Joe Bloggs
Sponsor: HiByMember of the Trade: EFO Technologies Co, YanYin TechnologyHis Porta Corda walked the Green Mile
Quote:
What is this, some kind of religion?
/points
[nelson]hahaha[/nelson]
Quote:
Yup, probably
In fact I only use that CD on one specific set of equipment only--the set I tailored it for. I mark down this set on my CD so that I don't mix them up. This sucks, yeah--every time I buy new phones I have to build up my collection of custom CDs again, unless most original CDs sound fine through it--but no worse than having to tolerate unbalanced music
And look, what's your problem with changing the signal? All you want is for the source music to reach your ears as accurately as possible, right?
The basic principle and rationale for 'messing with the signal' is this:
Let
S = Source
SG = Signal
a = difference between signal and source
O = Output
b = difference between output and signal
Now, if S = SG = O, then 'you hear it perfectly, flawless, with nothing but the character of the original recording to guide you'.
But we know that in real life while S ~ SG and can get quite close to S = SG, O != SG (never equal). You can try to make O as close to SG as possible, but you'd never quite make it. Driver and housing engineering and manufacturing processes have their limits. Besides, what about room acoustics
However, if we can measure [size=medium]b[/size], the difference between O and SG and formulate the difference mathematically, we can *deliberately* modify SG so that the difference between S and SG, [size=medium]a[/size] = [size=medium]-b[/size].
What we then have is
SG - S = -b, S = SG + b
O - SG = b, O = SG + b
----
S = O!!
Source = Output!
In the computer age, with powers of computing ever increasing, we can modify the signal in ever more subtle ways to compensate for the limits of the reproduction equipment. And Moore's Law means that more often than not the investment required to compute the changes required to make S = O by changing SG is much less than that required to try to make S = SG = O. But I suppose you'd be one to completely dismiss digital room compensation, among other things
Signing off:
Joe Bloggs,
The audio signal atheist
(oh, and of course I keep the original CDs with me and make new custom CDs from there, not the old custom CDs. I'd only apply EQ to the source once each time, of course.
)
See Bloggy the one thing that really proves to me that EQ is BS is the one thing you fail to recognize. You shouldn't EQ the signal you should EQ the equipment. The signal should be assumed to be perfect. Current EQ's always work on the signal, the signal is HOLY, you do not *** with the signal! PERIOD. |
What is this, some kind of religion?
/points
[nelson]hahaha[/nelson]
Quote:
If I took your EQ'ed disks and put them in my system there is a good chance they would sound REALLY bad. |
Yup, probably
And look, what's your problem with changing the signal? All you want is for the source music to reach your ears as accurately as possible, right?
The basic principle and rationale for 'messing with the signal' is this:
Let
S = Source
SG = Signal
a = difference between signal and source
O = Output
b = difference between output and signal
Now, if S = SG = O, then 'you hear it perfectly, flawless, with nothing but the character of the original recording to guide you'.
But we know that in real life while S ~ SG and can get quite close to S = SG, O != SG (never equal). You can try to make O as close to SG as possible, but you'd never quite make it. Driver and housing engineering and manufacturing processes have their limits. Besides, what about room acoustics
What we then have is
SG - S = -b, S = SG + b
O - SG = b, O = SG + b
----
S = O!!
Source = Output!
In the computer age, with powers of computing ever increasing, we can modify the signal in ever more subtle ways to compensate for the limits of the reproduction equipment. And Moore's Law means that more often than not the investment required to compute the changes required to make S = O by changing SG is much less than that required to try to make S = SG = O. But I suppose you'd be one to completely dismiss digital room compensation, among other things
Signing off:
Joe Bloggs,
The audio signal atheist
(oh, and of course I keep the original CDs with me and make new custom CDs from there, not the old custom CDs. I'd only apply EQ to the source once each time, of course.
Stay updated on HiBy at their facebook, website or email (icons below).
Stay updated on HiBy at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
|