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.
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.
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
Read my post carefully. I did not mention analogue. You just imagined it.doug20 said:
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
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!!
Last edited:
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."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.
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?
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?DF96 said:
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.
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)
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)
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.
Most still are, one of the most popular eqs in engineering and mastering is the Manley Massive Passive.
The majority of engineers very much prefer analogue hardware to anything digital. George Massenburg, one of the greatest names in pro audio (he engineers, produces, manufactures and is a lecturer at McGill and UCLA) is of the opinion that digital eqs are only any good if they operate at at least 48bit.
He produces both plug ins and hardware.
Every engineer I ever met says that bit depth is way more important to SQ than sample rate. Not many have good things to say about dsp.
I'm happy to have stones thrown at my view on the issue, but your stones were mixed up with great clods of earth: assumptions, insults etc. I'm not sure you mean "veracity" (=truth, accuracy, integrity), as that was sadly missing.
I guess part of the problem is that "equalisation" means different things to different people. To some it means careful electronic compensation for the remaining problems of an acoustically-treated room, after detailed measurements have been taken using calibrated microphones. To others it means fiddling with some knobs until it sounds "good". I assumed the latter. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that the latter are the majority. I don't know what the OP had in mind.
I guess part of the problem is that "equalisation" means different things to different people. To some it means careful electronic compensation for the remaining problems of an acoustically-treated room, after detailed measurements have been taken using calibrated microphones. To others it means fiddling with some knobs until it sounds "good". I assumed the latter. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that the latter are the majority. I don't know what the OP had in mind.
Wow, this thread progressed in a fast and furious manner! There's nothing wrong with using an equalizer if you have a frequency response issue that needs to be solved. That's what they're made for. Tone controls are OK too. The problem is that when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I think people often misdiagnose the causes of what they hear, and think the equalizer is a cure-all. Without instrumentation I'm not even convinced that a really good adjustment is possible; we sometimes perceive problems in one part of the spectrum when the root cause is someplace else. The flip side of the coin is that flat response typically sounds terrible, so good judgement about settings is still essential, even if you have all the measurement equipment in the world.
That's why most information I found on equalization doesn't imply correcting exactly by the amount original response is off by. People usually only try to improve room caused bumps by dipping them a by a small amount. If the original bump was of 3dB, they only try to correct it by 2dB or so. Completely fixing room response isn't possible.
Most people strive to accurately reproduce the music that the engineers carefully, and in controlled environment, with multi million dollar equipment, strove to produce.
The amplifier should add no colouration, nor should the speakers.
Why would you want to introduce a crappy equaliser into the equation. IMO you only want to try and correct for crap Hi-Fi that isn't producing the sound as it should be.
The amplifier should add no colouration, nor should the speakers.
Why would you want to introduce a crappy equaliser into the equation. IMO you only want to try and correct for crap Hi-Fi that isn't producing the sound as it should be.
I have always felt that there was just too much of boom in my 23'x11' living room. I had been blaming my speakers for an uneven bump until I started reading this forum. Thanks to several other posts providing more information on speaker design, audio response measurements and correcting active/passive circuits, I know where the boom comes from - my room!
I have now changed my plans to upgrade my speakers and amplifiers. I'll first get a good quality microphone, measure frequency response of my present setup and then decide how to proceed. Most likely the direction of proceeding will be to get an active line level equalizer before spending any more money on speakers or amp.
I have now changed my plans to upgrade my speakers and amplifiers. I'll first get a good quality microphone, measure frequency response of my present setup and then decide how to proceed. Most likely the direction of proceeding will be to get an active line level equalizer before spending any more money on speakers or amp.
That's how I had initially placed them. About 2' away from back walls. Wasn't satisfied. I then plugged ports with a newspaper blob. That reduced low bass response too much. So I moved them back 1' away from back wall to help bass. This arrangement have worked best amongst the combinations I tried.
I was down on equalizers until I made my own crossovers.
Then I realised everybody with more than a single driver full range speaker has a built in, probably fixed "equalizer" inside their system that they absolutely need for their speakers to function correctly.
I have some 70s/80s crappy hifi component equalizers as well, for most situations they do more harm than good. And I have a MiniDSP which is an amazing bit of gear.. but you need a measurement mic and some good software to get the best use out of it.
Then I realised everybody with more than a single driver full range speaker has a built in, probably fixed "equalizer" inside their system that they absolutely need for their speakers to function correctly.
I have some 70s/80s crappy hifi component equalizers as well, for most situations they do more harm than good. And I have a MiniDSP which is an amazing bit of gear.. but you need a measurement mic and some good software to get the best use out of it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.