Equalisers: why not?

[ablaze 0]

whats the argument AGAINST using equalisers to improve/alter the sound?

I've kinda been playing with my software equaliser from my PC source (foobar) and I've found that by bumping both ends of the frequency spectrum a lil, the sound's more up my alley.

 

I know equalisers are frowned upon by audiophiles in general, my question is: why?

[Mackie 0]

Ablaze, equalizers are no longer frowned upon by audiophiles ever since parametric eqs, commonly used in pro studios, have entered the laymen's market. I personally own a Behringer DSP8024 parametric eq and used it as an electronic means of room treatement.

 

In the old days, commercial graphic eqs pervaded the market and these were really crude booster/attenuators and most who got them didn't know how to use it correctly. I even built one for less than $200 when I was a teenager.

 

In the current times, most audiophiles employ parametric eqs to eradicate bass boom and other room modes affecting the music. It's a steep learning curve to learn to adjust the eq correctly and pare room resonance modes without erring in having too much boost and attenuation. It's worth it because of the low cost relative to response controllers/acoustic panels. However, most will move on to the latter in later stages.

 

What's the difference between the eq now and those in the hey-days? Inclusion of parametric and feedback destroyer designs. I shan't go into details as U can read up from the website. A mic is hooked to a pro eq and measures room modes while the tone generator emits white/pink noise. Once reading is gotten, simply key in the amount of attentuation (esp in bass regions) on the parametic setting to achieve a flat response in the room. These works in the background while the foreground can be fine tuned through graphic eq settings which normally need only very minor adjustments as the larger part of it are handled by the parametric settings. One can also set the bandwidth of each parametric setting.

 

On the graphic eq settings, every set can be programmed for different kinds of music. Say employ a BBC dip around the lower-upper treble region for bright and older recordings; implement a roll-off on the bass regions beyond your speakers' freq response to avoid power saturation of lower-powered amps; widen soundstaging by increasing the upper octaves; centralize your vocals affected by room or placement by fine-tuning of the discrete left/right channels....etc. Application is unlimited but one wrong move can spell disaster though.

Edited November 7, 2003 by Mackie

[ablaze 0]

thanks for the detailed reply mackie. a lot of what you said seems more applicable to speakers than with headphones. what do you suggest would be the ideal way to equalise the sound, with headphone use?

 

btw, this is what the foobar2k eq looks like. thats a graphical eq?

[Rameish 0]

Have fun Ablaze :-)

[ablaze 0]

don't be sarcastic Rameish.

its like there're a gazillion possibilities to alter the sound with an eq. I'm boggled how to do this to tailor it to my liking

[N@Z 0]

I think originally the argument was that equalisers change the character of the original recording the way the engineer or artist intended it to sound, i.e. assuming you had a good system to recreate it in the first place. I guess it works for those who's systems are lacking or want to tailor the sound to suit their tastes.

[Mackie 0]

ablaze, yeah it's graphic eq alright. There's not much/negligible problems with resonance modes in headphones and hence, parametrics are out of the equation. Fine tune to your liking by graphic eqs but anything more than 3-6db in boost/cut calls for a look into your setup; something is wrong somewhere in the link provided the software (cds) is not at fault.

Edited November 7, 2003 by Mackie

[ablaze 0]

N@Z, unless our systems are perfect, how could there not be room for improvement, that an EQ could bring about? I can't imagine that even a $20,000 headphone setup would be "perfect"?

 

mackie, so lets say, the highs are rolled off in a system. you could change the interconnects to something brighter eg. the Kimber SS, BUT couldn't you get the same result by bumping the right frequencies with an EQ?

[Rameish 0]

Huh?

 

How is having fun sarcastic??

 

I don't play with eq bec they can be more trouble than they are worth if you don't know what you're doing (I certainly don').

 

A startinging point would be to put the eq to zero setting and see if that makes any difference (vs no eq in place). If it does not then that's a good start.

 

Then use the higher frequencies to attenuate any brightness. Then the lower frequencies to control any bass bloat. Check how the mids are affected by all this. Do they become more pronunced or recessed.

 

Use sparingly.

[N@Z 0]

The key is to use it sparingly of course like in you eq 'image'. If it floats your boat go ahead & use it. What's the big deal anyway? Well, let me put it this way, you were the one that argued about the direct path (i.e. minus the amp) now you want to use eqs?

[ablaze 0]

my argument with the "direct path" stemmed from the basic fact that I'm a cheapskate and felt that an amp could be omitted and for the system to still sound great. I was never arguing about keeping the sound as "unchanged" as possible

 

anyway, I do kinda like the new equalized sound I'm experiencing. fills out the bass a lil, and keeps all the rest of the stuff I love so much about my CD3Ks

[Mackie 0]

mackie, so lets say, the highs are rolled off in a system. you could change the interconnects to something brighter eg. the Kimber SS, BUT couldn't you get the same result by bumping the right frequencies with an EQ

 

First and foremost and contrary to popular belief, silver as a conductor in speaker cables and interconnects do not sound bright and in fact, copper has a higher tendency to err on this trait. Kimber Silver Streak is never bright and the aural perception of more details often gives rise to it being termed as bright sounding. I justify this because I've been living with silver cables for a decade until very recently.

 

In which case, let's look at your inquiry at hand. Changing of interconnects as a mean of tone control is definitely favoured over the use of electronic controls. Problems such as loading, phase shift, distortions and all the caveats that come with electronic means pervade. Of course, U get similar results in the most prominent sonic character via change of cables and tone/eq controls but the trade off in other subtle areas can be surmountable as a whole ie. fractions in compromised areas can add up to a whole unit to dampen your enjoyment of the musical presentation.

 

As to the bumping of an eq freq band to increase treble extension, each graphic band carries a certain bandwidth and by upping it, U'll also up the adjacent freqs. In the end, U gain treble extension in the high octave but upper treble may be boosted as well, resulting in brightness. Similarly, trying to gain bass extension by upping the eq band may also add to lower-mid bass bloat, resulting in a warmer and slower sound.

Edited November 7, 2003 by Mackie

[N@Z 0]

my argument with the "direct path" stemmed from the basic fact that I'm a cheapskate and felt that an amp could be omitted and for the system to still sound great. I was never arguing about keeping the sound as "unchanged" as possible

 

anyway, I do kinda like the new equalized sound I'm experiencing. fills out the bass a lil, and keeps all the rest of the stuff I love so much about my CD3Ks

OK.

 

So does that mean the CD3K really lacks bass? I'm taking the mickey, just in case you're wondering

[ablaze 0]

mackie,

ahh..ok..I'm beginning to understand.. thanks.

 

N@Z,

its not that it lacks bass. its just, IMO, its just a lil TOO tight for me, sorta like ety bass (of course not half as anemic). I just wanted just a lil "bloat" to give a "fuller" feel to the bass..and no, I'm not selling them yet

[Mackie 0]

Ablaze, play around with eq by all means but I stress that any area that needs adjustment of > 6db calls for a fresh scrutiny on your system.

 

FWIW, I allowed only up to 1.5db in cut/boost to fine tune my speakers system when the Bhringer was in use. Even 3db can change the overall presentation.

Edited November 7, 2003 by Mackie