|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.51.146.3
In Reply to: You're wrong this time (?) Bass Nut! posted by nightdoggy on March 16, 2007 at 07:32:08:
Did not help the already too bright (for me) Paradigm 100's.
I will give current BBE model another try. Signal processors do change the sound quality, there's not much doubt about that. The only doubt is whether the system/speakers you used needed that change. If you're not already a BBE salesman, you ought to be one since you are quite a fan.Signal processors don't often get many fans.
When I started building subwoofers in the early 1980's I used a sub-harmonic synthesisizer to create a little deep bass because there was so little content under 40Hz. on my vinyl records. I think I was one of a very few who liked that bass processing (I was an budding BassNut at the time)
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Follow Ups:
Well, I always figured myself a purist also till I tried some DSP plugins. My experience was same as nightdoggy, when you try it, then turn it off, you prefer it on. Go figure? Anyway, I use in small doses. Too much and it's like having your eardrums etched with an exacto-knife. Also, it helps guys like me who use passive volume controls.
dbx 117: ca. 1974. First of the dbx single band consumer expanders. Audible pumping unless set to around 1:1.4. Bass sometimes caused expander to function on highs where it should not have.
dbx 118: ca. 1977. An improved version of the 117. Slightly better performance overall. Used it for 4 years with mixed results. Had a positive effect on many recordings if not set much above 1:1.4
dbx 3bxDS: ca. 1985. The epitome of consumer expansion devices with three independent bands and "impact" recovery. Excellent results overall. Sold when I made a "temporary" foray into cd. Mistake!
dbx 120: ca. 1987. Subharmonic Synthesizer. Poor performance right from the start. Returned to dealer.
Audio Control Phase Coupled Activator: ca. 1989. Better than the 120 but still unsatisfactory. Used briefly.
BBE 462: ca. 1996. Convincing, fairly natural sound best with such lifeless dogs as "Benefit" and "Aqualung" (Jethro Tull). Let down by carbon resistors, Polyester and ceramic capacitors and TL072 op amps. I saw the potential so gutted it. Went with matched metal film resistors, matched PPS and PP caps., tantulum op amp bypasses, OP-285 op amps (selected low offset OP-275), Matsushita FC electrolytics, LT low-noise regulators and Schottky rectifiers among other things. Finally, exact calibration to spec. using Bourns 25 turn cermet trimmers. Zero audible noise and judicious setting yielded amazing results with last resort recordings both on vinyl and cd.
BBE 482: ca. 2005. Updated 462 with 2% metal film resistors and low-noise op amps (believed to be NJR 2068) incorporated on BBE ASIC, 28-pin chip by NJR. Automatic calibration. I performed the usual updates. I still prefer the 462, which probably due to my improvements, sounds slightly better overall.
TC Electronics (Dynaudio Denmark) TC300 Dynamic Range Controller: ca. 2006. An experiment that convinced me not to return the unit, although it presently is not in use. Software controlled expander with multiple algorythums. Actually betters the 3bxDS which is an amazing feat. Very natural presentation even if set for aggressive expansion ratios.
Aphex Aural Exciter 104 C2: Over the top in every way. Harmonic overdose. Terrible any way you set it. Bizarre bass mode (Optical Big Bottom) is a sonic disaster.
And another!
Aphex 107 Tube Parametric EQ: Not bad but a pain in the ass to set because it cannot be done quickly. Sold it to some guy in Korea.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: