Skip to main content

Topic: Equalizing terminology (Read 2719 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • HTS
  • [*][*][*][*]
Equalizing terminology
1. What is the rationale behind the idea of a fraction based bandwidth? Why not define the width by absolute frequency range like +/- 1khz?

2. How subtle/drastic are the effects of "fine tuning" of the settings? (i.e. are completely customizable parametric systems necessary or excessive when you can use simple graphic EQs?)

3. Is the process of mixing wholistic or analytic? Is there some synergystic effect that makes it impossible to have some sort of "algorithmic procedure" figured out/taught? Like even fire drills train you in a somewhat systematic way even though real situations can be diverse in their details.

Thanks.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Equalizing terminology
Reply #1
1. What is the rationale behind the idea of a fraction based bandwidth? Why not define the width by absolute frequency range like +/- 1khz?


Because 1KHz at a center frequency of 1KHz is much more then at 10KHz.  Hence absolute frequency is awkward to work with.

2. How subtle/drastic are the effects of "fine tuning" of the settings? (i.e. are completely customizable parametric systems necessary or excessive when you can use simple graphic EQs?)


Depends how precisely you need to control the frequency response of something.

3. Is the process of mixing wholistic or analytic?


???

Is there some synergystic effect that makes it impossible to have some sort of "algorithmic procedure" figured out/taught?


Algorithmic procedure to do what exactly?  You can come up with an algorithm to do all sorts of things  but only once you decide what it is you want to do.

  • HTS
  • [*][*][*][*]
Equalizing terminology
Reply #2
Algorithmic procedure to do what exactly?  You can come up with an algorithm to do all sorts of things  but only once you decide what it is you want to do.

That is the problem, with sound there is very little vocabulary developed. Just because you like a mix better than another doesn't mean there there are precise, elemental features that you can name and gauge. (like identifying a vector using a basis for the space) You may have a subjective idea of what the ideal result should be "like" qualitatively, but that doesn't prescribe a procedure for what to do.

  • Dirk95100
  • [*]
Equalizing terminology
Reply #3
3. Is the process of mixing wholistic or analytic?


The technical part is 100% analytic.
There is the very common mistake that music is purly subjective, but infact everything about music can be measured objectively. Even why you like certain artifacts and why you donĀ“t like other artifacts.
But then ofcause there is personal preference, this is where you decide if you like it or not. And that is where the holisitc part comes in.

  • HTS
  • [*][*][*][*]
Equalizing terminology
Reply #4
So in which way do the Hollywood engineers make their sounds?

Tune them to technical specs, or aim for a kind of "feel" that is not really reducible to technical numbers?

Is there any sense behind the "audiophile" albums that advertise zero EQ?
  • Last Edit: 04 September, 2011, 01:33:13 PM by HTS

  • dhromed
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Equalizing terminology
Reply #5
What do you think?