I'm always kind of shocked about people paying thousands and thousands of dollars for equipment on here when, from what they describe, all they're actually after is some sort of EQ effect.

Now, sure, the EQ's on mp3 players (iPod, zune, etc) and computer jukeboxes (iTunes, winamp, etc) are bad and distort. And any EQ will distort if you really push them with a lot of boost in a lot of frequencies. But if you buy even a half decent parametric EQ, it would seem to me, that you're going to have more flexibility, less sound degradation than buying a tube amp, rolling the tubes, buying a certain DAC that's "warm" using certain $500 headphones for certain genres, using other $500 headphones for others, etc.

I have this:

NADY GEQ-231 Dual 31-Band Stereo Graphic Equalizer HOME AUTOMATION HOME GOODS

connected to my home stereo. There isn't any distortion and I can't notice any difference in signal if its bypassed or running through flat. I don't push any of the frequencies to their max, but you're not supposed to.

Anyway, its something that has always kind of flummoxed me about head-fi. People pay thousands of dollars for tube amps, just for the EQ, but refuse to actually use an EQ.

People are pretty much always referring to software EQ'ing. The other point is that people are understandably defensive about spending hundreds to thousands of dollars on equipment.

Hmm, I might buy that equalizer - 31 band, 2-channel, with low distortion, for $128. I've forgotten about hardware equalizers. Still going to get the Woo Audio 6, though - I want a good desktop amp. I'm not going to buy anymore amps after that point. It will be the third amp I've bought, and the most expensive before that point was $120 or so.

I say, buy a solid desktop amp that works well with a lot of headphones and has a sound signature you like (I'm getting a tube amp because I want warmth/musicality as opposed to a more clinical sound), then buy a hardware equalizer to fine tune.

edited to add: Why get the $600 amp in the first place, then, you might ask? I want to an easy starting point for sound signature, I want the power I need to drive my headphones well, and, supposedly, amps do more than just EQ.

I know that twenty years ago, when I was into fidelity, and audiophile nirvana, that using EQ was a sign of inferior quality. At least that was the tone that I received from articles, reviews, and other audiophiles. Equipment was to be flat, or have their signature sound, the one that makes each of us loyal to our respective brand. After getting out of the game, with a wife and children, realigning my priorities, responsiblities while they were young, I am now back in the fidelity game. It seems to me that not much has changed in the three months I have been reading these forums. You have your brand loyalty, educated informative people, people who want their agenda filled quickly and cheaply, and those that have unlimited budgets to make us all want more.
Some of the best advice you can accept is, that if it sounds good to you what difference does it make if some anonymous individual says, EQ is not the way to go if you want to have true audiophile quality. If you like EQ, why do you care if someone else says no don't EQ? Not trying to flame you here, but you know what your head hears, not me or anyone here.

It depends. EQ is mainly considered to be a software "tweak". I personally enjoy and use EQ.

Do what sounds right. I EQ with Winamp on my computer, and *gasp* Motorola's EQ on my cell phone. It sounds good, doesn't distort and makes the music sound better to my ears. Sue me.

Quote:



I would get this point, if it wasn't for the fact that many people here own several sets of headphones, do all kinds of mods, buy different amps, just for effects that are basically EQing without the precision of actually EQing.

And the best defense for not using EQ is that "its a sign of weakness"? Not that it sounds worse or somehow degrades the signal.

Not trying to flame you either, but I've yet to hear a coherent drawback to a quality EQ. The point of starting this thread is that maybe there is some reason why EQ is bad and I'm trying to get somebody to tell me why they think EQ is bad, if that's the case.

There are lots of things some folks here consider no-nos; if I listened to half of them, I'd barely listen to music. I do what sounds good to me.

