Realistic equaliser

[Irishrebel]

Hi,

Newbie. Trying to build up a good personalised HiFi separates collection on moderate budget. Saw reviews of Realistic speakers, but nothing on their components. Chance of cheap equaliser (12-band) on eBay - what would you say they're worth, or are these worth buying at all :) ?

[royphil345]

I have a couple of EQs I've experimented with. The conclusion I came to, is that with even modest speakers being so much more accurate these days, there's not much you can do with a 10-band EQ that will improve the sound more than ruin it. Probably couldn't do much better with a 12-band. Think that's part of the reason why most audiophiles don't use EQs these days. Could probably get good results using a pro EQ with many more bands if you had a trained ear and a ton of patience.

If you have to try it anyway (I did), the Realistic EQs weren't too bad. Reasonably quiet, not too much coloration. Like I said, EQs aren't too popular for home use right now, so you should be able to pick up something like a Realistic for $15.00 - $60.00 (possibly on the high end of that because it's a 12-band and the Realistics were pretty good)

If you're interested, I've got an AudioSource EQ100 10-band that I was playing around with and gave up on using after a short while. (About 2-years old and barely used. No original box, but I could probably scrounge up the manual)) I almost left it hooked up just for the cool light show it has going on!!! I'd be willing to let it go dirt cheap just to get it out of my closet. Let's say $15.00 plus whatever shipping costs. (bought for about $90.00) Should sound about as good as an old Realistic, but with a cooler light show. royphil345@yahoo.com if you're interested.

[bacchanal]

An EQ would be useful if you have some major issues with your room that you can't compensate for with basic room treatments. You can use an SPL meter and an EQ to try to even out frequency spikes or dips.

[risabet]

Save your money and buy better speakers, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[N. Abstentia]

Agreed. If you require an EQ just to get a good sound from a good source you need to just start over. Better speakers, better room treatments, something.

On a related topic, I'd avoid Realistic speakers like the plague. I'd lump them in the same category as Bose as far as sound quality.

[cll49]

This thread has been somewhat informative for me. I always wondered why EQ was sort of downplayed in so many modern home sound systems. I still like the idea of having one though even though it would be time consuming. I find they are still good if you use headphones as well as speakers.

[Irishrebel]

Agreed. If you require an EQ just to get a good sound from a good source you need to just start over. Better speakers, better room treatments, something.

On a related topic, I'd avoid Realistic speakers like the plague. I'd lump them in the same category as Bose as far as sound quality.

:confused: I suppose if I had top-of-a-good-range speakers, I'd need no tweaking. On my budget, though, I purchased Wharfedale Zaldek S-1000 floor speakers (half-price on eBay). Actually fairly happy with the sound, but I find using EQ helps enhance the things I like to hear like crisp vocals and cymbals, and full warm bass. IMHO, EQ helps tailor to personal taste e.g. ANY time I've used a 'Pop' rpreset EQ, I find it muddy.

:eek: You don't like BOSE speakers! Maybe much of this is down to taste?!? I have a 6-speaker BOSE system in my Audi with a Sony player and CD changer. The sound is superb, and most BOSE speakers are a bit expensive for me (my car stereo came with it when I bought it used).

[midfiguy]

I disagree with most in that I think an EQ is very useful if you are not 100% satisfied with the sound of a speaker, but still like it for the most part. For example, look on this site and reviews in magazines. COUNTLESS times, people say "I love this speaker. It sounds great. The ________ is a bit __________ , but not enough that I dislike the speaker." etc. Well, if an EQ fixes this problem to your ears, then an EQ is VERY well worth the money.

An EQ is not about fixing a bad sounding system and making it sound good. An EQ is about tailoring the sound and tweaking it a bit here and there to make it even more enjoyable to what you want. Yes, if you hate the way a speaker sounds and try to use an EQ to make it sound good, then that's definately heading down the wrong road.

It's the same when people say, "Oh, you should always leave your BASS and TREBLE flat. Don't ever turn either up or down."

Well... ...why? Shouldn't I tweak my system to give me a bit more/less bass/treble if I want to and I enjoy it more? Of course, the typical response is "Then you're changing the feed of the source to the speakers" But guess what? Unless you're speakers have absolutely ZERO coloration, it's already going to be "tainted".

