Would all cables sound alike under DBT test?...Probably not!

[Resident Loser]

"...How do you know the equalizer is needed to begin with, if not by using your ears..."

When speaker placement and environnmental options have been maxed-out, it's time.

My preamp/control center has four tone controls w/center freqs @ 50Hz, 100Hz, 10kHz and 20kHz. My main concern was in the bass region and neither of the low freq controls were selective enough to ameliorate my particular problem. "Hearing "something" is only the first step...and as MM alluded to, unless you live in an anechoic chamber, generally it couldn't hurt.

"...how do you know you adjusted the equalizer right, if not by using yours ears?..."

I purchased an SAE 2700B stereo half-octave EQ...avoid non-independent "ganged" units; there will most likely be differences between channels. I felt the half-octave unit was satisfactory for my purposes given the alternative of buying two, single channel Altec Lansing one third-octave ones.

This is where the minimal tools are required...I used a Crown test record(I'm into analog) and an SPL meter. I had access to a pro unit and also purchased an RS unit. Both gave reasonably coincident results and the RS meter was more user(wallet) friendly.

On a legal pad I wrote down the frequency bands as listed on the album cover. Unfortunately, the disk was divided into one-third octave bands, but more on that later. After setting the reference SPL @ 1kHz pink noise, I simply began to measure levels at each frequency snippet for each channel and note them on my pad. I then transferred the list to my graph paper(you could get fancy w/ log paper, but regular stuff is sufficient IMO). I did this because of the diffs w/ 1/3 vs. 1/2 octaves. As a result, some compromises were made and the visual aid of the graphic plot helped resolve them. I then adjusted the EQ pots to the inverse of my graph. it was done three times to increase resolution. The vast majority of sliders are in the "cut" mode and the most activity is in the region below 120Hz. As PCT said, his subs are where the EQ is doin' it's thing.

Now here's where we get to my previous mention of EQing vs. gain. If done correctly, each band is at reference level so the overall volume should also be at this level; switching the EQ in and out of the signal path should result in no apparent volume shift, only a re-shaping of the frequency response. Anything else is wrong IMHO and something was probably done incorrectly.

After listening, I decided "flat wasn't where it was at" for me and applied a gentle roll-off above 10K as it sounded more "natural"...I have no intention of getting into a debate about absolute ruler flat response and my initial results which were, generally speaking, +/- 3db...in practice the ear isn't all that acute to notice IMO...smooth linear bass extension and natural sounding mids and highs is more than sufficient thank you.

When all is said and done, I am of the opinion that attempting to use ears alone is open to all sorts of vagaries...different recordings just plain sound different and trying to accomplish this task with them will result in less than "correct" results, at least initially. If you choose to tweak things to your preference as I did, it should only be after you have established a baseline reference point. BTW, I still rely on tone controls to adjust for varying qualities in source material...

jimHJJ(...and that's my story...)

[okiemax]

The ideal situation is get the sound from the musicians in the studio to come out of your speakers with the same frequency information that they recorded their material at. Thus, at all stages of the signal going from an instrument right up to your speaker, there is usually a need to equalize the signal due to a variety of technical reasons. I know that recording engineers use equalization when burning a master CD. And usually, home owners would likely need to equalize again to take into account their equipment and room acoustics. The goal is to have the band sound exactly the same in your room as they did if you were sitting in the studio.



The frequency response a person likes is a matter of taste. The band and the recording engineers decide what is right for them and then they record it. People might strive to duplicate that using an equalizer. If not, then they adjust the spectrum according to their tastes.

So I see two aspects that relate to home equalization. First, a person may want to compensate for room or equipment defiencies to flatten the frequency response. Second, a person may have particular tastes like heavy on the bass and wish to use their equalizer for this purpose.

Personal tastes are easy to fool around with. The hard part would be to get a flat response in any given room. The neat thing about that though is if you listen to a track in somebody's room and then go to somebody else with different equipment and a different room, it should sound the same (well within reason, of course).

I guess it could be comparable to singing in key. Anybody can sing the national anthem by themselves in any key they want but if you sing a duet, you must be in the same key, preferably the key the song was written in.

Thanks for answering the questions about equalizers. Anything that compensates for serious room deficiences is worth considering. Well, maybe not those things that look like scratching posts for giant cats.

Re the National Anthem, it's too hard to sing. I would like to see it replaced with America the Beautiful.

[Monstrous Mike]

Anything that compensates for serious room deficiences is worth considering.

I'm not pointing this at you or anybody else for that matter, but if some folks are as serious about home audio sound as they appear to be, then pursuing room acoustics, speaker placement and equalization would, IMHO, have the potential for real sonic improvement compared to cables and other tweaks. Anybody can buy a hot rod power cord or speaker wire but it would take some imagination and research to pursue the goal of acoustically upgrading your room and I believe that would be a pursuit that is worthy and much more likely to give real, positive improvements.

Re the National Anthem, it's too hard to sing.

That doesn't stop some people, does it? Being a Canadian, I would have to say ours a quite a bit easier to sing.

That last note in the second last line "...O'er the land of the free.." is a doosey. On the American Idol finale, Tamyra Gray sang it and I believe she may have hit that note although not with a lot of volume.

[okiemax]

"...How do you know the equalizer is needed to begin with, if not by using your ears..."

When speaker placement and environnmental options have been maxed-out, it's time.

My preamp/control center has four tone controls w/center freqs @ 50Hz, 100Hz, 10kHz and 20kHz. My main concern was in the bass region and neither of the low freq controls were selective enough to ameliorate my particular problem. "Hearing "something" is only the first step...and as MM alluded to, unless you live in an anechoic chamber, generally it couldn't hurt.

"...how do you know you adjusted the equalizer right, if not by using yours ears?..."

I purchased an SAE 2700B stereo half-octave EQ...avoid non-independent "ganged" units; there will most likely be differences between channels. I felt the half-octave unit was satisfactory for my purposes given the alternative of buying two, single channel Altec Lansing one third-octave ones.

This is where the minimal tools are required...I used a Crown test record(I'm into analog) and an SPL meter. I had access to a pro unit and also purchased an RS unit. Both gave reasonably coincident results and the RS meter was more user(wallet) friendly.

On a legal pad I wrote down the frequency bands as listed on the album cover. Unfortunately, the disk was divided into one-third octave bands, but more on that later. After setting the reference SPL @ 1kHz pink noise, I simply began to measure levels at each frequency snippet for each channel and note them on my pad. I then transferred the list to my graph paper(you could get fancy w/ log paper, but regular stuff is sufficient IMO). I did this because of the diffs w/ 1/3 vs. 1/2 octaves. As a result, some compromises were made and the visual aid of the graphic plot helped resolve them. I then adjusted the EQ pots to the inverse of my graph. it was done three times to increase resolution. The vast majority of sliders are in the "cut" mode and the most activity is in the region below 120Hz. As PCT said, his subs are where the EQ is doin' it's thing.

Now here's where we get to my previous mention of EQing vs. gain. If done correctly, each band is at reference level so the overall volume should also be at this level; switching the EQ in and out of the signal path should result in no apparent volume shift, only a re-shaping of the frequency response. Anything else is wrong IMHO and something was probably done incorrectly.

After listening, I decided "flat wasn't where it was at" for me and applied a gentle roll-off above 10K as it sounded more "natural"...I have no intention of getting into a debate about absolute ruler flat response and my initial results which were, generally speaking, +/- 3db...in practice the ear isn't all that acute to notice IMO...smooth linear bass extension and natural sounding mids and highs is more than sufficient thank you.

When all is said and done, I am of the opinion that attempting to use ears alone is open to all sorts of vagaries...different recordings just plain sound different and trying to accomplish this task with them will result in less than "correct" results, at least initially. If you choose to tweak things to your preference as I did, it should only be after you have established a baseline reference point. BTW, I still rely on tone controls to adjust for varying qualities in source material...

jimHJJ(...and that's my story...)

Thanks for an excellent post. I can appreciate the time an effort that went into it. Although I have never used an equalizer, your method of getting to a "baseline" was clear and easy to follow. I'm glad that you are pleased with the results.

[okiemax]

QUOTE=Monstrous Mike]I'm not pointing this at you or anybody else for that matter, but if some folks are as serious about home audio sound as they appear to be, then pursuing room acoustics, speaker placement and equalization would, IMHO, have the potential for real sonic improvement compared to cables and other tweaks. Anybody can buy a hot rod power cord or speaker wire but it would take some imagination and research to pursue the goal of acoustically upgrading your room and I believe that would be a pursuit that is worthy and much more likely to give real, positive improvements.
__________________________________________________ ________

Yes, but equalizers are a lot of trouble to use right, and room treatments and optimal speaker placement may be objectionabe to other family members. Cables are easy to switch in and out, and aren't conspicious. Neither way guarantees satisfaction, but the cables likely come with a money-back guarantee, while room treatments and the expense of professional help(if needed) with the equalizer may not. Then there is the issue of the equalizer coloring or distorting the sound even if it is set up properly, which keeps some audiophiles from using these devices.

Equalizers can be used to tailor sound in a way that will more pleasing. This thread has assumed all audiophile cables are designed to tailor the sound. Is the assumption true?

[F1]

Yes, but equalizers are a lot of trouble to use right, and room treatments and optimal speaker placement may be objectionabe to other family members. Cables are easy to switch in and out, and aren't conspicious. Neither way guarantees satisfaction, but the cables likely come with a money-back guarantee, while room treatments and the expense of professional help(if needed) with the equalizer may not. Then there is the issue of the equalizer coloring or distorting the sound even if it is set up properly, which keeps some audiophiles from using these devices.

Equalizers can be used to tailor sound in a way that will more pleasing. This thread has assumed all audiophile cables are designed to tailor the sound. Is the assumption true?

Equalizer like the ones from Behringer have spectrum analyser LED on the slider itself so you can address the problematic frequency without SPL meter even though it won't be as precise but not too far off. You can find baseline setting more easily.
BTW what is the audiophile's objective to use audiophile cable?

[okiemax]

Equalizer like the ones from Behringer have spectrum analyser LED on the slider itself so you can address the problematic frequency without SPL meter even though it won't be as precise but not too far off. You can find baseline setting more easily.
BTW what is the audiophile's objective to use audiophile cable?

The Behringer sounds nice. Its convience would make it more fun to play with. Still it isn't certain a listener will like the equalizer, so a money-back guarantee is important.

I can't speak for all audiophiles when it comes to objectives for using cables. My objective has been to change the sound of my system in a way that is more pleasing to me. I haven't been trying to address specific problems by using cables. I try something new to see if I like it better than what I am using. I know this isn't an efficient way of trying to improve a system, but I enjoy it. So I guess in a way the act or process is the objective.

[skeptic]

I would not think of NOT using an equalizer in a serious sound system. But there are other things I wouldn't do without that many audiophiles turn their noses up as well. For instance, after 15 years of experimentation with them, I would never consider listening in my own home to a music system that didn't have a multidirectional array of tweeters. An array of inexpensive 1/2 or 3/8 inch polypropylene (mylar) tweeters in a ratio of about 1:3 direct to indirect firing (depending on acoustics) is far more musical than any single direct firing tweeter I've ever heard but that's a different arguement. Once everything else is adjusted, positioned, etc, then the time consuming difficult task of adjusting the equalizer begins. To me it's like tuning a musical instrument (note I do not consider a sound reproduction system a musical instrument because I don't consider recordings music but that's also another arguement.)

To anyone who thinks that a casual tweaking is all that it takes to adjust an equalizer, I promise you that you will soon write it off as a useless toy. Same for anyone who thinks that they will simply connect a pink noise generator, an inexpensive condenser mic, and a fluorescent display spectrum analyzer. My own experience is that it doesn't work. This is something you really have to want to do badly because you know in the end it will be worth it.

The first prerequisite is to know what live unamplified music actually sounds like. Sorry but tuning a sound system with a graphic equalizer while not understanding what you are listening for is like trying to tune a piano or a violin by ear without knowing what a scale sounds like. IMO, it can't be done. This probably let's at least 95% of audiophiles out possibly explaining why so many equalizers are available inexpensively on the used market. In the wrong hands, meaning most hands, they are worse than useless. Secondly is an extensive collection of well made recordings of acoustical instruments. This is the real test material, not a test disc. Then there is the understanding that you will have to work within the limitations of the equipment you have. You aren't going to get that 8 inch two way ported speaker with an in box resonance frequency of 50 hz to reproduce a 30 hz organ pedal tone, especially at high volume. Acoustic suspension speakers may have their response extended about a half octave or so below system resonance. Maybe. If you are lucky and have sufficient amplifier power. Small incremental changes are all you can hope for at any given time. A few db at most in one or two adjacent octaves. Start with the controls set flat and start making cuts in those frequency bands which seem exaggerated. Often the mid bass is a good starting point because so may speaker/room combinations have annoying resonances there. Frequently deep bass is lacking and a slight boost there may help. Sometimes you feel like you are going backwards and things are getting worse, not better. Reducing a peak in one frequency range seems to make peaks in other ranges more audible. I just cut 2 db at 4khz in one system and suddenly it became obvious that the bass was exaggerated, something that was previously masked by the 4khz peak. Listen to a lot of your recordings. One thing you get accostomed to is that the huge variations in the way recordings are made will make a sound system seem exaggerated in one way with one recording and in the opposite way with another. The best you can hope for is to adjust for the average so that you get the best out of the majority of your recordings. You will also see that different equipment requires different settings. The frequency response you are adjusting for is the overall system response so that if you change cd players as I recently did, you become aware of differences from one to the next. Different components also have different frequency responses, for instance, every hi fi VCR I own seems to have an exaggerated bass. Fortunately with prices as cheap as they are, you can have a separate equalizer for different units or if you have a digital unit with memory presets, you can adjust the system for each one independently. One good thing to try occasionally is to not listen for a few days or a week or two. I think your ears become accostomed to the sound of your particular system at any time and giving them a break lets you hear everything with a fresh start. Don't be surprised if doing this doesn't make you think something is wrong when it doesn't sound as good as you remember it. I also try to keep left and right channels set identically except for deep bass where room acoustics, especially resonances and speaker positioning play such a large role in what you hear. As I said elsewhere, with patience, it often takes me about two years to get the results I want. Is it worth it. Are you kidding?

[DMK]

I would not think of NOT using an equalizer in a serious sound system. But there are other things I wouldn't do without that many audiophiles turn their noses up as well. For instance, after 15 years of experimentation with them, I would never consider listening in my own home to a music system that didn't have a multidirectional array of tweeters. An array of inexpensive 1/2 or 3/8 inch polypropylene (mylar) tweeters in a ratio of about 1:3 direct to indirect firing (depending on acoustics) is far more musical than any single direct firing tweeter I've ever heard but that's a different arguement. Once everything else is adjusted, positioned, etc, then the time consuming difficult task of adjusting the equalizer begins. To me it's like tuning a musical instrument (note I do not consider a sound reproduction system a musical instrument because I don't consider recordings music but that's also another arguement.)

To anyone who thinks that a casual tweaking is all that it takes to adjust an equalizer, I promise you that you will soon write it off as a useless toy. Same for anyone who thinks that they will simply connect a pink noise generator, an inexpensive condenser mic, and a fluorescent display spectrum analyzer. My own experience is that it doesn't work. This is something you really have to want to do badly because you know in the end it will be worth it.

The first prerequisite is to know what live unamplified music actually sounds like. Sorry but tuning a sound system with a graphic equalizer while not understanding what you are listening for is like trying to tune a piano or a violin by ear without knowing what a scale sounds like. IMO, it can't be done. This probably let's at least 95% of audiophiles out possibly explaining why so many equalizers are available inexpensively on the used market. In the wrong hands, meaning most hands, they are worse than useless. Secondly is an extensive collection of well made recordings of acoustical instruments. This is the real test material, not a test disc. Then there is the understanding that you will have to work within the limitations of the equipment you have. You aren't going to get that 8 inch two way ported speaker with an in box resonance frequency of 50 hz to reproduce a 30 hz organ pedal tone, especially at high volume. Acoustic suspension speakers may have their response extended about a half octave or so below system resonance. Maybe. If you are lucky and have sufficient amplifier power. Small incremental changes are all you can hope for at any given time. A few db at most in one or two adjacent octaves. Start with the controls set flat and start making cuts in those frequency bands which seem exaggerated. Often the mid bass is a good starting point because so may speaker/room combinations have annoying resonances there. Frequently deep bass is lacking and a slight boost there may help. Sometimes you feel like you are going backwards and things are getting worse, not better. Reducing a peak in one frequency range seems to make peaks in other ranges more audible. I just cut 2 db at 4khz in one system and suddenly it became obvious that the bass was exaggerated, something that was previously masked by the 4khz peak. Listen to a lot of your recordings. One thing you get accostomed to is that the huge variations in the way recordings are made will make a sound system seem exaggerated in one way with one recording and in the opposite way with another. The best you can hope for is to adjust for the average so that you get the best out of the majority of your recordings. You will also see that different equipment requires different settings. The frequency response you are adjusting for is the overall system response so that if you change cd players as I recently did, you become aware of differences from one to the next. Different components also have different frequency responses, for instance, every hi fi VCR I own seems to have an exaggerated bass. Fortunately with prices as cheap as they are, you can have a separate equalizer for different units or if you have a digital unit with memory presets, you can adjust the system for each one independently. One good thing to try occasionally is to not listen for a few days or a week or two. I think your ears become accostomed to the sound of your particular system at any time and giving them a break lets you hear everything with a fresh start. Don't be surprised if doing this doesn't make you think something is wrong when it doesn't sound as good as you remember it. I also try to keep left and right channels set identically except for deep bass where room acoustics, especially resonances and speaker positioning play such a large role in what you hear. As I said elsewhere, with patience, it often takes me about two years to get the results I want. Is it worth it. Are you kidding?

Only one small detail missing... what equalizer(s) do you consider to be the best you've used or what are you using in your current system? I've been toying with the idea of getting an equalizer for about a year now and your post has convinced me to get off ground zero. Need to know a brand/model that you think is the best. Equalization certainly sounds better than switching components and the rest of my system is in place for the long haul. Thanks!

[skeptic]

Originally I used an ADC sound shaper SS315. It had 10 bands per channel, a calibrated microphone, a spectrum analyzer with a fluorescent display and was fairly expensive when I bought it around 1982 (about $300.) The power transformer failed about two years ago and I had to substitute another one which was at hand. I had a spare BSR EQ 110-X. It was made by the same parent company, had the same center frequencies but it didn't perform the same way. Duplicating the settings and a plug out/plug in did not give the same results. It probably took the better part of a year to get back to where I thought I had been. (I have two more of these tied up with another project.) Right now in my experimentation with the enhanced Bose 901s, I'm using the 10 band equalizer built into the Marantz SR 930 receiver.

I don't think it matters so much which model you use, it's how you use it. However, I would not use one that will not allow infinitely contiunous adjustment for each band, in other words, one that would restrict you to a 2db or 1db increment per adjustment. The exception might be a digital unit but 1 db would be the absolute outside limit. 2db is just too much of a range. One thing that amazed me is how I could tell even small changes in the settings once I head the same musical passage over and over again.

Good luck, this is a long frustrating job but in the end, you probably won't regret it. One more tip, write down your settings so that you can refer back to them. Date each profile. you might even want to take notes on what you heard and what effect your adjustments have. After a while, you can kind of predict approximately what you need to do to fix a particular problem. Sometimes your guess even turns out to be right.

[Tony_Montana]

I was thinking of the cable arrangement as in computers where the cables are side by side and pair up every other ones.

So, it depends how the ribbon is made

I checked on this further and it seem that Ribbon cables can be made to have extremely low inductance (even lower than twisted pair) due to close loop coupling between conductors. I guess the ribbon speaker cable (which had high inductance) Gene used for the Shoot out was constructed as edge to edge

I'm not pointing this at you or anybody else for that matter, but if some folks are as serious about home audio sound as they appear to be, then pursuing room acoustics, speaker placement and equalization would, IMHO, have the potential for real sonic improvement compared to cables and other tweaks. Anybody can buy a hot rod power cord or speaker wire but it would take some imagination and research to pursue the goal of acoustically upgrading your room and I believe that would be a pursuit that is worthy and much more likely to give real, positive improvements.

Mike, please post it in CA. May be somebody will be saved

The exception might be a digital unit but 1 db would be the absolute outside limit. 2db is just too much of a range. One thing that amazed me is how I could tell even small changes in the settings once I head the same musical passage over and over again.

That amazes me also. I always thought that changes below 1 dB in either of audio extreme is hard to distinguish, but when I make changes to EQ in those areas that are less than 1 dB, I do notice a change when A/B it

[mtrycraft]

I checked on this further and it seem that Ribbon cables can be made to have extremely low inductance (even lower than twisted pair) due to close loop coupling between conductors. I guess the ribbon speaker cable (which had high inductance) Gene used for the Shoot out was constructed as edge to edge

I am having a difficult time with the difference here, how you place the wires edge to edge?
Are they flat wires, not round? That would certainly be different and explains it.

[skeptic]

"That amazes me also. I always thought that changes below 1 dB in either of audio extreme is hard to distinguish, but when I make changes to EQ in those areas that are less than 1 dB, I do notice a change when A/B it "

You reminded me of something I had forgotten a long time ago. When I was in the sixth grade, they came around from the Junior High School to give a test to see if anyone who wanted to be in "orchestra class" the next year was qualified. What was the test? They didn't care if you ever heard of Beethoven or Mozart. They never asked. All they did was to play a succession of pairs of musical tones. You had to be able to tell which one was the higher pitch. These tones were so close in pitch, they probably weren't off by much more than an eighth note. It's not something I actually hear the way I'd hear adjacent whole tones, it's something I kind of feel like one tone is sour or the other is brilliant when comparing them. You can try this on a violin by bowing a string while rocking your finger slowly back and forth on the same string on the fingerboard. It's like very slight pitch bending on an electronic keyboard. If you concintrate, you may be able to hear more than you think you can. The rule of thumb that 1 db change in loudness is the limit of what you can hear may be a generalization of the population as a whole which doesn't apply to everybody. When one part of the spectrum changes relative to another by 1 db or even less, that change to the spectral balance may be audible. It's a change to the overall impression you get and it's sometimes hard to put your finger on. Now who really has the sharp ears and who just wishes or thinks they do?

[Tony_Montana]

I am having a difficult time with the difference here, how you place the wires edge to edge?
Are they flat wires, not round? That would certainly be different and explains it.

Well, I think Jneutron might have explained it best. He said:"Given two ribbons half inch wide and 25 mils thick..
Side by side makes it one inch by 25 mils, that is what you considered ribbon.
Face to face makes it half inch wide, and 50 mils thick".Jn

One type of Ribbon cable that might be edge to edge (side by side), are the type that are specifically made to be placed under the carpet. No humps

When one part of the spectrum changes relative to another by 1 db or even less, that change to the spectral balance may be audible. It's a change to the overall impression you get and it's sometimes hard to put your finger on.

It might be worth mentioning that when a change made to an EQ settings, it will also effect the targeted adjacent frequency[s]. I have a 10 band EQ, and when I change setting on 8 kHz band, I am sure 7 kHz and 9 kHz band also be effected-to lesser degree. That might explain why we hear even small changes with EQs.

[okiemax]

That was an impressive post, skeptic, but what you meant by the last three sentences wasn't entirely clear to me.

Quote: "As I said elsewhere, with patience, it often takes me about two years to get the results I want. Is it worth it. Are you kidding?"

If it "often takes about two years" to get what you want, do you mean for a whole bunch of two-year periods you were not getting quite what you wanted. And the first time you got what you wanted, why did you mess it up and start over again?

I don't know if you think it was worth it or not? "Are you kidding" could be taken either way.

[skeptic]

As I said in another post about critical listening, the one about the test they used to weed out those with the ability to hear whether one tone was higher pitched than another, sometimes it's a matter of knowing things are "slightly off" rather than being able to put your finger on the exact problem. This leads to experimenting with the octave to octave balance and often getting it dead wrong. Sometimes you know you've made a mistake right away, and sometimes it takes awhile. If you've ever done any cooking and you have made a sauce which doesn't taste quite the way you want it to or the way you remember it, you add a little more of one ingredient or another and taste it again. You realize that you can't just follow the cookbook recipe if you want to get it just right. Your own sensory reaction to it is the final judge and the cookbook only gets you in the neighborhood.

One nice thing about most equalizers is that they have a bypass switch which allows instant AB comparison of the unequalized signal with the equalized signal. While the volume will not be exactly the same, you can compensate by keeping one hand on the volume control and the other on the bypass switch. This will allow you to see over time if things are really getting better. There's no doubt in my mind that they can and do get better, much better. BTW, if you make mostly cuts rather than boost the signal, the equalized signal will sound softer than the unequalized signal. Making cuts rather than boosts was strongly recommended to me many decades ago by an Altec Lansing salesman whose "Acousta Voice" equalizers were among the first professionally available as far back as the 50s and 60s. He told me as I think someone else repeated here, the associated phase shift with a cut from flat is inaudible.

Saturday, I had occasion to go to a local Best Buy on a wild goose chase to find a small electronic translator which could translate back and forth from English to Italian (they didn't have one.) It may have been the first time I was ever in a Best Buy (I hated it.) Anyway, while I was there, I took a look around and the only equalizer they had was an analog unit made by Audio Source. It had such a low profile that it seemed to me it would be very difficult to adjust. The entire range of adjustment for each slider was only an inch or two making small adjustments seemingly hard to repeat or to even see visually. I'd look for one that has a much higher profile with longer range for the sliders. I also would find it inconvenient to use rotary controls like the ones on McInotsh units. "Graphic" equalizers show you at a glance what they are supposed to be doing to the frequency response. I don't think it matters so much which brand you buy but how you use it. However, as I learned when my ADC SS315 failed and I substituted a BSR unit with identical center frequencies and adjusted the controls to the same settings, they didn't sound alike and the adjustments had to be made all over again. The two years is just about up and the sound seems just about right again.

One other thing I'm resigned to is the realization that the best a loudpeaker can do as far as I am concerned is to make musical instruments have the right timbre on some recordings. All other attributes IMO play a secondary role to this goal. This is at least one quality I can readily understand. If some other characteristic such as "imaging" (I'm not sure most people even agree on what imaging means) plays a back seat, so be it.

Yes, it is definitely worth the time and effort. When you get it right, it's like owning a much better stereo system than you started with.

[okiemax]

As I said in another post about critical listening, the one about the test they used to weed out those with the ability to hear whether one tone was higher pitched than another, sometimes it's a matter of knowing things are "slightly off" rather than being able to put your finger on the exact problem. This leads to experimenting with the octave to octave balance and often getting it dead wrong. Sometimes you know you've made a mistake right away, and sometimes it takes awhile. If you've ever done any cooking and you have made a sauce which doesn't taste quite the way you want it to or the way you remember it, you add a little more of one ingredient or another and taste it again. You realize that you can't just follow the cookbook recipe if you want to get it just right. Your own sensory reaction to it is the final judge and the cookbook only gets you in the neighborhood.

One nice thing about most equalizers is that they have a bypass switch which allows instant AB comparison of the unequalized signal with the equalized signal. While the volume will not be exactly the same, you can compensate by keeping one hand on the volume control and the other on the bypass switch. This will allow you to see over time if things are really getting better. There's no doubt in my mind that they can and do get better, much better. BTW, if you make mostly cuts rather than boost the signal, the equalized signal will sound softer than the unequalized signal. Making cuts rather than boosts was strongly recommended to me many decades ago by an Altec Lansing salesman whose "Acousta Voice" equalizers were among the first professionally available as far back as the 50s and 60s. He told me as I think someone else repeated here, the associated phase shift with a cut from flat is inaudible.

Saturday, I had occasion to go to a local Best Buy on a wild goose chase to find a small electronic translator which could translate back and forth from English to Italian (they didn't have one.) It may have been the first time I was ever in a Best Buy (I hated it.) Anyway, while I was there, I took a look around and the only equalizer they had was an analog unit made by Audio Source. It had such a low profile that it seemed to me it would be very difficult to adjust. The entire range of adjustment for each slider was only an inch or two making small adjustments seemingly hard to repeat or to even see visually. I'd look for one that has a much higher profile with longer range for the sliders. I also would find it inconvenient to use rotary controls like the ones on McInotsh units. "Graphic" equalizers show you at a glance what they are supposed to be doing to the frequency response. I don't think it matters so much which brand you buy but how you use it. However, as I learned when my ADC SS315 failed and I substituted a BSR unit with identical center frequencies and adjusted the controls to the same settings, they didn't sound alike and the adjustments had to be made all over again. The two years is just about up and the sound seems just about right again.

One other thing I'm resigned to is the realization that the best a loudpeaker can do as far as I am concerned is to make musical instruments have the right timbre on some recordings. All other attributes IMO play a secondary role to this goal. This is at least one quality I can readily understand. If some other characteristic such as "imaging" (I'm not sure most people even agree on what imaging means) plays a back seat, so be it.

Yes, it is definitely worth the time and effort. When you get it right, it's like owning a much better stereo system than you started with.

Thanks for the explanation. I think it's clear to me now.

[Resident Loser]

...I must take issue with Skeptic...

First, if done correctly there should be no apparent volume change, ONLY a re-shaping of the FR...this of course DNA to units which are strictly "cut" only, however most home audio components do not fall into this category...

Second, using music, whether the instruments are amplifed or not, does not take into account the vagaries in each and every disc...something neutral, i.e. a test disc/disk or other calbrated source is the only way to equalize the loudspeaker/room interface. Nothing is perfect, but averaging things out in this matter just makes more sense to me. After establishing that "baseline", further tweaking to take up the slack of poor source material should be done with simple tone controls. Unless, of course, you enjoy re-EQing for every recording you own...as I recall prior to RIAA standardization, most units had multiple EQ parameters...you set a switch depending who issued the recording...I'd rather turn one control than reset a few...

Finally, I see constant sturm und drang re: subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy?

jimHJJ(...and PCT does flip-flops?...)

[skeptic]

"Finally, I see constant sturm und drang re: subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy?"

Frankly, I don't see how you can avoid it. If you are tone deaf there is no point in buying an expensive sound system that meets someone elses criteria of accuracy. That is after all the ultimate goal and test of how well these systems work for you which is why you buy them.

[pctower]

...I must take issue with Skeptic...

First, if done correctly there should be no apparent volume change, ONLY a re-shaping of the FR...this of course DNA to units which are strictly "cut" only, however most home audio components do not fall into this category...

Second, using music, whether the instruments are amplifed or not, does not take into account the vagaries in each and every disc...something neutral, i.e. a test disc/disk or other calbrated source is the only way to equalize the loudspeaker/room interface. Nothing is perfect, but averaging things out in this matter just makes more sense to me. After establishing that "baseline", further tweaking to take up the slack of poor source material should be done with simple tone controls. Unless, of course, you enjoy re-EQing for every recording you own...as I recall prior to RIAA standardization, most units had multiple EQ parameters...you set a switch depending who issued the recording...I'd rather turn one control than reset a few...

Finally, I see constant sturm und drang re: subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy?

jimHJJ(...and PCT does flip-flops?...)

subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy

Geeze Jim:

If we can't use our 5 senses as the arbiter of what works for us - what stimulates our pleasure center, etc. - then why should we even bother to live.

Perhaps, The Day After Tomorrow,we'll all be extinct and somewhere else in the universe those living beings who are blessed with meters, scopes and digits, rather than our useless analog senses, will prosper. Only trouble is they won't be able to enjoy their prosperity.

PS: I'm not sure if the above sentiments are "flip" or "flop". I can see the respective merits of either label.

[Resident Loser]

...that after what seems to be a lifetime of discounting the efficacy of the fallible human ear in certain aspects of audio reproduction, one of the leading exponents of that rationale now eschews the use of measurement in favor of subjective use of software for a task as daunting as proper set-up of an equalizer...and adds it might take as long as two years to achieve satisfactory results...

Hmmm...so I guess it's not all anecdotal AND the trial and error facet is OK!?!?!? And with the potential of a two-year term, can break-in be far behind?

jimHJJ(...and as Scrooge said, "I'll retire to Bedlam!"...)

[Monstrous Mike]

If we can't use our 5 senses as the arbiter of what works for us - what stimulates our pleasure center, etc. - then why should we even bother to live.

Our senses do not lie. They are as objective a device as any electronic or other man made measurement tool. As always, it is the interpretation of the sensory input that is key here. We can choose to ignore some sensory input, we can choose to fill in where input is lacking, we can combine the inputs of two or more senses, etc.

All of our goals are to achieve pleasing sound and other sensory experiences when listening to music. And the pleasure of music can be enhanced by other senses like smell (incense), sight (mood lighting), etc. We can do a number of things where we don't affect what our ear is receiving but we can still greatly affect what our brain is perceiving. How can this be? Well it could be the result of some sort of change in the information that we use to decipher or interpret our sensory input or a change in the way we process that information.

I think the bottom line is that when we perceive a change, don't assume it is because of a sensory input change. We are not perfect in interpreting our senses. I feel they are sharpest when they are used for what they were designed for; to survive. We also now use our senses for pleasure and that's the point Jim was making. Beware of your interpretations. You can't make a mistake in determining what is pleasing to you but you can make a mistake in determining the cause of that pleasure.

[pctower]

Our senses do not lie. They are as objective a device as any electronic or other man made measurement tool. As always, it is the interpretation of the sensory input that is key here. We can choose to ignore some sensory input, we can choose to fill in where input is lacking, we can combine the inputs of two or more senses, etc.

All of our goals are to achieve pleasing sound and other sensory experiences when listening to music. And the pleasure of music can be enhanced by other senses like smell (incense), sight (mood lighting), etc. We can do a number of things where we don't affect what our ear is receiving but we can still greatly affect what our brain is perceiving. How can this be? Well it could be the result of some sort of change in the information that we use to decipher or interpret our sensory input or a change in the way we process that information.

I think the bottom line is that when we perceive a change, don't assume it is because of a sensory input change. We are not perfect in interpreting our senses. I feel they are sharpest when they are used for what they were designed for; to survive. We also now use our senses for pleasure and that's the point Jim was making. Beware of your interpretations. You can't make a mistake in determining what is pleasing to you but you can make a mistake in determining the cause of that pleasure.

I suppose to be technically correct and to correct myself, it's really the brain's final interpretation of what our senses pick up that is the determination of what works for each of us.

We all agree that a lot can happen between the ear and the brain.