I do not understand why you keep posting this position??
Do you simply ignore the fact that loudness curves are different for each individual and do you also 100% discount what a room does to the response??
You can "think" your pure analog setup is accurate but the measurements and science 100% disagree with you.
Feel free to post your accurate in room measurements showing me how you obtain your perfect reproduction without room correction software because right now Im 100% confused about your position on this topic and Im trying to figure out if its just your lack of understanding of what happens to response curves in any room.
Maybe you just assume rooms are perfect and everyone has the same ears/sound processing abilities??
EQing is needed, its a scientific fact. Anecdotal opinion should be 100% meaningless.
Last edited:
^^ You are aware room correction /treatment can be done without adding spectrum tapering electronics in the signal path.....
Missed point #1: I never said EQing is not necessary, i said it was already done in the recording process. If your intent is to hear what was done in the recording process as best and as accurate as possible , spectrum tapering EQing is not the answer and is absolutely the worst way to achieve such.
Of course if you don't care , then EQ away .................
Missed point #1: I never said EQing is not necessary, i said it was already done in the recording process. If your intent is to hear what was done in the recording process as best and as accurate as possible , spectrum tapering EQing is not the answer and is absolutely the worst way to achieve such.
Of course if you don't care , then EQ away .................
Musicians don't know about eq - as long as it sounds natural. Hi-fi people dig deep into all the nonrelated acoustics.
Knowing lots of musos, I'd like to slightly rephrase that:
Musicians don't care about eq - as long as it sounds musical
😉
Musicians don't care about eq - as long as it sounds musical
😉
HI-Fi is about the reproduction of recorded music, not live music so it will sound different to a musician and vis a vie ...
^^ You are aware room correction /treatment can be done without adding spectrum tapering electronics in the signal path.....
Missed point #1: I never said EQing is not necessary, i said it was already done in the recording process. If your intent is to hear what was done in the recording process as best and as accurate as possible , spectrum tapering EQing is not the answer and is absolutely the worst way to achieve such.
Of course if you don't care , then EQ away .................
Stop misleading people in saying its "Bad" then.
You can not hear what was recorded if you do not correct the issues in room and your own ears. People like to believe they have golden ears and they think they hear the recording as it should be but most times its just their peference of speaker they like and they seldom are reproducing the recording accurately in room. As I posted before, you require measurements to actually PROVE that you are reproducing the recording accurately. My money is on you having an inaccurate setup.
I have yet to see a room corrected with just treatements and multi-bass solutions. Its not bad at all to reduce a peak.
The big difference here is that I believe we are in a digital world and everything should be digital until its converted for amplification.
You probably want analog hence its harder to accept analog to digital back to analog. If you are an analog person then you choose to live with sometimes bad ears and bad in room response. That is a choice and nothing to do with EQing being "bad"
Prove to me you reproduce recording accurately without EQ.
Remember HiFi is about the ACCURATE reproduction of recorded music. If your system isnt accurate, then its not classified as HiFi.
Last edited:
Then you would be wrong...🙂
I have golden ears, i have done this for many moons in the past and have used the EQ's most often in your wet dreams 🙂 both in studios and home environments. I do also have the necessary test equipment to see what i hear and yes EQing is absolutely the worst way to correct anomalies, especially since most of the necessary eqing was all ready done in pre/post production and finally in the mastering .
Now are their situations where EQ would work, Yes , concert halls ( PA) and movie theaters comes to mind. They work because there is no reference
and no critical listening so what hevar the "engineer" digs up ...
Regards,
^^ You are aware room correction /treatment can be done without adding spectrum tapering electronics in the signal path.....
Missed point #1: I never said EQing is not necessary, i said it was already done in the recording process. If your intent is to hear what was done in the recording process as best and as accurate as possible , spectrum tapering EQing is not the answer and is absolutely the worst way to achieve such.
Of course if you don't care , then EQ away .................
How does one determine what exactly what was done in the recording process?
Different room. speakers, electronics and so on. What you hear on your systems will never correspond to what was heard in the studio....
To those who can't understand what I said in my list of reasons why you do want to have tone controls and/or higher resolution EQ, trust your ears. You probably have a pretty good idea of what various program content should sound like. If adjusting tone controls makes your system sound worse, it's probably about the room acoustics and how the speakers interact with them. Tone controls can only fix so much. They can also make other problems more apparent.
Doug20, sorry to point that out again but i fear that in in your 'all digital world' there is some serious level of analog processing happening 'before' you have access to your files on your server.
On recording(most mic's are analog) , mixing (most enginneer still LOVE analog desk), mastering (with this kind of gear analog vs digital is a non sense sorry to repeat)... That apart i fully understand your will to live with a fully digital chain, it's so easy and user friendly!
Correct my ears??? Or the one's of the end user when i work for a client in mastering situation?!
I don't belive i've 'golden ears' but i work with them so they should'nt be so bad... Sorry but could you explain more in depth what you are trying to say? I must admit you really confuse me...
They're is an another book i could tell you to read and which is very enlightening about room/system/eq and such :'the art of mastering' by Bob Katz (easily found on Digital Domain site).
I fear that you'll answer that you don't care about what studios do again, but with this one you're more in line with a domestic room and audiophile situation (mastering facilities are more in line with typical domestic room environnement than recording/mixing studios).
Most musicians I know really don't care that much about sound quality at all, as long as it meets a minimum standard.
They hear the music right through heaps of nastiness we would get all wound up about; their focus is on the music. Neat trick. My attention gets deflected as soon as I hear (or think to hear) artifacts that shouldn't be there. I suffer from audiophiliac neurosis, most musicians don't, so they couldn't be bothered by EQ in the least. But for me and many of my fellow patients, EQ is a great help to keep the room under control.
If people start to say that they EQ for their convenience, for their taste, or following the record...then it's not HiFi.
But the other camp that says that EQ is a stupid gadget are from an other century. Using the digital EQ embedded in many digital filters allows a lot of freedom and productivity. It adresses either some issues in room coupling (not all for sure) and some issues from the drivers, hence a better matching of the target curves, time coherence...
It's not a religion but a practic fact. Lucky the ones that put a system in the room and, by miracle, don't have to complain of tonal strangeness. The Anti EQ guys will never own a dipole bass too, that's fordidden.
But the other camp that says that EQ is a stupid gadget are from an other century. Using the digital EQ embedded in many digital filters allows a lot of freedom and productivity. It adresses either some issues in room coupling (not all for sure) and some issues from the drivers, hence a better matching of the target curves, time coherence...
It's not a religion but a practic fact. Lucky the ones that put a system in the room and, by miracle, don't have to complain of tonal strangeness. The Anti EQ guys will never own a dipole bass too, that's fordidden.
Conventional tone controls (Bass, Mid and Treble for example) have low frequency resolution, and most graphic or parametric equalizers have relatively higher frequency resolution. The latter can bring down a small section of frequency without affecting the whole area of frequency, whereas conventional tone controls will affect much larger areas of the frequency response. 😎
What I've found over 40 years of being both a musician (acoustic and electric guitar) and audio engineer is that all musicians do care about how they sound, but they don't usually know much about what to do about it, beyond playing with the bass and treble controls, and the many special effect processors that are around if they use electronics at all. They often and wisely try and convey their thoughts to a recording studio engineer (in their own confusing language), and that usually helps a lot. They're simply not real educated on the science of sound. They hear what they want to create in their head, but have limited knowledge on how to get there. They've learned to accept less.
OK and thanks for the response , must say that is not what i had in mind when you said high resolution. IMO systems that use graphic and or parametric Eq's will alter tonal balance,induce slewing, noise and suffer dynamically.
There is a place for them .... errr somewhere .............. 🙂
http://www.arthur-lambert.com/gallery.html
CELLO AUDIO PALETTE VERY RARE EQUALIZER - £2430
CELLO AUDIO PALETTE VERY RARE EQUALIZER
CELLO AUDIO PALETTE VERY RARE EQUALIZER
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited: