wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "dave weil" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Now, back to your meds.
:
: They're with me always now.
: Fentanyl patches.
:
opium-on-steroids type of painkiller (we're talking micrograms/hr)
usually prescribed for chronic cases
so is this the aftermath of the operations
or do you have to keep using those permanently ?

Rudy

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:44:25 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

It may well be that you just like more bass than was intended to be put on
the recording.

That may be true, but still does not excuse the *definitely* low
volume of the bass on *most* CD's.

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.

"They" are dolts, for making the bass so weak. Is it an ego ("I'm the
star, not the bassist.") thing? Is it for fear of John Doe's woofer
bottoming out? I don't know.

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.

And there's no "bass" in that stuff anyway.

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.

I'd still want tone controls to adjust for each recording, though.

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

I'm very skeptical about that. It reminds me of the "oh so
intelligent" engineers who have designed modern receivers that have
tone controls that adjust in 2dB steps. They _just don't get it_.

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.

That digital 1/3 octive one you pointed to does seem like a neat
thing... I'll considering getting one and trying it.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
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?

You stalker you.


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

But if I didn't, you'd be left speechless. chuckle

ScottW

"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.

Yet in this world of usenet you have imagined all my attributes or lack
thereof.
So if I lack imagination, it's really the fault of your imagination.
Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. I'm sure your imagination will conjure up
something awful to compensate for my imagination.

Happy imagining!

ScottW

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:30:52 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"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.

Yet in this world of usenet you have imagined all my attributes or lack
thereof.

Based on what you write, of course.

So if I lack imagination, it's really the fault of your imagination.

Or the fault of your postings.

Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. I'm sure your imagination will conjure up
something awful to compensate for my imagination.

Perhaps it could be your weeping for the Governator.

Happy imagining!

You union-buster you! At least you still have some slim hope there...

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:30:52 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"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.

Yet in this world of usenet you have imagined all my attributes or lack
thereof.

Based on what you write, of course.

What happenned to your imagination? Is that failing you too?

So if I lack imagination, it's really the fault of your imagination.

Or the fault of your postings.

My little posting can deprive you of imagination. Wow... I have the
power .


Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. I'm sure your imagination will conjure up
something awful to compensate for my imagination.

Perhaps it could be your weeping for the Governator.

He's a dumbass. I voted for McClintock.


Happy imagining!

You union-buster you! At least you still have some slim hope there...

If nothing else... the teachers union is deeply in debt. That will
muzzle them for awhile and when the membership finds out... Kerr will
be toast.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/2005/112948021666737.html

I can't believe the people were too stupid to even oppose
gerrymandering. Oh well... at least SD finally shut up the liberal
Mayor candidate, Frye.

ScottW

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:44:25 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

It may well be that you just like more bass than was intended to be put on
the recording.

That may be true, but still does not excuse the *definitely* low
volume of the bass on *most* CD's.

It's not an experience I've had. I tend to figure the CD's have what they
are supposed to have. I know I'm not going to get the same sensation of
bass at home as in a live concert, unless I get a lot more subwoofer
drivers. One 12 or 15" woofer won't do it. That may be why the Infinite
Baffle advocates are so devoted to their methods. Most of them have 4 or
more 12" drivers providing bass. I'd blame my system way before I'd start
claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

Have you ever EQ'd your system or even had the room response plotted for
your listening space? If not, then that's where you should start.

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.

"They" are dolts, for making the bass so weak. Is it an ego ("I'm the
star, not the bassist.") thing? Is it for fear of John Doe's woofer
bottoming out? I don't know.

As I said, that's not a problem I have ever noticed, I think there's as much
bass as should be. I also know I can't have a bank of 30" woofers in my
room. I also don't have the kind of devices that are used in live concerts
to extend the bass. Devides like this http://www.zzounds.com/item--DBX120A
are part of the live sound equipment many people use to increase the bass,
often to well below what the instruments themselves can generate. Unless
you have the same sort of tools, you can't get the same sort of sound.
Recordings have to created for what the average person can play back without
damage to their equipment.

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.

And there's no "bass" in that stuff anyway.

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 the room with the EQ and then
forget
it.

I'd still want tone controls to adjust for each recording, though.

Short of having someone construct you some sort of preamp with those tone
controls or using an equalizer, this being the real world, there's not much
that can be done until enough consumers start demanding them.


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

I'm very skeptical about that. It reminds me of the "oh so
intelligent" engineers who have designed modern receivers that have
tone controls that adjust in 2dB steps. They _just don't get it_.

Then generate your own, it's not that difficult. The equalizers I've seen
are very flexible in the amount of boost or cut and the increments are only
what you apply, not fixed numbers of dB.


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.

That digital 1/3 octive one you pointed to does seem like a neat
thing... I'll considering getting one and trying it.

Hope it helps.

On 9 Nov 2005 09:39:14 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Based on what you write, of course.

What happenned to your imagination? Is that failing you too?

I don't knnow. Nnow you seem to be flounderinng inn your ownn
nnannites.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "dave weil" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Now, back to your meds.
:
: They're with me always now.
: Fentanyl patches.
:
opium-on-steroids type of painkiller (we're talking micrograms/hr)
usually prescribed for chronic cases
so is this the aftermath of the operations
or do you have to keep using those permanently ?

Rudy

Definitely opiate, but not opium, no steroids according to the package
insert, just Fentanyl and alcohol, plus the silicone adhesive.

It's partly from the fact that I can't take NSAID's for awhile, until fusion
of the spine, and because the elevated pain from the multiple incidents of
stenosis.

My fondest wish is to be pain medication free at the soonest possible
moment, or at least for there to be something like Torodol that can be used
long term and not destroy other organs the way Torodol can do your liver.

dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 09:39:14 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Based on what you write, of course.

What happenned to your imagination? Is that failing you too?

I don't knnow. Nnow you seem to be flounderinng inn your ownn
nnannites.

The heights (of should I say depths....) of Weil knowledge and
imagination revealed.
Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

ScottW

On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

Shame that you never learned proper English.

dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

Shame that you never learned proper English.

But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.

ScottW

On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

Shame that you never learned proper English.

But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.

Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
the Singha.

Hope you enjoyed your brown bag.

dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

Shame that you never learned proper English.

But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.

Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
the Singha.


Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
scraping your paws.

ScottW

On 9 Nov 2005 15:08:07 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

Shame that you never learned proper English.

But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.

Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
the Singha.


Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
scraping your paws.

Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
hang your "butte" on.

How was YOUR lunch? Are you still so underutilized at work that you
have to spend your time on newsgroups?

dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 15:08:07 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 12:48:54 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 11:45:29 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Very impressive..... Do you need a blood oxygen monitor to remind you
to breath?

Shame that you never learned proper English.

But if I bothered with perfect grammar and spelling, you'd have
nothing to hang your hat on. You have so little as it is.

Well, I had a great Thai lunch today. The squid salad was great. And
the green curry with chicken was perfectly spicy. It went great with
the Singha.


Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
scraping your paws.

Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
hang your "butte" on.

How was YOUR lunch?

I skipped lunch. You want to hear about my bran flakes for
breakfast?

Are you still so underutilized at work that you
have to spend your time on newsgroups?

This tripe takes time for you to produce? Who would have thunk it.

But, as you've been told before, I don't get paid by the hour.
Do you know your data retention is as bad as NAND flash at extreme
cold?

ScottW

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:33:25 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


Now you're going to hang your hat on the food you had for lunch!
You're like cat trying to bury it's **** on concrete. You just keep
scraping your paws.

Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
hang your "butte" on.

How was YOUR lunch? Are you still so underutilized at work that you
have to spend your time on newsgroups?


Boys, boys!....

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...
: Do you know your data retention
: is as bad as NAND flash at extreme
: cold?
:
: ScottW

...that lionel thing issa catching on, no ?
: -)

On 9 Nov 2005 16:06:47 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Shame that you never learned proper English. Now THAT'S something to
hang your "butte" on.

How was YOUR lunch?

I skipped lunch. You want to hear about my bran flakes for
breakfast?

No thanks. It should be floating just about now.

"dizzy" wrote in message
news
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.

The best way to get realistic bass is to have drivers that can go as low as
the notes played on the recording and to move a lot of air. One very smart
person who used ot post here, said that for realistic low frequency response
in a normal room, a minimum of 3 subwoofers is required. There is always a
problem with rooms and the way they affect speakers. In my room, there are
humps at 50 and 100, Hz and dips elsewhere, that when smoothed out make the
low end much more convincing.

Given the sound coming from some car stereo systems, it's possible to get
deep powerful bass, but it takes plenty of amplifier power and enough
drivers to move enough air to get that puch in the chest feeling that a live
concert gives you. Yes it has to be on the recording as well, but as
several people have noted, that doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

DIY subwoofers are pretty inexpensive and if you use pro audio amplifiers to
drive them you can add 3 subwoofers such as the ones you find at
SVSubwoofers cylinders, for about $1000.00, assuming 3 12" Adire Shiva
drivers and 3 Behringer A500 amps bridged to mono for 500 watts of power
into each sub.

With an Equalizer to control the bass at least and enough subs moving the
right amount of air, I doubt very much that you would have much to complain
about in terms of lack of bass.

That being said, I agree that simple tone controls should be included on any
preamp, for reasons I've already given.

With all due respect you seem just a bit hysterical about a percieved lack
of bass, which is probably why you've gotten some of the responses that were
a bit hostile.
I'm pretty sure you post to RAHE under a different name and if I'm correct,
then you stated your case there in a much less hostile way.

If you can swing it, I strongly recomend you try some of the solutions I've
mentioned to maximize your enjoyment and get all the bass you could
reasonably want.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:01:15 GMT, wrote:

I'd blame my system way before I'd start
claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
recordings. The best have plenty even when played flat. The average
just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
tolerable.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:56:08 GMT, wrote:

With an Equalizer to control the bass at least and enough subs moving the
right amount of air, I doubt very much that you would have much to complain
about in terms of lack of bass.

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.

That being said, I agree that simple tone controls should be included on any
preamp, for reasons I've already given.

With all due respect you seem just a bit hysterical about a percieved lack
of bass, which is probably why you've gotten some of the responses that were
a bit hostile.
I'm pretty sure you post to RAHE under a different name and if I'm correct,
then you stated your case there in a much less hostile way.

No, I do not post in RAHE.

If you can swing it, I strongly recomend you try some of the solutions I've
mentioned to maximize your enjoyment and get all the bass you could
reasonably want.

Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
subs.

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:01:15 GMT, wrote:

I'd blame my system way before I'd start
claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
recordings.

Agreed, but that doesn't by definition make any of them deficient in bass,
it only means that teh recordings with less bass were done that way for
reasons that are known only to the artist(s) and the engineer.

The best have plenty even when played flat.

The ones you like best are that way for sure, it doesn't mean the others are
lacking except as it applies to you taste.

The average
just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
tolerable.

Again, you're talking about your taste.

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:56:08 GMT, wrote:

With an Equalizer to control the bass at least and enough subs moving the
right amount of air, I doubt very much that you would have much to
complain
about in terms of lack of bass.

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.


And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

That being said, I agree that simple tone controls should be included on
any
preamp, for reasons I've already given.

With all due respect you seem just a bit hysterical about a percieved lack
of bass, which is probably why you've gotten some of the responses that
were
a bit hostile.
I'm pretty sure you post to RAHE under a different name and if I'm
correct,
then you stated your case there in a much less hostile way.

No, I do not post in RAHE.

If you can swing it, I strongly recomend you try some of the solutions
I've
mentioned to maximize your enjoyment and get all the bass you could
reasonably want.

Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
subs.

How are they situated? Both in the same corner or some other arrangement?

dizzy said:

I'd blame my system way before I'd start
claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
recordings. The best have plenty even when played flat. The average
just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
tolerable.


What happened to "respecting the view of the artist and the recording
engineer"? :-)

If anything, I found I have to turn the bass levels *down* on most
(pop music) recordings.
With most jazz and classical, they can saty in the "neutral" position.

If you want good tone controls that last and have precise
characteristics, either build such a stage yourself or buy an early
'80s preamplifier from Yamaha, Onkyo or even Kenwood or Sony.
Replace the pots in there with Alps or Noble types.
They're available in "B" or linear characteristics, even with a click
in the middle.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
dizzy said:

I'd blame my system way before I'd start
claiming most recordings are deficient in bass.

Well, when you play an assortment of CD's, and each one has a
different bass level, it's not the system, it's variability in the
recordings. The best have plenty even when played flat. The average
just needs a few dB boost in the bass to sound "right". The worst are
absolutely pathetic when played flat and need many dB's boost to be
tolerable.


What happened to "respecting the view of the artist and the recording
engineer"? :-)

That notion left the building about the same time as people started trying
to tune their systems to some arbitrary notion of what sounds "musical" to
them, instead of trying to get flat response. Either you get the system to
perform so that every frequency coming out the speakers is at the same SPL
level when driven by the same amount of power, or you throw that out the
window and tune it according to your taste. I prefer the former and have
never found any need to endlessly fiddle with the settings except in the
case of hissy FM reception or old LP's.

Occaisonally you find an album that for whatever reason seems to be lacking
in bass, but that for me is a rare occurance. I have 2 CD's of Greatest
Hits by the Lovin' Spoonful, the older one is just gawd awful in terms of
sonics, the newer on is all the same songs plus more that have been
remastered, and the difference is remarkable.

It seems pretty clear to me that if you want the kind of hammering bass you
get at a live concert, no matter the venue, you need to move a lot more air
than one subwoofer can provide in an average sized room. I think the 3
subwoofer recomendation that JJ made a few years ago, is probably right on
the money. Now I have a whole new thing to drive my wife batty over, how to
get 3 subwoofers into my smallish listening room. Proabably by using
Sonotube instead of MDF cabinets, ala' SVS and earlier Hsu designs. 16"
tubes with five cubic feet internal volume and 2 more Shiva drivers and this
time powered by the Behringer A 500 amps in bridged mono.


If anything, I found I have to turn the bass levels *down* on most
(pop music) recordings.
With most jazz and classical, they can saty in the "neutral" position.


Turn it down????? Never. I like a bigh thumpin' bottom end in music except
when it's just there for a dance beat.

If you want good tone controls that last and have precise
characteristics, either build such a stage yourself or buy an early
'80s preamplifier from Yamaha, Onkyo or even Kenwood or Sony.
Replace the pots in there with Alps or Noble types.
They're available in "B" or linear characteristics, even with a click
in the middle.

I like the idea of the flexibility of the Behringer DEQ2496. 1/3 octave
graphic EQ plus 10 bands of Parametric, plus 3 Dynamic EQ's, 64 memories,
RTA, Pink Noise generator, a virtual paragraphic option which allows each of
the graphics to be controlled like a parametric, a compressor/expander with
peak limeter as well as a stereo image width function with delays, and most
importantly, a bypass switch! Not bad for 300 bucks.

wrote in message
nk.net...
:
:
: What happened to "respecting the view of the artist and the recording
: engineer"? :-)
:
: That notion left the building about the same time as people started trying
: to tune their systems to some arbitrary notion of what sounds "musical" to
: them, instead of trying to get flat response. Either you get the system to
: perform so that every frequency coming out the speakers is at the same SPL
: level when driven by the same amount of power, or you throw that out the
: window and tune it according to your taste. I prefer the former and have
: never found any need to endlessly fiddle with the settings except in the
: case of hissy FM reception or old LP's.:


: I like the idea of the flexibility of the Behringer DEQ2496. 1/3 octave
: graphic EQ plus 10 bands of Parametric, plus 3 Dynamic EQ's, 64 memories,
: RTA, Pink Noise generator, a virtual paragraphic option which allows each of
: the graphics to be controlled like a parametric, a compressor/expander with
: peak limeter as well as a stereo image width function with delays, and most
: importantly, a bypass switch! Not bad for 300 bucks.
:
hmm, same question as for Arny colour adjustments on his tv set:

The DEQ2496 is presumably used _just for eq_, iow you will NOT
use dyn eq., comp., exp., stereo im. width as those would definately
get you in the 'according to taste' territory, Michael. Right ?
Rudy

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:21 GMT, wrote:

The best have plenty even when played flat.

The ones you like best are that way for sure, it doesn't mean the others are
lacking except as it applies to you taste.

Many are lacking. There's a line which can be crossed which says
"defective" to most reasonable people. As I've said before, many of
these may be old rock CD's which are not relevant to most in this
group, but they exist nonetheless. For example, when you have a power
trio like Rush, and the bass is MUCH quieter than the other sounds,
something is WRONG with that recording. That bass SHOULD be thumpin,
and whoever mastered the CD is an incompetent.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.

And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
the issue.

Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
subs.

How are they situated? Both in the same corner or some other arrangement?

Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
them against the wall behind my main speakers.

*I modded my crossover with a switch to accept and route to both sides
the mono LFE signal from my surround-sound receiver (which is only
used for movies).

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:54:18 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.

And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
the issue.

Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.

And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble
adjustments
available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
the issue.

Oh believe me, I do already. 8) Not only are my main speakers
pretty good-sized, but when I really want to let it all hang out, I
switch in a crossover and an extra 1,000 Watts driving a pair of HSU
subs.

How are they situated? Both in the same corner or some other arrangement?

Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
them against the wall behind my main speakers.

There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
subwoofers.
Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that shows
something different.
You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
available for download. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0

*I modded my crossover with a switch to accept and route to both sides
the mono LFE signal from my surround-sound receiver (which is only
used for movies).

Given that once you get below 80 Hz there is no stereo, that would seem the
best bet.
The xover must be steep enough to block anything above 80 Hz and IIRC Hsu
does that, if not, if the xover is selectable you can always try a lower
frequency.

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:21 GMT, wrote:

The best have plenty even when played flat.

The ones you like best are that way for sure, it doesn't mean the others
are
lacking except as it applies to you taste.

Many are lacking. There's a line which can be crossed which says
"defective" to most reasonable people. As I've said before, many of
these may be old rock CD's which are not relevant to most in this
group, but they exist nonetheless. For example, when you have a power
trio like Rush, and the bass is MUCH quieter than the other sounds,
something is WRONG with that recording. That bass SHOULD be thumpin,
and whoever mastered the CD is an incompetent.

Certainly I've noticed that there is a definite differnce between the live
sound and the recorded sound and I don't kow why they made the choices they
did. I remember going to a Yes concert with my wife who is a fan and they
had several 30" woofers that when they kicked in bass was generated that
actually made my shirt move like a flag in the wind. Never gotten anything
like that from one of their recordings thoug, not even the DVD's.

ScottW wrote:

Are you still so underutilized at work that you
have to spend your time on newsgroups?


This tripe takes time for you to produce? Who would have thunk it.

Thunk? Obviously, you're not spending nearly enough time on your tripe. ;-)

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:43:34 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:54:18 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.

And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
the issue.

Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.

What is that supposed to mean?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:29:58 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
them against the wall behind my main speakers.

There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
subwoofers.
Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that shows
something different.
You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
available for download. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0

I have read some of the Harmon white-papers in the past. I researched
the issue pretty well, really. I could not find a consensus. In the
end, my room setup doesn't give me a whole lot of practical options -
a few inches forward and back...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:29:58 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
them against the wall behind my main speakers.

There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
subwoofers.
Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that
shows
something different.
You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
available for download.
http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0

I have read some of the Harmon white-papers in the past. I researched
the issue pretty well, really. I could not find a consensus. In the
end, my room setup doesn't give me a whole lot of practical options -
a few inches forward and back...

One method that is reliable I'm told, is to put the sub in your listening
position and then place yourself at various places around the room where you
might put the sub, and listen, when it sounds best, put the sub there. Of
course, if the sub is heavy, this could be a problem. :-)

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:45:45 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:43:34 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:54:18 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:20:22 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Well, since I *do* have good tone controls, I'm not really complaining
about a personal "lack of bass" as I am complaining about the market
situation, and the stupidity that led to it.

And as I have said, I agree that there should be bass and treble adjustments
available for those who want them, and it's silly not to include them.

I'm glad you are on my side, but you are not the issue - the market is
the issue.

Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.

What is that supposed to mean?

Since you seem rather dense, I'll spell it out for you.

The market determines which features it wants in a product. When most
products in a market segment share either a feature or the LACK of a
feature, it means that the market has spoken. You don't seem to
recognize that you seem to be in the extreme minority regarding tone
controls on "high end" preamps. To rail against the manufacturers is
as stupid as getting "****ed off" about a feature on a consumer good.
YOU can't even recognize that the manufacturers are only following the
trend of the market. You might as well complain about the fact that
there are very few pink preamps.

The sad thing is that your situation is so easily remedied by getting
a programmable digital preamp. It's a far more flexible solution. I
think that it's just some latent luddite tendencies of yours coming
through.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:56:42 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:29:58 GMT, wrote:

"dizzy" wrote:

Of course not in the same corner. They are a stereo pair*. I have
them against the wall behind my main speakers.

There seems to be some amount of controversy on the subject of multiple
subwoofers.
Tom Nousaine's work indicates that all subwoofers be placed in the same
corner, while there is a very good body of inorrmation fro Harman that shows
something different.
You might want to vist their site and use some of the tools they have
available for download. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1009.0

I have read some of the Harmon white-papers in the past. I researched
the issue pretty well, really. I could not find a consensus. In the
end, my room setup doesn't give me a whole lot of practical options -
a few inches forward and back...

If that's the case, then you're likely in a situation where you could
never get really deep bass like you would find in live situations
because your room is just too darn small. It's like wishing for really
deep bass from a 6 in. woofer. The physics just won't support it.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:43:23 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:45:45 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:43:34 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Actually, it's your inability to RECOGNIZE the market.

What is that supposed to mean?

Since you seem rather dense, I'll spell it out for you.

That's very ironic, coming from someone who I thrashed in our debate,
in the process pointing out your illogic, dishonesty, and inability to
understand simple concepts.

The market determines which features it wants in a product. When most
products in a market segment share either a feature or the LACK of a
feature, it means that the market has spoken. You don't seem to
recognize that you seem to be in the extreme minority regarding tone
controls on "high end" preamps.

Another example of your tragic inability to get even the simplest
things right. Of course I'm in the minority. Unlike the majority, I
am intelligent and educated. I do not think a tone-control
defeat-switch will hurt my sound, for example.

To rail against the manufacturers is
as stupid as getting "****ed off" about a feature on a consumer good.

Most of the "high end" manufacturers cater to people with more money
than sense, and who are snobs who seek prestige and appearance above
performance. No crime in them doing their best to make a profit, but
I'm certainly justified in my opinion that the state of the market is
stupid.

The high-end doesn't design for best price/performence. Not even
close. This leaves a barren wasteland between mass-market junk and
the over-priced, feature-reduced, "high end".

Then there's the "brilliant" designs from NAD and Rotel, that have
tone controls but only +/-5 dB boost or cut, so they brag about how
their k00l, snobby tone-controls "don't effect the sound as much as
traditional tone controls". WTF? Why don't you let ME decide if I
want to stop at 5dB or not? Yes, that's a STUPID design!

YOU can't even recognize that the manufacturers are only following the
trend of the market.

A statement so stupid and obviously incorrect I suspect that you are
lying intentionally. It cannot be any more obvious that I not only
have recognized "the trend", but indeed "the trend" is precisely what
I've been complaining about.

You might as well complain about the fact that
there are very few pink preamps.

Another stupid statement from you.

The sad thing is that your situation is so easily remedied by getting
a programmable digital preamp.

I don't like that solution, as I have already explained to you.
Suffering from reading comprehension problems?

It's a far more flexible solution.

I greatly prefer a solution that is in-between the "pure simplicity"
of no tone controls whatsoever and the "complexity" of adding a A/D,
DSP, and D/A into the audio chain. Why have all that just to replace
a bass control? Why mess with a complex EQ just to tweak bass levels
for various recordings?

Obviously, these concepts are really hard for a simpleton such as
yourself to grasp. I suppose you think my preferences are "weird" and
inexplicable.

I think that it's just some latent luddite tendencies of yours coming
through.

There's nothing latent about your stupidity, of that I am certain.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...
:
:
: What happened to "respecting the view of the artist and the recording
: engineer"? :-)
:
: That notion left the building about the same time as people started
trying
: to tune their systems to some arbitrary notion of what sounds "musical"
to
: them, instead of trying to get flat response. Either you get the system
to
: perform so that every frequency coming out the speakers is at the same
SPL
: level when driven by the same amount of power, or you throw that out the
: window and tune it according to your taste. I prefer the former and
have
: never found any need to endlessly fiddle with the settings except in the
: case of hissy FM reception or old LP's.:


: I like the idea of the flexibility of the Behringer DEQ2496. 1/3 octave
: graphic EQ plus 10 bands of Parametric, plus 3 Dynamic EQ's, 64
memories,
: RTA, Pink Noise generator, a virtual paragraphic option which allows
each of
: the graphics to be controlled like a parametric, a compressor/expander
with
: peak limeter as well as a stereo image width function with delays, and
most
: importantly, a bypass switch! Not bad for 300 bucks.
:
hmm, same question as for Arny colour adjustments on his tv set:

The DEQ2496 is presumably used _just for eq_, iow you will NOT
use dyn eq., comp., exp., stereo im. width as those would definately
get you in the 'according to taste' territory, Michael. Right ?
Rudy

I won't? Aw ****.

Actually, I will tune the system to be flat first and make sure that gets
stored in memory so the kids can't screw with it.

After that I might experiment, but so far nothing in the way such tweaking
as is possible beyond that has ever appealed to me for more than a few
listens.

As I said, there's flexibility to tune the speakers to be the best they can
be. That's what I'm most interested in, plus I think it will look very
cool.