Benny, I can't/won't argue with your personal experience involving equipment that I do not have. As long as life is sweet, that is truly what matters.
 
The ES5 from the iMod and Stepdance does not require EQ IMHO. The naked kit is right in the zone. And that is how I personally want my kit to be.

 
Quote:

cooperpwc said:

Quote:

estreeter said:

Sigh.
 
Yes, we have a few holdouts who swear by their aging Discman/Phillips portable CDPs, but the vast majority seem to have accepted that the *compromises* associated with playing lossless audio from a DAP are worthwhile in terms of the overall entertainment value. I am happy for John Atkinson to sit in his basement in NJ surrounded by 350K worth of vinyl-based kit - it doesnt detract from the enjoyment millions of us gain from a DAP. This isnt about 'old-school audiophiles' vs the rest - there simply wont be a sustainable market for higher end if it's left to the greybeards with $3000+ cartridges and 10K record cleaning machines, and many in the audio press know that. Happiness is wherever you find it. 
 

Click to expand...

And then there is even the blasphemer class of Lame V0 aficionados. That's all I have on my iMod. To these aging ears, the diference from lossless on my portable rig isn't material.
 

Click to expand...

And that is still a world away from 128K MP3s - the point is that you know the difference and you make the effort when you rip your music. I think you'd be surprised by how many people couldnt give a hoot about such things, but then I'm typing this from a McDonalds while many here wouldnt set foot in a junk food emporium. Priorities, man.

What some people call EQ enhancement or tweaking is just a digital degradation of the original data. Any digital processing degrades the signal (It's pure math).
 
That's why the old school and well informed audiophile tries to achieve the desired sound via hardware and not by getting the signal through additional DSPs (That's what DAPs EQ does: digital processing on the fly which yields additional distortion, truncating/dithering and so on).
 
Digital processing can be great in a studio environment with HD 192/24 files and 64 bit processing. On the go on a battery powered device...? Not my cup of tea. Low level detail always gets hurt imo.
 
That's why i really value the Classic + LOD + Amp + Headphone and i deem it as a more pure way of achieving decent sound that all the on the fly processing that Cowon brings to the table for example.
 
Not to mention that any DAP with no line out can not be deemed as an audiophile player in my book since any outboard amp will trounce the HPO of almost any dap.
 
Just my 0.02

Guess I'm just not a 'well informed audiophile' then, Bummer. Life is no longer sweet. Sigh.
 
 
 
Quote:

elfary said:

What some people call enhancement is just a digital degradation of the original data. Any digital processing degrades the signal (It's pure math).
That's why the old school and well informed audiophile tries to achieve the desired sound via hardware and not by getting the signal through additional DSPs (That's what DAPs EQ does digital processing on the fly which yields additional distortion, truncating/dithering and so on).Digital processing can be great in the studio with 192/24 files and 64 bit processing. On the go on a battery powered device...? Not my cup of tea.
 
That's why i really value the Classic + LOD + Amp + Headphone and i deem it as a more pure way of achieving decent sound that all the on the fly processing that Cowon brings to the table for example.
 
Not to mention that any DAP with no line out can not be deemed as an audiophile player in my book since any outboard amp will trounce the HPO of almost any dap.
 
Just my 0.02

Click to expand...

I have always found the argument of 'true audiophiles' that EQ or any form of tone controls on Hi-Fi equipment as mis-informed nonsence, and generally a fairly snobbish approach to audio. This was directly in reference to HiFi rather than headphones etc, as the simple fact that no Hi-Fi or speaker can produce a perfectly flat response at all listening levels in all rooms, and as a professional sound engineer of many years, I have spent time setting up system, using many methods including serious measuring methods, using frequency, phase and time. I can tell you catagorically that a room has a massive effect on sound, and even temperature and humidity make a huge difference. I could go on more, but I will try and keep this relatively brief.
Now, I am not condoning huge amounts of EQ, as EQ has a huge effect on the phase of the sound, which can and will interfere with the way it holds together as a coherant source, but I do believe that some sensible EQ is usefull, like basic tone controls on a Hi-Fi setup, so that at low levels the low end can be boosted etc, or in a very reflective room the highs can be tamed. Obviously full parametric is what professionals use, but to try and incorporate it into domestic systems would be expensive and a lot of people would not know how to use it properly, but in the right hands it is a hugely powerful tool.
Also, having listened to some high end systems like a top of the line Linn system, I thought it sounded awful - too aggressive and with no real low end, mids that jumped out at you and high's that were simply brash with no real sparkle. Having worked in studios and live environments a lot, I don't believe this is what is produced in a studio, as studio monitors are usually very neutral but with much more extension in the low end, and incredibly open and sparkly top end.
Anyway, I have wandered off the point a little, so back to players and IEMS......
The big difference here is that there is no room effect with headphones, so I believe this is a lot different to hi-fi, and I am no expert with this regard. I feel that a good player/amp/headphone/IEM combination should sound pretty much great flat, and the componants should be purchased to suit individual requirements, but then it comes down to pure preference. For example, I like my low end, preferably the lower the better as having spent many years with large PA system, you kind of get used to serious sub bass, and it is quite addictive!  So, for me, I have my iPod with a line out cable feeding into a FiiO E7, with my Triple Fi 10's and custom tips and I have the EQ setting (bass boost) on 2. Now i know that's probably not a reference signal, but it makes me happy, and that for me is the key - I am happy. With my personal setup, I am the only one listening to it, nobody else can hear it, so I will do what it takes to make me happy. When I am setting up a PA system I will attempt to set it up with a flat response and try and make everyone happy.
 
So, IMO do whatever you need to do to make yourself happy and who cares what other think!

No pun was intended  Benny. But may be you just lack some information about digital audio. Anyway whatever floats ...

Post of the decade.   I agree 678%, with added percentage boost on the top end.
 
 
Quote:

soundmangt4 said:

I have always found the argument of 'true audiophiles' that EQ or any form of tone controls on Hi-Fi equipment as mis-informed nonsence, and generally a fairly snobbish approach to audio. This was directly in reference to HiFi rather than headphones etc, as the simple fact that no Hi-Fi or speaker can produce a perfectly flat response at all listening levels in all rooms, and as a professional sound engineer of many years, I have spent time setting up system, using many methods including serious measuring methods, using frequency, phase and time. I can tell you catagorically that a room has a massive effect on sound, and even temperature and humidity make a huge difference. I could go on more, but I will try and keep this relatively brief.

Now, I am not condoning huge amounts of EQ, as EQ has a huge effect on the phase of the sound, which can and will interfere with the way it holds together as a coherant source, but I do believe that some sensible EQ is usefull, like basic tone controls on a Hi-Fi setup, so that at low levels the low end can be boosted etc, or in a very reflective room the highs can be tamed. Obviously full parametric is what professionals use, but to try and incorporate it into domestic systems would be expensive and a lot of people would not know how to use it properly, but in the right hands it is a hugely powerful tool.
Also, having listened to some high end systems like a top of the line Linn system, I thought it sounded awful - too aggressive and with no real low end, mids that jumped out at you and high's that were simply brash with no real sparkle. Having worked in studios and live environments a lot, I don't believe this is what is produced in a studio, as studio monitors are usually very neutral but with much more extension in the low end, and incredibly open and sparkly top end.
Anyway, I have wandered off the point a little, so back to players and IEMS......
The big difference here is that there is no room effect with headphones, so I believe this is a lot different to hi-fi, and I am no expert with this regard. I feel that a good player/amp/headphone/IEM combination should sound pretty much great flat, and the componants should be purchased to suit individual requirements, but then it comes down to pure preference. For example, I like my low end, preferably the lower the better as having spent many years with large PA system, you kind of get used to serious sub bass, and it is quite addictive!

 So, for me, I have my iPod with a line out cable feeding into a FiiO E7, with my Triple Fi 10's and custom tips and I have the EQ setting (bass boost) on 2. Now i know that's probably not a reference signal, but it makes me happy, and that for me is the key - I am happy. With my personal setup, I am the only one listening to it, nobody else can hear it, so I will do what it takes to make me happy. When I am setting up a PA system I will attempt to set it up with a flat response and try and make everyone happy.
 
So, IMO do whatever you need to do to make yourself happy and who cares what other think!

Click to expand...

Who doesn't lack information?  But its important to note that knowledge does not automatically lead to wisdom.
 
Quote:

elfary said:

No pun was intended  Benny. But may be you just lack some information about digital audio. Anyway whatever floats ...

Click to expand...

If i was to like V shaped sound i would have bought a Westone 3 for my Classic. I would not go for a v shaped sound with a SE530 & EQ combo.That's what i'm trying to convey here.
 
My first DAP was a Cowon X5. And these days i think that rockboxed or not and equed or not it does not sound even close to a raw HPO of an iPhone 4. In my book it is because the iPhone hardware is just better than the X5. And no amount of eq can overcome that fact.
 
These flashy terms like BBE, Machbass,Megasuperghyperbass...) and so on are just that. Flashy and wowier DSPs that are there to cover hardware shortcomings since it's cheaper to implement DSPs that to design better hardware.

I would like to add, that a common used expression in pro audio, is that a system will only be as good as the weakest link. Worth remembering.

And sometimes the weakest link is the user brain who keeps on analysing everything instead of getting lost in the music. I hate when i find myself like this.

Quote:

elfary said:

And sometimes the weakest link is the user brain who keeps on analysing everything instead of getting lost in the music. I hate when i find myself like this.

Click to expand...

Too true. I find it hard to attend a live sow any more without analysing the mix, the PA setup, what I would ahve done differently etc etc. Kind of ruins it now, and I used to love live shows. It's rare that a show sounds good enough for me to just enjoy it any more. Thankfully when listening to albums etc, I have no problem just enjoying it!

Excellent point!   (says the guy who loves the rockbox parametric EQ to bits)
Quote:

bennyboy71 said:

Who doesn't lack information?  But its important to note that knowledge does not automatically lead to wisdom.
 
Quote:

elfary said:

No pun was intended  Benny. But may be you just lack some information about digital audio. Anyway whatever floats ...

Click to expand...

 

Click to expand...

Wow guys. I am just trying to put the other side of the argument! You EQ guys are passionate about it being fine to EQ and that it is not a sign of a poorly designed piece of source equipment!
 
My point is and always will be that it is unfair to come to a conclusion about a comparison between source equipment when you colour it with eq that is not comparable to another piece of source equipment.
 
Surely it is fair to compare when each piece is in it's un EQ'ed state. That must tell us more accurately how fundamentally good or bad the source equipment is!
 
If you then want to EQ it after to shape your preferred sound, fine, that is what I am doing after the fact with my headphones amp and cable and is what most folks who are passionate about good sound do with home hifi without resorting to distorting the sound with electronic or digital colourisation which is what eq'ing is after all.
 
The argument has stood the test of time in HiFi and I don't see why the same parameters should not apply to DAP's as it would give us a much more informed view on what is a truly well designed player!
 
We know you EQ guys like that, fine and dandy! But there are a lot of us that think it means an unfair comparison for the reasons I have stated. I guess it is just two worlds who won't find common ground.. Again that has been the case in HiFi for decades!

All well and good mate, but you're using the very same iPod Classic I had recently and which sounds utterly craptastic next to the Cowon J3 I now have. 
 
But then again, I am being a really naughty boy and "resorting to distorting the sound with electronic or digital colourisation" by pressing some of the buttons on the J3's screen.  '''''"  '
 
if the ability to EQ is the sign of a poorly designed piece of equipment then virtually every portable music player out there is a pile of crap, including the Classic.  If you choose not to use those very options your iPod has built in then that's your choice, but it doesn't make you any more or less of an audiophile than the next man.  In fact, I bet you a fiver if the Classic came with the same 20 preset choices not to mention 5 band semi-parametric equalister, a host of JetEffect 3 and BBE+ tweaks and 4 saveable custom slots for your own experiments, you'd be straight in with your sticky fingers, like a kid in a candy shop.
 
 
 
 
Quote:

ianmedium said:

Wow guys. I am just trying to put the other side of the argument! You EQ guys are passionate about it being fine to EQ and that it is not a sign of a poorly designed piece of source equipment!
 
My point is and always will be that it is unfair to come to a conclusion about a comparison between source equipment when you colour it with eq that is not comparable to another piece of source equipment.
 
Surely it is fair to compare when each piece is in it's un EQ'ed state. That must tell us more accurately how fundamentally good or bad the source equipment is!
 
If you then want to EQ it after to shape your preferred sound, fine, that is what I am doing after the fact with my headphones amp and cable and is what most folks who are passionate about good sound do with home hifi without resorting to distorting the sound with electronic or digital colourisation which is what eq'ing is after all.
 
The argument has stood the test of time in HiFi and I don't see why the same parameters should not apply to DAP's as it would give us a much more informed view on what is a truly well designed player!
 
We know you EQ guys like that, fine and dandy! But there are a lot of us that think it means an unfair comparison for the reasons I have stated. I guess it is just two worlds who won't find common ground.. Again that has been the case in HiFi for decades!

Click to expand...