| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » Equalizer? Hm… (5 posts, 1 page)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) Select Pages: 
09-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 11825
Reply to: 11825
Equalizer? Hm…
fiogf49gjkf0d

I know, I know, it is absolutely not NECESSARY and I do not think that I see a need for it. I however see that it might be USEFUL in SOME cases when a recording was mastered by a complete idiot.

So, I wonder if anyone comes across to very high targeting and to very comfortably made equalizers. I know that my requirement for this thing would be too unrealistic for anybody to meet but who know what is out there… This is what I would like to have in an equalizer that I would consider to buy or at least to try.

1)      Analog Equalizer

2)      6-8 channels, not more is necessary

3)      Buffer in, Buffer out, unity gain.

4)      Under 50R, high current output impedance.

5)      Solid State operation

6)      RL-only all high-pass and low-pass, first order

7)      3-6 dB up/down per channels, no more is necessary.

8)      All high-pass and low-pass are individual filters with dedicated at least one core per upper and lower knee.

9)      All coils are with L-cores of high permeability: amorphous or nickel

10)   Options for open up any knee of each filter

11)   Options for bypassing the unit actively and passively.

12)   Non-auditable sonic signature in passive or active bypass mode

13)   Non-auditable sonic signature in “engaged” mode with all EQ zero out.

14)   Calibration of attenuation up-to 0.25dB

15)   Comfortable operation and indication.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-26-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 2
Post ID: 11829
Reply to: 11825
Sound Performance Lab PQ2050 and Passeq
fiogf49gjkf0d

A site visitor pointed me out to German company: Sound Performance Lab that does an interesting Equalizer. I never hear it but it might be interesting to try. It does not have all features that I would like to have bit it is a good start.  I wonder if my local pro shops have one like this to rent over a weekend…   

http://www.spl.info/index.php?id=82      

Equalizer_PQ2050.jpg

The have one with no memorization that I have see before: Passeq

http://www.spl.info/index.php?id=108&L=1

SPL_Passeq.jpg

Rgs, the Cat




"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-26-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,103
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 3
Post ID: 11831
Reply to: 11829
"Passive" and "Virtual"
fiogf49gjkf0d

I absolutely remember posting about A vey special "vintage" EQ a while back, perhaps in the context of LF; but I can't remember more than that.

IMO, the 1st order of business is to avoid the effing "DSP".  Let someone else get it right ONCE, then I will pony up the cash to plug one in.

Romy. as far as I know, no one has EVER made an equalizer that meets all of your criteria.  If someone did, I would immediately budget/save for one.

The recently-deceased Gordon Holt (July, '09; RIP) was a tireless advocate of [real-time] contouring to acheive equalibrium relative to recordings.

I don't like saying it, but so far it appears that the most safe and sane road to decent LF uses "real-time" contouring.

Romy, from your schematics posted so far, it looks like you are VERY close to being able to "conture" your "channel" "X-overs".  I am WAY too selfish and lazy to mock-up any "insertion losses", but it looks like you might just be able to meet your own EXTREME demands on a per-channel basis with some sort of glorified "L-Pad"?

Best regards,
Paul S

09-27-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 4
Post ID: 11838
Reply to: 11831
The equalization boxes?
fiogf49gjkf0d
I do not think that I might use an equalizer in normal sense; I do not need the full flow EQ option. What I might find useful on some case is to have 4-5 fixed curves and it would be pretty much it. Hypothetically with Macondo and DSET I might write SOME of them but in the way how Milq’s filters are done they are fixed. So, it might be not the “equalizer” but the pre-equalization box that might sit in the preams tape loop (that I do not have) with fixed equalization circuits.  My particular interests goes to the open knee notching and to step equalization, the looks like have much less damage then the bandpass equalization.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-27-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,103
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 5
Post ID: 11839
Reply to: 11838
Looped
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes, the "tape (or "monitor") loop" is where I (and everyone else...) always put them.

Why not ask Guy how he would approach it, maybe get one-stop shopping and probably the best results, too, for both the "loop" and the "box".

Would "passive" curves mean a need for more buffers, or could the Placette do it all?

You may remember a while back when I asked about the possibility for a "14-channel" uber-Placette...

I understand the Bent guy will gang as many channels as you want in his TAP/TVC units; so why not Placette, too?

I would not be surprised to learn that both these guys care more about "pro" business than they do about hi-fi lookie-loos.

Best regards,
Paul
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) Select Pages: 
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts