Thanks all!

I've got my answers...

No, I don't believe EQs are a fix-all, and I can understand your light analogy--although I don't think it works *quite* like that...

The theoretical limit I suppose is if you have to EQ by really *huge* amounts (like 10s of dBs) the parts of the spectrum that are boosted (relative to other frequencies--in practice practically all digital EQ should be cut) by such amounts will lose volume definition (because it was originally represented on the CD at a small volume--cranking it up would mean that... I don't know how to explain it--it would be like if you multiplied a number that is correct to the 5th decimal place by 1000--it would then only be correct to the 1st decimal place--know what I mean?

I'll see if one day I like my music without EQ better

Question for raymondlin: does your digital EQ come before or after the digital stage of your system? I.e. does it use a ADC in and DAC out of the box or is it digital all the way through? If the latter, I can't imagine how what you're describing can happen

The EQ I have is a hardware one (Kenwood), a seperate like the size of a seperate CD player. I find that Winamp is awful, it creates distortion into the sound.

Heh, winamp is just fine *if* you replace everything with third-party plugins:

Winamp decoder with MAD decoder plugin
Winamp EQ with Naoki's EQ
Winamp CD playback module with CD Reader
etc...

So it's a separate module, yeah, but you haven't answered my question: does your digital EQ come before or after the digital stage of your system? I.e. does it use a ADC in and DAC out of the box or is it digital all the way through?

I don't know how I feel about EQ's with headphones, mainly because I agree that each speaker has it's own signature sound that should not need to be tampered with if not played in an open environment. I do STRONGLY believe in EQ's for real stereos, home theaters, etc. because each room is different. First, there are many recording engineers which I think disgrace the business by doing IMO a horrible job mixing an album. I don't revere them either so I don't mind fixing their messups. There have been times when I would have changed things about certain songs. How lucky I am that I CAN change that to some degree!! I say do what you want. If you like remixing CD's, by God remix CD's. I think that is damn cool. I don't have the patience for it, but I respect you Mr. Bloggs Anyhow, I have said my piece. Goodnight.

Brett

I use the digital EQ on sonique to help cover for treble deficiencies inheret in MP3's, but it really doesn't change anything, it just makes the treble louder. EQ's just make certain frequencies louder, other than that you have no reason for wanting an EQ.

Quote:



LOL, that is like saying: "A car just gets you places quicker and more efficiently with additionally allowing you to transport large amounts of cargo, other than that you have no reason for wanting a car." I agree, but how does that negate it's usefulness?!?!?!? Some frequencies get lost in certain environments, some are boosted. EQ's EQUALIZE things. Ahhhhhhh...better.

Brett

I got support

Ooh, was that *the finger*? Oops, I just wanted an icon with two thumbs up, I missed

Yeah, lotsa recording engineers are monkeys Besides, I know for sure that I need two EQ settings for classical and pop respectively. The one that sounds right for classical would make pop sound harsh as heck, becoz apparently those whose master for pop is half-deaf to treble from listening on treble-heavy monitors to years of cymbals and artificial klings and clangs

Hmm, I am thinking of using some kind of EQ here with my Optimus Nova-71's (from Radio Shack). These things are horrid compared to all the other headphones I've tried and own (except maybe my current earbuds). I haven't put these on since January of last year. Here I would consider using an EQ to make up for this crappy headphone's deficiencies. I wouldn't touch any EQ settings for use with my HD600's though.

Lol it's not a negation of it's "usefullness".

Hey get this all earphones make sound, saying one of them sucks is like saying it doesn't make sound!!!

Yeah right, this is an audiophile forum domer, its not about getting the job done, its about riding there in luxury.

Sorry if I appear harsh but it bothers me when people miss the point and go on living completely ignorant. And the friggin point is, and there is always someone who absolutely must have everything laid out for them, is that there are OTHER things involved in the "sound" of a song. Some things that equalization can very well make worse.

Spend a little more time here and you'll start to understand what exactly these other things are.

It's sort of like how a Corvette can outperform a 550 Maranello and the Maranello is like 5 times more expensive. Yet people still buy the Maranello because it's not all about performance. There are many factors that define the experience.

As such there are many factors which equalization simply cannot change.

shawn

Quote:



What, like whether your headphones have got gold trim?

Seriously though, nobody here is saying that EQ is the be-all and end-all. BUT, to continue with the car analogy...

If

Function of EQ = Equalize output at different frequencies analogous to function of car = gets you places quicker and more efficiently, then

It *would* appear that in the audio world EQ is unique in its function and you cannot duplicate its function using other equipment except indirectly by buying more than one headphone, amp and source and using different combinations, and even then only imperfectly.

Going back to the car analogy, different car brands and different performance would be represent different types and performance of EQs. Trying to do what EQ does without using an EQ would be *nothing* like 'riding there in luxury'. Rather, it's like buying a heavy-duty forklift that is heaps more expensive than even the 550 Maranello, can lifts tons and tons or stuff like no car can, sure (I'm sure there's lots of stuff that whole living rooms full of different source / amp / phones combos can do that EQs can't ), but can only get you places at a fraction of the speed of a real car. Now if what you want to do is go places (equalize...)

Sure, cars have their problems, like polluting the environment, not letting drivers get enough exercise... but would you rather build electric cars and go to the gym to solve these problems or not use a car at all?

Incidentally, ai0tron, you might have chosen one of the worst places to use EQ. If the mp3 has a lowpass filter like many mp3 encoders use at lower bitrates, there's simply no extreme treble there at all no matter how high you EQ it. And even if there's no lowpass, treble is where mp3 encoders have most trouble with and where most artifacts appear, and these things... are 'things that equalization can very well make worse' LOL

Sorry, I meant a digital display EQ. It process the signal after the DAC, connect using normal RCA connectors before connect to the amp. I don't use it anymore though.

Incidently nothing you posted changes anything I said so why are you saying it?? The fact that QUALITY of the recording becomes an issue when equalizing means that any equalization can only have a negative effect unless the recording is perfect... In which case you do not want to equalize it because you want to hear it in all its glory.

Equalization is for car stereos where phasing and other anomolies can result in the muting of certain frequencies. In the home, in a quiet room, equalization is just a really cool duhm-bass booster. I mean, do you ever wonder why EVERY piece of hi-fi audio equipment lacks an equalizer??

If you equalize something even slightly, even if it sounds "better" you make it impossible to ever determine how it *should* sound. You can only attempt to figure out what you like, but in the end you realize it just shouldn't be there.

THE goal of HI-FI, and I mean THE goal, as in THE goal we all want but not really because it would mean the end of our hobby, is to make it so that you take one disk from anywhere and put it in any stereo and you hear it perfectly, flawless, with nothing but the character of the original recording to guide you. This does not include adding the subjectivity of an equalizer.

Equalizers are just toys.

Now *this* is the flamewar I had expected in the first place...

Quote:



Why would anyone say that? I think it is generally agreed that equalization is most useful when the source recording and / or playback equipment are low quality--almost nobody disagrees with me that EQ is useful when such is the case--the debate lies in whether you should use EQ in *Hi-Fi* HiFi systems.

Quote:



Even if you use a dB meter to tune the EQ using frequency sweeps until the EQ coupled to the speaker output gives flat response across the whole frequency spectrum?...(point 1)

Quote:



Perhaps because they hope that when you are unsatisfied with the tone balance you'd go and buy more speakers, more amps and more CD transports and turntables--so they can grab more of your $$$--instead of getting right to the point and buying a high-quality EQ?

Quote:



See point 1.

Quote:



And what good is playing the 'unadulterated' original recording when no speaker or headphone on earth can give a true representation of the recording? Go to HeadRoom and show me *one* headphone the raw frequency response of which is not as jagged as a stock market graph and the overall tonal balance of which is anywhere near the ideal diffuse field equalized frequency response.

Quote:



What's so subjective about a dB meter?? See point 1.

Quote:



If you treat them as toys and buy them as toys, obviously you'll only get toy EQs. And if you make adjustments on them with all the care of someone who's just toying around, the output you'll get from EQ is indeed toy-level, even if you are using the most Hi-Fi EQ on earth.

OTOH with all the work I put into my EQ settings I'd rarely listen to a CD that hasn't been pre-EQed--I can't stand how poor those sound! And I know that I'm not hearing anything that 'shouldn't be there' on the pre-EQed CDs--coz I made sure only to boost where things need boosting and cut where things need cutting when I remastered the CD. Granted my current equipment isn't anywhere near the best--but looking at the frequency response graph, I *know* I can make things sound better with EQ even in the HD580 that I'm ordering

See Bloggy the one thing that really proves to me that EQ is BS is the one thing you fail to recognize.

You shouldn't EQ the signal you should EQ the equipment. The signal should be assumed to be perfect. Current EQ's always work on the signal, the signal is HOLY, you do not *** with the signal!

PERIOD.

If I took your EQ'ed disks and put them in my system there is a good chance they would sound REALLY bad. The disk exists, that is a finality, after that there is nothing but an attempt to reproduce it acurately, even if what is on the disk is "inaccurate". What is on the disk simply does not matter, reproducing it exactly despite it's deficiencies is what matters.

If you applied the inverse EQ to a previously EQ'd disk would you get the same recording as the original?

If you kept applying an EQ and an inverse EQ for multiple generations...at what point will distortion become noticable...never? Would a more revealing headphone setup change the amount of generations it takes to notice a difference?