equalizer question

[Audioholics]

EDIT::: WmAx, I will no longer reply to you within this thread

That's probabaly a good idea, Brian as I think your perception of things is much different than some of the rest of us.

I don't have time to read through this whole thread, but it is generally a good practice to stay on the discussion and not skip into critiquing a person's particular postings in an off-topic manner.

 

[MDS]

but it is generally a good practice to stay on the discussion and not skip into critiquing a person's particular postings in an off-topic manner.

Especially when you don't have any knowlege of the topic yourself and therefore have no basis for determining who is right. It's a debate between two people that know the topic well - stay out of it unless you have something to add.

 

[brian32672]

but it is generally a good practice to stay on the discussion and not skip into critiquing a person's particular postings in an off-topic manner.

Especially when you don't have any knowlege of the topic yourself and therefore have no basis for determining who is right. It's a debate between two people that know the topic well - stay out of it unless you have something to add.

Hmm, you mean like your above post.
I knew you would come in and add to this MDS.
All posts were deleted prior to you posting here.
So please do not say what I do and don't have knowledge of.
Granted they were off base, so me and Chris had mutually agreed to delete the posts.

 

[bpape]

Hey Buckle. I've got no problem with that part. It was the part where you said that EQ was only for one seat. I was just clarifying.

Bryan

 

[Buckle-meister]

Thank you.

Regards

 

[Ethan Winer]

MT,

> In that graph with 4 traps, I can barely see the changes in the low bands <

If you put the Front Center Empty and Front Center 4 Mondos graphs side by side you'll see some improvement as low as the peak around 35 Hz. The whole region centered around the marker at 56 Hz is made flatter, and the ringing there is clearly reduced by a large amount. Especially the ringing around 65 Hz and all higher frequencies. Reduced ringing and widened peak bandwidth are audibly at least as important as the raw response.

But you are correct that only four MondoTraps do not have a huge effect at the lowest frequencies. However, the fullness range for bass instruments is more around 80 to 120 Hz, and the clarity range is above that. My comment that "only" four makes a real improvement is from direct experience many times. Again, mostly because the audible affect of bass traps above 60 or 80 Hz are so much more important than at the lowest frequencies.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Chris,

> If you would address the statement properly ... Here is how I would have responded ... you apparently decided to debate without giving warning <

I think it makes the most sense to discuss the issues at hand rather than waste time discussing who said what, or how this or that argument should have been presented.

> I am specfically talking about correction of purely minimum phase device such as a transducer. <

I could have sworn we were talking about whether an EQ can reduce ringing in a room. I have much less interest in transducer dynamics, which is quite unrelated.

--Ethan

 

[MDS]

I knew you would come in and add to this MDS.
All posts were deleted prior to you posting here.
So please do not say what I do and don't have knowledge of.
Granted they were off base, so me and Chris had mutually agreed to delete the posts.

Thanks for the red chiclet, Brian. I really don't care.

I don't care if you mutually agreed to delete the posts and I didn't see that you had done so. You shouldn't have posted in the first place. Sending a PM to Ethan and then posting it for all to see is childish and reprehensible. Your only motive in doing so was an attempt to discredit WmAx with a baseless attack and the reason for that is because he dared question your advice on graphics cards. As I said in my response to your childish PM to me, you don't know as much as you think you do and the elitest attitude is really tiresome.

You are just a kid that has assembled a few computers and read benchmarking articles, yet you think your 'advice' is unsasailable. You don't know anything about the education or experience of those you try to discredit. If you were truly educated, you would know that there will always be others that know more than you about any particular topic. That goes for all of us. I am happy to be corrected on those occasions where I am wrong - you on the other hand lack the education and humility to do the same. As I said, try your stunts with the people I work with and you will quickly learn your place in the world.

So, just what are your qualifications? None that I can see. Don't send me any PMs. I can't have a dialog with an idiot that is a legend in his own mind.

 

[Tomorrow]

Thanks for the red chiclet, Brian. I really don't care.

I don't care if you mutually agreed to delete the posts and I didn't see that you had done so. You shouldn't have posted in the first place. Sending a PM to Ethan and then posting it for all to see is childish and reprehensible. Your only motive in doing so was an attempt to discredit WmAx with a baseless attack and the reason for that is because he dared question your advice on graphics cards. As I said in my response to your childish PM to me, you don't know as much as you think you do and the elitest attitude is really tiresome.

You are just a kid that has assembled a few computers and read benchmarking articles, yet you think your 'advice' is unsasailable. You don't know anything about the education or experience of those you try to discredit. If you were truly educated, you would know that there will always be others that know more than you about any particular topic. That goes for all of us. I am happy to be corrected on those occasions where I am wrong - you on the other hand lack the education and humility to do the same. As I said, try your stunts with the people I work with and you will quickly learn your place in the world.

So, just what are your qualifications? None that I can see. Don't send me any PMs. I can't have a dialog with an idiot that is a legend in his own mind.

I can relate to heated debates. I love them, as a matter of passing, as they describe much about the topic and the debaters. But this kind of personal attack and name-calling is all too common with a couple of people, here. I have no particular affiliation with or animosity toward either combatant, but MDS, you're going overboard with this post. I don't see where your calling someone an "idiot", "childish", or "elitist" is fruitful or desirable. It is inappropriate in this thread and on this forum, and is not appreciated.

We're trying to learn something here, and it's not about your animosities. Take it somewhere else.

 

[MDS]

Thanks for your two cents, rjbudz but if you've been around for awhile you would know that I do not attack people personally and I answer the same old newbie questions over and over because I like discussing this stuff.

If you were privy to the PMs he sent me or have been following along where he attacks people that are far more advanced than he, you would understand. What kind of a chump would send a PM to another member in an attempt to discredit another member against whom he has a personal grudge and then post it for all to see? He wanted everyone to see what he had done as if we would all think 'wow, you really did a good thing there'. I won't stoop to his level and post his PMs.

I have neither respect nor tolerance for such a person.

 

[loserwife]

Thanks for your two cents, rjbudz but if you've been around for awhile you would know that I do not attack people personally and I answer the same old newbie questions over and over because I like discussing this stuff.

If you were privy to the PMs he sent me or have been following along where he attacks people that are far more advanced than he, you would understand. What kind of a chump would send a PM to another member in an attempt to discredit another member against whom he has a personal grudge and then post it for all to see? He wanted everyone to see what he had done as if we would all think 'wow, you really did a good thing there'. I won't stoop to his level and post his PMs.

I have neither respect nor tolerance for such a person.

It seems to me that you have now entered into the attacks and stooped to that level. In your case, out in the open where others can see.

I personally would like to learn from Ethan Winer about accoustic treatments. As somebody who has been hooked on audio for almost 30 years, I have never really been satisfied with graphic equalizers. I admit it, I had an old ADC equalizer/spectrum analyzer back in the day. It looked cool but didn't really make the system sound better.

 

[brian32672]

All of your statements are clearly designed for one purpose, and that is to antagonize me as well to get me to retaliate. I have to say, I am a fool for even answering any of these. But some of this is clearly off base. When I had posted all of that – which I will get into. It was not for discredit, it was merely pointing out the rudeness of one individual.

Thanks for the red chiclet, Brian. I really don't care.

Hmm, I had gotten one just prior to this. Was it from you?
Don't answer that - it really does not matter

I don't care if you mutually agreed to delete the posts and I didn't see that you had done so. You shouldn't have posted in the first place. Sending a PM to Ethan and then posting it for all to see is childish and reprehensible.

Here you have your facts mixed up. I did not post one – NOT ONE – single PM from Ethan. And by you saying this – it is 100% a lie. As a matter of fact, anyone that I had spoke with personally (yes I talk on the phone to about a dozen or more people here – And have talked to Chris as well, to help him with some computer problems, I was nice enough to help, and gave advice that easily fixed the problem from my fairly extensive knowledge of different HDD manufactures) and PM to these people – I had always stated Chris is a very smart fellow.

Your only motive in doing so was an attempt to discredit WmAx with a baseless attack and the reason for that is because he dared question your advice on graphics cards.

I think I have already answered this.

As I said in my response to your childish PM to me, you don't know as much as you think you do and the elitest attitude is really tiresome.

I wish – Oh I wish you would post my PM. As long as it is not edited. I am basically stating what I am saying here. I just felt it was enough crap on this thread. That I could be man enough to keep this crud off the forum. Once again, I was merely pointing out the rudeness.

You are just a kid that has assembled a few computers and read benchmarking articles, yet you think your 'advice' is unsasailable. You don't know anything about the education or experience of those you try to discredit. If you were truly educated, you would know that there will always be others that know more than you about any particular topic. That goes for all of us.

Obviuosly like I said in my PM as well. You know not one thing about my education and this entire part is clearly to provoke me. If I really must get into this I will. But once again, I really should not be bothering with this entire attack at all. Clearly childish and arrogant on your part. But not including other things I have done. Computers alone I have been building (and have taken classes), since 14 I am now 34. But I won’t bother going on. Credentials are not necessary.

I am happy to be corrected on those occasions where I am wrong - you on the other hand lack the education and humility to do the same. As I said, try your stunts with the people I work with and you will quickly learn your place in the world.

Well here is another place your facts are only known to you. (Sarcasm to follow) I clearly have never learned humility. Once again – you know nothing of me.

So, just what are your qualifications? None that I can see. Don't send me any PMs. I can't have a dialog with an idiot that is a legend in his own mind.

Clearly no matter what I would tell you, would not matter. I will stick with the legend.

Thanks for your two cents, rjbudz but if you've been around for awhile you would know that I do not attack people personally and I answer the same old newbie questions over and over because I like discussing this stuff.

Has nothing to do with me. So no comment needed. BTW, thanks RJ. You have much more class than me It really was not worth bothering to answer this (insert whatever word you want here) person.

If you were privy to the PMs he sent me or have been following along where he attacks people that are far more advanced than he, you would understand. What kind of a chump would send a PM to another member in an attempt to discredit another member against whom he has a personal grudge and then post it for all to see?

This has been answered, but once again the facts are wrong. And once again I was merely pointing out the rudeness.

He wanted everyone to see what he had done as if we would all think 'wow, you really did a good thing there'.

This absolutely requires no comment. Man where do you get this stuff.
Don’t bother answering that as well.

I won't stoop to his level and post his PMs.

I don’t mind you posting the PM’s as long as they are not edited. So far could I trust you to do that, I doubt it. Anyhow, it looks to me that you have stooped pretty low already. And me as well for even bothering with this. I will say that if the mods do delete my response then I would think yours should be as well. Basically I will not play the bounce around game with you MDS, you clearly no nothing about me. And I have nothing to prove to you. So for all purposes, I am done with this thread. Reply all you want. Please make me look like a idiot, at the same time surely you will be doing the same.

I have neither respect nor tolerance for such a person.

Hmm, I actually do have respect for Chris. Like I said he is very smart and for his age he is extremely gifted (and yes, more than me by far). And usually you are as well.
I do not know you, and honestly could care less.

 

[MDS]

You are truly a piece of work.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Your FR graphs are pretty low resolution (I would recommend you add a high resolution sine sweep for additional aid/verification), but an appox. 35 Hz peak of substantial magnitude appears to exist in your graphs.

Clearly you are referring to the low-frequency plot here. How is it of low resolution? ETF must be receiving a continuous signal limited only by the response time of the RS meter no? I would have thought that the smooth curve represented a comprehensive degree of accuracy. What exactly would a high resoulution sine sweep reveal that is not evident at present?

Regards

 

[Ethan Winer]

Bucks,

> ETF must be receiving a continuous signal limited only by the response time of the RS meter no? <

ETF resolves to 0.7 Hz, so the plots you posted in your review are considered very high resolution. Especially compared to the 1/3 or 16 octave graphs most people post. Also, the "response time" of the RS meter is not a factor here. That refers to over how long a time (1/4 second, 1 second) the meter itself averages the readings. Without intentionally slowing it down, the meter would dance all over the place (if you used pink noise) making it impossible to read. But as you used it with ETF, the RS meter is simple acting as a microphone.

--Ethan

 

[Buckle-meister]

Thank you.

Regards

 

[WmAx]

Clearly you are referring to the low-frequency plot here. How is it of low resolution? ETF must be receiving a continuous signal limited only by the response time of the RS meter no? I would have thought that the smooth curve represented a comprehensive degree of accuracy. What exactly would a high resoulution sine sweep reveal that is not evident at present?

Regards

Each type of measurement has it's own purpose(s). You are correct that a somewhat smoothed response is useful(and must be used) for overall effect analysis, as a true unsmoothed response would be difficult to use for overall analysis. My recommendation of a high resolution sine wave sweeps is not required, but it does provide additional insight(and accuracy) into the behaviour of the low frequency characteristics over isolated(targeted) sections of the response. In hindsight, this type of analysis probably would not be useful to you for your specific purposes. Please realize I might have lost perspective; I may sometimes miss the practical points important to most people, thus confusing it with what I would normally do.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I think it makes the most sense to discuss the issues at hand rather than waste time discussing who said what, or how this or that argument should have been presented.

It was important to discuss how what was said in this case, because that appears to be the very reason for the discussion being extended to it's present length. I was trying to help.

-Chris

 

[Ethan Winer]

Chris,

> Each type of measurement has it's own purpose(s). <

I agree, and I consider the "crossover" point from bass to everything else at around 300 Hz. Below that I measure to as high a resolution as possible. Above that it's useful to switch to 1/3 octave averaging. Otherwise you're lost in a maze of comb filtering that makes the response seem much worse than it really is.

I'll also mention that the main reasons people should measure are 1) to realize they have a problem at low frequencies (*most people have no idea), and 2) to verify a before / after improvement from adding bass traps as Mr. Buckle did. The only other thing I can think of worth measuring is reverb time.

--Ethan

* See the Rives thread, where even those who understand the importance of room treatment acknowledge they have none.