why audiophiles hate equalizers ?

[Gasho]

I am afraid that audiophiles think that their system is the only thing to think about. Their field of interest starts with source component cause they believe it is the start point of high fidelity audio chain. But they are wrong.
Starting point of audio chain is microphone in studio or some other space, capturing sounds and transform them to electric signal. Of course, they don´t want to talk about that because average audiophile does not have knowledge and interest of that part of audio chain.
If they only knew and think about what torture audio signal in studios must pass before is placed on CD, LP.. this home part of audio chain will probably be a little less important thing.

[doug20]

Originally Posted by DF96

I can't argue with that. I have a few recordings where the final mix may have been done by someone with HF hearing loss. I have nothing against tone controls, although my current system lacks them.

Maybe its my age, but to me equalisers mean cheap 1970's mid-fi with tiny awful speakers or boy racers with 1kW amps and blue LEDs all over their vehicles listening to drum'n'bass at road junctions.

lmao, now you see thats funny. Im not that young, I used my brother's 1970's midfi EQs growing up and I get your POV now. I remember like the "V" curve for some reason way back then.

Of course Products like Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (pro version) or the DEQX are nothing like the EQs of the 70s and its nothing like "BOOM, BOOM" cars with blue underbody lights


its still 100% choice to have 100% analog or send everything through a DSP first. The OP should understand that some of you posting against EQ are into Vinyl and therefore have a starting point of analog. Others (like myself) have 100% digital music stored so our starting point is digital and its much easier for use to go through DSP and get accurate playback in our rooms.

If the OP has an analog device then there is a valid question of A-> D -> A

[DF96]

Originally Posted by doug20

"I Love my analog, everything else must suck"

Read my post carefully. I did not mention analogue. You just imagined it.

I note that you have not explained any science either, but merely insulted those with whom you disagree. We are old, slow, lonely, mad, untrustworthy, illogical, pendantic (sic) and only listen to vinyl. Is this how you normally discuss technical matters? Oh, and we have "crap" listening rooms too.

SY disagrees with me too, but I can have a discussion with him because he addresses the issue.

[doug20]

Originally Posted by DF96

Read my post carefully. I did not mention analogue. You just imagined it.

I note that you have not explained any science either, but merely insulted those with whom you disagree. We are old, slow, lonely, mad, untrustworthy, illogical, pendantic (sic) and only listen to vinyl. Is this how you normally discuss technical matters? Oh, and we have "crap" listening rooms too.

SY disagrees with me too, but I can have a discussion with him because he addresses the issue.

Yes, this is always a fight with analog lovers......posts before mine include the below quotes. Lets just say when you guys stopping acting like elitest audiophile snobs (everyone else is inferior) then I will stop thinking you are just old, lonely, mad, untrustworthy, illogical, pedantic, vinyl lovers

Originally Posted by UV101

Multiple low quality gain stages introducing noise and phase shift.

They may well work for low budget systems reinforcing certain frequencies, but you'll never get the openness of a well set up transparent system.

Originally Posted by rikvancoolwijk

A crap system will sound better when eq'ed, a good system is designed to sound good as is.
You can change the fr with a dsp than you can exacly compensate the fr, with an eq you can only get the fr about right.

Originally Posted by DF96

When you buy a painting you accept what the artist has done. Only in this modern individualistic age would someone want to add a bit more blue to Turner. Its the same with music. The performers and their producers have produced something, which may include EQ. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, leave it. If you bought a fancy meal in a restaurant would you insist on covering it with tomato ketchup? Maybe you would.

A little EQ might make up for room and speaker problems, but most people with equalisers belong to the 'boom and tizz' brigade who like impressive sounds rather than accurate sounds.

Those posts infer that EQing is for "Crap systems", "Low Budget sytems" or "impressing instead of accuracy"

Which are all false, Im just calling a spade a spade (old guys stuck in old ways). You even posted some gibberish about Food and Paintings...Like they're remotely connected to audio equipment and how to obtain accurate response in a room.

The joke here is that all three of you guys have INACCURATE setups. I wonder what that < 300Hz in room measurement looks like..the pictures of the rooms scream inaccuracy to me but somehow you still believe those with EQs (like me) have inferior setups.


I also posted summarized science references.

- Equal loudness Curves. Do you know anything about them?
- Toole's books on speakers/acoustics in rooms. Do you understand his books?
- Do you understand that your room does not allow you to recreate the recording accurately in most cases without EQing??


HINT: If you want to NOT alter the music then actually EQing is required because of room modes and ELC stuff, Duh!!

[SY]

Originally Posted by DF96

Maybe its my age, but to me equalisers mean cheap 1970's mid-fi with tiny awful speakers or boy racers with 1kW amps and blue LEDs all over their vehicles listening to drum'n'bass at road junctions.

Like I said, there are good and less good implementations. There are also abuses of even good implementations, but I always think of my wife's saying about clients who want the photos she takes for them to be (say) a little bluer or a little more contrasty or her fiber art pieces to be a certain size. "It's their money."

[rikvancoolwijk]

Originally Posted by doug20

you still believe those with EQs (like me) have inferior setups.

That’s not what I'm saying but I think eq'ing is not the best way to compensate room effects, at least not for me.

but I'm no audiophile at all, I think you should listen to your music not you’re system! and yes you can let your music sound good with a eq as you can with a dsp.

[doug20]

Originally Posted by rikvancoolwijk

That’s not what I'm saying but I think eq'ing is not the best way to compensate room effects, at least not for me.

but I'm no audiophile at all, I think you should listen to your music not you’re system! and yes you can let your music sound good with a eq as you can with a dsp.

Then I had the wrong assumption from your post sorry about that!

No arguing about the other ways to compensate, I know all about multiple subs and Im even building flanking subs to run up to 300Hz to smooth out the response for my latest speaker build

I still think products like Audyssey MultEQ XT32 are very, very powerful tools. The Pro version allows us to set our own curves. Some people can not hear bass some others have a very hard time with it (My wife) so having specific settings based on who is in the room can be very effective.

Those using digital audio devices are already in the DSP world so I think, why not use the best DSPs?

[DF96]

Originally Posted by DF96

A little EQ might make up for room and speaker problems, but most people with equalisers belong to the 'boom and tizz' brigade who like impressive sounds rather than accurate sounds.

I accept that this is a bit sweeping, but why does someone who apparently belongs to the first group (EQ for room and speaker problems) react emotionally as though he were in the second group (boom and tizz)? Did I catch you on a bad day?

You will note that I did not make any comments about EQ muddying the sound or whatever. I am not in the golden ear brigade - far from it, I annoy them too! Obviously, every stage adds a little noise and distortion but we accept that if the stage does something useful and the problems are minimised. A good design, whether digital or analogue, will do what it is intended to do and little more.

[adason]

why audiophiles hate equalizers ?

perhaps I am no audiophile...but I like equalizers, I use behringer ultracurve and ross dpx mainframe in two of my systems, both 30 band digital equalizers, both sounding great, and both helping a lot

I can bypass them with just a switch and when engaged with no eq, seems rather transparent

But once I eq in my listening position flat, I hear what supposedly recording engineer heard in studio, and I like it. It's impressive improvement. Even I strive for flat response of amplifier and speaker, nothing is ideal, plus the room is never flat. So equalizer does correct these flaws and it does it well and I like the result. That is exactly what it's supposed to do.

ed

(I do not like the way discussion goes in this thread, it's not productive)

[doug20]

Originally Posted by DF96

I accept that this is a bit sweeping, but why does someone who apparently belongs to the first group (EQ for room and speaker problems) react emotionally as though he were in the second group (boom and tizz)? Did I catch you on a bad day?

You will note that I did not make any comments about EQ muddying the sound or whatever. I am not in the golden ear brigade - far from it, I annoy them too! Obviously, every stage adds a little noise and distortion but we accept that if the stage does something useful and the problems are minimised. A good design, whether digital or analogue, will do what it is intended to do and little more.

Far enough. Im only touchy on the fact that no one should throw stones without being ready to get stones thrown back. Posting a generalizing statement "Crap systems have EQing" should expect reply with the same veracity, no??

EQing is a requirement if someone wants a truely accurate playback systems because Its very hard to have accuracy without it.