R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...  (Read 7252 times)

Bubba#$%Kron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« on: December 28, 2010, 02:15:45 am »

Is there gonna be a difference in sound between different units?  Since its just subtractive, most the time it means it wont hit the op-amp?     are filters gonna have their own sonic signature??

I'm asking because I have a meyer cp-10 which I'm only using for subtractive eq and my room/monitors tuning also, but was wondering what difference in sound it would be compared to say a GML 8200, since I'm not boosting a frequency- one could assume that I can achieve similar results?!!? no?

Thanks
Logged
"When we make music we don't do it in order to reach a certain point, such as the end of the composition. If that were the purpose of music then obviously the fastest players would be the best. Also, when we are dancing we are not aiming to arrive at a particular place on the floor as in a journey. When we dance, the journey itself is the point, as when we play music the playing itself is the point."  -Alan Watts

Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2010, 09:11:24 am »

An equalizer "sounds" like an equalizer no matter if you're boosting or cutting or doing both at the same time.  The Meyer will sound like the Meyer, the GML will sound like the GML.

When you're doing "subtractive EQ" you're performing the same function as when you do "additive EQ" - only 180˚ out of polarity.  Same filter sets for the audio, same amplifiers, same everything - but when you move the knob "anti-clockwise" you're applying gain that is out of polarity with the original signal instead of in polarity with the original signal... and yes, you can run out of headroom just as quickly if you're not careful.

Peace.
Logged
CN Fletcher

mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid


"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.  
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and  they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too.  It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2010, 10:09:22 am »

Bubba Kron wrote

Since its just subtractive, most the time it means it wont hit the op-amp?


You seem to be significantly misunderstanding how these things work.

Sure, passive filters don't use op-amps... and yes, passive filters can only cut...

BUT

An active filter doesn't suddenly 'switch' to passive just because you're not boosting on any given band. -The op-amp is always in the path, and sums the signal with a filtered band either "IN-phase" (for boost) or "OUT-of-phase" (for cut). -But it's ALWAYS in the path, and it's always summing, whether you're boosting, cutting or set flat.

Not only that, but the filter section isn't passive. It uses several op-amps per band, frequently arranged in a state-variable or wien-bridge arrangement. These are resonantly-tuned and the frequency, gain and resonance can be tuned to change the center frequency, boost range and 'bandwidth'.

The CP-10 is always using its op-amps. There is no boost/cut structural difference... only the band 'in/out' switches change things, by disconnecting the second path from the summing stage for each band, but the signal still goes through five sequential summing stages, even if all five filters are disconnected.

Now... to submit a thought to your direct question: yes, different filters will sound different. If a bandwidth control goes sharper or narrower, it will obviously be capable of a different range of sounds.

Even given the same center frequency, the same depth of cut and the same empirical 'bandwidth' (which is a tricky notion, because many filters use constant-Q/variable-bandwidth, while others use constant-bandwidth/variable-Q designs, which behave differently to increased cut or boost... but we'll ignore that for now) they can give measurably and audibly different results.

One thing is the actual Q of a filter, and two units which produce almost identical pass response curves can produce significantly different impulse responses as a result of differences in this area.

Don't be led into thinking that the only differences between EQs is the make-up stage. -That's marketing bullshit, and utterly muddies the water. -The REAL differences are in fundamental topology. -That's what people like Rupert Neve understand on a level which goes right down to the great man's DNA, I almost believe.

I've spent some time dabbling with EQ designs, and I've built a few. Some sounded better than others for different tasks, and some have sounded significantly different... even when they've only used 553x and TL07x op-amps.

It's the design. going right down to the foundation. -The op-amp is like the paint job. -Sure, they might make a lot of the paint job in the brochure, but if you tried to sell anything in this business based on getting people to understand its TRUE merits, there'd be a lot of glazed eyeballs at the end of every sales pitch.

Short answer. -yes, a GML will sound different. (And frequently noisier, from my experience.) But there is no 'better' unless you think it's better. -And it's got almost nothing to do with cutting or boosting, or how the op-amp is "hit"... It's to do with topology and fundamental design.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2010, 11:22:01 am »

I guess I am one of the few around {correct me if I am wrong} who believes that the differences in frequency response between equalizers mean little if the room is an acoustic mess and your speakers are extremely 'inaccurate'. Or that, the differences between equalizers-in general-are a moot point in multi-track recording.

We are also not talking about comparing just any equalizers, i.e., a $30 car/home stereo eq has a significant sonic difference from a pro-level one.

Whatever the sonic characteristics of a top equalizer however, one thing seems to remain the same; they are all adding distortion with circuitry oscillation noise. Knowing that most recording/tracking stages can add already a significant degree of all that, you would think that the need for a more transparent unit {compressor/equalizer} for the mixing stage is crucial to render an impactful, clear mix. But, most engineers don't think about that, and choose sometimes extremely noisy units that create the 'sonic stamp' they are looking for specific tracks {drums, bass, vocals, etc}.

It's all good when you solo and mute the other tracks, but once everything is back on, the whole theory of that sonic stamp becomes a mess of tiny degrees of distortion introduced by all these different units.

The reason why you can't really hear it to the point that you just have to trash that mix is their great THD+N measurements of the {small} extent of said introduced distortion.

Now the mix goes to mastering and some guy is going to listen to what the tracking and the mixing {if not all one} engineer has done and decide what new processors to choose from. Does anyone believe that a mix can benefit 'sonically' for proper translation on multiple play back systems by introducing new distortion?

I hope this didn't go way OT, if so my apologies.


Happy holidays,

Edward

Bubba#$%Kron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2010, 02:38:20 pm »

Thanks for the responses gentlemen, you guys are walking encyclopedias for christ sake!!!Smile    So, I cant believe I'm saying this, from a theoretical purist perspective-with all that going on inside the analog eq- would a plug in be a better choice maybe if I just wanted to knotch 1db or 2bd with the Q all the way to the left to get a little headroom on a bus mix??    

My other EQ is a Langevin eqp-1a(the non tube version of the manley) which is passive I know.   Is there less splitting/summing going on there since its fixed and fewer bands??  Am I gonna be getting a better signal result with that compared to the Meyer??  

Obviously I will check and make my own judgements , but was wondering technically what you guys thought from your vast experience!!

I really get good signal from my micing technics, and dont really believe in "Boosting" eq artistically, so I'm looking for just something to barely tame the highs on certain tracks, with as little impact as possible!!

Thanks, Bubs
Logged
"When we make music we don't do it in order to reach a certain point, such as the end of the composition. If that were the purpose of music then obviously the fastest players would be the best. Also, when we are dancing we are not aiming to arrive at a particular place on the floor as in a journey. When we dance, the journey itself is the point, as when we play music the playing itself is the point."  -Alan Watts

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2010, 06:25:21 pm »

Edward Vinatea wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:22

I guess I am one of the few around {correct me if I am wrong} who believes that the differences in frequency response between equalizers mean little if the room is an acoustic mess and your speakers are extremely 'inaccurate'. Or that, the differences between equalizers-in general-are a moot point in multi-track recording.

We are also not talking about comparing just any equalizers, i.e., a $30 car/home stereo eq has a significant sonic difference from a pro-level one.

Whatever the sonic characteristics of a top equalizer however, one thing seems to remain the same; they are all adding distortion with circuitry oscillation noise. Knowing that most recording/tracking stages can add already a significant degree of all that, you would think that the need for a more transparent unit {compressor/equalizer} for the mixing stage is crucial to render an impactful, clear mix. But, most engineers don't think about that, and choose sometimes extremely noisy units that create the 'sonic stamp' they are looking for specific tracks {drums, bass, vocals, etc}.

It's all good when you solo and mute the other tracks, but once everything is back on, the whole theory of that sonic stamp becomes a mess of tiny degrees of distortion introduced by all these different units.

The reason why you can't really hear it to the point that you just have to trash that mix is their great THD+N measurements of the {small} extent of said introduced distortion.

Now the mix goes to mastering and some guy is going to listen to what the tracking and the mixing {if not all one} engineer has done and decide what new processors to choose from. Does anyone believe that a mix can benefit 'sonically' for proper translation on multiple play back systems by introducing new distortion?

I hope this didn't go way OT, if so my apologies.


Happy holidays,

Edward

I find much to pick at in this post... a lot of generalization for example, but importantly, nobody brought up the question of whether EQ is good or bad insofar as "fixing" an "acoustic mess".

I think we all know that EQ doesn't fix anything, merely hides a symptom.

But as far as $30 hi-fi EQ somehow being automatically inferior in any way to a "pro-line" model, I have to say that's a generalization which doesn't hold up at all.

Baxandall EQs are the cheapest to make. They're the ones which have -over the decades- been the single most common EQ used in domestic "hi-fi" designs. -And frequently, there's almost nothing that can beat them, when you just need to 'warm' or 'brighten' a little.

Again, it's too broad a generalization which ignores the design and topology... which REALLY dictates what governs how an EQ does what it does. -For a specific example, I find that the Neve V-series "formant" EQ is almost useless for general track sweetening, whereas the simple and cheap Baxandall found in $50 amplifiers is often VERY good indeed.

"oscillation noise" is nothing I've ever encountered in a properly working EQ, so I'm inclined to discount that as either irrelevant, or more likely a completely misused term.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Tim Halligan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1302
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2010, 10:07:45 pm »

Bubba Kron wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 03:38

...would a plug in be a better choice maybe if I just wanted to knotch 1db or 2bd with the Q all the way to the left to get a little headroom on a bus mix??    





No.

Better gain staging will help with your mix levels.

Or you could just turn everything down...which is effectively what you are trying to do with your eq plug.

One wonders if you regularly use a hammer to tighten nuts too?

Cheers,
Tim
Logged
"Don't forget, we are all engaged in a battle to the death against mediocrity." - J. Whynot

"You can tune a room only with a bulldozer." - Andy Peters

Seb Riou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 284
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2010, 09:27:25 am »

Edit : Misread OP
Logged

Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2010, 09:37:12 am »

Edward Vinatea wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:22

I guess I am one of the few around {correct me if I am wrong} who believes that the differences in frequency response between equalizers mean little if the room is an acoustic mess and your speakers are extremely 'inaccurate'.


Frequency response?  Even the lowliest Behringer unit will do 20-20kHz -- the thing about phase response [which goes to your "distortion" premise] is how it affects the linear phase response of a signal -- the wider the bandwidth, the lower the phase distortion -- which as an equalizer's only purpose is the creation of phase distortion seems counter intuitive - yet, its not.

In terms of rooms [you kinda did go "wheelchairs vs. oranges" in the initial thought process] -- you can't "fix" a room with electronics... but you can "tune"  the speakers for optimal performance in the space.  In other words, if you start with a good room you can get the response of the speakers to be "right" between the two as they couple to the space in which they have been installed.

Quote:

Or that, the differences between equalizers-in general-are a moot point in multi-track recording.


Not in the slightest - every tone / texture within the context of a presentation becomes part of the general / overall aesthetic of the presentation.  While its "time" vs. "energy" vs. "frequency" on the grand scale -- within the sub-context you can manipulate aspects of "time" vs. "energy" vs. "frequency" to create textures within that presentation that will [hopefully] reinforce the statement of that presentation.

Quote:

We are also not talking about comparing just any equalizers, i.e., a $30 car/home stereo eq has a significant sonic difference from a pro-level one.


Covered in a previous post

Quote:

Whatever the sonic characteristics of a top equalizer however, one thing seems to remain the same; they are all adding distortion with circuitry oscillation noise. Knowing that most recording/tracking stages can add already a significant degree of all that, you would think that the need for a more transparent unit {compressor/equalizer} for the mixing stage is crucial to render an impactful, clear mix. But, most engineers don't think about that, and choose sometimes extremely noisy units that create the 'sonic stamp' they are looking for specific tracks {drums, bass, vocals, etc}.


One man's ceiling is another man's floor.  At the end of the day all that matters is how the presentation fulfills the artist's [or artists'] intention - and that the presentation resonates in some way with the audience.  Production is a means to an end - not the end itself

Quote:

It's all good when you solo and mute the other tracks, but once everything is back on, the whole theory of that sonic stamp becomes a mess of tiny degrees of distortion introduced by all these different units.


Exactly - and if the practitioner [engineer] is talented / skilled then they will manage those degrees of various distortions to create a result that helps to reinforce the musical statement of the artist(s).  Very much of engineering is "distortion management" - manage it right and you will have an emotional presentation, manage it poorly and the presentation will interfere with the artist's concept for that presentation.

Quote:

The reason why you can't really hear it to the point that you just have to trash that mix is their great THD+N measurements of the {small} extent of said introduced distortion.


What?  They speak English in "What"?

Quote:

Now the mix goes to mastering and some guy is going to listen to what the tracking and the mixing {if not all one} engineer has done and decide what new processors to choose from. Does anyone believe that a mix can benefit 'sonically' for proper translation on multiple play back systems by introducing new distortion?


Absolutely!!

Mastering is the final level of "quality control" -- which should make the mastering engineer / process / facility one of the most critical choices -- unfortunately many times its nary an afterthought.  Oh well.
Logged
CN Fletcher

mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid


"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.  
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and  they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too.  It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2010, 11:42:29 am »

Fletcher wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 09:37

Edward Vinatea wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:22

I guess I am one of the few around {correct me if I am wrong} who believes that the differences in frequency response between equalizers mean little if the room is an acoustic mess and your speakers are extremely 'inaccurate'.


Frequency response?  Even the lowliest Behringer unit will do 20-20kHz -- the thing about phase response [which goes to your "distortion" premise] is how it affects the linear phase response of a signal -- the wider the bandwidth, the lower the phase distortion -- which as an equalizer's only purpose is the creation of phase distortion seems counter intuitive - yet, its not.


Fletcher, sorry to disappoint you if my explanation was too simplistic. I am not addressing the top of the food chain here, just an OP who appears to be a little confused about his options.

But, let's take it by segments then: Frequency response of the "lowliest Behringer" {20H/20k} with say, a Rupert Neve Designs Portico 5033 {25kHz}. Both rendered useless inside a room with too many comb filtering problems and even worse if you are using a pair of home stereo speakers. Simple enough?

Quote:

In terms of rooms [you kinda did go "wheelchairs vs. oranges" in the initial thought process] -- you can't "fix" a room with electronics... but you can "tune"  the speakers for optimal performance in the space.  In other words, if you start with a good room you can get the response of the speakers to be "right" between the two as they couple to the space in which they have been installed.


I share your opinion, but I think you are overlooking the context here. The OP {correct me if I am wrong} is trying to tune his speakers with eq and asked if the George Massenburg eq will do the task better. You and I know that's silly, right?

I am saying, if you have bad room acoustics, and on top of it, bad speakers for mixing, then your equalizer and/or any processors including effects such as reverbs, that it will be almost impossible to determine the correct amounts of phase distortion, corrective eq, wet vs. dry signal, etc, etc, decisions.

Quote:

Quote:

Or that, the differences between equalizers-in general-are a moot point in multi-track recording.


Not in the slightest - every tone / texture within the context of a presentation becomes part of the general / overall aesthetic of the presentation.  While its "time" vs. "energy" vs. "frequency" on the grand scale -- within the sub-context you can manipulate aspects of "time" vs. "energy" vs. "frequency" to create textures within that presentation that will [hopefully] reinforce the statement of that presentation.


I love your creative writing Fletcher, but your observations are sometimes too subjective for me to consider what you said as an objective explanation. I would request, if you have a frequency chart somewhere that could illustrate your view, that will be very helpful.

Quote:

Quote:

We are also not talking about comparing just any equalizers, i.e., a $30 car/home stereo eq has a significant sonic difference from a pro-level one.


Covered in a previous post


I will address this here. I was talking about 'phase-frequency distortion'. All analogue equalizers present non-linearity issues {any kind of deformation of a waveform compared to an input, usually clipping, harmonic distortion and inter-modulation distortion caused by the non-linear behavior of electronic components and power supply limitations.} even when all knobs/faders are 'flat' to signal, and even when by-passed, you have the unit's non-linearity issues to deal with. In addition, they all introduce circuitry noise. Naturally a frequency chart would prove this, but you're just going to have to take my word for it.


Quote:

Quote:

Whatever the sonic characteristics of a top equalizer however, one thing seems to remain the same; they are all adding distortion with circuitry oscillation noise. Knowing that most recording/tracking stages can add already a significant degree of all that, you would think that the need for a more transparent unit {compressor/equalizer} for the mixing stage is crucial to render an impactful, clear mix. But, most engineers don't think about that, and choose sometimes extremely noisy units that create the 'sonic stamp' they are looking for specific tracks {drums, bass, vocals, etc}.


One man's ceiling is another man's floor.  At the end of the day all that matters is how the presentation fulfills the artist's [or artists'] intention - and that the presentation resonates in some way with the audience.  Production is a means to an end - not the end itself


And, we all have very different means/ways to reach that end, Fletcher. I am not here to preach the gospel of audio, just wanted to help the OP in a way he could understand. I guess I failed at that.

Quote:

Quote:

It's all good when you solo and mute the other tracks, but once everything is back on, the whole theory of that sonic stamp becomes a mess of tiny degrees of distortion introduced by all these different units.


Exactly - and if the practitioner [engineer] is talented / skilled then they will manage those degrees of various distortions to create a result that helps to reinforce the musical statement of the artist(s).  Very much of engineering is "distortion management" - manage it right and you will have an emotional presentation, manage it poorly and the presentation will interfere with the artist's concept for that presentation.


I love your poetry, too bad the large majority of internet users doing audio will fail to understand you.

Quote:

Quote:

The reason why you can't really hear it to the point that you just have to trash that mix is their great THD+N measurements of the {small} extent of said introduced distortion.


What?  They speak English in "What"?


I was referring to these units' total harmonic distortion plus noise. But you knew that. When these units have subjectively/objectively better specifications, there seems to be more forgiveness in terms of the amount of accumulated distortion.

Quote:

Quote:

Now the mix goes to mastering and some guy is going to listen to what the tracking and the mixing {if not all one} engineer has done and decide what new processors to choose from. Does anyone believe that a mix can benefit 'sonically' for proper translation on multiple play back systems by introducing new distortion?


Absolutely!!


Absolutely not. Read my question again. What you use to process a mix for mastering is not as important as how you process {experience/knowledge/acoustic environment/accurate speakers}  Thus, introducing controlled degrees of distortion the wrong way, even with the most expensive processors money can buy, will yield disappointing results {bass squashed or bass way over the top, middle range harshness, excessive high frequency distortion, etc}. Just one listen to some of the commercial CDs in the market should make you realize that.

Quote:

Mastering is the final level of "quality control" -- which should make the mastering engineer / process / facility one of the most critical choices ...


Absolutely yes! Smile




ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2010, 01:32:10 pm »

Edward Vinatea wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 11:42

Frequency response of the "lowliest Behringer" {20H/20k} with say, a Rupert Neve Designs Portico 5033 {25kHz}. Both rendered useless inside a room with too many comb filtering problems and even worse if you are using a pair of home stereo speakers. Simple enough?


Firstly, the frequency response of a Portico 5033 goes OCTAVES above 25kHz; -The CONTROLS allow a corner frequency to be swept that far, with the frequency response extending so far past that, it's unreal.

-And why do you seem to keep 'dissing' home stereo equipment? I know of LOTS of people who record and mix on 'home stereo speakers'. -Great and talented people who are REALLY good at what they do. World class, in fact.

The Yamaha NS-10M was a "home stereo speaker", from the "Natural Sound" series (hence the "NS" in "NS-10M"). Sure, the very name is a joke; (there's precious little that's 'natural" about how they sound!) but they're a VERY useful tool in a studio. -Specially a studio where you have little experience. -their ubiquity and affordability makes for an extremely useful common reference point.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2010, 02:05:56 pm »

ssltech wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 13:32

Edward Vinatea wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 11:42

Frequency response of the "lowliest Behringer" {20H/20k} with say, a Rupert Neve Designs Portico 5033 {25kHz}. Both rendered useless inside a room with too many comb filtering problems and even worse if you are using a pair of home stereo speakers. Simple enough?


Firstly, the frequency response of a Portico 5033 goes OCTAVES above 25kHz; -The CONTROLS allow a corner frequency to be swept that far, with the frequency response extending so far past that, it's unreal.


And? What does that have to do with my original comments? Is it that now that you understand what I am saying, you now need to argue about using the Portico? I am not interested SSLTECH, I could have used the GML the OP inquired about and still make my point.

Quote:

-And why do you seem to keep 'dissing' home stereo equipment? I know of LOTS of people who record and mix on 'home stereo speakers'. -Great and talented people who are REALLY good at what they do. World class, in fact.


The Yamaha NS-10M was a "home stereo speaker", from the "Natural Sound" series (hence the "NS" in "NS-10M"). Sure, the very name is a joke; (there's precious little that's 'natural" about how they sound!) but they're a VERY useful tool in a studio. -Specially a studio where you have little experience. -their ubiquity and affordability makes for an extremely useful common reference point.

Keith


Most people who read and understand my comments would probably agree that I am not "dissing" anything. But they will also read into what I said hopefully in the right perspective, unlike you who is now using NS-10s to make a point. That said, they don't really sound like bookshelf speakers, now do they?

If you or you know people who work with home stereo equipment to make professional records even the Recording Academy takes notice, the only thing I can say is the more power to you.

Happy New Year,

Edward

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2010, 02:26:28 pm »

Edward Vinatea wrote

And? What does that have to do with my original comments? Is it that now that you understand what I am saying, you now need to argue about using the Portico? I am not interested SSLTECH, I could have used the GML the OP inquired about and still make my point.



Why... I'm so mighty, I could have used a megaton-yield nuclear device!!!

To be honest, I don't suddenly understand anything you've written any better than I did, so no.

The impression  that you like to write expansively about things where you don't fully appreciate some gaps in your understanding however, is stronger than it was. -If you wrote less, that wouldn't happen. -The overriding impression is one of half-understood facts being used beyond their application. -Not that I can claim not to do the same thing; I'm sure many of us do, but I'd be shocked if I did it THAT much.

Edward Vinatea wrote

Most people who read and understand my comments would probably agree that I am not "dissing" anything.


Really? -So no dismissive tone then? -Perhaps I was mistaken. -It certainly reads as if you -on more than one occasion in this very thread- wished to say that you felt such equipment (home hi-fi EQs and subsequently home hi-fi speakers) caused more problem than improvement (in the case of the hi-fi EQ) and made things less than possible to judge (in the case of the hi-fi-speakers).

If you didn't mean it how I read it, then okay. -but if you did, I personally find the assertions somewhat laughable, and -either way- the overall conclusion which one might be led to draw, would be that you are inclined to only trust equipment of a certain 'quality'. I myself have found that great gear comes from a number of places, and not all of it has premium branding.

Edward Vinatea wrote

If you or you know people who work with home stereo equipment to make professional records even the Recording Academy takes notice, the only thing I can say is the more power to you.


There's absolutely no "if" about it.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2010, 02:33:14 pm »

Bubba Kron wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 14:38

Thanks for the responses gentlemen, you guys are walking encyclopedias for christ sake!!!Smile    So, I cant believe I'm saying this, from a theoretical purist perspective-with all that going on inside the analog eq- would a plug in be a better choice maybe if I just wanted to knotch 1db or 2bd with the Q all the way to the left to get a little headroom on a bus mix??    

My other EQ is a Langevin eqp-1a(the non tube version of the manley) which is passive I know.   Is there less splitting/summing going on there since its fixed and fewer bands??  Am I gonna be getting a better signal result with that compared to the Meyer??  

Obviously I will check and make my own judgements , but was wondering technically what you guys thought from your vast experience!!

I really get good signal from my micing technics, and dont really believe in "Boosting" eq artistically, so I'm looking for just something to barely tame the highs on certain tracks, with as little impact as possible!!

Thanks, Bubs


Hi Bubs,

You are covering a lot here, but to make a long reply short, and in my opinion of course, no matter what eq you are using to tune your room and make it a more accurate representation of your mix, you still have to hear accurately and addressing the speaker monitors is just one part of the puzzle.

Quote:

from a theoretical purist perspective-with all that going on inside the analog eq- would a plug in be a better


Yes and no. Yes, if by purist you meant more transparent. No, because the amounts of distortion are sometimes too small to make a difference.

Quote:

My other EQ is a Langevin eqp-1a(the non tube version of the manley) which is passive I know.   Is there less splitting/summing going on there since its fixed and fewer bands??  Am I gonna be getting a better signal result with that compared to the Meyer??  


It's not going to be a determining factor. The main concern is whether the tool will accomplish the task at hand or not.

Quote:

I really get good signal from my micing technics, and dont really believe in "Boosting" eq artistically, so I'm looking for just something to barely tame the highs on certain tracks, with as little impact as possible!!


Think of it in these terms: you may capture the perfect performance with the mic and need nothing else, only to have the sound modified at the mixing stage. Most likely, you already have all what you need in your DAW.

Happy New Year,

Edward

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: If your doing subtractive EQing only on a 5 band parametric...
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2010, 03:04:56 pm »

ssltech wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 14:26


To be honest, I don't suddenly understand anything you've written any better than I did, so no.


Exactly, so in that spirit we should stop right here.

Quote:

The impression  that you like to write expansively about things where you don't fully appreciate some gaps in your understanding however, is stronger than it was. -If you wrote less, that wouldn't happen. -The overriding impression is one of half-understood facts being used beyond their application. -Not that I can claim not to do the same thing; I'm sure many of us do, but I'd be shocked if I did it THAT much.


You may not understand my thought process, that's all. And yes, I am prone to overextending myself for that matter. Many times I write something only to realize that that wasn't the word I really had in mind. Regardless, people who are truly polite and smart usually ask about it before passing a judgment on me or jumping into conclusions.

Quote:

Edward Vinatea wrote

Most people who read and understand my comments would probably agree that I am not "dissing" anything.


Really? -So no dismissive tone then? -Perhaps I was mistaken. -It certainly reads as if you -on more than one occasion in this very thread- wished to say that you felt such equipment (home hi-fi EQs and subsequently home hi-fi speakers) caused more problem than improvement (in the case of the hi-fi EQ) and made things less than possible to judge (in the case of the hi-fi-speakers).

If you didn't mean it how I read it, then okay. -but if you did, I personally find the assertions somewhat laughable, and -either way- the overall conclusion which one might be led to draw, would be that you are inclined to only trust equipment of a certain 'quality'. I myself have found that great gear comes from a number of places, and not all of it has premium branding.

Edward Vinatea wrote

If you or you know people who work with home stereo equipment to make professional records even the Recording Academy takes notice, the only thing I can say is the more power to you.


There's absolutely no "if" about it.

Keith


Frankly Keith, I don't care about your opinions nor I find them worth engaging in a lengthy discussion, and so should you. The only thing that is laughable here are your responses about me. This  is pretty hilarious to me coming from someone who calls himself "SSLTech" and goes out of his way insulting others to defend the position of using 'home stereo equipment for the purpose of making professional recordings'.

Can someone make a great record with home stereo equipment? Sure, why not. Can this be done professionally? Probably not.

I am finished with our silly debate.

Regards,

Edward
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up