| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Phonic Pro equipment |
|
|
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl2rba$61l$1@panix2.panix.com...
| Quote: | nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl28fr$e28$1@panix2.panix.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl10dr$qfh$1@panix2.panix.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Anyone have experience with their products?
I'm most interested in their i7600 Equalizer.
Comments on build quailty, value for the money, etc.
It's basically cheap MI store junk, and about typical for that grade
of
gear. The equalizer is probably usable. It can't be any worse than
the Alesis.
How is the Alesis bad?
The MEQ-230? It basically doesn't work at all. The interaction between
bands is terrible... you add a peak at 8 KHz and you get a dip at 4 KHz
that comes along with it. This makes it basically unusable for any of
the things you want graphic equalizers for. You fight with it for a
little
while and soon discover it works best when bypassed. I have never used
anything so awful before.
Did you ever have it checked? That seems like something a warranty repair
would have covered.
No, they're all like that. It's a design issue.
I've read some reviews on the pro sound mag websites that were positive.
I know their stuff is not top of the line as is Rane but what specific
problems are noted.
Rane is by no means top of the line, although Rane does make a
parametric
EQ that works if you don't push it too hard.
OK not top of the line but as EQ's go their stuff gets generally high
marks
and seems to made well. I know there are more expensive unit such as
Klark
Teknik, I just don't know that they will accomplish the task of EQ any
better.
Yes, very much so.
In what way? |
Based on http://www.roaddog.com/bink/index.php
The things either work or not. What can you point me to that shows that the
RANE units
didn't do as well in an audible way as the Lake Countour or some other that
you would pick as better?
I'm not trying to be contentious and I appreciate the time and expertise you
bring to the discussion, I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of
what should be looked at in making these sort of decisions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Phonic Pro equipment |
|
|
"Geoff@home" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:uPidf.656$vH5.41095@news.xtra.co.nz...
| Quote: |
nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:Mfedf.8021$m81.2200@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Geoff@home" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Crddf.598$vH5.39323@news.xtra.co.nz...
nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:La9df.7811
To flatten out the room response.
The 'room response' is a time domain problem. An equaliser can't fix
that - only excite it moer(or less). Save yer dosh and move your
speakers around a bit.
geoff
The speakers have been everywhere they can and aren't going anywhere
else.
I cansmooth out the few rough edges I have in the room with an EQ, so I
will.
You don't seem to appreciate that you cna't.
geoff
The bottom line is I can make it sound better, and I know this from previous |
experience with EQ.
I wish I oculd construct a room that was devoid of problems and perhaps some
day I will. For now, an Equalizer is a simple way for me to make things
sound better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Phonic Pro equipment |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ytWdnbn6O4VhJejeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
| Quote: | nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ucScf.6887$2y.1293@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
Anyone have experience with their products?
I'm most interested in their i7600 Equalizer.
Comments on build quailty, value for the money, etc.
Is this for use in the tape loop of a consumer amp or receiver, or will it
be front-ending a power amp?
In the tape loop most likely. |
The times I've tried using other Equalizers before a power amp, or as a
preamp, I didn't like the results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Phonic Pro equipment |
|
|
<nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:zRvdf.8476$AS6.2411@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ytWdnbn6O4VhJejeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ucScf.6887$2y.1293@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
Anyone have experience with their products?
I'm most interested in their i7600 Equalizer.
Comments on build quailty, value for the money, etc.
Is this for use in the tape loop of a consumer amp or
receiver, or will it be front-ending a power amp?
In the tape loop most likely.
The times I've tried using other Equalizers before a
power amp, or as a preamp, I didn't like the results.
|
Because of the really low signal voltages in a tape loop,
it's a rough place to put equipment designed for standard
audio production levels, IOW +4.
The input of a power amp has higher signal voltages, and is
a better fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Phonic Pro equipment |
|
|
<nyob123@peoplepc.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Rane is by no means top of the line, although Rane does make a
parametric
EQ that works if you don't push it too hard.
OK not top of the line but as EQ's go their stuff gets generally high
marks
and seems to made well. I know there are more expensive unit such as
Klark
Teknik, I just don't know that they will accomplish the task of EQ any
better.
Yes, very much so.
In what way?
|
A better equalizer will have less coloration when it's not boosting or
cutting, and it will have fewer side-effects other than the boost or cut
when it does. A better parametric will _tend_ to be possible to set to
narrower filters as well.
Listen to a cheap equalizer and a good equalizer with all the filters
turned on but set flat, and then in bypass. You'll hear much more of
a difference between the good one and the bad one.
Electronics always color the sound... better electronics will color it
less, but it's best to be able to eliminate anything unneeded from the
signal path. This is why parametrics let you bypass unneeded filters.
| Quote: | Based on http://www.roaddog.com/bink/index.php
The things either work or not. What can you point me to that shows that the
RANE units
didn't do as well in an audible way as the Lake Countour or some other that
you would pick as better?
|
Give it a listen. Pick two on eval and listen to what they do when you
have them flat, and when you boost or cut.
In theory you could do impulse response plots and also distortion spectra
for these things, but nobody ever does.
REALLY bad equalizers also have stability problems where they break out
into oscillation on peaks. I won't mention any names here.
| Quote: | I'm not trying to be contentious and I appreciate the time and expertise you
bring to the discussion, I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of
what should be looked at in making these sort of decisions.
|
You have to use your ears. Sadly there is no way around it, because the
manufacturers won't give you useful information on the data sheet. But
there is a reason that the Millennia NSEQ-2 or the Cello Audio Palette
cost a lot more than a Sanyo home graphic. Some of that has to do with
added flexibility, but a lot of it has to do with that coloration that
they don't add.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in