terry j said:
oooo i'm so offended i can't enjoy awesome tunes, anymore!!!
no offense taken, man. i think this is all really well designed cheap stuff that i have.
i have a recording studio full of tube compressors and expensive mics, and i've been in some of the finest studios and theatres/live venues in the world. i know what my ears hear, and how good good sound can be (and how bad bad sound can be, ...ouch).
i also know that there is massive difference in the 'front end' when you're talking about individual mic preamps, EQ's, and whatnot, ...the bigger the pipe, the fuller the sound. very evident when comparing say a neumann through an API pre, an LA2A compressor, and a pultec eq, to say, an shure sm58 through a $300 pile of behringer crap, and listening through, say, some nice genelecs.
as sound degrades down through the stages to the final output stage (playback system's speakers), a huge difference in the studio becomes a much smaller difference. like, using the sm58 on the vocals vs. a U87, is like night and day at the source, but, mix a big band around those vocal tracks, and then play the two recordings through an old car radio speaker, and there will be virtually no difference. play the same two recordings on a tweaked super hifi, and you may hear differences that no-one even noticed in the studio.
i would be touching the EQ constantly if i had one on my playback, lol. i would stop listening to music, and only listen to sound.
i also believe every filter stage degrades the signal, and sound becomes less 'open' and 'transparent' when forced through filter circuits. better to hone the room, and/or live with slight notches and spikes, imo.
Robert F said:
I sure hope i'm not using any of those speaker cables...😉
Bigger and better tests of speaker cables have seen almost totally random outcomes, ranging from thin radio shack to monster. Much more convincing.
dukeoyork said:
spot on, hone the room, now we's talkin. glad you weren't offended, and sounds like with your experience you'd work out units like that in a breeze. Me? struggled man, but finally got there.
what country does your flag represent?
I only mentioned the eq cause you were pretty adamant that they would not help, but sounds like you have a lot of experience and so that perhaps has led you to your decision.
Have no problem with that, I just don't want to see people making decisions w/out audition, based on a priori thoughts like 'keep the signal pure'. If you tried it and don't like it, cool.
I have had marvellous results with units like these, but like all things need to be done sensibly.
Only really relevant in this thread I guess cause I know where the bang for the buck resides.
There is nothing more toxic to a discussion of sound reproduction than a person involved in sound capture who "knows what his ears hear". Don't they all!dukeoyork said:
I know quite a few recording engineers and, broadly speaking, their level of self-delusion about their hearing prowess is unparalleled. It even exceeds the astonishing self-delusion levels exhibited by a large proportion of enthusiastic audiophiles. I suppose it is an occupational prerequisite. That's fine (well actually it is not fine; it damages their products, which we then buy), but like I said, it poisons rational discussion of playback equipment, by returning discussion to the wrong starting assumption, namely that uncontrolled listening reveals the 'truth' about the sound.
If the recording engineer wants to show professional concern to the ultimate end user, he/she will arrange controlled auditions of alternative mixes, instead of 'winging it by ear' -- yes, that same self-deluded ear. But I respect the fact that commercial reality will not allow such a time-consuming process. Our loss.
When you are talking about transducers like mics and monitors, sure, there are gains to be had from upping the quality to a certain level.
So, what interconnects are you using throughout the recording studio? Something that costs $600/ft?🙂 Is that getting a dramatic improvement over some good quality solid pro grade interconnects?
Who needs beliefs when there are facts to refute them?
Answer: only those committed to the belief itself more than to the outcome.
And it ('every filter stage degrades the signal') is a rather bizarre belief that can only be satisfied by a zen-like hifi that rigidly excludes LP due to the gross filters in the phono stage, runs the DAC output with all its noise unfiltered direct to a DC-coupled solid state amp with no zobel network on the output (no valve amps with those yucky transformers that are such *gross* filters, far more 'degrading' than any electronic filter), then off to a full range driver on a flat baffle or closed box enclosure with no reflex port or horn to filter the driver's output. May I suggest it will take more than a little honing of the room to enjoy such a system's massive notches and spikes over the digital hash, RF interference and oscillating electronics.
Beliefs aside, the fact is that filters are used in great long daisy chains throughout this process, and when properly done they invariably improve the signal, not degrade it. Adding one more in the form of a decent EQ unit, and using it properly, will yet again improve the signal reaching the listener's ear. 'Open' and 'transparent' are not words that come to mind when listening to unfiltered audio: 'wrong' is more like it!
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
So....
- people who make a living creating sound know nothing about it
- those who pursue it fanatically know nothing about it
- all recordings are 'full of filters'
- a 'great long daisy chain of filters' improves sound
- systems without filters are less accurate than rooms
- someone who uses Pultecs wouldn't use transformers
- all systems would be improved with a cheap Behringer EQ
indeed.
- people who make a living creating sound know nothing about it
- those who pursue it fanatically know nothing about it
- all recordings are 'full of filters'
- a 'great long daisy chain of filters' improves sound
- systems without filters are less accurate than rooms
- someone who uses Pultecs wouldn't use transformers
- all systems would be improved with a cheap Behringer EQ
indeed.dear tnargs,
BWAHAHAHA!!!
"nothing more toxic"!!! =shocked=
give'er! sheltered world you live in if there's nothing more toxic than that.
you live in your world, i'll live in mine.
if you read carefully, you'll notice i don't support magic cable theory. i support cheap, but proper, cable theory.
science dictates that current travels more efficiently through a larger conduit.
tell daniel lanois, bob clearmountain, trevor horn or bob ludwig they don't know what they're hearing. just because they're 'engineers' and 'producers' and 'do mastering' that makes a recording sound as good as possible on ANY system, doesn't mean they know what they're hearing.
if you can't trust your own ears, you're not listening.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
"nothing more toxic"!!! =shocked=
give'er! sheltered world you live in if there's nothing more toxic than that.
you live in your world, i'll live in mine.
if you read carefully, you'll notice i don't support magic cable theory. i support cheap, but proper, cable theory.
science dictates that current travels more efficiently through a larger conduit.
tell daniel lanois, bob clearmountain, trevor horn or bob ludwig they don't know what they're hearing. just because they're 'engineers' and 'producers' and 'do mastering' that makes a recording sound as good as possible on ANY system, doesn't mean they know what they're hearing.
if you can't trust your own ears, you're not listening.
t'would be fun to put this guy in a mixing studio and see what he comes up with !! 😀 😀 
Even better.. block his ears and let him do it all by measurement
Even better.. block his ears and let him do it all by measurement
tnargs said:
Could you please give source citation for some of these bigger and better cable tests?
Regarding your comment about controllled audition of recording mix versions; normally in other industries this sort of thing is not done to get better quality but to get products which sell better- that is sometimes a big difference.
But it is an interesting question if that route could led to better recording quality if done properly. 🙂
There are very good reasons for having tone controls. Many recordings add dynamic compression, and some reduce the bass even on classical recordings. And recording engineers tailor the sound to what sounds good to there ears in the studio - this may not sound so good to you, on your system. And there's the Fletcher-Munson effect - when listening at below live playback levels the bass frequencies are perceived as quieter than than the mids and treble. Sounds also sound different to our ears at different times also. Changes in your sound environment and emotional state can affect how a recording or your system sounds to you.
I think tone controls are very helpful on a lot of recorded material. I think a bass, treble and tilt control can be very helpful on many recordings. A tilt control can tame the brightness of many recordings.
For me it's about enjoying the music. And much of my favorite music isn't always the best recording quality.
I think tone controls are very helpful on a lot of recorded material. I think a bass, treble and tilt control can be very helpful on many recordings. A tilt control can tame the brightness of many recordings.
For me it's about enjoying the music. And much of my favorite music isn't always the best recording quality.
Precisely. When I was at terry j's place last year , he put on a Deep Purple compilation that sounded pretty bad. About 30 secs later with some tweaking of the DEQX and it sounded much more pleasant. I have a lot of LPs/CDs that would benefit the same.Johnloudb said:
What?? You mean they were not mixed and mastered on your system - or one that sounded just like it?
How can this be? 😀
(not poking at Bett, just the idea that all mixes and masters are suitable for all systems. That's the hope, but it often falls short).
Yep, tone controls can help.
Funny thing is, tho... the better the system (room included) the less likely you are to tweak EQ for each recording - even volume levels.
How can this be? 😀
(not poking at Bett, just the idea that all mixes and masters are suitable for all systems. That's the hope, but it often falls short).
Yep, tone controls can help.
Funny thing is, tho... the better the system (room included) the less likely you are to tweak EQ for each recording - even volume levels.
Sorry, I don't agree; better systems often make poorly recorded discs sound dire.panomaniac said:
Terry's is one of the best systems I have ever heard, and as it already has a DEQX for xover duties, there is nothing extra in the signal path, so no penalty for the EQ.
Haha yeah I would have to disagree big time with that statement.
I personally think that the more neutral your system gets the more flaws start to appear - bad EQ, squashed dynamics, poor fidelity etc... Because 90% of the music available is mastered for crap systems.
Haha I find it funny you aren't allowed to say c.r.a.p. everytime it bleeps me it makes me look like I said something worse.
I personally think that the more neutral your system gets the more flaws start to appear - bad EQ, squashed dynamics, poor fidelity etc... Because 90% of the music available is mastered for crap systems.
Haha I find it funny you aren't allowed to say c.r.a.p. everytime it bleeps me it makes me look like I said something worse.
lol ? 90 % is crap ?
Do you listen only junk music lol ? In classical most recording are of very good quality. But I don't really like sony 20 bit thing remastering... except that I like D.G. - EMI - Telarc - just to name a few.
Do you listen only junk music lol ? In classical most recording are of very good quality. But I don't really like sony 20 bit thing remastering... except that I like D.G. - EMI - Telarc - just to name a few.
Key said:
which statement did you disagree with??
The ability to be able to 'eq on the fly' can be valuable indeed. (The example brett used is a good one, an old 70's recording. A bit of bass and treble boost,widish smallish dip in the mid, store it in the memory ((so you can remove it and compare)) and the enjoyability goes thru the roof).
Or the complete opposite example, a Cure recording from the eighties...NO bass and all screaming treble. That needs at least 6 db boost from 200 down
However, there are limitations, unfortunately compressed to death stays compressed to death, nothing can save it, sigh.
In any case, I think this side path came up as a comparison to using cables as 'tone controls'. Nahh.
Why not have the ability to use it when you need it, (and best of all have your speakers right first, so you don't need to tame their brightness (or dullness) with opposing cables?). At least be able to take off your dark glasses when you visit the art gallery.......
BTW brett, I noticed your new signature heh heh, Sy will be pleased.
haha! now tone controls are under fire!
they're fine, if you want to swing that way.
sure, you can EQ a recording to your taste, or better yet, EQ your speakers to compensate for the room's quirks, but, for some of us, 'truth' is more important. live sound for a live band is DEFINITELY better with an EQ for every speaker, but ONLY if the tech knows what he's doing, and has good taste. i've heard some awesome rigs sound REALLY bad because the person at the helm had a weird sense of 'good sound'. put someone else behind the same rig, and they turn it into ear ambrosia.
it's like someone else suggested. the 'bad' sound engineers mix with their eyes on meters, instead of their ears on the speakers and have trouble differentiating between 'quality' sound and 'quantity' sound. louder is 'better' to the bozo soundman. good sound people aren't afraid to turn a mic right off if the sound is acoustically working with the mix, but bad ones ride the whole rig to the brink of feedback, constantly. SQUEEK!!! SQUEEL!!! HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!
"hey, dude, i really cranked the cymbals. awesome treble, dude! and i brightened up the telecaster, and rolled out all the mids on the whole mix, and then cranked the subs way up. sounds as good as the house disco system!"
"did you hear all that feedback?"
"a little. i think it was the monitor guy".
from what i've heard (not hearsay, but personal listening experience) the less there is in a circuit, the fatter/truer the sound.
it's true of guitars, too, for example. a guy who plugs straight into an amp gets a lot more nuance and PHAT in his tone than a guy who's going through five pedals. sure the pedal guy's sound will be wild and whacky, but the actual tone gets thinner and thinner through every stage (even when the pedals are off, because there are more (signal degrading) wires and jacks in the chain), and simply trying to EQ the lost info back in simply doesn't cut it, because you are also EQ-ing in weaknesses as well as strengths. you are boosting noise when you boost frequencies, and the actual EQ is adding it's own noise to the sound. phasing problems can also be introduced by EQs.
that's why i hear 'flat' amplification as always 'better', even though sometimes i would prefer an EQ had a different 'curve'. straight wire adds less of it's own character into the sound.
remember 'direct to disk' vinyl? it wasn't just a theory, those records have more presence. presence is what you lose through filter circuits, and presence is what makes you feel like it's right there in front of you.
they're fine, if you want to swing that way.
sure, you can EQ a recording to your taste, or better yet, EQ your speakers to compensate for the room's quirks, but, for some of us, 'truth' is more important. live sound for a live band is DEFINITELY better with an EQ for every speaker, but ONLY if the tech knows what he's doing, and has good taste. i've heard some awesome rigs sound REALLY bad because the person at the helm had a weird sense of 'good sound'. put someone else behind the same rig, and they turn it into ear ambrosia.
it's like someone else suggested. the 'bad' sound engineers mix with their eyes on meters, instead of their ears on the speakers and have trouble differentiating between 'quality' sound and 'quantity' sound. louder is 'better' to the bozo soundman. good sound people aren't afraid to turn a mic right off if the sound is acoustically working with the mix, but bad ones ride the whole rig to the brink of feedback, constantly. SQUEEK!!! SQUEEL!!! HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!
"hey, dude, i really cranked the cymbals. awesome treble, dude! and i brightened up the telecaster, and rolled out all the mids on the whole mix, and then cranked the subs way up. sounds as good as the house disco system!"
"did you hear all that feedback?"
"a little. i think it was the monitor guy".
from what i've heard (not hearsay, but personal listening experience) the less there is in a circuit, the fatter/truer the sound.
it's true of guitars, too, for example. a guy who plugs straight into an amp gets a lot more nuance and PHAT in his tone than a guy who's going through five pedals. sure the pedal guy's sound will be wild and whacky, but the actual tone gets thinner and thinner through every stage (even when the pedals are off, because there are more (signal degrading) wires and jacks in the chain), and simply trying to EQ the lost info back in simply doesn't cut it, because you are also EQ-ing in weaknesses as well as strengths. you are boosting noise when you boost frequencies, and the actual EQ is adding it's own noise to the sound. phasing problems can also be introduced by EQs.
that's why i hear 'flat' amplification as always 'better', even though sometimes i would prefer an EQ had a different 'curve'. straight wire adds less of it's own character into the sound.
remember 'direct to disk' vinyl? it wasn't just a theory, those records have more presence. presence is what you lose through filter circuits, and presence is what makes you feel like it's right there in front of you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.