There are IMO 2 separate issues here,
Room EQ
Program EQ
Room eq can be solved in large measure by passive means (presuming 'good' speakers) with correct placement of speakers, room treatments, multiple SW's placed correctly. If problems still persist than some of the new products can help.
Then there is program eq, many presume that somehow all recordings are made in perfect studios with perfect acoustics, electronics and speakers and we should gladly accept the manna from the 'gods'. That has not been my experience, a lot of music I like are not recorded especially well. I don't want to buy 'audiophile' recordings of performances and artists I don't care about.
The solution is a good tone control. Doing that in analog is pretty expensive the best that I had heard was the old Cello Audio Palette, it made poor recordings very listenable. The cost was prohibitive for me. The guy who designed the Palette D Burwen has a software version of the Palette. I will be getting this to try out.
A good tone control is a boon to any music collection IMO.
Room EQ
Program EQ
Room eq can be solved in large measure by passive means (presuming 'good' speakers) with correct placement of speakers, room treatments, multiple SW's placed correctly. If problems still persist than some of the new products can help.
Then there is program eq, many presume that somehow all recordings are made in perfect studios with perfect acoustics, electronics and speakers and we should gladly accept the manna from the 'gods'. That has not been my experience, a lot of music I like are not recorded especially well. I don't want to buy 'audiophile' recordings of performances and artists I don't care about.
The solution is a good tone control. Doing that in analog is pretty expensive the best that I had heard was the old Cello Audio Palette, it made poor recordings very listenable. The cost was prohibitive for me. The guy who designed the Palette D Burwen has a software version of the Palette. I will be getting this to try out.
A good tone control is a boon to any music collection IMO.
In the early days, I used to love EQ machines. It was fun to modify the settings and ajust the sound according to the room, speakers, and amplification/source.
But I always felt that the sound was faster and more detailed without the extra components on the signal line.
Than I bought a British amp that had no tone controls and the soundstage was really large with loads of detail providing very fast transient reproduction.
I never got back to the EQ.
Anyway, I have a friend that can not live without tone controls... He prefers a narrower soundstage with a grittier sound but with the possibility to pump up the highs and lower the lower registers.
I am now studying the Baxandall Tone Stack so I can design a propper high definition preamp for him.
As for myself, I prefer to make adjustments by choosing cables and fiddling with VTA etc.
But I always felt that the sound was faster and more detailed without the extra components on the signal line.
Than I bought a British amp that had no tone controls and the soundstage was really large with loads of detail providing very fast transient reproduction.
I never got back to the EQ.
Anyway, I have a friend that can not live without tone controls... He prefers a narrower soundstage with a grittier sound but with the possibility to pump up the highs and lower the lower registers.
I am now studying the Baxandall Tone Stack so I can design a propper high definition preamp for him.
As for myself, I prefer to make adjustments by choosing cables and fiddling with VTA etc.
Considering the posts above (room EQ & program EQ), I can add an other POV:
for the digital active amplification users, EQ is an essential component of the filter, deciding of slopes, overlaps, impulse, phase and all that you want. Once a good combination has been found (and it's a long way), the slightest change results in the Nelson Pass POOF. (post 12).
Good records are good, bad ones are bad, that's life (and Hi Fi). EQuing will not change this.
for the digital active amplification users, EQ is an essential component of the filter, deciding of slopes, overlaps, impulse, phase and all that you want. Once a good combination has been found (and it's a long way), the slightest change results in the Nelson Pass POOF. (post 12).
Good records are good, bad ones are bad, that's life (and Hi Fi). EQuing will not change this.
And double as worse for an all-balanced setup, a top notch 6-band EQ starts with one from the studio environment at $15k (e.g. AD2077), going up to home audio specimens at +$30k (think FM233).
The EQ exit started with saving out to spend the extra cash on better amp parts/circuits.
At the current level of pre-pre/pre/power amps, getting tone controls back in takes heaps of cash.
It's probably the old fart brigade who still recall how bad a preamp the 33 was, but also how handy the tone controls were, even with meticulous arranged ESL's (+ feet markings on the floor) in a proper damped surrounding.
Many sound engineers very happily use something like the Klark Teknik DN410 which is balanced like all pro gear, costs 1/10 and has only 1/10 of the distortion of the Avalon.
Klark Teknik built their very enviable reputation almost purely on analogue eq btw.
Mind not that popular with mastering engineers as they are not euphonic like Manleys Massive Passive.
Klark Teknik built their very enviable reputation almost purely on analogue eq btw.
Mind not that popular with mastering engineers as they are not euphonic like Manleys Massive Passive.
Freq Response of source material is as important as Speaker room acoustics. Adjusting the midrange by just a db or 2 makes a big diff. When I heard the Cello Palette, Levinson adjusted the >10k control by -16db (Goldberg Variations/Glenn Gould) made a skreechy un-listenable record a recording that could be enjoyed.
I think people miss out when they ignore the role of tone controls. Just my opinion of course.
I think people miss out when they ignore the role of tone controls. Just my opinion of course.
As an audiophile, I prefer to EQ in different ways than a tool designed specifically to do the job. I would much rather spend hundreds buying NOS tubes or new production boutique tubes and rolling them until I get the sound I want. If I don't get the sound I want, I add more tubes to the signal path, swap coupling caps, rectifiers, chokes in the power supply, etc.
I also EQ via interconnects, speaker wires, VTA adjustments, cartridge swapping, or swapping components in my system. Sometimes I EQ with alcohol and ambient lighting.
I also EQ via interconnects, speaker wires, VTA adjustments, cartridge swapping, or swapping components in my system. Sometimes I EQ with alcohol and ambient lighting.
Souns like fun.... I also like this stance.... I also roll caps.
While growing older, my eyes are getting worst (but my earing is getting better and better) so lightening is not so effective. Anyway I sometimes get the subjective impression that my CDP sounds better when the display is off
Off course, if we could build a good Equalizer that would not produce nasties (like phase shifts or loss of clarity) I would welcome it.
I recently considered the possibility of building a phono preamp with different EQ curves. The best approach would be to have a continuously variable setup but the inclusion of switches and the amout of different additional passives in the circuit made me quit.
I recently considered the possibility of building a phono preamp with different EQ curves. The best approach would be to have a continuously variable setup but the inclusion of switches and the amout of different additional passives in the circuit made me quit.
I think that was a bit of a joke, since this will add distortion to the signal path. Although 2nd harmonis isn't at all objectionable. Many Tube SE amps are also eq'ing the signal depending on the load they are driving.
If I wanted EQ I would rather use a control knob than replace my entire system. Significant changes in sound from "tube rolling" are often a sign of poor electronic design, but I will probably be shouted at for saying this!
You can't have equalisation without phase shift. The laws of mathematics don't allow it. If it is genuine equalisation (i.e. correcting an existing error) then correcting the frequency response will also correct the phase response too. You can have phase shift without frequency response changes, by using an all-pass filter. With digital the rules are slightly different, but even digital can't do magic.
You can't have equalisation without phase shift. The laws of mathematics don't allow it. If it is genuine equalisation (i.e. correcting an existing error) then correcting the frequency response will also correct the phase response too. You can have phase shift without frequency response changes, by using an all-pass filter. With digital the rules are slightly different, but even digital can't do magic.
Given the amount of equalization that takes place during the recording process and the attendant phase shift, it seems that any phase shift incurred correcting frequency response of the room or program material wouldn't be really significant. In the case of digital media a tool like the Burwen Bobcat (in it's current incarnation) would be very useful to the music lover:
BB_Home
BB_Home
Most recording studios use equalisation circuitry that you and I could buy a house with.
The BBC uses CD transports that you could buy more than one house with.
If you want to use an equaliser with a seriously good Hi-Fi then you need to spend some SERIOUS money.
Most equalisers are cheap and crappy op-amp based designs that do absolutely nothing for the true audiofile.
The BBC uses CD transports that you could buy more than one house with.
If you want to use an equaliser with a seriously good Hi-Fi then you need to spend some SERIOUS money.
Most equalisers are cheap and crappy op-amp based designs that do absolutely nothing for the true audiofile.
"The BBC uses CD transports that you could buy more than one house with."
I very much doubt that. There can't be that many cd transports costing north of £140k and I'm sure the BBC does not own a single one with a price tag like that. If they do I would want my TV licence fee back post haste because that would be a grotesque waste of money.
Most studios use the cd transport that came fitted in their Macs or similar btw.
I very much doubt that. There can't be that many cd transports costing north of £140k and I'm sure the BBC does not own a single one with a price tag like that. If they do I would want my TV licence fee back post haste because that would be a grotesque waste of money.
Most studios use the cd transport that came fitted in their Macs or similar btw.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.