Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Equalization

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here is something I have posted to some USENET newsgroups.

Equalization curves:

I think Europe used the CCIR equalization curve or the new name ITU or
something like that instead of the US standard RIAA curve for records. I
ought to explain myself: I won a fifty dollar jackpot on the nickel slot
machines at the EM club in Bamberg Germany in 1966 and put ten dollars
back in and hit again. I used the ninety dollars and some more to buy a
Philips stereo record player with two small speakers. It had a wooden
case. The three Beatles albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's
sounded very very good. Make that (very)^3. I can't get any music system
in the USA to sound that good or even in tune. I was in Germany again in
1975 and heard a song ("Indian Love Call" by Ray Stevens) from the radio
in a Mercedes-Benz bus and the announcer said "ausgezeitnich" as if she
were saying the word "delicious". I agreed and I bought the album when I
got back to the States, but, it is no good on any system I've tried
here. Everything you plug into or out of can change the equalization,
but I think it can be made to sound good with a graphic equalizer.

There was no standard equalization curve for records in the USA until
about 1956, so, try to guess what Bix Beiderbecke's cornet really
sounded like in 1927. I can change the word "Borneo" to "Corneo" or
"Porneo" in the lyrics to one of Bix's songs with an equalizer.

http://www.kspc.org/ "Forward Into The Past" from 2 PM to 5 PM Sundays
California time plays a lot of good music from 1925-1945. It is very
good if it is equalized correctly, but how can it be done?


Then, months later, I wrote:

I apologize for misleading anyone about US music systems.

I realized that I have bought thousands of dollars of Japanese equipment
since 1969 (there was nothing else in the stores), so, I remembered an
old American name Harman Kardon and got an HK 3380 receiver and HKTS 14
5.1 speakers and a DVD-31 player and spent about 18 hours trying
different cables and wires and speaker positions. I discovered the
"secret of the tetrahedron" for two channel stereo: The subwoofer on
the floor in the middle, two satellite speakers for the left and two for
the right channels raised on stands that are shoulder length high. The
listening position is at the fourth vertex of a tetrahedron and I look
straight ahead to the center of area of an equilateral triangle whose
corners are the left and right channels and the subwoofer.

The base notes are in tune and in sync and everything is just right in
the following songs and maybe I'm on the right track to finding an
equalization curve that will demonstrate how good the great musicians of
the past really were.

Rubber Soul track one, Revolver track one, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
Club Band track eight, Yellow Submarine track four, Clockwork Orange
soundtrack track three.

I thought it would be a good idea to ask an expert. Should I buy one of
those new turntables and vinyl records to listen to 1925-1945 music or
get CDs and play them on the DVD 31 (audiophile-grade digital to analog
converters!)? It's been more than 35 years since I have felt goose
pimples from recorded music.

Cliff Nelson

Dry your tears, there's more fun for your ears,
"Forward Into The Past" 2 PM to 5 PM, Sundays,
California time, at: http://www.kspc.org/

Don't be a square or a blockhead; see:
http://users.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/

More about : equalization

Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:05:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Clifford J. Nelson <cjnelson9@verizon.net> wrote:
>I think Europe used the CCIR equalization curve or the new name ITU or
>something like that instead of the US standard RIAA curve for records.

Before the RIAA curve was established there were a number of different
curved used on LPs. The one Decca/London used was fairly widely adopted
in Europe but there were a few others. But by 1956, all of this silliness
was long gone, the LP was well-established in Europe, and the RIAA curve
was universal. The era between the LP first arriving and the universal
adoption of RIAA was a very short one.

>I
>ought to explain myself: I won a fifty dollar jackpot on the nickel slot
>machines at the EM club in Bamberg Germany in 1966 and put ten dollars
>back in and hit again. I used the ninety dollars and some more to buy a
>Philips stereo record player with two small speakers. It had a wooden
>case. The three Beatles albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's
>sounded very very good. Make that (very)^3. I can't get any music system
>in the USA to sound that good or even in tune. I was in Germany again in
>1975 and heard a song ("Indian Love Call" by Ray Stevens) from the radio
>in a Mercedes-Benz bus and the announcer said "ausgezeitnich" as if she
>were saying the word "delicious". I agreed and I bought the album when I
>got back to the States, but, it is no good on any system I've tried
>here. Everything you plug into or out of can change the equalization,
>but I think it can be made to sound good with a graphic equalizer.

No, the British and European pressings used standard RIAA, but on top
of that they used very different equalization and compression in mastering.
For the most part, the British pressings were much less midrange-heavy
than the American ones.

You will find that most of the European audio gear was, and still is,
voiced very differently than American gear. They don't have the obsession
with exaggerated lower midrange that most American consumer buyers seem
to have.

>There was no standard equalization curve for records in the USA until
>about 1956, so, try to guess what Bix Beiderbecke's cornet really
>sounded like in 1927. I can change the word "Borneo" to "Corneo" or
>"Porneo" in the lyrics to one of Bix's songs with an equalizer.

Okay, in the electric 78 era there were a bunch of different curves used,
and you can see some of them listed in the manual to the Millennia Media
phono preamp. For the most part if you know the label and the year and
the studio you can guess the curve. Some of the stuff has to be done by
ear.

For acoustics, it's entirely a case of doing it by ear, because there was
no emphasis of any sort, just a lot of mechanical resonances that summed
together into something weird and unpredictable.
>
>http://www.kspc.org/ "Forward Into The Past" from 2 PM to 5 PM Sundays
>California time plays a lot of good music from 1925-1945. It is very
>good if it is equalized correctly, but how can it be done?

Depends on the disc, but a lot of it is by ear, especially with the
electrical discs from the early part of that era.

>Then, months later, I wrote:
>
>I apologize for misleading anyone about US music systems.
>
>I realized that I have bought thousands of dollars of Japanese equipment
>since 1969 (there was nothing else in the stores), so, I remembered an
>old American name Harman Kardon and got an HK 3380 receiver and HKTS 14
>5.1 speakers and a DVD-31 player and spent about 18 hours trying
>different cables and wires and speaker positions. I discovered the
>"secret of the tetrahedron" for two channel stereo: The subwoofer on
>the floor in the middle, two satellite speakers for the left and two for
>the right channels raised on stands that are shoulder length high. The
>listening position is at the fourth vertex of a tetrahedron and I look
>straight ahead to the center of area of an equilateral triangle whose
>corners are the left and right channels and the subwoofer.
>
>The base notes are in tune and in sync and everything is just right in
>the following songs and maybe I'm on the right track to finding an
>equalization curve that will demonstrate how good the great musicians of
>the past really were.
>
>Rubber Soul track one, Revolver track one, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
>Club Band track eight, Yellow Submarine track four, Clockwork Orange
>soundtrack track three.
>
>I thought it would be a good idea to ask an expert. Should I buy one of
>those new turntables and vinyl records to listen to 1925-1945 music or
>get CDs and play them on the DVD 31 (audiophile-grade digital to analog
>converters!)? It's been more than 35 years since I have felt goose
>pimples from recorded music.

Well, if you're listening to pre-1945 stuff, you aren't listening to vinyl.
You can spend some time dragging up old 78s, and there is some reasonably
priced gear to deal with the varying emphasis, like the Re-Equalizer.
It can be fun. Or you can buy reissues on CD, some of which are well done
and some of which are horribly mutilated, but most of which are cheaper
than the original 78s these days.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:05:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:05:02 GMT, "Clifford J. Nelson"
<cjnelson9@verizon.net> wrote:

>The
>listening position is at the fourth vertex of a tetrahedron and I look
>straight ahead to the center of area of an equilateral triangle whose
>corners are the left and right channels and the subwoofer.

Make sure not to move a muscle as you enjoy your perfect musical
image.

Al
Related resources
March 19, 2005 9:12:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The primary recording equalization curve used in Europe prior to
standardization in the late '40's and early '50's was "FFRR": Full
Frequency Recording Range. Some audiophile preamps still contain this
curve. But no recordings made during the Beatles era used this
equalization curve.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:28:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bill <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote:
>The primary recording equalization curve used in Europe prior to
>standardization in the late '40's and early '50's was "FFRR": Full
>Frequency Recording Range. Some audiophile preamps still contain this
>curve. But no recordings made during the Beatles era used this
>equalization curve.

That's the Decca/London curve, and it was used by a few other folks
besides Decca/London but was by no means universal for LPs during the
transition era.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 1:59:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Good stuff Scott.
Thanks for the info.

Poly
March 19, 2005 9:47:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote:
> >The primary recording equalization curve used in Europe prior to
> >standardization in the late '40's and early '50's was "FFRR": Full
> >Frequency Recording Range. Some audiophile preamps still contain
this
> >curve. But no recordings made during the Beatles era used this
> >equalization curve.
>
> That's the Decca/London curve, and it was used by a few other folks
> besides Decca/London but was by no means universal for LPs during the
> transition era.
> --scott

That's why I said it was the "primary" recording curve that was
utilized in Europe. "Primary" means the same as "not universal". You
have a habit of appearing to take issue with others' posts, but when
your posts are examined carefully, it turns out that there is no
difference between your post and the prior ones.
March 19, 2005 10:28:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

No, the British and European pressings used standard RIAA, but on top
of that they used very different equalization and compression in
mastering.

This statement is completely contradictory. Either they used the RIAA
curve or they didn't. Are you joking?
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:53:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bill" <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1111286822.989315.71860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Bill <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote:
> > >The primary recording equalization curve used in Europe prior to
> > >standardization in the late '40's and early '50's was "FFRR": Full
> > >Frequency Recording Range. Some audiophile preamps still contain
> this
> > >curve. But no recordings made during the Beatles era used this
> > >equalization curve.
> >
> > That's the Decca/London curve, and it was used by a few other folks
> > besides Decca/London but was by no means universal for LPs during the
> > transition era.
> > --scott
>
> That's why I said it was the "primary" recording curve that was
> utilized in Europe. "Primary" means the same as "not universal". You
> have a habit of appearing to take issue with others' posts, but when
> your posts are examined carefully, it turns out that there is no
> difference between your post and the prior ones.

It wasn't the primary, if by "primary" one means the recording curve for the
majority of pre-RIAA European discs. I have an EQ chart here that lists the
FFRR curve as having a 250Hz turnover frequency and 5dB of rolloff at 10kHz.
Precisely zero labels (at least on this list) other than English Decca and
its American affiliate London used that curve. Among the labels that didn't
use it:

Cetra-Soria
European Columbia
Deutsche Gramophon
HMV
Odeon
Parlophone
Pathe
Polydor
Telefunken
Ultraphon

What did they use? All sorts of curves, with turnovers from 300-750 Hz and
rolloffs from 16dB up to none at all (no treble pre-emphasis).

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:57:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bill" <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1111289327.063133.120060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> No, the British and European pressings used standard RIAA, but on top
> of that they used very different equalization and compression in
> mastering.
>
> This statement is completely contradictory. Either they used the RIAA
> curve or they didn't. Are you joking?

No he isn't; Scott never jokes about serioous matters like this.

There's a distinction between the pre-emphasis curve applied to a disc,
which is intended to be compensated for in playback with complementary
equalization, and additional EQ applied during the mastering process with
the intent of making the record sound better, or at least different.
European and American companies all used RIAA pre-emphasis networks in their
disc-cutters, with the intent of having them played back on
RIAA-de-emphasized systems, but the additional stuff the cutting engineers
applied was likely to be very different in Europe and the USA. In addition,
typically American mastering engineers used more compression, although there
were exceptions.

PEace,
Paul
March 20, 2005 1:36:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

There's a distinction between the pre-emphasis curve applied to a disc,
which is intended to be compensated for in playback with complementary
equalization, and additional EQ applied during the mastering process..

Yes, I think we all understand this. What I object to is nit-picking
posts concerning equalization curves when the criticism has to do with
an entirely different subject (compression in the cutting process).
They two issues are different, but some of the posters insist on
lumping them together or separating them, merely in order to set up a
straw man and thereby score debating points. It's a no-win situation.
I stopped beating my wife some time ago.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 1:12:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1111289327.063133.120060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote:
>No, the British and European pressings used standard RIAA, but on top
>of that they used very different equalization and compression in
>mastering.
>
>This statement is completely contradictory. Either they used the RIAA
>curve or they didn't. Are you joking?

They used the RIAA curve, but then a whole lot of additional EQ was added
during mastering, in the same way that today CDs are cut with a whole lot
of additional EQ.

They are intended to be played back with the RIAA de-emphasis, ie. that
other EQ was intended for effect and not intended to be reversed on playback.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 2:13:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bill" <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1111343804.033929.35830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There's a distinction between the pre-emphasis curve applied to a disc,
> which is intended to be compensated for in playback with complementary
> equalization, and additional EQ applied during the mastering process..
>
> Yes, I think we all understand this. What I object to is nit-picking
> posts concerning equalization curves when the criticism has to do with
> an entirely different subject (compression in the cutting process).
> They two issues are different, but some of the posters insist on
> lumping them together or separating them, merely in order to set up a
> straw man and thereby score debating points. It's a no-win situation.
> I stopped beating my wife some time ago.

Lumping them together or separating them...hmmm, those seem like the two
logical choices. Either they're connected, or they're not, or they're sorta
connected.

Anyway, as we were saying, European and US engineers tend to do things
differently from one another, both in terms of EQ and compression. They both
still use the RIAA curve, with or without the IEC modification.

Now that you've stopped beating your wife, why have you started beating on
us?

Peace,
Paul
March 23, 2005 10:36:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Now that you've stopped beating your wife, why have you started beating
on
us?

I'm just pointing out that some of the most prolific posters on here
appear to be a lot more interested in scoring debating points by
setting up straw men than they are in addressing the pertinent issues.
A case of the truth hurting, perhaps?
March 23, 2005 2:20:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"it's fairly obvious that some people have a certain amount of ego
invested in being "mentors"."

I really agree with that statement by another poster. It's fairly
obvious to this relative newbie that some of the so-called "mentors"
are extremely insecure individuals, and therefore need to prove they
have more knowledge than anybody else. My point is simply that the
thread started out being about equalization, and when it turned out
that one of the so-called "mentors" didn't even know what the FFRR
recording curve was, he had to change the discussion to compression and
claim that the other poster didn't know what he was talking about.
It's a no-win situation with that guy, and it's rather transparent.
Please don't play "kill the messenger". If I won't tell you guys how
you come across, who will, and how long will you remain deluded? And
if the so-called "mentors" want to play this game, who needs them
anyway?
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:37:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> "it's fairly obvious that some people have a certain amount of ego
> invested in being "mentors"."
>
> I really agree with that statement by another poster. It's fairly
> obvious to this relative newbie that some of the so-called "mentors"
> are extremely insecure individuals, and therefore need to prove they
> have more knowledge than anybody else.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you don't like it here, leave
any time you wish.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 3:39:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d1fdmb$ftc$1@panix2.panix.com>,
klvdge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Clifford J. Nelson <cjnelson9@verizon.net> wrote:
> >I think Evrope vsed the CCIR eqvalization cvrve or the new name ITU or
> >something like that instead of the US standard RIAA cvrve for records.
>
> Before the RIAA cvrve was established there were a nvmber of different
> cvrved vsed on LPs. The one Decca/London vsed was fairly widely adopted
> in Evrope bvt there were a few others. Bvt by 1956, all of this silliness
> was long gone, the LP was well-established in Evrope, and the RIAA cvrve
> was vniversal. The era between the LP first arriving and the vniversal
> adoption of RIAA was a very short one.
>
> >I
> >ovght to explain myself: I won a fifty dollar jackpot on the nickel slot
> >machines at the EM clvb in Bamberg Germany in 1966 and pvt ten dollars
> >back in and hit again. I vsed the ninety dollars and some more to bvy a
> >Philips stereo record player with two small speakers. It had a wooden
> >case. The three Beatles albvms Rvbber Sovl, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's
> >sovnded very very good. Make that (very)^3. I can't get any mvsic system
> >in the USA to sovnd that good or even in tvne. I was in Germany again in
> >1975 and heard a song ("Indian Love Call" by Ray Stevens) from the radio
> >in a Mercedes-Benz bvs and the annovncer said "avsgezeitnich" as if she
> >were saying the word "deliciovs". I agreed and I bovght the albvm when I
> >got back to the States, bvt, it is no good on any system I've tried
> >here. Everything yov plvg into or ovt of can change the eqvalization,
> >bvt I think it can be made to sovnd good with a graphic eqvalizer.
>
> No, the British and Evropean pressings vsed standard RIAA, bvt on top
> of that they vsed very different eqvalization and compression in mastering.
> For the most part, the British pressings were mvch less midrange-heavy
> than the American ones.
>
> Yov will find that most of the Evropean avdio gear was, and still is,
> voiced very differently than American gear. They don't have the obsession
> with exaggerated lower midrange that most American consvmer bvyers seem
> to have.
>
> >There was no standard eqvalization cvrve for records in the USA vntil
> >abovt 1956, so, try to gvess what Bix Beiderbecke's cornet really
> >sovnded like in 1927. I can change the word "Borneo" to "Corneo" or
> >"Porneo" in the lyrics to one of Bix's songs with an eqvalizer.
>
> Okay, in the electric 78 era there were a bvnch of different cvrves vsed,
> and yov can see some of them listed in the manval to the Millennia Media
> phono preamp. For the most part if yov know the label and the year and
> the stvdio yov can gvess the cvrve. Some of the stvff has to be done by
> ear.
>
> For acovstics, it's entirely a case of doing it by ear, becavse there was
> no emphasis of any sort, jvst a lot of mechanical resonances that svmmed
> together into something weird and vnpredictable.
> >
> >http://www.kspc.org/ "Forward Into The Past" from 2 PM to 5 PM Svndays
> >California time plays a lot of good mvsic from 1925-1945. It is very
> >good if it is eqvalized correctly, bvt how can it be done?
>
> Depends on the disc, bvt a lot of it is by ear, especially with the
> electrical discs from the early part of that era.
>
> >Then, months later, I wrote:
> >
> >I apologize for misleading anyone abovt US mvsic systems.
> >
> >I realized that I have bovght thovsands of dollars of Japanese eqvipment
> >since 1969 (there was nothing else in the stores), so, I remembered an
> >old American name Harman Kardon and got an HK 3380 receiver and HKTS 14
> >5.1 speakers and a DVD-31 player and spent abovt 18 hovrs trying
> >different cables and wires and speaker positions. I discovered the
> >"secret of the tetrahedron" for two channel stereo: The svbwoofer on
> >the floor in the middle, two satellite speakers for the left and two for
> >the right channels raised on stands that are shovlder length high. The
> >listening position is at the fovrth vertex of a tetrahedron and I look
> >straight ahead to the center of area of an eqvilateral triangle whose
> >corners are the left and right channels and the svbwoofer.
> >
> >The base notes are in tvne and in sync and everything is jvst right in
> >the following songs and maybe I'm on the right track to finding an
> >eqvalization cvrve that will demonstrate how good the great mvsicians of
> >the past really were.
> >
> >Rvbber Sovl track one, Revolver track one, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
> >Clvb Band track eight, Yellow Svbmarine track fovr, Clockwork Orange
> >sovndtrack track three.
> >
> >I thovght it wovld be a good idea to ask an expert. Shovld I bvy one of
> >those new tvrntables and vinyl records to listen to 1925-1945 mvsic or
> >get CDs and play them on the DVD 31 (avdiophile-grade digital to analog
> >converters!)? It's been more than 35 years since I have felt goose
> >pimples from recorded mvsic.
>
> Well, if yov're listening to pre-1945 stvff, yov aren't listening to vinyl.
> Yov can spend some time dragging vp old 78s, and there is some reasonably
> priced gear to deal with the varying emphasis, like the Re-Eqvalizer.
> It can be fvn. Or yov can bvy reissves on CD, some of which are well done
> and some of which are horribly mvtilated, bvt most of which are cheaper
> than the original 78s these days.
> --scott

Thanks.

Barney Google himself probably covldn't tell yov why a Google search
abovt a year ago pointed to things that said CCIR and ETU (Evropean
Trade Union) and ITU (International Trade Union) eqvalization cvrves
were different from RIAA, and now the search says they are the same.

I posted the the following to the List for the discvssion of Bvckminster
Fvller's works.

Bvcky Fvller wrote that when something annoys yov it is becavse it is
somehow at the wrong freqvency. He went to Brazil few times and he was a
comprehensivist, so, this isn't too far off topic is it?


I listened to the albvm GETZ/GILBERTO over and over abovt forty years
ago on a Harman/Kardon stereo system my brother had becavse it sovnded
so good. I have ignored it for more than thirty five years becavse it
jvst didn't sovnd good anymore on different mvsic systems. Now I'm
starting to get paranoid abovt the Internet translations from Portvgvese
to English of the titles of the third and forth tracks which are "To
hvrt my repvtation" and "Untvned". Is it a message from Brazil recorded
March 18 & 19, 1963 in New York City, that has taken so long to reach me
here in California? Does it reveal a vast conspiracy or something? How
can I get a good translation from Portvgvese to English of every song
from that great albvm?

I got an email from the List for the discvssion of Bvckminster Fvller's
work.

Dear Clifford
if yov wish I can send yov my italian translation-version
of DESAFINADO (STONATO=OUT OF TUNE)

It is interesting that when Jobim sings the term desafinado
he pvts a desafinato accord also !!!
(Playng in fa, the accord is sol 7b5)

......Tv mi accvsi sempre di stonare vn po'
sfortvnatamente non ne ho colpa no....

biagio

The newsgrovp rec.mvsic.brazilian had this to say:

Try this web-site for some pretty good translations to english...

http://www.etc.ch/~jason/tabs.html

...althovgh some of the translated phrases I wovld disagree with. Bvt
most of it looks good!

Anyway, almost the entire Getz/Gilberto albvm is done for yov there.
And yov can dovble check with some portvgvese speakers here.

And someone also said "desafinado" means "off key".

What wovld yov do if I sang ovt of tvne?

Cliff Nelson

Dry yovr tears, there's more fvn for yovr ears,
"Forward Into The Past" 2 PM to 5 PM, Svndays,
California time, at: http://www.kspc.org/

Don't be a sqvare or a blockhead; see:
http://vsers.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:55:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bill" <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1111592167.676413.215650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Now that you've stopped beating your wife, why have you started beating
> on
> us?
>
> I'm just pointing out that some of the most prolific posters on here
> appear to be a lot more interested in scoring debating points by
> setting up straw men than they are in addressing the pertinent issues.
> A case of the truth hurting, perhaps?

When you post things that people disagree with on this list, they'll say so.
They were actually pretty nice to you, all things considered; check out the
beginnings of the "Hello, I'm new" thread for an example of what happens
when they're *not* nice.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:36:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bill" <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1111605611.375734.312110@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> "it's fairly obvious that some people have a certain amount of ego
> invested in being "mentors"."
>
> I really agree with that statement by another poster. It's fairly
> obvious to this relative newbie that some of the so-called "mentors"
> are extremely insecure individuals, and therefore need to prove they
> have more knowledge than anybody else. My point is simply that the
> thread started out being about equalization, and when it turned out
> that one of the so-called "mentors" didn't even know what the FFRR
> recording curve was, he had to change the discussion to compression and
> claim that the other poster didn't know what he was talking about.
> It's a no-win situation with that guy, and it's rather transparent.
> Please don't play "kill the messenger". If I won't tell you guys how
> you come across, who will, and how long will you remain deluded? And
> if the so-called "mentors" want to play this game, who needs them
> anyway?

I guess you've discounted the possibility that people like Scott Dorsey, Bob
Ohlsson, et al actually do know something?

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:53:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Thomas wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>"it's fairly obvious that some people have a certain amount of ego
>>invested in being "mentors"."
>>
>>I really agree with that statement by another poster. It's fairly
>>obvious to this relative newbie that some of the so-called "mentors"
>>are extremely insecure individuals, and therefore need to prove they
>>have more knowledge than anybody else.
>
>
>I don't know if they "need" to
but there sure is some real experience here
as well as a army of bedroom studio wankers all trying to shout them down
george
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:07:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bill" wrote ...
> "it's fairly obvious that some people have a certain amount of ego
> invested in being "mentors"."
>
> It's fairly obvious to this relative newbie that some of the so-called
> "mentors" are extremely insecure individuals, and therefore need
> to prove they have more knowledge than anybody else. ... who
> needs them anyway?

Probably. But don't mistake the efforts of real content
experts correcting misinformation as simple pissing
contests.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:28:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:20:11 -0500, Bill wrote
(in article <1111605611.375734.312110@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):

> "it's fairly obvious that some people have a certain amount of ego
> invested in being "mentors"."
>
> I really agree with that statement by another poster. It's fairly
> obvious to this relative newbie that some of the so-called "mentors"
> are extremely insecure individuals, and therefore need to prove they
> have more knowledge than anybody else. My point is simply that the
> thread started out being about equalization, and when it turned out
> that one of the so-called "mentors" didn't even know what the FFRR
> recording curve was, he had to change the discussion to compression and
> claim that the other poster didn't know what he was talking about.
> It's a no-win situation with that guy, and it's rather transparent.
> Please don't play "kill the messenger". If I won't tell you guys how
> you come across, who will, and how long will you remain deluded? And
> if the so-called "mentors" want to play this game, who needs them
> anyway?
>
Hi Bill,

Welcome.

It wasn't always like this. People used to be pretty civil and supportive.
The assemblage took on a new complexion during the campaign before the last
election.

The folks you refer to as mentors in this particular case aren't really
mentors;. Just because they've been here a while, in and of itself, doesn't
afford them any special status other than barnacle because their negative
comments far outweigh their positive ones.

It would be very nice to scrape the hull, but we'd lose some of our better
people. My advice is to limit your exposure to the toxicity of these
individuals by never taking them seriously, realizing that they are social
misfits, and making liberal use of kill files.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:03:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
>In article <1111289327.063133.120060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>Bill <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote:
>>No, the British and European pressings used standard RIAA, but on top
>>of that they used very different equalization and compression in
>>mastering.
>>
>>This statement is completely contradictory. Either they used the RIAA
>>curve or they didn't. Are you joking?
>
>They used the RIAA curve, but then a whole lot of additional EQ was added
>during mastering, in the same way that today CDs are cut with a whole lot
>of additional EQ.
>
>They are intended to be played back with the RIAA de-emphasis, ie. that
>other EQ was intended for effect and not intended to be reversed on playback.
>--scott

-- I've tried to collect from the Internet as many equalization curves
as I can. But also I remember that Scott once said that there are many
other curves, some being kept by the cutting engineers almost as a
secret of the trade. If I think closer, they're right, especially in
the position of the turnover point in the spectrum and the amount, if
any, of rolloff. I think the RIAA curve is merely an guideline ie. a
broad standard for pre- and de-emphasis. It's up to many factors where
exactly the a cutting engineer would choose to set that transitional
turnover point, where constant displacement turns into constant
velocity -- 500 Hz, 800 Hz regions or elsewhere -- as I understand
it.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:41:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This is just a reprise and some more. It's questions about the physics
and mathematics of audio.

In article <cjnelson9-864986.02063213112004@news.verizon.net>,
"Clifford J. Nelson" <cjnelson9@verizon.net> wrote:

> Stan Freberg presents: a bell note.---
>
> The voices on Volume Two of Stan Freberg Presents The United States of
> America are annoying, so, I said "Stan Freberg knows more about the
> sound quality of spoken words than anybody else; I have to find out how
> to get the voices on that CD to sound great". I did it: there are two
> knobs on each Pioneer DSS-7 mirror image speakers I use; turn the mid
> range knob to almost nothing and the high end knob a little more than
> that and then the voices are entertaining, and the four Bix Beiderbecke
> Story CDs are great too, now. That was a big surprise to me, I thought
> Stan Freberg had become an alcoholic and the Bix CDs were counterfeit or
> something. I can change the equalization and it changes the word
> "Borneo" to "Corneo" or "Porneo". There was no standard equalization
> curve for records in the USA until about 1956, so, everybody has to
> guess what Bix's cornet really sounded like. I still can't demonstrate
> how good 35 year old pop music was to my young nieces and nephews, and
> my parents couldn't 35 years ago either. The equalization can bring out
> of tune music in tune. Two hours after Ronald Reagan died the TV played
> his voice and it sounded annoying, out of tune. Two weeks after Frank
> Sinatra died the radio played the first song I've ever heard him sing
> out of tune on. www.bixbeiderbecke.com says it well, "Through his music,
> Bix is alive".
>
> The Pythagoreans said mathematics was:
>
> 1) arithmetic
> 2) geometry
> 3) music
> 4) astronomy
>
> Maybe 3 and 4 are out of order, I can't remember.
>
> I'm looking for some web sites about the mathematics of music and the
> equalization curves that will bring great musicians back to life so to
> speak. I don't know where to start looking.
>

An open letter to Randy Brian:

From: cjnelson9@verizon.net
Subject: Are your broadcasts desafinado?


Dear Randy,

Here are some things I have posted to some USENET newsgroups.

Equalization curves:

I think Europe used the CCIR equalization curve or the new name ITU or
something like that instead of the US standard RIAA curve for records. I
ought to explain myself: I won a fifty dollar jackpot on the nickel slot
machines at the EM club in Bamberg Germany in 1966 and put ten dollars
back in and hit again. I used the ninety dollars and some more to buy a
Philips stereo record player with two small speakers. It had a wooden
case. The three Beatles albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's
sounded very very good. Make that (very)^3. I can't get any music system
in the USA to sound that good or even in tune. I was in Germany again in
1975 and heard a song ("Indian Love Call" by Ray Stevens) from the radio
in a Mercedes-Benz bus and the announcer said "ausgezeitnich" as if she
were saying the word "delicious". I agreed and I bought the album when I
got back to the States, but, it is no good on any system I've tried
here. Everything you plug into or out of can change the equalization,
but I think it can be made to sound good with a graphic equalizer.

There was no standard equalization curve for records in the USA until
about 1956, so, try to guess what Bix Beiderbecke's cornet really
sounded like in 1927. I can change the word "Borneo" to "Corneo" or
"Porneo" in the lyrics to one of Bix's songs with an equalizer.

http://www.kspc.org/ "Forward Into The Past" from 2 PM to 5 PM Sundays
California time plays a lot of good music from 1925-1945. It is very
good if it is equalized correctly, but how can it be done?


Then, months later, I wrote:

I apologize for misleading anyone about US music systems.

I realized that I have bought thousands of dollars of Japanese equipment
since 1969 (there was nothing else in the stores), so, I remembered an
old American name Harman Kardon and got an HK 3380 receiver and HKTS 14
5.1 speakers and a DVD-31 player and spent about 18 hours trying
different cables and wires and speaker positions. I discovered the
"secret of the tetrahedron" for two channel stereo: The subwoofer on
the floor in the middle, two satellite speakers for the left and two for
the right channels raised on stands that are shoulder length high. The
listening position is at the fourth vertex of a tetrahedron and I look
straight ahead to the center of area of an equilateral triangle whose
corners are the left and right channels and the subwoofer.

The base notes are in tune and in sync and everything is just right in
the following songs and maybe I'm on the right track to finding an
equalization curve that will demonstrate how good the great musicians of
the past really were.

Rubber Soul track one, Revolver track one, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
Club Band track eight, Yellow Submarine track four, Clockwork Orange
soundtrack track three.

I thought it would be a good idea to ask an expert. Should I buy one of
those new turntables and vinyl records to listen to 1925-1945 music or
get CDs and play them on the DVD 31 (audiophile-grade digital to analog
converters!). It's been more than 35 years since I have felt goose
pimples from recorded music.

Bucky Fuller wrote that when something annoys you it is because it is
somehow at the wrong frequency. He went to Brazil few times and he was a
comprehensivist, so, this isn't too far off topic is it?


I listened to the album GETZ/GILBERTO over and over about forty years
ago on a Harman/Kardon stereo system my brother had because it sounded
so good. I have ignored it for more than thirty five years because it
just didn't sound good anymore on different music systems. Now I'm
starting to get paranoid about the Internet translations from Portuguese
to English of the titles of the third and forth tracks which are "To
hurt my reputation" and "Untuned". Is it a message from Brazil recorded
March 18 & 19, 1963 in New York City, that has taken so long to reach me
here in California? Does it reveal a vast conspiracy or something? How
can I get a good translation from Portuguese to English of every song
from that great album?

I got an email from the List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's
work.

Dear Clifford
if you wish I can send you my italian translation-version
of DESAFINADO (STONATO=OUT OF TUNE)

It is interesting that when Jobim sings the term desafinado
he puts a desafinato accord also !!!
(Playng in fa, the accord is sol 7b5)

......Tu mi accusi sempre di stonare un po'
sfortunatamente non ne ho colpa no....

biagio

The newsgroup rec.music.brazilian had this to say:

Try this web-site for some pretty good translations to english...

http://www.etc.ch/~jason/tabs.html

...although some of the translated phrases I would disagree with. But
most of it looks good!

Anyway, almost the entire Getz/Gilberto album is done for you there.
And
you can double check with some portuguese speakers here.

And someone also said "desafinado" means "off key".

Here is another translation, Slightly Out Of Tune (Desafinado).

http://kokomo.ca/pop_standards/slightly_out_of_tune_lyr...

Look for the headings "Equalization" and "Desafinado" in the newsgroups
sci.lang.translation and rec.music.brazilian and soc.culture.brazil and
rec.music.beatles and rec.audio.pro to see what people have to say.

What would you think if I sang out of tune?
Would you stand up and walk out on me?

Are your broadcasts of Forward Into the Past desafinado for some
listeners because they don't have the right equipment?

I'm not promoting any particular kind of music. I heard a bugle call on
an Air Force base about 1982 and I liked it (very)^3 much. It was just
one long note, no melody, no harmony, no lyrics, no tremolo, no vibrato.
I don't know how many overtones a bugle has or what they are, but, they
were just right. That's what I like. Any song, any instrument, but, in
tune.

Cliff Nelson

Dry your tears, there's more fun for your ears,
"Forward Into The Past" 2 PM to 5 PM, Sundays,
California time, at: http://www.kspc.org/

Don't be a square or a blockhead; see:
http://users.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 6:20:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cjnelson9-027BB4.21405924032005@news.verizon.net>,
"Clifford J. Nelson" <cjnelson9@verizon.net> wrote:

> This is just a reprise and some more. It's questions about the physics
> and mathematics of audio.
>
> In article <cjnelson9-864986.02063213112004@news.verizon.net>,
> "Clifford J. Nelson" <cjnelson9@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Stan Freberg presents: a bell note.---
> >
> > The voices on Volume Two of Stan Freberg Presents The United States of
> > America are annoying, so, I said "Stan Freberg knows more about the
> > sound quality of spoken words than anybody else; I have to find out how
> > to get the voices on that CD to sound great". I did it: there are two
> > knobs on each Pioneer DSS-7 mirror image speakers I use; turn the mid
> > range knob to almost nothing and the high end knob a little more than
> > that and then the voices are entertaining, and the four Bix Beiderbecke
> > Story CDs are great too, now. That was a big surprise to me, I thought
> > Stan Freberg had become an alcoholic and the Bix CDs were counterfeit or
> > something. I can change the equalization and it changes the word
> > "Borneo" to "Corneo" or "Porneo". There was no standard equalization
> > curve for records in the USA until about 1956, so, everybody has to
> > guess what Bix's cornet really sounded like. I still can't demonstrate
> > how good 35 year old pop music was to my young nieces and nephews, and
> > my parents couldn't 35 years ago either. The equalization can bring out
> > of tune music in tune. Two hours after Ronald Reagan died the TV played
> > his voice and it sounded annoying, out of tune. Two weeks after Frank
> > Sinatra died the radio played the first song I've ever heard him sing
> > out of tune on. www.bixbeiderbecke.com says it well, "Through his music,
> > Bix is alive".
> >
> > The Pythagoreans said mathematics was:
> >
> > 1) arithmetic
> > 2) geometry
> > 3) music
> > 4) astronomy
> >
> > Maybe 3 and 4 are out of order, I can't remember.
> >
> > I'm looking for some web sites about the mathematics of music and the
> > equalization curves that will bring great musicians back to life so to
> > speak. I don't know where to start looking.
> >
>
> An open letter to Randy Brian:
>
> From: cjnelson9@verizon.net
> Subject: Are your broadcasts desafinado?
>
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> Here are some things I have posted to some USENET newsgroups.
>
> Equalization curves:
>
> I think Europe used the CCIR equalization curve or the new name ITU or
> something like that instead of the US standard RIAA curve for records. I
> ought to explain myself: I won a fifty dollar jackpot on the nickel slot
> machines at the EM club in Bamberg Germany in 1966 and put ten dollars
> back in and hit again. I used the ninety dollars and some more to buy a
> Philips stereo record player with two small speakers. It had a wooden
> case. The three Beatles albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's
> sounded very very good. Make that (very)^3. I can't get any music system
> in the USA to sound that good or even in tune. I was in Germany again in
> 1975 and heard a song ("Indian Love Call" by Ray Stevens) from the radio
> in a Mercedes-Benz bus and the announcer said "ausgezeitnich" as if she
> were saying the word "delicious". I agreed and I bought the album when I
> got back to the States, but, it is no good on any system I've tried
> here. Everything you plug into or out of can change the equalization,
> but I think it can be made to sound good with a graphic equalizer.
>
> There was no standard equalization curve for records in the USA until
> about 1956, so, try to guess what Bix Beiderbecke's cornet really
> sounded like in 1927. I can change the word "Borneo" to "Corneo" or
> "Porneo" in the lyrics to one of Bix's songs with an equalizer.
>
> http://www.kspc.org/ "Forward Into The Past" from 2 PM to 5 PM Sundays
> California time plays a lot of good music from 1925-1945. It is very
> good if it is equalized correctly, but how can it be done?
>
>
> Then, months later, I wrote:
>
> I apologize for misleading anyone about US music systems.
>
> I realized that I have bought thousands of dollars of Japanese equipment
> since 1969 (there was nothing else in the stores), so, I remembered an
> old American name Harman Kardon and got an HK 3380 receiver and HKTS 14
> 5.1 speakers and a DVD-31 player and spent about 18 hours trying
> different cables and wires and speaker positions. I discovered the
> "secret of the tetrahedron" for two channel stereo: The subwoofer on
> the floor in the middle, two satellite speakers for the left and two for
> the right channels raised on stands that are shoulder length high. The
> listening position is at the fourth vertex of a tetrahedron and I look
> straight ahead to the center of area of an equilateral triangle whose
> corners are the left and right channels and the subwoofer.
>
> The base notes are in tune and in sync and everything is just right in
> the following songs and maybe I'm on the right track to finding an
> equalization curve that will demonstrate how good the great musicians of
> the past really were.
>
> Rubber Soul track one, Revolver track one, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts
> Club Band track eight, Yellow Submarine track four, Clockwork Orange
> soundtrack track three.
>
> I thought it would be a good idea to ask an expert. Should I buy one of
> those new turntables and vinyl records to listen to 1925-1945 music or
> get CDs and play them on the DVD 31 (audiophile-grade digital to analog
> converters!). It's been more than 35 years since I have felt goose
> pimples from recorded music.
>
> Bucky Fuller wrote that when something annoys you it is because it is
> somehow at the wrong frequency. He went to Brazil few times and he was a
> comprehensivist, so, this isn't too far off topic is it?
>
>
> I listened to the album GETZ/GILBERTO over and over about forty years
> ago on a Harman/Kardon stereo system my brother had because it sounded
> so good. I have ignored it for more than thirty five years because it
> just didn't sound good anymore on different music systems. Now I'm
> starting to get paranoid about the Internet translations from Portuguese
> to English of the titles of the third and forth tracks which are "To
> hurt my reputation" and "Untuned". Is it a message from Brazil recorded
> March 18 & 19, 1963 in New York City, that has taken so long to reach me
> here in California? Does it reveal a vast conspiracy or something? How
> can I get a good translation from Portuguese to English of every song
> from that great album?
>
> I got an email from the List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's
> work.
>
> Dear Clifford
> if you wish I can send you my italian translation-version
> of DESAFINADO (STONATO=OUT OF TUNE)
>
> It is interesting that when Jobim sings the term desafinado
> he puts a desafinato accord also !!!
> (Playng in fa, the accord is sol 7b5)
>
> ......Tu mi accusi sempre di stonare un po'
> sfortunatamente non ne ho colpa no....
>
> biagio
>
> The newsgroup rec.music.brazilian had this to say:
>
> Try this web-site for some pretty good translations to english...
>
> http://www.etc.ch/~jason/tabs.html
>
> ...although some of the translated phrases I would disagree with. But
> most of it looks good!
>
> Anyway, almost the entire Getz/Gilberto album is done for you there.
> And
> you can double check with some portuguese speakers here.
>
> And someone also said "desafinado" means "off key".
>
> Here is another translation, Slightly Out Of Tune (Desafinado).
>
> http://kokomo.ca/pop_standards/slightly_out_of_tune_lyr...
>
> Look for the headings "Equalization" and "Desafinado" in the newsgroups
> sci.lang.translation and rec.music.brazilian and soc.culture.brazil and
> rec.music.beatles and rec.audio.pro to see what people have to say.
>
> What would you think if I sang out of tune?
> Would you stand up and walk out on me?
>
> Are your broadcasts of Forward Into the Past desafinado for some
> listeners because they don't have the right equipment?
>
> I'm not promoting any particular kind of music. I heard a bugle call on
> an Air Force base about 1982 and I liked it (very)^3 much. It was just
> one long note, no melody, no harmony, no lyrics, no tremolo, no vibrato.
> I don't know how many overtones a bugle has or what they are, but, they
> were just right. That's what I like. Any song, any instrument, but, in
> tune.
>
> Cliff Nelson
>
> Dry your tears, there's more fun for your ears,
> "Forward Into The Past" 2 PM to 5 PM, Sundays,
> California time, at: http://www.kspc.org/
>
> Don't be a square or a blockhead; see:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/

I found out that if I put three inch thick foam pads under each of the
four small but heavy HKTS 14 satellite speakers, then many more music
CDs are in tune, especially the electric base notes. They play from 100
Hz to 20 kHz. The subwoofer plays from 25 Hz to 120 Hz. I had no idea
that there was so much resonation from what I put the speakers on. The
AVR 635 owner's manual describes the far-field and near-field
equalization procedures that use the calibrated microphone and the Texas
Instruments DSP chip (www.harmankardon.com). Does anybody know if the
AVR 635 can tune up speakers in general? I'd like to use my older
Pioneer DSS-7 speakers for front left and right front and the HKTS 14
5.1 together for 7.1 sound, if I ever get enough money to buy an AVR 635.

Cliff Nelson

Dry your tears, there's more fun for your ears,
"Forward Into The Past" 2 PM to 5 PM, Sundays,
California time, at: http://www.kspc.org/

Don't be a square or a blockhead; see:
http://users.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/
!