Is using an EQ cheating? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Is using an EQ cheating?



topspeed
11-04-2005, 12:28 PM
In a recent TAS review of the Audio Physic Padua, the reviewer noted that the speaker had a hot top end, a boomy bass, and a mid-bass suckout. Naturally, he was more eloquent than I and coined the normal audiophilogy that only lunatics like AR members understand :rolleyes:. Still, it sounded to me like the speaker had issues.

That is, until you applied EQ.

After using a Z Systems EQ and analyzer, the speaker suddenly became world class. WTH?

Now, I'm not about to debate the effectiveness or neccessity of EQ'ing to tame room acoustics and interaction. Let's just all agree that if you've got the wherewithall to get a Z Systems, TacT, Linn, or name-your-brand EQ, more power to ya! The point is, as a reviewer, by applying an EQ to a speaker aren't you effectively modifying the design in some form? Indeed, in my mind this is cheating! If a speaker's design proves problematic, then say so. For Pete's sake, don't put a band-aid on it and declare that all is well. Sheesh!

What say you?

Resident Loser
11-04-2005, 12:44 PM
...my answer is a resounding "NO", it's just assisting with the interface...

All rooms are not created equal(no pun intended) nor are loudspeakers...after you've done all you can placement wise and throw-pillow wise(WAF is a big part), the judicious use of some elctronic aid is often the ONLY solution.

If I'm not mistaken, a long lost participant of these pages(a certain Arizona attorney) has a set of loudspeakers that were tweeked by a tech(the company pres.?) using the eq's that are actually a part of the loudspeakers themselves...

I use one and it works for me.

jimHJJ(...just my two cents...)

Feanor
11-04-2005, 12:48 PM
In a recent TAS review of the Audio Physic Padua, the reviewer noted that the speaker had a hot top end, a boomy bass, and a mid-bass suckout....

That is, until you applied EQ.

After using a Z Systems EQ and analyzer, the speaker suddenly became world class. WTH?
...
For a reviewing perspective this is a crock :rolleyes:

On the other hand there is nothing wrong with using EQ in your system. It's the end result that counts. If a $150 Behringer parametric makes your $1000 speakers sound as good as a $10k speaker, why not go for it????

topspeed
11-04-2005, 12:49 PM
Don't get me wrong Jim, I'm all for addressing room issues. I just don't think the reviewer should use one to rectify an unbalanced speaker. If a speaker is picky about room issues, just say so. The design utilizes opposed side firing 8" drivers, which could very well be contributing to their finicky nature.

As for speakers with DSP/EQ correction on board, there is no doubt in my mind that you will find more and more speakers like this. B&O, Meridian, and NHT already have them. More will join...

GMichael
11-04-2005, 12:50 PM
It's all cheating. We're trying to cheat our ears into believing the sound is live. But it's really just memorex.

LeoFenderBender
11-04-2005, 01:04 PM
It's all cheating. We're trying to cheat our ears into believing the sound is live. But it's really just memorex.

I really think you are on to something here.

Geoffcin
11-04-2005, 01:15 PM
In a recent TAS review of the Audio Physic Padua, the reviewer noted that the speaker had a hot top end, a boomy bass, and a mid-bass suckout. Naturally, he was more eloquent than I and coined the normal audiophilogy that only lunatics like AR members understand :rolleyes:. Still, it sounded to me like the speaker had issues.

That is, until you applied EQ.

After using a Z Systems EQ and analyzer, the speaker suddenly became world class. WTH?

Now, I'm not about to debate the effectiveness or neccessity of EQ'ing to tame room acoustics and interaction. Let's just all agree that if you've got the wherewithall to get a Z Systems, TacT, Linn, or name-your-brand EQ, more power to ya! The point is, as a reviewer, by applying an EQ to a speaker aren't you effectively modifying the design in some form? Indeed, in my mind this is cheating! If a speaker's design proves problematic, then say so. For Pete's sake, don't put a band-aid on it and declare that all is well. Sheesh!

What say you?

Some designers choose NOT to produce a speaker with an impeccably flat frequency responce. I give you the Totem Rainmaker as an example; Easily detected "hump" in the midbass, and a smooth rise in the treble to 10k or so. To my ears the speaker sounds GREAT for it'a size, but it'a not flat by any stretch. It's not that Totem doesn't know how to make a flat responding speaker, They also make the Mani-2 Sig with it's stupid flat +/- .75 db over the fat range of it's responce.

A designer should have an idea of what he wants his speaker to sound like. If it doesn't sound good to start with people should not have to Eq it to make it sound better. That's just a cop out.

markw
11-04-2005, 01:42 PM
In a recent TAS review of the Audio Physic Padua, the reviewer noted that the speaker had a hot top end, a boomy bass, and a mid-bass suckout. Naturally, he was more eloquent than I and coined the normal audiophilogy that only lunatics like AR members understand :rolleyes:. Still, it sounded to me like the speaker had issues.

That is, until you applied EQ.

After using a Z Systems EQ and analyzer, the speaker suddenly became world class. WTH?

Now, I'm not about to debate the effectiveness or neccessity of EQ'ing to tame room acoustics and interaction. Let's just all agree that if you've got the wherewithall to get a Z Systems, TacT, Linn, or name-your-brand EQ, more power to ya! The point is, as a reviewer, by applying an EQ to a speaker aren't you effectively modifying the design in some form? Indeed, in my mind this is cheating! If a speaker's design proves problematic, then say so. For Pete's sake, don't put a band-aid on it and declare that all is well. Sheesh!

What say you?If they give an eq with each speaker system (ala Bose 901, Vandersteen 5's, etc.) then no, it's not a sham. If they don't provide said EQ, then I'd say yes, it's a sham.

When reviewing something you report on what IT does, not what it's capable of with additional components*. When evaluating a speaker I would accept tweaking it's position in a room as valid but applying external EQ is simply a sham. Another reason TAS is a laugh.

*Not counting amps and source, wiseguys.

PAT.P
11-04-2005, 02:04 PM
I just got home with a Behringer Ultragraph Pro FBQ3102 ,still testing it .I've plug the output of CD player to input of the EQ and from the output of EQ to the receiver .Had a 7 band for 15 years ,now this one is 31 band stereo.This thing is great even show when its at the "clip" level.This one also as Sub out (mono) with X-Over Frenq .

kexodusc
11-04-2005, 02:40 PM
Problem is speakers can measure flat at 1 or 2 metres in the lab, anechoic or otherwise. But off axis in a typical room with umpteen million variations of furniture placement, etc, there's no way it will be consistently flat. I think in the end most EQ is addressing the speaker's interaction with the room.

Geoffcin's right too. FR is just 1 small part of the equation. How many $200 speakers are there on the market now that measure flat +/- 2 dB? I can name a few.

Combine that with everyone's unique hearing perception, that attenuates some frequencies and is more receptive to others, and it's an uphill battle. No wonder we don't all like the same speaker.

EQ's are useful tool if used well. I just get scared when I see people with a huge boost at 60 Hz, 120Hz, and a big cut between 500 and 1 KHz, then more boosts at 10-20KHz.

To me that's noise shaping.

RGA
11-04-2005, 06:56 PM
I simply don;t understand why people make non issues into issues -- if you like using EQ and tone controls you should not feel bad or made to believe you're not apart of the self appointed golden ear variety club.

The point of a stereo system is to provide long term musical enjoyment -- However you get there is up to you.

I don't buy into Equalizers because if you get a sophisticated one you can get any speaker to have virtually dead flat response at your listneing position -- if i felt that Frequency response was as important as some ad copy touts then this is not really an expensive purchase. Flat response is IMO not nearly as important as other things by the sheer number of speakers that have incredibly flat response and end up sounding incredibly dissapointing - this may not mean flat response is unimportant but it sure means to my ear that Flat response in a vacuum (without considering many other spects) means absolutely nothing.

My personal belief is that EQ is not neccessry if you have speakers that timbrally and tonally do it right for your ear. I used to use it on my old system and I think it's more to fix something you know is wrong and there is no Timbre,Tone, Timing, Clarity and Dynamic knob so we're stuck with bass boost and treble boost and the EQ which is essentially a suped up version.

Indeed my Wharfedales have these Contour controls which allows a +/-6db control of each of the treble and midrange drive units (an adjustable crossover for both drivers in roughly .2db incriments) which is passive and allows a "fix" for room conditions. The Wharfedales were made from sophisticated computer modelling (for the 1980's). to be honest though the controls don't really make much of difference and if set to the middle point I don;t see the need or desire to change them and I have had them for 15 years in 6 different homes/apartments. The frequency response, imaging, soundstaging, and off axis response (they're horns) are not the speaker's strong points - and yet in those other less discussed areas they trump most current stuff under $4k.

Woochifer
11-07-2005, 06:08 PM
Wow, very interesting topic. I think it is a copout if a reviewer uses an EQ that's not part of the package when you buy a pair of speakers. If Audio Physic did not include the EQ with the speakers, then that reviewer had no business using it as part of his review -- unless every other speaker that the magazine reviews also includes equalization as part of the review process (and I've never seen TAS do this, except for the times that they actually review EQ components).

Any room will affect the timbral balance of a speaker simply because the contents of the room and the room surfaces will reflect different frequencies at different amplitudes. A professional reviewer needs to be aware of how their listening room interactions affect what they hear, and try the speakers out in different rooms, if possible. However, some timbral characteristics for a speaker can remain generally consistent from room to room. Those are the characteristics that a reviewer needs to call out, even if it reflects negatively on the speaker. All of the TAS reviewers already use their own reference systems for comparison, so they can easily determine how a reviewed pair of speakers differs from their personal reference point. Using an EQ works fine for correcting any measurable anomalies that a room can create, however to maintain comparability from review to review, a reviewer can't just whip out the EQ when presented with a pair of speakers that don't sound right, unless they can do a comparable correction with every other speaker that they review.

Contrastly, I think that it's fine to use an EQ with a subwoofer because of how huge an effect the room boundary and acoustical effects have on the low frequencies. (If the room creates a +20db peak at 60 Hz, then EVERY subwoofer will sound boomy in that room, even if it might sound completely different in another room) So long as the EQ is applied consistently and the reviewer is up front about it, then I'm fine with it. Ed Mullen's subwoofer reviews at hometheaterhifi.com include a series of listening tests and frequency response measurements under quasi-anecholic conditions (outdoors in a large open area), in-room unequalized, and in-room with a Rane parametric equalizer. IMO, that's how you do a review.

Seems like TAS did not want to report anything negative, and found a way to keep a negative review from getting out, short of suppressing it (sort of like how they refused to run Richard Hardesty's negative review of the Wilson WATT Puppy).

filecat13
11-07-2005, 08:09 PM
Assuming a paid reviewer listens to most equipment in a familiar environment like his favorite listening room, he should have quite a bit of control over that environment. If he normally reviews speakers as they are delivered to him, then that ought to be the standard for comparison. Unless the manufacturer specifies something like "these speakers do not reach their full potential unless you EQ them with a high quality unit (not supplied)," then they should be able to stand or fall on their stock configuration.

Frankly, if any expensive speakers require a separate, non-included piece of equipment to function acceptably, why would any normal person accept that shortcoming? Sure, maybe some high end freak would see the merit in that if by spending more money he believed he got something "better" than what he actually got.

In this case, the reviewer refused to tell the truth, so he created a "truth" he could tell.

PAT.P
11-07-2005, 09:51 PM
Just upgrade my EQ 7band mono for a Behringer Ultragraph Pro FBQ3102 ,31 band stereo with Feedback detection all I can say "What a Difference".Music comes alive ,100% more imaging on all aspect .Im using this on 25 +years old receivers with plain JBL and Yamaha speakers in basement.Listen more music now in basement then upstairs.The wife of all people told me she likes the sound more (after she notice it when cleaning up the basement).At first I thought I was a dead man ,she told me no more toys months ago .Now Im looking at a Digital 31 band stereo EQ for my HT upstair (might need to sneak this one in new year) .

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-08-2005, 04:56 AM
I think this is just wrong. Using eq is a last resort, a last resort. First comes your position in the room, then comes room treatments, then to handle the lowest bass, eq since this is the most efficient way to deal with low bass issues. Using eq to deal with speaker problems as opposed to room problems is just plain wrong. Buy better speakers rather than band aid them.

kexodusc
11-08-2005, 05:59 AM
I'm not saying what this reviewer did was totally fair. But let's be honest here. What does an EQ do? It affects the FR, boosts or cuts signals. And that's pretty much it.

In my simplistic evaluation scheme, frequency response (FR) only receives a max of 20% of the value of the speaker. And actually, probably far less so these days now that so many speakers have excellent FR. Given that even $200 speakers are pretty flat these days, +/- 3 dB (which I can't discern as being inferior to +/-1 dB response alone) the FR is probably less significant than that as a determining factor in the decision to buy.

But let's say for the sake of argument 20%.

So, assessing a speaker can be simplified by the following weight attribution:
(note, this is just a quick example, off the top fo my head. The weight allocations aren't really what I look for, in fact I've never really put a number to any of them, but should reflect the thought process)

FR = 20%
Imaging = 20%
Soundstage = 20%
Resolution/detail = 20%
Attack/decay/"speed" = 20%

Let's say an absolutely spectacular speaker scores higher than 80 pts.

Let's also say this Audio Physic Padua scored

12/20
18/20
18/20
18/20
18/20


It would receive an overall score of 84. But the FR is as crappy as a Bose speaker.
It could very well be that the midbass suckout, brightness, or whatever is actually appealing to some. It's also reasonable to think that despite the FR deficiencies, the rest of the package is just absolutely phenomenal. Very real, natural attack and decay, extremely high detail, superior imaging and soundstage. It's an 84 speaker.
If another speaker with a score of 18/20 in FR was overall rated at 83, it's probably not as good. (assuming the weights are representative of what you look for in a speaker).

FR is important, but it's also extremely overrated IMO. As Geoffcin said, some speaker designers custom shape their FR plots to present a sound they find appealing, more so than ruler flat. Maybe the Audio Physic Padua is a speaker that was designed to be engaging, and the FR response was a consequence of achieving the level of performance in the other attributes?

Adding an EQ in this example, could easily bring that speaker from an 84 to a 92 or better.

So on the one hand, the speaker is very appealing to some with bad FR. On the other, an optional piece of electronics can launch the speaker to legendary status.

What's so bad about that?

GMichael
11-08-2005, 06:10 AM
I believe the original post is about whether or not a reviewer should say that a speaker sounds great if you use an EQ.
I don't think he has a problem with EQ's in general. After all, doesn't every auto set-up system out there set the EQ while it's setting levels? Don't most of the newer receivers have this auto set-up?

kexodusc
11-08-2005, 06:27 AM
You're right GMichael. Topspeed has a point. It's easy to get frustrated with reviewers that only paint rosey pictures, and the review should have boldly stated something to the effect that you woudn't want these speakers without an EQ, but with an EQ they can be good.

I think more and more of the newer recievers have an EQ in auto-setup, but you won't find that in 2-channel audio. You're lucky to get bass and treble controls. It's anti-purist. I tend to agree with Sir T, if I have to spend a few hundred bucks to buy an EQ, I might as well just buy better speakers.
I just don't agree with some people who think EQ's are evil.

GMichael
11-08-2005, 06:41 AM
I'm not sure what to think of EQ's. Back in the 70 when I was first getting into better stereo's, I was told that EQ's add distortion. There was a very good reason for this at the time. But sinse I didn't understand a word of it, I don't remember it. I've heard others say how great they are. Some cost mega $$. Now I see these auto setups that detect all the reflections in the room and adjust for them. No 2 of my speakers ended up with the same settings on the internal EQ even though they are matched. How cool is that?
Are there more than one type of EQ? One kind that uses one method that works well but costs a lot, and another that sucks but is cheaper?

Feanor
11-08-2005, 07:36 AM
...
Are there more than one type of EQ? One kind that uses one method that works well but costs a lot, and another that sucks but is cheaper?
Perhaps we can divide EQ between analog and digital. Obviously digital will be cheaper of you want multi-band parameteric and/or 1/3 octave EQ, but could it be better as well as cheaper?

