do you use EQ? - Page 7

Originally Posted by pez

Speakers are based more on accoustics and angle rather than EQ. Saying "it's not the way the original recording engineer intended it to sound." is so general. I can tell it's flat response, but no headphone or speaker is gonna make it sound how "it's supposed to". The only way to get 100% accuracy is to actually sit there and listen to them play.

Originally Posted by chadbang

You have to be a sadist not to use EQ sometimes. These fanatical audiophiles who will run out and buy a $300 cable because their third DAC in the chain is a tad bright are just fools looking for excuses to buy a new toy. "Oh, my $3,000 cd player didn't match my Krell preamp, it was a tad too thin, even with my Olympic AutoNost Cables. Perhaps triple braided titanium with smooth out the highs..." You know, for christ sakes, buy a preamp with some tone controls you fools. It all comes down to varying frequencies and whether you do that by rolling down a tone knob or skurrying around buying fifty cables for the right sound (which won't sound right with the next poorly recorded cd anyway) is, too me, a sign of an audiophile who knows enough about sound the put things right with a few minor tweaks, versus a dweeb who just wants to spend money. I don't care HOW perfect your perfectly assembled system is -- it's not going to sound right with EVERY recording. This is where EQ comes in. And when I get a POS **** recording (let's see, that Amy Winehouse cd I bought tonight. Is it just me, or does that recording sound like **** with distortion all over the place?) and my ears start to sting from some numbskull boosting high frequencies, you can bet I'm gonna roll down that knob without the slight trace of "purist' guilt.

Originally Posted by bigshot

But I don't quite understand this thread. Are we talking about equalizing systems or using the EQ in an iPod. If it's the latter, no I don't use the EQ in my iPods unless I am using really crappy headphones. I apply EQ at the amplification stage, so the corrections apply to all of my sources, not just my iPod.

See ya
Steve

Originally Posted by stevenkelby

Pez,

I think you're either confused or reading too much into it.

You're comment on acoustics and angle are very telling, as those things are a large part or getting a flat response from a system, they are a form of EQ, and an important part.

I haven't been on head-fi much lately, I spend 8 hours a day researching EQ for the last few weeks, and while I'm no expert and still have heaps to learn, I understand more than I use to, and do understand a few simple, basic truths that I was ignorant of very recently. (Thanks to Steve for getting me started).

What I'm talking about is EQing for a flat response, not EQing for a pleasingly distorted response. 2 very different things. EQing because you like to change the sound is one use for EQ and it's fine if you like it. That's what EQ presets and things are for.

To me, the real purpose of EQ is to get acceptably (to you) accurate reproduction with your system.

Of course there is far more to sound than just EQ. EQ is only one aspect, but an important one. It's an aspect which is always wrong out of any transducer, and far more so in any room.

Those errors can be fixed, and can only be fixed, with EQ.

There is no preference about it, flat is flat, and if you care about accurate, you want flat.

Music has nothing to do with it either, it's about the system, not the signal. Whether or not the recording is good or bad, flat or not is immaterial and not part of this thread IMO.

Once the engineer has done all the stuff you mention to the sound, it's your systems job to reproduce that accurately, which it won't unless you EQ.

If you want to hear what is actually on the track, you will need to equalize your system for flat.

You can't tell if you have a flat response or not, your ears aren't good enough. You can get very close and some people can probably get far closer with their ears than others, but how would you know if you have a peak at 400Hz and a dip at 430? How can you hear how steep the slopes are? You can't, you need to measure it, and EQ for it, because those anomalies are there in any system.

Where you draw the line between those inconsistencies in FR being "audible and important" or "tiny and irrelevant" is up to you. Maybe 6db is a problem, maybe 3db is not. 1db dips and peaks still mean that a system is not "flat" though, no system ever will be perfect. But in any system, there are going to be some that fall in the former category to anyones ears.

To EQ you first have to measure. The make it better with placement, angles, room acoustics. Then use EQ for the finishing touches.

I'm tired again, hope some of that made sense!

Originally Posted by bigshot

You're entering into a semantic argument there. My point was that it is impossible to achieve a flat response from any speaker in any room without equalizing it. The engineer who created the CD designed it to sound good with a flat response. If you want it to sound like that, you need to get your system as flat as possible. That requires an equalizer.

But I don't quite understand this thread. Are we talking about equalizing systems or using the EQ in an iPod. If it's the latter, no I don't use the EQ in my iPods unless I am using really crappy headphones. I apply EQ at the amplification stage, so the corrections apply to all of my sources, not just my iPod.

See ya
Steve

Originally Posted by pez

I think I might have confused you most. I'm just basically saying (for me) I don't use EQ at all. Audio Engineers don't always EQ music flat, I can guarantee you that (this is why some CD's you here drums prominent over other things). I don't use EQ because I like to hear the differences in how Audio Eng.s produce different albums. I agree that to get a flat response on an album that has boosted drums will need to be EQ'ed if you're that picky, but if an album is meant to be rather bass heavy than I don't mess with it. It's not that I don't use EQ for flat response, but rather to just hear what the music was meant to sound like.

Originally Posted by stevenkelby

You only EQ once, to get your system flat, then leave it the same for all songs. You can mess with it, but that's EQ for preference, not for "flat"

Originally Posted by stevenkelby

You're still on the wrong track there man!

You're saying that you want to hear what the recodding actually sounds like, if it is bass heavy, you want to hear it being bass heavy.

I'm saying that in order to hear that, you need to EQ your system.

There are 2 ways to EQ, which is where the confusion comes from.

You are talking about people EQing the music so it sounds nice, or flat, or realistic or whatever. that's fine if you like it but is not giving you a flat response.

I'm talking about equalizing your system against the reference of a flat line so that loud notes are loud and quiet notes are quiet. This is the only way to hear what is actually on the recording.

If your system is not EQ'd, it may have a dip in the bass that you don't know about and you're not getting that heavy bass in some tracks, or vice versa.

You only EQ once, to get your system flat, then leave it the same for all songs. You can mess with it, but that's EQ for preference, not for "flat"

Originally Posted by pez

I'm sure any sound engineer would tell you to turn off your EQ to hear just how the album was produced. I promise.

Originally Posted by chadbang

And when I get a POS **** recording (let's see, that Amy Winehouse cd I bought tonight. Is it just me, or does that recording sound like **** with distortion all over the place?)