Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why EQ is so unpopular?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why EQ is so unpopular? - Page 5

post #61 of 79
Basically, if something's off; I'd suggest new/better equipment to fix the problem and not to rely on some sloppy software EQ.

But ya in the mean time go ahead you can learn alot from it.
post #62 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbritton View Post
That is the sound of convolution. formant analysis --> convolution algorithm. It is like enlarging a photo using resampling - where pixels are "created" to fill space.
I think resampling would be what you're referring to...how does changing the volume at selected frequencies create any kind of distortion?
post #63 of 79

EQ or Other DSP Is OK To Use For The Fun Of It!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Carter View Post
Basically, if something's off; I'd suggest new/better equipment to fix the problem and not to rely on some sloppy software EQ.

But ya in the mean time go ahead you can learn alot from it.
This isn't about something being "off" that hardware upgrades can fix - it is about personal preference being allowed to override the personal preferences of the recording, mixing and mastering engineers, who are not gods, but are merely men.


My equipment is pretty stellar and yet I EQ for the fun of it. Yes, for the fun factor, the enjoyment factor, not being a slave to other's opinions of what I'm supposed to enjoy and how I'm supposed to enjoy it, personal freedom and exercising my power of choice to have it the way I like. Passion. Music.

Terry
post #64 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emon View Post
I think resampling would be what you're referring to...how does changing the volume at selected frequencies create any kind of distortion?
Well, since the word 'resampling' is already in my sentence, I would say you deserve an "A".

Your question is a deep one beyond the scope of this forum. Please use Google and perform some research in this field. Perhaps come back here and try to summarize your findings.

Only cut. No boost.

Terry
post #65 of 79

 

...


Edited by Orubasarot - 1/10/11 at 9:57pm
post #66 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orubasarot View Post

A mastering engineer would have a heart attack looking at this, it's like threatning any decent chef with a bottle of ketchup.

That is a pretty funny comparison! But really, mastering engineers do not mind having their creations altered with a little salt and pepper!

I have Izotope Ozone and did not see the "CD Master with Exciter and Widener" preset anywhere. Should I download it again? (I bought it a while ago.)

Where are these other DSPs found? Are they older Winamp plugins?

Thanks for the nice roundup!

Terry
post #67 of 79
Basically, i find that the (generally lower quality) headphone you have, the more it'll benefit from an EQ. I eq my px 200's from foobar when i want to use them, but leave it neutral for the HD 600s... Thats just my oppinion tho
post #68 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahn View Post
HELL YEAH.
Some days I miss that early Tower of Power!
Hey! I have one of those BSR EQ-3000's! That's a great unit! Far better than a number of "top of the line" EQ's I've listened to.

If you really want to have some fun with EQ's, pick up a couple of Rane 31band single channel EQ's.
post #69 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbritton View Post
Well, since the word 'resampling' is already in my sentence, I would say you deserve an "A".
Changing the sample rate of the PCM data, not image resampling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbritton View Post
Your question is a deep one beyond the scope of this forum. Please use Google and perform some research in this field. Perhaps come back here and try to summarize your findings.
Nice try, but the burden of proof lies on you.
post #70 of 79
On a related note, has anyone here ever seen a reasonably cheap balanced analog parabolic EQ (3-5 band)?
post #71 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfire View Post
On a related note, has anyone here ever seen a balanced analog parabolic EQ (3-5 band)?
Don't know what parabolic EQ is, but if you meant parametric here is one:

http://www.behringer.com/T1951/index.cfm?lang=ENG

I've been using it for a while, great machine, looks like something out of WWII U-boat, but does good job. And you can roll tubes (12AX7) if you wish. Lots of fun.

Cheers

Edit: and I forgot - it is balanced design.
post #72 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lad27 View Post
Don't know what parabolic EQ is, but if you meant parametric here is one:

http://www.behringer.com/T1951/index.cfm?lang=ENG

I've been using it for a while, great machine, looks like something out of WWII U-boat, but does good job. And you can roll tubes (12AX7) if you wish. Lots of fun.

Cheers

Edit: and I forgot - it is balanced design.
Ah, excellent. Exactly what I was looking for. Dirt cheap, too!

I think I'll order one. Thanks.

PS - Yes, I meant parametric. I don't know where I got parabolic from (probably just thinking of the parabolas from digital EQs).. but it's a mistake I make over and over.
post #73 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by threepointone View Post
HD280 + eq = awesome =D
'til I lost them! =(

I have a pair of K701s now, and honestly, the HD280 EQ'd sounded way, wayyyyyyyy more fun than these, even though the K701s definitely excel in quite a number of characteristics
Here's a foobar2000 setting I use with my K701 on EQ *shrug*

post #74 of 79
Anyone know if there are any player independent EQ programs? I am running a USB 0404 (which I was hoping had an EQ setting) and Music Match. I'd like something other than the embedded MM EQ.
post #75 of 79

Bearing the Burden of Proof Concerning EQ and Personal Satisfaction and Taste

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emon View Post
Changing the sample rate of the PCM data, not image resampling.


Nice try, but the burden of proof lies on you.
Yeah, I suppose...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

The thing is, some units distort, some don't, some software does sometimes, some does all the time, some use algorithms that work, some use algorithms that break down under certain conditions, etc. Note how iRiver fixed their distortion problems with a firmware fix, for instance.

There is a rule of thumb, however, that boosting is always going to deteriorate the signal... at least as a rule of thumb to observe. It isn't ALWAYS true, but requires research to make sure it isn't in a particular configuration. Also, how the boost is being done differs with different approaches. For the most part, cut algorithms do less harm universally, and so it is safer to cut. Some preamp sliders compensate in post after the EQ faders - some others apply generally across all the faders to the faders themselves. So much depends on how things got done, so it is a deep issue whether distortion occurs or not, and how it occurs. Stay with cutting and one avoids these issues in most every configuration and EQ solution out there.

But EQ is fun and allows you to be the mastering engineer, which is perfectly ok, 'cause it's your ears.

Sorry I copped the lazy-out answer before...

Terry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why EQ is so unpopular?