Not that anyone needed proof...
- Thread starter Ryan Lantzy
- Start date
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
Hah! That is pretty clever. Since most people will assume bypass is an honest description and won't try and actually patch around the unit, they will fire up their system and believe that 1st order rolloff indicates flat. Taking it out of bypass mode with both knobs all the way "off" will deliver way more low end! Wow!
Hah! That is pretty clever. Since most people will assume bypass is an honest description and won't try and actually patch around the unit, they will fire up their system and believe that 1st order rolloff indicates flat. Taking it out of bypass mode with both knobs all the way "off" will deliver way more low end! Wow!
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
Wow. Snake oil at it's finest. I'm keep this link for future use.
Wow. Snake oil at it's finest. I'm keep this link for future use.
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
Wow as well. I tried one out in my recording studio for a day or two when they first came out and it sounded unnatural to me no matter what setting I used. I have never plugged one in since. That explains a lot. Really good to see this video. The only engineer I have ever spoken with who liked it said he used it on toms. That EQ curve explaines why it was probably usable for that application.
Wow as well. I tried one out in my recording studio for a day or two when they first came out and it sounded unnatural to me no matter what setting I used. I have never plugged one in since. That explains a lot. Really good to see this video. The only engineer I have ever spoken with who liked it said he used it on toms. That EQ curve explaines why it was probably usable for that application.
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
Nice vid. The bypass not being a bypass is disturbing, but at least it is noted in their documentation. Though who reads documentation these days.
Nice vid. The bypass not being a bypass is disturbing, but at least it is noted in their documentation. Though who reads documentation these days.
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
I've long regarded the 'bypass' button on the BBE not as bypass, but as a 'suck' button. Press that, and you can guarantee that your sound will suck. What would be the logic to do that? Well, of course to make the BBE sound like it does more than it does. No seriously, the BBE does a lot. Check out the difference when I press the bypass button! Yes, I've had people show me that EXACTLY.
The sad thing is that some people still aren't convinced, even when I manually patch the BBE out of the system and it sounds better. I've been accused of changing some other settings to make it sound different. Ah, the fun of fake audio.
I've long regarded the 'bypass' button on the BBE not as bypass, but as a 'suck' button. Press that, and you can guarantee that your sound will suck. What would be the logic to do that? Well, of course to make the BBE sound like it does more than it does. No seriously, the BBE does a lot. Check out the difference when I press the bypass button! Yes, I've had people show me that EXACTLY.
The sad thing is that some people still aren't convinced, even when I manually patch the BBE out of the system and it sounds better. I've been accused of changing some other settings to make it sound different. Ah, the fun of fake audio.
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
Caveat emptor bayy-bee.
I recall bench testing a European competitor's powered mixer that my reps claimed had superior sound quality and was killing us at POS in stores in Europe. When the EQ was set flat, it had a dB or two of bass boost. It turns out they had (innocently?) used knobs who's cores were designed for vertical orientation but used on a horizontal layout (i.e. when set flat they were not centered). If the customers (and apparently my reps) think that is a better design, that's just serendipity. I suspect if the flat position was dialing in a few dB of bass cut, that innocent mistake would not have been accepted by the company.
I don't believe in innocent mistakes, I have seen a number of similar design oversights that lead causal listeners (like at POS) to draw incorrect conclusions. But that's life in the trenches... I informed my reps but who knows how many dealers and customers believed the nonsense (apparently a bunch). I won't bore you with a long list.
JR
PS: I recall a very painful product transition for a high volume popular powered head, where we changed the gain pot law for better kill when turned down but it inadvertently ended up with a couple dB less gain at 12 o"clock... Dealers and customers thought the new version had less power. We finally gave up arguing with the marketplace that the two heads had the same power (it was actually the same exact amp module). We tooled up a new pot with a gain taper that delivered similar gain at the defacto 12 o'clock operating standard, so the new unit agreed with the old one, and the market finally accepted that the new amp had the same power. Silly but true story, perception is reality for the marketplace.
