If you listen to anything recorded from 1970 to say 85, the recording was probably mixed and eq'd with equipment using 741 op amps in the signal path.
even today the signal passes through many op amps. The pro amps they use would be sniffed at by many audiophiles.
Klark Teknik Graphic eq $1057 USD from B&K
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist.jsp&sku=493328&q=1&Q=add&is=REG&A=cart
Last edited:
I guess only a "True audiophile" believes in that sort of BS.
When you can post any scientific data confirming that opinion then we can have a serious discussion but anecdotal audiophile opinion on this topic should be ignored.
I have yet to see a measurement or a properly controlled listening test that proves these so called expensive EQing systems to be actually audiably superior then even something that Harman international offers or the highest end Audyssey products.
Lets just say, serious systems require real science and that does not always equate to large $$$.
Provide the data behind "decent Equalizer"??
Do you know anything about Audyssey Mutl-EQ XT32 pro kit version? Do you know anything about Trinnov or the room correction software that Harman international offers. DSPs like these are not much more then a couple of thousand. Not sure what you own for a house but my last house cost $750K to build....don't ask the market value 5 years later
It does not take a lot of $$ to have proper room correctly below 300Hz. Heck for full active designs the DEQX at < $2K is 100% audiophile grade with linear phase brick wall filters, etc. No need to WASTE big $$$ if someone has enough intelligence to know what is out there. I would match up the MiniDSP at $200 with any audiophile golden ears person betting $5K they would not pick the $10K DSP over the $200 DSP. I have done more $$$ betting in audio in 20 years then you can imagine. There is nothing to keep the noise floor low enough so the audible differences are not there...the debate over SQ difference disappears when measurements and real controlled listening happens.
Remove the audiophile imagination and the truth will be exposed.
btw, its equalizer and its audiophile (Im the worst at spelling too but I just want to make sure you know the spelling).
Last edited:
A home room is usually 100% different in terms of requirements then a recording studio. hence equipment requirements/speaker requirements should be different.
recording studio is very small and is a nearfield listening experience. Rooms are usually atleast 300 sqft or more and listening distances are more then 6 feet for the logical discussions about room correction software.
My point was that if you really wanted to splurge, you could get something like a KT unit with the typical speaker controller functionality for setting delays, crossovers types/slopes, loads of parametric and fixed EQ functionality and get away with the price much lower than a house payment. Even by splurging, you aren't far off from being a couple of house payments rather than a house.
IOW, I completely disagree with the poster suggesting that you can't get a decent EQ for low $$$.
IOW, I completely disagree with the poster suggesting that you can't get a decent EQ for low $$$.
The Burwen software is $469 USD and does the work of the Cello Audio Palette (15k USD+) and other functions. Burwen designed the Audio Palette for Levinson BTW.
Most commercial records are processed with equipment that many audiophiles would be shocked to see used. I choose to get as much as I can from my music Library and choose recording based on how much I enjoy the music. I never worry about how it was recorded and what equipment was used. I can't do anything about that.
Most commercial records are processed with equipment that many audiophiles would be shocked to see used. I choose to get as much as I can from my music Library and choose recording based on how much I enjoy the music. I never worry about how it was recorded and what equipment was used. I can't do anything about that.
SO less re EQ the already EQed music .......
What about under-EQed speakers?
All of them are.
Yes, the surprise I got was that I found absolutely nothing.
How about a link?
A decent 5 band dual channel parametric like the KT DN410 costs £1200.
George Massenburgs GML 8200 parametric is as good as current analogue technology allows and costs just over US$5000.
Btw Massenburg not only invented the parametric eq he is also a world class producer and engineer and a lecturer at McGill U and UCLA.
George Massenburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More expensive ones like the Avalon AD2055 tend to be deliberately designed to be euphonic (read: coloured).
Some of the best digital speaker management systems are made by XTA and cost between £1500 and £2500. They provide xover functions, 28 band graphic and 8 bands of parametric eq on all inputs while each output features an additional 9 bands of parametric eq and time alignment to sub millimetre accuracy plus limiters.
XTA Electronics
Now please show us the BBC cd transport that costs more than a house.
I don't want to be aggressive nor harsh but i don't think you've ever been in an apropriate recording/mixing studio ever? Have you? Have a quick look and another here.
For accurate acoustic treatment under 300hz you probably have to spend a lot of money. And not in an eq...
If you doubt about that just purchase a copy of Philip Newell's "Recording studio acoustics" (Focal Press) and take a look at the principle of Tom Hidley's "Zero Environnement" philosophy (which is an extreme point of view of these problems of acoustic treatments).
I have been in contact with various acousticians (including T. RAST, the compagny T.Hidley is working with) during the planning of a studio build and i can tell you that a correct control room can't be build in small space.
Nearfield monitoring in studio is used mainly for editing/mixing tasks, where all is a question of tonal balance and use of small, innacurate speaker is of great use (Yamaha NS10m or the infamous the screaming cubes Auratones) to check the balance with average end user system ( with regular check on big system for your own audiophile pleasure
). But the SOUND is made at recording stage where big widebandwith accurate systems ( able to reproduce the acoustic spl peaks the performers are producing without distortion -up to 130dbSPL in some cases) are used mainly (Kinoshita/Rey Audio, Genelec, Tannoy, JBL, Boxer/Exigy,Dynaudio, ATC etc,etc... you name it).
To return to eq treatments if you think you can solve acoustic (room) problems like modes with an eq (digital or analog) you're fooling yourself imho.
If you want to fine tune a system or correct a problem relative to spectral content of your playback system, or just adjust to your liking: then just use it and enjoy!
And for info analog or digital in the high end pro market doesn't make any differences: GML eq (9500), Weiss EQ1, TC M6000 mastering system, Cranesong eq, Maselec eq, Cranesong,... are all transparent processing used in mastering stage... Being digital or analog doesn't matter with this beasts they just make no (or so little) harm to sound while being higly effective in the process they do.
But you won't probably never see them used for the task of fine tuning speaker systems in studio. More commonly: DBX driverack 4800, Bryston, BSS or Sabine...
Thanks
I'd just like to say thanks for this thread. I'd forgotten all about EQs and the fun we had as college kids with them. OK our's was a bit crackly when you adjusted it and we couldn't afford the full eight band one but hey, you could get the bass just right
I thought their day was over but see they still have their place:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SOUND-SENSITIVE-GRAPHIC-EQUALISER-DOG-TAG-/230633388476?pt=UK_Pendants_Chains_Dog_Tags_SR&hash=item35b2d239bc
Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't read too much into it ...
I'd just like to say thanks for this thread. I'd forgotten all about EQs and the fun we had as college kids with them. OK our's was a bit crackly when you adjusted it and we couldn't afford the full eight band one but hey, you could get the bass just right
I thought their day was over but see they still have their place:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SOUND-SENSITIVE-GRAPHIC-EQUALISER-DOG-TAG-/230633388476?pt=UK_Pendants_Chains_Dog_Tags_SR&hash=item35b2d239bc
Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't read too much into it ...
oh
I have been looking at a PA dbx EQ, priced a bit more modestlyI have thought of using it for bass guitar
despite that it probably does degrade the signal, like any other switch in the system does, actually
I wouldn't be surpriced if quite many people would get much better sound with such a thing, instead of living with all sorts of other severe problems
but even if not being pure crazy audiophiles, they(we) still listen to what they(we) say, right or wrong
ok, we want ultimate sound (re)production
and only the best is acceptable
fair enough
but might help some to get down from that high horse and be more realistic about music listening
equaliser for limeys.
As for the other word, who knows what Andy was actually referring to : Audiofile Home Page
Personally, i'd label folks strictly into music servers, like you, an audiofile(r)
Even if DSP's were the affordable ticket, it does nothing for the analog at heart.
Eeh, what's the market value 5 years later ?
(prettiest one in my alley is currently for sale at $5.5M, at this week's 1.40 $/€, a lot more than the supermarket owner guy had it built for 5 years ago)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.