Quote:



I just want someone who decries EQ to tell me why they don't use it, other than "its a sign of inferiority"

it is almost always software EQ that people (at least people like me) are referring to when we say EQ is a bad thing. the algorithms for most real-time, plugin-style EQ's simply stink, and the corresponding reduction in bit depth whenever software attenuation is applied can compromise dynamic range. and dont get me started on digital "gain," where - especially in today's modern, poorly mastered, overly compressed rock tracks - clipping is unavoidable (if there isnt already clipping in the mix!!!!)

but i digress. when a lot of us pay top dollar for cans, it is not simply for a spectrum of frequency levels that we enjoy. things like soundstage, transient response, and separation - just to name a few - cannot be coaxed out of poor headphones that do not demonstrate these behaviors. try increasing bass via EQ on many "lower-tier" models of headphones, and youll hear nothing but bloat and a muddled mess, where you may have desired thunderous low registers of an organ. simply put, how a headphone reacts to EQ is not the same, and is usually (though not always) inferior, to finding a set of cans that possess the frequency response characteristics you desire - these headphones will behave better in other regards, over a different set forced into a different signature.


i hope that made sense

there was a discussion about how to properly use an EQ started a bit ago, which turned into a "don't use an EQ" thread (read: debate (honestly read: flame war))

honestly I think its one of a few factors:

* people don't know any better

* this is compounded by the statement that if "you have to EQ, its a sign of bad quality", in other words "the equipment must do it itself" (busta9iron's point)

* sometimes EQ sounds really bad, and because this is head-fi, whats bad in one person's experience obviously dictates policy for thousands of users


personally, I've found that EQ can sometimes kill presentation, by driving my hp's into clipping on some tracks (and I'm far too lazy to sit and play with it track by track, to be quite honest, as I know that if I spent the time, I'd probably get a slightly better listening experience)

I agree 100% with rex: do what sounds right.

::edit
got bored, tried Creative's software EQ, doesn't sound bad at all, personally I'd say its a very slight improvement, but I really don't wanna sit and adjust this thing as I change genres

and for those of you who are gonna say "bob your equipment is obviously crap if software EQ matters", or just for the curious:

Auzen X-Fi Prelude -> S/PDIF -> Technics SH-AC500D -> Yamaha RX-770 -> Koss E/10 -> Koss ESP/10

listening to AC/DC - Little Lover, switching between zero EQ and "EQ Rock", sounds pretty good from where I'm sitting

so in summary: the reason I don't use an EQ is because I'm too lazy

Many believe that if it's not as original as possible, as the artist,producer intended it, then it's some sort of insult to the craft and that it's just not the right amp/headphone combo. I personally feel that if my EQ will do the same thing for the many different cans and amps, then more power to me. Is it natural ? who knows , and no-one cares but me.
Almost everyone modifies the sound in one way or another. From EQ vs NO EQ, to Silver cable vs Copper, to tube amps vs SS, to Sennheiser vs Grado, to Flac vs MP3, ETC. so the question is not to EQ, but whether to do it with an actual EQ or another way.

Quote:



Thanks for the thoughtful response. But I'm still a bit confused. I understand that there are other things out there than just frequency response. However, when I read these threads about various things people are after with different amps, different cables, different DACs, etc, they are almost always describing some sort of EQ effect, whether it be "brightening this headphone up" or "warming that headphone up" and when people are talking about headphone-amp synergy, they're almost always describing EQ effects. So, if you want to roll off some 16k, its better to buy a cable that loses 16k or buy a tube amp that has 16k naturally compressed (what people describe as warm) than it is to just cut 16k on an EQ?

My pro sound background tends to make me believe that you use an amp to provide headroom and amplification without coloration, you use a DAC to convert the digital to audio as accurately as possible, that you use the cable to transmit the signal as accurately as possible, and then if you want other effects, you use effects units to do those things. Now I understand if you just want a tube amp because you just so happen to like exactly the EQ and compression effects they provide. However it just seems bassackwards to me to view that as a superior route than accurately reproducing the signal, then consciously deciding on what effects you want to put on the sound.

Quote:



fer shizzle

Quote:



see theres you're problem, you're looking at an illogical thing logically

while amp-phone synergy is quite real, I 100% agree with everything else you said

I'm not arguing, or giving a rebuttal to your post. I'm saying that if you like EQ, software, Media Player, whatever EQ you want to use, then use it. There was no coherent counterpoint in my post, because I am in agreement if you want EQ, it is correct for your situation. I'm still saying if you like EQ, we shouldn't be able to tell you what sounds good to you. If you want to keep up with the audiophiles, buy tubes, roll tubes, get five different brands of cans, keep chasing the golden ring, I personally gave up the game pleasing the "Experts" and figured out, if it sounds good to me, its good enough.