That is, digital might avoid phase shifts, etc.:confused: Then again, there is so much yak about the quality of DACs. Digital will generally mean adding a ADC => DSP => DAC sequence to the signal path.

E-Stat
11-08-2005, 09:47 AM
IWhat does an EQ do? It affects the FR, boosts or cuts signals. And that's pretty much it.
Along with compromising some of the signal integrity along the way in the case of active units!

This topic is among many reasons why HP is not happy as to what has happened to his magazine after having to sell it.

rw

GMichael
11-08-2005, 09:53 AM
Along with compromising some of the signal integrity along the way in the case of active units!

This topic is among many reasons why HP is not happy as to what has happened to his magazine after having to sell it.

rw

Do the internal EQ's found in receivers also compromise the signal integrity?

E-Stat
11-08-2005, 10:08 AM
Do the internal EQ's found in receivers also compromise the signal integrity?
Every active amplification stage, unity gain or not, compromises the signal to a degree. That's why I don't use a preamp at all with my CD source in two of my systems. I'm not against EQ per se and do prefer to have passive HF controls on my speakers.

I find it to be a question of balancing the benefits to the costs (in terms of lost transparency and imaging)

rw

PAT.P
11-08-2005, 11:34 AM
I think this is just wrong. Using eq is a last resort, a last resort. First comes your position in the room, then comes room treatments, then to handle the lowest bass, eq since this is the most efficient way to deal with low bass issues. Using eq to deal with speaker problems as opposed to room problems is just plain wrong. Buy better speakers rather than band aid them.Its funny people buy expensive cable ,room treatment ,thousand on source and what is all this for ?All studio,concert ,band use EQ must be a reason.Im a believer in using one ,my Yamaha as a YPAO is this in a way an aid to the room and speaker?

E-Stat
11-08-2005, 11:41 AM
Its funny people buy expensive cable ,room treatment ,thousand on source and what is all this for ?All studio,concert ,band use EQ must be a reason.Im a believer in using one ,my Yamaha as a YPAO is this in a way an aid to the room and speaker?
Gee that's funny. I've never seen an EQ or for that matter, a board, or PA bins whenever I go to the symphony. Or a truly live Jazz ensemble. Or listening to my wife play the baby grand.

There must be a reason.

rw

PAT.P
11-08-2005, 12:11 PM
Gee that's funny. I've never seen an EQ or for that matter, a board, or PA bins whenever I go to the symphony. Or a truly live Jazz ensemble. Or listening to my wife play the baby grand.

There must be a reason.

rwAre we not talking about using EQ with speakers?I listen to live performance probably more than you .I work in churches for the past 25 years ,I listen to the Organ on a daily basis ,grand piano.I tell you right now there not one speaker that could be equivalent to the real thing.

E-Stat
11-08-2005, 12:36 PM
Are we not talking about using EQ with speakers?
Nope. I'm responding to your false statement that All studio,concert ,band use EQ . Fortunately, that is not the case. My live reference is devoid of speakers, much less EQ.


I listen to live performance probably more than you .
Maybe, maybe not. The wife plays our piano almost nightly.


I listen to the Organ on a daily basis ,grand piano.I tell you right now there not one speaker that could be equivalent to the real thing.
When you say "The Organ", I trust you mean an air driven pipe organ. Indeed live is better than recorded. I'm not sure I get your point with respect to electronic EQ.

rw

topspeed
11-08-2005, 01:30 PM
Let me just state that I am not against EQ. I'm against a reviewer using EQ to make a bad $6K speaker sound better. That's wrong. That would be like a car reviewer complaining about a test vehicle's lack of step-off and then slapping a supercharger on it and declaring "All Better!" Call it like it is, that's all I'm sayin'.

This thread has actually taken a nice side step from one man's rant ( ;) ) into an interesting discussion on today's eq's. While I don't have any on my rig, I have definitely considered adding a BFD for my sub at the very minimum. The only thing stopping me is that I only use my sub for HT, so it's not a priority. Of course, the flip side is that if I applied the BFD, I'd probably use my sub for music more often! 6 one way, half a dozen the other...

As I understand it, the most sophisticated correction devices (TacT, Meridian) actually correct the signal in the digital realm, no? This in itself leaves gaping holes for arguments for and against particular DSP's, DAC's, and other processing links in the chain. Analog devices such as the Behringer can add distortion, so neither method is perfect.

Yet.

Ironically enough, there was a great article on this very topic in TAS not long ago. In fact, these "Roundtable Discussions" are the best part of the whole mag, IMO.

Woochifer
11-08-2005, 02:17 PM
Gee that's funny. I've never seen an EQ or for that matter, a board, or PA bins whenever I go to the symphony. Or a truly live Jazz ensemble. Or listening to my wife play the baby grand.

There must be a reason.

rw

Both Disney Hall in Los Angeles and Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco have PA setups, as well as control rooms with mixing boards. Disney Hall uses a Yamaha mixing board with a custom JBL PA system, while Davies Hall uses a Meyer Sound PA setup. Have to have some house setup for soloists, otherwise they're inaudible whenever the rest of the accompaniment joins in. I'm going to a performance of Carmina Burana on Thursday night at Davies, and I know for a fact that the soloists will be mic'd and amped through the Davies Hall PA system.

Every other live sound reinforcement application I've ever seen includes an EQ, including small jazz ensemble gigs.

E-Stat
11-08-2005, 07:34 PM
I'm going to a performance of Carmina Burana on Thursday night at Davies, and I know for a fact that the soloists will be mic'd and amped through the Davies Hall PA system.
That is among my favorites - enjoy yourself!


Every other live sound reinforcement application I've ever seen includes an EQ, including small jazz ensemble gigs.
I never said they didn't exist and your example is a rare exception. I was simply pointing out to PAT.P that the converse is certainly not true either, especially with acoustical music venues.

I have yet to hear a fully PA driven musical event that didn't sound like crap.

rw

Woochifer
11-08-2005, 08:13 PM
That is among my favorites - enjoy yourself!

This will be my fourth time seeing it performed live, those first three bars still gives me shivers every time I hear them!


I never said they didn't exist and your example is a rare exception. I was simply pointing out to PAT.P that the converse is certainly not true either, especially with acoustical music venues.

I have yet to hear a fully PA driven musical event that didn't sound like crap.

rw

I don't know if PA systems are a rarity in symphony halls, every one I've ever visited has one in place. The one inside of Davies gives just enough lift on the vocals and soloists so that they can be heard alongside a full orchestral section and/or chorus. Meyer Sound does a great job with designing theatrical and concert hall PA systems, and the use of their system at Davies is very unintrusive.

And with other live sound applications, the house mix is often necessary just to maintain a proper balance between all of the different instruments and vocals. Just last weekend, I saw a jazz ensemble in a room that seats no more than about 50 people. Everything was clearly audible, but the trumpet, trombone, and drum kit could easily overpower the vocals, saxophone, acoustic bass, and piano. The PA system was necessary just to ensure that everything could be heard by miking the softer instruments and vocals, and leaving the louder instruments unamplified.

PAT.P
11-08-2005, 08:46 PM
Nope. I'm responding to your false statement that All studio,concert ,band use EQ . Fortunately, that is not the case. My live reference is devoid of speakers, much less EQ.


Maybe, maybe not. The wife plays our piano almost nightly.


When you say "The Organ", I trust you mean an air driven pipe organ. Indeed live is better than recorded. I'm not sure I get your point with respect to electronic EQ.

rwIm back from church .Yes I do mean a full size Pipe organ with 2500 pipes and a 16 foot tall Pipe.Replacement around $600,000 ,this thing as the high and lows.Now getting back to EQ ,some people think that using a EQ is because the speakers are no good and we should buy a better speaker.We are all trying to have our speaker to sound more imaging .Some buy expensive gear,source,cables ,room treatment is this all also to get our dear speaker to be close to the real thing.For me a EQ is the cheapest way and a sure way if used the proper way.Some use Feedback Destroyer for sub(its also a speaker),some use a mixer,some receiver have a built in EQ and the list goes on.