The Devil
IHTFP
I think we agree about something. Using a graphic equaliser in a high-end system seems nuts to me.
Auditioning the MEG RL-901K
- Thread starter 3DSonics
- Start date
No it isnt a graphic equaliser. If its done properly as part of the active speaker management or digital chain it shouldnt be deleterious and the effects can be made quite subtle unlike most narrow band analog filter eq. However I do see its main role as for correcting system deficiences and improving the room interface rather than correcting for individual recordings - in the digital environment at least.
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
Okay, just so I get this right let me paraphrase what you are saying....
Are you saying that, starting from a (previously corrected) "flat" response applying a few db of EQ WHERE NEEDED is "WRONG", but using speakers with a much larger amount of EQ build in, undefeatable and somewhat unpredictable due to room interactions evern where non is needed is "RIGHT"?
And that is your definition of "High Fidelity" or "High End"?
If that is right, then Boy was I wrong about you.
L8er T
The Devil said:
Okay, just so I get this right let me paraphrase what you are saying....
Are you saying that, starting from a (previously corrected) "flat" response applying a few db of EQ WHERE NEEDED is "WRONG", but using speakers with a much larger amount of EQ build in, undefeatable and somewhat unpredictable due to room interactions evern where non is needed is "RIGHT"?
And that is your definition of "High Fidelity" or "High End"?
If that is right, then Boy was I wrong about you.
L8er T
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
This is one possible valid interpretation.
Another to which I subscribe to "A HiFi System is an Illusion Engine!"
Ciao T
brizonbiovizier said:
This is one possible valid interpretation.
Another to which I subscribe to "A HiFi System is an Illusion Engine!"
Ciao T
pauldixonuk
pmc & bryston
What's it all about?
The aim of my hifi is to put a smile on my face. If someone else thinks my choice is no good, that's fine by me, as I'm still a very happy bunny.
I'd also say if any of you are chasing technical perfection, then who's to say that goal is even in alignment with personal enjoyment?
Bubby, it seems you need to learn to take this chilled approach more often. If someone doesn't like your kit as much as you do, it's not an insult. I doubt we all like the same food, alcohol, cars, holidays, clothes or much else for that matter. It's only opinion after all. It's ok for you to be wrong.
The aim of my hifi is to put a smile on my face. If someone else thinks my choice is no good, that's fine by me, as I'm still a very happy bunny.
I'd also say if any of you are chasing technical perfection, then who's to say that goal is even in alignment with personal enjoyment?
Bubby, it seems you need to learn to take this chilled approach more often. If someone doesn't like your kit as much as you do, it's not an insult. I doubt we all like the same food, alcohol, cars, holidays, clothes or much else for that matter. It's only opinion after all. It's ok for you to be wrong.
The Devil
IHTFP
Yes, it's the 'where needed'. It's not needed. All this shows is that what you are most interested in is gizmos.3DSonics said:
The Devil
IHTFP
What you need to do is to go & re-read my account of the recording session, then you'll realise exactly how secure I actually feel. I know I'm right: that is why I find your reactions so amusing. And you always come back for more.pauldixonuk said:
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,309
- Reaction score
- 0
If your room causes a suck out between 100hz and 400hz, is it wrong to correct it and have the music sound as it was recorded?
The Devil
IHTFP
Maybe, but what Mr 3D suggests doing is adjusting the tonal balance from record to record. Insane.
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
Please SUBSTANTIATE why "equalising" your systems sound via specifc cartridges, speakers and mana tables is right and correcting merely for obvious recording imperfections is not.
Or perhaps in other terms (which you may understand better), why is treating the clap via homeopathic methodes "right" and a good, decent dose of antibiotics is "wrong".
As I come mainly from a pro-audio (and EE) background, to me an EQ is a tool to be used where applicable. UNLIKE most from this background I do not discount homeopathic medicine (in the Audio/EE sense) either, to me it's all grist for the mill and what comes out at the end matters.
Not a very religeous and British Flat Earth Brand worshipping stance, more along the lines of Religio Medici.
I am in many ways the opposite of you. In the studio I am an absolutist of the worst kind (in opposition to many Engineers), at home a liberal and libertine of the worst.
You seem to be the opposite, allowing the engineer in his studio all liberty and the listener non (strap him down and make him listen - what he does not like it - so what!?)
L8er T
The Devil said:
Please SUBSTANTIATE why "equalising" your systems sound via specifc cartridges, speakers and mana tables is right and correcting merely for obvious recording imperfections is not.
Or perhaps in other terms (which you may understand better), why is treating the clap via homeopathic methodes "right" and a good, decent dose of antibiotics is "wrong".
As I come mainly from a pro-audio (and EE) background, to me an EQ is a tool to be used where applicable. UNLIKE most from this background I do not discount homeopathic medicine (in the Audio/EE sense) either, to me it's all grist for the mill and what comes out at the end matters.
Not a very religeous and British Flat Earth Brand worshipping stance, more along the lines of Religio Medici.
I am in many ways the opposite of you. In the studio I am an absolutist of the worst kind (in opposition to many Engineers), at home a liberal and libertine of the worst.
You seem to be the opposite, allowing the engineer in his studio all liberty and the listener non (strap him down and make him listen - what he does not like it - so what!?)
L8er T
pauldixonuk
pmc & bryston
I see from dominics link above that...
Some claim you spent £9000 on mana. Is this accurate?!
As much as I think your a fruit loop, I'm even more amazed someone else spent £12000 on a pre amp, without a comparible demo.
Some claim you spent £9000 on mana. Is this accurate?!
As much as I think your a fruit loop, I'm even more amazed someone else spent £12000 on a pre amp, without a comparible demo.
meg
3d - an illusion engine? Please provide a more detailed description of what that means. "Information" added is somewhat arbitrary
Bub - they really need it beleive me. You "beleive" - that is not the same as proof. You havent heard how much better is possible.
3d - an illusion engine? Please provide a more detailed description of what that means. "Information" added is somewhat arbitrary
Bub - they really need it beleive me. You "beleive" - that is not the same as proof. You havent heard how much better is possible.
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
I'll let some more eloquent at oratory then me make the point:
Illusion Engines
"What do audio systems do? At the most basic level, they are Illusion Engines. I'll repeat that: a hi-fi system is really an Illusion Engine, a type of mechanical contrivance that hypnotizes the audience into thinking musicians are somehow present (or at least nearby). If the contrivance fails in this, it fails utterly, just as a magic trick entertains or it doesn't.
Re-framed in this context, "accuracy" simply doesn't apply. It's like rating a dream, or a hallucination, on an imaginary "accuracy" scale, although the mainstreamers have come up with a series of incantations, body postures (jaw-dropping, pants-flapping, cojones, etc) and audiophile-approved test discs that purport to accomplish this feat."
Ciao T
brizonbiovizier said:
I'll let some more eloquent at oratory then me make the point:
Illusion Engines
"What do audio systems do? At the most basic level, they are Illusion Engines. I'll repeat that: a hi-fi system is really an Illusion Engine, a type of mechanical contrivance that hypnotizes the audience into thinking musicians are somehow present (or at least nearby). If the contrivance fails in this, it fails utterly, just as a magic trick entertains or it doesn't.
Re-framed in this context, "accuracy" simply doesn't apply. It's like rating a dream, or a hallucination, on an imaginary "accuracy" scale, although the mainstreamers have come up with a series of incantations, body postures (jaw-dropping, pants-flapping, cojones, etc) and audiophile-approved test discs that purport to accomplish this feat."
Ciao T
The Devil
IHTFP
So, erm...when you listen to music in your libertine home, how many times do you have to play a piece before you are satisfied that the tonal balance & all the settings on the Palette are -ah- "correct", Mr Thorsten?
The Devil
IHTFP
It sounds like a dreadful, boring waste of time to me.
The Devil
IHTFP
What if you put a compilation album on? I listened to "Contemporary Roots Reggae Vol 1" last night. Recorded in a variety of studios around Jamaica, every track has a different sound. Imagine trying to EQ that, as you went along!
As I said earlier, insane.
As I said earlier, insane.
The Devil said:
You have contradicted yourself there bub. If every record sounds different it is because they were recorded and mixed in different environments on different monitors. The same piano will sound different on different recordings because of this. The other thing bub is that on one occasion in your house you got to hear what the artist intended, maybe, but you have not provided all of the information like recording media and hardware. Some of us get to hear what the artist intended almost every day. You have no clue what you are talking about in this regard.
Now that you have grasped the above concept you then have to acknowledge that what we hear at home is not what the artist intended at all. This is because we are listening on a completely different system and it will never sound they same as sitting in the control room and listening to the mix as the artist does.
Do not also forget about the mastering process that will then happen - largely with the absence of the artist, so it sounds different again than what the artist intended; the pressing process either CD or vinyl changes (deteriorates) the sound again; and then you have your hifi system that again sounds different to the studio set up. No system, MEG or anything, else will ever enable you to hear what the artist intented unless you are in the control room at mixdown; you can only guess what they intended.
What do you do when an artist mixes on PMCs - a speaker that you have never heard yet say is not good because other people have said so - apparently they are so far removed from being the right sound that no matter how accurate your ATCs they will never reproduce what the artist intended via the PMCs.
I do not know why I bother trying to educate you because it seems that when it comes to hifi you are beyond educating, your view being so blinkered and your aims and ideals are so ill informed because you have no clue about the recording process. Great that you love your hifi but to say that it is accurate and enables you to hear what the artist intended is such a joke it is unreal. From now on I will not get into a debate with you because it is a waste of time.
Lastly bub - stop misquoting me - I never said that ATC were excellent. As the owner already had ATCs and wanted to create more space by changing amps I recommended going active ATC instead. You should have been a politician, especially if some of the things that I have read on PFM are true.
Last edited by a moderator:
3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
Hi,
The principle is electrically quite sound.
IF a driver produces large amounts of 2nd H at the normal listening level, BUT low levels of 3rd H, then adding about the same amount of 2nd H but in opposite phase cancels the distortion in the driver.
You could call it feed forward error compensation. It was also used on many records during the 60's, 70's and 80's in the form of a tracing simulator (which cancels certain types of distortion resulting from using spherical tip stylii).
If applied well you can reduce the HD of a given driver by 10db and more over wide ranges of SPL and frequency, it is better applied to active systems than passive ones.
You may find these articles illuminating:
http://usuarios.uninet.com.br/~edelima/
Ciao T
brizonbiovizier said:
The principle is electrically quite sound.
IF a driver produces large amounts of 2nd H at the normal listening level, BUT low levels of 3rd H, then adding about the same amount of 2nd H but in opposite phase cancels the distortion in the driver.
You could call it feed forward error compensation. It was also used on many records during the 60's, 70's and 80's in the form of a tracing simulator (which cancels certain types of distortion resulting from using spherical tip stylii).
If applied well you can reduce the HD of a given driver by 10db and more over wide ranges of SPL and frequency, it is better applied to active systems than passive ones.
You may find these articles illuminating:
http://usuarios.uninet.com.br/~edelima/
Ciao T
Last edited by a moderator:
