Equalizer update

[Steve999]

Stereo separation is dramatically exaggerated with headphones. This can get especially tiresome in recordings that already exaggerate separation. Unless you've had a few beers or whatnot. Then it's pretty cool.

In real life, and with speakers, nearly all of what goes to one ear, also gets heard by the other ear. The complete opposite occurs with headphones, the ears share no information. Thus, to me at least, a little left to right crossfeed makes things sound a lot more natural and is a lot more important than a very small delay. (A larger delay would sound goofy and would be highly unnatural -- sound travels very fast, as I'm sure you know, and the distance from one ear to another ear is not very far at all.)

Personally, I'm not too concerned about delay. A little delay can make the crossfeed less dry, IMHO (and Meier executes it beautifully and tastefully) but not much more. Meier also alters the frequency response of the cross-fed signal just a little, again, beautifully done, IMHO. The out-of-the head stuff seems a little far-fetched to me. That's more the realm of much more complex signal processing, don't you think? But we are both are admirers of the Meier crossfeed so there's not much to argue over in the end.

Of course the equalizer image compression is meant for speakers rather than headphones. But it's so flexible I am trying it out and I like it. I'll play with it some more tonight. The DEQ2496 lends itself to a myriad of unintended uses because it is so flexible.

All this to say, I think you are probably right that there is no delay. Especially when you compress it all the way to mono. You are probably entirely correct in your assertions. I'll check it out again tonight.

Originally posted by Orpheus
i can almost guarantee you it doesn't delay. it's a stereo compression processor that's designed for live use probably. it has nothing to do with headphone use.

so, no, it's not a cross-feed, not the headphone type anyway.

a headphone crossfeed is designed to move the imaging ahead of you, so you don't get the "in your head" feeling as much. this doesn't do that at all, or shouldn't anyway.

there may be instances when setting up a PA system that you might want to push the stereo image in a bit, and that's probably what this function was designed for.

you can get the same effect on your mixer by having the panning pots turned a bit in from what would otherwise be hard-left and hard-right.

[Orpheus]

you ever try the meier cross feed or even the pinkfloyd version?--or the headroom version? i have the meier feed here, and it does pop that image in front. works well. the pinkfloyd one is very subtle, and you almost don't hear the difference, which is good for long-term listening. the headroom version is not as dramatic as the meier version, at least the one i heard, but it works too. you might want to check those out if you're getting good use out of the built in "crossfeed" on your EQ.

but yes, like you said, stereo separation is exaggerated when comparing to loudspeakers. though there used be a processor called "Q-Sound?" something like that.... it's incredible when you use it with your louspeaker monitors. wonder why it never got big... i once mixed a song i wrote with q-sound (if that's what it's called), and it's really cool hearing different sounds coming from outside the area of the speakers. really neat.

[Steve999]

I've used the Meier crossfeed on my Corda HA-1 daily for over a year now. I don't perceive the image outside of my head, but I do find it pleasing. It may well be we just hear differently or we're arguing over semantics, no biggie. I like it a lot better than the Headroom crossfeed (which I've spent time with at head-fi meets) because the it sounds to me like the headroom crossfeed messes with the frequency respone too much for my taste, and I can't get past that.

I messed with the DEQ2496 image compression again. It does give you the "shuffle" thing which does something or other to the bass. The manual says it intensifies the image of the bass frequencies (meant for use with speakers of course). Ironically, it seems to attennuate the bass a bit as it intensifies the image, thus the slider to adjust the bass up or down by one to three decibels, I suppose. It's a little over my head as to how or why all this is done. But it's fun to try it out. It's adjustable by .10 increments from 0 to 3. Let me know if you ever try it. BTW, IIRC, with the DEQ2496 you can also rotate the image plus or minus 45 degrees and shift the image to the left or right 180 degrees with two separate sliders (it's two separate effects), silly with headphones but fun for kicks anyway.

I have one of the three DEQ2496 outputs going to my JVC minisystem, maybe I'll mess with the speaker effects with the JVC speakers and see what happens. The other two outputs go to my minidisc deck and my Corda HA-1.

Q-sound sounds interesting, I'll keep my eyes open.

The DEQ2496 has image "expansion" ranging from 1 to 3 in .10 increments, it'd be interesting, maybe I'll have to take it downstairs and try it all on a nice stereo setup. From the manual I think it's supposed to sound like it's coming from beyond the speakers, I doubt it's as striking as Q-sound though.

Originally posted by Orpheus
you ever try the meier cross feed or even the pinkfloyd version?--or the headroom version? i have the meier feed here, and it does pop that image in front. works well. the pinkfloyd one is very subtle, and you almost don't hear the difference, which is good for long-term listening...

but yes, like you said, stereo separation is exaggerated when comparing to loudspeakers. though there used be a processor called "Q-Sound?" something like that.... it's incredible when you use it with your louspeaker monitors...

[Orpheus]

The DEQ2496 has image "expansion" ranging from 1 to 3 in .10 increments, it'd be interesting, maybe I'll have to take it downstairs and try it all on a nice stereo setup. From the manual I think it's supposed to sound like it's coming from beyond the speakers, I doubt it's as striking as Q-sound though.

actually, this should be the opposite of your "crossfeed" feature. it will pan sounds farther out to the sides, essentially making your loudspeakers sound more like headphones (which you noted exaggerates the stereo distance.) it does not place any sound outside the normal stereo field. Q-Sound however is a processor that is created to place sounds outside the stereo field, which would not be possible with conventional setups. this is done by some DSP which also does some crossfeed-delay-like type processing. and it works REALLY well. unfortunately, i think the company went out of business or something, cause i haven't seen the feature in the past couple years.

[Steve999]

Well I got curious so I did the mandatory google search. Looks like they are still around and have gotten heavily into computer stuff and have branched out a little. I fished around on their website, is this what you were talking about? Maybe they used to make more involved home stereo components?

Q-Sound UltraQ, only 30 bucks

They appear to have much more involved and complex software and computer equipment, BTW.

That's the only non-PC audio equipment I could find on their web site.

Hmmm.... just to create a facade of keeping this on topic.... I'm waiting anxiously for gerG's HD600 DEQ2496 settings. Sincerely, I am.

I spent another two or three hours on the DEQ2496 last night. I've got my revised headphone rig all set up now. It goes from a Sony DVD player (for CDs) and a Sony minidisc deck and XM radio and my JVC minisystem (for AM/FM radio) and an input for portables to the DEQ2496 (I use the DEQ2496 optical input for the Sony DVD player, and I have a 5-way switchbox for the analog inputs)) with the main analog output of the DEQ2496 going to my Corda HA-1. The DEQ2496 optical output goes to my minidisc deck so I can record anything on the system, and the DEQ2496 auxillary analog output goes to the JVC minisystem so I can take off the headphones now and then. Sweet.

Originally posted by Orpheus
Q-Sound however is a processor that is created to place sounds outside the stereo field, which would not be possible with conventional setups. this is done by some DSP which also does some crossfeed-delay-like type processing. and it works REALLY well. unfortunately, i think the company went out of business or something, cause i haven't seen the feature in the past couple years.

[gerG]

I get a day off tomorrow, so I will tweak some curves. Steve, you need a microphone now

btw, if you are listening to XM and have noticed that nasty HF temporal distortion, throw in a narrow parametric of -12 db at 8.5 khz, and another of -6db at 6.5 khz. It cleans things up a lot. This is the reason that the 8024 migrated to my office, so that I could listen to Luna all day on my xm pcr


gerG

[Steve999]

Thanks, I'm gonna try it!

Originally posted by gerG
btw, if you are listening to XM and have noticed that nasty HF temporal distortion, throw in a narrow parametric of -12 db at 8.5 khz, and another of -6db at 6.5 khz. It cleans things up a lot. This is the reason that the 8024 migrated to my office, so that I could listen to Luna all day on my xm pcr

gerG

[rsaavedra]

Reading this thread, this equalizer has caught my interest. I wonder how its DAC+analog output performance is. Let's say imagine you use completely flat equalization bypassing any processing, connect the 963's digital out to it, and then feed your headphone amp with the analog outs of the equalizer, does it sound as good as the 963's DACs? How about comparing with some other high end DACs, maybe the Grace or BelCanto?

[gerG]

My subjective impression was that the DEQ D/A was an improvement over the one in the 963sa, and the Grace was another improvement yet. That is the configuration of the system now. The only drawback is that I can't play the 1 or 2 decent SACDs that I own (out of a couple dozen crappy ones) on that system. I like the sound of my Sony better for SACD anyway, so it works out fine. The other issue is that the DEQ is limited to "only" 96 khz (by 24 bit depth). I can only upsample to 96 khz, but I will take that compromise for now. Some day there will be a faster digital eq, as well as a faster Grace amp around my house. Not sure when, though.

One experiment that I haven't tried is to run the digital output of my dvda player to the DEQ. Although dvda can theoretically run at 192 khz, I don't think that I have any recordings that take advantage of it. Maybe I will give it a shot this weekend.

Funny, when you accumulate enough audio gear, it starts to get like a giant box of Lego(tm) blocks. Endless combinations, and endless fun. otoh I have never fried a tweeter in a Lego block

gerG

[Orpheus]

you know greg, since you are so fond of EQ's, maybe you should try investing in a mid-end pro or mastering grade EQ. here are some:

here's one that's really overkill for us (it's mastering grade--$6000.... very interesting too as its function are completely passive, yet it has tubes inside... dunno how that works):

here's another high-end mastering EQ:

but both of those are probably way over us. here's a much more down-to-earth but still good EQ (this one i believe is $2000-3000)... they have a mastering grade version too which is more expensive:

or you can even turn your computer into a processor with plugins:

so many good choices!!!

[rsaavedra]

Thanks gerG, to say the least it sounds like a component with great value and many hours of play time guaranteed. All these RTA functionalities can take the hobby to a different level for me I think. As far as measurement and analysis, right now I'm only at the Radio Shack SPL meter + Sterophile test CD's level I've thought about getting some good audio analyisis software and just use a normal computer/laptop, but now my next main goal is a good source, so have postponed that. Now this device is yet another temptation.

[ooheadsoo]

What kind of mic do you guys recommend? And I wouldn't need a preamp would I?

[gerG]

Actually the analysis software is very accessible. I think that the full up version of TrueRTA is $100, and it works great.

Mics are treacherous. The Behringer is only $50, but mine had some issues in the deep bass realm. I bought an Earthworks M30 as a standard so that I can modify something for my needs, then calibrate against it. Unfortunately it is a bit spensive. I want to try the dbx mic, if I can find one. I will let you know how it compares to the M30.

For response measurements using a computer you will also need a decent mic preamp, and even more critically, a decent A/D converter. The ones in most soundcards are nonlinear as hell. The one in my laptop changes response with level!

If you just want something to read phones or speakers with the DEQ, the Behringer is not a bad solution. You won't need a preamp for this, but you will need an XLR mic cable.

Dean, thanks for the audioporn! Are those all digital? I would put the DEQ up against any analog eq at any price. My reasoning is that analog equalization puts a whole ****load of components in the signal path. The digital eq just does some more math with the numbers prior to conversion to a signal. Nothing in the signal path. Not to say that there can't be errors. No algorithm is perfect. It just seems a safer approach to me.

gerG

[Steve999]

Okay, for the XM radio, I set up two curves, one at 6471 hz, 1/10 octave, minus 6 decibels; and one 8531 hz, 1/10 octave, minus 12 decibels. It did indeed get rid of a swishing type sound in the low treble on my XM radio... is that what it's supposed to do? Things sounded a lot cleaner. But I noticed a reduction in the perceived brightness.

So...

I changed the 8531 hz band to -15 decibels, and the 6471 hz band to - 9 decibels, and set up a one-octave band centered at 7096 hertz at +3 decibels. The curves interacting pulled up the 6471 hz and 8531 hz band to -6 and -12 db, respectively, and created a little treble increase centered at 7.25 khz, so that the perceived brightness when I a/b it is about the same, but the sound is cleaner now.

Does that make sense? I'm just learning....Lemme know if I'm violating some profound principle of EQ.

BTW, I was REALLY surprised to see on the DEQ2496 RTA that the XM radio music has content from 20 hz out to 20 khz.

Originally posted by gerG
btw, if you are listening to XM and have noticed that nasty HF temporal distortion, throw in a narrow parametric of -12 db at 8.5 khz, and another of -6db at 6.5 khz. It cleans things up a lot. This is the reason that the 8024 migrated to my office, so that I could listen to Luna all day on my xm pcr

gerG

[Orpheus]

Dean, thanks for the audioporn! Are those all digital?

actually, they're all analog. the Manley one is very special... it's actually a purely passive signal path, though it uses tubes. and i have yet to understand how that works.

well, i guess theoretically once the signal gets into the digital realm, the mathematical part of the EQ should be perfect. so, i guess if the ADC/DAC is perfect, then perhaps the digital EQ you have might outperform a $6000-10000 mastering EQ. but i would like to think there's a reason why we need $10000 EQ's....