[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To put it rather bluntly: If you have to use an equalizer in addition to headphone amping, then you have the wrong headphones, or maybe the wrong amp, IMO.

I use my EQ to bring out musical details that are a little too faint, or supress some that may be too forward.

 

[boomy3555]

The argument over to EQ or not to EQ has been going on since they first "Thunk'em Up"
Simply do what makes you feel better. I don't think the artist, producer, or audio engeneer that first mixed it is gonna care. And they certainly aren't going to go around checking up you. Without the persuit of audio happiness then it's all for naught. so why not give yourself all the adavntage.

 

[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomy3555 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Without the persuit of audio happiness then it's all for naught. so why not give yourself all the adavntage.

Very true, but it's important to stress the importance of selecting audio gear that sounds great to you overall without needing tone adjustment.

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moontan13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very true, but it's important to stress the importance of selecting audio gear that sounds great to you overall without needing tone adjustment.

Good simple advice...but have you ever listened to a song and wished it had more bass or it sounded dull? Have no EQ, well you're out of luck.

 

[mbd2884]

Quote:

Originally Posted by morpheus95 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I may get flamed for this but can you use Graphic Equalizers when you use headphones with an amp or is this a no no when using headphone amps ? Tony

Just personal preference. In the end it's about listening to music.

If it's your mission to get the perfect, undistorted sound for measuring purposes and listening, then, yeah EQ may not be the best way to accomplish that goal.

 

[ascherjim]

As follow-up to a subject I've touched upon before, long ago, in this forum, another viable (to me) use of an EQ is to compensate for a partial hearing loss as we (or some of us, anyway) grow older. I use the BBE Sonic Maximizer, which solves my hearing loss problem just fine, and is very easy to use (between my Headroom DAC and my Bottlehead tube amplifier (plus HD 650 headphones)).

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just personal preference. In the end it's about listening to music. If it's your mission to get the perfect, undistorted sound for measuring purposes and listening, then, yeah EQ may not be the best way to accomplish that goal.

You do realize that morpheus95 asked that question 8 months ago and he hasn't been back since??

 

[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good simple advice...but have you ever listened to a song and wished it had more bass or it sounded dull? Have no EQ, well you're out of luck.

I've been very happy with my 22 y/o Onkyo amp and two sets of Infinity speakers. I've had this EQ awhile, several years I think, and have not considered using it until getting involved with headphones.

I might add that the EQ alters the sound somewhat, even in bypass mode.

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moontan13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've been very happy with my 22 y/o Onkyo amp and two sets of Infinity speakers. I've had this EQ awhile, several years I think, and have not considered using it until getting involved with headphones. I might add that the EQ alters the sound somewhat, even in bypass mode.

I never have the urge to use EQ with my B&W speakers but they are on the bright side anyway and if I need more bass I can just bump my sub up a dB. or two.

I had an old ADC EQ from the early 80's that sounded bad. It was noisy and was never very good to begin with. These days if you need a good EQ, buying a pro sound unit is the way to go IMO.

I am still using my Aphex 204 with my HP rig.

 

[Drag0n]

Sometimes i use a Coustic HEQ 7000 Equalizer.
Mostly its out of line, but some recordings need some touching up sometimes.

 

[boomy3555]

Every Dynamat, Cable, or Woody Mod on a Denon or "Felt Pad" covering the hole on an Ultrasone is a mechanical acoustic "EQ"'ing. When you pair your high impedence cans such as the 600 ohm beyers, with a high power "Tube" amp. or buy 80ohm Beyer DT770's instead of 250 ohm DT's then your making an EQ decision. Just because you choose to do it mechanically, or by direct product sound signature choice doesn't make it any more right or wrong. I just have so many different cans and sources, it would be silly of me to try to have different amps, cables, and other mods, when an EQ can accomplish "MOST" of those changes for me.

As Great Dane said above, " Have no EQ, well you're out of luck"

 

[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif These days if you need a good EQ, buying a pro sound unit is the way to go IMO. I am still using my Aphex 204 with my HP rig.

I got lucky with my aged Realistic 10 band EQ with no model ID on the front. All controls and sliders were noiseless. If I had to replace it, I'm not sure what I'd get. Come to think of it, this EQ has made me want a bigger and more detailed spectrum display.
I appreciate the heads-up on the Aphex, I'll check into it.

 

[MONGO70]

I'm finally getting my audio system the way I want it. I like to listen to vinyl, but lets face it, some albums only have a few good songs. So I got a Pioneer 707 reel to reel to tape off the songs I like. In a perfect world you shouldn't need an EQ, but some records just don't sound right to me. So I only use my EQ in between my phono pre-amp and reel to reel input. It is awesome, I feel like I'm remastering the record to tape. I'm the one who listens to it, so why not make the music sound good to my ears. I picked up an Ashley GQX 3102 on ebay for $300. This is a 1/3 octave 31 channel dual band EQ. You can drive yourself crazy fiddling with the sound, but I love it. The Ashley is very quiet and a nice piece of kit, but there are some things to be aware of. First, I suggest only using it in an analog circuit. My Denon 3808 receiver does not like analog EQ's I think it confuses it's digital processing, and it sounds terrible going from source to EQ, to receiver. That's why I only use it to master my tapes, Once recorded I then go to my receiver. The other issue to be aware of is that the Ashley is a professional piece of gear so it uses balanced inputs and outputs ( XLR cables ). To make this work with consumer RCA's you need to purchase a Henry Engineering Match Box II. I was leery that having all the extra interconnects and cables would seriously degrade the music, but I was wrong. I couldn't be happier with this set up.

 

[wavoman]

This is a great thread with lots of meaty opinions ... a fine read.

I agree with the following points, made by others:

-- For critical headphone listening, where the purpose is analytic, as opposed to kick-back, do not use an equalizer. Find the right headphones and amp combo. When just enjoying the music, add any effect you like!

-- Aphex 204 is a fun box, really can add sparkle, just keep the effect level low.

-- A high-end graphic equalizer is a joy, does not add audible noise, and is perfect for eliminating tape hiss from a fave vintage recording, especially with phones that peak hi freq (GS1000, for instance). I have dbx iEQ-31.

-- Room correction DSP, especially with auto algorithms, is a must for odd-shaped rooms and speaker placements. I have Lyngdorf (and a very odd shaped room, plus problematic speaker positioning).

None of these subsitutes for the other: Aphex punch, EQ, room-correction -- all different.

I have balanced cables through-out, and can quickly build different audio chains on-the-fly. (1) CDP/DAC to HP amp with nothing else. (2) Add Aphex to the chain. (3) Add dbx to the chain, after Aphex, or by itself. (4) Replace HP amp with Lyngdorf room correction DSP/amp, by itself, or with Aphex, or with dbx, or with Aphex first, dbx second.

In actual fact I really only use three modes: (a) nothing but the HP amp, (b) HP amp with dbx in front of it, (c) Speakers with everything: aphex, then dbx, then room correction. I never fiddle with the room correction, it is set, and I never fiddle with the Aphex when it is on -- I have "just a little effect" settings for both top and bottom that work well for me. I use the dbx sliders for the treble cut to eliminate hiss, or maybe a little more tweaking (and maybe an Aphex tweak now and again, I lied a little in the previous sentence).

I trained the room correction without either the Aphex or dbx -- that's important, so is putting the dbx after the Aphex.

Enjoy! It's a hobby, do what you like.

 

[gregorio]

I personally would advise against the use of an Aphex Aural Exciter. It is not an EQ unit nor does it work anything like an EQ unit.

EQ is a fairly simple tool, although it requires experience to use properly. EQ allows the user to cut or boost frequencies which are present in the audio. The Aphex on the other hand is a professional tool which analyses the harmonics within the audio and then allows the user to add additional harmonics, choosing the balance between even and odd harmonics.

The Aphex is inventing material which is not present in the original audio, rather than just adjusting the original audio which is the case with EQ.

My personal opinion as a professional is that EQ should not be used. It's EQ'ed by the producer and mastering engineer and it shouldn't really be messed with. If the balance is wrong then the setup or quality of the replay equipment/environment is probably at fault. Unless of course you are sure the recording has been poorly produced. I'm less against the use of EQ than against the use of an Aphex unit though.

I will say that the use of EQ to fix problems with the listening environment is really nothing more than a botch job and is vastly different than actually creating a proper listening environment. You may have read that graphics are used to fix acoustic problems in recording studios. This is only true of really cr*p recording studios!!

G