51m0n

I would also say that in real terms the Kit Richardson stuff was 'mixed on a shoestring budget' Its not the kit you have its how you use it and what you know that determines the quality of the result.

Why would you expect a stereo to 'fix' anything though? It just plays back what is there into the space it sits in. Cr4p in cr4p out. If the acoustic is also cr4p then you can end up with a cr4p filter on the good stuff coming out of the stereo too.

[quote name='KingBollock' timestamp='1354201234' post='1883499'] So, are we back to what I said earlier? Not all sources are mixed perfectly so having a solution to tailor it to your own personal taste isn't such a bad thing. [/quote] This isnt the mix we are talking about, its the mastering of that mix. Even more specifically the part of the mastering process that brings up the level to commercially 'acceptable' level . Short of having the stereo mix before it got to the mastering studio there is nothing you can do to 'undo' the processing undertaken by a mastering engineer to get that level to where his paying client accepts it. An EQ couldnt help at all.

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1354189795' post='1883241'] The capacity for Technically your correct but as you say the loudness war is destroying CD as a hi fidelity playback system. Guess thats why some older Vinyl sounds really good as they were mastered before this 'louder the better' mastering took off [/quote] Yes but by that argument old CDs (pre 1995 say) sound even better than the vinyl of the time....

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1354185418' post='1883135'] I tend to agree. The music industry is pandering to the requirements of its customers who appear to be happy to prioritise quantity over quality [/quote] I think it started far more simply than that - louder sounds better. Largely because the human brain is rubbish at assessing the merits of sound (otherwise everyone could track, mix and master really well) and needs equal volumes in order to judge a sound on any other factor at all. So everyoine liked the loudest master the most. Its just got to stupid levels now. What is exasperating is even at 16bit CDs are capable of a far wider dynamic range (in theory 150dB) than vinyl could ever hope for (absolute best it could be woiuld be around 120dB, I've never heard vinyl get close to this though! In reality its closer to 80dB on a great system), and yet rather than embrace this the average dynamic range of records has shrunk to a fraction of that available on vinyl. Some really good stuff on vinyl vs cd [url="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29"]here[/url] CD comes off rather superior...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3174Ndpdbw

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1354122532' post='1882386'] None of that matters if you're comparing a relatively early high quality vinyl pressing with a bad, overcompressed remaster from 30 year old tapes. CD can sound amazing but rarely does when you AB the same material with a vinyl copy, and I wonder if the quality of the master is often why rather than being intrinsic to the format. Back to the OT, I've kind of gone the opposite. I've always played with a clean sound but recently got into using a Peavey TB Raxx valve preamp. I am in sonic love, it's a world away from the junky pedal format preamps, Sansamps and the like. [/quote] Staying totally off topic Mastering for loudness has destroyed the CD as a truly hi fidelity playback system - I completely agree. If you can find really thoughtfully mastered CDs the playback can be spectacular (cough cough [url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/"]Kit Richardson's EP[/url] cough cough) but in most 'chart' efforts the mastering crushes the dynamic range down to way less than 10dB (less than 5dB isnt unheard of). That ruins the CD for 'proper' listening, but does make it stand up to really nasty environments (the car) far better. Tyhat isnt necessarily the mastering engineers fault either, they are paid for a product, and the purse holder demands more level. It is a crying shame though. Having said that vinyl mastering has been pushing level since the 60's too, there was much consternation in the Motown lathe room at the level the Beatles had got on their singles! It is not a new phenomena, and its not going away in mainstream commercial music any time soon I think.

[quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1350504977' post='1839894'] I was very lucky to attend a clinic with TM Stevens at London Bass Day. I had a chat with him about "his sound". I commented that for big slap guy I very was surprised not to see a compressor on his pedal board. TM Stevens replied "I AM THE COMPRESSOR, my hand controls the attack". He also showed me his hand, with a big stare. This left me thinking that my search for effects was possibly due to my inability to produce nice sounds with my hands. I've recently sold most of my effects on this forum. Today, I only allow myself two pedals (1) a compressor for slap (please don't tell TM Stevens!) and (2) an autowah. I spend a lot of my time experimenting with my right hand technique to find different sounds. I find this hugely rewarding, the same sort of fun I got from tweaking pedal knobs. We all play bass to make sounds. The sounds we have in our heads can be the result of x and y effects, hand technique, or both. I am following a more organic approach these days, using my hands and I love it. And, yes, I will buy some pedals in the future... but not now. [/quote] Heh heh, T.M Stevens? This T.M Stevens on here, with the very tastefully compressed bass sound..... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKukOSBybyw[/media] "I am the compressor" yeah, right, not according to Chris Lord-Alge then

[quote name='thumperbob 2002' timestamp='1354121386' post='1882365'] Just looked at the band on YouTube. Fun group but I hope you won't do the flea style intro to higher ground. Could hear the crowd talking over it! [/quote] I watched that too in a kind of slack jawed disbelief, awful intro, played very badly I thought, was alright once they go going though...

Voted (again!)

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1354111617' post='1882188'] That may well be true but my CD player cost over 2000 euro and thats as much as i could afford. I am sure there is a player with more expensive DACS out there but its out of my reach. The sound out of a 30 year old linn with little upgrades still beats the primare. [/quote] Its not the quality of the CD player that I'm suggesting is at fault its the possiblity that CD audio is not nearly as hifi as people would like to presume, and although there are great arguments for 44.1KHz being a high [i]enough[/i] sample rate, going higher can improve things further. 96KHz can sound rather fantastic IME, and you wouldnt have to spend 2000Euros to try it out for yourself either....

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1354095607' post='1881899'] Oh dear we could be in for 'vinyl sounds better than CD here' (or visa versa). Anyway my 30 year old linn turntable blows my primare cd player out of the water [/quote] I am 'fairly sure' that the right quality DACs and a high enough sample rate an bit depth recording played back on your system would blow away the vinyl too, not suffering any of the mechanical limitations of vinyl. And the data wouldn't degrade either with every listen (unlike vinyl) .

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1354091485' post='1881836'] 51m0n, you make very good points, none which I can (or would) argue with. My point isn't so much about trying to fix the sound with EQ, but most people's listening rooms are not dedicated to just listening to music & designed around their hifi. It's usually something like you just described where there's furniture & reflective walls & having a quality hifi is more of a luxury to add to the room. So if you're sitting in your "optimal" position given the surroundings, then wouldn't being able to reduce any overpowering areas of frequencies be better than having to put up with something like having a harsh top end or sounding boomy around to 100-200hz area? I would never suggest adding any treble or bass, as like you said, it won't fix the issue. I agree that a lot of hifi comes with inadequate EQ. With the technology available today, it wouldn't be hard to make a good digital 20 band parametric EQ (a la VST stylee), though getting people to use it properly would probably be another task. [/quote] Well an EQ wont fix it thats the point I keep trying to make. No EQ can fix the underlying issue. No system on the market comes with an EQ capable of fixing it. Turning down the offending frequencies in the position you are sat just means the smear or flutter or stereo image degradation happens at a lower level in the mix, but so does the source at that point, you arent gaining clarity since you are making the source quietr at that level too. Look, I am not suggesting that having a simple EQ on a hifi should be banned , I am saying that fixing issues with the room cannot be achieved (in almost all cases) with an EQ. By all means make the music genreally bass heavier or lighter or whatever your eq will do for you, that is a question of adjusting to taste. If on the other hand you want to make the sound measurably [b][i]better[/i][/b] in the room the simple fact is its the room acoustic that needs attention first and foremost, not the speaker output. If you have booming down at 100 to 200Hz you have no option but to basss trap. Either with untuned broadband bass traps (superchunks maybe) or tuned hermholtz resonater traps, or limp membrane traps or whatever. No amount of eq will rremove the boom without also adversely affecting the source, but stopping the room ringing sympathetically at 100-200Hz will also help stop ringing at 400Hz, 800Hz etc etc. If you have issues with harsh top end and poor stereo imaging a couple of broadband absorbers on the walls positioned at the reflection points of each speaker on the wall will immensely improve the stereo field, and help prevent ringing. If you still get some smearing then a cloud hung from the ceiling will help prevent ceiling reflections also playing havoc with thee stereo field. Large broadband absorption/basstrapping and serious diffusers at the back of the room will prevent reflections off the back of the room setting up standing waves throughtout the room and also stop the room becoming too dead as well. The list goes on and on. You dont have to do it all, or any of it, but nothing else can improve the listening experience in any given room mre than controlling the acoustic A properly set up room is a joyous thing. if you've never heard music played back in one you can't begin to appreciate the difference, the whole sensation of being "in the musical performance" is massively improved. If I had my way it woudl be part of the building regs for living rooms

Its not remotely difficult to argue that the room is a problem. Most living rooms are listening rooms, most living rooms have parallel walls and dimensions that are multiples of each other. Very few have any though put toward the acoustic of the space by anyone at all. Very few have more than a 12 foot ceiling, or more than 15 foot width or length in a new build. They have reflective bare walls at the points of direct reflection, no basstrapping other than a sofa, no diffusion other than a few books on a shelf and no control of reflection off the ceilings. Therefore they are almost certainly acoustically pretty awful (sorry really really terrible) with unbalanced waterfall graphs, massive room nodes and sub optimum reverb times and characteristics. The source is usually recorded in a reasonably controlled space, or its largely sample based or electronic in nature. It is generally mixed on decent monitors in a decent space and then mastered on significantly better gear in a better space by a person who specialises in fixing defects in stereo mixes. The chances that a consumer in their acoustically apalling room can improve on the work that has gone before with a simplistic cheap and nasty eq bolted on to an amp as bells and whistles is relatively tiny. The fact that they think they need to is because their perception of the music is clouded by the room they are in as much or in fact far more than the equiptment they are using to listen on. The snake oil audio industry avoids anything to do with room acoustic because it tends to expose the myths, and it isnt considered as sexy as brushed aluminium and blue LEDs....

Thats all fine, doesnt for one moment change the fact that the issue is the room acoustic more often than not, and it cant be fixed with any amount of eq, so why bother fitting an eq on an amp if its for sale to people spending enough money to have a dedicated listening room? Analogue EQ's work by causing phase changes (for the most part); that is an additional distortion of the signal. Hence it is less pure if you use an EQ. If purity is your goal why would you ever try and fix a percieved issue by adding distortion and ohase issues (as well as a dose of treble or bass that they room you are in can't handle), when the issue isnt in the source but the room?

[quote name='bremen' timestamp='1354033369' post='1881178'] <Applause> [/quote] <Bows>

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1354037392' post='1881268'] I've noticed a deadening of the sound of my Warwick over 25-30ft cable runs with only a true bypass switch connecting two decent-quality instrument cables - no patch cables involved in the signal path. It was noticeable to me, especially when I then just plugged a single 15ft cable directly into my amp. Sure it's worse with a passive bass I agree, but it's bad enough to be a problem with actives in my experience. My strategy is to always have one 'master switch' pedal that I can push to take all of my effects out of the signal path entirely, and I'm currently using a box that Max at SFX built for me as a transparent buffer (as well as being a 2-channel mixer). Prior to that I used a Boss LS-2 (not quite good enough IMO - some noticeable treble loss when in bypass, wasn't too bad though) and prior to that a passive true-bypass loop switch (not nearly good enough - tone suck central). In terms of interconnecting patch cables I use George Ls but I'm not massively concerned with what they do to my sound because my sound is going to get gnarled up by my effects when they are in the signal path anyway, there's no bass guitar sound worth preserving once the signal's gone down one of those routes. [/quote] INteresting. If I get time this evening I may do a little bit of analysis on my bass tone - record the same passage with 10ft, 20ft and fx pedals in bypass sort of thing - it wont be scientific but it will be interesting