For example, I own a pair of B&W Nautilus 805s, not perfect speakers, but not slouches either. I love the speakers - soundstage, airiness, depth, spectacular midrange. However, I thought the highs weren't quite as extended as I like. So, I turned up the treble a bit and now I enjoy their sound more. Is this taboo?

In short, find a pair of speakers that you REALLY like the sound of. If you're not impressed at all without the EQ, then find other speakers. If you're completely 100% satisfied, then great, you're done. If you love a pair of speakers, but also want to experiment with an EQ to see if you can make it sound even "better" (or rather more to your tastes), then go ahead and give it a shot.

At the end of the day, sound is TOTALLY subjective, so if something sounds better to you with an EQ, then so be it!

[midfiguy]

IrishRebel - to address your Bose comment...

I don't think Bose sounds as bad as people here make them out to be. People here will compare anything to Bose i.e. Lifestyle system vs. a $10 Koss radio. However, any idiot with half a brain can listen and see and hear that that the above comparison is ridiculous, but people still do it to drive a point home.

Anyways, the point people are trying to make is that Bose uses relatively inferior quality components in their speakers and charge way more than the actual product (taking into consideration build quality and sound quality) should cost. There are better sounding (again, this could be argued to be subjective) speakers/systems out there for similar/less prices than what Bose charges. However, since Bose has put SO MUCH money into marketing, the public has no choice but to believe that Bose is the high end guru of the speaker world, etc.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There are some points I would like to clear up regarding EQ, and it's place in music and hometheater.


Chance of cheap equaliser (12-band) on eBay - what would you say they're worth, or are these worth buying at all

I would say don't waste your money. 12 bands of eq is totally ineffectual in most small rooms. 1/3 octave eq is commonly used, but some installers and acoustic professionals insist that 1/6 is necessary. I don't buy into that, the combination of acoustical treatment, and 1/3 octave eq has always produced excellent results in the installs I have done. 1/6 octave eq would only be necessary if electronic eq is the sole instrument to correct room responses. If you can find a MEQ-2300 on ebay, I highly recommend that eq. The radio shack eq uses cheap parts and filters, and does not give you enough control for room correction.


I always wondered why EQ was sort of downplayed in so many modern home sound systems.

It is downplayed because room acoustics happens to be one of the most complex subjects in music and film reproduction. Before you can effective use an eq or a RTA, you have to have a little more than basic knowledge of room acoustics. This is probrably too complex and time consuming for most people. So most people just ignore it, and believe their rooms are perfect, and they don't need any equalization, whether it be acoustic, or electronic.


Agreed. If you require an EQ just to get a good sound from a good source you need to just start over. Better speakers, better room treatments, something.

Unfortunately starting over would have to begin with the room, not the components themselves. You can buy the best speakers in the world, and they could still sound no better than radio shack speakers in most rooms. From 200hz down, the room dominates what you hear. From 200hz up, its the speakers themselves. Since most problems in small rooms lie below 200hz, no matter what speaker you put in a room, it will stimulate a rooms resonances. That cannot be avoided. Acoustical foam can be effective below 200hz, but it would have to be VERY thick to control low bass frequencies, up to one foot thick for bass traps.


Save your money and buy better speakers, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

This is not always good advice, especially when you have a speaker that measures extremely well in a anechoic chamber. Room resonances, slap echo's, and not enough diffusiveness can make very good speakers sound mediocre.


So, I turned up the treble a bit and now I enjoy their sound more. Is this taboo?

Don't think it is taboo, but I certainly wouldn't push the sliders too far up because tweeters are the most fragile of all drivers in a speaker.

Whatever you do, forget about 10-12 or even 15 band eq's. They are useless. And totally forget about the eq's that have spectrum analyzers light shows on them. Those light shows add noise to the output.

[risabet]

I have heard Bose car systems and they are impressive, but Bose home speakers don't IMHO sound anyhting like real music being played in a real space.

[toenail]

Anyone with real world experience using the Behringer Feedback Destroyer for smoothing out sub frequencies?

[Resident Loser]

...are "ganged" i.e. control both channels simultaneously, fuggedaboudit! No two speakers will "measure" the same...one's sitting next to the potted plant and curtains and the other is close to a brick wall...non-"ganged" is a no brainer...

Even if they are 12 per side, EQing properly requires care...you just can't boost the bass and/or treble to the max because the bandwidth(or Q ) of each control will not only affect the listed frequency but also frequencies around it. This becomes more problematic with gross excursions from 0db...

In my experience, most folks wind up using EQs incorrectly. Properly set up, using a calibrated source and an accurate SPL meter, switching an EQ in and out of the signal path should result in a change in tone and not one in volume...most I've seen and heard have become(due to misuse) a gain stage and not a EQ.

They need to be used judiciously. Overindulgence is what has given EQs a bad rap among the "golden eared" amonst us. Basically "cut" is preferable to "boost" and there shouldn't be too much of either.

First you should be happy(generally speaking) with your speakers, then look to placement and room treatment and finally use equalization to tweek.

And don't dismiss the value of an EQ as an educational tool...playing with one can reveal a great many interactions in the recording /playback process and just how inportant frequency response is in the overall listening experience...

jimHJJ(...good listening and have fun...)

[markw]

In my experience, most folks wind up using EQs incorrectly.

They need to be used judiciously. Overindulgence is what has given EQs a bad rap among the "golden eared" amonst us. Basically "cut" is preferable to "boost" and there shouldn't be too much of either.

First you should be happy(generally speaking) with you speakers, then look to placement and room treatment and finally use equalization to tweek.

And don't dismiss the value of an EQ as an educational tool...playing with one can reveal a great many interactions in the recording /playback process and just how inportant frequency response is in the overall listening experience...

jimHJJ(...good listening and have fun...)If I had a nickle for every time I saw an ez set in the ubiquitious "smiley" back in "the day" position I'd be a rich man. I was glad whan they fell out of favor. They also blew quite a few tweeters by boosting the bejeezus out of the high end.

But, by playing with an eq you cangera VERY good idea of what sounds fall in what frequency ranges.

jim, hope ya don't take offense of my amplifying some of yer words. We Jersey guys always get stuck translating youse Noo Yawkers for the rest of the world. ;)

[Resident Loser]

...apparently I can use all the help I can muster...translation-wise...ifn ya gets me drift...

jimHJJ(...Happy Merry and all the usual ho-ho-ho to you and yours...)

[markw]

You have been involved in quite a few misunderstandings lately although a goodly portion seem to be from misreading who is responding to whom in various threads. But, in all honesty, you're not the only one to fall prey to that. I think we can all be a bit more chariatible when this happens. We're only human.

Well, most of youse, anyway. ;)

Markw(...back atcha on that holiday bit. Hey, you callin' me a ho?)

[Resident Loser]

...I don't think you have the legs for a hootchie skirt...And I agree...but only to a degree...honest mistakes are excusable and I rarely take exception to them...the one with JN was really more kidding around and I think he understood that and there is some vague familiarity between us...at least I think so...

But...thud!!!(other shoe falling)...some cases go well beyond that...surely at some point in reading a post that might prompt a response, one must see there are vagaries and/or other inconsistencies that set off the bells and whistles!... I mean if a to-and-fro, participant-identified quote and response litany isn't enough of a clue, I fail to see what is...in that case all bets are off.

jimHJJ(...I usually aim for a measured response...)

P.S. To keep it legal, equalizers have their place!!!

[markw]

A census bureau counter came to this house and knocked on the door. A very harried mother two babies in her arms answered. The counter introduced herself and asked mom how many kids she has.

Mom: I have four children.

CB : What are their names?

Mom: Eenie, Meenie, Minie and Jack.

CB : Jack? Why did you name him Jack?

Mom: 'Cause we didn't want no moe!

Ba da boom!

Maekw (Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week...)

[Resident Loser]

...TDK eh? I've used Maxell since wayback...so far so good...and BASF which has become a problem only in that my TEAC A-650 bit the big one and had a eq setting for that FeCr type II or type III. Playback on my replacement Marantz deck leaves a bit to be desired...no switches...my RTR I've used primarily Scotch and some Maxell and BASF...

Problem is TDK seems difficult to locate...Maxell seems to have the local retail market sewn up...

jimHJJ(...but then, they don't let me have sharp objects or wander too far away from the home...no Moe...indeed...)

[markw]

To be totally honesty, I'm not as much into making tapes as I was 5 or so years ago. The cars both have CD players, the CD walkman/radio tracels with us and, of course, virtually any boom box made within the past 15 years has a CD player.

I'm still crusing on a major stash of TDK MA-X tapes I bought at National Liquidators a few years ago for a dirt cheap price. Before that I didn't have too many problems locating tapes but I guess my major haul seems to have represented the last of the FeCr tapes. Now all I see is the standard formulation.

What I have now will probably hold me until well after I break down and get CD recording capabilities. I think the last tape I made was about two years ago for a friend.
I'm glad I don't need to buy any more.

I never had any real problems/complaints with Maxell but my original deck (Teac 360S) IMNSHO performed best with TDK, particularly after I had it calibrated for SA in the late 70's. Likewise, I carried that trend through my Teac R-400X and, finally, my NAD 616 which will be the last cassette deck I'll ever need or buy.

FWIW, for compatability's sake I always used Dolby "B". I played around with DBX on the 400 and it worked great but the problem was that I couldn't play the tapes anywhere else.

DBX - a format poorly timed format. When it hit, Dolby B was firmly entrenched into the fabric of the industry and, eventhough it was a quantum leap ahead of it's Dolby competitor, the CD was just around the corner and pretty much relegated cassettes to a low quality medium. Once CD's hit all eyes turned from tape.

Onceanda while I findan old mix tape that I play at home but that's about it.

[Irishrebel]

Thanks for all the feedback and discussion.

At the end of the day, it's one of those two sided debates where ne'er the twain shall meet - To EQ or not to EQ, that is the question. ;)

I'm firmly on the side of EQing to my heart's content. My argument: the purists argue that music should sound as 'intended' i.e. pure, no enhancement. However, classical buffs no full well that a different orchestra or conductor can affect the nuances of a piece regardless of the composer's 'intentions'. Those into modern rock, pop et al. should think of all those remixes of old songs (not covers) that just don't sound 'as good' as the original, or occasionally better. Usually they're just different, e.g. emphasising more bass for a 'dancier' sound.

When my gospel rock band, way years, nay aeons ago, recorded our album, we spent as much time in production as in recording, getting the sound and mix just as we wanted. A different engineer or producer may have affected the result. Why, ask yourself, does a favourite band's new album suddenly sound 'duller' or better to you than the last ones? Check the production credits - so if 'they' can tweak sound to produce something they like, why can't we just 'correct' it a bit for our enjoyment?

Nothing in music is really 'pure' - even a live venue acoustics with all the mikes turned off can make the greatest singer sound poor or enhance a mediocre singer's voice. :p

[Resident Loser]

...raise a few hackles...

Folks constantly carp about using EQ in the home, but most don't have a clue as to how much signal manipulation goes on before it comes out of their loudspeakers...again, I do stress judicious use of the tool...

Many of the objecting "purists" use gear that has a distinct signature or coloration, so those nay-sayers hand me a laugh when they stress "accuracy"...as compared to what? As if a complete "hands-off" posture insures an unsullied link to another time and place. Were they at the session? Are they using the same playback gear? Certainly they aren't in the same environment as the producer and engineer were. Quite honestly, the boys in the control room are really the only ones really qualified to make the call.

My vintage and decidedly mid-fi(if price is the arbiter) gear enjoys the benefits of my equally vintage SAE 2700B half-octave unit and is EQd from the tip of the stylus to my "sweet spot"...program dependent it sounds like heaven or it doesn't...or somewhere in between...I know however that the gear/room interface is as symbiotic as it can be(given the current circumstance) and those settings remain fixed...When the program material is lacking, I further employ the four tone controls on my pre-amp to tweak things up as required.

Bad boy that I am, I must be punished...bad, bad audiophile-like creature!...tone controls AND an equalizer...and I also use 50ft/ch of 10ga. sound reinforcement(PA) wiring to feed my speakers from a remote location and a mix of OEM and reasonably priced aftermarket interconnects...go figure!

jimHJJ(...have fun...)

