how come graphic equalizers went out of fashion?

Thanks for the explanation Doug.
I have my room treated with several acoustic panels (Bass traps, absorption & diffusion panels) in starategic locations and I've managed to obtain a much more focused sound, amazing improvement indeed. I still have some issues with peaks but I gave up on EQ because the parametric EQ's I've seen (Rives, tried Millenium) just don't have enough sections to meet my needs.

 

Most of the models in Sony's current and upcoming series of portable CD players have parametric EQ's.

 

Is this what you're talking about?
http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4022904
Here is what a Parametric EQ for home audio looks like, FWIW.
http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/nseq.shtml

 

And don't forget those of us (old and young alike) whose high-frequecy hearing has deteriorated to the point a little boost gives a vast improvement in listening pleasure.

 

I like some quirky or odd-sounding songs, so I don't need the EQ. I even try to avoid EQ when making comps, finding otgher ways to get where I want to go.

 

Yes, except even the inexpensive Sony Portable CD players have the parametric EQ. Like this....

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=3965655

I have the D-NE300, which is the same thing but without the tuner. It's been highly-praised by those at head-fi.org for its sound quality, EQ adjustability, and extremely long battery life.

 

No problem V-A. I'm glad to help when I can.

Just remember that using spot frequencies is not always effective. You can get all the spots right but have serious deviations in between them. That's why a sweep generator is essential to really see what you have. Sweep generators are great for testing systems. You can easily find rattles, vibrations, and other anomalities that would be hard to find with other methods. Once again, you can have a problem in between the spot frequencies and never know it unless the music you listen to triggers the problem in a way that you can hear it. We used to use sweep generators to center diaphragms in compression drivers. Dial in the bad frequency and realign the diaphragm until all is clear.

Also if you end up with a whole lot of parametric sections, you will likely be going through a lot of additional electronics. You may end up with flat response, but your sonic purity will likely suffer.

It sounds like you have the right approach.

 

Yes, but here they have a different use. It's to compensate for the frequencies you lose in your hearing from playing over-compressed mp3s way loud.

 

OK, I'm a purist. I would not want any active equalization in the signal path - especially something using cheap op-amps. Even the Rives bothered me a little when I auditioned it, but it does solve specific room problems.

Some sort of passive eq that brought down a brightish treble could be useful on very rare occasions, and I may be OK with that. But I don't need it in my system.

My opinion is - if you feel you need equalization, maybe you need better gear. Or maybe you're a junior mastering engineer who likes playing with the knobs to see how it affects the sound - in which case, good luck to you.

 

Why spend big bucks for a pure electronic signal path and then insert a lesser sounding component. Think of a chain. If you have some real strong links, why would you put a weak link in the chain.

Btw, when I was in the studio scene White made a passive 1/3 octave equalizer that was pretty popular. Of course it was chock full of inductors which cause all kinds of nasty phase lags.

 

Yes, that cd definitely has a bunch of bass. Thankfully my Matrix 802's seem to take it all in stride. That cd would sound better if they hadn't gone so nuts with the bottom end on a couple of tracks. If you really want to try one that's even worse check out Blowback by Tricky. It almost makes Mezzanine seem tame in comparison.

 

I have the BSR eq-3000 I hook up my pc through the eq to the receiver. I like how the internet sounds through it.

 

I was just walking by a Radio Shack and I see that they are selling a 15 band dual channel graphic equalizer for $99.00.

 

This brings up something I've always thought about. We all fret about op-amps and paper in oil caps and silver stranded wire and xyz and the effect they all have in our playback equipment. Tom Port suggested that a battery powered system will always sound better than anything that runs off of A.C. mains no matter what kind of filtering you put it through and how many appliances you turn off (something I'm inclined to agree with). But what op-amps does the signal go thru in modern recording equipment and how well filtered is the A.C. in a recording studio. I mean I'm sure its filtered very well, but wouldn't the cleanest D.C. come from a battery of some kind?

 

Absolutely correct. I've mentioned this before, possibly several times, but one time we had a big string date with our large scale Helios console. The power supply crashed and we were paying lots of musicians double scale. I went across the street to Pep Boys and bought some car batteries and lashed them up to the console. Everybody agreed that the console never sounded better.

I haven't done much work with studio equipment lately, so I can't say how many opamps are still in use, but many consoles in the 70's and 80's were chock full of them. They were used for mic pre's, buffers, eq sections, summing amps, buss drivers and many other places. Our Helios was mainly discreet transistor technology, but there were still opamps used in less critical applications. Chip opamps had lots of advantages, but I can't think of any sonic reasons to use them. Op amps by themselves are not bad at all. It's the chip opamps that had problems. But chip opamps are easy to replace, use much less power, generate less heat, and are relatively inexpensive to use. On top of that, by their design opamps could easily be tailored for different applications by changing related components.

Chip opamps have improved considerably since the early 70's. The older models had to have compensation capacitors to prevent them from oscillating. This placed a severe limitation on their bandwidth and speed. Also, chip opamps came in single, dual, and quad versions. The more sections they had, the worst they sounded. Single op amps had terminals for external compensation so you could more specifically tailor your design. If you didn't need a lot of bandwidth you could use less compensation and increase their speed somewhat. Of course there are plenty of opamp applications where these parameters were not critical, such as meter driver amps, power supplies and other places where they were not in the primary signal path.

 

Cool... Thanks for the insights.

 

The Kenwood rack system that my parents bought me in 1989 had a graphic equalizer. I had that system for ten years, and although I was nowhere near an audiophile during that time, I never touched the graphic equalizer. Simply put, I didn't see the need for it. Maybe I was so oblivious to sound quality back then that I didn't even care to bother with the graphic equalizer. Now I know that I didn't miss anything by not using it.

I put my first home-theater system together in 1999, and the graphic equalizer left the rack to make room for the DVD player.

 

What you point out is true if all you listen to is well-made or audiophile recordings. And as I mentioned in a previous post, I myself don't use EQ for listening, but as needed for recording.

I'll give you an example. Uni, when they issued Demond Dekker's Israelites LP back in the 60's tamed down the bass to make it (I reckon) more palatable to "American" ears. That's not the way reggae is supposed to sound.

When I made a compilation of reggae tunes, the Dekker tracks were distracting compared to the other tunes because of the lack of bass. Judicious use of the EQ made a world of difference. The extra electronics in the signal path, unless you have a cheapo EQ, would not audibly degrade the sound of a non-audiophile recording of this type. In this case, it was a vast improvement.

I certainly do agree if you need EQ all the time for "normal" listening, something is wrong... But to correct deficient recordings, it's a useful tool, and that's why I have it.

 

I agree.

For example, one of my favorite downtempo CDs, Nothing Changes Under The Sun, has high frequencies that to me are either overly boosted or much worse, on several tracks are actually distorted: the cymbal crashes sound like FM static rather than a clean metallic sound. If I didn't have a treble control to help deal with this stuff, I would still listen to the album but only at low/conversational levels.

 

In addition to the "Loudness" feature not available now mentioned in this thread, I would also like to see Hi and Lo filter switches broght back. When I still had my Sansui Quad receiver, I'd use the Lo cutoff filter on big bass mixes like Massive Attack's Mezzanine and Spiritualized's Lazer Guided Melodies. That was a much more efficient way to cut the low end on tracks rather than using outboard EQs.

 

I've recently gone back to using a Kenwood KR-9600 specifically because I feel that many recordings just need a little nip/tuck. Usually I prefer to subtract EQ and compensate any lost gain accordingly just by raising the volume, which has been a great suggestion I learned here.

DCC & AP product sound great on my system just flat, but many other releases do not, and it's great having the option to switch from tone control bypass to (although rudimentary) a 3 band EQ - bass, mid, treble. Plus the 2 "loudness" settings and the high/low filters, and 2 phono stages with different characteristics. Between all this junk, some real improvement can be made on troubled recordings, and in most cases only a little change is necessary. A slightly annoying sounding DMM cut of REM Document (the original LP is DMM, except for CRC club cuttings) really bloomed once I made a few minor adjustments.

I also now firmly believe every preamp should have a mono switch!

I've also purchased a used ADC graphic EQ ($7) which seems like a decent unit just to play with for recording certain troublesome sources to Betamax hi-fi audio only (don't laugh - Betamax audio reproduction when done right can be very good, and media cost per minute is very cheap!). So far I've really liked the results of dubbing quality recordings without EQ. ADC was a subsidiary of DBX (or vice versa) and this unit has some expander nonsense that can be bypassed, but I might try it on the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication disaster & see what I come up with. With some recordings, it's almost impossible to imagine making them worse!

 

I want as few as possible electronic components between my source and my speakrs, which definately puts me at odds with most of the people who have posted in this thread.

 

Why not have it both ways? Use EQ to fix problem recordings, bypass it for good ones. Also, is the "fewest possible stages" position an article of faith with you, or have you inserted EQ into the chain and been able to hear the difference? A reviewer I know of has used a good-quality digital EQ, and reports that neither he nor anyone else who has heard his system can tell whether it's in or out.

 

I used EQ (nothing too expensive) up until I went to the single ended triode route. I'm not knocking anyone who uses one, but if I make a mod to my SACD player I don't want to compensate for it with EQ. If I change one of my solid-state DIY projects from battery powered to some other power supply I need to be honest with myself about what I hear.

 

I still have two of these. I liked it when you set the included mic in your listening position and used the pink noise generator and the spectrum analyzer to "flatten" the noise. I thought it was helpful as I don't have a perfect listening enviroment or completly "flat" equipment.