Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

In the Forum: Didital Things
In the Thread: Suggested target curves and setup techniques for Pro Audio Digital Equalisers....
Post Subject: Re: It is more like an audio realism.Posted by Thorsten on: 3/24/2005

buy abortion pill online usa

abortion pill over the counter in usa

 Romy the Cat wrote:
 I mean that EQ is a fine “tactical solution” but it a very bad strategic direction.

I guess the question of the strategic value is dependent on the strategy.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
 Look, there are many ways to heal a problem but ANY process of healing unavoidably holds the marks of the correction ceremony instead of the marks of the original intentions. Yes, if you are an allergic to pollen then some medication do help but does it mean that you feel healthy or we juts consider you in pollen envelopment as a healthy. Is it possible that we recognize you as healthy juts because we do not know/understand the negative effect of the anti-allergic medication have to your real health? What I am trying to say that by correcting the response of playback with d-EQ we just make the problem less visible but we do not eliminate the source of the problem. So, you may fake the health report of a patient but it does not cure the state of the patient health….

Guess what, I agree. But if you cannot deal with the root of the problem treating the sysmptoms is sometimes the only solution.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
You might have a woofer with high impedance rise at its resonance frequency and you might use a crapy amplifier that would output during this impedance rise an unnecessary kilogram of watts. Your frequency sweep would indicate a large peak near Fs and it would be nice to correct it. Did you try to do it with analog resonators? Sure you did and everyone do use Zobels with “great: result. But they have great result of elimination of the response pick but not the result of fixing of the driver. You see: the response peak is juts a language that describe an event and that language is something that we correct with Zobels: the language as a reflection of the original reality. The language is corrected but the driver (reality) when I find itself near Fs is not driven by the amplifier signal anymore but behave like a wounded in ass animal. Yes, the response is flat during this time but the frequency response NOT ONLY the problems that happened with driver while it in its primary resonance? However, the mathematical abstract language that describes the Really of the driver’s behavior does not have a complexity that would allow extrapolating the driver in its fill scale. Why we suddenly attach the frequency response I do not know. Probably we do so juts because it is ease to correct and it is easy to confirm ourselves with the tools the he have in our disposal.

I agree again completely. BUT sometimes (or even most of the time) properly fixing the driver is not an option. So we fix that which is variable to us to improve the aparent result as much as possible.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Also, the digital EQ do not have any intellectual feedback and does not aware about the reasons why the installation is not flat. 

Which is part of the reason why I wrote the above missive. It exists to enable the use of an average audio moron as the intellectual feedback element, should said moron decide to try to understand.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Moreover it does not facilitate to a person who use a system an opportunity to educate himself/herself about WHAT and WHY was wrong. The 90% of the problems are correctable naturally at it’s source but the D-EQ will not enable this opportunity and do not lead to this direction.

To me a DEQ would not be the first choice (I though as much would be clear from the writing), but the tool to be used if no other remedies are available.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
There is something else. My experience dealing with speakers indicted that a proper solution does not resolve a problem but INSTANTANEOUSLY ADDRESS MULTIPLE PROBLEMS. When I have a specific problem with sound and I’ve found the way to resolve it then I instantaneously begin to looks what else it resolved. If the solution resolved the only one problem than I perceive is a WRONG solution. A properly behaving playback acts alike an octopus where a single body manages multiple legs and the multiple legs perform multiple tasks. A correct solution should serve the interest of all legs, not juts a leg that experiences a specific discomfort. Perhaps this association of mine is too none-pragmatic to you but this is what I’ve discovered and it is what delivers a predictable and stable result at a demanded level.

You are right that it is too non-pragmatic. I do appreciate the concept and find it a desirable ideal, but in my real world I have too many other substantial problems to solve and so do many others, before we can pull truely all stops out in a system.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Hm, I think you take it little a bit to stressfully. Whatever we talk (at this site and on) is very much theoretical discussions to shape thinking and learn methodologies.

I hope that my missive also highlights other options sufficiently, as said, it was written from a specific angle but I felt it contained a lot of "generic" information as well.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
 However, where I violently disagree is your statement “having a slightly less serious playback” vs. “having non at all”.  T, it should not be “vs.” in there!   I feel that with vs. it is very questionable thinking and it sounds more like you were selling a concept to gullible US consumers (who buy any crap if it well wrapped) instead of describing the subject.

Well, I personally have some basic requirements for a playback system which have nothing to do with music per se. It must reside in my living room (a seperate music room is not acceptable to me) and must be usable by my wife and must not be not too much of an eyesore....


I guess that makes me more pragmatic elsewhere.

Ciao T

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site