wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
analog
equalizers, versus digital ones.

Why is your opinion so strong?

**Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass of
switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst anything
they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my client if I
could make some changes to see what the effects would be. I noted that
the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'. It bypassed
the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled 'Bypass'. This
switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits, but not through
the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in several
configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls to make
subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to the 12
o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the bypass
switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I switched
the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became more
cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were
buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this
was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed
my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
much.

Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
years ago.

**Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because the
Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone controls.


But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

**So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In
what way/s?


If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.

**Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.

More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can only
help.

**Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.


We were not
discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
discussing high end equipment.

Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already mentioned.

**Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.


Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
rather
small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
eq is
substantially more transparent?

**Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
transparent.

And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
experiment with.

**Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.



In my experience, eqs are among the most
transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
cut
mode.

My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer a

1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
recordings
listenable, where they may do quite well.

**Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).

Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
everybody.

**I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.

You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
with anything more than anecdote.

**I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If you
imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
following:

* Select a room.
* Measure that room's physical dimensions.
* Measure the room's problems.
* Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
* Post ALL the data here.


If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.


2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
consumers
to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach of
an eq
anyway.
3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
This
accounts for the lack of popularity.

**Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
locales.


4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
broken,
and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
only in
this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
higher
frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
can be
used to benefit.

**Yep.

7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
more
important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
eq at
the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
equipment into a consumer installation.

**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.


I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science and
when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
improvements.

**And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
instruments.

Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS meters,

**No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one with
more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.

because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are
corrections and there are several sites where you can look at measurements
done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive meters and
they all conform you arre wrong.

**About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No argument
from me.


Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

**When will you stop beating your wife?



Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
for everybody?

**Nope. But I do know what sounds best.

FOR YOU!

**Accuracy is best.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy wrote:

I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
bass?

Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.

The fact that you can't figure out why shows why you're just out to
lunch in this whole discussion.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy wrote:


One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
simple flexible parametric EQ.

Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
"high end" stereo...

So you're just a price and looks snob.

Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
get your snob on.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:28:31 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Clyde Slick said:

If irony killed.

... then Mickey would not resist the urge to flush when he looks in the
mirror.

He has a mirror over the toilet?

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT"
wrote:


Regards TT

Cheers TT

There are two of you?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT"

wrote:


Regards TT

Cheers TT

There are two of you?

No. But I wish there was I would have sent the other one to
work today ;-)

TT (the other one that isn't me) ;-)

wrote in message
k.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



**Accuracy is best.


Which is sometimes not possible without an EQ.



LOL!!
That says it all.

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 19:33:52 +0800, "TT"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:45:27 +0800, "TT"

wrote:


Regards TT

Cheers TT

There are two of you?

No. But I wish there was I would have sent the other one to
work today ;-)

Why? Aren't you the boss? :-)

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
analog
equalizers, versus digital ones.

Why is your opinion so strong?

**Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home to
me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time) Yamaha
pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1 had mass
of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish alomst
anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked my
client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would be.
I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled 'Direct'.
It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was labelled
'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone circuits,
but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the preamp in
several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone controls
to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone controls to
the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I switched the
bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging resulted.. Then I
switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The whole system became
more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate. The tone circuits were
buggering up the system significantly. Whilst I already knew that this
was likely in cheap equipment (many years previous to that, I bypassed
my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a dramatic improvement), I was
surprised that such expensive, well built equipment could benefit so
much.

Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
years ago.

**Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
controls.


But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

**So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today? In
what way/s?


If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.

**Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.

More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
only help.

**Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.


We were not
discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
discussing high end equipment.

Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable tone
controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already
mentioned.

**Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.


Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences seem
rather
small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a digital
eq is
substantially more transparent?

**Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
transparent.

And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
experiment with.

**Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.



In my experience, eqs are among the most
transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
cut
mode.

My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
a

1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
recordings
listenable, where they may do quite well.

**Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).

Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
everybody.

**I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.

You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
with anything more than anecdote.

**I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If
you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
following:

* Select a room.
* Measure that room's physical dimensions.
* Measure the room's problems.
* Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
* Post ALL the data here.


If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.


2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
consumers
to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
of an eq
anyway.
3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
This
accounts for the lack of popularity.

**Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
locales.


4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
broken,
and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
only in
this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
higher
frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
can be
used to benefit.

**Yep.

7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
more
important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
eq at
the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
equipment into a consumer installation.

**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.


I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some remarkable
improvements.

**And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
instruments.

Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
meters,

**No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.

because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there are
corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive
meters and they all conform you arre wrong.

**About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
argument from me.


Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

**When will you stop beating your wife?



Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's best
for everybody?

**Nope. But I do know what sounds best.

FOR YOU!

**Accuracy is best.


Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an equalizer to
smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:

When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and
Morein

Pot calling kettle black, noted.

Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
still
further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey
is.


I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.


If irony killed.


Then I'd be one of the few left alive.


Wouldn't it be ironic if
it were just the two of us, sweetie?
Only if this became a political rather than audio NG.
That might still include Arny and Scott though.


I thought you were Maggie.
I have the hots for her.
Eeeewww.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:

When you start in on the behavior of people like Middius and Morein

Pot calling kettle black, noted.

Mickey copied the "he started it" excuse from the Krooborg. This is
still
further testimony (as if we needed any more) as to how dumb Mickey is.


I copied nothing, I just observed, you were a **** from day one.


If irony killed.


Then I'd be one of the few left alive.



Sorry, I thought you were MArgaret. Your just
not my type.
Phew!

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
analog
equalizers, versus digital ones.

Why is your opinion so strong?

**Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home
to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time)
Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1
had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish
alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked
my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would
be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled
'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was
labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone
circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the
preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone
controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone
controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I
switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging
resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The
whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate.
The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst
I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years
previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a
dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well
built equipment could benefit so much.

Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
years ago.

**Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
controls.


But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

**So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today?
In what way/s?

**Still waiting.



If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.

**Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.

More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
only help.

**Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.

**I'm pleased we agree.



We were not
discussing cheap, crappy equipment (in the other thread). We were
discussing high end equipment.

Which should be about givng value for your money. Simple defeatable
tone controls ought to be a requirement for the reasons I've already
mentioned.

**Simple tone controls are useless. They cannot help any decent system.

**I'm pleased we agree.



Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences
seem rather
small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a
digital eq is
substantially more transparent?

**Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
transparent.

And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
experiment with.

**Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.

**I'm pleased we agree.




In my experience, eqs are among the most
transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
cut
mode.

My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
a

1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
recordings
listenable, where they may do quite well.

**Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).

Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
everybody.

**I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.

You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
with anything more than anecdote.

**I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense. If
you imagine you can cure a (say) specific room's problems, then do the
following:

* Select a room.
* Measure that room's physical dimensions.
* Measure the room's problems.
* Correct those problems with "simple tone controls"
* Post ALL the data here.

**Still waiting.



If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.


2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
consumers
to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
of an eq
anyway.
3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the nontechnical user.
This
accounts for the lack of popularity.

**Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
locales.


4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
broken,
and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.
6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
only in
this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
higher
frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
can be
used to benefit.

**Yep.

7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
more
important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
eq at
the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
equipment into a consumer installation.

**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.


I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some
remarkable improvements.

**And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
instruments.

Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
meters,

**No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.

because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there
are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive
meters and they all conform you arre wrong.

**About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
argument from me.


Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

**When will you stop beating your wife?



Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's
best for everybody?

**Nope. But I do know what sounds best.

FOR YOU!

**Accuracy is best.


Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an equalizer to
smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.

**Focus on the word: "proper".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:55:31 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy wrote:

I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
bass?

Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.

The fact that you can't figure out why shows why you're just out to
lunch in this whole discussion.

Wrong again.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:58:07 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy wrote:

One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
simple flexible parametric EQ.

Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
"high end" stereo...

So you're just a price and looks snob.

Wanting to have all your components matched in quality level makes one
a "snob"?

As for price, is everyone who buys a $1,000+ preamp a "snob"?

Also, I'm curious, if you think that a majority of owners of $1,000+
preamps, most of whom are apparently so concerned with purity that
they cannot allow a tone-control defeat-switch come between them and
their music, would have a $99 EQ in the circuit?

Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
get your snob on.

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions. Or are you just being antagonist because I've been
trouncing you in our debates?

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:25:27 GMT, wrote:

Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response.

Then some of those systems should be "too bassy", and you would
occasionally see a bass knob set to "attenuate". ***NEVER***

My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's own
tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to be
applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can
practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if
you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass.

The unit he http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed
with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste
when you think bass is lacking.

Looks like a neat thing... I'm leary, though, of inserting another
A/D and D/A step in the chain, though... My Benchmark DAC1 would be
kind of "wasted" then...

I really prefer the most simple solution, with tone controls.

Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content for
the type ofsound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see what
the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and engineer
agreed).

Not if it sounds bad, which most recordings would...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:58:07 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy wrote:

One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
simple flexible parametric EQ.

Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
"high end" stereo...

So you're just a price and looks snob.

Wanting to have all your components matched in quality level makes one
a "snob"?

As for price, is everyone who buys a $1,000+ preamp a "snob"?

Also, I'm curious, if you think that a majority of owners of $1,000+
preamps, most of whom are apparently so concerned with purity that
they cannot allow a tone-control defeat-switch come between them and
their music, would have a $99 EQ in the circuit?

Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
get your snob on.

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

ScottW

ScottW a écrit :


No more France ****ing ? Already tired ?
You aren't very resistant ****er...
Poor Mrs ScottW. :-)

"dizzy" wrote in message
...


Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.


It's all according to the drums, which are pretty loud, just acoustically.
On the stage, the drummer wants and needs to hear the bass over his drums.
This comes from the bass amp on stage, not from the stage monitors, which
are too weak
and not placed in that regard. So, the bass amp is way up in bar set ups.
Not to mention the other room factors which, exacerbate the bass.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues of
analog
equalizers, versus digital ones.

Why is your opinion so strong?

**Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought home
to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time)
Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The C1
had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to acomplish
alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I asked
my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects would
be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled
'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was
labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the tone
circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the
preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the tone
controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the tone
controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I
switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging
resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference! The
whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and accurate.
The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly. Whilst
I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many years
previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for a
dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well
built equipment could benefit so much.

Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience TWENTY
years ago.

**Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it, because
the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
controls.


But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

**So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to today?
In what way/s?

**Still waiting.

Hard to say, you've contributed so little information, mostly you
condemned tone controls.
Your comments on the RS meter are simply wrong based on the
observations of several different people from elsewhere on the net,
some of which included measurements and calibrations.


If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for everybody
everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.

**Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence or
abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.

More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility can
only help.

**Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls (it
can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end equipment.




Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences
seem rather
small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a
digital eq is
substantially more transparent?

**Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very impressively
transparent.

And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
experiment with.

**Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic EQ.

**I'm pleased we agree.

On the issue of tone controls being less useful than a 1/3 octave EQ,
there's nothing to argue about. It doesn't make tone controls useless,
however since you've been given a couple of reasons why they would be
helpful.


In my experience, eqs are among the most
transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in the
cut
mode.

My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the consumer
a

1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
recordings
listenable, where they may do quite well.

**Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the client
has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do not).

Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good for
everybody.

**I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave EQ
having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery win.

You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back up
with anything more than anecdote.

**I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense.

Mostly you speak in sweeping condemnations with damn little actual
info.



If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an EQ
you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.


2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
consumers
to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the reach
of an eq
anyway.
3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the non technical user.
This
accounts for the lack of popularity.

**Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable test
equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
locales.


4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system sound
broken,
and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.

Not in my experience or that of anybody I know that has an Equalizer.
They all used an RS meter with corrections and test tones and were all
happy with the end result after EQ.

6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued that
only in
this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really needed. At
higher
frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave equalizer
can be
used to benefit.

**Yep.

7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is far
more
important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive the
eq at
the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum, is
problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate professional
equipment into a consumer installation.

**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since they
lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.


I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket science
and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some
remarkable improvements.

**And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed and
you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
instruments.


They are precise enough when used with teh corrections I've posted from
several people, some of whom have compared them to calibrated devices.

Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
meters,

**No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say one
with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any important,
calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.

because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because there
are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more expensive
meters and they all conform you arre wrong.

**About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
argument from me.

With the corrections for their variance, they are precise enough to do
an EQ.

Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

**When will you stop beating your wife?



Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's
best for everybody?

**Nope. But I do know what sounds best.

FOR YOU!

**Accuracy is best.


Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an equalizer to
smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.

**Focus on the word: "proper".


I have and I know from several sources that once the corrections are
factored in, the RS meter is suitable for a room EQ. I also know that
I've tried to be helpful and you've done nothing but bitch. How about
some of the benefit of your expertise, then we can compare that to what
other people say and see if there's some agreement. THX doesn't agree
with you, so where do you say the mic should go.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:48:02 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:55:31 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy wrote:

I don't understand the concept of "bass light." There's the bass they put
on the recording, if it seems light, then I guess you should have some way
to enhance it if you want, but are you sure you just don't like distorted
bass?

Heh. Yeah, pretty sure. If there's enough bass on the disc, I don't
boost it. I honestly cannot figure out why so many recordings are
just so light on the bass. You go to a bar and listen to a band, and
bass is plenty strong. Throw in a CD, and the bass is weak.

The fact that you can't figure out why shows why you're just out to
lunch in this whole discussion.

Wrong again.

You're the one who "honestly can't figure out" why the bass from a
live band is so much stronger than a CD on a home system.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:54:18 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:58:07 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:48:19 GMT, dizzy wrote:

One thing you could try that cheap and flexible is
http://www.djmart.com/preq3bafupae.html $99.00 and you've got a fairly
simple flexible parametric EQ.

Looks like it might be fun to play with, but not the best mate for a
"high end" stereo...

So you're just a price and looks snob.

Wanting to have all your components matched in quality level makes one
a "snob"?

As for price, is everyone who buys a $1,000+ preamp a "snob"?

Also, I'm curious, if you think that a majority of owners of $1,000+
preamps, most of whom are apparently so concerned with purity that
they cannot allow a tone-control defeat-switch come between them and
their music, would have a $99 EQ in the circuit?

If they wouldn't, then that's their preference. If they're happy with
the sound, why should they bother?

Well, your preferences are as valid as the next guy. You *could* just
box it up in a high-end cabinet and get some fancy vernier knobs and
get your snob on.

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions. Or are you just being antagonist because I've been
trouncing you in our debates?

I'm not being antagonistic (or an antagonist). YOU'RE the one
bemoaning a problem that doesn't have to exist. You're the one being a
bonehead. You've been given a solution that you won't even bother
checking out. I can't help it if you so inflexible that you only want
a certain configuration for your system.

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:25:27 GMT, wrote:

Very few people seem to have taken the time required to get flat response.

Then some of those systems should be "too bassy", and you would
occasionally see a bass knob set to "attenuate". ***NEVER***

Some people just don't know how much is too much.

I define too bassy as having more than there was put into the rcording. IOW
if the response at 150 Hz was 85 Db then when I paly it back it should be
the same, assuming I'm playing at the same level. Same for any other
frequency.

It may well be that you just like more bass than was intended to be put on
the recording.
The only way to have a good idea, is to have a system that's providing you
with flat response. If you like more bass than the recording has on it, I
don't know that I would call that a fault of the recording, that's just the
way they chose.

My best advice is to get a decent 1/3 octave EQ, one that generates it's
own
tones, and an RS meter, makeing note of the corrections that need to be
applied, and do a proper EQ. Then see how things sound and I can
practically guarantee that you will hear things you never noticed, and if
you get one with memory, you can EQ for things you think lack bass.

The unit he http://www.djmart.com/aldeprdi13oc.html comes preprogramed
with EQ settings for musicans that may already fit the bill for your taste
when you think bass is lacking.

Looks like a neat thing... I'm leary, though, of inserting another
A/D and D/A step in the chain, though... My Benchmark DAC1 would be
kind of "wasted" then...

I really prefer the most simple solution, with tone controls.

Bottom line is that you can feel free to adjust to your heart's content
for
the type of sound you like or just do one EQ for flat response and see
what
the music was intended to sound like (assuming the artist and engineer
agreed).

Not if it sounds bad, which most recordings would...

What kind of music are you listening to?

If your object is hi-fi, then it would seem that you would want to hear the
playback as it was recorded. If yo want to boost teh bass after that, then
you're now dealing with your prefernce and the amount of bass that right for
your ears is up to you.

I like recordings that have deep bass, but I also enjoy solo guitar and
violin music as well.
I have a recording of Jascha Heifetz with no bass response at all, that
gives me chills, because of the artistry, which is how I approach music in
the first place.

Your rules for how you enjoy music are your own, I just offered you a
guideline that can be achieved through active EQ, which is generally a set
and forget process. First flatten out eh room with the EQ and then forget
it. Some EQ's have memory as I've mentioned, so you could come up with
several curves that match your feelings for a particular amount of bass to
go with particular musical tastes or groups of recordings

At the prices for some of the units available, it's a very low cost way to
get a much better clue about how the music was intended to sound as opposed
to how the room makes it sound.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
You have an extremely strong opinion about the negative virtues
of
analog
equalizers, versus digital ones.

Why is your opinion so strong?

**Because they suck. About 20 years ago, this fact was brought
home
to me. I have a client who had some VERY expensive (for the time)
Yamaha pre/power equipment. A B1 power amp and a C1 preamp. The
C1
had mass of switches and knobs, which allowed the user to
acomplish
alomst anything they desired. After a long listening session, I
asked
my client if I could make some changes to see what the effects
would
be. I noted that the C1 had two tone switches. One was labelled
'Direct'. It bypassed the tone circuits completely. The other was
labelled 'Bypass'. This switch allowed the signal through the
tone
circuits, but not through the equalisation circuits. We tried the
preamp in several configurations (he. like many people, used the
tone
controls to make subtle adjustments to his system). I set the
tone
controls to the 12 o'clock position and played the system. Then I
switched the bypass switch in. A small improvement in imaging
resulted.. Then I switched the Direct switch in. BIG difference!
The
whole system became more cohesive. Imaging was tight and
accurate.
The tone circuits were buggering up the system significantly.
Whilst
I already knew that this was likely in cheap equipment (many
years
previous to that, I bypassed my Dynaco PAS 3X tone controls, for
a
dramatic improvement), I was surprised that such expensive, well
built equipment could benefit so much.

Wow! You make sweeping condemnations based on ONE experience
TWENTY
years ago.

**Nope. That was just one, of many experiences. I related it,
because
the Yamaha was the BEST quality product I had ever seen using tone
controls.


But you're still talking about TWENTY YEARS AGO!

**So? Does my observation from 20 years ago have no relevance to
today?
In what way/s?

**Still waiting.

Hard to say, you've contributed so little information, mostly you
condemned tone controls.
Your comments on the RS meter are simply wrong based on the
observations of several different people from elsewhere on the net,
some of which included measurements and calibrations.


If it happened to you, once, 20 years ago, it must true for
everybody
everywhere, with every piece3 of equipment.

**Absolutely not. With really cheap, crappy equipment, the presence
or
abscence of tone controls may make no difference at all.

More nonsense. If it's cheap and crappy, adding some flexibility
can
only help.

**Cheap, crappy equipment cannot be hurt by the use of tone controls
(it
can't be helped, either). However, we're discussing high end
equipment.




Even if you are correct that a digital eq is
superior to, say, a good analog parametric unit, the differences
seem rather
small. Have you had experiences that indicate strongly that a
digital eq is
substantially more transparent?

**Yes. Even a humble Behringer I used recently was very
impressively
transparent.

And they c an be purchased here for $129.00 easily cheap enough to
experiment with.

**Sure. And VASTLY superior to any simple tone control, or graphic
EQ.

**I'm pleased we agree.

On the issue of tone controls being less useful than a 1/3 octave EQ,
there's nothing to argue about. It doesn't make tone controls useless,
however since you've been given a couple of reasons why they would be
helpful.


In my experience, eqs are among the most
transparent of audio devices, particularly when they are used in
the
cut
mode.

My recommendations regarding equalizers, directed at the
consumer
a

1. Octave equalizers are useless, except for making some bad
recordings
listenable, where they may do quite well.

**Not my experience. They're not only useless, but they cannot be
adjusted to compensate for any problems correctly. Even is the
client
has the requisite test equipment (which the vast majority do
not).

Of course your experience is universal and you know what's good
for
everybody.

**I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the chances of an octave
EQ
having just the right curves to correct any given problem will be
approximately the same as the odds of pulling off a big lottery
win.

You say a lot of things with absolute certainty that you can't back
up
with anything more than anecdote.

**I speak with a good deal of experience and just plain common sense.

Mostly you speak in sweeping condemnations with damn little actual
info.



If you can get hold of a meter and some test tones before you get an
EQ
you can figure out if an octave RQ will help enough or not.


2. 1/3 octave equalizers are among the most accessible types for
consumers
to use, although most room correction problems are beyond the
reach
of an eq
anyway.
3. Parametric equalizers are too complex for the non technical
user.
This
accounts for the lack of popularity.

**Indeed, however, I have used parametrics (when suing suitable
test
equipment, of course) to solve quite difficult problems in many
locales.


4. Automatic room correction systems seldom agree with ears.
5. Use of an eq to achieve flat room response makes a system
sound
broken,
and it is not a theoretically sound way to proceed.

Not in my experience or that of anybody I know that has an Equalizer.
They all used an RS meter with corrections and test tones and were all
happy with the end result after EQ.

6. Bass equalizers are the most useful type. It could be argued
that
only in
this region is a parametric or 1/3 octave approach really
needed. At
higher
frequencies, where absorption predominates, even an octave
equalizer
can be
used to benefit.

**Yep.

7. Whether the eq is digital or analog is a minor detail. It is
far
more
important for the user to make sure that his equipment can drive
the
eq at
the expected level, which, as was recently shown on this forum,
is
problematic for the consumer when he tries to integrate
professional
equipment into a consumer installation.

**Precisely. Equalisers are almost always abused by users, since
they
lack the equipment and knowledge to use them correctly.


I would hope that is changing since it's not exactly roclket
science
and when used with some care and a meter, they can make some
remarkable improvements.

**And yet, you do not know where the microphones need to be placed
and
you STILL think that Rat Shack SPL meters are, somehoe, precision
instruments.


They are precise enough when used with teh corrections I've posted from
several people, some of whom have compared them to calibrated devices.

Because most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on the RS
meters,

**No, they do not. Find me any professional organisation (let's say
one
with more than 10 employees) which uses RS SPL meters for any
important,
calibrated measurements and I'll stand corrected.

because I've used one for 15 years without any problem, because
there
are corrections and there are several sites where you can look at
measurements done by different people comapring the RS to more
expensive
meters and they all conform you arre wrong.

**About what? That RS SPL meters are OK for rough measurements? No
argument from me.

With the corrections for their variance, they are precise enough to do
an EQ.

Why do think putting the mic in the lsitening position is wrong?

**When will you stop beating your wife?



Will you be lobbying for them to be outlawed since you know what's
best for everybody?

**Nope. But I do know what sounds best.

FOR YOU!

**Accuracy is best.


Flat response from one's speakers is part of accuracy. There are some
different ways to achieve that goal, but the proper use of an
equalizer to
smooth out response is one of the ways to achieve that.

**Focus on the word: "proper".


I have and I know from several sources that once the corrections are
factored in, the RS meter is suitable for a room EQ.
FALSE.

I also know that
I've tried to be helpful and you've done nothing but bitch.
FALSE.
How about
some of the benefit of your expertise, then we can compare that to what
other people say and see if there's some agreement. THX doesn't agree
with you, so where do you say the mic should go.

Trevor is right, and you are wrong.
But, since you are a dumb person, this is only to be expected.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

I knew you couldn't get it.

ScottW

Scottiedork geeked:

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

I knew you couldn't get it.

How many enjuhnears does it take to clean the lint out of a bellybutton?

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

I knew you couldn't get it.

Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
take it out of your pocket.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

I knew you couldn't get it.

Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
take it out of your pocket.

Poor Dave, substituting imagination for knowledge will always fail
you.

ScottW

On 8 Nov 2005 10:38:34 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

I knew you couldn't get it.

Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
take it out of your pocket.

Poor Dave, substituting imagination for knowledge will always fail
you.

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life. I guess I'll take "failure".

dave weil wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 10:38:34 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:32:20 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:01:09 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

You have a real talent for coming to illogical and incorrect
conclusions.

It's called Weilogic. Good luck decoding it. It's like decoding noisy
digital with a heavy hysterisis in the circuit. The output is more state
dependent than input dependent.

Oh joy - engineer geek humor...

I knew you couldn't get it.

Oh, I "got" it. It's just that I was imagining your pocket protector
springing a leak while you broke your slide rule because you forgot to
take it out of your pocket.

Poor Dave, substituting imagination for knowledge will always fail
you.

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

I guess I'll take "failure".

We'll keep that in mind as you try to convince us that your la-la land
has any connection to the real world.

ScottW

Scottie dorked:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

We'll keep that in mind as you try to convince us that your la-la land
has any connection to the real world.

Maybe what dave is saying that it's impossible to enjoy art if you have no inner
life. Does that make sense, or would you prefer to go measure something
meaningless?



..
..
..

On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
devoid of imagination?

Oh wait, you do, virtually every day on this newsgroup.

George Middius wrote:
Scottie dorked:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

We'll keep that in mind as you try to convince us that your la-la land
has any connection to the real world.

Maybe what dave is saying that it's impossible to enjoy art if you have no inner
life.

Maybe. Maybe not. I am amused by your implied claim to an inner
life.
I guess that must be required when your outer life is so dysfunctional.

Does that make sense, or would you prefer to go measure something
meaningless?

Another irrelevant smear by the left. You go girl.

ScottW

dave weil wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
devoid of imagination?

Oh wait, you do, virtually every day on this newsgroup.

While you consistently give us insight into a life devoid of
knowledge.

Are you sure you don't intend to post in rec.Iminsane.andILikeit?

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
devoid of imagination?


You expect him to read from your diary? :-)

On 8 Nov 2005 15:22:12 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
devoid of imagination?

Oh wait, you do, virtually every day on this newsgroup.

While you consistently give us insight into a life devoid of
knowledge.

Are you sure you don't intend to post in rec.Iminsane.andILikeit?

Why, are you the head honcho there?

PS, you even screw up your punchline. Good job, Scottie.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:43:39 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
devoid of imagination?


You expect him to read from your diary? :-)

No, because he doesn't have that much imagination.

Now, back to your meds.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:43:39 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On 8 Nov 2005 11:49:26 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Perhaps, but substituting "knowledge" for imagination gets you a
horribly flat and drab life.

How could you possibly know?

That's a good point. Why don't you give us some insight on a life
devoid of imagination?


You expect him to read from your diary? :-)

No, because he doesn't have that much imagination.

Now, back to your meds.

They're with me always now.
Fentanyl patches.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:06:30 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

I'm not being antagonistic (or an antagonist). YOU'RE the one
bemoaning a problem that doesn't have to exist. You're the one being a
bonehead. You've been given a solution that you won't even bother
checking out. I can't help it if you so inflexible that you only want
a certain configuration for your system.

Well, even if I did have an EQ (presumably to flatten my system), I'd
want tone controls. I wouldn't want to futz with an EQ for each CD I
listen to. Tone controls are perfect to adjust for the differences in
the "bassiness" of the recording.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:02:02 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

You're the one who "honestly can't figure out" why the bass from a
live band is so much stronger than a CD on a home system.

It couldn't have anything to do with the 18" woofers, could it? 8)

But that does not explain what seems to me to be inadequate bass
levels on most CD's. The relative volumes should still be there. Are
they afraid that people don't have enough power or speaker, so they
dial-back the bass? I don't know the answer.