Graphic Equalizers

Once a listenable sound is established that sounds great, what is the best way of getting those settings back after switching for another recording? I am using a 10 band equalizer. Seems that some recordings differ so much compared to others that the settings are totally lost when switching recordings, that it takes forever to get them back for the previous albums. Any quick way of returning the settings of the equalizer without writing them down or starting from scratch each time the playback is different extremely? Also, the machine does not have preset saving or anything like that.

 

Computer playback using Foobar. You can save your EQ settings and call them whatever you like.

 

I have a graphic EQ in my system that I set once - many years ago, and I haven't touched it. The solution is to find decent masterings of all your music. Of course that's not always practical and sometimes all masterings are just garbage. In those situations, I load the album into Adobe Auditon and use a parametric EQ plugin to fix the bad mastering. So it's permanent EQ without having to adjust your graphic EQ ever.

 

That is my problem too. For some nasty recordings I've written settings down, cannot think of something else.
I'll watch this thread, curious if anybody has a better iea.

 

When I was doing some home recording, I saved my 31 band graphic EQ settings in case I needed to go back and re-record a track at a later date. (ie: a mic setting I liked for acoustic guitars) I made the template from the typical file folder cut to size, then pressed against the shafts (knobs off) to make indents, then just filed it away. The level controls have to be on "0" as a reference. If I needed to go back to that EQ. I cut out to the indents, and lined up to the level 0 reference, then adjusted all the EQ faders into the cutouts. Once the template is done, you can adjust the EQ as many times as needed, so fast without even looking, and it's accurate.

 

You could take a snapshot of the EQ with your cellphone, and store the photos renamed to match the album names.

 

I just my old EQ in the garage, that I kept on my system for years. 10 band....oh I loved it.
Not only could I re-thread an 8 track tape, I could tune a room. Doesn't seem to be a lot of call for either now.

 

I had a graphic equalizer with a calibrated microphone that I used to correct my room's acoustics at the listening chair. I fooled around a little with using it as a tone control, and I had a friend who was an acoustic engineer giving me some pointers.

Ultimately I found it unsatisfying, I felt it created as many problems as it solved. For one thing it can wreak havoc with phase. At the time Stereo Review and High Fidelity magazines were really touting EQs and I still gave those publications some credibility.

I ended up giving the equalizer to my ex-brother in law.

 

Whys that?

 

I used an EQ with my system for years. I had it set to a "smiley curve". Then about ten years ago I removed it from my system. At first I felt the need to increase the Bass and Treble controls on my receiver. Eventually I backed off on those. Now they're at "noon". All I can think is that I grew out of the need for exaggerated bass and treble, and I have a new found appreciation for midrange.

 

Never cared for them. If your system is decent enough, you shouldn't need one.

 

Well, mine has made my system sound much better, but it is true I didn't have to have it.

That's not a bad idea, I think I'll try that for the ones that are really different.

 

I use mine mainly to reduce the room peaks in the bass. But I'm not above using it for other reasons, mainly to correct for overly steely recordings or those with way too much or too little bass.

 

I write down eqs, but I don't eq much. I always try to play as flat as is possible. Of course a subwoofer helps enourmously. I mainly kick up the 16 khz slider on my 10-band to around 4 db (0-6dbs), rarely 32 hz + 2dbs, and very rarely kick down the 1 khz or 2 khz down 2 dbs to tame harshness or excessive bright, of course not all of the above at the same time usually.

 

Am new to using a graphic equalizer, one thing I don't understand is that I can get the music parts sounding really great but getting the voice matching seems unbalanced to me most of the time.
The singing seems to be the hardest part to adjust based on the musical sound.
Any hints?

 

It is. You have to compromise. Every slider affects vocals just like most sliders affect the music, only you maybe don't notice it yet. Eg : you want more bass, you'll get a boomier voice. You want a lesss harsh guitar sound, voice looses some volume and edge, and so on.

An equalizer is a double-edged knife, best used sparingly and/or when the recording is bad.

 

Best way really. Adjust at the source. I'm doing that to through media monkey.

 

What music are you listening to (and through what equipment) that you need to make all these adjustments?

 

It's listed on the OP's profile.

 

Voice is challenging! When EQ adjustment does not seem to lock in to a magical sound, then something else is wrong. EQ can help a not so great recording, but this is more the exception than the rule. I have found from experience, and going through the same frustrations, that a mediocre recording mostly sounds better as is.. since additional EQ can mess up something else we are not listening to.

The human experience in listening to music largely focuses on one instrument, guitars, drumming, maybe the shimmer of a cymbal or maybe the lead vocal, especially when listening more critically. Even the casual listener may prefer percussion and bass, and respond to that, or maybe melody or harmony! It's actually the exception a person listens to a song as a whole. There is usually a preference or bias.

So when adjusting a guitar for more bite, or a snare with a nice crisp attack, we can then cause the cymbal to sound glaring and harsh, or maybe vocals become too sibilant and edgy. In the studio, the sound engineer may have a tough time to get the individual tracks to merge, yet also remain discrete and identifiable. This is more art than science, IMO, but does require acquired knowledge and a trained ear. Can you imagine how tough is is to EQ a mix? It's tough enough when you have separate tracks to work with. A great sounding vocal may sound fantastic by itself, but has to mix well with instruments. A vocal may not mix well, or "recede" with guitars too bright, or muddy up with a heavy bass line, etc. The vocal is affected by instrument timbre and level. Again, to EQ a mixed finished product can be an effort of frustration.

Sometimes a dissatisfied listener may try to EQ out something that's annoying. In many cases, it's not the recording. It is the equipment.

Phase is a killer. Speaker crossovers, (not well engineered) can introduce massive phase coloration. No EQ unit can get rid of that. In fact, the EQ unit itself introduces phase coloration... probably the most hated consequence of dialing in too much EQ. Unfortunately, most hifi for home use EQ units are not very good. You'll get phase coloration, and increased harmonic distortion, added harshness... even if we feel (temporarily) we've struck gold in an EQ setting.

I am not saying in all cases EQ is bad. But, in almost all cases, the bad just does not justify the good.

A parametric EQ is beneficial for dialing out resonances, such as a bright vowel sound (ie: a high pitched "i" or "e") The graphic EQ can not correct this.
The finest graphic EQ for home hi fi use I have ever heard is the Pioneer SG-90. It is a 17 band EQ, all centers are not octave multiples. So there is not as much harmonic distortion multiplied as we have in a 10 band, whose iso centers are in octaves and multiply harmonic distortion. (10 band EQ units are a poor design approach) The SG-90 is all discrete transistor in its EQ section, and is extremely quiet and natural sounding.

I suggest looking into the Pioneer SG-90 as an EQ upgrade.
My best suggestion is to upgrade your speakers, perhaps a good two way system which may be more kind to vocals and everything else sounding more balanced.

rock on,
Steve VK

 

Yeah but don't you think the amount of EQing he's trying to do points to a problem somewhere in his system? If he really needs to be adding so much EQ, it makes me think he would be better off getting better equipment instead of getting an EQ unit.

 

I totally agree, but I tried to focus on the eq question alone because I didn't want to criticize his rig. It just doesn't feel well. Maybe that's all he can afford or he's willing to spend and wants to get the most out of it with an equalizer. Yes, a rig upgrade will do way more good than eq, but will cost a lot more too.

 

What about the sometimes big differences of CD's and record's ? If all sources would be great indeed you don't need any EQ or tone control.

 

I couldn't agree more, but you read about members with fantastic systems say they never even touch they Tone control, Steve Hoffman included. I can't say the same, as I always have my Treble control up 1 notch.....maybe I'm just going deaf!!!!

 

On this forum a lot of people are HiFi adepts playing pristine sources and just discard or ignore sources that are not so good.
I am a music lover, many times I have to diminish bass, cut some high or adjust some mid's. The latest Norah Jones CD needs much manipulation to sound oke. Bad EQ, mastering guy or girl must have had a hangover to make it so dull.
A tone control is oke but an equalizer, especially a 5 bands is very handy for a quick result. I have records from 1929 to recent, after 1965 a lot of records need tone control, after 1995 loudness CD's are hopeless, tonecontrol or EQ just useless.
Forget about rants regarding phase problems, there are no, just babbles from uninformed purist's.