Yes, Dynamic EQ might be implemented as a multiband compressor.
Edited by urwi - 3/20/13 at 3:47am
It isn't working all that well (the crafting) if Roger and other 'careful listener' can hear it working, is it?
Yes. Well not at Reference, as I said. -5dB. That is loud and I have the subjective feeling that it seems to be about as loud as when I go to a movie theatre (which is of course 0dB). In a good, properly calibrated system, in a treated room, with plenty of headroom and little distortion, these levels do not 'sound loud'. So 'steel eardrums' aren't needed, fortunately :) What do you do when you go to a movie theatre? You can't ask them to 'turn it down' so perhaps you use musician's earplugs? (Serious question, I am not having a go at you). EDIT: ITYF that quite a few people in this thread enjoy systems that play cleanly at or close to Reference levels - I don't think I am all that unusual ;)
If my system sounded 'excruciatingly loud' (that's where I think I’d need 'steel eardrums) at these levels, I'd be fairly certain something was wrong. Assuming that none of the equipment was faulty, or being driven beyond its designed parameters, the first suspect would be the room and untamed reflections.
For music, where there are no standards, I try to listen at what is my recollection of similar music played live. I mostly listen to Jazz and Blues, Soul etc. I have plenty of experience at listening to this sort of music live and I just try to approximate that at home. It is subjective - I have never taken an SPL meter to a gig :) To me, the point of 'hi-fidelity' is to recreate the original sound, or at least get as close to that goal as possible (As Quad used to say ; "the closest approach to the original sound"). I realise others have different objectives of course, but that is mine.
Well that isn't what Roger says. He says: "If the horn is loud and tends to mask the piano, then the process will adapt based on the piano. When the horn ceases, the process will adapt to the piano." I suspect he meant 'horn' when he said the first 'piano' BICBW. I dont argue with Roger, ever ;)
According to those who claim to know, it does more than that. (THX LP does what you describe). Apparently, DEQ 'listens ahead' and when it spots loud and soft passages 'coming up' it adjusts for them on the fly, regardless of the setting of the MV. IOW, it adjusts for the input level as well as for the output level. The fans say that this is the 'dynamic' part. IDK if this is true or not but it is being touted as the huge difference between DEQ and the other forms of EQ which purport to do the same thing.
I actually don't really care what it does or how it works because, for me, it doesn't actually do very much at all because of the levels I habitually listen at. But it's interesting to read all the different theories, for that is all they are.
I permanently damaged my hearing at a King Crimson gig many years ago, before there were controls on the SPLs allowed. The 2 hour gig gave me tinnitus in my right ear and I have had it ever since of course. Fortunately, I am usually able to 'tune it out' so it doesn't bother me too much, except when I am very tired and then I seem to find it difficult to tune it out.
:) Their albums still sell well so I am told... the thing about being old is that it is a damn sight better than the alternative ;)
To play it at realistic levels, you need a system that can sustain 120dB for 2 hours. Well, that's what they apparently did when I saw then :(
I agree with you. You need to ask Feri - he's the one who knows how it works. And IIRC he says it does not compress.
Yes, there may be some conflation. Nonetheless, if it doesn't 'know' the input level has changed and all it does is adjust the EQ based on the position of the MV (the output level), and vary the EQ amount, of course, by reference to how far the MV is moved from 0dB (the 'dynamic' bit in my feeble understanding of it), then all it does is what THX LP does. I mentioned that in a poorly worded post a day or so ago and sparked off this entire heated debate (unfortunately). It HAS to do more than what I just said here, or it is the same as THX LP. And those who say they 'know' say it isn't like THX LP at all. Harrison gave the most clear explanation IMO of how it is alleged to work. He said this (and Feri agreed with him (my bolding):
"As THX explains, you turn down the volume and they dial in a fixed EQ curve that provides tier one (I like that characterization btw). That would be all one needs if every track had just one amplitude from beginning to end. With Audyssey, you get that first tier correction and on top of that you get more or less EQ adjustment in accordance with the equal loudness contours as the amplitude of the track content rises and falls. For instance, a bass drum hit that is at the reference level would be corrected via tier one at your listening level (let's say -20db) correctly by THX or Audyssey. Another softer hit of the same bass drum that is 10 or 20db below reference level would not have extra correction in the THX implementation but would have more EQ in accordance with the equal loudness contour at that -10 or -20db level in the Audyssey implementation. I.e., with the THX implementation you hear the bass less as the amplitude of the track drops".
Kal chimed in with:
"My recollection about Audyssey's DEQ is that they were the first, and maybe still the only company that adjusts the EQ every millisecond or two as the level of the content varies. That surely deserves to be called "dynamic.""
"And that is what makes me leery of it. If the quieter notes are more EQ-ed to sound as if they are less quiet while the louder notes are less EQ-ed, that is a musical distortion, imho. Linking the correction to overall level setting makes more sense even if there is the capability to do "dynamic" EQ."