(Jeg har i likhet med de andre mer normale knapt sett noe EQ- apparat siden 80- tallet en gang...)
Så har
mye skjedd med DSP og signalbehandling siden 80-tallet også da. Hvis EQ fra 80-tallet er referansen din på hvordan en EQ låter, så skjønner jeg hvorfor du skyr det! For andre er EQ/DSP like viktig som smør på skiven (men ikke alle like smør heller da).
*edit* Men som sånn med alle verktøy, så krever de litt lydkompetanse for å brukes riktig.
Nærmeste personlige referanser er vel en NAD 106 forforsterker (fra 1994) og en Denon PMA 2000 IVR fra 2003.
Her snakker vi om tonekontroller, ikke EQ, men det går jo mye ut på det samme.
Du burde heller spørre deg selv hvorfor det av cirka 100 forsterkerprodusenter er cirka bare 1 (Mcintosh) i dag som tilbyr disse EQ- greiene.
På enkelte av sine modeller.
På deres aller dyreste forforsterkere tror jeg de faktisk ikke har noen EQ- mulighet en gang, uten at jeg gidder sjekke.
Er det noe du, og enkelte andre her med tusenvis av innlegg bak seg, har skjønt, som alle verdens forsterkerprodusenter ikke har skjønt?
Jeg skal ikke påstå at jeg har noen særlig hifi-kompetanse. Det vil jeg derimot hevde at Alah Shaw har, konstruktøren til Harbeth-høyttalerne. Han
har dette å si om at moderne high end-forsterkere utelater tonekontroller (utdrag):
----------
"Seriously though, where and how did this mental disorder start to ture sensible heads in the audio industry, such that rational black became irrational white? The bold fact is that the deletion of tone (and can you believe it balance controls too!) stripped useful functionality from the home listener who, living in the real world with real speakers in real rooms, with age-related hearing degradation and recordings of highly variable balance, deserves to be able to ameliorate whatever sound he has to the best possible effect. Not so in the stratospheric world of so-proclaimed high-end audio amplification.
In that game, normality ceases to apply on multiple aspects of the design. It would appear that amplifier engineers shut away in their caves, have all too often convinced themselves that loudspeakers are perfectly flat, that folk listen in anechoic-like treated rooms, that all recordings are perfectly balanced both left-right and top to bottom, that no one would be daft enough to listen to historic recordings, that surface noise is entirely welcome, that audiophiles have the high frequency hearing acuity they had at 20 (palpable nonsense), that rooms are perfectly symmetrical, that the speakers are matched to a fraction of a dB, that nobody has neighbours or wants to listen to a full-bodied sound late at night when a little bass-lift would be beneficial, that the every component in the preceding audio chain right back to the microphones are perfectly matched for level and balance across the audio range and that everybody likes exactly the same bland supermarket plonk served at the same temperature. At best, these designers are myopic, seeing the world through their weird binoculars. At worst they are devious marketeers who have manipulated common sense into a religious mantra. And we all know how that sort of dogma can get a grip and where it leads. And it's never good.
So, let's cut to the core of the bonkers issue. The tone control circuit. Is it complex? No, an amazingly efficient use of components. Is it expensive? Don't be silly - it can be implemented in a luxury form with really nice parts for a cost of perhaps $10 in a stereo amp. Is it difficult to understand? Not really. Is there any magic to it? None at all: it has the same potential for magic as the off/on switch on your vacuum cleaner. Is it a universal sort of circuit or are there an infinite number of variations? No, it's pretty universal, because what you are asking it to do in terms of bass/treble boost/cut needs a particular arrangement of components (capacitors and resistors) and can't be achieved with fewer, and it would be bad engineering to add lots of redundant component parts just to say that it was a superior design. So, in essence, the tone control circuit was conceived some 50 years ago and has not changed, nor will it change because it fulfils the function of bass/treble boost/cut
precisely and efficiently. All that we've seen over the years is variation on the basic concept. The QUAD tilt control, for example, modified the action of the bass/treble controls to be more useful to shaping the response of real loudspeakers in real rooms to get the best out of the sort of real-world bass/treble balance issues that real-world recordings seem to have. But at its heart, it is merely a variation on a theme, an advancement, a new take on an old idea.
(...)
So why the hue and cry over tone controls?
Before we answer that we need to pause, take a deep breath and resolve an important question. It's an ugly question, and we can't shirk it. We have to face it good and square-on. And the question is this:
Are we afraid of resistors and capacitors in the audio chain?
If we are, and we see even one or two as the work of the devil incarnate, then we have a serious problem. The uncomfortable fact is that the entire audio chain from the ubiquitous capacitor microphone onward to the loudspeaker crossover is jam packed with resistors and capacitors. Hundred, thousands of them and in a long serial chain with the signal passing from one to another just like a fireman's bucket brigade, but with some leaky buckets along the line. So, why focus our fury on just one of two of those capacitor buckets? Why single out the capacitors in the tone stage as a work of evil? Why not pick the 431st capacitor bucket along the audio chain from the mic to your ear (which, guessing, happens to be in the studio mixing console treble lift tone stage for the 53rd channel microphone) or the 1347th capacitor which is buried somewhere in your CD player, in the 3897th which is in the loudspeaker crossover or any other capacitor from the first to the last?
Irrational, eh? Wholly, completely and utterly."
-------------------
Tror ikke jeg har så mye å legge til.
