Graphic Equalizers

That might explain it. I was in the same boat. I later found the sound annoying, irritating even. Only when I started educating myself on it did I realize they introduce distortion into the sound. By themselves and also if certain frequencies are boosted too much.

Another key piece of info I later learned was that by using great quality equipment, it should naturally resolve the music in a pleasing way without the need for gadgets (with ugly side-effects). Since I ditched all my cheap crap and started buying better and better components, the "need" for graphic equalizers went away quickly.

That and, through this forum, realizing pressings matter a LOT. Initially had an MCA Hendrix CD which sounded awful but since that's what I thought his music should sound like, I just accepted it. Now, I have a AAA vinyl version of the same album and the difference is night-&-day.

 

That's a bad example as the vinyl supposedly sounds so much better, it's not even funny. So in this particular case, it's more of a source issue than absolutely needing an equalizer.

And according to the unofficial dynamic range database, the vinyl is much more dynamic as well. Better mastering and more dynamics equal a more natural presentation and that would lead me to enjoy the music much more than any equalizing cha-cha would.

EDIT : sorry. Meant to include the link.

Album list - Dynamic Range Database »

 

A fair point. On the other hand, many of us would say that bad sources abound, and that's one reason we have equalizers.

 

I use to have my old AudioControl 520 in my current system. It was fun at first but I found myself standing in front of it and constantly searching for what I thought was the perfect setting for the particular record I was listening to. I was continually tweaking recordings to death.

I finally unleashed the small beast and stored it up in my closet after finding that my pre-amp volume control did everything and more that I was asking of the equalizer. More bass? Add volume. More mid-rang? Add volume and so on. Works for me.

 

This discussion is not an EQ debate, as I think we are straying off the OP's question. But interesting anyway... better solutions exist than just heading for EQ knobs. The EQ has its place sometimes, but mostly not IMO.

A better solution is to seek a better source, upgrade the equipment and the room. As my last resort, (sometimes first because it's easy) is the simple decrease of bass and treble controls to get rid of the common "scooped" sound that so many engineers resort to, so that the mix sounds better on cheap equipment. My amp at my computer desk has the old bass and treble contour that turns over at 400 Hz and 2.5 kHz respectively. (Pioneer SA-500) If the bass and treble affect only the extremes, they are not useful in the correction of scooped masterings, nor for adding life and presence to vocals.

Plus, truly flat reproduction often sounds right with the volume up to realistic levels. If we listen at lower volume, vocals tend to recede a bit (at least to my ears) and there is the tendency to increase the treble to add a touch of presence, and then compensate by adding bass. (but a mistake because that scoops the vocal more, making it recede more) I tend to prefer no loudness compensation at low volumes, but that's just me. The room really is a major factor too. But one must be conservative, otherwise we may just go on a tweak binge, compensate and re-compensate until we end up out there by Pluto and Charon.

 

So you know. What about all those audiophiles with their high end gear like me, can't they buy a CD anymore ? Norah Jones is one of the examples for which EQ or tonecontrol isn't such a bad idea. Now don't tell next time everybody has to buy the original studio tapes.
What a mess for the innocent CD buyer. "CD, perfect sound forever" , do you remember ?

 

I guess you are one of those victims that endlessly upgrade/renew your gear while the guity ones are the lousy CD's or records.

 

na! I'm happy with my present setup with the Pioneer SA-500 and a really great pair of near field monitors. This little amp has a nice natural sound, truly a valid high fidelity component. I must add, I have acquired a lot of amps and speakers which were refurb'd and sold. So I had a great time auditioning them, and on many occasion duly impressed.

I am a musician, speaker builder/hobbyist, and electronics tech with professional experience at Dutchess Audio and manufacturers such as Cyberchron and IBM. (a personal plug.. the world's best solderer)

 

I will make use of EQ for two reasons:

I like to listen to some audience and soundboard recordings that are available for bands like The Grateful Dead and other bands that allow for audience recording or that have soundboard recordings available. They're neat. But some of them need EQ. So I EQ them. I love having an EQ available for this. Very useful. Very necessary when it's needed. I never do this for professionally mastered recordings. There should be no need if your system is reasonably good. If you have to EQ lots of professionally mastered CDs or LPs then something else is wrong in your system.

I also occasionally use EQ to correct some of my headphones to sound flatter and more neutral. Use the EQ as a sort of room EQ for a headphone. It works. I'll listen to the headphones corrected like that for a while. Then decide that the EQ is doing more damage than good and I'll stop. Then I'll decide to try the EQ again. Until I decide again that the EQ is doing more damage than good. And repeat. I've found that EQ of that sort for headphones does do more harm than good so I've largely stopped using EQ to correct any of my headphones.

 

That has to be a blast!

 

Some of the music I listen to is most likely somewhat professionally recorded music being that they are small time bands.
I am sure there is a difference between high end recordings then of bands that are just starting out and is their first recordings of local bands.
Actually, sometimes there is such a increase or decrease from song to song on the same album that you can barely here the bass or the vocals, but the last song before it sounded fine.
My equipment seems fine, pretty nice sound, but that's just my opinion I guess.
On most cases of professionally mastered albums, sound is sufficient, but there is always room for an improvement of something I suppose? No recording is perfect?

 

It's interesting. And humbling. Because I realize just how bad I am at using an EQ the way a skilled mastering engineer is able to use an EQ. It's not easy to do well. I don't think I'd be a good mastering engineer. It's not easy. I do my best to make the recording sound better to me.

My listening is digital with a computer as source. So I use a couple of software parametric EQ plug-ins to do EQ. I don't use a hardware graphic EQ or even a software graphic EQ. I do have a 15 band graphic hardware EQ. It's put away and getting dusty.

 

Better equipment can provide better sound, but using graphic equalizers is not
any different then a simple treble and bass, but everyone uses that on any stereo.
Better quality is not always gotten from better equipment but the way your hearing
the sounds. Not adjusting a simple 1 treble 1 bass it would sound bad too.

 

EQs fit in to the NASA style of equipment design for audio equipment. Black faces with white graduations like aircraft dials. lots of adjustments, It was the ultra modern look. Popular among the toot set. And it made your system sound different.

 

Basically, but the point is to make the music sound good to yourself, and that's what counts. All audio components change the sound, if they didn't no would care about any of them.

 

Now that I'm older in age and through all of the different types of recordings I've listened to, I've taken on more of an appreciation for how recording engineers performed their job.

I give them a lot of credit in how they layered tracks and how, in many cases, a vocal track is placed out front and on top at the same time. It's a real art form.

I've done away with tone adjustments and in those cases where a mix is too unbearable in terms of being thin or too much in my face, I've taken the approach of turning the volume down. I think how a recording was mixed is related to the time of the release. Or rather, the types of audio systems they felt their product would mostly be played back on?

 

True, I like to also here the recordings original as possible, and have began keeping volume down more than when I was younger too.
Never used a graphic equalizer until lately, but one thing I noticed was that I hear background effects and backup vocals that were never heard on other equipment setups, adding a more complete effect to the playback.
It is probably true then that the type of audio systems pick the recording up differently most likely?

 

Give this man a raise, this is exactly right.

 

For a professionally mastered recording, why is wrong to emphasize or decrease playback sounds, if it makes it sound better to yourself, whats wrong with that.
Everybody hears things different.

 

I've had trouble figuring how to properly use a graphic EQ as a tone control, especially when dealing with channel balance. I'm always asking myself: "Am I making the left or right channel artificially louder than it should be"?

My solution for tone controlling was to go with a BBE Sonic Maximizer (model 1002, to be specific). Not a graphic EQ, but a pure sound processor. And since it has no balance control or individual sliders for different channels, it's processing both channels equally at all times. I know some purists look down on these things, but it has made my modest system sound so much better and dynamic than otherwise. It is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

It's a very useful tool

 

I guess you prefer all of your masterings transferred flat from the master tape. The additional round of EQ that mastering engineers apply messes with phase too.

 

No such thing as "decent enough" IMO. All speakers, even ones that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, can use at least a 1/2 dB tweak somewhere along the audible spectrum.

 

I convinced myself years ago that my Klipsch Cornwalls were/are in a much too small room and so they must not sound as "right" as I've read they should. Enter a 10 band Graphic Equalizer and Real Time Analyzer with "pink noise." A small microphone is placed at the listening "sweet spot" and pink noise (all audible frequencies together sounding like the hash between radio stations -- remember radio?) is sent through the speakers. The microphone "hears" the sound as it's affected by the room and the EQ sliders are used to adjust the separate frequencies to a relatively flat overall response (or whatever you like,) compensating for the room's perceived acoustic deficiencies. The results show up as a bar graph on the display. Once the room acoustics are tweaked to satisfactory results use your regular tone controls as you normally would for different records/sources.

Over time I upgraded my preamp, turntable, and cartridge and retweaked the EQ as necessary. Recently I got the Klipsch upgrade bug (Crites' crossovers, tweeters, and midrange) and experimented with resonance damping of the horns inside the cabinets. Re-did the EQ several times while trying different amounts of damping material. Pretty tedious, actually. I must have listened to Abbey Road and Dark Side Of The Moon a half-dozen times each until I was happy with the sound. Maybe not so tedious after all.

Then for some reason out of the blue I decided to listen to the music with the EQ turned off, tone controls flat, just the unadulterated sound coming from the record/cartridge, and it happened. Over twenty years of believing that music in my room couldn't possibly sound good without the divine hand of EQ and I finally saw -- er, heard the light and verily I was saved! Say "Halle Berry!"

It was a damn good record, Dark Side 30th Anniv., and I thought it sounded great in the EQ'd room but with the EQ off all of a sudden the sound just opened up. Better bass extension and crisper highs without distortion. Vocals sounded slightly warmer and more natural. It was the cliche of a veil, a light one maybe, being lifted and the improvement was very noticeable. I verified it several times with different records and CDs by A/B-ing with a simple push of the EQ button. All that time before I thought I was improving the sound when I was just . . . changing it. Guess the room isn't so bad after all.

Well, no harm, no foul. I've listened to lots of good music over the years and each time I "improved" it I liked what I heard. Wouldn't be the first time I thought I was fixing what ain't broke. I've got lots of good music and hopefully lots of years left so I think I'll keep the EQ unit in the system so I can continue to compare. But I suspect I'll keep switching the EQ button off.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Dave

 

My experience was the same. As I got that nice flatter measured curve, I "forgot" to listen carefully enough to the music. In my younger stages of hifi enjoyment, my ears were not trained to the phase/ coloration effect on music by too much EQ. The flatter the room response, ideally the more convincing the sound. If doing so by the application of too much EQ (or any at all) we reach a point of diminishing return via the extra stage, increased harmonic distortion, phase coloration. The microphone even when calibrated can give us a false reading of pink noise in the room. Warble tones are sometimes a better method.