Typical tatic, you can not answer the questions so you start this defensive posting off topic.
Be a man and post your room response. You are the one saying you do not need EQing and EQ is bad. I want to see the science because your opinion without science is 100% meaningless.
If you do not have any science then its best for you to go back to the analog world, after all this is a digital forum
The irony ......
Ohh, i agree the palette works, disagree in what and why one would need such. If it's a bad recording , then it's a bad recording , why change it , makes putting on a good recording that much more enjoyable...
Perhaps one enjoy C Parker, or recordings of Furtwangler conducting or live Grateful Dead audience recordings. If one likes the music then equipment should be used to make the recording more enjoyable.
I choose not to restrict my listening to what are judged to be good recordings I would rather listen the great performances. YMMV.
Mathematics degree at University of Waterloo, Minor in EE 20+ years ago. Been involved with automation software in the warehousing industry for 20+ years. Have been working for myself for 20+ years too (yes, pretty much out of University I started consulting on my own). I generally lead a team of engineers on automation projects because its hard for the hardcore engineers to talk to CEOs, etc.
When someone here can post the measurements and the science behind no EQing is needed in room then we can all just proclaim all of Toole's research bogus and simply bad audio dogma
On the other hand, maybe a little science is actually needed to remove the audiophile dogma that exists.
Last edited:
The irony ......
So you are going to refuse to answer? No measurements at all? It seems you have built some decent speakers so I would have thought you have measurements.
Im happy to see room measurements showing no correction is needed but you just need to provide them.
Serious audio designers 'hate' equalizers because they are usually cheaply made by people who do not believe in audio 'refinement', and the results are usually worse than the 'fix' improves. IF mere frequency response measurement taken by a microphone in a random position was the 'key' factor, we would all have to listen in an anechoic chamber. Ever tried one? Our ear-brain system does better than a simple mike, and can separate incident vs reverberant energy (somehow) so our essential task is to make the audio source as accurate as possible, and 'fix' the room if it has nasty resonant modes.
The 'Audio Palette' or a quality Massenberg designed EQ would be the minimum quality level that I would deem acceptable in my system.
The 'Audio Palette' or a quality Massenberg designed EQ would be the minimum quality level that I would deem acceptable in my system.
If it works for you Kevin then ......
Doug:
Have you ever designed anything in the audio field and brought it to market, had anything peered reviewed, designed rooms or did any recording studios for the majors..?
You seem to know very little , yet speak alot and your constant drivel about analog tells me alot about you, as the last time you were caught out like this you reverted to matching wallets and income, not science..
Small in stature comes to mind.........
Last edited:
If it works for you Kevin then ......
Doug:
Have you ever designed anything in the audio field and brought it to market, had anything peered reviewed, designed rooms or did any recording studios for the majors..?
You seem to know very little , yet speak alot and your constant drivel about analog tells me alot about you, as the last time you were caught out like this you reverted to matching wallets and income..
Small in stature comes to mind.........
Hope that makes you feel better
When you have any real sceince feel free to post it, I'm sure we will be waiting a long, long time
Agree on the quality part John, but i'm still not happy with what they do to the "sound" .....
Stop the trolling Doug, it's un becoming and you are derailing the thread....
Not trolling at all, just make sure the proper questions are asked of so called audiophiles.
Its funny because the troll is usually the guy that posts negative comments on the topic without evidence to get responses. It seems you are the one posting highly subjective and very negative comments towards room correction software (Ie. EQing). Im sure you knew the intent of your simpleton posts. You are not even a digital guy but you are here trolling...go figure
If you want to have a discussion then feel free to post something remotely scientific behind your opinion so far you have ignored all the science surrounding rooms and how each individual hears something.
If you can not handle being questioned (obviously you do not know how to handle it from all your OT posts now) then please go somewhere where you are not questioned. I do not even know the discussion we have in the past so I will have to find it but its obvious you hold some girlish type grudge here. Logical discussions are contained within the topic of the thread...if you have some issue from some other discussion that is your problem to deal with.
Last edited:
If you're saying that Toole's controlled subjective tests show no differences between anything, you have either not read anything he's written, you've read it and grossly misunderstood it, or you're just making things up.
You know me SY, I would just LOVE to 'make things up' at least that is what you accuse me of, more often than anyone else. A number of years ago, I had a long talk with Floyd Toole when I was Chairman of the SF Bay Area AES group, and WE invited him to speak. He and I agree to disagree, at least, that is my take on it. Lipshitz, Vanderc---,Toole, or anyone else who is part of the HK group, making double blind tests of HK vs Bose, and winning, etc. They are not part of the group that I pay attention to, any more than I would follow some specific religious group or Scientology. They are a 'cult' all to themselves. I learn little, if anything from them, and visa-versa.
Yeah P&G is like super industrial grade. Awesome stuff. I usually like to stick with stuff I can purchase off Mouser/Digikey so I don't have to stretch out on a limb to buy some exotic parts and pay $50 in shipping.
Bourns isn't the best, but they're much better than some other companies. Alps make a wide range of stuff from absolute crap to absolutely amazing (and expensive).
I have to strongly disgree with this blatent rejection of the scientific method to the improvement of sound reproduction. For everything you can measure, you have to measure. And since sound is perception -per definition- you have to subsequently find out how these measurements correlate to perception. There are scientific ways of doing this too, ABX is one of them. Toole has been leading the way in this field.
Everything else is based on beliefs. So, based on your positions, I would rather classify you to belong to some obscure religious group. Toole et al. are not part of a cult, but are firmly entrenched in science.
If I had to put my money on it, I would think science is a better bet to improve sound reproduction than religion will ever be.
Vacuphile, I have had the argument with the 'principals' for 1/3 century. I have discussed/debated, and LTE'd with them at some length. They just do no believe that subtle changes, (like the ones that I work at), are audible to ANYBODY. Therefore who cares what: caps, circuits, distortion orders, etc that you use or generate? AND they can PROVE IT! They just create a situation where ABX will provide the ONLY criterion, AND they will stop the test, IF it is too revealing, as this would mean: 'Something is wrong with the test, and we must stop it, before it becomes visible to the public.' I have been in the listening room, myself, at an AES sponsored ABX event when this happened. This is because: Nothing is supposed to happen. Everything except: Level, frequency response, GROSS distortion and maybe, polarity, is not supposed to matter, at least with electronics. I will NOT go into loudspeaker differences, perhaps they allow more input there. It matters NOT, whether we MEASURE a problem like DA, predict it accurately mathematically, or HEAR IT. It just does NOT matter to these folks. IF I subscribed to their beliefs, I would have quit quality audio design, decades ago. I haven't quit, however.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.