It is kind of amazing to consider that the first parametric EQs were not around until the early 70's. Anyway, if we're talking about "using EQ in recordings of music", not EQ curves for developing the technology: You have to go to the "electrical" recording age, not using all the old non-electrical technology.
EQ was first used in recording and named equalization for creating the impression of "distance" in early electrical orchestral recordings: roll off the bass, and the instrument will sound further away, just like in actual life. So EQ was originally about instrument mix distance. Still is. Surely that means edition came up with microphone technique? Is it George Massenburg is the inventor of the parametric EQ? Daniel N. Flickinger introduced the first parametric equalizer in early His design leveraged the high performance op-amp of his own design, the series USPTO to achieve filtering circuits that were before impossible.
Six knobs on his early EQ's would control these sweepable filters. Up to six switches were incorporated to select shelving on the high and low bands, and bypassing for any unused band for the purest signal path.
His original model boasts specifications that are seldom met today. In May Massenburg introduced the term Parametric Equalization in a paper presented at the 42nd convention of the [[Audio Engineering Society. Slightly off topic however bare with me. I suspect, although difficult to prove that, some of those engineers might well have worked at Bletchley Park during WW2 and later, found gainful employment in the various commercial studios post war.
However, it being the late 40s early 50s through to the 60s those people just kept quiet about their war time work as they had signed the official secrets act and people well, just were less liable to ever say anything back then. I can see a situation where, when people started to experiment with sound and the gear they used in order to create music that, there might well have been to odd ex Bletchley Park person around who had already tried and "new" that you could push things a lot more with the gear as they had themselves in order to squeezes the last bit of intelligible speech from some Axis transmission.
Given the modern computer was first built at Bletchley Park I have a strong inkling they were also probably pushing EQ and Compression way beyond previous limits for purely practical military reasons however, I can imagine that, in their later lives, they might well have the actual facilitators for certain recording techniques and even certain units being built. You can pull a channel and replace it, and providing all the controls are set the same, there will be no change in gain or sound.
One reason for doing this was that classical recordings were often spread over a number of sessions on different days, sometimes weeks apart. The engineer would log all the settings and reset them on subsequent sessions, so the sounds matched.
A sort of paper based recall system - tedious to do but reliable and accurate. This shows the complexity of some of the wiring inside the Curvebender. This is a later stereo version. Attached Thumbnails. I've read a few articles about Bob Heil getting credit for the first parametric eq. In talking with both George Massenburg and Burgess McNiel several times both will claim that they invented the parametric while working together at ITI.
George went on to publish the term 'parametric equalizer' and Burgess would be pissed off ever since. At least that is the impression I got each time I talked to Burgess. What they 'invented' was the ability for the Q to sweep through the octave range making it as wide or as tight as you would want , most other equalizers before that had fixed Q settings that get narrower the more you boost or cut.
Hope this helps. I bet UA declares that the almighty Bill Putnam invented this in one of their history promos. The fact that it is stepped means that there are fixed frequencies and the part of the word "para" in parametric wouldn't apply.
The parametric has continuously variable control over the frequencies. In other words it can be swept though ALL of the frequencies. The variable "Q" was a rlatively easy addition to the circuit. Basically, the EMI device is a combination of notch filters and shelving filters. Those were quite common in the U. Les Paul states that he first saw filters in the film studios. He says that he never saw filters in recording or braodcast studios. However, with graphic equalizers, engineers were still limited to the constraints imposed by the number and location of bands.
By , Saul Walker introduced the API A equalizer, whose bandwidth is inherently altered relative to the amount of signal boosted. This EQ, like others of its time, featured a fixed selection of frequencies, and variable boost or cut controls at those frequencies.
In , Daniel Flickinger invented an important tunable equalizer. In , Burgess Macneal and George Massenburg began work on a new recording console. But not quite, since the oil patch was still concerned that Ottawa was able, with abandon, to tax and regulate the energy sector, which is, after all, under provincial ownership. Without going too deeply into detail, the resource provinces were able to lobby successfully to have section 92A enshrined in the Constitution Act, as part of the over- all Charter and patriation package.
Section 92A granted the provinces exclu- sive legislative authority over the devel- opment, conservation and management of natural resources, as well as the ability to raise money and to tax with respect to natural resources, forestry and sites for hydro power generation.
The NEP remains indelibly etched in the psyche of Albertans, ready to emerge when their interests are deemed to be at stake. In the meantime, the principle of equalization had become so accepted by provinces and Canadians that it was enshrined in the Constitution Act, as section 36 2 appropriately, on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.
While embraced in principle, in practice the program lay in shambles. In the fiscal arrangements, the priorities of the federal government with respect to equalization were twofold: to find a way to minimize or in any event to reduce the impact of energy on the for- mula, and to find a way to exclude Ontario via the operation of the formu- la, not via arbitrary and retroactive decrees.
Beyond these reports, specif- ic proposals in the early s time frame included: two-tier systems; rev- enue sharing pools; equalizing for both revenue means and expenditure needs as in Australia; full NAS equalization with percent inclusion of resources; schemes that called for NAS with partial resource inclusion the NAS proposal of Saskatchewan ; an intriguing proposal from Quebec for having a single category for resources defined by actual revenues that would be equalized via the disparities arising from an average of broad-based tax bases essentially PIT, CIT and provincial sales taxes rather than the much larger disparities arising from the resource bases themselves; and so on.
All of this should be very familiar, since most of these proposals surfaced again over the last year or so. The initial federal proposal in the November budget called for an Ontario standard. Moreover, given that Ontario had little in the way of an energy revenue base, an Ontario stan- dard would minimize the impact of energy on the formula. In the event, and persuaded by the provinces that a single province might end up being too volatile a standard, Ottawa adapt- ed the famous five-province standard FPS , where the five provinces includ- ed in the FPS are BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
Excluded are energy-rich Alberta on the high side and the four Atlantic provinces on the low side, where the populations of the two were then roughly equivalent. While percent of resource revenues was included in the formula, the resource tax bases in Alberta and the Atlantic provinces were excluded. Drawing from recent data, in the FPS embodied only 39 percent of all resource-revenue bases in Canada i.
This means that a province with no fossil energy, such as New Brunswick, would receive only 39 per- cent of the energy equalization that it would receive under a full NAS stan- dard.
All in all, however, the FPS was a stroke of political genius in that it effectively survived for a quarter- century. As a result, the period between and the recent and on-going energy price spike was relatively calm on the equalization front. The princi- pal exception was the east coast off- shore oil and gas discoveries, and the Atlantic and Nova Scotia Offshore Accords that provided some sheltering of their energy revenues on a sliding scale over 10 years from equalization clawbacks.
As these accords matured, Ottawa ensured that both provinces qualified for the so-called generic solu- tion, namely that if a province has 70 percent or more of an equalization tax base, then it can shelter 30 percent of these revenues from entering the formula; i.
These con- fiscatory equalization clawbacks occurred for several reasons. Second, even though Saskatchewan had over 70 percent of the base in almost all of the resource cat- egories, it was not allowed to qualify for the generic solu- tion because Ottawa arbitrar- ily required Saskatchewan to have at least 70 percent of the overall tax base, including the tax bases of the non-FPS provinces.
This is double jeopardy. A third reason is that somewhere in the back rooms of the equalization secretariat, decisions were effectively made that Saskatchewan is collecting significantly less revenue than it should be.
The July Council of the Federation meeting unanimously proposed to increase equal- ization to its previous high level and then to increase it annually. Hitherto, the equalization formula generated both the total amount of equalization and its distribu- tion across the receiving provinces.
Henceforth, the total for any year would be fixed, so that the role of any formula would only be to allocate this fixed pool across the recipient provinces. But it will obviously have a major impact on their distribution.
0コメント