Are Harrison graphics any good ?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thanks Keith.

I'm trying to talk the guy who owns the rig I operate to out these Alesis Graphics we have been using, & am wondering if there is a significant improvement in replacing them with the Harrisons ?
 
Nyeeeeehhhh... it depends.

The only real way to know is to try. The Alesis may well have some headroom issues, but it depends on your gain structure.

"Suck it and see", I suppose.

Keith
 
The Urei's are hit and miss. -Some of the 9-band versions (535???) are inductor based and actually fairly nice sounding... but the inductor-based KTs are indeed the mutts nutts. I've used inductor Whites before now, but they really weren't as good as I'd hoped.

Keith
 
[quote author="Rob Flinn"][quote author="Lo-Fi"]ashley's have done a decent job for me.[/quote]

Thanks I'll take at look at them since KT's are rather over budget.[/quote]

Whatever you do please don't be tempted by those new Chinese made purple KT graphics, I can't remember the model and my internet connection is too slow to go a lookin'. They are IMHO horrible and nothing like the wonderfully smooth sounding KT of old. I mix a live gig for a friend from time to time in a nice venue with a decent EV rig. Unfortunately the graphics are the yucky KTs and the desk is a small Midas venice (surely one of the most over-rated pieces of gear in recent live sound history, hate the eq).

In my limited recent experience of live sound (used to do tons) I've liked some of the DBX stuff and the Ashleys.

Best of luck,
Ruairi
 
[quote author="Rob Flinn"]Rauri

I take it you mean this one
http://www.ktsquareone.com/graphic.php

Am I right in thinking that the really nice sounding one is the DN27 ?


What are the DN360 & DN370 like (apart from too expensive) ????[/quote]


Hi Rob,

that's the one. I've used them on several rigs and hated them. I'm not sure what it is about them. The cuts and boosts seem very narrow which is perhaps good for notching an offending band but sucks for general tonal shaping of an errant PA. I found myself having to minimise the amount of eq I used so as not to end up with a phasey, coloured mess.

I haven't used a 370 but I've always liked the 360s I've used. it's been a good while since I layed my hands on the DN27 but I think that is the inductor model of which Keith speaks. There's a venue near home with 6 of them in an unused stage monitor rig - would love to lay my hands on em...

Cheers,
Ruairi

P.S. just remembered that a very good friend of mine (and fantastic engineer) is selling a minty DN360 for 700 EUR (about 550 pounds). This guy babies his gear and I think that's a good price. Not sure what they are going for these days. PM me if you want his info.
 
Ruari,

I think that they're IC filters, whereas the old DN27s (ah... bliss!) were inductor-tuned filters.

Lindsay and 'Court Acoustics' were the same, in case you ever see any Stephen Court graphics... (I used to really like their Sound reinforcement systems!)

Keith
 
Just to be a little contrary, the distinction isn't specifically between IC and inductors, but more like capacitors (RC) vs Inductors (RLC), with the older designs more likely to be discrete vs. IC. So multiple variables involved in this comparison.

While it is possible to make gyrator circuits (IC + RC) that mimmic or perhaps better real inductors (less hum field sensitivity, etc). I doubt the circuit topologies being compared are apple to apples.

Perhaps if one determines a classic product worth modernizing, the topology could be replicated with gyrators in place of inductors and ICs for discrete with even better performance, while covering the classic transfer function. Unless it's the flaws and nonlinearity of the older designs that contribute to a sound that people recall fondly.

Modern designs don't take this approach because it is more parts intensive (read more expensive) than simple RC filter sets.

Or not.. YMMV

JR
 
[quote author="ruairioflaherty"][quote author="Rob Flinn"][quote author="Lo-Fi"]ashley's have done a decent job for me.[/quote]

Thanks I'll take at look at them since KT's are rather over budget.[/quote]

Whatever you do please don't be tempted by those new Chinese made purple KT graphics, I can't remember the model and my internet connection is too slow to go a lookin'. They are IMHO horrible and nothing like the wonderfully smooth sounding KT of old. I mix a live gig for a friend from time to time in a nice venue with a decent EV rig. Unfortunately the graphics are the yucky KTs and the desk is a small Midas venice (surely one of the most over-rated pieces of gear in recent live sound history, hate the eq).

In my limited recent experience of live sound (used to do tons) I've liked some of the DBX stuff and the Ashleys.

Best of luck,
Ruairi[/quote]



i second the dbx's also. if you are on a tight budget, i think dbx would have to be the best bang for the buck if you cant afford the kt's or ashleys or BSS.

best of luck.
 
[quote author="JohnRoberts"]Just to be a little contrary, the distinction isn't specifically between IC and inductors, but more like capacitors (RC) vs Inductors (RLC), with the older designs more likely to be discrete vs. IC. So multiple variables involved in this comparison.

While it is possible to make gyrator circuits (IC + RC) that mimmic or perhaps better real inductors (less hum field sensitivity, etc). I doubt the circuit topologies being compared are apple to apples.

Perhaps if one determines a classic product worth modernizing, the topology could be replicated with gyrators in place of inductors and ICs for discrete with even better performance, while covering the classic transfer function. Unless it's the flaws and nonlinearity of the older designs that contribute to a sound that people recall fondly.

Modern designs don't take this approach because it is more parts intensive (read more expensive) than simple RC filter sets.

Or not.. YMMV

JR[/quote]

Good points John, I've certainly used nice graphic eqs based around IC opamps and rotten ones based on IC opamps. As ever it depends on the implementation.

Cheers,
Ruairi
 
KT DN27/DN27A have 27 inductors and only 3 opamps
and are truely the nicest sounding 1/3 oct. graphic EQ
ever made.

As keef would say "ah... blis!" (they truly are!)

The only difference between the DN27 and DN27A are
The input and output iron are bolted to the side of
the case in the DN27 and on a daughter card on the DN27A.
Also 1 volt difference in the PSU. These guys are the best
Evilbay deal in graphics when you find them.

They sound much nicer than the "Melt Filter" DN360
but need twice the rack space. :thumb:

GARY
 
Modern designs don't take this approach because it is more parts intensive

I find this ironic because I see many brand new units completely stuffed with components just to obtain a bland sound. for example DIGIPRE. Ill bet it tests well but the API pre with less parts (by factor of 10) would generate more smiles.
 
...also Amorris and I have no less than three of the dbx 3231L's on the bench at the moment, trying to track down power-rail shorts.

These bastards were NOT made to be worked on. -The upper card is not so bad, but the lower card is almost impossible to get to.

-Add to that the level of "assistance" (read: "denial", despite all three units having identical symptoms) from dbxpro, and you get a resounding "Hell no!!!" from me and Andrew.

Go with the KT's, dump the dbx's. They may sound good, but fixing them will give you the fits, due to a mechanical assembly which WILL make you curse at them. -I GUARANTEE it.

Keef
 
Back
Top