Equalizer no more?

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:

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yon_wu

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yon_wu

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoFenderBender

• 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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...!

...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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoFenderBender

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yon_wu

: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. :)

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

<<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!

...I'm using a foreigh language...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoFenderBender

...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?...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

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

...Florian has bored me to the point of being comatose...take your pick or add another...clarification please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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

rw

---

jimHJJ(...que?...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

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

...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...)

Quote:

---

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?