179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

more EQ

1 message · 1 participant · spans 1 day · search this subject
1994-12-16 23:04more EQ
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1994-12-16 23:04PaulT23@aol.comOK OK, lets clear this up a little. In the first place I misunderstood and thought when so
From:
To:
Date:
Fri, 16 Dec 1994 18:04:59 -0500
Subject:
more EQ
permalink · <941216180440_8044256@aol.com>
OK OK, lets clear this up a little. In the first place I misunderstood and thought when some of you said "system" - I thought you meant "recording system" not "playback system". If you've got a recording system, you should have good EQ's - and the possibility of making something sound great or sound like crap - whatever you little heart desires. If you're talking about your playback system, most people want to reproduce the music exactly how the artists intended it to sound. That is pretty impossible with most every home system. But, that attitude supports the idea that you should upgrade your system instead of adding an EQ. I think that the two reasons proposed for EQ's at home are valid 1. EQ'ing your room ONCE with a noise generator to make up for the sonic damage that your furniture & stuff creates 2. improving the sound of badly made recordings ( bootlegs, shit tapes, etc. ). But I also agree that the 5 or 7 band graphics found on crap gear generally do more damage than good. On some gear, the built in bass & treble knobs are good, on others, they suck. Yamaha receivers/amps often have a loudness knob that makes music have the same frequency balance when played softly as it would if played really loud - I think its pretty good if it is used like they suggest in the manual ( without using the EQ turn the music up with the volume knob until it sounds great, then turn it down using the loudness job until it is the appropriate volume ). Intelligent EQ use only is allowed on Intelligent Dance Mucrap. -Paul