This is not to adjust recording eq with itzs reciprocal playback eq.

This would be to add subjective eq,  I'm working with many orchestral 78s
from the early electrical era.  Mike placement varies so much from session
to session that it takes a long time to adjust each set.  Knowing that I can
get back and make adjustments later, if needed, is comforting.  I'm used to
using parametrics in the analog domain to get the sound of massed strings
"right" as that also clarifies the distinctive sounds of the solo wind
players.  

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted Kendall
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 6:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Multiple conversions

Not all digital EQ exhibits the same phase characteristics as the equivalent
analogue network, and this is important when applyng RIAA playback EQ, for
example.


On 23/01/2018 11:09, Lou Judson wrote:
> I don't know in the ARSC community, but in generalaudio engineering,
digital EQ can be more accurate and efficient than analog, and can be done
in faster than real time. Why would you want to do that, I'm curious.
>
> Mastering engineers do some work in analog domain, but not just simple EQ.
>
> <L>
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
> On Jan 22, 2018, at 9:07 PM, Steve Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Using 96/24 throughout, what is present thinking about converting from a
digital file to analog, equalizing, and reconverting, using 2 computers and
2 converters?
>>
>> Steven Smolian


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus