B
Boray
New member
Blue Bear Sound,
>The problem is, you don't seem to understand the
>concepts involved that are leading you to these
>malformed theories.
Or YOU don't understand them completely, or you would agree that it would work to a point.
>Do you understand the concept of non-linearity
>in poor speaker design?
Yes, and that is why I used dynamic music as the test source rather than static white noice so that you will get an average value.
>Do you understand that ANY EQ added to a signal degrades
>the signal due to phase shifts - especially with the cheap
>EQ units you're describing??
Yes. It introduces some phase shifts. Bad speakers themselves probably does this too due to badly designed split filters etc.
>How about the negative effect of the room modes on
>frequency response - even with good speakers???
My last suggestion would eliminate this:
"Or why not borrow a couple of real monitors. Put them next to your speakers. Play different isolated frequencies as in my method, listen and compare and compensate the EQ for the speakers. "
>Does it occur to you that putting all these variables
>together in the crackpot theory you've come up with
>results in a big acoustic mess????
Yes, but for the last time: I'm not after creating great monitors with some old speakers. This is more a "speaker simulation" method. This is from the original thread: "Even if you like
the sound of your speakers and like to continue
to mix on them, having an EQ effect patch like this
is good to compare with, just like Roland's speaker
simulations."
>If you don't understand what's going on BEHIND what you
>hear with your own ears, your theory is meaningless..........
Yes, I agree: If you don't understand exactly how your digistive system of your body works, then eating is meaningless.
>Why post here at all??? You don't seem to have any sort
>of grasp of the principles of acoustics, and you refuse to
>learn or even try to understand what others who know
>more than you are trying to explain -- so what are you
>doing here???
Driving you mad it seems...
It wasn't me who started this time...
>I'd say stick to VS Planet -- I'm sure the "pros" at there
>can appreciate your "expertise" far more than we can...
I just popped in here and saw that this thread still was alive. I was surprised... But I know I'm not welcome. I wonder why... Really, I don't understand how you can be so upset by this. You actually think that you know better than most people and that the stupid public has to be protected from this. A kind of censorship to protect all the (in your opinion) stupid people that could get "harmful" ideas from this...? Well here is some news for you: People can think for themselves. I don't think anyone would come to the conclusion that it's better to mix on some old EQd stereo speakers than on new great monitors if you had the choise. If you read my last post again, you will see that I DON'T encourage people to use EQd speakers. So what is your problem?
/Anders
>The problem is, you don't seem to understand the
>concepts involved that are leading you to these
>malformed theories.
Or YOU don't understand them completely, or you would agree that it would work to a point.
>Do you understand the concept of non-linearity
>in poor speaker design?
Yes, and that is why I used dynamic music as the test source rather than static white noice so that you will get an average value.
>Do you understand that ANY EQ added to a signal degrades
>the signal due to phase shifts - especially with the cheap
>EQ units you're describing??
Yes. It introduces some phase shifts. Bad speakers themselves probably does this too due to badly designed split filters etc.
>How about the negative effect of the room modes on
>frequency response - even with good speakers???
My last suggestion would eliminate this:
"Or why not borrow a couple of real monitors. Put them next to your speakers. Play different isolated frequencies as in my method, listen and compare and compensate the EQ for the speakers. "
>Does it occur to you that putting all these variables
>together in the crackpot theory you've come up with
>results in a big acoustic mess????
Yes, but for the last time: I'm not after creating great monitors with some old speakers. This is more a "speaker simulation" method. This is from the original thread: "Even if you like
the sound of your speakers and like to continue
to mix on them, having an EQ effect patch like this
is good to compare with, just like Roland's speaker
simulations."
>If you don't understand what's going on BEHIND what you
>hear with your own ears, your theory is meaningless..........
Yes, I agree: If you don't understand exactly how your digistive system of your body works, then eating is meaningless.
>Why post here at all??? You don't seem to have any sort
>of grasp of the principles of acoustics, and you refuse to
>learn or even try to understand what others who know
>more than you are trying to explain -- so what are you
>doing here???
Driving you mad it seems...
It wasn't me who started this time...>I'd say stick to VS Planet -- I'm sure the "pros" at there
>can appreciate your "expertise" far more than we can...
I just popped in here and saw that this thread still was alive. I was surprised... But I know I'm not welcome. I wonder why...
Really, I don't understand how you can be so upset by this. You actually think that you know better than most people and that the stupid public has to be protected from this. A kind of censorship to protect all the (in your opinion) stupid people that could get "harmful" ideas from this...? Well here is some news for you: People can think for themselves. I don't think anyone would come to the conclusion that it's better to mix on some old EQd stereo speakers than on new great monitors if you had the choise. If you read my last post again, you will see that I DON'T encourage people to use EQd speakers. So what is your problem?/Anders
