Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 201

post #3001 of 3264

Has anybody measured the DAC's output with EQ setting?  How do they look?  

post #3002 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferday View Post


I'll never understand why EQ is so demonized. Precision software parametrics, and near flawless DSP's are readily available for cheap (or free) and make a huge difference

I use JRiver which is $20/year roughly. I thought it was dumb to pay for software (I happen to like it a lot) until I spent some time here at headfi and realized people think nothing of buying a $500 amp to change the sound ever so slightly (synergy!) when the excellent DSP and EQ I have access to with JRiver will provide me with that same "synergy" and so, so much more.

It can be done for free with foobar as well, so there you go....get a good quality tube emulator plugin and save your $500 for your transducer fund or some room treatment (which is sadly lacking even in many audiophile hi fi setups)

Well then you never had the "privilege" to use "an average, usually graphic" analog equalizer - or a superb sample of the same breed, preferably parametric..  The first one usually throws a blanket over sound - diminishing the quality to the level one is usually not interested in positive atributes it brings to the table.  The second one definitely outweighs any detrimental effects it may still have with what it does correctly. Yet it is still feared/cursed/definitely-not-kosher-to-use-it - whereas using (some) tube amps with deliberately designed non linear response for much the same but limited and unadjustable frequency response *is* kosher. There also are well designed tube amps that do not change their response as a function of the speaker attached.

 

I agree that software DSP PCM equalizers can be quite good - and certainly better than none. Did not test J River EQ yet, but what is available in Foobar2000 is only for rough corrections. There is quite a few parametric EQ softwares available - even their free versions are quite usable. But really useful parametric EQ is usually payable. It still is - and will remain to be - DSP and PCM. 

 

But before everything else - try to do as much as you reasonably can with room treatment. And hope not to find a notch of - 18 dB at approx 60 Hz as with my friend's - there is no amplifier and no loudspeaker that can compensate for this much of an error without severe overload/distortion; even if your hardware or virtual EQ can .

post #3003 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

 

But before everything else - try to do as much as you reasonably can with room treatment. And hope not to find a notch of - 18 dB at approx 60 Hz as with my friend's - there is no amplifier and no loudspeaker that can compensate for this much of an error without severe overload/distortion; even if your hardware or virtual EQ can .

I still maintain that your fear/distrust of PCM is completely unfounded, but I won't dwell on that. As far as this point goes though? I've yet to find a notch that deep that couldn't be solved by changing around the speaker positioning. It can be a fairly labor intensive process though, and the best spot for sound (especially for the sub) may not be the best spot for aesthetics, and in some difficult cases, two subs can be required to get a really good in-room response. Any time there's that kind of a problem though, you should always try repositioning your equipment before just trying to EQ it out.

post #3004 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

Well then you never had the "privilege" to use "an average, usually graphic" analog equalizer - or a superb sample of the same breed, preferably parametric..  The first one usually throws a blanket over sound - diminishing the quality to the level one is usually not interested in positive atributes it brings to the table.  The second one definitely outweighs any detrimental effects it may still have with what it does correctly. Yet it is still feared/cursed/definitely-not-kosher-to-use-it - whereas using (some) tube amps with deliberately designed non linear response for much the same but limited and unadjustable frequency response *is* kosher. There also are well designed tube amps that do not change their response as a function of the speaker attached.

 

 

i sold my kenwood ge7030 'graphic parametric' hardware EQ.  it didn't do anything better (or worse) than my software parametric, and as i listen pretty well 100% PCM these days it was a pointless taker of space and the flashing lights pissed me off while watching movies.  i personally have zero interest in physical / analog media, although i have a great respect for those who do.  i have nothing at all against tubes, in fact i'm saving up for a tube amp just to play with as i like tweaking stuff

 

Quote:
 I still maintain that your fear/distrust of PCM is completely unfounded, but I won't dwell on that. As far as this point goes though? I've yet to find a notch that deep that couldn't be solved by changing around the speaker positioning. It can be a fairly labor intensive process though, and the best spot for sound (especially for the sub) may not be the best spot for aesthetics, and in some difficult cases, two subs can be required to get a really good in-room response. Any time there's that kind of a problem though, you should always try repositioning your equipment before just trying to EQ it out.

 

it's funny how many "purists" are still afraid of subwoofers and/or multi-channel, just because it isn't easy to do properly. one should always room correct first; EQ after (then probably more room correct, then more EQ LOL then one has an official new hobby)


Edited by ferday - 8/16/14 at 11:18am
post #3005 of 3264
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

 

Well then you never had the "privilege" to use "an average, usually graphic" analog equalizer - or a superb sample of the same breed, preferably parametric..  The first one usually throws a blanket over sound - diminishing the quality to the level one is usually not interested in positive atributes it brings to the table.  The second one definitely outweighs any detrimental effects it may still have with what it does correctly.

ok what's going on here?

first I see Tyll (innerfidelity) say that a beat solo is excelent, and now you're saying that a parametric EQ is better than something analog!!!!!!

 

 

post #3006 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

Has anybody measured the DAC's output with EQ setting?  How do they look?  


Not sure what exactly you are asking.  But it looks fine with whatever EQ has been applied being apparent in the response.

 

Just one of many possible examples, I have used a microphone preamp to record LP's digitally into an AD converter at 48khz/24 bit.  Then do the RIAA reverse EQ digitally.  This is a very nice way to create digital copies of LP.

post #3007 of 3264

The FR of the DAC measured with EQ applied.  If the FR is similar to the EQ represented on the user interface.  I've seen this for DAPs, but it was for harware bass boost or Cowon BBE affects.  Here is measurement done on Cowon P1.

 

post #3008 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

The FR of the DAC measured with EQ applied.  If the FR is similar to the EQ represented on the user interface.  I've seen this for DAPs, but it was for harware bass boost or Cowon BBE affects.  Here is measurement done on Cowon P1.

