Equalizer no more? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Equalizer no more?



yon_wu
11-19-2005, 11:53 PM
I remember it was late 80's and early 90's. Many manufacturers produced equalizers. And many people use them. Including myself. At that time I was playing in the mid-end audio field. Pioneer, Teac, Sansui, Technics are the brands I used to use.
Now I'm entering what people said to be hi-end audio field. Krell, B&W, KEF, Musical Fidelity, Arcam etc are the brands I'm familiar with. I even have some of them.
My question is, why theese hi-end manufacturers don't make equalizer? My hi-end vendor said it is due to the nature of eq, they said eq will alter the characteristic and naturality of theese hi-end products. They also said, that theese hi-end products doesn't need equalizing anymore.
I'm not satisfied with their answer, that's why I humbly ask this forum, why aren't eq is not as popular as before?

Thanks a lot. :confused:

Pat
11-20-2005, 02:25 AM
Hi Yon,
That salesman gave the answer I have heard the most, but I also know a few guys who swear by them and are very happy with their performance....like the BFD.

emaidel
11-20-2005, 07:27 AM
Equalizers, along with dynamic range expanders, all fall into the category of signal processors, or as audiophiles choose to call them, signal disturbers. I once considered this to be nothing more than elitist snobbery, until I too "graduated" into high end components, and found that the system just about always sounded better without an EQ, or any other form of enhancement.

Manufacturers of high end equipment prefer as little as possible extraneous information getting in the way of the signal path from their equipment to the loudspeakers of a first-rate audio system. Zillions of dollars can be spent on cables to do this, and the insertion of an electronic device of any type along the way is believed to do nothing other than to alter (and, consequently, "distort") the original, "pure" signal.

Elitist snobbery perhaps, but it's valid. Once you get into the realm of high-end stuff, the system rarely (if ever) sounds better with any form of signal processing. The equipment itself sounds so good that to do anything further to it is almost criminal.

LeoFenderBender
11-20-2005, 08:07 AM
Equalizers have their use to enhance or attenuate weaknesses in low-fi to mid-fi equipment. An equalizer attenuates/emphasizes sound at a given frequency.

Using a higher end preamp will negate most of the need for an equalizer. High end preamps are built with a manufacturer’s “seasoning” that enhances or attenuates the sound at different frequencies; the enhancement/attenuation is designed into the preamp itself; the good ones season the sound not too much and not too little.

• For example, boosting the bass too much at 16, 31, or at 60Hz will make it sound muddy. Boosting the bass too little at 60Hz makes it sound thin.

• Boosting too much at 125Hz makes it boomy. Boosting it too little at 125Hz makes it sound thin. When set just right, it will sound full without boominess.

• Boosting it too much at 250Hz makes it sound like a telephone and adds listening fatigue. Too little and you lose fullness of sound.

• Boosting it too much at 500Hz makes it sound honky. Boosting 1 to 2KHz sounds tinny. Boost too much of the high mids over 2kHz and you lose speech recognition, add a lisp, and listening fatigue takes over.

• Boost too much at 6kHz and the vocals hiss, boost too much at 8kHz and you add sibilance.

I used an equalizer up to and including my Adcom GFP-750 preamp. When I replaced the Adcom with a Krell KRC-3, I soon determined I no longer had need for an equalizer. The Krell doesn't have a preamp on the unit, but the EQ built into and part of the Krell designed circuitry is perfect enough for my ears.

E-Stat
11-20-2005, 08:20 AM
why aren't eq is not as popular as before?
They are in certain circles. You can buy a 31 band EQ for under $150. Go for it.

High end manufacturers have never produced EQs.

rw

Geoffcin
11-20-2005, 08:51 AM
I remember it was late 80's and early 90's. Many manufacturers produced equalizers. And many people use them. Including myself. At that time I was playing in the mid-end audio field. Pioneer, Teac, Sansui, Technics are the brands I used to use.
Now I'm entering what people said to be hi-end audio field. Krell, B&W, KEF, Musical Fidelity, Arcam etc are the brands I'm familiar with. I even have some of them.
My question is, why theese hi-end manufacturers don't make equalizer? My hi-end vendor said it is due to the nature of eq, they said eq will alter the characteristic and naturality of theese hi-end products. They also said, that theese hi-end products doesn't need equalizing anymore.
I'm not satisfied with their answer, that's why I humbly ask this forum, why aren't eq is not as popular as before?

Thanks a lot. :confused:

EQ, in the form of DSP that's been incorperated into most modern receivers, is MORE popular than ever. Rarely do I play my HT without some form of DSP engaged, and I dare say 95% of HT owners are the same way.

Audiophiles, on the otherhand, are for the most part "purists" when it comes to audio (I am), and want the least possible alteration of the signal from source to speaker. Also, most high quality systems that I've heard would NOT benefit from EQ, so there's little point in adding one.

RGA
11-20-2005, 03:35 PM
I have no problems if one wants to use and EQ or not so I'll say this at the outset.

Some of the reasons why not to use them are you paying big money for an amplifier which has top grade outpouts only to run it into a cheap signal distorting box? Many high priced and some very good manufacters(not necessarily the same thing) believe in removing as many circuits from the signal path as possible -- so adding an EQ which has a myriad of switches goes directly against the goal. The amplifier makers are assuming that you are buying very good speakers and not something that needs to have a bass knob to enhance the bass the speaker should be but does not provide on its own -- the EQ was to tailor bad speakers to make them sound half decent -- if you look at the speakers pioneer was selling with their EQ it made lotsa sense.

To be able to "HEAR" the effect of a switch on your music all you need to do is play a receiver that has a direct bypass switch (most do) and then set everything to flat 2 channel stereo. Then push the direct button which bypasses all these modes -- you will hear a difference - and that's just one switch. many integrated amps such as my Arcam Delta 290 had a direct switch which bypassed the bass treble knobs. Setting the bass and treble to middle and pushing direct and it was rather a big difference.

I'm not necessarily against such knobs and controls because many amps(even astonishingly expensive SS amps) sound thin or grainy and it would be nice to have a switch to artificially create ambiance that should be there but seems dynamically compromised by such amps. They may also be useful to help out bad recordings that you want to change because it is more pleasing to you.

I think when you really find something you like (which is not necessarily stuff magazines endlessly endorse from paid manufacturers) you will not find tione controls of any kind to be at all necessary.

yon_wu
11-21-2005, 05:49 AM
Equalizers, along with dynamic range expanders, all fall into the category of signal processors, or as audiophiles choose to call them, signal disturbers. I once considered this to be nothing more than elitist snobbery, until I too "graduated" into high end components, and found that the system just about always sounded better without an EQ, or any other form of enhancement.

Yeah I suppose that’s true. Just yesterday I installed my old equalizer - Technics SH-8045 12-band per channel – to my system. At first I jumbled up as I set my eq just like the “good” old time(traditionaly U curve). There was plenty of bass and treble. I used to like this sounding. But not too long after, I realized there was a great deal of detail missing. The music sounded muddy and boomy. The vocals missing its richness, and the highs are piercing. I’ve tried many diferent setting to my eq, but I can’t seem to get it right.
Today I uninstall my eq, and…voila…!!! There it is again. All the detail and naturality are coming back!

yon_wu
11-21-2005, 06:11 AM
• For example, boosting the bass too much at 16, 31, or at 60Hz will make it sound muddy. Boosting the bass too little at 60Hz makes it sound thin.

• Boosting too much at 125Hz makes it boomy. Boosting it too little at 125Hz makes it sound thin. When set just right, it will sound full without boominess.

• Boosting it too much at 250Hz makes it sound like a telephone and adds listening fatigue. Too little and you lose fullness of sound.

• Boosting it too much at 500Hz makes it sound honky. Boosting 1 to 2KHz sounds tinny. Boost too much of the high mids over 2kHz and you lose speech recognition, add a lisp, and listening fatigue takes over.

• Boost too much at 6kHz and the vocals hiss, boost too much at 8kHz and you add sibilance.
:cool:
Woow…these are awesome man. I completely agree with you. I guess at some level I’ve always known that, but I didn’t always aware of it. Since you’ve digitalized that information, from lower to higher freq, it’s all clear to me now.
This new knowledge will help me to audition any audio equipment in the future.

Would you mind give me the same analysis on freq 8kHz to 22kHz, please? Thanks

yon_wu
11-21-2005, 06:28 AM
Some of the reasons why not to use them are you paying big money for an amplifier which has top grade outpouts only to run it into a cheap signal distorting box?I never looked it that way, but since you mention it, it makes alotasense to me.
The EQ was to tailor bad speakers to make them sound half decent -- if you look at the speakers pioneer was selling with their EQ it made lotsa sense.
Yes, the equalizer i have was purchased the same day the same salesman I bought my Pioneer speakers back in 1989.

To be able to "HEAR" the effect of a switch on your music all you need to do is play a receiver that has a direct bypass switch (most do) and then set everything to flat 2 channel stereo. Then push the direct button which bypasses all these modes -- you will hear a difference - and that's just one switch. many integrated amps such as my Arcam Delta 290 had a direct switch which bypassed the bass treble knobs. Setting the bass and treble to middle and pushing direct and it was rather a big difference.
Been there done that, and again you are right.

I think when you really find something you like (which is not necessarily stuff magazines endlessly endorse from paid manufacturers) you will not find tone controls of any kind to be at all necessary.
As I search the hi-end vendors, not one of them amps have tone control...!

Resident Loser
11-21-2005, 07:26 AM
...EQs get a bad rap is they are used incorrectly...As in your case, the "smiley-face"(thanx markw) U-curve is the culprit...setting them up by "eye" is far worse than doing it "by ear".

EQs aren't really tone controls per se...IMNSHO trying to adjust more than a four or five-band unit simply by ear alone is a fool's errand. You need, at very least, a calibrated noise source and an analog SPL meter...but let's digress a bit...

Starting on a very basic level, you must attempt to have your loudspeakers AND listening room exist in a synergistically coherent manner...No EQing is going to be able to overcome gross FR deviations; these must be minimized mechanically before any electronic means should even be attempted...it's when boost or cut levels deviate too far from zero that EQs will misbehave.

The other problem that can be avoided when using an EQ as intended, is using it as a gain device. Set up correctly, when it is switched it in and out of the signal path, there should be a change in timbre not level...if your overall reference level is 85dB, it should remain at that point...if it isn't something is wrong. There is meaning to the word "equalizer".

A few general rules...ten-bands or better(half octave, third-octave, etc.)...two individual channels(for stereo) are a must; ganged EQs are really a waste of time, as rarely(if ever) are both loudspeakers response curves exactly the same...and remember they aren't tone controls, they're intended to be carefully set to arrive at that room synergy I spoke of earlier and left alone! Any tweaking for program material inadequacies should be left to your tone controls, that is what they are for.

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

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-21-2005, 09:54 AM
Equalizers have their use to enhance or attenuate weaknesses in low-fi to mid-fi equipment. An equalizer attenuates/emphasizes sound at a given frequency.

Man, I thought EQ was used for correcting room related response errors, and not designed to help the equipment at all. Room modes, early and late arriving reflections can wreak terror on a speakers frequency response at the ears, EQ, along with acoustical foam, and a well placed listening position all combine together to improve the overall sound of your system.


Using a higher end preamp will negate most of the need for an equalizer. High end preamps are built with a manufacturer’s “seasoning” that enhances or attenuates the sound at different frequencies; the enhancement/attenuation is designed into the preamp itself; the good ones season the sound not too much and not too little.

It is my understanding that preamps should have no seasoning. A well made preamp will have no sonic signature at all. When acoustical abnomalities happen in a room, a preamps is useless in correcting it. It has no way of doing so. Once the sound leaves your speakers, it is at the mercy of the room the speakers sit in.




I used an equalizer up to and including my Adcom GFP-750 preamp. When I replaced the Adcom with a Krell KRC-3, I soon determined I no longer had need for an equalizer. The Krell doesn't have a preamp on the unit, but the EQ built into and part of the Krell designed circuitry is perfect enough for my ears.

My question to you would be did your room acoustics change along with the change in components?

I have to agree with RL, the reason that eq has gotten a bad rap is because people do not understand how to use them, what resolution is necessary in most rooms(1/3 is minimum, several filters of parametric EQ is also a minimum), nor do they understand what constitutes a good quality equalizer. Anything with dancing lights will have audible noise.

PAT.P
11-21-2005, 10:53 AM
Plenty of people dismiss graphic EQs as elaborate tone controls designed to mask a weak choice of components.While it is true a graphic equalizer gives you a ultra -precise tone control ,it could be a good thing.A quality EQ properly used can fine -tuned even a high-end system.An EQ makes the difference by catering to your listening preferences .With a graphic EQ it is easy to reach and clean up your sound by cutting the offending bandwidths.You can use an equalizer to remedy the room ,from floor and furniture by boosting the frequencies you are missing and atternuating the ones that are exaggerates.Im using a Behringer FBQ3102 Ultragraph Pro Ultra Musical 31 band stereo with Feedback Detection.

LeoFenderBender
11-21-2005, 06:51 PM
:cool:
Woow…these are awesome man. I completely agree with you. I guess at some level I’ve always known that, but I didn’t always aware of it. Since you’ve digitalized that information, from lower to higher freq, it’s all clear to me now.
This new knowledge will help me to audition any audio equipment in the future.

Would you mind give me the same analysis on freq 8kHz to 22kHz, please? Thanks

Boosting the 8kHz to 22kHz range just enough adds air and spaciousness, boost too much and you get a sibilant hiss on vocals.

This and the other suggestions are from a chart I got from a soundman. :)

LeoFenderBender
11-21-2005, 06:58 PM
Sir T:

When I fired my EQ, I changed nothing else about my system with the exception of the preamp. To my ear, the Krell got the sound right without having to boost or attenuate any frequency.

There must be many possible reasons for using an EQ. Deficient equipment and a non-audio-friendly room are two. In my response I didn’t mean to convey that a bad pre was the only reason for using one. I have always used an EQ. However, I fired the EQ once I got the Krell pre. Nothing else changed about my setup, just the preamp.

Speaking from experience, I have two guitar amps and they both have two different preamp circuits built in to them. The preamp dramatically changes the amplified tone of the amplifier. One is a combo, the other is a head. In the combo, with the flick of a footswitch, I can change the tone from a blackface to a tweed (two famous Fender amp styles). In the head, I can choose a Marshall or a Vox coloration. The blackface sounds much different from the tweed because of the scooped mids. The Marshall sounds different from the Vox because it has enhanced upper mids.

For audio components (preamps) the same illustration applies. Some sound better than others. Some need the help that an EQ can provide because they are made to sound honky or boomy. The differences in the way a preamp sounds from another may well be the reason for using one in the first place.

Woochifer
11-21-2005, 08:10 PM
Aside from the knee-jerk resistance to any kind of signal alteration from a lot of self-described audiophiles (which I always find amusing given that the proper use of an equalizer is to correct for room induced issues, which can be far greater in magnitude than any coloration that a decent equalizer will add to the signal), even with the entry level and middle market, it's increasing difficult to find equipment that will even take an equalizer in the first place. That's simply an outcome of the market shift from two-channel analog receivers and amplifiers to multichannel digital AV receivers/amps. Multichannel receivers typically handle the majority of the audio signals in the digital domain, whereas most outboard equalizers work in the analog domain.

Equalizers from 10 years ago typically required either a premain coupler or a tape monitor switch -- common features in two-channel analog receivers/amps. But, nearly all multichannel receivers/amps lack those types of analog signal bypasses, and multichannel now dominates the overall market.

However, the decline of outboard graphic equalizers does not mean that equalization is dead as a concept. If anything, the state of the art with equalization has moved very rapidly in the last few years, and parametric equalization is increasingly common and much more useful for the actual objective of an equalizer (not to serve as a glorified tone control, but as a tool for adjust the sound to the acoustical properties of a room and to even out the extremes in a speaker's frequency response). Unlike graphic EQs that use fixed center frequencies and bandwidths, parametric equalizers allow users to adjust the center frequency and the bandwidth being controlled.

More and more receivers have added automatic room calibration features that use built-in digital parametric equalizers that automatically equalize the output to compensate for anomalies in the speakers and room-induced acoustical effects. In addition, word about the advantages of using a parametric equalizer with an active subwoofer has spread, and now you have an increasing number of subwoofer manufacturers adding parametric EQ filters to their subs (i.e. Infinity, Velodyne, Rocket, Adire, and SVS). The sound quality improvement that properly done equalization can produce can be staggering.

In the future, you'll see more auto calibrating speaker systems with digital crossovers, and more advanced room correcting functions incorporated into receivers and amplifiers. You won't see too many equalizers as standalone units, but more equalization functions incorporated into the receivers/processors and speakers. All of this further addresses what equalizers have always been intended to address -- correcting for large deviations created by the room acoustics.

Woochifer
11-21-2005, 08:25 PM
I have no problems if one wants to use and EQ or not so I'll say this at the outset.

Some of the reasons why not to use them are you paying big money for an amplifier which has top grade outpouts only to run it into a cheap signal distorting box? Many high priced and some very good manufacters(not necessarily the same thing) believe in removing as many circuits from the signal path as possible -- so adding an EQ which has a myriad of switches goes directly against the goal. The amplifier makers are assuming that you are buying very good speakers and not something that needs to have a bass knob to enhance the bass the speaker should be but does not provide on its own -- the EQ was to tailor bad speakers to make them sound half decent -- if you look at the speakers pioneer was selling with their EQ it made lotsa sense.

Unfortunately, the role of the equalizer got perverted into a glorified tone control. Until the last few years and the current rennaissance with digital parametric equalization, the actual role of the equalizer (correcting for gross anomalies in the speaker response curve and with the room acoustics) has been lost over the past couple of decades. A good equalizer will add minimal distortions and noise into the signal path, but make tremendous improvements by evening out the extremities that the room and/or speakers can create.


To be able to "HEAR" the effect of a switch on your music all you need to do is play a receiver that has a direct bypass switch (most do) and then set everything to flat 2 channel stereo. Then push the direct button which bypasses all these modes -- you will hear a difference - and that's just one switch. many integrated amps such as my Arcam Delta 290 had a direct switch which bypassed the bass treble knobs. Setting the bass and treble to middle and pushing direct and it was rather a big difference.

That's simply because the tone controls and other signal altering circuitry on analog amplifiers in their "zero" states more often than not were not flat. The bypass switch creates an audible change because the zero positions on the tone controls and other switches were never a true zero to begin with.


I think when you really find something you like (which is not necessarily stuff magazines endlessly endorse from paid manufacturers) you will not find tione controls of any kind to be at all necessary.

Subject of course to room and listening conditions, and preferences.

Resident Loser
11-22-2005, 08:46 AM
...I don't think there is really any way one can compare differences in quality audio gear(which should be slight if it exists at all) and that of performance amplifiers.

People want the specific and highly colored Fender...or Vox...or Marshall...or Mesa Boogie...or even my fave: the Pignose...how many people went out and bought a Marshall stack, a Dallas Arbiter Fuzz-Face, a Cry-Baby and a 'strat and assumed it would turn them into another Hendrix?

My nearly forty-year-old Bandmaster sounds different if I use an Ampeg head...or run it's two twelves from a Pro- or a Twin Reverb...it's not only the fact that my speaker cabinet is closed and the other two are open, or the driver size and complement, it's also has to do with the amp's sound. They're just different by design.

Hi-fi stuff is supposed to be "straight wire with gain" or so the saying goes...there may be subtle differences(or wishful thinking thereunto) that could be the result of: circuit topography, discrete components vs. ICs/op amps, tubes vs.solid state, but something is grossly wrong with one or both components if an EQ can take up the slack for THAT profound a difference as you allude to...beyond bandwidth/rolloff considerations, measured FR isn't that much of an issue with those items, other things like distortion components, redundant signal paths, lack of (or presence and amount of) negative feedback and phase relationships are.

Some things seem sound "better" only because they may sound somewhat different. You may be confusing the overall "sound" of your previous gear with that of the Krell as some sort of FR deficiencies, I tend to doubt that they are. If you set-up your EQ "by ear" using music as your benchmark in an attempt to overcome what were actually non-FR-related issues, you may have made some things more to your liking (which in my experience IS possible), but it didn't necessarily improve overall accuracy or fidelity to the original.


I think when you really find something you like (which is not necessarily stuff magazines endlessly endorse from paid manufacturers) you will not find tione controls of any kind to be at all necessary.

All program material is not created equal...without some sort of compensation, even if it's simply a rumble filter or >10k cut, otherwise stellar performances would have to be relegated to the bin...of course if your entire catalog is comprised of a few digital "audiopile" pressings rather than everything from 78s on up, that may be a non-issue...limiting my musical choices is far more depressing to me than the ignominy(and necessity) of having gear with tone controls.

jimHJJ(...I like music...the means of reproduction, is secondary...)

LeoFenderBender
11-22-2005, 06:24 PM
<<snipperoo>>



Thanks for the lennnnnnnnnnngthy reply. Since preamps sound the same to you, "just a straight wire with gain" no need to ever upgrade to one that sounds better. Good luck!

Resident Loser
11-23-2005, 06:01 AM
...I'm using a foreigh language...


...preamps sound the same to you...

?????

Among ALL the potential reasons cited for components to sound different, FR(and use of EQing to correct it) is waaaay down on the bottom of the list...most quality gear will exhibit ruler-flat test results 20Hz-20kHz; it's those other things that have more of a perceptible impact.

jimHJJ(...short enough?...)

E-Stat
11-23-2005, 06:11 AM
I don't think there is really any way one can compare differences in quality audio gear(which should be slight if it exists at all) and that of performance amplifiers.
Gee, I've always called that listening to music. :)

rw

Resident Loser
11-23-2005, 06:35 AM
...Florian has bored me to the point of being comatose...take your pick or add another...clarification please...


Gee, I've always called that listening to music. :)

rw

jimHJJ(...que?...)

E-Stat
11-23-2005, 07:41 AM
clarification please...
As I reread your comments, perhaps I misunderstood you. Is a "performance" amplifier a PA amp like a "Peavy head"?

I use that term in the qualitative sense. There are amps with good performance and there are others with very good performance.

It appears you may be using it as a noun as in "we use that for our jazz performance".

rw

Resident Loser
11-23-2005, 10:32 AM
...should have used a more apt and unambiguous term...any instrument amp, as opposed to a hi-fi amp...most of the former are very colored and decidedly different, as are the guitars played through them. The latter should be neutral IMO...

PA/sound re-inforcement amps can run the gamut.

jimHJJ(...my apologies for the confusion...)

sam9
11-25-2005, 09:58 AM
why theese hi-end manufacturers don't make equalizer? My hi-end vendor said it is due to the nature of eq, they said eq will alter the characteristic and naturality of theese hi-end products. They also said, that theese hi-end products doesn't need equalizing anymore.

Much of "High-End" is about fashion and EQ is out of fashion (unless you are talking something terrible expensive like DACT). Who would want to admit that fabulous product could benefit from EQ? Also the fact that a lot of cheap boom-box stuff has tacky looking 5-channel EQ doesn't help -- guilt by association is powerful in the marketplace.

Contributing factor: the land of audiophila tends to get stuck on ancient history. EQs designed in the 70's and 80's had some problems both in fundamental design and in types of components available. Audiophileland logic workd like this: "EQs thirty years ago did bad things, therefore it is a fundamental priciple that they will continue to do bad things until the end of time." There are a few odd people who STILL claim, stereo was a mistake and only mono (on vinyl, of course) spounds right. I'm sure that somewhere there is someone ho hasn't moved beyond the Edison cylider.

Anyway, there are good EQ units around. They tend to be made by pro-audio manufacturers. This raises the question, who does the "EQ is impure" croud think all those slider controlls in the recordind studio are?

E-Stat
11-25-2005, 10:16 AM
This raises the question, who does the "EQ is impure" croud think all those slider controlls in the recordind studio are?
I believe EQ has a place at the low end only. That is for low frequencies where untreated rooms exhibit all sorts of nodes. Rooms can, however, be treated using bass traps and the like. That's the approach I take.

For the recording studios who do EQ the recorded product to "perfection" (and not all do), why then would you need to re-EQ the original EQ?

rw

PAT.P
11-25-2005, 11:39 AM
I believe EQ has a place at the low end only. That is for low frequencies where untreated rooms exhibit all sorts of nodes. Rooms can, however, be treated using bass traps and the like. That's the approach I take.

For the recording studios who do EQ the recorded product to "perfection" (and not all do), why then would you need to re-EQ the original EQ?

rwE-Stat Im using a 31 band stereo for my basement set up.My EQ is for my CD player.I connected the output of cd to input of EQ,from there it is Y to 2 X2channel receiver (dont have it going the regular way to the tape monitor) and im only using el-cheapo speakers .BTW it sound really good ,I set the frequency to my taste.Even at low volume Im able to hear every imaging aspect of the music and voice.It suit me fine if other think of EQ as a no no.My EQ also hooks up my subwoofer,and it is set at 80 hz .In the way I set up CD to EQ I am changing the way it was rec in studio to what I think it should sound to my ears.Most enjoyable to my listening taste and Elvis lives in my basement :D

E-Stat
11-25-2005, 12:22 PM
.Even at low volume Im able to hear every imaging aspect of the music and voice.It suit me fine if other think of EQ as a no no.
There are tradeoffs to every addition of an active stage and extra cables in the signal path. Equalizers aside, that's why I bypass the preamp with the CD source on two music systems. The improved resolution and stage width is evident to me on both. We take our choices.

Just curious. What frequencies do you boost / cut?

rw

PAT.P
11-25-2005, 12:40 PM
There are tradeoffs to every addition of an active stage and extra cables in the signal path. Equalizers aside, that's why I bypass the preamp with the CD source on two music systems. The improved resolution and stage width is evident to me on both. We take our choices.

Just curious. What frequencies do you boost / cut?

rwI start at 80hz and from there and cut at 10khz ,the voice range 1khz to 3.15 khz.I also have it set at 12 db in the range .Just added this EQ 2 weeks ago ,not like my 7 band this one also show you when its at the clip range .They say Accentuation of voice from 1.25 to 8khz Elvis does'nt reach that high. :D

BillyB
11-25-2005, 01:20 PM
There is absolutely no place for EQ's in a high end stereo.The better Pre-amps don't even provide tone controls.Be happy with the salesman's explanation and invest your money into better components or speakers.

PAT.P
11-25-2005, 01:29 PM
There is absolutely no place for EQ's in a high end stereo.The better Pre-amps don't even provide tone controls.Be happy with the salesman's explanation and invest your money into better components or speakers.To each their own.I have very good speakers ,Energy ,Paradigm ,Dahlquist upstairs .Now I listen more music on cheap Jbl and Yamaha speaker and 25+ year old 2 channel receiver.Listen to your saleman, buy Monster cable and Bose speakers.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-25-2005, 03:10 PM
There is absolutely no place for EQ's in a high end stereo.The better Pre-amps don't even provide tone controls.Be happy with the salesman's explanation and invest your money into better components or speakers.

You obviously don't have a basic understanding of the acoustics of a room, or the tools that can either correct them totally, or make them at least inoffensive to the ear.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-25-2005, 03:28 PM
I believe EQ has a place at the low end only. That is for low frequencies where untreated rooms exhibit all sorts of nodes. Rooms can, however, be treated using bass traps and the like. That's the approach I take.

E-stat, it is useless to use eq to deal with room nodes. Nodes are like a bottomless pits to try and fill in. It is best to be either IN a mode(where EQ can cut its effect) or at a point between a mode and a node(easiest to EQ) and put your primary listening position there(taking into consideration the optimum listening position for imaging ya hooo for subwoofers). Most bass traps on the market for consumers have little effect on the frequencies below 60hz, and this is where eq comes in to the picture.


For the recording studios who do EQ the recorded product to "perfection" (and not all do), why then would you need to re-EQ the original EQ?

There is a huge difference between the acoustics of a recording studio, and the environment, microphones, mixer, and engineer who actually recorded the event in a live room with different acoustics. The object of a recording is to capture as much of the event as possible which may not always sound the same when played back in a control room. Instrument balance may not always be there, vocals sometime need eq because of its usual phantom position between the speakers, light compression may need to be added to prevent pushing of the delivery medium. Control rooms need the acoustics and associated equipment to be able to reproduce every nuance of a recording good or bad. Sometimes the recording needs eq to correct any imbalances in its tonal structure and frequency balance. This is for both music and film soundtracks.

BillyB
11-25-2005, 05:19 PM
You obviously don't have a basic understanding of the acoustics of a room, or the tools that can either correct them totally, or make them at least inoffensive to the ear.
You have listed an impressive list of Home theatre audio products. Home theatre is certainly geared towards endless sound adjustments.2 channel stereo is a totally different animal. Do you use an EQ or other equipment for altering your conventional HiFi stereo sound. Do you even care about the pure sound of an unaltered high end stereo.You didn't really say.

gonefishin
11-25-2005, 05:51 PM
Best sound I've gotten is using a DEQX-p (http://www.deqx.com/index_content.html). Best I've heard or had in my system so far. It's only two channel by the way, BillyB ;)

dan

E-Stat
11-25-2005, 07:46 PM
Most bass traps on the market for consumers have little effect on the frequencies below 60hz, and this is where eq comes in to the picture.
A collection of eight 6 foot tall traps placed in the corners and wall mid points took care of a rather nasty but sometimes entertaining peak around 35-40 hz that used to live at the back end of my room.


Sometimes the recording needs eq to correct any imbalances in its tonal structure and frequency balance. This is for both music and film soundtracks.
Gee, perhaps you guys in the mixing room would consider where the recording is going to be heard. I'll keep the imbalance along with the resolution w/o the full range EQ.

rw

PAT.P
11-25-2005, 10:07 PM
The whole purpose of an EQ is to get rid of frequencies in a sound we dont want and to enhance the frequencies we do want.I dont use it to correct a room or to enhance my speakers.Even if I had high-end equipment I would use one.BTW EQ was invented for the telephone,but they saw the potential for other use.Also a Bass and Treble control on a receiver is also considered a form of Equalizer.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-26-2005, 07:04 AM
You have listed an impressive list of Home theatre audio products. Home theatre is certainly geared towards endless sound adjustments.2 channel stereo is a totally different animal. Do you use an EQ or other equipment for altering your conventional HiFi stereo sound. Do you even care about the pure sound of an unaltered high end stereo.You didn't really say.

Billy,
Hometheater is no more geared to endless sound adjustments than two channel stereo(which is a distortion in and of itself). Fortunately because I chose my components and speakers carefully, two channel sounds as good as multichannel in terms of sound quality. Do your realize that if you have loud modes(room induced peaks) in your room you are already altering the sound quality. The object of EQ(along with other acoustical tools)is to remove such peaks. If you think for a second that your room is not subject to the laws of small room acoustics, you are sorely mistaken. ALL small rooms have acoustical problem of some sort and need to use some sort of acoustical correction tools.

I placed my listening viewing seat for optimum imaging and viewing, measured the frequency response of my system at that place, used acoustical foam to tame a high frequency slap echo, and my EQ's for the low end, and I have never touched it again. No endless tweaking here. If the recording doesn't sound good, it has to stand on its own in my room.

Unless you sit VERY near your speakers, there is no such thing as unaltered music in small rooms

smoothjazz
11-26-2005, 07:22 AM
Wrong!!!!!!! There is one high end manufacturing company that does produce equalizers, audio control c-101 series 3 retail $400.00.I own one & let me tell u for 2 channel stereo music which is the only way to really listen music,the unit is top notch.Audio control has been around for years since the 70's to be exact & their eq's are definetly and asset to any high end system,they even sell processesors for multiple channel HT The series c-101 even acts as a sound analyzer place the mic that comes with it in your listen position and the freakin thing will adjust the acoustics from your own room for best sound quality reduce reflections enhance highs or undefined whatever may ill u.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-26-2005, 07:27 AM
A collection of eight 6 foot tall traps placed in the corners and wall mid points took care of a rather nasty but sometimes entertaining peak around 35-40 hz that used to live at the back end of my room.

You have measured this with a RTA and confirmed your results? How thick are the traps. They would have to more than 2-3ft thick to handle bass peaks that low.



Gee, perhaps you guys in the mixing room would consider where the recording is going to be heard. I'll keep the imbalance along with the resolution w/o the full range EQ.

If you heard how unbalanced some recording can turn out, you would not say this. We have considered where this is going to be heard, that is why recording and mixing rooms have such controlled acoustics. If a mixing studio had some major acoustical issues, and a engineer was mixing in that room, some pretty terrible stuff would come out of there. EQ is in many instances VERY necessary for both balancing mixes, and for controlling room acoustics.

E-Stat
11-26-2005, 08:04 AM
You have measured this with a RTA and confirmed your results? How thick are the traps. They would have to more than 2-3ft thick to handle bass peaks that low.
No, but I have test disks and know what 40 hz sounds like. My room dimensions are less than ideal at 30 x 15 and the U-1s have nice first octave output. Four of the traps are 18", two are 12" and the remainder are 8".


We have considered where this is going to be heard, that is why recording and mixing rooms have such controlled acoustics. If a mixing studio had some major acoustical issues, and a engineer was mixing in that room, some pretty terrible stuff would come out of there. EQ is in many instances VERY necessary for both balancing mixes, and for controlling room acoustics.
I'm confused as this statement seems to conflict with your earlier comments:

Control rooms need the acoustics and associated equipment to be able to reproduce every nuance of a recording good or bad. Sometimes the recording needs eq to correct any imbalances in its tonal structure and frequency balance.

Which seemed to suggest that you have to re-EQ the recording at home to get a natural result. If you recall, my point to sam9 was given that the recordings are properly EQed from the outset, why then do you need to re-EQ it full range afterwards? I do note later, however, that you say you only EQ the bottom end ( I made that comment as to the value of EQ in an earlier post), then set it and forget it. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier comments.

I gather you don't apply +12 to the midrange either.

rw

E-Stat
11-26-2005, 08:22 AM
There is one high end manufacturing company that does produce equalizers, audio control c-101 series 3 retail $400.00
I"m sure that's nice gear, but we have a different perspective on what constitutes high end audio.


http://www.mobileaudiocontrol.com/images/rotations/image_07.jpg

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-26-2005, 10:48 AM
No, but I have test disks and know what 40 hz sounds like. My room dimensions are less than ideal at 30 x 15 and the U-1s have nice first octave output. Four of the traps are 18", two are 12" and the remainder are 8".

Let me ask you a question. Are you sure the traps are taming the very low end, or its harmonics above? As you know when you have a peak response in your room, it is not just the fundemental peak that rings, but all of its harmonics until your reach the harmonic that become inaudible to the ear. You could very well have tamed the amplitude of the upper harmonics of the fundemental without actually touching the fundemental itself. Only a RTA will tell you that. The ear may perceive a lowering of the overall volume of the peak with the fundemental ringing away. The 18" traps have probably lowered the harmonic peak of your 40hz mode at 80hz, 160hz and above, but 18" is not likely enough foam depth for a 40hz peak.



I'm confused as this statement seems to conflict with your earlier comments:

Control rooms need the acoustics and associated equipment to be able to reproduce every nuance of a recording good or bad. Sometimes the recording needs eq to correct any imbalances in its tonal structure and frequency balance.

Which seemed to suggest that you have to re-EQ the recording at home to get a natural result. If you recall, my point to sam9 was given that the recordings are properly EQed from the outset, why then do you need to re-EQ it full range afterwards? I do note later, however, that you say you only EQ the bottom end ( I made that comment as to the value of EQ in an earlier post), then set it and forget it. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier comments.

I gather you don't apply +12 to the midrange either.

rw

You seem to have confused the medium with the playback location. In order to hear every nuance in the medium, the playback location must have a tight control over its acoustics. If the string basses in a classical recording are out of balance because of microphone location, it would be pretty difficult to tell how much to EQ the recording if the room is ringing with it. How do you tell which is the room and which is the recording under those circumstances?

If you know that your room has good acoustics through measurements and correction, then it is easy to balance the string basses because they would stick out of the recording upon playback. Usually with classical music the string basses would not have an isolated track to reduce the volume using a fader, so eq HAS to be used so the string basses can be balanced against the rest of the orchestra. Not everyone that knows how to record live can do it well, so sometimes touchups in terms of balance and frequency response becomes necessary to get the best out of the recording. While you set and forget the room EQ, the program balance will always be different between recordings.

As a practice I never use EQ for room problems above 300hz. At this frequency and above acoustical foam has much more broadband control than electronic EQ. Below this frequency it get a little too expensive to try and tame problems with foam treatment, not to mention that it takes up alot of space in the room. You use your acoustical tools best when you use them in the best way they function.

E-Stat
11-26-2005, 11:10 AM
Let me ask you a question. Are you sure the traps are taming the very low end, or its harmonics above?
You may well be correct. The difference I discern, however, is largely felt, not heard. I will readily acknowledge that the traps have primarily affected the mid/upper bass allowing for a clearer rendition of that which is lower.


While you set and forget the room EQ, the program balance will always be different between recordings.
And I let that be the case rather than trying to chase correcting it afterwards.


As a practice I never use EQ for room problems above 300hz.
That says a lot. I, too differ from Pat's approach of using EQ for broadband corrections. Both my U-1s and Advents have HF controls that I may alter once in a blue moon for really poor recordings of otherwise enjoyable music.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-26-2005, 11:25 AM
And I let that be the case rather than trying to chase correcting it afterwards.

rw

You don't have to, the mixing engineer already did that job for you!

BillyB
11-26-2005, 04:17 PM
Best sound I've gotten is using a DEQX-p (http://www.deqx.com/index_content.html). Best I've heard or had in my system so far. It's only two channel by the way, BillyB ;)

dan
I went to the website for your sound calibration Pre-amp.It's an interesting concept.I just wonder if the $4000 (If you indeed spent that much)should just be put into even better equipment with no sound altering.That being said,you are obviously into your stereo and I don't doubt that it sounds great.Enjoy it!!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-26-2005, 05:26 PM
I went to the website for your sound calibration Pre-amp.It's an interesting concept.I just wonder if the $4000 (If you indeed spent that much)should just be put into even better equipment with no sound altering.That being said,you are obviously into your stereo and I don't doubt that it sounds great.Enjoy it!!

Billy, what you don't seem to grasp is that no matter what kind of equipment you have, no matter what price level or technology involved, the room is the very beginning of getting good sound. In small rooms the ratio of room vs equipment is 70/30. The room is 70% of the equation. If you don't get it right, no matter how much your throw at the equipment it just won't sound good.

This is an excellent product designed to correct both the speaker response, and any room related responses. The DEQX technology is high acclaimed amoung both acoustical engineers and speaker builders alike. Is it worth $4000? Perhaps yes to a audiophile who doesn't want the speaker performance or the room acoustics to contaminate his or her music.

The very idea of purely clean signal paths from source to speakers is admireable, but not realistic in small rooms. You seem to have forgotten that there is another path that can effect the quality of the signal. The space between the drivers of the speaker, and your ears. That space has far more importance than getting a $6000 preamp, or $15,000 dollar speakers.

gonefishin
11-26-2005, 08:11 PM
I went to the website for your sound calibration Pre-amp.It's an interesting concept.I just wonder if the $4000 (If you indeed spent that much)should just be put into even better equipment with no sound altering.That being said,you are obviously into your stereo and I don't doubt that it sounds great.Enjoy it!!


Hi BillyB,


Oh...I don't believe (any more) that there are pieces of equipment that don't alter the sound. preamp, amp, cdp, passive, active, tubed or ss...all of'em color it. But...you (or I) have to pick what fits us...our room...and the rest of our system.
Looking into other equipment...I couldn't have been happier with my previous preamp. A NOH (Stevens&Billington transformer based preamp) Which was a low veil passive preamp that sounded pretty darn good. But some gain issues with some new amps caused me to look into other avenues. Which is what brought me to the deqx. Before this I've owned, and still own some, other active, passive, tube and ss preamps. There's plenty of ways to achieve good audio results...this is the one I've found that works for me right now. With the additional support and firmware upgrades...this is going to be a tough one to beat.
I did get the preamp used, so it wasn't the full price. Although one thing I have noticed. The longer I stay in this audio hobby, I spend less and less money and spend more and more time building stuff. But again...this is what worked for me...we all have to find and figure out what we want.


oh...I noticed some of your comments about your room (high vaulted ceilings). Is there any way your wife would go for some room treatments? This will certainly help regardless of what speakers you have. But getting them into the main living room isn't always an option :( . But maybe...just maybe :) Ethan Winer and some others may have some good suggestions to any questions which you may have...here (http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewforum.php?f=73) and here (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/rives/bbs.html). Also check out the archives at both.

dan