From: Richard Webb on 18 Nov 2009 03:35 On Tue 2037-Nov-17 19:11, McSteve writes: >> Yet my skills have been totally condemned by those who have NEVER heard > me. >> That is called prejudice. > Any person who's been doing this line of work in a professional > setting for any length of time can tell you have limited knowledge > just by the hair-brained misguided stuff you've posted here over > time. It's called "spotting a phoney". Which is why I ignore any post MIke makes. MIke isn't worth my time arguing with him. I have nothing to say to MIke, because MIke has nothing to say relevant to the business of audio production. MIke as a narrow minded bigoted clueless wannabe. <snip> > If I needed crew for a job and I felt compelled to > recruit help from this NG, you would not be one I'd consider. In > fact, that list of candidates would be pretty short for a number of > reasons. Some not skill related. Would agree with that assessment. There are people that I"d hire from this group in a NEw York minute were I in need of crew and were using this group to recruit. MIke would be on the ignore list were he to respond to the call for crew. > Just recently there was a thread devoted to experience and current > status within the field. Go find it and read through various people's > entries. Then, ask your self where you fall in the scale of things > relative to many of the other folk's CVs. WOUld agree there too. MIke is a wanna be volunteer. I could point to numerous examples. But, they're all available to anybody using google. 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. #! rnews 1021 Path: ftn!116-901!NOT-FOR-MAIL From: R
From: Joe Kotroczo on 18 Nov 2009 12:57 On 17/11/09 19:18, in article hdupcu$8m6$1(a)aioe.org, "McSteve" <mcsteve1350x(a)verizon.net> wrote: > "Ron" wrote: >> I wonder what the real difference is between the iEQ231 and the older >> EQ231, they are a lot more money. >> > > My bad. That should be iEQ-31 no "2". It's a digital EQ with analogue > type interface. Looks and operates like a typical graphic but it's all > digital inside.. What's the point? It doesn't have digital I/O, it doesn't really do anything an analog EQ does, so why add yet another A/D and D/A conversion to the signal chain? -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: Joe Kotroczo on 18 Nov 2009 14:21 On 18/11/09 18:57, in article C729F419.A4A5D%kotroczo(a)mac.com, "Joe Kotroczo" <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 17/11/09 19:18, in article hdupcu$8m6$1(a)aioe.org, "McSteve" > <mcsteve1350x(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> "Ron" wrote: >>> I wonder what the real difference is between the iEQ231 and the older >>> EQ231, they are a lot more money. >>> >> >> My bad. That should be iEQ-31 no "2". It's a digital EQ with analogue >> type interface. Looks and operates like a typical graphic but it's all >> digital inside.. > > What's the point? It doesn't have digital I/O, it doesn't really do anything > an analog EQ does, so why add yet another A/D and D/A conversion to the > signal chain? Insert "more than" where appropriate. -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: Arny Krueger on 18 Nov 2009 15:03 "Joe Kotroczo" <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:C72A07B6.A4AAF%kotroczo(a)mac.com > On 18/11/09 18:57, in article > C729F419.A4A5D%kotroczo(a)mac.com, "Joe Kotroczo" > <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote: > >> On 17/11/09 19:18, in article hdupcu$8m6$1(a)aioe.org, >> "McSteve" <mcsteve1350x(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> "Ron" wrote: >>>> I wonder what the real difference is between the >>>> iEQ231 and the older EQ231, they are a lot more money. >>>> >>> >>> My bad. That should be iEQ-31 no "2". It's a digital EQ >>> with analogue type interface. Looks and operates like a >>> typical graphic but it's all digital inside.. >> >> What's the point? It doesn't have digital I/O, it >> doesn't really do anything an analog EQ does, so why add >> yet another A/D and D/A conversion to the signal chain? (1) I'd wager that most DEQ 2496s are used analog-in, analog-out. (2) Virtually all modern digital eqs are just DSPs with minimal power interface circuits, and are therefore relatively inexpensive to build. (3) Analog eqs are susceptible to a variety of mechanical and electronic failings, which are easy and inexpensive to avoid in the digital domain.
From: McSteve on 18 Nov 2009 15:25
"Joe Kotroczo" wrote: >> What's the point? It doesn't have digital I/O, it doesn't really do >> anything >> an analog EQ does, so why add yet another A/D and D/A conversion to the >> signal chain? > > Insert "more than" where appropriate. > Let's see... The iEQ has peak limiting, NR, and a feedback suppressor built in. The last feature isn't one I'd ever use, but having a peak stop limiter is handy. Also, digital EQs don't suffer from the artifacts generated by analog EQs. Ripple effect, filter interaction, frequency anomalies, etc. They're quieter, too. Better s/n ratio. So, it has the advantages of digital processing, but the familiarity and ease of use of an analog graphic. Pretty good feature set for installs and rentals where different engineers will be using them. No learning curve like you find on many digital boxes. At under $600 usd I don't think you'll find a graphic with faders that is any better. -- Steve <snip> McQ |