[Acix]

In the distant future with the RS-1's and the tubes, you will switch to a nice SS amp and you would know, maybe better why people paying thousands.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busta9iron /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I understand, and thanks for the response. I was more using my response to you to clarify what I meant in my original post. My main point was in asking why EQ is widely considered inferior to "system synergy". I'm kind of disappointed I couldn't put it more succinctly until now.

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just want someone who decries EQ to tell me why they don't use it, other than "its a sign of inferiority"

The main reason I don't use it is that I don't feel the need to (my HD600's sound close to perfect as they are). I don't now about all kinds of eq'ing but software eq'ing adds distortion and can damage the equipement. Both are things audiophile want to avoid.

Also to note eq'ing doesn't add more detail. No matter how much you eq a HD600 it will never be as detailed, have the seperation etc.. that a HE60 will have. As at then end of the day all an eq really does is emphasize certain ranges of frequncies (which to me would mean, adding loudness to the music which is another frowned upon act). Hence why people spend large sums on more expensive audio systems (once again simplifying).

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the distant future with the RS-1's and the tubes, you will switch to a nice SS amp and you would know why people paying thousands.

am I the only one who doesn't understand the point being made here?


Busta9iron
I didn't mean to disagree with you, just to X2/QFT your point a bit

honestly, I also agree with "no more pleasing the experts", what do I care if the snobs over at stereophile think I'm not up to snuff, at least I'm not spending $50,000 on "acoustic resonators" and "specialized room treatments" and I don't have the Tice clock, if thats such a crime, sue me

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times /img/forum/go_quote.gif The main reason I don't use it is that I don't feel the need to (The HD600's sound close to perfect as they are). I don't know about all kinds of eq'ing but software eq'ing adds distortion and can damage the equipement. Both are things audiophile want to avoid.

I believe it was PWK that said it best: ********

show me documented and repeatable proof that enabling ANY software EQ will damage ANY equipment under ANY conditions (in other words prove your point)

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the distant future with the RS-1's and the tubes, you will switch to a nice SS amp and you would know why people paying thousands.

ha, was waiting for that. I like tubes because they're fun. I play guitar and fix guitar amps, so I have a lot of tubes and spare tube parts lying around and I think it'll be fun to make a tube amp, when I have enough spare time. But does that lead me to think that EQ is worse for reproducing quality sound than system synergy? nah. I'll admit that's just hobbyism.

 

[Busta9iron]

So, by reading your other posts, you are saying that what is done with amps,cans, etc., you can do with EQ. I agree to a certain extent. You are taking two different roads to the same destination. I would agree, but if you do it with EQ, and others do it with amps tubes, etc. Who is right? My opinion is, both of you. You got to where you wanted to be.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busta9iron /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, by reading your other posts, you are saying that what is done with amps,cans, etc., you can do with EQ. I agree to a certain extent. You are taking two different roads to the same destination. I would agree, but if you do it with EQ, and others do it with amps tubes, etc. Who is right? My opinion is, both of you. You got to where you wanted to be.

I think what he's saying is similar to lucky's point about "you can't make one can into something else by changing the amplifier", in other words "if what you really wanted was to just roll off the freq at 16khz, just roll the freq at 16khz", instead of "replace all cables, replace amplifier, replace cans, replace source, recable everything, put isolation feet into the mix, power conditioners, room adjustments, and get surgery to make your head more symmetrical"

...at least thats what went through my mind when reading his point

but I do agree, "you got where you wanted to be" -> if it sounds good, it is good.

 

[lucky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just want someone who decries EQ to tell me why they don't use it, other than "its a sign of inferiority"

In the end, that's always going to be the root argument, just couched in different words. Do what sounds good to you; that's what everyone else is doing, no matter how much they insist otherwise.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busta9iron /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, by reading your other posts, you are saying that what is done with amps,cans, etc., you can do with EQ. I agree to a certain extent. You are taking two different roads to the same destination. I would agree, but if you do it with EQ, and others do it with amps tubes, etc. Who is right? My opinion is, both of you. You got to where you wanted to be.

I guess I should make it clear that I'm not saying I think tubes and all that jazz are inferior. In fact I quite like them. However, my point is I've yet to really hear a full explanation as to why EQ is considered bad by head-fiers.

 

[El_Doug]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

oh, i certainly agree with all of your statements. of course, what you should consider is that people who pay for high-end cables that "make the sound warmer," are the kind of impressionable audiophile hyper-consumers who gain a great deal of pleasure from this hobby not in the musical representation, but strictly in the dollars spent on significantly obscure companies. it's no wonder, as it shouldnt be to you either, why these people will shun EQ - after all, it is "another obstruction in the audio path" to them

i pay (somewhat) top dollar for certain tubes, because a new level of detail comes through. i prefer tubes to transistors in the audio path because there is an intrinsic quality to the tech of how it affects harmonics, not due to any particular "warmth," or other result of an EQ effect.


all in all, youre right when you state that EQ should be used a lot more, and that most people who shun them are simply mimicking the words of others, the supposed "golden ears," and these audiophile are very quick to point out that, if we see no difference, that "alas, we are simply cursed to hear small details that you cannot" - aka a load of crap. however, I think you may be overgeneralizing, stating that all aspects of the audio signal can be adjusted to one's liking through the use of EQ. it is unfortunately (for my wallet, at least) not the case

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif ha, was waiting for that. I like tubes because they're fun. I play guitar and fix guitar amps, so I have a lot of tubes and spare tube parts lying around and I think it'll be fun to make a tube amp, when I have enough spare time. But does that lead me to think that EQ is worse for than system synergy? nah. I'll admit that's just hobbyism.

Hehehe...for good sound quality/reproducing you need good a sound system. For bad sound system you need EQ to make it worse.

 

[boomy3555]

fjrabon,

Sorry slappy but that aint gonna happen. There's no quantifiable answer to a "Flavor" question.

 

[Busta9iron]

On a side note, it is nice to read this exchange of ideas, without using a fire extinguisher. Although I do miss obobs sarcasm.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Doug /img/forum/go_quote.gif oh, i certainly agree with all of your statements. of course, what you should consider is that people who pay for high-end cables that "make the sound warmer," are the kind of impressionable audiophile hyper-consumers who gain a great deal of pleasure from this hobby not in the musical representation, but strictly in the dollars spent on significantly obscure companies. it's no wonder, as it shouldnt be to you either, why these people will shun EQ - after all, it is "another obstruction in the audio path" to them i pay (somewhat) top dollar for certain tubes, because a new level of detail comes through. i prefer tubes to transistors in the audio path because there is an intrinsic quality to the tech of how it affects harmonics, not due to any particular "warmth," or other result of an EQ effect. all in all, youre right when you state that EQ should be used a lot more, and that most people who shun them are simply mimicking the words of others, the supposed "golden ears," and these audiophile are very quick to point out that, if we see no difference, that "alas, we are simply cursed to hear small details that you cannot" - aka a load of crap. however, I think you may be overgeneralizing, stating that all aspects of the audio signal can be adjusted to one's liking through the use of EQ. it is unfortunately (for my wallet, at least) not the case

Well, the prosound guy in me kind of wants to respond with "so now you're talking about compression"

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response and I largely agree. There are certain things that tubes do that are very hard to mimic. As an owner of several guitar tube amplifiers and having previously built a tube based power amplifier, I'll be the first to agree there.

 

[Zenja]

There are good software EQ solutions out there too, including free ones. IMO and experience, there's nothing wrong with using EQ. Lots of headphones and equipment out there have flaws in the frequency response, despite otherwise being good equipment (like the SA5000). I'll definitely use a free, decent EQ approach to compensate for these flaws at least to some extent. I doubt there's anything someone could say to convince me otherwise because there probably isn't any good logical argument that takes money into account.

EQ DOES degrade the audio to some extent due to stuff like phase shifts and ringing, but if done reasonably those things aren't audible (at least to me), or at least are outweighed by the gains.