Jump to content

MEH Synergy

Heritage Members
  • Posts

    6831
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    14

Posts posted by MEH Synergy

  1. I'll stir the pot a little, why not.   How many that are arguing these points have had their hearing tested RECENTLY?   I don't want to offend anyone, but prior to entering engineering audio school, a hearing test was basically mandatory.   You would be surprised at the results from some of the younger members.  Specifically how some were all but deaf above 10k at 25 years old.   I have heard what expensive cables can do in a proper system and I was amazed the first time I heard a true wall to wall, floor to ceiling Soundstage.   Some articles they publish AREN'T BS.  I have heard it with my own ears.   My hearing tested  VERY well about 3 years ago with FULL frequency range for the record.  Just because one doesn't hear the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.   

  2. I understand. I have a budget myself.   I never lowball people offensively though or ruin sales publicly.  That's poor 

    • Like 1
  3. "From experienceadjusting my speakers and the crossover for my room when you get them both right no other forms of equalization are ever needed. 

     

    I don't know about the extremes of the words always and never, but I agree with your point here.  Doesn't hurt to HAVE eq if it is already part of the circuit and bypassed , but I almost never use it once the speakers are setup correctly.  Cable naysayers will say otherwise but in my experience, cables can "flavor" a system nicely as well.  

  4. You are correct. I don't dispute your statement.  What I said was having 70+ channels on a mixing board with multiple processing being done on EACH channel, meaning 70+ eqs for example, though this wouldn't be done.  I am FOR eq for those that feel it is needed.  I don't think it harms the signal unless it is quite a low quality unit.  This is why I recommend trying digital if you are in the digital domain. If you are Not, I always like to have a unit that has bypass able eq.   I rarely use it but do like the comfort of it being there. 

    • Like 1
  5. "the signal is AUDIBLY (!) degraded is not rooted in fact". 

     

    Depends on what you want to call degraded.   It is a FACT that noise is added each time something new is introduced into the signal chain. There is no argument there.  When you are mixing and using a 70+ channel board and you are often introducing multiple processing elements on each channel, you can do the math there.  If we added one item to each of the 70 channels, you are at 70 items. You can see how noise can get to be an issue.  Digital has a glass ceiling that once broken enters very obvious distortion.  Thai is why subtractive instrqd of additive is done where possible.  

    • Like 1
  6. There is a HUGE difference in quality between what you use, what a recording/mixing engineer uses and what a mastering engineer uses.  The quality ramps up tremendously and I have high levels of respect for mastering engineers.  You guys think you are tweakers?  Not in the slightest by comparison.  Point is subtractive is better than additive.   Noise floor is very low in most modern or even close to modern recordings as they are almost all done in the digital domain and the ceiling is higher.  If someone is truly bothered by something that is too hot, use a FREE digital parametric eq and see if you can bring the sound to your liking before buying more equipment that may or may not fix your problem. 

×
×
  • Create New...