Equalization

[Travis In Austin]

 

Btw, I personally would never drop an analog EQ into my system....thems waaaaaay too many active parts to get anything usable. Too much veil for me...

 

How many mixing and mastering shops are using analog EQ over "digital" EQ? 

 

I've read what these guys are saying over at Gearslutz mastering forum, et al.: I guess if you're going to boost the average SPL of a recording by over 10 dB by using compression, limiting, and "spectral shaping" (a.k.a., EQ to boost highs and cut lows), then analog EQ is probably inaudible by the time the tracks get through that meat grinder.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

 

 

That is a great question.  The three or four guys that are in the top of the game of analog recording (mixing technically doesn't involve EQ) and mastering use analog EQ, like the one below.  The best analog guys, like Bernie Grundman, who is an audiophile, have their own shop that either make their own equalizers, or take a new production one and modify it to meet their quality standards.  I don't know what the 100s and 100s of the other guys are using, but unless they have good equipment it is going to add significant distortion and other "noise."

 

Glad to see someone finally cite to Burwen.  He probably knows more about equalization then any other living soul.  His "tone control" mentioned in his article is the state of the art in analog equalization both in home, and in the studio.  It was state of the art 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today.  It, to date, is the best built analog equalizer ever made.  It has no distortion and imparts no noise.  Let me say that again, it adds zero distortion and noise to a signal path.  It was termed the first "no compromise" EQ.  Burwen's design manifested itself as the Cello Audio Pallet in 1985 by Mark Levinson.  They are only available used now, but good luck finding one, and if you do, prepare to pay 20K.

 

http://www.celloseattle.com/ctdocs/prodserve/peripherals/audiopalette.html

 

 

Cello Audio Palette

Designed by Dick Berwin, the Cello Audio Palette is still used nearly 20 years after its release as a studio-grade analog audio equalizer. Mark Levinson's famous 59 point potentiometer gives this shining silver audio icon the feel of a Patek Philippe watch. The Cello Audio Palette also came in an "MIV" version which allowed an Audio Palette to be a preamp as well as an EQ.

 

http://hometheaterreview.com/cello/

 

Mark Levinson paired up with Daniel Hertz and came out with digital EQ over 10 years ago with a computer interface called Master Class (it used to be only available in for Apple, not sure any more).

 

It is funny how the market goes.  It is my understanding that ML was one of the first guys to not to have tone controls on his high-end consumer audio products.  Other's followed suit, and the audiophile market adopted this purist philosophy.  Then he had to set up his own company again, and he comes up with the ultimate in tone control/EQ.  He then comes up  with another company to come up with digital EQ.  They make horn speakers too apparently.  I heard a pair of his Red Rose speakers at a home in Austin, still the best pair of speakers I have ever heard, but Jubes are a very close 2nd at 1/10 the price.  The were about 7' tall, 30 or 40 speakers on each tower, array type.  Here is a link to the Daniel Hertz site that discusses their digital EQ program. 

 

http://www.danielhertz.com/ 

[muel]

 

Btw, I personally would never drop an analog EQ into my system....thems waaaaaay too many active parts to get anything usable. Too much veil for me...

 

How many mixing and mastering shops are using analog EQ over "digital" EQ? 

 

I've read what these guys are saying over at Gearslutz mastering forum, et al.: I guess if you're going to boost the average SPL of a recording by over 10 dB by using compression, limiting, and "spectral shaping" (a.k.a., EQ to boost highs and cut lows), then analog EQ is probably inaudible by the time the tracks get through that meat grinder.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

 

To DrWho's point aren't we just talking about multiple layers of "veil?"  The mastering folks have set their veil over the recording and the analog EQ would be yet another veil on top of that.

 

It seems Chris has the least damaging method by using Audacity to adjust the EQ on the digital file itself... no additional electronics either analog OR digital required in the signal path.  It is interesting to me that his method seems to work well without negative consequence that I can hear (unless you just don't like the results) but adding an software eq on your audio player always seems to be detrimental to sound quality.  I have a hunch the reason in part might be that it is better to do the work to the file first and not require any additional resources of the computer.  Any processes I can remove from the computer seems to almost always help.

[DrWho]

But what about sticking to the original recording?

 

How does a speaker with huge dips and peaks in frequency response allow you to stick to the original recording?

[DrWho]

It has no distortion and imparts no noise.  Let me say that again, it adds zero distortion and noise to a signal path.  It was termed the first "no compromise" EQ.  Burwen's design manifested itself as the Cello Audio Pallet in 1985 by Mark Levinson.  They are only available used now, but good luck finding one, and if you do, prepare to pay 20K.

 

I guarantee it adds measurable levels of distortion and noise into the signal path. If it has any resistors, any power supplies, any active components, whatever.....it's gonna have distortion and noise. Laws of the Universe....this stuff ain't magic. If you know of somebody with one, then I'd be more than happy to measure it for you. I'd also love to tear one apart and see what they're doing.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't sound awesome, but I'm willing to wager I could hit comparable numbers with a digital EQ....at least there I can just keep throwing bits at it to get the quantization effects smaller and smaller....certainly well beyond the random vibration of the molecular lattice that builds up the analog components...

 

The problem with audio engineering is it takes all the mysticism out of audio....sometimes I wonder if it's the mysticism that makes us enjoy it more.

Edited May 19, 2015 by DrWho

[DrWho]

To DrWho's point aren't we just talking about multiple layers of "veil?"  The mastering folks have set their veil over the recording and the analog EQ would be yet another veil on top of that.

 

 

I consider the veil or whatever you want to call it that is imparted by the "mastering folks" to be part of the art, or part of the actual painting if you want to use a visual analogy.

 

If there's a spec of dust trapped in the paint of my favorite masterpiece, then that little piece of dust is part of what constitutes that masterpiece. Just because the artist allowed dust there doesn't mean I'm going to then coat the painting in more dust. Quite the opposite actually...I'm going to dust and clean that masterpiece so that it stays in its original condition as blessed by the artist...

 

The less veils we have in our playback systems - the better the product we can expect from future artists.

[Fjd]

 

Glad to see someone finally cite to Burwen.  He probably knows more about equalization then any other living soul.  His "tone control" mentioned in his article is the state of the art in analog equalization both in home, and in the studio.  It was state of the art 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today.  It, to date, is the best built analog equalizer ever made.  It has no distortion and imparts no noise.  Let me say that again, it adds zero distortion and noise to a signal path.  It was termed the first "no compromise" EQ.  Burwen's design manifested itself as the Cello Audio Pallet in 1985 by Mark Levinson.  They are only available used now, but good luck finding one, and if you do, prepare to pay 20K.

 

http://www.celloseattle.com/ctdocs/prodserve/peripherals/audiopalette.html

 

 

Cello Audio Palette

Designed by Dick Berwin, the Cello Audio Palette is still used nearly 20 years after its release as a studio-grade analog audio equalizer. Mark Levinson's famous 59 point potentiometer gives this shining silver audio icon the feel of a Patek Philippe watch. The Cello Audio Palette also came in an "MIV" version which allowed an Audio Palette to be a preamp as well as an EQ.

 

http://hometheaterreview.com/cello/

 

Mark Levinson paired up with Daniel Hertz and came out with digital EQ over 10 years ago with a computer interface called Master Class (it used to be only available in for Apple, not sure any more).

 

It is funny how the market goes.  It is my understanding that ML was one of the first guys to not to have tone controls on his high-end consumer audio products.  Other's followed suit, and the audiophile market adopted this purist philosophy.  Then he had to set up his own company again, and he comes up with the ultimate in tone control/EQ.  He then comes up  with another company to come up with digital EQ.  They make horn speakers too apparently.  I heard a pair of his Red Rose speakers at a home in Austin, still the best pair of speakers I have ever heard, but Jubes are a very close 2nd at 1/10 the price.  The were about 7' tall, 30 or 40 speakers on each tower, array type.  Here is a link to the Daniel Hertz site that discusses their digital EQ program. 

 

http://www.danielhertz.com/ 

 

 

 

I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but mikebse2a3 posted a "Cello Palette" simulation program that mimics the tone control section for the Electro-Voice DC-One DSP that can be found in the following link.

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/142681-cello-palette-ev-dc-one-simulation-program-settings/

[Travis In Austin]

Btw, I personally would never drop an analog EQ into my system....thems waaaaaay too many active parts to get anything usable. Too much veil for me...

How many mixing and mastering shops are using analog EQ over "digital" EQ?

I've read what these guys are saying over at Gearslutz mastering forum, et al.: I guess if you're going to boost the average SPL of a recording by over 10 dB by using compression, limiting, and "spectral shaping" (a.k.a., EQ to boost highs and cut lows), then analog EQ is probably inaudible by the time the tracks get through that meat grinder.

YMMV.

Chris

To DrWho's point aren't we just talking about multiple layers of "veil?" The mastering folks have set their veil over the recording and the analog EQ would be yet another veil on top of that.

It seems Chris has the least damaging method by using Audacity to adjust the EQ on the digital file itself... no additional electronics either analog OR digital required in the signal path. It is interesting to me that his method seems to work well without negative consequence that I can hear (unless you just don't like the results) but adding an software eq on your audio player always seems to be detrimental to sound quality. I have a hunch the reason in part might be that it is better to do the work to the file first and not require any additional resources of the computer. Any processes I can remove from the computer seems to almost always help.

Well in terms of veils, there are veils at every level of the recording process. Every microphone has a distinct EQ, they are specifically chosen for their signature EQ is mosts cases either by the artist,engineer ir producer.

On recording drums and bass, in analog, high pass filters are used to decrease noise. Drums are tuned, EQd, so as not to conflict with the bass. (This is the most difficult part of rock recording, clear and distinct bass and kick drum lines that do not merge into mud).

Mastering in digital, unfortunately, got way beyond what the objectives in analog mastering were.

The veils are at every single stage of recording, some are necessary for a good recording, others are used to try and save a "bad" recording, others because they believe someone believes it is required to make it more marketable.

With a good mix and recording the top mastering people will tell you they have no hesitation in mastering it flat, without EQ and they simply do the other things that mastering entails.

Travis

[garyrc]

But what about sticking to the original recording? It didn't come flat from the studio, it came in many instances to the fixation and somewhat liking of the artist. We are changing it to accommodate our room, its shape, the furniture in it and even that noisy AC unit running next door to your listening room

 

But the original recording on the disc will not be what you or I hear in our rooms over our speakers, anyway, whether it is EQd or not.

 

This, plus the fact that many, many original discs contain sound that has been put through the meat grinder Chris A. mentioned.

 

If some room/speaker quirks can be dialed out, might as well do it, IMO.  Then we should hear something closer to what they heard in the control room, even if what they heard, and were happy with, sounded like s**t.

Edited May 19, 2015 by garyrc

[Travis In Austin]

It has no distortion and imparts no noise. Let me say that again, it adds zero distortion and noise to a signal path. It was termed the first "no compromise" EQ. Burwen's design manifested itself as the Cello Audio Pallet in 1985 by Mark Levinson. They are only available used now, but good luck finding one, and if you do, prepare to pay 20K.

I guarantee it adds measurable levels of distortion and noise into the signal path. If it has any resistors, any power supplies, any active components, whatever.....it's gonna have distortion and noise. Laws of the Universe....this stuff ain't magic. If you know of somebody with one, then I'd be more than happy to measure it for you. I'd also love to tear one apart and see what they're doing.

I'm not saying it doesn't sound awesome, but I'm willing to wager I could hit comparable numbers with a digital EQ....at least there I can just keep throwing bits at it to get the quantization effects smaller and smaller....certainly well beyond the random vibration of the molecular lattice that builds up the analog components...

The problem with audio engineering is it takes all the mysticism out of audio....sometimes I wonder if it's the mysticism that makes us enjoy it more.

I stand corrected, the Dr. is of course correct. At unity gain (7.8v) it has less then .02% distortion from 15hz to 25khz, it is .1db flat from 15hz to 25khz.

The specs and schematic are on Burwen's website, but it has a bunch of squiggly lines, triangles and other stuff on it that are way over my head.

I will send it to you Mike so you can build us a couple.

[Travis In Austin]

Glad to see someone finally cite to Burwen. He probably knows more about equalization then any other living soul. His "tone control" mentioned in his article is the state of the art in analog equalization both in home, and in the studio. It was state of the art 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today. It, to date, is the best built analog equalizer ever made. It has no distortion and imparts no noise. Let me say that again, it adds zero distortion and noise to a signal path. It was termed the first "no compromise" EQ. Burwen's design manifested itself as the Cello Audio Pallet in 1985 by Mark Levinson. They are only available used now, but good luck finding one, and if you do, prepare to pay 20K.

http://www.celloseattle.com/ctdocs/prodserve/peripherals/audiopalette.html

Cello Audio Palette

Designed by Dick Berwin, the Cello Audio Palette is still used nearly 20 years after its release as a studio-grade analog audio equalizer. Mark Levinson's famous 59 point potentiometer gives this shining silver audio icon the feel of a Patek Philippe watch. The Cello Audio Palette also came in an "MIV" version which allowed an Audio Palette to be a preamp as well as an EQ.

http://hometheaterreview.com/cello/

Mark Levinson paired up with Daniel Hertz and came out with digital EQ over 10 years ago with a computer interface called Master Class (it used to be only available in for Apple, not sure any more).