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1354031063' post='1881121'] Very true, but most dedicated audiophiles have their optimal sitting position, therefore EQ allows tailoring for that given position. [/quote] No it doesn't. You cannot eq out ringing in the room at frequency n being twice as long as ringing in the room at frequency m So you turn down the preception of too much bass, but actually in any given instant there isnt too much bass, over time there is too much bass. Turning it down with an EQ, doesnt stop the ringing, it just puts less energy at that frequency into the room, so now your balance is wrong, and you still have the issue of the ringing smeering the bass. It is a different issue, that [i]cannot[/i] be fixed with EQ. The use of EQ to fix acoustic issues in a serious listening room should be entirely debunked. Yes we use some EQ to try and help at a gig, but to be honest as everyone who has played their bass and wandered round the room can tell you cant fix the tone everywhere with EQ, its a myth, you have to compromise (hugely). And for any audiophile compromise is not a word that exists in their dictionalry (or they aren't audiophiles). Yet there is a persistance in the myth of EQing to the room. Also, please show me an audiophile HI-Fi EQ capable of the kind of surgical cutting we are talking about here. I am definitely not talking about your average gentle +/-9dB shelving EQ, something more akin to a 64 band graphic, or 20 band fully parametric would really be what is required. This is not the same as EQing for taste, that you can do to your hearts content (assuming you have sorted the room out so its not wildly messing things up after the eq), but dont muddle that up with EQing for the room

Oh and yes, I definitely advocate no tone controls on an amp. Get the room right and you dont need them, as someone said everyone hears differently, but, their day to day perception of sounds is generally very similar to everyone else* and equally importantly most mixes are done on reasonable monitors in reasonable room and decent mastering is done on incredible gear in incredible purpose built rooms. Don't forget that the biggest thing you can do to improve your listening experience on [i]any reasonable stereo in any normal room[/i] is to go some way to fixing the acoustic. Far cheaper to do than a lot of** the so called audiophile stereo equiptment (with attendant snakeoil fantasy products to add extra bite, gnarl, whimper, and beloved-sploink to your listening pleasure, with free crystals and shakra-gasm inducing spleen resistant leatherette finish) and with definite, measurable, guaranteed results. I would rather listen to a £500 stereo in a room with (at least partically) sorted acoustics than a £500k stereo in an untreated room. *Unless they are going seriously deaf, or have blown huge chunks of their top end hearing through misuse. In either of these cases adding treble or bass will not in any way magically fix the issue. **Who do I think I'm kidding, cheaper than [i]all of[/i]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1354029243' post='1881085'] I'm not ignoring the wink at the end there but I'm sure you know that even a low-impedance signal can get obviously degraded after 20 or so feet of cable. [/quote] Yes, it can, however, IME its far more likely that pedal board signal degradation is due to poor quality interconnecting patch cables. I use 10 ft in to the board and 10 or 20ft out of it, I couldn't care less about true bypass vs buffered - actually in point of fact I'd far rather have a really great buffered signal than a true bypass signal, since it will (again IME) degrade significantly less with cable length. However a good active circuit goes a hell of a long way towards making that unimportant (again IME). Yes you can probalby measure some degradation, but in live use I haven't been able to really notice any degradation in my board with either active bass, but you cantell (albeit slightly) with the passive one.

<Oar-In> Now this whole using EQ to fix the room thing.... Its a bit of a myth actually You cant fix issues with room nodes with an eq, since regardless of the settings on the eq the issues prevail. The issues are more often time and frequency decay issue, whereby certain frequencies (due to ringing) may be louder for longer in one place and quieter in another than other frequencies. If you turn the eq down for one frequency you can fix the issue for one, tiny place, but will change the problem elsewhere (thats the nodes) but you wont fix the ringing (as seen on a waterfall plot), and you cant fix every multiple of the frequency (which you need to) without ruining the sound everywhere. And hi-fi has never, ever come with tone controls close to complex and comprehensive enough to even make a stab at fixing an acoustic. </Oar-in> As for True bypass vs Buffered? Use an active bass and stop worrying about it

Scariest thing I've heard of though is a bit of software that can extract MIDI from audio so well that it can be used in combination with a grand piano capable of being played by MIDI to recreate and re-record a performance of a long dead artist, to the point where a new duet can be created with a living artist. Which was done recently at Manifold Studios (IIRC). Bonkers!

Best of luck - fingers crossed, have a rgeat time!

I voted - rather tricky to choose, very good stuff in there, well done all!