Re: Re: tone controls
I tried my own records made with TASCAM US-122 USB device, they are much better. 🙂
Sorry, can't avoid EQ in live sound reproduction. Impossible. But when EQ is properly tuned for live sound amplification recorded music also sounds much more real than without it. Yes, Behringer is a bad huy, he steals designs, but I have to admit that for the price his gear has good features. My modernized Altecs are much better sonically, but don't have such convenience as LEDs on all knobs to indicate signal level in each band.
PMA said:
I tried my own records made with TASCAM US-122 USB device, they are much better. 🙂
PMA said:
Sorry, can't avoid EQ in live sound reproduction. Impossible. But when EQ is properly tuned for live sound amplification recorded music also sounds much more real than without it. Yes, Behringer is a bad huy, he steals designs, but I have to admit that for the price his gear has good features. My modernized Altecs are much better sonically, but don't have such convenience as LEDs on all knobs to indicate signal level in each band.
Re: Re: tone controls
Me too, at Phonogram (by then a subsidiary of Philips). Even classical recordings were sometimes manipulated like hell. Equalizers, artificial echo (from a large cellar underneath the studio) or even a high C note 'borrowed' from another vocalist, because the original singer couldn't get that note right during the recordings.
PMA said:
Me too, at Phonogram (by then a subsidiary of Philips). Even classical recordings were sometimes manipulated like hell. Equalizers, artificial echo (from a large cellar underneath the studio) or even a high C note 'borrowed' from another vocalist, because the original singer couldn't get that note right during the recordings.
Isn't that the problem then? The recording studios. And the recording engineers. It seems that they start breaking humpty dumpty and that is partly why he can not be put back together again. Or is my thinking too simplistic?
fredex said:
I believe the aim for high-end audio design should firstly be to preserve the maximum detail and then to reproduce it to sound as real as possible. Tone controls and equalisers harm detail and phase accuracy, if the problem is with the speakers or listening room, fix it, if it's with recording quality, get better recordings.
You will be surprised at the difference that cables can make on a good system, perhaps you should try it and forget about tone controls. 😀
Bas Horneman said:
There is a few recording studios that have pride in what they do, their recordings show what can be done. Unfortunately it seems like most of them only care about making money.
I think the idea of giving up the vast majority of great music and performances and listening to "Jazz At The Pawnshop" (or the 2008 equivalent) because it doesn't need any frequency balance adjustment is a bit too much for most people.
I eagerly await the "better recordings" of Roland Kirk.
Re: Re: Re: tone controls
I was in Supraphon. I would not say it was manipulated like a hell, rather decent corrections. Regarding vocalist, we had a woman singer from Metropolitan opera. She was under tone in a solo part, so Miloslav Kulhan (famous sound engineer here) changed a speed of Studer A-80 motor a bit to correct her.
Edmond Stuart said:
I was in Supraphon. I would not say it was manipulated like a hell, rather decent corrections. Regarding vocalist, we had a woman singer from Metropolitan opera. She was under tone in a solo part, so Miloslav Kulhan (famous sound engineer here) changed a speed of Studer A-80 motor a bit to correct her.
Re: Re: Re: Re: tone controls
That's hilarious. At one station we had a very famous and to remain anonymous country band playing in-house for airing later in the day. The drummer couldn't keep time with a metronome. Our producer eventually cut and paste a single of the pseudo-random snare hits into the mix at the proper interval for the entire song.
PMA said:
That's hilarious. At one station we had a very famous and to remain anonymous country band playing in-house for airing later in the day. The drummer couldn't keep time with a metronome. Our producer eventually cut and paste a single of the pseudo-random snare hits into the mix at the proper interval for the entire song.
syn08 said:
Sorry to comment "late" on an earlier post...
I've mentioned this before, but there is at least one commercially available tweeter that works from 1500Hz. up that does <1% THD @ 128db/1M when measured. Work backwards to gain an approximation of what the THD likely will be at ~90-93dB/1M (normal home listening levels)?
Having a pair of these on hand might change your mind rather quickly as to what is audible and what is not.
As an aside - and let's keep it an aside - if anyone knows of any published listening tests where the THD specs of the speaker system were in any way measured, I'd be very interested in knowing the citation on that... contact me via PM or email please.
_-_-bear
Most of the speaker reviews I've seen in Audio Critic measure distortion. They're all online these days.
SY said:
Different means to different ends. I have no problem with Furtwanglers wartime recordings or Muck's '78's (and I apologize for the possible cultural conflict). I never feel the need to twiddle with the frequency response.
Today I'm trying to figure out why "Finlandia" was used in "Die Hard 2".
Dear Sy,
Audio Critic?
Oh dear.
