1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

question for cucco

Discussion in 'Recording' started by aqualand666, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. aqualand666

    aqualand666 Guest

    is boosting the middle and cutting the highs and lows essentially the same thing. or is it subjective as well
  2. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    It's not really the same thing though the effect can render a similar sound.

    The question is, what is it that you are trying to fix. When the question is answered, the right EQ move (or microphone position or choice, etc.) can be answered.


  3. aqualand666

    aqualand666 Guest

    no i was basically referring to the "frequency instrument specific cables myth"
  4. dementedchord

    dementedchord Well-Known Member

    ok... i'll bite...WTF is the frq inst spec cabl myth????
  5. aqualand666

    aqualand666 Guest

    its mogami's sales pitch. against monster "bass" cables. similar to "bass" pedals.

    another question for cucco, why do you use the benchmark DAC-1, do you specifically like it over your lynx dac for some reason? how do you think it compares to the lavry DA-10?
  6. dementedchord

    dementedchord Well-Known Member

    ahhhh... deffinately myth seems to me... on the bass pedals thing though there might be something to it... i can see how changing coupling/bypass caps could make a pedal more bass friendly...
  7. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Ah...well - it probably would have helped me understand that better if you had referenced it, but okay... :D

    As for the DAC-1...well, I use it for a few reasons.

    1 - I use the Lynx and it together. I patch out of my DAW, into the Lynx then into analog equipment (Crane Song, Manley, etc.) then into the Waves L2 (outboard version) then back into the DAW.

    2 - I monitor from the DAW into the DAC-1 and then into the preamp (using the fixed gain).

    3 - While I'm on location doing location recording, I use it as a DAC and a headphone amplifier.

    As for the Benchmark versus the Lavry...never tried the Lavry. I would love to, but don't see the need to try it as I'm quite pleased with both the DAC 1 and the Lynx.

    Cheers -

  8. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    aqual and666, what are you schizophrenic, or just paranoid? Or is that aqua lan d666? Maybe aqua land 666? Oh you mean New Orleans?

    In another answer to your clueless uninformed questions (I can understand why you want cucco and not myself answering your question). Boosting the midrange as opposed to just rolling off the high and low frequencies DO NOT SOUND THE SAME. One of the reasons for this, particularly in analog equipment, is that people think that an equalizer actually boosts and cuts at certain frequencies. It really doesn't. The boosting and cutting comes from numerous different types of time shifting, filter circuit combinations. Some are resistive/capacitor networks, some are capacitor/inductor networks and some are synthesized with the help of operational amplifier chips. The one thing in common is that all of these boosts and cuts are accomplished through "phase/time" manipulation. And with that, there is a phase/time shift that causes the sound's phase characteristics to be different if you are boosting or cutting and thus, the subjective difference between the sound of boosting and cutting. This is a very simplified explanation. But all bets are off when it comes to software. Software's characteristics are generally very similar when it comes to equalizer's to their analog equivalent. But there are certain types of software equalization that does not manipulate the phase and produce, again, a subjectively different sound. This is where the different kinds of mathematical equalization methods are referred to as "IIR" and "FIR". They are very different. And very different sounding. They are not necessarily better than one or the other. They are utilized for different purposes in different ways.

    There are good converters and there are bad converters. We really don't hear too much about the bad converters since they are mostly in consumer equipment anyhow. I really don't give a crap what converters are in my equipment. It's the microphone, microphone preamp, the musicians and my recording technique and experience that makes more difference than any stupid converter! Besides, to me, PCM, still sounds like PCM to me whether it's 16-bit, 44.1kHz or 32-bit, 192kHz, it still sounds like PCM. I hate it! But it's cheap, prevalent, almost universal and so, I won't let PCM keep me from making a good recording even though I would like to be using DSD. But I don't have DSD and I'm not about to invest in it, yet?

    I generally use decent microphone cable and not necessarily that "star Quad" stuff. The rest of my studios have all been wired internally, with Belden 8451 or similar equivalents. I think, if you can hear the difference in wire, you should look for a new career/job? Why? Because you think the technical thing will prevent you from making good recordings. And it probably does since you don't know what you're doing or listening to?

    Listen to most any classic rock-and-roll hits and you will hear a recording made by the best engineers that really didn't care whose console, whose recorder, whose cable they had to use. They used what was in the control room, whatever it was. That's how you get good, not what kind of blah blah thingy is the thingy du jour.

    blah blah blah blah thingy blah
    Ms. Remy Ann David
  9. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Hey now...that sounds like a dig if I've ever heard one... :x
    Notice...he didn't say "rolling off the high and low." That would imply a X-pass filter, not a notch. A notch filter in low and high frequencies performing a cut can have (and often does have) a similar effect to boosting the mids. This is an age old mastering trick...even the K-man (Mr. Katz) himself devotes several pages to this in his famous book.

    Your information about EQ equipment is spot on...but the psychoacoustics aspect........ :(

    J. :cool:
  10. aqualand666

    aqualand666 Guest

    ok remy so basically you are saying that with analog equipment the sound is not the same but digitally it is essentially the same?

    cucco do you think your benchmark dac-1 is better than mytek DA?
  11. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Hmmm....I don't know. Mytek offers several solutions for DA and I don't know if they are all the same circuitry or not. However, I have never done a direct comparison.

    I am with Remy in that I generally do not care what converter I use. I have had some bad ones (like the stock converters in the Alesis HD24 - not the XR), but other than that, the difference between "Awesome" converters (dcs, prism, etc.) and "regular" converters (Apogee, Lynx, Lucid) is minimal at best and I'd rather spend the $$$ on other mics or pres than a $10K stereo converter!

