|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
12-04-2015
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d FM Acoustics’s Manuel
Humber speaks about his Harmonic Linearizer device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaG5d98zVC0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_h1NdHzeuM
Well, Mr. Humber and the Company feel that this is the most
important component of a quality Audio system. I very much disagree with the
whole premise and I disagree at two levels.
First, I feel that the concept of Linearizing of sources
preamplifier is very faulty and absolutely not necessary. This reminds me that crazy
preamp where each input has own flavor of driver tube. I do welcome the fixed RIAA
corrections at Phonostage but to have it at line level preamplifier is ridicules
and serve purely self-entertaining purpose.
The second is the means of Linearizing. Manuel claims that
he has subtractive phase liner filtration. The phase liner filtration variable filtration?
Good luck with that. Any filtration is a delay. Even if you run the main signal
none-filtered then soon or later he need to sum the none-filtered main signal
with the delayed branch. It is not a single point of delay but the delay wary
with octave. So, his assurances that it is not EQ but completely different this
is not really warranted.
It is very possible that this FM Acoustics preamp is a fine
unit and that it does better than other EQ solutions but why the EQ solution
shale be implement in preamps is beyond me. Should a person to “correct” bad
recordings, the room problems or expectation problems? I do not know the answer.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
12-04-2015
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Funny, but the FM Acoustics house sound is not bad at the shows and salons where I have heard it. They like to list their"name" customers, including "big names" from the "music industry". Well, the music/recording industry was the inventor of the sound profiling, and nobody there seems to think twice about doing this. This gear is very "well made", and it is very expensive, and they seem to have just the right "mystique" to push sales. I believe this unit was in play at THE Show 2015, but I did not even try to target it, Based on what I've heard from this company, I would be surprised if their unit was not relatively "good at its job". From there one has to decide whether the overall sonic gains from correction are worth any problems that stem from the fix. In any case, I imagine a lot of FM Acoustic customers are pre-sold, and a certain number of them - perhaps most of them - will go along for the ride, regardless.
Romy, why not start with the opera room?
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Gargoyle on
12-16-2015
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d I like hamburgers.
|
|
|
|
Posted by steverino on
04-06-2016
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  Romy the Cat wrote: | FM Acoustics’s Manuel
Humber speaks about his Harmonic Linearizer device.
It is very possible that this FM Acoustics preamp is a fine
unit and that it does better than other EQ solutions but why the EQ solution
shale be implement in preamps is beyond me. Should a person to “correct” bad
recordings, the room problems or expectation problems? I do not know the answer. |
|
I'm guessing this is an offshoot from the FM Acoustics phonostage adjustable curves. Leaving aside digital room correction components, didn't Mark Levinson (the man not the company) have some kind of fancy EQ device that he made? I remember someone interviewing him, perhaps in the days he was doing Cello, and Levinson showing how much "better" various deficient recordings sounded when he adjusted the upper bass, rolled off the high treble etc. I am guessing that his device was less obnoxious sonically than most of the EQ devices we are familiar with. However this seems almost impossible to do without side effects. I think this only works with grossly deficient recordings. I believe Levinson chose a historical recording as his example for the reviewer. But it allows the FM Acoustics listener to spend endless hours fiddling with the controls whenever an unpleasant sound is emitted from their system. Of course all those hours might better be spent getting the actual system to be more transparent and more tonally balanced but that is another thread.
Edit: The Levinson device was called the Audio Palette I believe.
|
|
|
|
Posted by scooter on
04-07-2016
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d | steverino wrote: |
I think this only works with grossly deficient recordings. I believe Levinson chose a historical recording as his example for the reviewer. But it allows the FM Acoustics listener to spend endless hours fiddling with the controls whenever an unpleasant sound is emitted from their system. Of course all those hours might better be spent getting the actual system to be more transparent and more tonally balanced but that is another thread.
Edit: The Levinson device was called the Audio Palette I believe.
|
|
A decade ago I used one of those Behringer EQ boxes with long cables to see how EQ impacted sound in "real time." I just spent a few hours fiddling with the controls. Frankly it was an educational an interesting weekend.
At the end of the weekend, I took out the box and moved on.
For anyone thinking of trying this, it is a good display of how digital EQ kills sound. Also, whilst there are all kinds of "audiophile" mods for the Behringer, there are some core engineering flaws that can not be corrected.
|
|