Well I am glad that they measure speaker distorition.
That's good.
I was referring to one of those infamous "listening tests".
My perception of Audio Critic and another famous magazine like it is that they too have an agenda, one that they manage to justify all the time. I suppose that intermingled there may be some useful information, just as that famous audio mag that starts with an "S" does publish test data that on occasion is useful too...
------------
My take on "tone controls"?
Put them in a separate box - use them if and when they are ever needed, otherwise not. If you need them all the time, then investigate what else is going on, and try to correct that so that you do not feel the "need" for tone controls.
(in the case of a dipole system - that's another issue...)
-------------
John,
"Duff IC, inc." will have it's attorneys contact you shortly...
😉
-------------
Everyone else, I have yet to hear a single piece of SONY CD playback gear that I liked to listen to... so maybe that has something to do with what BAS "discovered"??
GIGO rules!
-------------
Notwithstanding the technical & engineering prowess present, I think that the last several pages of posts illustrate that the frame of reference when it comes to listening & one's listening experiences and home system is all over the map. That makes it very difficult for everyone to understand and to find a common reference point - excepting the techical aspects.
Just my 2 cents worth - as always YMMV, and will.
_-_-bear
PS. I am always right... 🙄
Audio Critic?
Oh dear.
Well I am glad that they measure speaker distorition.
That's good.
I was referring to one of those infamous "listening tests".
My perception of Audio Critic and another famous magazine like it is that they too have an agenda, one that they manage to justify all the time. I suppose that intermingled there may be some useful information, just as that famous audio mag that starts with an "S" does publish test data that on occasion is useful too...
------------
My take on "tone controls"?
Put them in a separate box - use them if and when they are ever needed, otherwise not. If you need them all the time, then investigate what else is going on, and try to correct that so that you do not feel the "need" for tone controls.
(in the case of a dipole system - that's another issue...)
-------------
John,
"Duff IC, inc." will have it's attorneys contact you shortly...
😉
-------------
Everyone else, I have yet to hear a single piece of SONY CD playback gear that I liked to listen to... so maybe that has something to do with what BAS "discovered"??
GIGO rules!
-------------
Notwithstanding the technical & engineering prowess present, I think that the last several pages of posts illustrate that the frame of reference when it comes to listening & one's listening experiences and home system is all over the map. That makes it very difficult for everyone to understand and to find a common reference point - excepting the techical aspects.
Just my 2 cents worth - as always YMMV, and will.
_-_-bear
PS. I am always right... 🙄
Andre Visser said:
You missed the point of my post. What you say sounds good until you enter the real world.
If the accoustic problems in your room are due to its dimensions then your idealistic approach is a hindrance.
More 'details' does not equal more music.
If I forget about tone controls as you suggest will you please forget about cables?
fredex said:
I second that. Unfortunately good EQ is needed not only for RIAA and magnet tape playback correction (they are EQs, do you remember?), it is needed also to correct all existing in the real world combinations of speakers and rooms. If for the certain stationary combination the simplest as possible parametric EQ is possible, for live concerts (what I am designing for) in very different environments good flexible EQ is the must. It is bad we have to correct frequency response, but we have to. If somebody assumes tone controls to correct records, I mean totally different approach: make the system's response flat, then close the EQ panel securely so nobody can touch faders. I totally agree with John that RIAA curve has to be made perfect, so no need to readjust an external EQ when switching between signal sources (vinyl, CD, DVD, tape, etc...) Period.
Edit: despite of using 31 band graphics EQ I had to implement EQs inside of microphones to remove a tooth on 9.5 KHz. Did it make any harm? No. Mics are flatter and sound better, also if I equalize the room/speakers loop using this microphones a music from CD and other sources sounds nice.
A paradox then. Why should I care if my RIAA correction is within 0.1dB when it's followed by a parametric equalizer in a room where +-3dB would be the proverbial rainbow's pot of gold?
Fix the room above 200Hz, excite it evenly by many differently tuned and positioned subs under 200Hz. Never EQ hard to compensate the room. It screws the impulse response. Very audible. Thats what I managed to understand from Earl Geddes.
rdf said:
A reasonable question. I argue that you don't, not so much, anyway- interchannel matching is much more important than absolute conformance (within reason).
salas said:
It's what I said before: sharp mechanical resonances has to be damped mechanically when possible. But anyway EQ will be needed. The less, the better.
What's good about Altec EQs? They don't boost. They cut only. And they cut using LC filters.
Modern designers, especially of a digital EQs, try to achieve artificial requirements not needed practically sacrificing essential needs. Users even professional ones use graphics EQs to "make the sound better", probably that's why the belief "No EQs has to be used" was established so deeply in people's mind?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.