 

All of that will depend on the device and software used.  There is no reason the software prescribed EQ will differ from actual output in most cases.

post #3009 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

ok what's going on here?

first I see Tyll (innerfidelity) say that a beat solo is excelent, and now you're saying that a parametric EQ is better than something analog!!!!!!

 

 

Correction - meant was in the first place analog parametric EQ (please see my profile, there were/are such things ). I wish I could lay my hands on 10 band Technics Parametric EQ model; it was rare and expensive back then, it is even rarer and more expensive today. 

 

There is a reason why - after they say *sigh* - do you really need an EQ ? - the answer will be Technics Parametric - on whichever site/forum/etc. Unless we start talking really silly money, like Mark Levinson's Cello Pallette Class A EQs, which reportedly sound even better. *Slightly* out of my financial reach ...

 

If the above is not available, then I would reach for parametric virtual EQ. Or if it really takes so many bands to exceed the possibilities offered by my analog EQ - but more than five major "oopsy-daisy"s cause an alarm and hint that the transducer may require replacement. That is as far as the acoustics of the room/ headphone EQ is concerned.

 

As far as fine EQing of masters go, there is a reason for 1/3rd octave EQs with around +-3 dB max correction, all action usually around 1 dB or less.

 

And yes, some inexpensive headphones are indeed starting to achieve excellent results - much better than models of pretty high price just a couple of years ago. No experience with Beats Solo, but Havi B3 Pro 1 ( Chinese IEM, has its own thread here on HF for 5 months now ) has one hell of a performance - at any price, not just at its $ 60-ish level. 

post #3010 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 

All of that will depend on the device and software used.  There is no reason the software prescribed EQ will differ from actual output in most cases.

I also would like to see headphones measurements in conjunction with EQ change, and DAC output measurements.

post #3011 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

I also would like to see headphones measurements in conjunction with EQ change, and DAC output measurements.


For the most part there is no point or need.  A DAC with flat response will accurately output any EQ changes to the signal.  A headphone amp should accurately portray those changes as well.  Now excessive EQ could overdrive the amp and cause clipping or high distortion.  It also could do that for the headphone itself.  Within reason, any EQ will get correctly transmitted out to the headphone response within the limits of the headphone.

post #3012 of 3264

I have a third octave Rane analogue graphic equalizer that is pretty close to perfect. It cost a bit though.

post #3013 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

I still maintain that your fear/distrust of PCM is completely unfounded, but I won't dwell on that. As far as this point goes though? I've yet to find a notch that deep that couldn't be solved by changing around the speaker positioning. It can be a fairly labor intensive process though, and the best spot for sound (especially for the sub) may not be the best spot for aesthetics, and in some difficult cases, two subs can be required to get a really good in-room response. Any time there's that kind of a problem though, you should always try repositioning your equipment before just trying to EQ it out.

Well, most people here operate within given fact - a recording, most usually in PCM. Compare that to analog mic feed and you will start to understand - once in PCM or even worse,  redbook CD, you can DSP almost ad nuseaum, without any further loss of quality - but what you are starting with looks like a brick, was homologized and pastuerized to certain % of milk fat ( where the hell is cheese then coming from ?  ) - in short, what comes out of that brick ( Tetrapack, no idea how it is called in the USA ) will never have the thick yellow-ish cream on top after it is cooked as in real milk in mountains - period. The real milk with nothing skimmed off may well be "too strong" for the urban person, who may well react negatively to it - yet it is the REAL thing. It has its odor, smell, which IS different from one pasture to another - it is not skimmed  down to something like 0.5% or less milk fat where it becomes almost water - and that should be odorless.

 

Similar with music and recordings. Was that distrust/fear expressed clear enough? When did you last experience "yellow-ish cream with distinct odor/smell" - in milk - or music ? 

 

I completely agree regarding the acoustics, aesthetics and requirements for two subs in difficult cases - one should try to arrange all of these so not to require EQ at all. How much is this possible in real life is another story .

post #3014 of 3264

All of that has everything to do with the application of the tools and nothing to do with the tools themselves. A good engineer can easily get great sound with digital audio, equalization, etc. As the old saying goes... A bad craftsman blames his tools.

post #3015 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

Well, most people here operate within given fact - a recording, most usually in PCM. Compare that to analog mic feed and you will start to understand - once in PCM or even worse,  redbook CD, you can DSP almost ad nuseaum, without any further loss of quality - but what you are starting with looks like a brick, was homologized and pastuerized to certain % of milk fat ( where the hell is cheese then coming from ?  ) - in short, what comes out of that brick ( Tetrapack, no idea how it is called in the USA ) will never have the thick yellow-ish cream on top after it is cooked as in real milk in mountains - period. The real milk with nothing skimmed off may well be "too strong" for the urban person, who may well react negatively to it - yet it is the REAL thing. It has its odor, smell, which IS different from one pasture to another - it is not skimmed  down to something like 0.5% or less milk fat where it becomes almost water - and that should be odorless.

 

Similar with music and recordings. Was that distrust/fear expressed clear enough? When did you last experience "yellow-ish cream with distinct odor/smell" - in milk - or music ? 

 

I completely agree regarding the acoustics, aesthetics and requirements for two subs in difficult cases - one should try to arrange all of these so not to require EQ at all. How much is this possible in real life is another story .


Disregarding the babble about milk, I have heard the analog mic feed and the PCM versions.  Sounds the same to me.

 

PCM is transparent in audible terms.  It simply is.  People proclaim otherwise, but all available rational evidence says it is.  Further one can digitize LP, and reel tape and get a result indistinguishable from the original.  Indicating the PCM process is transparent to those sources. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths