Bubba Kron wrote |
Since its just subtractive, most the time it means it wont hit the op-amp? |
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 |
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?? |
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'. |
Quote: |
Or that, the differences between equalizers-in general-are a moot point in multi-track recording. |
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. |
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}. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 09:37 | ||
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. |
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. |
Quote: | ||
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: | ||
Covered in a previous post |
Quote: | ||
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: | ||
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: | ||
What? They speak English in "What"? |
Quote: | ||
Absolutely!! |
Quote: |
Mastering is the final level of "quality control" -- which should make the mastering engineer / process / facility one of the most critical choices ... |
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? |
ssltech wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 13:32 | ||
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. |
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 |
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. |
Edward Vinatea wrote |
Most people who read and understand my comments would probably agree that I am not "dissing" anything. |
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. |
Bubba Kron wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 14:38 |
Thanks for the responses gentlemen, you guys are walking encyclopedias for christ sake!!! 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 |
Quote: |
from a theoretical purist perspective-with all that going on inside the analog eq- would a plug in be a better |
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?? |
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!! |
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. |
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. |
Quote: | ||||
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.
There's absolutely no "if" about it. Keith |
ssltech wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 13:31 |
...I will say that we have a handful of CP-10's here and I typically use them on room EQ. |
Quote: |
We've also installed a few of the Rupert-Neve-designed Summit Audio EQ's in two rooms for slight monitor response 'massaging', and people seem to enjoy those, even though it wasn't what they were designed for, and overlooking their RIGHTEOUS price tag! |
Quote: |
The GMLs... I've always noticed the noise floor a little too much to give them any serious consideration for overall EQ duties, be that program or monitor treatment. |