Caveat emptor bayy-bee.I recall bench testing a European competitor's powered mixer that my reps claimed had superior sound quality and was killing us at POS in stores in Europe. When the EQ was set flat, it had a dB or two of bass boost. It turns out they had (innocently?) used knobs who's cores were designed for vertical orientation but used on a horizontal layout (i.e. when set flat they were not centered). If the customers (and apparently my reps) think that is a better design, that's just serendipity. I suspect if the flat position was dialing in a few dB of bass cut, that innocent mistake would not have been accepted by the company.
I don't believe in innocent mistakes, I have seen a number of similar design oversights that lead causal listeners (like at POS) to draw incorrect conclusions. But that's life in the trenches... I informed my reps but who knows how many dealers and customers believed the nonsense (apparently a bunch). I won't bore you with a long list.
JR
PS: I recall a very painful product transition for a high volume popular powered head, where we changed the gain pot law for better kill when turned down but it inadvertently ended up with a couple dB less gain at 12 o"clock... Dealers and customers thought the new version had less power. We finally gave up arguing with the marketplace that the two heads had the same power (it was actually the same exact amp module). We tooled up a new pot with a gain taper that delivered similar gain at the defacto 12 o'clock operating standard, so the new unit agreed with the old one, and the market finally accepted that the new amp had the same power. Silly but true story, perception is reality for the marketplace.
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
I wonder if the A&H GL2400 series uses a similar marketing approach with the EQ. It comes in lightning fast off of the 0db boost/cut setting and gives the impression of "super powerful EQ that just a little goes a long way." If you spend any time on the board you realize that it is just "tweaky" to use because it ramps up so fast in the first 1/8 turn or so.
I wonder if the A&H GL2400 series uses a similar marketing approach with the EQ. It comes in lightning fast off of the 0db boost/cut setting and gives the impression of "super powerful EQ that just a little goes a long way." If you spend any time on the board you realize that it is just "tweaky" to use because it ramps up so fast in the first 1/8 turn or so.
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
I see.
Silly but true story, perception is reality for the marketplace.
I see.
Re: Not that anyone needed proof...
I have mentioned this before, control laws are part of the ergonomic design that can change the perception of otherwise similar measuring audio paths. In EQs there is another variable (Q), but that is another story. Conservative design is to make the EQ slow around "0dB" , so it is actually flat when you tell it to be flat, a fast off zero EQ can be interpreted as having more boost/cut than a slower off "0" design but look bad in benchmark flat measurements, if not zero'd while looking at the result. Surely not how the operator uses it. I like my EQ to reflect what the knob tells me as accurately as practical. :-(
Another consideration is to do no harm, i.e. do not give the operator so much boost/cut that they can make their path sound bad. I once encouraged the project engineer on a premium mic preamp with simple shelving EQ, to limit that to only +/-6 dB, the better to not sound bad, no matter how hard the customer tried (it worked IMO).
Console ergonomics is one of the subtle reasons some consoles just work and sound better than others.. i wish I had a PHd in this high art, but I have only been studying it for decades. I believe I have an above average grasp tho...
JR
I have mentioned this before, control laws are part of the ergonomic design that can change the perception of otherwise similar measuring audio paths. In EQs there is another variable (Q), but that is another story. Conservative design is to make the EQ slow around "0dB" , so it is actually flat when you tell it to be flat, a fast off zero EQ can be interpreted as having more boost/cut than a slower off "0" design but look bad in benchmark flat measurements, if not zero'd while looking at the result. Surely not how the operator uses it. I like my EQ to reflect what the knob tells me as accurately as practical. :-(
Another consideration is to do no harm, i.e. do not give the operator so much boost/cut that they can make their path sound bad. I once encouraged the project engineer on a premium mic preamp with simple shelving EQ, to limit that to only +/-6 dB, the better to not sound bad, no matter how hard the customer tried (it worked IMO).
Console ergonomics is one of the subtle reasons some consoles just work and sound better than others.. i wish I had a PHd in this high art, but I have only been studying it for decades. I believe I have an above average grasp tho...
JR