Sae
http://www.davidsaudio.com/html/sae.html
http://www.wardsweb.org/audio/sae_history.html
rdf said:
Wavebourn said:What is SAE?
http://www.davidsaudio.com/html/sae.html
http://www.wardsweb.org/audio/sae_history.html
Was that a pair of Altec Acoustivoicettes?
The 'premium solution was to measure the site and add specific passive notch filters for the frequencies to be removed. Worked well and was the origin of a whole sub-industry (Syn-Aud-Con ). However the consumer version never wen't very far. there was also the Blonder-Tongue tube graphic eq from around the same period. It was only octave based. The 1/3 octave stuff was not for program eq., only room tuning and feedback reduction.
The 'premium solution was to measure the site and add specific passive notch filters for the frequencies to be removed. Worked well and was the origin of a whole sub-industry (Syn-Aud-Con ). However the consumer version never wen't very far. there was also the Blonder-Tongue tube graphic eq from around the same period. It was only octave based. The 1/3 octave stuff was not for program eq., only room tuning and feedback reduction.
Those Altec's(?) were probably the inspiration/template for the Klark-Teknik DN27A, weren't they?
- Klaus
- Klaus
Those things scare me. It reminds me of BAS meetings where the response of every A/B test had to be equalized to +-.1dB before we could start.
SY said:
The truth is as always in the middle.
Actually, they are Altecs, but home-rebuilt. What you heard, was Behringer EQ. I used it because it is more convenient to tune the room (it has LEDs on each knob indicating level of the signal in the band).
Wavebourn.
Re graphic eq unit. I don't dislike the looks, functional is cool. I really like the sound of what's inside, good thinking. 🙂
Re graphic eq unit. I don't dislike the looks, functional is cool. I really like the sound of what's inside, good thinking. 🙂
lineup said:
There are enough packages that can do that.
About every simulator that can do microwave design.
I had good results for RF with Eagleware Genesys Empower
(has been bought up in the meantime by Agilent)
http://eesof.tm.agilent.com/eagleware_welcome.html
Others are:
Agilent Advanced Design System (ADS), perhaps with Momentum
http://eesof.tm.agilent.com/
Microwave Office
http://web.awrcorp.com/Usa/Products/Microwave-Office/
Ansoft HFSS
http://www.ansoft.com/hfss/
http://www.cst.com/
http://www.sonnetusa.com/products/cst/
These simulators cost $ xx,xxx++, but some have crippled
student versions.
Don't underestimate the time needed for learning to use them
and the computer run time to solve reasonable problems.
regards, Gerhard
Andre Visser said:Tone controls are only needed to rescue a flawed system.
Since the system, that is, including the listening room and our own ears, is almost always flawed, we definitely need tone controls.
I fail to see your point. Rather improve the listening room I'd say. And in what way are our ears flawed?
Obviously our systems are flawed. Fixing them with tone controls, it seems to me, is potentially counterproductive.
Andre Visser said:
Tone controls are only needed to rescue a flawed system.
Agreed. But once the system was flawed, tone controls would not help.
As long as there are recording engineers and producers, source material will largely be flawed. To the extent that tone controls can take out some of that annoyance factor and make the music more listenable, what's the issue?
I will say, though, that most tone controls are not particularly good. But things like the Quad tilt control are useful and can work wonders with poor sources.
I will say, though, that most tone controls are not particularly good. But things like the Quad tilt control are useful and can work wonders with poor sources.
john curl said:
You are 100% right John. We once made an over/underfrequency unit, we called the left hand detector. If you held it in your right hand it worked, in your left hand it oscillated at 100's of kHz. I turned out it was closer to the scope (and its sweep oscillator) in your left hand.
It was a re-layout of the pcb of a previous design. We had to change some bypass cap locations and values to make it work properly.
Andre Visser said:
Tone controls are only needed to rescue a flawed system.
Right.
I never saw any speakers nor rooms that were not flawed, so a graphics EQ is an evil that is unfortunately needed.
In checking out that Zanden CD player, I noticed they also make phono stages and then saw two or three more names that I never heard of. Even a MC step up in a “pipe” (beat me to it). The Zanden for one came in several 16mm machined boxes and cost as much as a Blowtorch, in fact there seems to be a new >$10,000 line or phono stage every month. One even had a genuine Michael Fremmer “greatest phono stage I ever heard” review. The design philosophies are all over the place and I’m sure their customers swear by each one. So I still wonder if the high end is just swimming in a sea of different tastes (and $$) rather than advancing in any direction. Certainly the specs on most are nothing to write home about.
And then there are the >$50,000 CD players…
And then there are the >$50,000 CD players…
Just an opinion:
Tone controls, even narrow band equalizers are quite unlikely to map to the dips and peaks of a speaker system.
Narrow band equalizers will have a cosine shaped correction envelopes, rarely do speakers exhibit such convenient peaks or valleys.
Capacitors can be evil, especially those in series with the audio signal, a tone control could easily do more damage than good.
A tweeter level control or house curve circuit on a speaker will make most of the speaker/room interaction corrections with little side effect. (any capacitors are probably already necessary in the crossover so no new ones are added)
Tone controls, even narrow band equalizers are quite unlikely to map to the dips and peaks of a speaker system.
Narrow band equalizers will have a cosine shaped correction envelopes, rarely do speakers exhibit such convenient peaks or valleys.
Capacitors can be evil, especially those in series with the audio signal, a tone control could easily do more damage than good.
A tweeter level control or house curve circuit on a speaker will make most of the speaker/room interaction corrections with little side effect. (any capacitors are probably already necessary in the crossover so no new ones are added)
scott wurcer said:
That's exactly what I think it is. And for good reasons: when it comes to audio electronics there's nowhere to go/advance. Probably the only place worth investing time and money is speaker technology and acoustics in general.
In the last 20 years great strides have been made in sound quality especially in digital reproduction.syn08 said:
Speakers that are really quite good are much cheaper than ever before.
I thank the John Curls et al of this world for not agreeing with you and continuing to push the envelope. Even if there is no sonic breakthrough the price of a JC-2 is about one fifth the price than that performance would have cost you 10 years ago (I haven't heard a JC-2, but feel reasonably confident in my guess as to it's sound).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.