    Granted, I would LOVE to get a Genex or Prism DSD recorder and a Genex 9048 fully stocked, but I haven't robbed a bank yet nor have I hit the lottery (or for that matter bought a lottery ticket) so............not yet.
  12. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    aqualand666, yes to a great extent, that is what I'm saying. Certainly, as we all know, in the older days of professional audio, those professional pieces were certainly not confused with "audiophile" pieces. They were brute force, industrial quality, designed by a bunch of hard nose engineers and most originally for broadcast purposes. Each piece had its own unique sonic character, because of the wide differences in parts manufacturers and manufacturing techniques.

    Today, and with the incredible proliferation of quality designed integrated circuit chips, I do believe there has been a certain homogenization involved. In that, we know what we want the specifications to be. These devices, made by numerous different manufacturers, now all meet and/or exceed those specifications. And with that, comes a certain homogenized texture that become homogenized with other similar related items from other manufacturers, all grown and baked in similar silicon chip manufacturing ovens. So, what you get is the consistency of McDonald's and with billions and billions sold, it must be good? Right?

    Not all McDonald's are created equal however. I spent a summer in Maine and I remember the McDonald's up their had "LOBSTER ROLLS", I thought I had lost my mind and went to Heaven! That was the first time in my life, I thought about going to work for McDonald's??

    That's why, I think it still so important to combine some of the old stuff with that new state-of-the-art unit/units. I mean, if things get so clean, transparent, stale, brittle, fast, etc., it would be like looking at doctors and nurses in the operating room. It would be very difficult to properly identify everybody. They would all look alike, essentially.

    Look out! There's a lobster loose!
    Ms. Remy Ann David
  13. aqualand666

    aqualand666 Guest

    ok thats a cool fact about the EQ cut and boost. its somewhat interesting maybe do you have an explination for why it makes a difference on analog pieces and makes no difference when EQ'ed digitally?
  14. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    It most certainly makes a difference whether its analog or digital depending on what kind of equalization you are utilizing. Obviously, there is a single type of equalization that cannot be accomplished via analog means. It only lives in the mind of the computer and can boost and cut frequencies without causing the associated phase shift between frequencies that analog equalizers and most digital equalizers do. So it has a different effect on the music than the other kinds of equalizers and I'm referring to the difference between "FIR" or finite impulse response filters & "IIR" infinite impulse response filters. Only the FIR type can be obtained through the use of a computer and offers tighter time and phase relationships between adjacent frequencies. So it's different sounding than its analog and digital IIR cousins.

    Filter flaming mama
    Ms. Remy Ann David
  15. aqualand666

    aqualand666 Guest

    cute, can we possibly discuss how large this audible difference is then perhaps?

    you know, between boosting the mids and cutting the hi and lo
  16. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    All this dancing and NO MUSIC!!

    So I can only assume that this entire set of Q&A is purposefully going NOWHERE because its not supposed to.

    Aquamania, if you're just trying to call people out because you dont like em then move on....Somewhere else for example.

    If you're really on a conscious trail of information gathering, then stop arguing minutia after you GET the real answers to your questions.

    And furthermore, how do you intend to 'measure' this audio difference in the cutting of highs and lows as opposed to raising the midrange?

    Are the sound reproducers perfectly flat? Is the room skewed at all? How far from the source does one have to be to discern such differences to make it audible to everyone? What difference is this going to make in the making of music?

    Heres an obvious reality.

    Lets take a simple three-way passive EQ for example. Fixed points in the curve....okay? Well it IS okay because thats how its done.

    Set the mid-range flat @ its FIXED point of reference. Lets call it 1khz just for the sake of.......uh .....ME. Hell its my forum so lets do that.

    Now. Lets take the highs...set @ 10khz for example and the lows...set @ 100hz and turn em down.

    Waddya hear? RIGHT!!!

    Now lets set em allflat and turn UP the 1khz.........

    Waddya hear? WRONG!!!

    See, EQ takes time into consideration as well as the amount of dbs it takes to push this sound out into an environment. If I simply lower the highs and lows, well OF COURSE the mids will be predominate. However if all remains the same level with the lows and highs, and I simply TURN UP the mids, I still have the highs and lows @ the dbs originally offered and these stay in effect throughout the range of the mids being boosted. This results in a bit more of a bell curve( descriptive only, as passive doesnt really create a bell curve). Its simple to hear. How large and how small a difference only becomes pertinent to the mix in front of you.

    And not really something that needs to be ground into the mud.

    I'm gonna warn you again. Mudslinging and grinding is NOT tolerated.
  17. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    I'm sorry, this is the part where you have to use your ears, which I'm not sure you have?

    The only description that I can give you is that many people find that the FIR equalization is not as obvious "sounding" as its IIR phase shifting counterpart. Many people are amazed by its effect on the music. It should not be considered a de facto standard for mixing. An equalizer is a corrective function which is frequently used to enhance sounds instead of just corrective. You have to know what you want to do and how you want to do it. That comes with experience and not with Recording.org.

    I like fake FIR best.
    Ms. Remy Ann David
  18. aqualand666

    aqualand666 Guest

    yeah well you know, i just have to be here to keep you moderators on your feet. you know sharp as a pencil. you're the pro's right? well at least in my book you are, just not so much hostility please. i just ask questions pertaining strictly to engineering issues and don't like being put in the position where i feel like i need to defend myself simply for asking a question (even if its not what you want to hear)
  19. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Aqualaff, we dont need to be kept on our toes and the questions arent the problem. Its you whos' the problem. Its you with your name calling and your disrespect for others that has you and your presence here on the fast track to being gone for good.

    So, what are you working on? What kind of studio are you building? What mics do you own? What front-end or console are you using? What style of music do you play?

    You wanna be part of something, then bring something to the table.

    Or GET OUT.

    I wont warn you again.

Share This Page