Quasar mkII (BD-Design)

by Bert , Thursday, April 15, 2010, 00:33 (5148 days ago) @ xero

Dear Xero,

The signal ends in the brain...and the state of mind at the moment gives that a value.

Everybody should be free to use EQ to their best knowledge though, my main concern is only that digital and/or analogue EQ should not be seen as the holy grail solving all problems as many users tend to suggest...

Everything is a compromise and in acoustics there is simply no easy way out.

There are differences in changing the original signal though (limiting this topic to what EQ does to the frequency curve alone and not to confuse this with the other negative aspects such devices bring).

• If a speaker is changing the original signal due to design problems or limitations then an EQ correction at the speaker makes it more or less "original" again (as far as possible). The end result will be closer to the original signal if a speaker needs this "cosmetic surgery".
  
• Trying to correct what the room is doing at the same time is something completely different because the ear is very capable to separate direct and reflected sound (as most effective example)... EQ-ing the signal back to "original" at the listening position is only doing harm as it creates something completely different and will be further away from the original signal. Time coherence and phase is then mixed up seriously...

Compare 2 mike recordings with multi-mike re-mixed recordings...I know what I feel is closer to the original performance.

But let’s stop discussing this issue, I do not feel that I should change the world and tell people what they should do. I only respond to people asking and I do think I have expressed my thoughts enough now in this matter.

I seriously wish all people good luck whenever they start EQ-ing their listening room and hopefully their brains can be fooled with this and hopefully they will be very happy with the achieved compromise.

Cheers,

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!