Why the need for expensive speakers when we got Equalizers?

[ofajen]

Don't they do the overcompressing mainly so they can be played louder on the radio?

I can remember hearing Santana's Supernatural thru Wilson Grand Slams and all Levinson front end and was not impressed at all. The louder you turn it up, the quicker you want it off. Several hundred thousands worth of gear won't even fix an overly compressed CD.

It's a shame so many recordings are done like this but I don't find it on many Jazz or Fusion discs, mainly on rock and more popular music.

Yes, there is some thought that stuff should be mercilessly loud so that it plays louder on the radio. The irony is that for several decades, FM broadcast stations have already had specially designed gear to make the broadcast signal louder. That gear was designed, mostly by Bob Orban, on the level practices of, perhaps, 25 to 30 years ago, where compression was already being used quite a bit on individual tracks and mixes to a degree, but much less than now.

The extremes we hear now emasculate the recording. There is no punch at all and it leaves the recording sounding puny and unlistenable at any volume. Turning it up doesn't help. This isn't what we should be striving for.

Geoff Daking likes to say "dynamic range is the enemy" and that's sort of a joke and sorta not, but we've been beating up on dynamic range to good effect for decades. The thing is, it may be an enemy, but it is one that should be subjugated, enslaved and ruthlessly controlled, but not obliterated, particularly on the time scale of microdynamics (the dynamics of an individual note, rather than a phrase).

Cheers,

Otto

 

[sb47]

I almost never listen to the radio anymore. The new music that’s pushed upon us is terrible and the sound quality atrocious. Not to mention constant commercials.
When I do tune in it’s for talk radio and that’s it.

Dennis

 

[Naptown Rob]

Polishing a turd won't give you gold?

And you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
There you go: 9 pages distilled into 2 sentences.

 

[ofajen]

Yes, there is some thought that stuff should be mercilessly loud so that it plays louder on the radio. The irony is that for several decades, FM broadcast stations have already had specially designed gear to make the broadcast signal louder. That gear was designed, mostly by Bob Orban, on the level practices of, perhaps, 25 to 30 years ago, where compression was already being used quite a bit on individual tracks and mixes to a degree, but much less than now.

What I forgot to say was that, with broadcast processing gear already in place, the peculiarities of excessively compressed original content actually serve to distort the listener's signal in a variety of nasty ways, rather than increasing loudness as much as some might think. That gear works best on somewhat less compressed audio (what was "normal" twenty years ago).

Cheers,

Otto

 

[sb47]

And you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
There you go: 9 pages distilled into 2 sentences.

Where's the fun in that?lol

 

[sb47]

Actually you summed it up in one sentence. The second sentence was not necessary. lol

 

[melofelo]

agreed...if its digitally 'brickwalled' pop music...forget the eq...forget the expensive speakers...in fact..best to listen to it on the bose radio it was mixed to sound best on...

Why not put a system together that allows everything to sound good without tone controls? I mean, it's a commonly exercised option to put music on and enjoy it immensely without any desire to change its frequency characteristics. --and I do mean every recording.

that rules out quite a lot of great music that wasn't recorded that well in the first place..
a rare 1955 john coltrane - eric dolphy live session comes to mind...it was recorded by accident..and when issued on vinyl, the quality was about as low fidelity as you can get. Throw in about 30 years worth of unobtainable reggae still lurking in some battered 7 inch groove somewhere..and to eq or not to eq becomes almost a no brainer.

 

[JoeESP9]

I don't think any of the posts in this thread have said you shouldn't use an equalizer. That's a personal choice. In my case I choose not to. If you want to, go right ahead. But, please don't try to talk me into using something I've tried and already rejected.

The original theme of this thread was about equalizing mediocre or average speakers to sound like higher quality ones. I believe the general consensus is that that's never going to happen no matter what kind equalizer you have or how you adjust it.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear!

With old or poor recordings to eq or not is certainly a no brainer for me. I don't do it. I can't anyway. My preamp has no tone controls and my parametric equalizer (Behringer DSP-1124P) is connected only to my sub woofers.

I've learned to live with the fact that there are good and bad recordings. I have no desire to be an editor and "re-master" a recording to sound the way I think it might be supposed to sound.

 

[Adda]

I've learned to live with the fact that there are good and bad recordings. I have no desire to be an editor and "re-master" a recording to sound the way I think it might be supposed to sound.

I feel the same way, sometimes you may get mighty surprised, what sounds bad initially can turn out to be brilliant once you figure out why it's made to sound the way it does, sometimes sacrifices must be made to get particular sound.

 

[melofelo]

I've never really understood the audiophile angst of having a choice you can opt out of with a simple press of a tone defeat button.
I tried that purist approach for years until I realised that half of the music I remember enjoying as a kid...has never ever sounded 'flat'.Not in the club,not on the radio..not in my teenage room..not on cassette..not on my old boombox..not even on my first 'entry level' system.
Neither did it ever sound the same when played using two different cartridges,cassettes , record pressings or cd reissue.
Choice is no bad thing sometimes...and sometimes so called 'flat' is just outright boring to listen to..
But that's just me and my tin ears. whatever sounds right to you and let's you enjoy the music...go with it i reckon.

 

[JoeESP9]

I believe the type of music one listens to makes a very large difference. Jazz and classical have usually been well recorded. Rock and pop music has always been a crap shoot where recording quality is concerned.

Now that I think about it, my moving away from sound enhancement devices went right along with my increasing interest in Jazz and Classical.

 

[Adda]

I almost exclusively listen to electronic genres, like New Wave, Synth Pop and EBM.
These types of bands have a long tradition of having excellent sound, Kraftwerk was one of the major driving forces behind these genres, that probably has something to do with it.

A great example is the German band 'And One'.

 

[melofelo]

funnily enough..i remember when Tour de France first came out...i first heared it with the bass cranked..as it was also accepted as 'electro' back then...i.e kids used to actually breakdance to it...heard it again many years later on a much better system minus tone controls...and it sounded nothing like i remembered..i had to crank the bass just to enjoy it again.. audio is odd for sure.

 

[Adda]

^
Oh you would HATE the K240DF's, I know I did when I first got them.
I really had to pull my self together to appreciate them, but they grew on me, now they sit on my head for hours every day and I'll never part with them.

 

[rifftrax]

In the studio (which is the perspective I see this from) personal preference does not apply to the playback chain, only what you do to the sound it plays.
I do not use my speakers for music production my K240DF's handle that job.

And how many respected engineers in the audio production world recommend mixing on headphones...? :nono: lol

One of the functions of REW (Room Equalization Wizard) is as a RTA.

I also used REW in combination with a Dayton Audio EMM-6 for sweeps and fed the corrective filters to (also) a DSP1124p via midi. There was a very high level of post-ringing that occurred at q values over 12 at any frequency I tried. It's a "usable" RTA at low q values (it served a decent function for some degree of room tuning) but ultimately a very poor eq overall. I wish I had the digital stereo Rane eq unit that I owned a while back, that was a phenomenal unit in comparison...

I don’t know why they think over compressing everything is a good solution.

Compression can sound good. It really depends on how it's done. Compression gets a bad rap when it's just a tool, not a direct problem.

 

[JoeESP9]

Lucky me. I didn't need to set any filter to a Q that high. Having a dedicated treated room makes a difference.

 

[jammasterj13]

You gotta have decent speakers maaaaaaaaaaaaan, sheeeesh.

Get a good quality eq for best of both worlds.

 

[Adda]

And how many respected engineers in the audio production world recommend mixing on headphones...? :nono: lol

All those who have to mix outside of a specially treated room, actually those treated rooms my very well have been voiced with K240DF's as reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLGJgEyY2A0

Used as reference headphones by many radio stations worldwide, this model has been in the AKG catalog unchanged for ten years and has become a classic by now.

With their flat frequency response, these headphones provide an uncolored sound. The diffuse-field equalized K 240 DF meets not only the stringent criteria of the IRT standard but those of professional sound engineers as well.

Created to fulfill the international IRT specification, the K 240 DF establishes a uniform quality standard free from environmental variables. In fixed apposition to the ears, the sound output quality is unchanging and reliable – as opposed to loudspeaker monitors, sound from which is markedly influenced and colored by variations in control room architecture and furnishings.

 

[rifftrax]

All those who have to mix outside of a specially treated room, actually those treated rooms my very well have been voiced with K240DF's as reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLGJgEyY2A0

Except that he's not an engineer, he's a producer. He doesn't strictly do mix engineering like you'll find at a major studio. He also recommends Sennheiser "to check" the mix (which is not uncommon after doing most of your tracking or production on a set of mains to use headphones to check for issues in the stereo field or small background noises). Saying "all those who have to mix outside a specially treated room" use headphones is totally wrong (no engineers or producers I have ever met in a professional setting recommend it or do so except to do a secondary check on a mix). You've only managed to copy and paste also a marketing blurb from AKG. The 240df are a discontinued phone and the normal 240 (both the sextett silver and typical gold versions) were actually relatively poor quality phones to be honest.

The sennheiser hd650's are popular for recording purposes by many classical engineers but in that sense there is actually very little mixing that is being done. You can bet that Jarre is using the same set.

 

[Adda]

^
Alright what problems do you get from mixing on headphones?

HD650 in the studio? you must be kidding, not flat not accurate not a studio can, had you said HD580, HD600 or HD800 it would have been different.

The Sextett is not particularly well for the studio no, but the golden Monitors track record speaks for it self, that the DF's have been discontinued doesn't really mean anything other then that it's not made anymore.
AKG have discontinued all their best models.
What did you plug those K240 in to when you head them?

That marketing 'blurb' is nothing but an explanation of why this can was designed the way it was.