Equalizers

Reasonable perspective works for me but hey fundamentalist zealotry is always good for a laugh.

Yes: it pumps out a sound that's almost as good as my cell phone, with no signal dropouts. There's a bit of subsonic going on and some air at the top end for dynamic range so all in all I think I got the audiophile thing happening lol.

 

Well that's exactly where time should be invested, I don't mind experimenting with speaker placements, heights, trajectories, furnishings, what items are on the walls etc..., in every property I've lived. some do.

I find this preferable than I would changing EQ settings for each album, surely one EQ setting for all can't be right?

 

The Quad Tilt control is elegant and not highly invasive
It centres around a 1Khz point and is subtractive and additional simultaneously.
This cannot compare with a graphic device that has 32 bands with +/-12dBs of gain......
The bass lift is for small enclosures and the step is for honky rooms.
The filter is for bandwidth reduction ,all sensible controls for analogue and especially vinyl sources.
The graphic and the tilt are completely different devices
Peter Walker wanted a wire with gain never 32 resonant bands with gain.

 

I've posted links to this in a previous Equalizer / Tone Control smackdown (funny it doesn't seem that long ago either) but Harbeth's Alan Shaw references Peter Walker a bit in this Tone Control thread on the Harbeth Forums and takes a little look at the QUAD Tilt Control. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to post links to other forums or not, but it's probably something many here would find interesting .......

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/...s-the-ear-and-the-audiophile-curse-or-saviour

 

Must have got a psychic itch from that thread that prompted me to create this one

 

I find your comment interesting. Very much so.

When something is in vogue, it appears far easier to gloss over imperfections and noise and distortion ( vinyl ) but something that has gone out of vogue, that was actually quite popular with most audiophiles years ago for sure ( Equalizers ) it is cool to bash them now, as sonic sludge, phase monsters, and Hiss generators...

 

Many years ago, the high end systems that I saw all had equalizers. I think much has to do with "feeling apart of the crowd". It's cool to be a snob. You would not be a REAL audiophile if you didn't knock BOSE and used equalizers.

 

I think tone controls and equalizers are different things. I don't mind a decent preamp or integrated amp like a McIntosh that had modest tone controls, and you cranked it up (or down) for problematic recordings. The problem I see is when people think they can use a real cheap octave equalizer to solve room problems, and it just ain't that easy.

I do think that equalizers are enormously helpful tools during recording and mixing. But in a perfect world, you should be able to play it back reasonably flat in your living room and have it sound decent, at least somewhere in the ballpark of correctness.

 

I equate this to the wasabi rule in sushi restaurants. The chef puts in the amount he thinks it needs. When people start adding wasabi to their soy sauce immediately without tasting first, they consider it an insult (the good ones do).

 

I find much of the recordings we purchase us an insult. For example, I had a hankering for the live Zeppelin reunion CDs. Now that's an insult.

 

Depends entirely how they are used.
The Quad tilt can give 6dB relative difference if used at extreme positions, the bass boost introduces something like 12dB bass boost at 50hz.......
That graphic with its 32 bands can be used to dial in subtle changes of perhaps a dB or two, targeted to the appropriate region. I'm the most vocal Quad fan you're likely to encounter, but anything you can do with the quad controls can be replicated with greater precision using a good graphic.

Exactly. All forms of variable EQ are tools and can ruin or improve depending on how and when they are used.

 

I have always found a fundementally ( or close to ) flat IN ROOM response to provide the best sound.

When I have used eq, it was very mild and mostly to tame small slightly noticeable boosts in certain parts of the spectrum.

But I did not just apply some "smiley faced" adjustment, as some are expecting all eq users to do.

I had a very systematic way of finding aberrations in the spectrum by a combination of using my ears with pink noise, and using a sound level meter to see if it backed up what I perceived to hear.

I would begin by (( using my now sadly gone pre-amp with parametric )) boosting the lower band about 5 db, with a fairly narrow bandwidth adjustment,and then slowly sweeping the frequency control from the lowest bass, on up to the lower midrange.

By artificially boosting a narrow band, any parts that were out of flatness, then stuck out like a sore thumb. Then it became a matter of going back to that frequency, and using the sound meter with everything "Flat" to see if my meter and hearing were in sync.

Usually they were pretty close. I was then able to apply an inverse cut and vary the bandwidth till it was smooth.

Worked really well. I would then try a few spots around the room and see if it was close and maybe tweak a bit.

Usually it would turn out to be maybe a Cut of -2 db or so at maybe 600HZ with a mild bandwidth applied.

Final test was to do the "Bypass and active" control and toggle between them and see if it was truly better or not. I would have a family member toggle and I would listen from different spots.

 

no kidding, that's a great price even by today's standards. GR-777s these days seem to seldom ever sell for under $100.
that said, i was exceedingly lucky in that an on-line friend bought my 777 for me from a CL deal local to him (TUCSON, AZ.)
- that was in mint condition, complete with original box and all accs. no less- for $40.00,
and sent it on to me, refusing to accept payment from me of any sort!! a real swell fellow...

 

agreed. just adjusting the tonality to cut the peaks and thereby add warmth- not a solution to every acoustic issue.

 

The goal is "slight" adjustments of certain frequencies that our ears are sensitive to and can sound harsh if we have accurate speakers.
Believe it or not many speakers have cut these frequencies within their design. You can arrive at one EQ setting for all of your recordings.

 

Also agreed. But for me being in the ballpark was not good enough given the investment- especially once you know how much better the hardware was capable of sounding.

 

Problem is, there are many chefs, not just one. One doing the recording, one mastering it, one that makes the speakers, one that made the amp, one that made the CD or vinly playback, one that made the room dead or alive and what dimensions it is, and the listener chef, with hearing sauce.

If there was only one link to the chain all of that would be true.

 

And you'd be lucky to get away with just that. Add construction skills, physical strength and plain patience. And frequent rests during listening, because your ears "decalibrate" after a while ...

 

Reviving an old thread rather than starting a new one.

I'm still trying to mellow out a last few minor peaks and nulls in my room after fiddling around with speaker placement, separate woofer/subwoofer locations, and quite a bit of room treatment.

Every now and then a comment comes up on acoustics being addressed by using an Equalizer and the thought creeps into my thinking. Heck, some of the Behringer pieces are less than I've spent on a pair of interconnects - why not at least give it a try?

If I were to do so, I have a couple of questions:
1) Which Behringer is viewed as being the best "bang for the buck" Home Audio EQ? (they have a whole bunch of options
2) Is there another brand in the same price range (under $500) that is considered to be better?

I figure if I get one at a reasonable price, try it but don't like it, I can probably sell it fairly easily and not be out too much money. The next step costs more money (Anti-mode, DEQX, etc) and I am hesitant right now - maybe in the future.

 

Eight years ago I thought I'd try the Behringer DEQ2496 so I could learn how to use it (it takes some learning) and if it had the impact I'd hoped, invest in a DEQX or TacT (available then). I still have and use the Behringer! I had no need for DEQX etc..

The DEQX, and the Behringer DCX also include crossover options (the DEQ2496 does not). In the case of the DCX it has less flexibility in EQ. I don't think the DEQ2496 can deal with subs (I don't have them) whereas the DEQX and DCX have three pairs of outs so can I think..

I don't know of any equivalent at that price (you will need in addition a microphone (Behringer ECM8000 is good), a microphone cable and stand). The only other possibility I think is software and there seems plenty of them if you can stick a laptop in your system.

I use it in digital, connected between my CD Transport and DAC. That seems to be the recommended way. You avoid using the Behringer's ADC and DAC that way.

The DEQ2496 has a 31 band Graphic Equaliser (GEQ) which can be used separately for the left and right speakers. It also has ten Parametric EQ (PEQ) positions per speaker where you can alter the width of the cut or boost. There is of course a lot more to it then just that.

I use the Behringer in the way you intend, I think. I have room treatments and spent time searching for the right speaker and ear positions. I then used REW software (more learning!) to measure the situation and manually adjusted the Behringer (I had also used REW to help with positioning). I then used test tones and my ears to make final EQ adjustments.

If I play music, the sound is much more satisfying with the Behringer working then with it on 'Bypass'.

Funnily enough, just recently, I've discovered boomy bass on a very few tracks at 42/43Hz. Using the Behringers PEQ, selecting 44.3Hz, 1/6 octave width, knocking off 6dB, seems to have improved this. In addition, REW revealed a few nulls but when I played test tones (using those from Real Traps (very useful): http://realtraps.com/test-cd.htm ) I couldn't hear or measure these with an SPL meter.

So, based on my limited home experience, you seem to be going about things the way I would - positioning, room treatment, finally EQ.

 

That's really all that matters.

 

Thanks for the input.

One issue I can see is that I don't have a separate DAC, so I get an extra conversion in there somewhere. I'll have to do a bit more research to figure out which Behringer best fits my needs.

I have a couple of Audio friends with the Anti Modes in their systems and they swear by the results, but I'm hesitant for several reasons, not the least of which is the limited frequencies. I've got a couple of very mild peaks over 1k that I'd like to tame.

I've got the OmniMic system already with the calibrated Microphone and corrections - don't know if that would work with the Behringer or not.

 

Adding in an EQ is not without a trade-off or two but IMHO the biggest one is the time and effort required to tune it properly. Very subtle changes of the frequency bands can result in significant changes to the sound. Which is really begging the question how does anyone hope to piece together a system, plop it into their room and expect to get the best possible sound quality and response?
I have a digital system in my car that has (4) individual DACs that divide DSP and conversion duties among the (8) discrete output channels. I would challenge anyone to tell me that the multiple DACs add any bit of ill effect to the sound quality. It is pristine, ultra noise free and has an amazingly pleasing frequency response curve at the listening position.

 

EQ is an essential tool in the studio for every phase of recording from laying down the track to mixdown. At the consumer level, EQ can be beneficial when applied judiciously or degrading when applied in haste. With every EQ adjustment, there is also phase shift, and alteration of the dynamics of the music at certain frequencies. The spectral balance changes. No to insult the hi fi enthusiast, EQ often does more harm than good. If the music isn't sounding right, then the system needs to be upgraded, and/or room treatment.

I sometimes use EQ to adjust for faults in recordings, ie: sometimes a resonant peak in a female vocal, inherent of the vocalist, or errant EQ during the recording process. Resonant peaks are common in musical instruments, voices, perhaps some microphones, and all of this a normal part of music. When resonant peaks are excessive, a professional parametric EQ helps to tame them. In such case, a graphic EQ during playback would be almost useless. EQ can be fun to play with, but again, EQ can do more more harm than good.

There are some very bad consumer EQ units, most of them 5 band and 10 band in full octaves. These types of EQ's increase octave related harmonic distortion. The better ones are 2/3 octave, or 1/3 octave, which do not sum harmonic distortion as the faders are adjusted. One particular EQ unit I have found that sounds good, and very quiet, and affordable is the pioneer SG-90, 17 band EQ. This is a vintage unit which can be found on ebay, but hard to find one that's clean and works properly. There are some bells and whistles such as auto fade for making mix tapes which I ignore. An interesting feature is "reverse EQ" which inverts the EQ setting. This can come in handy for making custom record emphasis/ play de-emphasis curves. Aside from the excess of convenience features, the Pioneer SG-90 is a seriously great sounding EQ. It features Mitsubishi 5218 op-amps and discrete transistor topography, 100 db s/n, Pioneer's best IMO. There are of course better units out there, such as a Rane, or boutique high end tube models, but are less affordable.

The ear tends to be more sensitive to EQ increases than decreases. (this is a fact and a trade practice in studios, but not all pros do it this way) So any offending frequencies can be identified by increasing for example 4K or 6K (making them worse) rather than trying to find a setting that sounds better. The SG-90 equalization can then be reversed for the inverted EQ, which then decreases the offending frequencies. Then you can go back and readjust in normal mode for fine tuning the correct EQ centers.
my opinion on EQ, it's fun, but usually does more harm than good,
Steve VK