Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chester County, PA
    Posts
    206

    Question What is a good tweak?

    Vibration control?
    Damping?
    Absorbtion?
    Diffusion?
    Isolation?
    Spiking?

    Bill

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    60
    Same reply I gave in a similar post of a general question like this: All of the above!

    "A system is only as strong as it's weakest link"

    James

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12
    Sometimes it's good to stop for a while and just enjoy the music. If something's bugging you, maybe change a component.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by BillB
    Vibration control?
    Damping?
    Absorbtion?
    Diffusion?
    Isolation?
    Spiking?

    Bill

    One that work, not hyped to the moon.
    mtrycrafts

  5. #5
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by BillB
    Vibration control?
    Damping?
    Absorbtion?
    Diffusion?
    Isolation?
    Spiking?

    Bill
    Hi Bill,

    I have experienced good results with damping, absorption, diffusion, and isolation in differing areas.

    1. Damping: Can be beneficial with CD players that are not as solid as exotics such as Burmesters. I used sections of Dynamat to dampen the cabinet and various parts of the transport of a Pioneer PD-54. The result is somewhat improved bass response and focus.

    2. Absorption: Through room treatments such as bass traps (never have too many) and wall panels. No matter how good your room is, treatments can improve the sonics. Traps minimize unavoidable bass nodes that color the sound and mask real bass. Wall panels can tame an overly "live" room by minimizing slap echo to improve image focus.

    3. Diffusion: Using a DIY formula, I built Argent Room Lens clones. Placed on either side of your speakers and in between, they can minimize reflected sounds and sharpen the image lock.

    4. Isolation: Works great with turntables and CD players alike. There are a number of approaches one can take that generally involve either mass loading and/or methods such as air springs and roller bearings.

    While I have never tried spiking my speakers, I know that Carl Marchissotto of Alon (now NOLA) favors spiking his speakers, including his incredible Grand Exoticas.

    Good luck!
    rw

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    A good tweak had the following attributes.
    It is predictable
    It is controllable
    It is cost effective
    It's the best way to achieve a desired goal

    Upgrading audio cables as an example is the perfect model of an awful tweak because it does not meet any of these conditions. Here's why;

    First of all, it is unpredictable. There is no way to know in advance whether changing audio cables will make a difference in performance, to what degree, or in what direction they will change the performance if at all of a sound system.

    Second, it is uncontrollable. You hook the new cables up and that's it. Even if the effect is beneficial, you have no way to adjust it.

    Third, it is not cost effective. A tweak which costs hundreds or even thousands of dollars which gives you only a very marginal improvement at best is hardly the best use of money. A better pair of loudspeakers or a better amplifier would make infinitely more sense.

    Fourth, if there are any benefits at all, they are reportedly in the realm of changing the frequency response of the system. That can be done far more predictibly, cheaply, and controllably with a graphic or parametric equalizer. Even the most modest equalizers introduce no audible distortion or noise, the golden eared audiophiles' criticisms of them not withstanding. This is why virtually EVERY professionally installed sound system incorporated one or more equalizers and NEVER exotic audio cables.

  7. #7
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    This is why virtually EVERY professionally installed sound system incorporated one or more equalizers and NEVER exotic audio cables.
    That and the fact that no one really cares about the transparency of sound reinforcement systems. Why bother with mediocre venues? On the other hand, you will NEVER find equalizers used by the best recording labels such as Telarc, Reference Recordings, Classic Records, Chesky Records, Windham Hill, etc., because you CAN hear the inevitable degradation caused by them. And many of those quality conscious studios DO use aftermarket cables for the same reason.



    rw

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    I am really glad you responded to my posting e-stat because it sharply points out the fundimental differences of view between us. Of the recording labels you cited, the only one I am familiar with is Chesky, having reissued several recordings originally made by RCA red seal. On the the other hand, of the recording labels which recorded the greatest classical artists in the world in an effort to not only capture their fabulous musical talent but the sound their instruments produced such as the priceless violins by Guarnarius, Stradivarius, and Amati, the spectacular pianos made by the likes of Steinway of course, Bosendorfer, and Baldwin, not to mention the exotic voices of the worlds greatest singers whether solo vioces like sopranos, Kiri Tekanawa, Kathleen Battle, the worlds greatest tenors like Placido Domingo, Luciani Pavoritti, and Jose Carreras, voices of days gone by like Jussi Boerling, or the sound of vast ensembles like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the sound of the worlds greatest symphony orchestras and pipe organs, and whatever else is a true audible treasure to be captured and kept for future generations to understand and appreciate what we had, the world's finest music recording companies like Deutche Grammaphone, Phillips, London, RCA, Columbia, Angel, EMI, Sony just to name the most prominent used the very kinds of equipment and techniques you depricate, to convey the sonic message the worlds best had to offer. Given a choice between your view of what should have been done and that of the finest recording engineers of the day, guess what happened? Your method was virtually unanimously rejected. Future generations to the end of time will be eternally grateful that practical wisdom won out over inexperienced and ignorant prejudice.

  9. #9
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Your method was virtually unanimously rejected.
    I would agree that Jussi Bjorling was arguably one of the finest tenors of all time. Given that he died forty-four years ago, I am not at all suprised that the engineers of that day felt they needed to EQ given the limitations of their recording gear. Even still, one particular recording of his in my experience still sounds shrill and thin, despite the incredible performance.

    Given your love of classical music, you really should sample some recordings by the companies I mentioned.

    rw

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    That and the fact that no one really cares about the transparency of sound reinforcement systems. Why bother with mediocre venues? On the other hand, you will NEVER find equalizers used by the best recording labels such as Telarc, Reference Recordings, Classic Records, Chesky Records, Windham Hill, etc., because you CAN hear the inevitable degradation caused by them. And many of those quality conscious studios DO use aftermarket cables for the same reason.



    rw

    You mean that those studios have no mixing conels? A direct to maste is recorded unaltered? No EQ of the room to mix? Ridiculous. They must have nothing in that studio then, right but a mic and direct to the master. Or do you mean that they just don't muck it up as badly, right? Or, what do you really mean?
    mtrycrafts

  11. #11
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462

    Look Ma, No Crutches !

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You mean that those studios have no mixing conels? A direct to maste is recorded unaltered? No EQ of the room to mix? Ridiculous. They must have nothing in that studio then, right but a mic and direct to the master. Or do you mean that they just don't muck it up as badly, right? Or, what do you really mean?
    Shazam! Right, Gomer? I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your utter lack of exposure to anything beyond that which is patently mediore.

    Telarc has been recording some of the best classical recordings since 1977 and pioneered the use of the original Soundstream digital recording process. The "studio" is the hall of the performing symphony. Here are the technical liner notes from the 1981 recording of ASO performing Orff's Carmina Burana.

    Microphones: Schoeps Colette Series
    Digital Recording processor: Soundstream
    Console: Neotek
    Monitor speakers: ADS Model 1530 (biamplified)
    Power Amplifiers: Threshold Model 4000

    During the recording of the digital masters and the subsequent transfer to disc, the entire audio chain was transformerless. The signal was not passed through any processing device (i.e., compression, limiting, or equalization) at any step during production.


    Such is only ridiculous to the inept. I think it is a safe assumption to suggest that you have never heard a master tape of any sort. Although Telarc now uses SACD as their primary medium, they still do not rely upon any crutches to achieve their fine results. I had the distinct pleasure of participating (in a minor way) in the recording of The Firebird at the ASO. Fenner took the better part of a day just setting up and fine tuning the few microphones used because there is little mixing involved to achieve a natural soundstage. After each take, Shaw would go downstairs where the mastering equipment was set up and auditioned what was essentially the final mix.

    While most of the labels I mentioned primarily record classical music, Windham Hill is a "new age" label owned by some of the artists themselves. Most of the artists play acoustical instruments and some are simply solo piano or solo guitar. In Liz Story's Solid Colors recording of her Steinway, here are the liner notes:

    This recording was made direct to two track using a Studer A80 VU MKIII half-inch recorder at 30 ips through a Harrison board. No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used.

    Indeed most pop recordings are not made with these painstaking measures and one (present company excepted) can readily hear the difference.

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 08-14-2004 at 07:03 AM.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Telarc has been recording some of the best classical recordings since 1977 "

    I hate to be the one to break it to you e-stat, but among the world's top ranked recording studios, Telarc is a minor also ran and not to disparage the ASO as a fine symphony orchestra but it is definitely NOT top tier. Just look at where the best classical musicians in the world record. The labels I listed DG, Phillips, London, EMI, Sony(Columbia/CBS), RCA, Angel. Personally, I don't think Telarc's recordins are any better than the best of anybody elses. And while ASO may have them lined up around the block in Atlanta, I don't think the likes of the Berlin Philharmoniker, the London Symphony Orchestra, the Philladelphia Syymphony Orchestra, the NY Philharmonic, The Boston Symphony, Cleveland or Chicago have much to worry about any time soon. Telarc/ASO is one example as an exception to the rule.

    It is absurd and totally unrealistic to imagine that recording engineers would not use EVERY available means at their disposal to optimize their products regardless of how their methods offend the sensibilities of audiophiles whose naive view of the world and their idealized notion of how things should be done would preclude the most powerful tools at their disposal. The fact that you cannot hear the results of their manipulations and tweaking audibly is testimony to the enormous degree of the skill they have used. I'm sure that they would just as soon set their equipment down, run the tape, download it to the final product, and go home but the state of the art today is far from allowing them to do that if they want to compete with other people using these capabilities to the fullest. Maybe someday, that will be the way it is done, but not yet.

  13. #13
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    ... I don't think the likes of the Berlin Philharmoniker, the London Symphony Orchestra, the Philladelphia Syymphony Orchestra, the NY Philharmonic, The Boston Symphony, Cleveland or Chicago have much to worry about any time soon.
    No worry at all since the LSO has performed six recordings with Telarc and Cleveland, about twenty. I mention the ASO only because that is where I live and have had direct experience with the recording process.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    It is absurd and totally unrealistic to imagine that recording engineers would not use EVERY available means at their disposal to optimize their products regardless of how their methods offend the sensibilities of audiophiles whose naive view of the world and their idealized notion of how things should be done would preclude the most powerful tools at their disposal.
    Your opinion noted. And summarily dismissed by quite a few engineers (who are not "audiophiles" themselves)


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The fact that you cannot hear the results of their manipulations and tweaking audibly is testimony to the enormous degree of the skill they have used.
    If you are referring to the use of large numbers of microphones, compression, etc. then speak for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I'm sure that they would just as soon set their equipment down, run the tape, download it to the final product, and go home but the state of the art today is far from allowing them to do that if they want to compete with other people using these capabilities to the fullest.
    Honestly tell me the same once your comments are supported by experience with these recordings rather than using mere speculation. Hand waving gestures alone are meaningless.

    rw

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "If you are referring to the use of large numbers of microphones, compression, etc. then speak for yourself."

    As you undoubtedly know, compression is used for some classical music when it is transferred to vinyl phonograph records because the medium simply cannot handle the dynamic range of the music. OTOH, compression of other genres of music is done for entirely different reasons. They are commercially more desirable for broadcast on radio if there is little variation in volume.

    As for multiple miking, one of the most difficult challenges for recording engineers is achieving proper balance especially between a solo voice and a full symphony orchestra. Too much in the orchestra's favor and the soloist is drowned out, too much in the soloists favor and the orchestra sounds like background music. Highlight mikes allow the engineer to bring out passages by individual instruments or groups of instruments which would be otherwise lost. It is much too late and nothing can be done once the two or three tracks of a minimalist miking setup such as that pioneered by Mercury Living Presence 45 years ago are laid down and you discover that the sound simply cannot be balanced. A retake is an enormous cost and an unacceptable delay. Even in small ensembles such as with pop and jazz sessions, multiple miking allows the engineer to tweak the sound until he gets exactly what he is looking for. And BTW, even recording a solo piano, the standard technique is to use two microphones, not for stereo but for picking up the proper tone of the instrument. I think one is commonly placed below the harp and the other in front of the instrument aimed at the sounding board. And that is for a monophonic recording as well.

    It is well known that some microphones are particularly suited for recording certain instruments. Trying to find a one size fits all microphone or placement is a strategy many recording engineers reject. Unlike the minimalist philosophy of many audiophiles, the goal is maximum control over what ultimately happens, not minimal or none at all.

  15. #15
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    As you undoubtedly know, compression is used for some classical music when it is transferred to vinyl phonograph records because the medium simply cannot handle the dynamic range of the music.
    And on quite a few of the "mainstream" classical labels for CD as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    As for multiple miking, one of the most difficult challenges for recording engineers is achieving proper balance especially between a solo voice and a full symphony orchestra. Too much in the orchestra's favor and the soloist is drowned out, too much in the soloists favor and the orchestra sounds like background music.
    You're preaching to the choir. I've seen it done.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    It is much too late and nothing can be done once the two or three tracks of a minimalist miking setup such as that pioneered by Mercury Living Presence 45 years ago are laid down and you discover that the sound simply cannot be balanced.
    True, although some of those 50's recordings present a spacious soundstage. Telarc's basic approach is to use three or four primary and two fills mounted further back.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    A retake is an enormous cost and an unacceptable delay.
    Not for Telarc. I remember well hearing a take of the Polovetsian Dances (also found on the Firebird disc) where Shaw was focusing on the clarinet solo. He wasn't happy with the results and that take was recorded again. My minor role was as the "official timer" as the musicians were paid by the hour.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    It is well known that some microphones are particularly suited for recording certain instruments. Trying to find a one size fits all microphone or placement is a strategy many recording engineers reject. Unlike the minimalist philosophy of many audiophiles, the goal is maximum control over what ultimately happens, not minimal or none at all.
    Indeed one does need to choose the optimum mic for the application. I'll let six time Grammy winner Renner comment on microphone use:

    The Microphone Array

    When Renner talks about "minimal" miking, it means using the fewest number of microphones that are absolutely essential to get the job done. This means using only two, three, or four main microphones for recording a full symphony orchestra. Only in extreme circumstances will he employ "highlighting" mics. "It really depends on the acoustic of the hall, the size of the group being recorded, and on the repertoire?whether the texture of the score is extremely complex, and only if we can't achieve a critical detail from a certain section of the orchestra without additional mics. That is what I call a distinctive Telarc Sound. That sound is a result of using omni-directional microphones for the main pick-up, and the way they are placed so that the acoustic of the venue and the performing group are successfully integrated into a single, successfully-balanced sonic picture. In addition, the quality of the entire recording chain adds its own personality to the finished product."

    Renner acknowledges he is conservative in his microphone selections and likes to stick with his favorite set-ups. He often uses two pairs of high-quality Schoeps omni-directional microphones, as well as vintage Neumann M50 omni microphones with tube electronics. "We choose microphones for their unique sonic characteristics," says Renner. "Microphone choice depends upon the acoustic, as well as the repertoire?for instance, the Bruel and Kjaer (B&K) condenser microphones tend to be particularly accurate for piano recordings." Renner emphasizes, however, that the choice of microphones is only one aspect out of many when it comes to getting the desired results.

    "It's fine to take into account the laws of physics when deciding where to place microphones, but the real key is instinct achieved by working for many years in hundreds of different environments around the world," Renner reflects. "For an orchestral recording, I normally start with the inner pair of mics some ten feet above the floor of the stage, and between three and five feet from the first row of musicians. Then I position my outer mics around twelve to thirteen feet from center stage. From that point, fine-tuning adjustments are made until the desired sound picture falls into place."

    Renner also prefers a simple microphone array for chamber orchestra and operatic sessions. In addition to the central microphones used in an opera recording, he will use additional mics for solo singers and choruses that help give definition and balance. The output from these microphones is integrated into the main mix only at the lowest level necessary.


    rw

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    I really don't see where this is going. The standard recorders are 24 channels and up. The standard recording consoles not only have as many and more channels but each channel has an abundance of tweak controls such as multi band parametric equalizers and added reverberation. They also have extensive provisions for outboard signal processing. If the minimalist philosophy was the predominant way of thinking, there would be no market for this type of equipment. It's popularity grew out of experience and the needs of recording engineers. Unlike the factors that cause many audiophiles to make choices, the expense of provisioning a recording studio is not made on a whim or emotional factors. The engineers specify what they need to get the job done well enough to compete. And among the end users of classical recordings at least, they want a product which is as accurate as possible in the sense of being a documentation of what a performance sounded like or would have sounded like had they seen it live in a favorable seat. All of the added microphones and tweaks are there and used in the service of that end. Like making sausage, it may not seem pretty to some people but at the current state of the art, that's what it takes for most of them. I am quite pleased with the results myself and in my collection of several thousand cds and vinyl records, I'd be surprised if I had more than one or two Telarc recordings. When it comes to selecting the artists, the performances, the recordings and plunking down the bucks at the checkout counter, Telarc never wins my vote. They just never seem to have the best overall choice available.

  17. #17
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    If the minimalist philosophy was the predominant way of thinking, there would be no market for this type of equipment. It's popularity grew out of experience and the needs of recording engineers.
    The popularity of massive mixing consoles grew with the rise of popular music (99% of the market) and the needs of quick and cheap ways to record. Let's fix everything after the fact. Unlike classical and other purely acoustical venues, most popular music has no real concept of "live". Mix it however you please. Take dozens of close up slide pictures of the instruments and view them all simultaneously. Everything is there with no perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The engineers specify what they need to get the job done well enough to compete. And among the end users of classical recordings at least, they want a product which is as accurate as possible in the sense of being a documentation of what a performance sounded like or would have sounded like had they seen it live in a favorable seat.
    Ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    All of the added microphones and tweaks are there and used in the service of that end.
    For some, yes. I aver that the very best recordings (not necessarily performances) never go for that hokey stuff. I refer you again to a host of recordings outside your experience. Maybe some day you will find out what I am talking about.

    rw

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    While it is true that top headliner artists and orchestras have made some recordings with Telarc, none of the greatest performers have recorded any of the most important works for them. The sole exception is the Robert Shaw Chorale which is at the very pinacle of groups performing choral music IMO. I do have their recording of Dvorak's Stabaat Mater. With the single exception of this groups music and possibly one or two other recordings, I cannot find anything in their catalogue I would wish to own, and I have no intention of listening to everly last one of them to see if I have somehow missed a gem here and there among the masses of more ordinary stones.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Shazam! Right, Gomer? I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your utter lack of exposure to anything beyond that which is patently mediore.

    Telarc has been recording some of the best classical recordings since 1977 and pioneered the use of the original Soundstream digital recording process. The "studio" is the hall of the performing symphony. Here are the technical liner notes from the 1981 recording of ASO performing Orff's Carmina Burana.

    Microphones: Schoeps Colette Series
    Digital Recording processor: Soundstream
    Console: Neotek
    Monitor speakers: ADS Model 1530 (biamplified)
    Power Amplifiers: Threshold Model 4000

    During the recording of the digital masters and the subsequent transfer to disc, the entire audio chain was transformerless. The signal was not passed through any processing device (i.e., compression, limiting, or equalization) at any step during production.


    Such is only ridiculous to the inept. I think it is a safe assumption to suggest that you have never heard a master tape of any sort. Although Telarc now uses SACD as their primary medium, they still do not rely upon any crutches to achieve their fine results. I had the distinct pleasure of participating (in a minor way) in the recording of The Firebird at the ASO. Fenner took the better part of a day just setting up and fine tuning the few microphones used because there is little mixing involved to achieve a natural soundstage. After each take, Shaw would go downstairs where the mastering equipment was set up and auditioned what was essentially the final mix.

    While most of the labels I mentioned primarily record classical music, Windham Hill is a "new age" label owned by some of the artists themselves. Most of the artists play acoustical instruments and some are simply solo piano or solo guitar. In Liz Story's Solid Colors recording of her Steinway, here are the liner notes:

    This recording was made direct to two track using a Studer A80 VU MKIII half-inch recorder at 30 ips through a Harrison board. No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used.

    Indeed most pop recordings are not made with these painstaking measures and one (present company excepted) can readily hear the difference.

    rw

    You are right, I wasn't in th estudio while that was recorded, to scrutinize what they were doing. So, what you are saying, they have no mixing consoles, nothing? Direct feed to the tape? How about afterwards? Nothing? Went directly to pressings? LOL. Get real.
    mtrycrafts

  20. #20
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You are right, I wasn't in th estudio while that was recorded, to scrutinize what they were doing. So, what you are saying, they have no mixing consoles, nothing? Direct feed to the tape?
    You continually amaze me as to the depth to which you are totally clueless. Obviously, you were not in the advanced reading group in elementary school. That's cool - I'll help you out since I was! Here's a clip from an earlier post:

    Telarc has been recording some of the best classical recordings since 1977 and pioneered the use of the original Soundstream digital recording process. The "studio" is the hall of the performing symphony. Here are the technical liner notes from the 1981 recording of ASO performing Orff's Carmina Burana.

    Microphones: Schoeps Colette Series
    Digital Recording processor: Soundstream
    Console: Neotek
    Monitor speakers: ADS Model 1530 (biamplified)
    Power Amplifiers: Threshold Model 4000

    The signal was not passed through any processing device (i.e., compression, limiting, or equalization) at any step during production.


    Do you notice the word "console"? If not, search using CTRL-F. Good. Let's look at more text from the same post:

    This recording was made direct to two track using a Studer A80 VU MKIII half-inch recorder at 30 ips through a Harrison board. No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used.

    Hint: board=console

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    How about afterwards? Nothing? Went directly to pressings? LOL. Get real.
    This may be a challenge for you, but I'll try anyway. READ THE BOLD TEXT IN THIS POST S-L-O-W-L-Y FOR COMPREHENSION. You will find the answer (again). I am really trying hard to understand your spectacular ignorance as to the existence of uncompressed, unequalized, unlimited recordings.

    I just don't understand why you ask questions that were completely answered in my post.

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 08-14-2004 at 07:59 PM.

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Do you notice the word "console"?

    Ah, so they did mess with the signals or that console is just window dressing. Yes, all the controls were in neutral. LOL.




    No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used.

    Oh, so they used EQ then here.
    mtrycrafts

  22. #22
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Do you notice the word "console"?

    Ah, so they did mess with the signals or that console is just window dressing. Yes, all the controls were in neutral. LOL.
    Mtry, the console just provided the mic mix. Yes, the controls were neutral as reported on the recording's jacket itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used.

    Oh, so they used EQ then here.
    Since that information was not provided, we can only speculate. My guess is as good as yours. Of the two dozen or so of the Windham Hill albums in my collection, however, the majority are recorded directly. If not then no one is perfect, right?

    rw

  23. #23
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3

    Equalizers vs cables

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Your method was virtually unanimously rejected. Future generations to the end of time will be eternally grateful that practical wisdom won out over inexperienced and ignorant prejudice.
    That might be right. But that is the challange and the fun. I have a very good equalizer, and yes, using it i can change many things ... But i like to turn the equalizer off, and try to get with absolute flat settings, the best sound i can. In my car i use "bass" and "loudness"... and these things. But during the listening sessions, i prefear non equalized things. Sometimes this is a problem, because some original recordings sucks, are not recorded to "fit" my flat settings. In this case i throw away the cd and look for something that is well mixed. So it's not always a prejudice. It's a free choice.
    Though the solution is not to by expensive cables. The solution is to spend 10000 bucks in speakers, that solves many things.

  24. #24
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by BillB
    Vibration control?
    Damping?
    Absorbtion?
    Diffusion?
    Isolation?
    Spiking?

    Bill

    Any one of these could be a good tweak when properly applied to a well defined problem. Any one of these could be an awful tweak if applied randomly without a defined cause: at the very least a waste of money and effort. At the other extreme, one could damage their equipment, or void the warranty.

    -Bruce

  25. #25
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Hi Bill,

    I have experienced good results with damping, absorption, diffusion, and isolation in differing areas.

    1. Damping: Can be beneficial with CD players that are not as solid as exotics such as Burmesters. I used sections of Dynamat to dampen the cabinet and various parts of the transport of a Pioneer PD-54. The result is somewhat improved bass response and focus.
    What measurement technique did you use? I'd like to see your data and set-up.

    2. Absorption: Through room treatments such as bass traps (never have too many) and wall panels. No matter how good your room is, treatments can improve the sonics. Traps minimize unavoidable bass nodes that color the sound and mask real bass. Wall panels can tame an overly "live" room by minimizing slap echo to improve image focus.

    3. Diffusion: Using a DIY formula, I built Argent Room Lens clones. Placed on either side of your speakers and in between, they can minimize reflected sounds and sharpen the image lock.
    Funny, you can reduce slap echo by diffusion as well. As for bass traps, you CAN have too many if their combined effects reach undesireably into the mid-range frequencies.

    Applying something acoustically can easily create more problems if done haphazardly and without first identifying what the problem is and what you intend to achieve.

    If someone wants to learn how to properly apply acoustical treaments I would start by reading Everest's book: The Master Handbook of Acoustics" and visit Art Ludwigs site for an example of acoustics done the right way:

    http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html

    If you want to give yourself a good headache, you can visit these guys(but maybe only after you have read the book):

    http://www.rpginc.com/research/index.htm

    4. Isolation: Works great with turntables and CD players alike. There are a number of approaches one can take that generally involve either mass loading and/or methods such as air springs and roller bearings.
    Mass loading? Gee, wouldn't that fall under damping? As for the other methods, one question. How do you isolate the device when it is in the same acousitc environment as your speakers? Placing something on springs may isolate it from a surface, but increase the effects of the acoustic signal, no?

    -Bruce

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Adventures at SoundHounds today - good times
    By 92135011 in forum Speakers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-27-2004, 08:58 PM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-27-2004, 12:52 AM
  3. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-18-2003, 09:31 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-05-2003, 06:19 PM
  5. Recent evaluations of A/V Receivers by ConsumerReport.
    By Smokey in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-30-2003, 06:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •