How to turn your old stereo speakers into the best sounding monitors you ever heard!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boray
  • Start date Start date
Some Guy: The world is most definately flat

Columbus: I beg to disagree, the world, she is round.

Some Guy: Hogwash, I have looked to the horizon and to every direction, the world is indeed FLAT !

Columbus: What your are percieving is based on a negligable curve of the Earth's surface. The Earth is so large compared to us, that we could never hope to actually see such a gradual curvature, but I assure you the Earth is ROUND!

Some Guy: If the Earth is so round, how come I can drop a bag of marbles and they dont' go skittering down the sides of the planet, hmmm, I've got you now!

Columbus: The gravitational field generated by the Earth eminates straight down (by our perspective) pulling the marbles to the surface itself. There is no gravitational force "below" the globe to draw your marbles to it.

Some Guy: That's just a lot of words and mumbo jumbo, I still say the Earth is flat and that you are a great poopie head for not seeing the obvious for yourself. My eyes assure me that the Earth is indeed FLAT!

Columbus: Perhaps I can prove it to you in historical terms. You've seen pictures of the Earth from space, haven't you?

Some Guy: Of course I have, and the Earth looks like a big FLAT disk to me.

Columbus: Okay, then what about people that routinely fly around the world via airplane. How could that be possible if the Earth were truly flat as you assert?

Some Guy: Simple, the plane reaches the edge of the Earth and then it flips over to fly along the flat underside. ;)

Columbus::rolleyes:

Everyone reading this thread::eek:

Carl:D

Some Guy::confused:
 
I dont have the energy to read through all the posts here and maybe somebody already posted some of the reasons why this is not a good idea (to EQ you monitors) but I'll post anyhow with the possibility of it being said before.

Some years ago manufactuers were making speakers with a graphic EQ installed with in. They thought then that it would be a good idea to "straighten" out the mountains and dips of the response of the room/speaker.
The theory was that with a well set mic you can induce pink noise and anaylize it thus correcting the Eq on the way to the amp so to flaten the result. In theory it sounds like a good idea.....

The problems were - in reality we dont want to "please" a mic of any kind.....
The sound problems also occured due to different "reverb times" and in different freq's. Again these problems are a time issue and not a "graphical" issue. If you try and Eq the speakers you might pull the wool over the mics eyes but EQ deals with freq problems and not TIME problems. In other words you are trying to fix a time problem by using a solution that deals with freq content.
It doesnt work...Music isnt a static situation like a tone comming from a oscillator. Music changes all the time.
Even more so - the ears are more sensative to the sound comming directly from the speakers and less from the sound field reflected around you so if you dont use the EQ you can hear a good sound from a good speaker yet in a bad room....
BUT if you do EQ you will hear the same situation but this time with a "wrong" sound comming from the speaker itself.

The room is a vital part of the EQ and that is what you need to deal with. But EQ the speakers and you will deepen the problem between what you hear and what is REALLY going to tape.

Another problem is if you are missing some Freq's in the room - say high's..... and again becuase you have a room problem it doesnt mean that the freq actually doesnt exsist comming from the speaker and so......you massively EQ the speaker and you might turn your tweeter into hot shishkabab.....your amp might not be able to handle to much high boosting and the quality will drop ( I forgot the word for it in english but its what we call a cutting off) - all this becuase your room cant produce a balanced sound yet you might actualy have all you need comming from the original state of the speaker and amp.
In hope that you dont run every day to get your speakers fixed....
you also get new harmonies and distortions due to the increase of the effort you are puting your gear into....

You don't deal with cancer using advil......
 
Boray,

Let me handle this one for you.

Boray: "I'm a speaker equalizing shama. You guys are closed-minded. I'm like the Galileo of the home recording world. Like all great minds before me, I am persecuted by you foolish wankers who are enslaved to your so-called 'pros'.

You're not listening to me. If you were listening you would see the simple logic of my brilliant hypotheseeeeeees. I can't believe I actually take the time to try and enlighten you puds."

Regards,
Boray
 
ZekeMan,
Thanks, Zeke! Now I even don't have to write myself! Now if you just could say what I want to say instead, then I could get out of here now... ;)


Bdgr,
Bdgr, Let me just point out one of BlueBears un-logical statements... I made a mp3 with two different recodings through my speakers (+ the original). This test was designed to be listened to with headphones, else it would sound distant and boxy (as the acoustics/ambience of my and your room would "add up"). Using headphones on the other hand makes it more sound like you are in my studio listening to the speakers. The task was to listen to these three different parts and compare them using the same headphones all the time. BlueBears response to this was:

...listening on headphones is pointless because every person's ear response when listening to cans varies considerably (ie, what YOU hear thru cans is not the exactly same as what anyone else hears for the same signal - which is a big reason mixing thru headphones is a big problem...)

Headphone listening doesn't allow for a common frame of reference - monitors do.... which is why monitors are used for mixing and not cans............

This statement might be true if the goal was to evaluate a mix or to actually mix using headphones. But that wasn't it at all. I asked him to please explain why it would be pointless to use headphones when one person compares three different parts of a recording using the same headphones and the same set of ears all the time... But no answer...

I looked at BlueBears homepage. Very nice! If I bought all that stuff and started my own company, would that make me have all the right answers all the time? And would that give me the right to act like a smug to everyone that doesn't agree with me? Maybe I should do that just to get some respect around here! ;)


Shailat,
Shailat, I can imagine that much of what you said is correct, but I just want to say that my method doesn't use static noise as the test source, but dynamic sounds (EQ tweaked music). The mike is also directed towards the speakers, much like the human ear.


Everyone,
What everyone seems to miss is that my method is made for "Old stereo speakers" and not in first hand for pro monitors. Many of the things everyone have said, for example "Running the sound through an EQ will degrade the sound" would maybe be noticable on pro monitors, but not on some old stereo speakers. And besides that - pro monitors are pretty flat allready. You may have to change your room and monitor placement a bit, but the monitors themself are pretty flat.

But I guess you think that the kid who just bought himself a used VS880 for $400 simply MUST buy himself a pair of $1000 monitors + a reference amp before he even can start to record... Yes, what a great idea! I on the other hand think that it's more important for him to get a set of good mikes, a good mike-preamp, maybe a pod, a guitar and a synth before he even can think of pro monitors.

This BBS is about HOME recording? And this particular forum is about the VS? Eh? You don't even regard people using the VS as experts of what they have as their profession. There are many studios using VSs that probably are more successful than BlueBear's studio. And these people DO hang out at VSPlanet... These people didn't argue much with my method, because they knew it wasn't aimed at them. And they actually DO take a tip from me from time to time. Imagine that...

/Anders
 
I'm going to surprise and shock Boray (and no doubt many others) by saying that indeed, if you present identicle listening conditions (headphones) for three audio samples, you'll be able to pick a favorite sample without fear that this particular environment has effected your decision making variables. However, in the metagame of listening, the environment itself IS flawed. These audio samples will NOT sound the same through all headphones (even if they do sound the same in the same headphones). One listener using a pair of cheap sony walkman headphones may prefer choice number 2 based on nuances of the headphones themselvess. Perhaps if this same person had listened with AKG's he would change his preference to sample number 1. You see the point? Your playing surface for this comparisson is flawed due to the nature of headphones themselves. They vary greatly from one another. Monitors are designed NOT to vary. A more realistic test of your efforts would be through actual monitors. In this way all participants will get a truer uncolored sense of your offerings.

That is why your headphone suggestion isn't a good one if you choose to support your hypothesis of "EQ+Speaker=Monitor".

OK?

Carl
 
Krakit said:
One listener using a pair of cheap sony walkman headphones may prefer choice number 2 based on nuances of the headphones themselvess. Perhaps if this same person had listened with AKG's he would change his preference to sample number 1. You see the point? Your playing surface for this comparisson is flawed due to the nature of headphones themselves.
Click to expand...

Are you all brainwashed or what? The test is NOT to say what part that sounds best. It's to say which of part 2 or part 3 that resembles part 1 the most. Why is it so hard to understand this simple test? Am I so bad on explaining or is my test so brilliant that your closed minds dont understand it? Now... READ THIS SLOWLY AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF THE TEST:

Part 1 is the original (what is played in part 2 and 3). The absolutely best monitor solution would be if what came out of the speakers sounded exactly like part 1, that the sound you hear will be absolutely uncolored by your speakers and your room. This is however never going to happen even with the best monitors there is. My idea with this mp3 was simply to show that there actually IS an improvement with my method. That the old un-EQed speakers actually color the sound more than the EQed speakers does. I have recorded part 2 and 3 exactly in the same way from the same position with the same mike and a flat and clean mixer that I used for preamp. The mike (ATM31a) of course colors the sound a bit (boosting the highs some), but this is nothing compared to the difference between part 2 and 3. I just wanted to show you that the speakers EQed with my method really resembles the original more than the non-EQed speakers does. You don't need reference headphones to compare three different parts to eachother. You can do that with a set of $10 headphones... You can even tweak the EQ on your headphone amp to try how it sounds when you COMPARE the different parts. You can also try different headphones. You CAN (of course) listen to your monitors as well. You will no doubt hear even then that part 3 is a lot more colored than part 2. Apparently You, Bluebear and everyone else thought that the mp3 simply was to decide what part sounded best. But that would just be a matter of taste. That can never be decided. Migh you must think low of me thinking my test was that simple...

Did you get it this time?

/Anders
 
Boray said:


Bdgr,
Bdgr, Let me just point out one of BlueBears un-logical statements... I made a mp3 with two different recodings through my speakers (+ the original). This test was designed to be listened to with headphones, else it would sound distant and boxy (as the acoustics/ambience of my and your room would "add up"). Using headphones on the other hand makes it more sound like you are in my studio listening to the speakers. The task was to listen to these three different parts and compare them using the same headphones all the time. BlueBears response to this was:

...listening on headphones is pointless because every person's ear response when listening to cans varies considerably (ie, what YOU hear thru cans is not the exactly same as what anyone else hears for the same signal - which is a big reason mixing thru headphones is a big problem...)

Headphone listening doesn't allow for a common frame of reference - monitors do.... which is why monitors are used for mixing and not cans............

This statement might be true if the goal was to evaluate a mix or to actually mix using headphones. But that wasn't it at all. I asked him to please explain why it would be pointless to use headphones when one person compares three different parts of a recording using the same headphones and the same set of ears all the time... But no answer...
Click to expand...

Sigh....Like I said, you didnt comprehend what Blue Bear was trying to tell you. What he was saying is that your test is invalid....that even if you use headphones to evaluate the differances in the samples, it doesnt prove anything...You are starting from such a limited knowledge base that you are incapable of comprehending what you are being told.


I looked at BlueBears homepage. Very nice! If I bought all that stuff and started my own company, would that make me have all the right answers all the time? And would that give me the right to act like a smug to everyone that doesn't agree with me? Maybe I should do that just to get some respect around here! ;)
Click to expand...

No, that would just prove you have a lot of money. Now if you could buy a studio like that, and run it at a profit for a long time, and actually make a living off of it, and acomplish some of the things that we have heard Blue Bear do, then yes, you would get respect around here. We would still call you on your shit when starting talking about eq-ing old stereo speaks making them into the best sounding monitors you have ever heard, and we would specifically call you on your shit when you totally ignore all the well thought out, proven arguments thrown at you.

Once again

YOU DIDNT FUCKING INVENT THIS>>>IT HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH BEFORE>>>IT DIDNT WORK THEN AND IT DOESNT MAGICALLY START TO WORK NOW JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!!!!!

Everyone,
What everyone seems to miss is that my method is made for "Old stereo speakers" and not in first hand for pro monitors.
Click to expand...

No, we got that part...its in the title of the thread..
I doesnt matter, but we got that part


Many of the things everyone have said, for example "Running the sound through an EQ will degrade the sound" would maybe be noticable on pro monitors, but not on some old stereo speakers. And besides that - pro monitors are pretty flat allready. You may have to change your room and monitor placement a bit, but the monitors themself are pretty flat.
Click to expand...

The same problem are going to present themselves on your home stereo speaks...The laws of physics are not voided by the Fisher label on the front of the particle board

But I guess you think that the kid who just bought himself a used VS880 for $400 simply MUST buy himself a pair of $1000 monitors + a reference amp before he even can start to record... Yes, what a great idea! I on the other hand think that it's more important for him to get a set of good mikes, a good mike-preamp, maybe a pod, a guitar and a synth before he even can think of pro monitors.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that, but your method will just make things worse, not better....The hypothetical newbie would be better off using the speaks as is


This BBS is about HOME recording? And this particular forum is about the VS? Eh? You don't even regard people using the VS as experts of what they have as their profession. There are many studios using VSs that probably are more successful than BlueBear's studio.
Click to expand...

/Anders
NOW HERE WE NEED A CITE PLEASE!
Extrodinary claims demand extrodinary proof...If I say that the moon really is made of cheese, then it is up to me to provide a cite that proves it, a reliable cite, preferably from someone not in the tin foil helmet set....

SHOW ME ONE....Just one succesfull pro studio that runs off of a VS....Just one....I dare you....
There is nothing wrong with a VS, it is a great machine. I know some people who use them, and I know some when even make a few bucks on the side with them, but give me a break, you are NOT going to build a pro studio around one.




And these people DO hang out at VSPlanet... These people didn't argue much with my method, because they knew it wasn't aimed at them. And they actually DO take a tip from me from time to time. Imagine that...
Click to expand...


If they do no what they are talking about, and they dont argue with you, it is out of apathy.

THIS bbs has a reputation for providing reliable information on home recording. There are even books written on the subject that mention this site as a good source of info. Part of why it is such a good source of info is that we don't allow bullshit answers to go un-challenged.

YOU SEE, we have here a bunch of newbies, who are just starting out, a bunch of amatuers like myself who have been around the block a few times, and some serious proffesionals like Blues Bear and Harvy Allen Hyatt etc....who do this for a living, who just out of the kindess of their heart are willing to share info for free that none of us could afford to learn any other way...


WHAT WE DONT HAVE HERE...is people spewing bullshit unchallenged like Rush Lmbaugh on PCP.... If you wanna make extrodinary claims, fine, but you better be able to back it up...And you haven't....and whats more, out of ignorance, or trollishness, you are refusing to....
 
Your wasting your keystrokes, Bdgr......

This guy is never going to accept that his method is flawed from the start.

My "home stereo" speakers sound just fine with no EQ in the chain. I think Altec made some pretty decent mid-fi stuff in the early '70's. Of course they sound good because of careful placement and quality source material/amps, not because of tone controls (of which there are none in the signal path).

That's just so '80's!

:rolleyes:

Just FYI Boray, I had discovered this long before I ever knew of this forum and Blue Bear Sound.


:p
 
Bdgr said:
SHOW ME ONE....Just one succesfull pro studio that runs off of a VS....Just one....I dare you....
There is nothing wrong with a VS, it is a great machine. I know some people who use them, and I know some when even make a few bucks on the side with them, but give me a break, you are NOT going to build a pro studio around one.
Click to expand...
Bdgr,

Don't let your frustration with this little fellow prompt you to make statements like this. I'm starting to feel a little sorry for him. I think he might have some mental health issues, and I'm starting to feel bad for mocking him.

The VS machines are powerful little machines. There has been some pretty impressive work done on them. The VS-2480 has taken Roland to a whole new level.

I had a 2480, and was impressed with it's capabilities. There are people using them in pro studios, and doing quite well.

Check out Lee Kopp's studio. He records a lot of Jazz bands :

http://www.kopperhead.com

Click on the "master studio link", then try the "control room" link.

He was using two 1680's in this same studio before the 2480 was released. You can see them in one of the pictures.

The Roland's aren't the best sounding machines out there, but some users are getting very good recordings out of them, even getting grammy nominations.

I sold my VS-2480 and bought an Akai DPS24. Now, if you want to talk about sound quality, this thing leaves the 2480 behind. It is really phenomenal.

Taylor
 
Not trying to dis the VS, zekeman,,,,Just saying you wouldnt build a pro recording studio around it...

I clicked on the link you showed, yeah, he has a VS in there, but he also has a Full blown freaking synclavier system.........Holy crap, I havent seen one of those in ages.....
 
Bdgr said:
Not trying to dis the VS, zekeman,,,,Just saying you wouldnt build a pro recording studio around it...
Click to expand...
That's exactly what his studio is built around. He tracks to a VS-2480, before that, two 1680's.

Look at the pictures. It's a killer studio. He's making a living at it. He has a gold record on the wall. That's "pro" in anybody's book.
 
Keep arguing with me, I'm 11 posts away from being a force of nature. ;)
 
Bdgr said:

Sigh....Like I said, you didnt comprehend what Blue Bear was trying to tell you. What he was saying is that your test is invalid....that even if you use headphones to evaluate the differances in the samples, it doesnt prove anything...You are starting from such a limited knowledge base that you are incapable of comprehending what you are being told.
[/b][/B]
Click to expand...

You all ARE brainwashed or incapable of logical thinking. If this test has any flaws, then it would be how it was recorded and not how you listen to it.

Let me take this example. You work as a man that evaluates xerox machines. One problem is (in this very hypothetical example) that very small round circles tends to get the wrong aspect when xeroxed, they end up looking like ovals if you look at them with a magnifyer. Now you are to evaluate two different xerox machines to decide which of them that gets the best results. You have one paper (paper 1) that has a reference perfectly round circle on it. You take this and you make a copy of it on the first machine (paper 2) and then one copy on the second machine (paper 3). Now you are to look at the papers with your magnifying glass. Unfortionally, you only have a $1 worth magnifyer that too makes ovals of what you look at. How would you ever be able to tell wich of the two machines that most perfectly copied the circle? Oh no! I need a reference magnifyer or I can never tell if the copies are round! Or NOT! Just take the magnifyer and look at paper 1, compare it to paper 2. They look slightly different. Then look at paper 1 again with the magnifyer and then on paper 3 with the magnifyer and compare those two. Those two had a bigger differense compared to the difference between paper 1 and paper 2 - so... We can safely say that the machine that copied paper 2 did a better job on copying the small circle. It doesn't matter what magnifyer you use as you use the same magnifyer on all three papers.

Now - as you seem so slow on getting this - Paper 1 is part 1 of the test mp3, paper 2 is part 2 and paper 3 is part 3. Use a pair of headphones instead of a magnifyer.

If you thought the purpose of my mp3 just was to say which part sounded best, then why would there be three parts? Then only two had been enough.

>YOU DIDNT FUCKING INVENT THIS>>>IT HAS BEEN DONE TO
>DEATH BEFORE>>>IT DIDNT WORK THEN AND IT DOESNT
>MAGICALLY START TO WORK NOW JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY
>SO!!!!!

I have not seen the aproach to isolate frequencies, play music through them and adjust the corresponding frequence to compensate before. If you have, then please show me where.

>Nobody said that, but your method will just make things
>worse, not better....The hypothetical newbie would be better
>off using the speaks as is

My method? You just said it wasn't mine... Anyone with ears to listen with can listen to my mp3 and hear that in fact my EQd speakers are better at reproducing the sound correctly than the non-EQd speakers. This only proves one thing - that this worked for me. It doesn't prove that it works for everyone. However, if it workes for me, then it COULD work for someone else too. That's why I posted my original post.


>SHOW ME ONE....Just one succesfull pro studio that runs off
>of a VS....Just one....I dare you....
>There is nothing wrong with a VS, it is a great machine.
>I know some people who use them, and I know some
>when even make a few bucks on the side with them, but
>give me a break, you are NOT going to build a pro studio
>around one.

Hahaha! Zeke has already shown you one. Thanks Zeke... Nice pictures. Looks a lot more pro than Bluebears studio.

>YOU SEE, we have here a bunch of newbies, who are
>just starting out, a bunch of amatuers like myself who
>have been around the block a few times, and some
>serious proffesionals like Blues Bear and Harvy Allen
>Hyatt etc....who do this for a living, who just out of the
>kindess of their heart are willing to share info for free that
>none of us could afford to learn any other way...

Really? Just kidding. VSPlanet could be described in exactly the same words if you exchanged the names...


>WHAT WE DONT HAVE HERE...is people spewing bullshit
>unchallenged like Rush Lmbaugh on PCP.... If you wanna
>make extrodinary claims, fine, but you better be able to back
>it up...And you haven't....and whats more, out of ignorance,
>or trollishness, you are refusing to....

What you DO have here are people incapable of logical thinking. Pure stupidness combined with political corectness and mass brainwash seems to have an extraordinarily high concentration on this BBS. If I not had been that a strong person, I had run to your friends at the music store to buy some monitors after the first two pages of this thread.

If you read some of my threads at VSPlanet,
http://www.vsplanet.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=011504
...you can see that it IS possible to change my mind by
presenting valid arguments or proof. I have presented
proof to you, that my method indeed improves the performance
of my speakers. I don't think I can do anything more. You
don't even understand how to listen to my mp3 it seems.

Not one person has DARED to admit that part 2 actually sounds more like part 1 than what part 3 does. Most of you have probably not even listened to it - because you already "know" that it can't sound any better. Pathetic!

Always have an open but critical mind, or you will always follow the masses.

/Anders
 
Jumping in one final time because I can't believe your stupidity.......

Boray said:
Not one person has DARED to admit that part 2 actually sounds more like part 1 than what part 3 does. Most of you have probably not even listened to it - because you already "know" that it can't sound any better. Pathetic!
Click to expand...
You're so fuckin' thick it's unbelievable.........

I've already said, twice now - in my professional opinion --
NEITHER PART 2 OR PART 3 SOUNDED EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO PART 1... SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT???

There -- got that now, moron??? I fuckin' bolded/capitalized it so you wouldn't miss it.........


The truth is -- those recordings suck...... they suck so much that it doesn't matter whether you think 1,2, or 3 sound better because they ALL sound like total shit.......... why you think it matters whether one pile of dogshit looks/smells like another is beyond me -- why you want to fight about it just points out how clueless you really are......


Now move along with your wannabe-engineer bullshit crap........ you're coming awfully close to winning the Jarl Sigurd award for utter idiocy............. actually, you may have already won it.......

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Re: Jumping in one final time because I can't believe your stupidity.......

Blue Bear Sound said:
You're so fuckin' thick it's unbelievable.........

I've already said, twice now - in my professional opinion --
NEITHER PART 2 OR PART 3 SOUNDED EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO PART 1... SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT???

There -- got that now, moron??? I fuckin' bolded/capitalized it so you wouldn't miss it.........


The truth is -- those recordings suck...... they suck so much that it doesn't matter whether you think 1,2, or 3 sound better because they ALL sound like total shit.......... why you think it matters whether one pile of dogshit looks/smells like another is beyond me -- why you want to fight about it just points out how clueless you really are......


Now move along with your wannabe-engineer bullshit crap........ you're coming awfully close to winning the Jarl Sigurd award for utter idiocy............. actually, you may have already won it.......

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Seems like my last post really freaked you out.

>I've already said, twice now - in my professional opinion --
>NEITHER PART 2 OR PART 3 SOUNDED EVEN REMOTELY
>CLOSE TO PART 1... SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT???
>
>There -- got that now, moron??? I fuckin' bolded/
>capitalized it so you wouldn't miss it.........

I saw it the last time and you didn't answer the question this time either. You didn't answer my question about your non logical statement about the headphones either.

>The truth is -- those recordings suck...... they suck so much
>that it doesn't matter whether you think 1,2, or 3 sound
>better because they ALL sound like total shit..........

If you can't hear a difference, then I don't think you are fit
to be a studio engineer at all. The difference is so apparent
that a half deaf 90-year-old could point out part 2 to be more
similar to part 1 than part 3 to part 1. Don't you think monitors
should be able to reproduce total shit correctly if total shit was
what was played through them? When you play part 1 (the
test source) through your own monitors and percieve it as
total shit, does that make your monitors crap? Again your
logic fails you.

>why you think it matters whether one pile of dogshit looks/
>smells like another is beyond me

Yes, it seems to be beyond you. Read my example with the xerox machines again. Maybe that's more to your level of understanding. Read it slowly and carefully this time and then maybe... just maybe you will understand my point.

>-- why you want to fight
>about it just points out how clueless you really are......

I'm just trying to explain the point of my mp3 (that you all
seem to have such a problem understanding) as well as
replying to the posts that are directed to me. Not replying
when someone talks to you is kind of rude.

/Anders
 
If it sounds like shit, smells, feels and acts like shit, there's a really good chance it is.......... about the same as your "logic"..............

'nuf said.........!
 
Boray said:


bullshit about photocopiers snipped
Click to expand...


WE UNDERSTAND THAT PART GOAT FELCHER.....it just doesnt matter.

You dont even get the purpose of using good monitors...WE ARE NOT talking about trying to make A sound exactly like B, we are trying to create a mix so that the finished product will sound right on any bodys playback. For the love of God get a fucking clue...
If you thought the purpose of my mp3 just was to say which part sounded best, then why would there be three parts? Then only two had been enough.
Click to expand...
We didnt think that was the purpose of your test....The purpose of your test, as you stated it, was to say wich sample sounded more like the first one. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO TELL YOU IS THAT IT DOESNT MATTER....
>YOU DIDNT FUCKING INVENT THIS>>>IT HAS BEEN DONE TO
>DEATH BEFORE>>>IT DIDNT WORK THEN AND IT DOESNT
>MAGICALLY START TO WORK NOW JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY
>SO!!!!!

I have not seen the aproach to isolate frequencies, play music through them and adjust the corresponding frequence to compensate before. If you have, then please show me where.
Click to expand...
You might go back and re-read the thread...
>Nobody said that, but your method will just make things
>worse, not better....The hypothetical newbie would be better
>off using the speaks as is

My method? You just said it wasn't mine...
Click to expand...
Ok, you got me.... I thought it would be shorter to post Your method, than to post "THAT DUMB ASS SNAKE OIL IDEA that you have been trying to push off despite being told a million ways to sunday why its a bad idea and other people have done before"
but next time I will know that I need to spell it out for you in small easy to understand words...Would it help if I wrote it in crayon?
Anyone with ears to listen with can listen to my mp3 and hear that in fact my EQd speakers are better at reproducing the sound correctly than the non-EQd speakers. This only proves one thing - that this worked for me.
Click to expand...
No, it only proves that you still dont have a clue about what the purpose of monitors is.

>SHOW ME ONE....Just one succesfull pro studio that runs off
>of a VS....Just one....I dare you....
>There is nothing wrong with a VS, it is a great machine.
>I know some people who use them, and I know some
>when even make a few bucks on the side with them, but
>give me a break, you are NOT going to build a pro studio
>around one.

Hahaha! Zeke has already shown you one. Thanks Zeke... Nice pictures. Looks a lot more pro than Bluebears studio.
Click to expand...

NONONONO....Zeke showed a studio that happenes to have a vs that they use for some things, not a studio ENTIRELY FREAKING BASED OFF OF A VS!......Take a look at the pictures again, see if thats the only piece of gear that they have there..
>YOU SEE, we have here a bunch of newbies, who are
>just starting out, a bunch of amatuers like myself who
>have been around the block a few times, and some
>serious proffesionals like Blues Bear and Harvy Allen
>Hyatt etc....who do this for a living, who just out of the
>kindess of their heart are willing to share info for free that
>none of us could afford to learn any other way...

Really? Just kidding. VSPlanet could be described in exactly the same words if you exchanged the names...
Click to expand...
obviously not, if they let you get away with this crap over there.
>WHAT WE DONT HAVE HERE...is people spewing bullshit
>unchallenged like Rush Lmbaugh on PCP.... If you wanna
>make extrodinary claims, fine, but you better be able to back
>it up...And you haven't....and whats more, out of ignorance,
>or trollishness, you are refusing to....

What you DO have here are people incapable of logical thinking. Pure stupidness combined with political corectness and mass brainwash seems to have an extraordinarily high concentration on this BBS. If I not had been that a strong person, I had run to your friends at the music store to buy some monitors after the first two pages of this thread.
Yeah thats it, a whole bunch of people who obviously know a hell of a lot more about what they are talking about, and can provide good sound scientific cites to back up what they say disagree with you, so obviously they must be brain washed....Dumbass
Click to expand...

If you read some of my threads at VSPlanet,
http://www.vsplanet.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=011504
...you can see that it IS possible to change my mind by
presenting valid arguments or proof. I have presented
proof to you, that my method indeed improves the performance
of my speakers. I don't think I can do anything more. You
don't even understand how to listen to my mp3 it seems.
Click to expand...
No you have provided nothing, we understand what you are saying, you are just to thick headed and ignorant to understand why your proof is flawed. Again, I understand what you are trying to do with the MP3s, IT JUST DOESNT PROVE ANYTHING....
Not one person has DARED to admit that part 2 actually sounds more like part 1 than what part 3 does. Most of you have probably not even listened to it - because you already "know" that it can't sound any better. Pathetic!
Click to expand...
No, we just dont care if they sound the same because that is not the point
Always have an open but critical mind, or you will always follow the masses.

/Anders
Click to expand...
I do, thats why I dont follow the masses, or the individual goat felching morons....
 
Boray said:
You all ARE brainwashed or incapable of logical thinking...

...mass brainwash seems to have an extraordinarily high concentration on this BBS.
Click to expand...
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Peace, Serenity, Love, Happiness, come and join us young Boray. Leave behind your superior audiophile innovations and join the cult of bad recordings... ...Uhhhhhhhhhhhhm, Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhm, Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhm


Boray said:
>SHOW ME ONE....Just one succesfull pro studio that runs off
>of a VS....Just one....I dare you....
>There is nothing wrong with a VS, it is a great machine.
>I know some people who use them, and I know some
>when even make a few bucks on the side with them, but
>give me a break, you are NOT going to build a pro studio
>around one.

Hahaha! Zeke has already shown you one. Thanks Zeke... Nice pictures. Looks a lot more pro than Bluebears studio.
Click to expand...
Let me explain something to you, young whippersnapper. I disagreed with what bdgr said. I knew it to be INACCURATE. I try to be straightforward about these kind of things. Plenty of people have been that way with me. I've made a lot of INACCURATE statements in my life, and I've made a lot of INACCURATE statements about recording while learning the craft, and a lot of very straightforward people have straightened me out on those statements.

I've always tried to react well to that, because to do otherwise, would move me from the catagory of ignorant, into the catagory of stupid. Do you see where this is going?

I've tried to give you some guidance on this aspect of your personality before. Learn to take correction. You will be greatly benefitted throughout your life. You will avoid a lot of embarrassment, and a lot of hard knocks. If you learn to take correction with the right attitude, you won't have to be spanked so hard, like you have been here. And we won't have to listen to your squalling at the top of your lungs. It's a win/win for everybody.
Boray said:
Always have an open but critical mind, or you will always follow the masses.
Click to expand...
Did I ever tell you you're my Heeeeeero...

...And everything I would like to be.

...I can fly higher than an Eagle

...For you are the wind beneath my wings

LOL!!! Hey guys, Junior here is suggesting that WE have an open mind.

Har Dee Har Har
 
Bdgr said:
NONONONO....Zeke showed a studio that happenes to have a vs that they use for some things, not a studio ENTIRELY FREAKING BASED OFF OF A VS!......Take a look at the pictures again, see if thats the only piece of gear that they have there..
Click to expand...
Wrong again. This studio tracks exclusively to the Roland recorders. They have a 24 track linked up to two 16 tracks for a total of 56 tracks. He has an established Jazz clientele that comes to him for the sound he gets. And, he's been doing it for a lot of years. He's an old school guy. The studio used to be analog. When he went hard disk, he went to the Roland machines and hasn't looked back.

The VS machines are at the centerpiece of his recording set-up. If you are saying his studio isn't "BASED OFF OF A VS" because he is using external gear in the form of pres, efx, and dynamics processors, I think your argument is weak. If that was the case, almost any pro studio would not be able to say it was "BASED" on any recording system.

Taylor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top