[groovyd]

Based on what I have read here in this thread, seems to me you are cherry picking using generalizations from what you can find to support preconceived notions rather than really offering any useful argument. That ain't the sound science way.

I offered the useful argument that 1) equalizers distort phase and that 2) hearing is very sensitive to phase distortions and that 3) I can hear it. These are simple facts, not fiction.  It is just that you have no interest in recognizing this instead preferring your preconceived notions.  Prove any 2 of those 3 things wrong first before feeling smug in your 'science way'.

 

[cel4145]

I offered the useful argument that 1) equalizers distort phase and that 2) hearing is very sensitive to phase distortions and that 3) I can hear it. These are simple facts, not fiction.  It is just that you have no interest in recognizing this instead preferring your preconceived notions.  Prove any 2 of those 3 things wrong first before feeling smug in your 'science way'.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claims, not the other way around.

 

[jcx]

some equalizers distort phase - its helpful to understand the linear systems terms well and use them unambiguously
 
"minimum phase" linear systems have a fixed relation between frequency response slope and phase
 
use a minimum phase EQ with a system that has minimum phase frequency response issues and EQing to correct frequency to flat corrects phase too
 
 
IIR digital filters can closely emulate analog filters, be close to minimum phase, possibly adding only a few digital sample delay
 
 
commonly encountered "non-minimum phase" systems in audio are multidriver transducers with summed all pass responses, some from XO characteristics, some from geometrically differing path delays
 
 
FIR digital filters can manipulate phase and frequency response more freely - up to the latency of the filter, but the most popular default FIR filter design is a symmetrical filter that has constant group delay, "linear phase", equal to 1/2 the FIR filter length
 
 
people do have some phase resolving ability below a few kHz - easiest to demonstrate with headphones
 
difficult enough with speakers in rooms to require training, for many pros to simply ignore in production

 

[Peti]

   
I agree with the original premise here ... in regards to the purely electronic devices in the system. But the largest distortions from pure fidelity are introduced by the electro-mechanical transducers that convert electric signals to acoustic signals, and then the acoustical properties of the environment affecting the transmission of the acoustic signal from the transducers to your ears. 
 
Since we know that those are distortions from pure fidelity, then as fans of "highest fidelity" we MUST be in favor of any mechanisms or processes that, in the absence of untoward side effects, would minimize any post-electronics distortions from original fidelity. 
 
And it is necessarily an EMPIRICAL (/perceptual) question, not a theoretical one, as to whether EQ-ing or any other forms of post-electronics corrections provides a net benefit to "fidelity to original recording, delivered at the ear." 
 
Your (or anyone else's) personal experience and/or listening sensitivities (and gear) may be such that your verdict is today's EQ-gear introduces more audible problems than they cure. But you/we cannot generalize that's going to be true for all equipment, all tunings, all environments, and all listeners ... now and in the future. 
 
Bottom-line: categorically rejecting EQ is illogical, and works against your stated interest in highest-possible fidelity.

Very interesting thoughts, thank you for sharing! I actually approached this issue from a more simple point of view: The cd of that album in my original post was my sole source to listen to until I got ahold of the vinyl version, which sounded more natural to me. If you have downloaded the samples you could hear the difference, too, I'm sure. I understand that the vinyl had gone through a mastering as well but I can't, for the sake of my life, understand why they applied all that EQ to the cd master.
 
And I wouldn't call it an audible problem per se, it's just sounded less natural than the lp rip. Even though I wasn't there, but the latter I think sounds closer to the original sound the engineers heard during recording, methinks.

 

[castleofargh]

I've removed the last few posts, sorry, I really don't like doing so, but pig headed reasoning and personal attacks don't bring much to the table.
 
the problem @groovyd is that you keep talking as if there was only one way, disregard all the possible options, how plenty of variables totally affect the values and behavior of the phase shift, and how the human ear reacts differently to all of the above. including the most obvious matter of threshold that you decide to forget just to make an overly simplistic statement. if a claim has plenty of exceptions, then it's a false claim. it doesn't matter that it's true under a few given circumstances if you don't explain what those are and instead keep making general hand waving claims.
 
I'll take this one:

I offered the useful argument that 1) equalizers distort phase and that 2) hearing is very sensitive to phase distortions and that 3) I can hear it. These are simple facts, not fiction.  It is just that you have no interest in recognizing this instead preferring your preconceived notions.  Prove any 2 of those 3 things wrong first before feeling smug in your 'science way'.

1) is true, there are plenty of ways that phase will be affected and it would be nice to explain it, but overall, that is true.
 
2) is also true,  but more like when I say people can easily die from drinking water, kind of truth. they the can drink 15 liters per day and ruin some organs, they could fall on the glass and cut themselves. they could drink contaminated water and get poisoned of sick. so it's "easy" to die from drinking water. you can say it, but don't pretend to be surprised when people show up with counter examples(including the paper mentioned above) where humans have in fact a hard time noticing certain phase shifts unless they are past a given threshold.
3) is an empty claim not an argument in favor of anything. I have no doubt that you can manufacture a phase shift you can ear, even I can do that, or there is a nice example in one of the proQ tutos on utube( those vids are great stuff to understand the basic of EQ IMO). but that's different from proving that it's easy to hear the phase shift from proper use of EQ in music(from all kinds of EQ).
 
add conditions to your statements, or stop making them, those are the 2 ways for you to really tell the truth.

