jlilien@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Joel Lilienkamp) (08/29/83)
Everyone in this group is talking as though the world would still be in the stone age were it not for equalizers. (I am assuming graphic equalizers in this discussion) My friend has an ADC Sound Shaper (don't remember which) and the associated spectrum analyzer, and have made the following observations: 1) How does one adjust for limitations in the speaker or the room design? Can this be done with a graphic equalizer at all, or only approximated? Assuming it is theoretically possible, are there people that know how to do this? Then once it is adjusted, do you leave it like that forever? 2) How does one compensate for a poor mixing? You certainly have no control over what comes out of what channel, and you can only compensate for general tonal weaknesses. In other words, you MIGHT be able to make the guitar or flute to sound a little louder, but you certainly can't move them around the room. 3) How do you compensate for a poor mixing and limitations in the speaker and the room? One seems as though it would change from time to time, while the others are static. With the spectrum analyzer, the following can be added: 1) There are two modes, line and microphone. Line mode is useless except as a toy (it performs in this role quite well) 2) In microphone mode, there is a setup that can be used to connect a pink noise generator through the stereo, picked up on the microphone and played. The problem I noticed seems to be in the microphone provided with the spectrum analyzer. Since the whole unit only cost $140 or so, the microphone couldn't have cost more than $10. It shows. The microphone is extremely sensative to room position (I guess I beleive that, but it makes the whole question of setting the equalizer for the room moot, since in reality you are setting it for one spot in the room), direction (sensitive to single degrees or less), and even volume the pink noise is played. With these problems, and the simple directions that came with the thing, I have concluded there is no practical way to use the stuff. Someone said they were handy for testing, but the average stereo owner does little or none of that sort of testing. One final note, even if it were possible to set this thing up so that you were able to compensate for room and speaker defficiencies, you still are not finished. Everyone who will ever come and visit you will ask you, as they are taking you system out of adjustement, what those slide levers are for. Hence you have to set the thing up all the time, or else take the knobs off when it is adjusted. Joel
michaelk@tekmdp.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) (09/01/83)
Good grief. I am one of the folk who have contributed to the discussions
on graphic equalizers. I was caught completely off guard by the stone age
flaming arrow. The discussions here primarily centered around a graphic
equalizer being a useful tool that can improve a system. The arguements
about setting up the equalizer also apply to setting your volume knob, and
I do not advocate doing away with volume controls just because I can't
absolutely set it to the same volume as the original artist's performance.
The choice is not between perfection or nothing. The choice is between
what you have now, and something better. Being able to partially (however
imperfectly) improve the performance of a speaker/room system is a valuable
thing to have. I'd rather be at 80% perfection than be at 50% perfection anyday.
Then, while sitting at 80% I'll look for higher. I have a graphic equalizer,
and I don't regret buying it. It makes my system *better* than it was
before. It is better because it *sounds* better. (I *DO* like to listen
to my stereo system occasionally, rather than just oggle the specs).
I had NO TROUBLE at all setting up the Graphic equalizer. I used the
spectrum analyzer trick to get the starting points, and tweeked it by
ear some from there. THEN you try pushing the in/out button and see what
you think you have done -- improvement or detriment. If I had a larger living
room the equalizer MIGHT not have been able to produce an improvement. Had
that been the case, then that would have been that. It would NOT have ruled
out the device's usefulness. I have *NO* use for a cement truck, but that
doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone.
Mike Kersenbrock
Tektronix Microcomputer Development Products
Aloha, Oregon
P.S.- I play my CD player through this equalized system. If you don't
have a CD player, you *are* in the stone age! (I encourage counter
flames on that one--try to convice me that mechanically dragging a
stone-tipped stick through a vinyl groove is *better* than the CD "way").
Talk about STONE KNIVES and bear skins!
P.P.S- The peak-to-peak equalization accross the band in my system is no
more than 3-4 dB or so, but the improvement is noticeable.pmr@drufl.UUCP (09/02/83)
Don't you find the 175 degree phase shift at 15KHz annoying? This to me makes strings sound hard and destroys the sound stage. Don't get me wrong, I think that digital will eventually be far superior to analogue. But right now, digital has quite a way to go before catching high-end analogue. Phil Rastocny
pmr@drufl.UUCP (09/02/83)
The sensitivity of microphone positioning in EQing systems varies from microphone to microphone (pattern differences). BUT this should hint at some of the complex problems regarding room acoustics and loudspeaker dispersion. The amount of EQ changes as you move around the room since 1) you move off-axis from the loudspeakers changing the amount of "uniform" acoustic energy developed, and 2) you move into different room resonance areas. I still believe that the answer is not in EQ but in the rest of the system. Spending hundreds of dollars in EQ and tens of dollars in loudspeakers seems a bit lopsided and self defeating. Taking time to properly set up equipment and position speakers can prove to be quite startling. Phil Rastocny AT&T Information Systems Laboratories drufl!pmr