It is funny how the market goes. It is my understanding that ML was one of the first guys to not to have tone controls on his high-end consumer audio products. Other's followed suit, and the audiophile market adopted this purist philosophy. Then he had to set up his own company again, and he comes up with the ultimate in tone control/EQ. He then comes up with another company to come up with digital EQ. They make horn speakers too apparently. I heard a pair of his Red Rose speakers at a home in Austin, still the best pair of speakers I have ever heard, but Jubes are a very close 2nd at 1/10 the price. The were about 7' tall, 30 or 40 speakers on each tower, array type. Here is a link to the Daniel Hertz site that discusses their digital EQ program.

http://www.danielhertz.com/

I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but mikebse2a3 posted a "Cello Palette" simulation program that mimics the tone control section for the Electro-Voice DC-One DSP that can be found in the following link.

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/142681-cello-palette-ev-dc-one-simulation-program-settings/

I would be interested in hearing what your thoughts are on that. The whole idea of the Pallet was no distortion, relatively speaking, no noise, no coloration if ran flat. It also has phase shifting. So, theoretically, it ran flat you shouldn't be able to hear a thing and it should be able to vary FR with less than .02% distortion.

For Protools they make every plugin imaginable. Ampex ATR 102, this tube microphone amp that tube mike amp, processors, limiters, whatever brand, model or type you want. That stuff is used, by and large, by garage and home recordists because they can avoid having to buy that equipment.

Travis

[Fjd]

 

 

Glad to see someone finally cite to Burwen. He probably knows more about equalization then any other living soul. His "tone control" mentioned in his article is the state of the art in analog equalization both in home, and in the studio. It was state of the art 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today. It, to date, is the best built analog equalizer ever made. It has no distortion and imparts no noise. Let me say that again, it adds zero distortion and noise to a signal path. It was termed the first "no compromise" EQ. Burwen's design manifested itself as the Cello Audio Pallet in 1985 by Mark Levinson. They are only available used now, but good luck finding one, and if you do, prepare to pay 20K.

http://www.celloseattle.com/ctdocs/prodserve/peripherals/audiopalette.html

Cello Audio Palette

Designed by Dick Berwin, the Cello Audio Palette is still used nearly 20 years after its release as a studio-grade analog audio equalizer. Mark Levinson's famous 59 point potentiometer gives this shining silver audio icon the feel of a Patek Philippe watch. The Cello Audio Palette also came in an "MIV" version which allowed an Audio Palette to be a preamp as well as an EQ.

http://hometheaterreview.com/cello/

Mark Levinson paired up with Daniel Hertz and came out with digital EQ over 10 years ago with a computer interface called Master Class (it used to be only available in for Apple, not sure any more).

It is funny how the market goes. It is my understanding that ML was one of the first guys to not to have tone controls on his high-end consumer audio products. Other's followed suit, and the audiophile market adopted this purist philosophy. Then he had to set up his own company again, and he comes up with the ultimate in tone control/EQ. He then comes up with another company to come up with digital EQ. They make horn speakers too apparently. I heard a pair of his Red Rose speakers at a home in Austin, still the best pair of speakers I have ever heard, but Jubes are a very close 2nd at 1/10 the price. The were about 7' tall, 30 or 40 speakers on each tower, array type. Here is a link to the Daniel Hertz site that discusses their digital EQ program.

http://www.danielhertz.com/

I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but mikebse2a3 posted a "Cello Palette" simulation program that mimics the tone control section for the Electro-Voice DC-One DSP that can be found in the following link.

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/142681-cello-palette-ev-dc-one-simulation-program-settings/

I would be interested in hearing what your thoughts are on that. The whole idea of the Pallet was no distortion, relatively speaking, no noise, no coloration if ran flat. It also has phase shifting. So, theoretically, it ran flat you shouldn't be able to hear a thing and it should be able to vary FR with less than .02% distortion.

For Protools they make every plugin imaginable. Ampex ATR 102, this tube microphone amp that tube mike amp, processors, limiters, whatever brand, model or type you want. That stuff is used, by and large, by garage and home recordists because they can avoid having to buy that equipment.

Travis

 

 

 

My schedule has been so hectic right now that I'm not sure when I'll get to it.  I also bumped the thread Mike started for the PEQ settings that he figured out to closely mimic those of the Cello Palette on the Behringer DEQ2496.

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/99985-behringer-program-to-simulate-cello-palette/

[DrWho]

Is this the schematic?

http://www.burwenaudio.com/images/CELLO_AUDIO_PALETTE.pdf

 

I wonder what one of these might sound like with modern components? I also wonder if you could pull out all those compensation circuits that were added to address the limitations of the opamps available back then. Could it sound even better without all that extra stuff in the signal path?

 

I would need to dig in a bit deeper, but I'm not sure you could perfectly emulate this equalizer with a parametric EQ. Typically these clever analog circuits have the effect of the filter Q changing with the amplitude and selected frequency. You'd have to manually update the Q of your digital parametric to emulate that behavior.

 

...and even then, a while back I was talking to Robert Scovill (live sound engineer for Tom Petty), and he was talking about how some of his favorite old analog EQ's didn't match the textbook definitions for Q - which means you can't match the filter shape with a classic digital parametric. This is why all the digital consoles these days are offering "analog EQ" plugins that are perfectly emulating the old behavior....and it's driven by guys like Scovill that are looking for a very very specific sound that they've been doing for several years.

 

Again, I haven't run the numbers, but looking at the schematic and the approach used, I think the Cello Palette may fall into that category...

 

 

However, I think details of that nature are better dealt with on the music creation side. The speaker corrections and system voicing decisions are more straightforward in their application of filter shape. The problems that we're fixing will generally fall into the classic definition of Q due to the physical reasons that EQ is needed in the first place....

 

Anyways, just sharing a few thoughts.

 

 

Btw, check out Burwen's sound system:

http://www.burwenaudio.com/Sound_System.html

 

The surround channels are fully hornloaded too...

[Chris A]

From that link:

 

 

Now Dick is remastering his 30 years of recordings and able to make them sound far better than when they were
recorded.

 

 

Hummm--sounds like a good idea.

[SWL]

Sooo.....I've stated in this thread that I've been impressed with the DEQ2496 (my first and only experience with EQing in the digital domain) but a few here have said otherwise. What would be a step up in performance but not going to far above the price range of the Behringer ($300)?

[thebes]

Dang, now this discussion has gotten elevated into serious old-school forum territory. I particularly like Max2's take on the subject.  Great stuff guys. Learning a lot.

[PrestonTom]

Sooo.....I've stated in this thread that I've been impressed with the DEQ2496 (my first and only experience with EQing in the digital domain) but a few here have said otherwise. What would be a step up in performance but not going to far above the price range of the Behringer ($300)?

Good luck on that one. There are better units than the Behringer, but you will pay several times more. If price is a factor you might consider modding the Behringer.

[Travis In Austin]

Grasshopper that is the schematic. There has been some discussions about people building them on the DIY Audio site.

I think your link, which I have not checked yet, has the discussion where Dick said that the big expense of the ML version of his design was Levinson used his own proprietary low distortion OP amps which were very expensive.

Edited May 23, 2015 by dwilawyer

[Travis In Austin]

Lots of vinyl and R2R in Dick's room.

[SWL]

 

Sooo.....I've stated in this thread that I've been impressed with the DEQ2496 (my first and only experience with EQing in the digital domain) but a few here have said otherwise. What would be a step up in performance but not going to far above the price range of the Behringer ($300)?

Good luck on that one. There are better units than the Behringer, but you will pay several times more. If price is a factor you might consider modding the Behringer.

 

Yeah...I kinda figured that would be the case. In the meantime I'm content with the Behringer. I've had it for 3+ years and it is always cold to the touch despite the heat problems I've read about. Guess I got lucky because this unit has been 100% reliable.

 

Not too long ago I took it out of the system and had everything hooked up the way it was prior to implementing the digital EQ. I couldn't get the EQ back into the system fast enough.....and really couldn't believe I was happy with the original sound quality in comparison. YMMV.

[Chris A]

and really couldn't believe I was happy with the original sound quality in comparison. YMMV.

 

There must be a psychological term for this effect: would it be "accommodation"?  We get used to hearing the anomalies in FR until we are presented with a corrected FR.  We can hear the differences A-B much clearer when separated by short time periods in the same environment (room and sound reproduction system/loudspeakers).  With longer time delays, the human hearing system tends to "accommodate".

 

I'd just call it the "junior-high band director effect".