Frequency Settings on a Mixer
in [Live Sound]
|
Prev: Frequency Settings on a Mixer
Next: new vinyl
From: Richard Webb on 10 Feb 2010 20:16 On Wed 2038-Feb-10 14:16, JEff writes: >> Guys who wiped off it's poop geberally died. > Okay, so do you mean generally or gerbilly? Because that brings on a > whole new connotation that I'd rather not get into at this > particular time... ROger that <g>. INteresting. The way this comes out in quote I"m thinking Mike's typo, but could be mine <g>> <hmmmm> Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
From: Joe Kotroczo on 11 Feb 2010 06:56 On 08/02/2010 23:32, in article MPG.25da5b225e9d07779898b0(a)news.albasani.net, "Orlando Enrique Fiol" <ofiol(a)verizon.net> wrote: > Joe Kotroczo <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote: >> Except that your terminology is wrong. Phrases like "headroom for cut" don't >> make any sense. > > Headroom, in terms of boost, is intended to prevent digital clipping or > distortion. In terms of cut, headroom conversely prevents the hollowing of > specific frequency spectra. Lovely. Those two sentences are nonsense mumbo-jumbo. Headroom is the space between where you are and the ceiling. Simple, eh? In an EQ, the maximum amount of cut or boost is always fixed at a given value. Sometimes it's switchable between different values (6dB and 12dB in some graphics), but I've never come across an EQ where there was not a maximum value. Also, I have never come across any commercially sold EQ, where by applying the maximum boost one would run out of headroom, which means run into distortion or clipping. So, what you are saying above does not make any sense to me. And "hollowing of specific frequency spectra" does make even less sense, it sounds like something you've made up. Even though most EQs have a maximum level of attenuation, there are examples of EQs that can attenuate to infinity. Usually Notch-Filters, IIRC. >> How would the problem be better solved privately? > > Interaction could proceed more quickly and directly. On discussion groups, > different news servers update article headers and bodies at different times. That's true, and at the same time bullshit, IMHO. I don't see how the original question would be so urgent as to require a debate via email. >> Are you afraid of people correcting you? > > Not at all. I welcome it because that is how I learn. > >> And what has the gender of the OP to do with it all? > > > Notice how many people rushed to Danielle's aid because they thought she was > female. Sorry, I from here it looks like the average number of replies to be expected for this kind of question in this newsgroup. And nobody, a part from you, made any mention as to the OPs gender. Seems like you're imagining things. -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: liquidator on 11 Feb 2010 08:35 "Richard Webb" <Richard.Webb.my.foot(a)116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com> wrote in message news:dc8_201002110503(a)ftn.wpusa.dynip.com... > On Wed 2038-Feb-10 14:16, JEff writes: >>> Guys who wiped off it's poop geberally died. > >> Okay, so do you mean generally or gerbilly? Because that brings on a >> whole new connotation that I'd rather not get into at this >> particular time... > > > ROger that <g>. INteresting. The way this comes out in > quote I"m thinking Mike's typo, but could be mine <g>> > > <hmmmm> > > Het some dumbass put the "b" and "n" right beside each other. Blame qwerty. It's his fault.
From: Arkansan Raider on 11 Feb 2010 10:44 liquidator wrote: > "Richard Webb" <Richard.Webb.my.foot(a)116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com> wrote in > message news:dc8_201002110503(a)ftn.wpusa.dynip.com... >> On Wed 2038-Feb-10 14:16, JEff writes: >>>> Guys who wiped off it's poop geberally died. >>> Okay, so do you mean generally or gerbilly? Because that brings on a >>> whole new connotation that I'd rather not get into at this >>> particular time... >> >> ROger that <g>. INteresting. The way this comes out in >> quote I"m thinking Mike's typo, but could be mine <g>> >> >> <hmmmm> >> >> > > Het some dumbass put the "b" and "n" right beside each other. Blame qwerty. > It's his fault. > > Not to mention putting the "t" and the "y" next to each other. <g> IIRC back in typing class in high school (it was in the dark ages back when we used IBM Selectric IIIs), they told us that the qwerty boards were purposely set up that way to slow down the typing. If you typed too fast, the arms with the imprint letters, numbers and symbols would strike each other and lock up, so they had to slow down the typists. Remember, they did it on the original manual typewriters. The electric ones using the type ball fixed that issue--but the qwerty boards remained. So, yeah, blame qwerty. /unnecessary history lesson +1 for giving a shout out to "roger that," Richard... <beeeg ole grin> ---Jeff
From: Orlando Enrique Fiol on 11 Feb 2010 14:42
Joe Kotroczo <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote: >Headroom is the space between where you are and the ceiling. Simple, eh? No. Headroom is the space between where you are and where you don't want to be in terms of analog distortion or digital clipping. >In an EQ, the maximum amount of cut or boost is always fixed at a given >value. Sometimes it's switchable between different values (6dB and 12dB in >some graphics), but I've never come across an EQ where there was not a >maximum value. Yes, and depending on the original signal's level, applying maximum gain can cause it to distort or clip. >Also, I have never come across any commercially sold EQ, >where by applying the maximum boost one would run out of headroom, which >means run into distortion or clipping. See above. It happens all the time. >So, what you are saying above does not make any sense to me. And "hollowing >of specific frequency spectra" does make even less sense, it sounds like >something you've made up. If an original signal can be measured to have a 250 hz. frequency level, cutting that frequency or a range around it will hollow out the spectrum. >ven though most EQs have a maximum level of >attenuation, there are examples of EQs that can attenuate to infinity. >Usually Notch-Filters, IIRC. Working with analog, digital and plugin EQs, I have only rarely seen them attenuate to infinity. >That's true, and at the same time bullshit, IMHO. I don't see how the >original question would be so urgent as to require a debate via email. That would depend on Danielle's urgency in solving her problem. I notice that she has not reposted here since the weekend, indicating that this must be a sufficiently urgent concern for her. Orlando |