[risabet]

...raise a few hackles...

Folks constantly carp about using EQ in the home, but most don't have a clue as to how much signal manipulation goes on before it comes out of their loudspeakers...again, I do stress judicious use of the tool...

Many of the objecting "purists" use gear that has a distinct signature or coloration, so those nay-sayers hand me a laugh when they stress "accuracy"...as compared to what? As if a complete "hands-off" posture insures an unsullied link to another time and place. Were they at the session? Are they using the same playback gear? Certainly they aren't in the same environment as the producer and engineer were. Quite honestly, the boys in the control room are really the only ones really qualified to make the call.

My vintage and decidedly mid-fi(if price is the arbiter) gear enjoys the benefits of my equally vintage SAE 2700B half-octave unit and is EQd from the tip of the stylus to my "sweet spot"...program dependent it sounds like heaven or it doesn't...or somewhere in between...I know however that the gear/room interface is as symbiotic as it can be(given the current circumstance) and those settings remain fixed...When the program material is lacking, I further employ the four tone controls on my pre-amp to tweak things up as required.

Bad boy that I am, I must be punished...bad, bad audiophile-like creature!...tone controls AND an equalizer...and I also use 50ft/ch of 10ga. sound reinforcement(PA) wiring to feed my speakers from a remote location and a mix of OEM and reasonably priced aftermarket interconnects...go figure!

jimHJJ(...have fun...)

Sure, phono signals are passed through an RIAA circuit and line level sources are, hopefully, reproduced with no signal manipulation. The recording engineer may or may not, depends on the recording company, equalize the signal from the amps,pass itr through pan pots, etc. None of this is the point for us who are not fans of EQ'ing. My goal is to set up a system, and that includes the room, that has the smoothest FR that I can achieve, among other criteria. If the source is sonically lacking , so be it. I always try to remember that the goal for meis to reproduce what the producer/engineer sent me. If that is an RCA Living Stereo that is wonderful, if it is some modern rock music with a transistory high-end, so be it. For me this hobby is about the music, the paths we follow to get there may differ, but the end result isthe reproduction of music in our homes..

[markw]

My goal is to set up a system, and that includes the room, that has the smoothest FR that I can achieve, among other criteria. If the source is sonically lacking , so be it. I always try to remember that the goal for me is to reproduce what the producer/engineer sent me.This is like refusing to put salt and pepper on the perfectly rare medium rare porterhouse steak the waiter just brought me because the way the chef made it is exactly how I should eat it. Not so. It's my steak and if I want a little salt and pepper on it, that's my choice.

Now, if they would raise steer with just amount of salt and pepper flavoring in the meat to suit my tastes, then this would not be an issue but then again, what if someone else's tastes differed from mine? Would they need yet another geneticaly engineered steer with a different salt/pepper balance than I prefer?


If you can "improve" the sound to your ears then it's your perogitive. You don't have to be held a slave to someone else's tastes. After all, it's your system in your home you are listening to, not the recording engineers in the mixdown lab.

Oh well, maybe I'm rambling but maybe this means something? Then again, maybe not.

[Resident Loser]

...is not the source material...you seem to think that is what I am referring to...My EQing, is system equalization within the playback room's environment...As stated, once arrived at, those settings remain fixed; it's my pre-amp's TCs that are used to tweak any shorcomings that may arise on a recording by recording basis...and mostly it's to reduce an objectionable top end...I'm not referring to the "smiley face" glorified tone control aspect of the misuse of EQing(as markw so rightfully ridicules)...they aren't(or at least shouldn't be) "tone controls" in the sense of "turn up the bass!" nor are they gain devices...I refer to a more "professional" application; calibrated noise sources and measuring equipment to achieve sonic balance.

I'd rather spend a few hours or even days logging SPLs and making commensurate EQ adjustments than, as in some cases, years, taking a "swapping components" or the even more incredibly silly(IMO) and inefficient "wire-as-equalizer" approach to achieving a smoother FR...as stated earlier I prefer the objectivity of hardware to arrive at my goal: loudspeaker/room synergy...once I have a baseline to work with, then my subjective side can take over to adjust the seasoning.

jimHJJ(...any clearer now?...)