Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante  It's not impossible that the Burl is actually flatter than the Apogee (which would make it more desirable imho), and the EQ changes to the Burl track to get them to sound the same are actually compensating for the bumps and dips of the Apogee, not simulating the curve of the Burl. Most likely somewhere in between. The Rosetta 800 is nowhere near being flat, that's for sure. |
Sorry but tests (done by independent people with highend test equipment and resulting graphs) have shown that the rosettaīs frequency response is no more than around +/- 0.1, maybe +/- 0.2 dB here and there except for the extreme lows and highs. The fact that EQ moves of 1dB or greater make the sound much more similar to the burl leaves no other logical interpretation than that the burl is the one that has the less flat (but not less flattering) frequency response. the ONLY other reason I can possibly think of is group delay. If some frequency bands are delayed vs the others it might also be perceived like a different "eq" curve...
actually, the most interesting test would be to run Q-Clone on the burl and make a preset. According to waves, Q-Clone "clones" frequency response AND phase alterations, at least static phase alterations. So as long as any phase alterations are not dynamically changing, frequency and phase issues should be duplicated very well. I would love to hear what differences remain....but I am sure this will not be done anytime soon because it will most probably be against the interest of the manufacturer and the distributer...
guess UBK will also not do it, right? who said here earlier that you canīt serve two masters? I agree more and more with that statement