 

[groovyd]

  I've removed the last few posts, sorry, I really don't like doing so, but pig headed reasoning and personal attacks don't bring much to the table.
 
the problem @groovyd is that you keep talking as if there was only one way, disregard all the possible options, how plenty of variables totally affect the values and behavior of the phase shift, and how the human ear reacts differently to all of the above. including the most obvious matter of threshold that you decide to forget just to make an overly simplistic statement. if a claim has plenty of exceptions, then it's a false claim. it doesn't matter that it's true under a few given circumstances if you don't explain what those are and instead keep making general hand waving claims.
 
I'll take this one:

1) is true, there are plenty of ways that phase will be affected and it would be nice to explain it, but overall, that is true.
 
2) is also true,  but more like when I say people can easily die from drinking water, kind of truth. they the can drink 15 liters per day and ruin some organs, they could fall on the glass and cut themselves. they could drink contaminated water and get poisoned of sick. so it's "easy" to die from drinking water. you can say it, but don't pretend to be surprised when people show up with counter examples(including the paper mentioned above) where humans have in fact a hard time noticing certain phase shifts unless they are past a given threshold.
3) is an empty claim not an argument in favor of anything. I have no doubt that you can manufacture a phase shift you can ear, even I can do that, or there is a nice example in one of the proQ tutos on utube( those vids are great stuff to understand the basic of EQ IMO). but that's different from proving that it's easy to hear the phase shift from proper use of EQ in music(from all kinds of EQ).
 
add conditions to your statements, or stop making them, those are the 2 ways for you to really tell the truth.

how appropriate, removing posts that don't support your views... i've already said I won't be arguing this further so i am not sure why you think you have to tell me to do the same.

 

[Roly1650]

how appropriate, removing posts that don't support your views... i've already said I won't be arguing this further so i am not sure why you think you have to tell me to do the same.

As far as I can tell, he removed a couple of posts by someone who agreed with him and a couple of yours, he didn't delete your post that he responded to, so what's the beef? It would really help if you posted some detail of the tests you did which lead you to your conclusion that you could hear phase distortion, I for one would be very interested.

 

[castleofargh]

  how appropriate, removing posts that don't support your views... i've already said I won't be arguing this further so i am not sure why you think you have to tell me to do the same.

but that's the problem isn't it, I came to really believe you on the not proving anything and not presenting any constructive argument. that's why I offer you a choice, to start doing it to corroborate your oversimplified and therefore false claims, or to stop making said claims.
I don't think it is unfair or very hard to do.

 

[groovyd]

  but that's the problem isn't it, I came to really believe you on the not proving anything and not presenting any constructive argument. that's why I offer you a choice, to start doing it to corroborate your oversimplified and therefore false claims, or to stop making said claims.
I don't think it is unfair or very hard to do.

i've long ago stopped making claims... how about you stop beating this horse?

 

[jcx]

actually "you're wrong, but I don't have to provide any reasoning" is pretty much antithetical to this forum, and so far you sound like you are arguing from your personal "authority" since you don't expand on your objections
 
a few of us have used DSP, written algorithms, implemented filters, phase equalizers in professional applications - maybe you don't know the base assumptions that make conversational EE exchange possible, want to call out the Sophomoric gotcha details to derail the conversation?

 

[groovyd]

  actually "you're wrong, but I don't have to provide any reasoning" is pretty much antithetical to this forum, and so far you sound like you are arguing from your personal "authority" since you don't expand on your objections
 
a few of us have used DSP, written algorithms, implemented filters, phase equalizers in professional applications - maybe you don't know the base assumptions that make conversational EE exchange possible, want to call out the Sophomoric gotcha details to derail the conversation?

why are you still arguing this? no one cares

 

[dprimary]

 
Very interesting thoughts, thank you for sharing! I actually approached this issue from a more simple point of view: The cd of that album in my original post was my sole source to listen to until I got ahold of the vinyl version, which sounded more natural to me. If you have downloaded the samples you could hear the difference, too, I'm sure. I understand that the vinyl had gone through a mastering as well but I can't, for the sake of my life, understand why they applied all that EQ to the cd master.
 
And I wouldn't call it an audible problem per se, it's just sounded less natural than the lp rip. Even though I wasn't there, but the latter I think sounds closer to the original sound the engineers heard during recording, methinks.

There may not be any EQ applied to the CD. Unless you recorded and mastered the album you don't have anyway of knowing. There has been a few recordings that are painfully bright on the mix master, if they just transferred it direct without any mastering it is exactly like the mix master painfully bright.
 
It is impossible to for vinyl not to have large amounts of eq and phase shift. EQ is required for the format to work. Play vinyl without a RIAA EQ curve and see what you get.

 

[Peti]

 
There may not be any EQ applied to the CD. Unless you recorded and mastered the album you don't have anyway of knowing. There has been a few recordings that are painfully bright on the mix master, if they just transferred it direct without any mastering it is exactly like the mix master painfully bright.
 
It is impossible to for vinyl not to have large amounts of eq and phase shift. EQ is required for the format to work. Play vinyl without a RIAA EQ curve and see what you get.

Yeah, this thread was good for on thing; I have realized I have a lot of reading to do on the subject!