Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why don't more people use EQ to get the desired sound?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why don't more people use EQ to get the desired sound? - Page 15

Poll Results: Do you use EQ regularly?

 
  • 34% (82)
    Yes
  • 40% (95)
    No
  • 18% (44)
    Absolutlely not!
  • 5% (14)
    Of coarse!
235 Total Votes  
post #211 of 299

Yes.

post #212 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clayton SF View Post




I think when the sound engineer responsible for the recording that I am listening to comes to my house and puts on my headphones and adjusts whatever he needs to adjust (be it tubes, tubes+EQ, or simply no tweaking at all) and hands me the headphones and says "This is what this song is supposed to sound like; this is the sound that I was after." Then for me, that is what purity sounds like. At least for that song.smile.gif


 

That sounds like the most reasonable definition of it.  Too bad it's nigh impossible to achieve for even a couple songs out of one's music library.

 

post #213 of 299

The sound engineer might not be able to do it if the song was not mastered using a headphone.

post #214 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Well, tube amps are also a cheap means to get lots of voltage from an amp to drive high impedance headphones.

I'm not going to spend more than $150 on an amp to amplify a headphone. One just needs power and that's it. There is no other function that amps do to headphones.

 

I rather just get a amp loaded with power and then equalize afterwards.

 

I don't want to get into an amp discussion when this thread is about equalizing but I also find that a $1000 amp is just placebo.
 

 


Edited by bisayaboi - 6/27/11 at 9:49am
post #215 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by matbhuvi View Post

The sound engineer might not be able to do it if the song was not mastered using a headphone.


Then he can drop the headphones and adjust the sound through my speakers/monitors! I do own both. biggrin.gif


Edited by Clayton SF - 6/27/11 at 9:43am
post #216 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisayaboi View Post



I'm not going to spend more than $150 on an amp to amplify a headphone. One just needs power and that's it. There is no other function that amps do to headphones.

 

I rather just get a neutral amp loaded with power and then equalize afterwards.

 

I don't want to get into an amp discussion when this thread is about equalizing but I also find that a $1000 amp is just placebo.
 

 


How do you go about saying an amp does nothing more than provide power, then say you rather get a neutral amp, as if you're acknowledging that there're other amps out there that provide different sound signatures?  Which is surely something more than just providing power.

 

post #217 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post




How do you go about saying an amp does nothing more than provide power, then say you rather get a neutral amp, as if you're acknowledging that there're other amps out there that provide different sound signatures?  Which is surely something more than just providing power.

 

Typo. Thanks for telling me.
 

 

post #218 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

I've always wondered how "purity" is any valid reason for not to EQ. What does purity sound like, does it taste well? How can you not want the best possible subjective result you can get to your ears, why let something silly like that stop you from getting as good listening experience as possible? I'd appriciate some logical answer on that as I can't figure out one myself. How can enjoyment/satisfaction come 2nd hand to something so dillusional as purity? How can you prioritize things that way is what I'm interested in.

 

EDIT: I understand this only in case we're not all after the same goal, as big enjoyment/satisfaction as possible which is what I think personally is hard to put anything but on top spot. In case we're after this same goal but of different opinion on EQing, I'm wondering what's dissatisfying about EQing?


I really like that you ask that, trying to understand someone else's opinion is rare nowadays.

Like I said, I EQ often, but I know people who don't usually have one of these two reasons:

 

1) You already enjoy the unequalized sound enough to not bother, or the difference you want is so little that you're afraid you might lose more than you gain in satisfaction

 

2) The knowing, or believing, it's a pure signal. I don't agree with this, and I understand it's purely psychological, since the signal is NOT pure, but it's basically believing that what you're hearing is as close to real/natural as you can get on that setup, and that gives you a satisfaction. Even if it's not your own perfect signature, the fact that you believe it's untainted is enough.

 

of course other people might do it for other reasons: lack of a decent equalizing for example.

post #219 of 299

A request to those who require "purity" in their listening.

Please give me a list of the "pure" recordings and "pure" equipment that you listen to,

I am especially interested in learning about the "pure" recordings!

post #220 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockpimp007 View Post

I would never use an EQ, completely alters the original sound imo



Ummmmm. What is the "original" sound?

post #221 of 299

What the artist played?...

I think more and more people have a need to treat non-equalizers like right-winged ultra-conservative Christians.

post #222 of 299

Yeah but it isn't necessarily what was intended if it's not the same setup and EQ as when the original recording was mastered.

 

 

post #223 of 299

Something else the anti-EQers don't acknowledge is that people hear differently--sometimes very differently--due to genetics, head and ear shape, brain chemistry, varying degrees and types of hearing loss, etc. So even if you're standing next to the recording engineer as a recording is being made, the two of you aren't hearing the same thing. Likewise, even if you're both listening to the same master tape of the recording, you're hearing different things. Now add in the fact that *all* hi-fi equipment colors the sound during playback (which many people have pointed out), and you can see it's categorically impossible to hear what the recording engineer heard, EQ or no EQ. So "purity" is out the window.

post #224 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk6661 View Post

Something else the anti-EQers don't acknowledge is that people hear differently--sometimes very differently--due to genetics, head and ear shape, brain chemistry, varying degrees and types of hearing loss, etc. So even if you're standing next to the recording engineer as a recording is being made, the two of you aren't hearing the same thing. Likewise, even if you're both listening to the same master tape of the recording, you're hearing different things. Now add in the fact that *all* hi-fi equipment colors the sound during playback (which many people have pointed out), and you can see it's categorically impossible to hear what the recording engineer heard, EQ or no EQ. So "purity" is out the window.



Agreed. And don't forget pure and simple preferences, which anti-EQ people just doesn't seem to accept or respect, considering EQing a lower form of audio listening.

post #225 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Yeah but it isn't necessarily what was intended if it's not the same setup and EQ as when the original recording was mastered.

I never said we were going to, I think that is something we all realize. I simply answered a passive-agressive post against people who don't equalize.

Also, I know it's now the same, but I wouldn't equalize a live record, since the goal of live music is to be as natural as possible. Just an example of something as close to natural as possible

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roller View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jk6661 View Post

Something else the anti-EQers don't acknowledge is that people hear differently--sometimes very differently--due to genetics, head and ear shape, brain chemistry, varying degrees and types of hearing loss, etc. So even if you're standing next to the recording engineer as a recording is being made, the two of you aren't hearing the same thing. Likewise, even if you're both listening to the same master tape of the recording, you're hearing different things. Now add in the fact that *all* hi-fi equipment colors the sound during playback (which many people have pointed out), and you can see it's categorically impossible to hear what the recording engineer heard, EQ or no EQ. So "purity" is out the window.


Agreed. And don't forget pure and simple preferences, which anti-EQ people just doesn't seem to accept or respect, considering EQing a lower form of audio listening.

 

I've never met any anti-EQ people. The fact that someone doesn't use EQ doesn't make them against it. I think gay marriage is a great idea, but I won't be marrying a male anytime soon. If people don't want to equalize, let them be, they're happy that way.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why don't more people use EQ to get the desired sound?