buttachunk wrote: Let me explain it even more simply, because I'm losing many of you;

simply; dynamic range is the difference between loud and relative silence

if you subtract a frequency range from a signal, the difference between loud and soft IS DIFFERENT for those frequencies.

I can't make it any simpler...

there is linear, and there is non linear. EQ is linear, non linear items include compression, limiting.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: there is linear, and there is non linear. EQ is linear, non linear items include compression, limiting.

Linear what ? Phase linear ?

Many analog EQs are actually phase shifters, hardly what I would call phase linear...

Please clarify.

Whoa, whoa guys. This is getting stupid again. Let's not forget the real issue at stake:

Jp22 wrote: As I said, overall i'm happy with that end of my sound anyways and I could easily give back any minimal dynamics lost compressing with a bit more eq on my mixer (if that were a problem).
~Jp, "The Box", Minnesota, US

Are you sure you want to defend this, chunkybutt?

Reggie wrote: Are you sure you want to defend this, chunkybutt?

Hey Reggie-- I'm merely stating that dynamics CAN be affected by EQs (and getting shot at for it!). That is an important lesson for any engineer. You may be doing some subtractive EQing in a session, and then change your mind later and end up bringing up a load of noise. Know what I mean ?

(edit; spellllling)

Eq is a linear process, whether you want to use linear or non linear eq is not a concern. It is not dynamic dependent. if you boost 1k, it boosts 1k regardless of it's level or dynamics.

It's like a card trick. just because someone can make a jack turn into a queen, doesn't make them magical. if you take an eq and boost a frequency, and when something in the program hits that frequency and jumps out, doesn't mean it's non linear. the boost was always there, you just didn't notice it.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: It is not dynamic dependent. if you boost 1k, it boosts 1k regardless of it's level or dynamics.

Michael,

you are mathematically correct but not exactly correct in terms of practicality (especially with analog EQs !). When you lower the gain of a frequency range, and then boost it back with a second stage, you are bringing up the noisefloor and thus dminishing your dynamic range.

Please try my previously listed experiment if you doubt this.

(1 shelf EQ -18db 5k -into- 1 shelf EQ +18db 5k= reduced dynamic range at the affected frequencies)

Or-- you don't even need to try it with an EQ if it's confusing-- with an analog mixer run one fader at -30db, and then into another channel boosting +30db on the line amp and see if the dynamic range is unaffected...

This is close to exactly what i've been trying to explain all along. Seems i'm not the only one noticing the insane amount of ignorance around here. Some of these guys around here obviously think they know it all.

Yeah....I still don't see it. I mean, you can maybe affect the dynamic range by introducing noise with an EQ or pushing things down into the noisefloor; but where I come from, cutting frequencies is one thing, and affecting dynamics is another.

If you are trying to make a point about adding noise decreases your dynamic range, then well, that just is a pretty worthless point. Why even make a big fuss about it.

BTW, my main EQ is also a 5-band analog. But I use two other 9-bands and a 15 (simultaniously).

Jp22 wrote: BTW, my main EQ is also a 5-band analog. But I use two other 9-bands and a 15 (simultaniously).

You sir are rediculous. But you know that by now. :P

Reggie wrote: Yeah....I still don't see it. I mean, you can maybe affect the dynamic range by introducing noise with an EQ or pushing things down into the noisefloor; but where I come from, cutting frequencies is one thing, and affecting dynamics is another.

Reggie--

You already see exactly what I'm saying. I'm only saying that EQs CAN affect dynamic range.

How is this practical ? As I was saying earlier-- if you track a guitar and cut out 10db at 4k (for some reason...),, if you want to add that back later you will be raising the noise floor of the affected frequency range. This IS an important practical lesson for everyday recording and mixing.

what are you using for an axe or p/u's? What are you using for an amp/modeler?

Jp22 wrote: BTW, my main EQ is also a 5-band analog. But I use two other 9-bands and a 15 (simultaniously).

I thought that you use 5 EQ's in your signal path?

Maybe I misread your earlier post.

buttachunk wrote: [quote=Michael Fossenkemper]It is not dynamic dependent. if you boost 1k, it boosts 1k regardless of it's level or dynamics.

Michael,

you are mathematically correct but not exactly correct in terms of practicality (especially with analog EQs !). When you lower the gain of a frequency range, and then boost it back, you are bringing up the noisefloor and thus dminishing your dynamic range.

Please try my previously listed experiment if you doubt this.

(1 shelf EQ -18db 5k, 1 shelf EQ +18db 5k)

Or-- you don't even need to try it with an EQ if it's confusing-- with an analog mixer run one fader at -30db, and then boost +30db on another channel's line amp and see if the dynamic range is unaffected...

All you are doing is displaying the inadequacies of your eq or your mixer, not that fact the the eq'ing process is not linear. a boost or cut is a linear boost or cut, it's not gain or dynamic dependent.

what are you using for an axe or p/u's? What are you using for an amp/modeler?

Sorry...I meant to ask JP this

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: All you are doing is displaying the inadequacies of your eq or your mixer, not that fact the the eq'ing process is not linear. a boost or cut is a linear boost or cut, it's not gain or dynamic dependent.

Okay, you are correct in terms of most digital plugins, and certainly the mathematics of what an EQ does. But as I said, this is rarely the case in practical terms, especially with an analog EQ. Many analog EQs will clip at certain levels of gain on certain bands, thus actually frequency-selectively limiting the signal. You may be suprised at how inaccurate the boosting and cutting is on many cherished vintage EQs... why they all sound different....

I am trying to help you avoid a situation where you subtractively EQ a floor tom (for example), but then find that you need to boost that frequency later for the mix. What you end up boosting is the noise floor due to loss of dynamic range at the affected frequencies.

Jp22 wrote: [quote=Reggie]
You sir are rediculous. But you know that by now. :P

You sir are obviously nowhere close to my genre of music, which requires alot more EQ'ing.... so if you find me "rediculous" then thats probably just the difference of the way you do things with the style of music you like (which i'm assuming is most likely african-american oriented). I sir, am high speed classical oriented with more distortion in one night than you use in an entire decade. SO, PISS OFF YOU ETHNIC MTV WUSSY!!!

Ha HA, actually I am the whitest of the white. Here is the back of my head: http://nationalaudiocompany.com/cdprinting.htm

And here is a metal band I recorded an album for recently (excuse the crap mp3's): http://www.myspace.com/leadbootmarathon

Freakin racist schmuck.....gonna get this awesome thread canned

Depending on the source, different formants occur at different points within the envelope. By boosting or cutting frequencies that do not exist across the entire envelope, EQ does have an impact on the perceived dynamics of said source. However, this impact is generally considered negligible on most sources. In my experience, this effect is indeed negligable with electric guitars except in the most extreme/obscene use of EQ. I suggest rethinking your guitar choice, playing technique, amplifier, pedals, microphone, and compressor prior to using EQ to create a worthwhile impact on the dynamic content.

Cheers,
Chris

buttachunk wrote: [quote=Michael Fossenkemper]All you are doing is displaying the inadequacies of your eq or your mixer, not that fact the the eq'ing process is not linear. a boost or cut is a linear boost or cut, it's not gain or dynamic dependent.

Okay, you are correct in terms of most digital plugins, and certainly the mathematics of what an EQ does. But as I said, this is rarely the case in practical terms, especially with an analog EQ. Many analog EQs will clip at certain levels of gain on certain bands, thus actually frequency-selectively limiting the signal. You may be suprised at how inaccurate the boosting and cutting is on many cherished vintage EQs... why they all sound different....

I am trying to help you avoid a situation where you subtractively EQ a floor tom (for example), but then find that you need to boost that frequency later for the mix. What you end up boosting is the noise floor due to loss of dynamic range at the affected frequencies.

No, what you are doing is adding phase shift and adding noise via the eq. You are not raising the initial noise floor, Nor are you affecting the dynamic range in relation to the original noise floor. the dynamic range is still the same relationship in that frequency.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: No, what you are doing is adding phase shift and adding noise via the eq. You are not raising the initial noise floor, Nor are you affecting the dynamic range in relation to the original noise floor. the dynamic range is still the same relationship in that frequency.

Michael,

In the perfect digital situation, you are correct. In the real world analog realm... that is not the case. Please try this yourself with 2 analog eqs. The noise you are hearing is not phase shift, it is due to those frequencies being closer to the noise floor before being amplified again. From your description it seems you don't believe in noise floor.

Look at it this way; in the analog realm, if you lower the volume of a signal below unity you are decreasing it's dynamic range; the difference from loud to relative silence has diminished.

Again, you are hearing the noise induced by the device you are using. If you reduce a frequency, you are also reducing the noise floor of that frequency. The relationship stays the same. This is a linear process. If you take a stack of cards and raise or lower it in regards to height. the relationship of the bottom card is still the same to the top card no matter where you put it. If your EQ changes this relationship, there is something wrong with your eq or you are using it beyond the bounds of its ability or resolution. Don't mistake inability for fact.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: If you reduce a frequency, you are also reducing the noise floor of that frequency. The relationship stays the same.

That is absolutely not true in the analog realm. In analog gear, your fader or pot is (generally) connected to your source and your ground. A 'wiper' is moved back and forth from the source to the ground. The closer you get to ground, the lower the dynamic range is. When you try to boost that signal again, you are raising the noise floor.

In an analog EQ, the noise floor does NOT go down with the frequency-- it can not go down below the ground, which is connected to the ground of all of the other gear in your studio (hopefully,, if you've connected it all properly).

buttachunk wrote: [quote=Michael Fossenkemper]If you reduce a frequency, you are also reducing the noise floor of that frequency. The relationship stays the same.

That is absolutely not true in the analog realm. In analog gear, your fader or pot is (generally) connected to your source and your ground. A 'wiper' is moved back and forth from the source to the ground. The closer you get to ground, the lower the dynamic range is. When you try to boost that signal again, you are raising the noise floor of the ground.

In an analog EQ, the noise floor does NOT go down with the frequency-- it can not go down below the ground, which is connected to the ground of all of the other modules in your studio (hopefully,, if you've connected it all properly).

Again, you are mistaking inability as fact. The better the gear, the more ability.

Do you regularly eq things down to ground? When was the last time you had to cut a frequecy so far that you hit the noise floor of ground?

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Do you regularly eq things down to ground? When was the last time you had to cut a frequecy so far that you hit the noise floor of ground?

Every time you subtractively EQ, you bring the signal level of the selected frequencies closer to ground.

If you put that signal into another EQ and boost those frequencies back, you will be boosting noise because those frequencies were previously closer to ground and therefore the noisefloor.

I can't explain this anymore-- please re-read the earlier posts or other sources about this.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: The better the gear, the more ability.

Not exactly... Mackie's have better specs than most vintage Neves. Does that make them better ?

Also, I must add that some analog EQs have the pot wiper actually controlling what is called 'feedback' for an opamp or similar circuit. What that means is it sends the output back in to the input, but with inverted polarity. This variably cancels out the sound *in relation* to the ground/noise floor.

Jp22 wrote: ...my genre of music, which requires alot more EQ'ing

Jp22 wrote:

Then I go into the control room and do whatever I can to reproduce the sound that I heard out in the studio. I may need to change mics, move it around a bit, possibly add some EQ.

Sounds too artificial to me. Thanks again, but no thanks.

You're contradicting yourself yet again. Go team!

buttachunk, I hope what you're posting is just miscommunication. You seem like a smart enough fellow that I hope you'll re-read everyone's points and your own, and see if you still feel correct.

I've blown the mission several times with false reasoning, but whenever it's finally drilled into my head, I'll say, "CRAP! 10 pages later and you're right after all!" I'm a real @$$ sometimes when defending my incorrect point, which you have so far pretty much avoided, so kudos for that! I just hope you realize your error sooner than the 10 pages it sometimes takes me. ;)

JP-- after reading that hilarious quote about your metel (sic) sound, I know for sure now that you're not for real. :hihi: Cheers for at least restoring my faith in humanity. For a while there I was sure that you are actually serious, and I was getting worried.

JP defenders-- I do understand your perspective... it's always hard to see someone get mobbed, because it seems very unfair and a very unbalanced battle. However, I don't feel too much remorse because if you look at his posts, he initiated much of the abuse himself. Just because he's now been mobbed, does that excuse his attitude toward other people? So... I relate to how you feel, but come on now... he's no victim here. Besides that, he's not even for real. ;)

Greg

GregP wrote: buttachunk, I hope what you're posting is just miscommunication.

not sure exactly what you mean by that... don't know how I can be any clearer...

how about this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_floor

do you all understand that the noise floor of a piece of analog gear cannot be turned down below the noise of ground ?

you cannot use an analog EQ to EQ its own noise floor down, as has been suggested...... its noise floor is the sum of the noise generated by the ground and its internal parts (power supply, transistors/opamps/tubes). Ground is the lowest point-- it is the "bottom" of your fader. It doesn't get any lower than that, with the possible exception of an unconnected lead (which is rarely used in modern gear)...

Jp, please don't do that

please edit that post to not provoke the nuking of this thread.

I don't want a "HA HA!" teashirt anymore. :(

Can you say TOAST?

Jp,

I understand that you are mad at these people for picking on you, but I think that opinions are starting to turn around. Now is not the time to nuke this thread.

Well, you started the thread, so it's your call. I hope you will let the thread continue long enough for many of these people to realize how wrong they've been.

buttachunk wrote: Well, you started the thread, so it's your call. I hope you will let the thread continue long enough for many of these people to realize how wrong they've been.

HAHA! Now thats a good one! You really think these people are smart enough for that? I'd say roughly 85% of them have basically proven themselves pretty much worthless. Theres nothing worse than people who have egos too large for their own good.... and all those same types in large groups are just one giant tragedy waiting to happen. Behold the stupidity for yourself, watch the destruction!

Jp22 wrote: You really think these people are smart enough for that?

some are-- I saw some truthful apologies start to come out a few pages ago.

again, it's your call.

In all actuality this topic I created is a perfect example of how your planet is not ready for the total truth to unfold or be known yet....

A. Man tries to get to space.

B. Man's spaceship blows up.

You think hes ready for Mars? Venus? Saturn?

ahahahaha

yeah

Riiight

The cause?

The remaining tiles were pasted on the outside of the spaceship with Elmer's paper glue because they ran out of "the right stuff".

True story.

"There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, seven hundred and fifty miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier." - 4 Oscars, 4 wins & 11 nominations

Jp,

That quote is from the 'Right Stuff' ? Great movie !

Don't see your avatar anymore...
Well, I commend you putting up with as much as you did.
Several people here were immediately confrontational to me as well,,, like they were in some kind of rush to start a fight.

Would like to add that you treated my posts with more attention than the other posters here, which means alot--- shows who was actually paying attention.

Take care.