Has anyone ever made an audiophile quality equalizer?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Ghostworld, Jan 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I Am The Lolrus

    I Am The Lolrus New Member

    Location:
    LA, CA, US
    There are lots, and they are in VST form on a computer. You can do digital input, run it through your favorite EQ or whatever, and then just send it out.
     
  2. Drifter

    Drifter AD survivor

    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CA
    :laugh:
     
  3. I Am The Lolrus

    I Am The Lolrus New Member

    Location:
    LA, CA, US
    EQ'ing speakers to compensate for room problems just doesnt work, it isn't a static or linear problem... the trouble manifests itself over many frequencies over time and over volume. The OP should be looking to correct issues stemming from bad decisions made on the material or from personal preferences. There are very few shortcuts!
     
  4. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I'm told the Weiss mastering EQ's are pretty good, but you're looking at an investment of $10K+. Very highly-regarded gear.

    It's fair to say that digital vs. analog EQ is a very controversial are, even among expert mastering engineers. No question that Mr. Diament is right in that even patching an EQ into the circuit will tend to change the sound slightly, even if it's in bypass. Nothing is 100% transparent, at least in analog.

    My personal favorite EQ plug-in is the Sony Oxford, which I think works with Pro Tools HD (TDM), Pro Tools LE (RTAS), M-Powered (RTAS), PowerCore, AU, and VST. If you mean a standalone box, the Manley Massive-Passive is a beautiful piece of gear -- but also over $10,000, when I last checked.
     
  5. BradOlson

    BradOlson Country/Christian Music Maven

    Indeed they are.
     
  6. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    I've heard this a lot from many pros I've stayed in touch with through the years and have posted that here before. That said, I've got a couple of cheap Behringer digital delays I use for delaying AM radio to sync it with satellite TV sporting events. They work like champs for that and were very inexpensive.
     
  7. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi misterdecibel,

    That depends. With typical studio converters operating at 44.1, 96 and even many at 192, I would agree. But the game has changed.

    One would need to compare passing the signal through a fine analog EQ like the Cello with going into (and out of) a ULN-8 at 24/192, where one could use the MIOEQ.

    As of the past couple of years, since I got the ULN-8 and finally heard the first digital in my experience, that I would call truly transparent, I'd actually bet on the latter now - and by a good margin. Might sound like heresy but the ULN-8 at 192 is (to my ears) that good, far outperforming any other digital (or analog) I've ever heard.

    Best regards,
    Barry
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
     
    bluemooze likes this.
  8. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi dmckean,

    Check Metric Halo.
    The software that comes with their interfaces features their MIOEQ and MIOStrip, perhaps the most transparent EQ I've ever experienced.

    As a separate plug-in, they offer ChannelStrip (which, like MIOStrip, also includes a compressor and gate, both of which I bypass).

    Making the same exact settings in any of these and in any other EQ I've yet tested, made everything else sound "broken".

    As always, I suggest NOT simply taking my word for this. I can only report on my own experience but of course, your mileage (and preferences) may vary. Try one of more of them for yourself if you get the chance and draw your own conclusions. And if you do, please let us know what you hear.

    Best regards,
    Barry
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
     
  9. coopmv

    coopmv Newton 1/30/2001 - 8/31/2011

    Location:
    CT, USA
    I think Crown used to make one and Crown has always been considered a high-end audio manufacturer. It completely exited the home audio market to concentrate on the professional market in the late 80's ...
     
  10. Lownotes

    Lownotes Senior Member

    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I think Shasta may resent your remarks! :)
     
  11. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    Well, I decided to try and keep lossless audio files on an ipod as a source (Just because its so darn handy when I don't feel like digging through my 2,000 cds). It's not perfect, but I think the sound is fair enough for such a tiny device. The only thing I've noticed is that the midrange is a little ragged for my tastes. Just a little thin and sometimes harsh. I can hear it just a tad on vocals. I don't want to mess with my entire system just to tune it to this little ipod. I bought a Grant Fidelity Tube buffer, which turned out to be ineffective (invisible, I'd say ;)) so now I'm thinking about sticking an eq someplace just for the ipod and tweak up the sound. Apples own eq settings are a little too dramatic for my tastes. I could Rockbox the ipod for the softwares equalizer, but I'm a mac man and I like iTunes.
     
  12. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi chadbang,

    I would submit that much of the "edge" is a function of playing the so-called lossless files. I realize these save space but have you tried importing a CD as raw, uncompressed AIF or WAV?

    In my experience, these have a clear sonic advantage over even lossless files, which will inevitably be an additional step removed from the clock, hence be more "digital" sounding.

    Just my perspective.

    Best regards,
    Barry
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
     
    bluemooze likes this.
  13. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    You know, Barry, I didnt run a .wav versus losess test. I think I will. It will reduce the number of cds I'm able to get on a 60 gig ipod to about 80 or 90 albums versus 130, but like friends, how many albums to I really have, how many really care? :agree::angel:
     
  14. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi chadbang,

    Even on my Shuffle, I use raw AIF as the format (same as in the music server). You fit less, it is true. I'd rather fit 8 albums at their best sounding than 80 albums worth of headaches.

    Just my perspective.

    Best regards,
    Barry
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
     
  15. I Am The Lolrus

    I Am The Lolrus New Member

    Location:
    LA, CA, US
    :shake:
     
  16. KT88

    KT88 Senior Member

    Audio Control
    Klark Teknik
    Soundcraftsman

    There is no transparent analog EQ but some of the best, especially parametric types, sound better than early digital units. These might increase the noise floor slightly but do everything else more smoothly. Some older digital jobs were truely dreadful as were many analog graphic EQ models.

    For the iPod, it would seem there would be a load of "apps" ready to be installed, probably several choices of digital EQ? I just bought an iTouch and there are a dizzying array of apps available for download. I haven't even had time to really use it and probably will never use but a fraction of what it is capable of.

    As far as stunning pro mastering units go, I am partial to this one :D They also have digital software plug-ins for those who prefer to use the DAW:
    [​IMG]


    -Bill
     
  17. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    Thanks, KT88

    I looked at your recommendations and picked up an AudioControl C-101. I think this is what my iPod-as-a-source needs. The Video iPod's built-in eq distorts any bass push, so this should be the answer. Now I can run it flat. Here's the model, of course this doesnt show the series II optional vintage walnut side panels, which mine has (sadly, so do my speakers :angel:).

    http://www.smeter.net/slc/info/equalization.php

    I'm sure I remember this EQ from the late 80s. I believe its capacitor-based; I'm keeping my fingers crossed anyway. I appreciate the help!
     
  18. KT88

    KT88 Senior Member

    I'm not sure about the sound quality of that particular model. They do make nicer EQs than many other mfrs for budget units though. The pink noise generator is a nice feature as it should help you to get an idea of what some room correction will do as well as just tone adjustment for certain program material. In general when using an EQ, you will find that starting off at 0db and then slightly cutting frequencies which are louder, results in a better SNR than boosting frequencies which are lower. Keeping the overall output of the EQ as centered on or below the 0db line effects this best. You will probably be able to hear some noise simply by switching the unit on and off of its bypass mode even when everything is set to 0db. With the iPod input, that should not matter so much though and you might even get lucky and find that its room correction benefits offset any noise penalties.
    -Bill
     
  19. dirtymac

    dirtymac Forum Resident

    Location:
    Exile, MN
    Here's one to consider (very affordable, too)

    http://www.aphex.com/204.htm


    Once was, in the 1970s, rented by studios for mixing at $30 per recorded minute.

    Not exactly an EQ as it does not boost output levels. The amount of bass and/or harmonic enhancement is user-adjustable, and just a little bit goes a long ways.
     
  20. I Am The Lolrus

    I Am The Lolrus New Member

    Location:
    LA, CA, US
    Its not exactly an EQ as it produces new harmonic content! Not the right tool here.
     
  21. Capt Fongsby

    Capt Fongsby Music is the best. ... And cats.

    Location:
    Norway
    True. It's a glorified fuzz-box.
    Primarily used during mixing as a last resort to try and breathe a bit of life into dead sounding recordings. Yeah, right...
    (A turd polisher, if you like.)
     
    bluemooze likes this.
  22. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    We got one of these right after we opened Dawnbreaker. I remember Louie Shelton saying how we had spent well over $100k on our Helios to have ultra low distortion only to be buying this thing to add distortion back to our mixes.
     
    bluemooze likes this.
  23. stereoguy

    stereoguy Its Gotta Be True Stereo!

    Location:
    NYC
    While I use several EQ units in my home recording studio, I'd NEVER use them in my living room A/V setup to play Cds or Lps. That would be changing the original mix and/or mastering WAY too much. For me, the fun is in finding the best sonic version of a particular title and enjoying the playback experience. Why would you wanna "EQ" The Beatles?
     
  24. dirtymac

    dirtymac Forum Resident

    Location:
    Exile, MN
    Sure, on the mixing end it should not be used. But it can be used at home to improve badly-recorded discs. Towards that end, it has really improved my own listening experience when used in small doses. When I don't want it utilized, I press a button and it does nothing. When I DO use it, it clearly helps the bass and can do something for upper harmonics as well. Not for everyone, but nice to have as an option for recordings that need help.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine