Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

T, you are mistaken if you feel that I do not understand what and why you propose to do what you proposed to do. Nothing is wrong with “Audio Pragmatism” as a phrase but I feel that is not really an appropriate way to approach to problem. I mean that EQ is a fine “tactical solution” but it a very bad strategic direction.

Look, there are many ways to heal a problem but ANY process of healing unavoidably holds the marks of the correction ceremony instead of the marks of the original intentions. Yes, if you are an allergic to pollen then some medication do help but does it mean that you feel healthy or we juts consider you in pollen envelopment as a healthy. Is it possible that we recognize you as healthy juts because we do not know/understand the negative effect of the anti-allergic medication have to your real health? What I am trying to say that by correcting the response of playback with d-EQ we just make the problem less visible but we do not eliminate the source of the problem. So, you may fake the health report of a patient but it does not cure the state of the patient health….

You might have a woofer with high impedance rise at its resonance frequency and you might use a crapy amplifier that would output during this impedance rise an unnecessary kilogram of watts. Your frequency sweep would indicate a large peak near Fs and it would be nice to correct it. Did you try to do it with analog resonators? Sure you did and everyone do use Zobels with “great: result. But they have great result of elimination of the response pick but not the result of fixing of the driver. You see: the response peak is juts a language that describe an event and that language is something that we correct with Zobels: the language as a reflection of the original reality. The language is corrected but the driver (reality) when I find itself near Fs is not driven by the amplifier signal anymore but behave like a wounded in ass animal. Yes, the response is flat during this time but the frequency response NOT ONLY the problems that happened with driver while it in its primary resonance? However, the mathematical abstract language that describes the Really of the driver’s behavior does not have a complexity that would allow extrapolating the driver in its fill scale. Why we suddenly attach the frequency response I do not know. Probably we do so juts because it is ease to correct and it is easy to confirm ourselves with the tools the he have in our disposal.

Also, the digital EQ do not have any intellectual feedback and does not aware about the reasons why the installation is not flat. Moreover it does not facilitate to a person who use a system an opportunity to educate himself/herself about WHAT and WHY was wrong. The 90% of the problems are correctable naturally at it’s source but the D-EQ will not enable this opportunity and do not lead to this direction.

There is something else. My experience dealing with speakers indicted that a proper solution does not resolve a problem but INSTANTANEOUSLY ADDRESS MULTIPLE PROBLEMS. When I have a specific problem with sound and I’ve found the way to resolve it then I instantaneously begin to looks what else it resolved. If the solution resolved the only one problem than I perceive is a WRONG solution. A properly behaving playback acts alike an octopus where a single body manages multiple legs and the multiple legs perform multiple tasks. A correct solution should serve the interest of all legs, not juts a leg that experiences a specific discomfort. Perhaps this association of mine is too none-pragmatic to you but this is what I’ve discovered and it is what delivers a predictable and stable result at a demanded level. All the rest is juts a Stevens Rochlins running around a circus and showing to each other their blue tangs….

Thorsten wrote:

But in the real world many prefer having a slightly less serious playback system that fits their room, lifestyle and preferences to having non at all.... ;-)

Hm, I think you take it little a bit to stressfully. Whatever we talk (at this site and on) is very much theoretical discussions to shape thinking and learn methodologies. I do not think that anymore would propose that whomever uses digital crossovers of the folded horns should be put to death. People might use and do whatever pleases them. However, where I violently disagree is your statement “having a slightly less serious playback” vs. “having non at all”.  T, it should not be “vs.” in there!   I feel that with vs. it is very questionable thinking and it sounds more like you were selling a concept to gullible US consumers (who buy any crap if it well wrapped) instead of describing the subject.

Look, can you quantify the negative experiences that a listener has if she/he has a playback with sever reposes deviation? Whatever your estimates would be still there is no “vs” in there. In fact our awareness quite well tuned to correct the tonal deviations. Zillions people listen very crapy sound form their very crapy radios and have no problems to get musicality via those “bad” audio systems. However, those digital derives do inflict to sound something that do not easiest in a nature world and as result I afraid that we have much more difficulties to accommodate out listening attention to this D-brushed sound. So, are we loosing a baby with that gashing dirty water?

Yes, the corrected response after the EQ is flat but the stay-wave still hits the listing position at amplitude of +12dB. The only reasons why now we feel comfortable are juts because the digital gizmo drops 12dB at the frequency where the stay-wave happens. Do you feel something barbarian in all of it? I do.

A long time ago at damn Audio Asylum I pinch to the Morons an inspiration that I can distinct (not always) a wrong amplitude coming form a driver from a wrong amplitude coming from a room modes. People did not understood what I meant then. I think the people who design/use those digital EQ still do not understand what I was implying. So, what you would propose me to respect: the correction devises that were created BY and FOR the AA listening inelegance? I do not think so. We are not in Kansas anymore. We are not even at Earth anymore in context of this subject….

:-),
Romy the Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site