliance and magnetic fields inherently may act as a contributor to an expander effect in an oscillator? This is an idea out of my head .
We can prove it or disprove it for fun. It would describe why percussion sounds more realistic when I apply condenser to my cone type drivers.
Since you don't define your terms with sources I will have to dismiss that as your concept and not a technical standard .
Your concept of dynamics seems limited to the comparison of two levels max loud and max quiet, when in fact we are talking about a distribution of the relationship across a range of frequency and intensity.
The discussions has talked about joule heating and losses contributing to attenuation and compression.
This is the compression at high volumes. But in my listening I have indicated that applying compression has Improved realism at low levels, and even at moderate levels as well.
This is possibly due to many factors. Most notably non linearity of the ear at varried volume. The main point would be that music recorded at a volume will not sound right dynamically unless played back at the same volume. This is where the original loudness control on old receivers came into play. Right? Or no?
But in another capacity there may be expander effects from components at the low power limit. Where things just start to conduct , and function.
Speakers are nonlinear in mechanical sense and inertia , varying compliance and magnetic fields inherently may act as a contributor to an expander effect in an oscillator? This is an idea out of my head .
We can prove it or disprove it for fun. It would describe why percussion sounds more realistic when I apply condenser to my cone type drivers.
Last edited:
Ultimately we are listening to music , and choosing the best sounding situation with some reasoning. But if itsounds more real then we try to understand why. It is this reverse process that I am pursuing here . The explanation of mechanisms of my experienced hearing . Inductive reasoning not deductive.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.