[music_man]

i did not read much of this thread but i will add:

we(i am an engineer) use eq when we record your music. this is to either correct acoustic situations or in mastering to add ambiance. an overly eq'd source is redily evident. for instance, when i complained about regina spector.

when you add eq during playback you in essence add eq over eq in most cases.

the only time eq should be used during playback is for room compensation which is a non issue with headphones. even then the room should first be corrected mechanically if possible.

over eq'ing will quickly put huge demands on an amp especially a headphone amp which tends to be less than 1 watt. this in turn will cause clipping and blow first your headphones/loudspeakers and then your amp.

if you are feeling you need eq, you have the wrong headphones!

so those are just a few of the reasons eq'ing for playback is bad.

music_man

 

[vvanrij]

More expensive EQ's are most of the times more basic and have less option than those cheap eq's who come with all fancy options and settings etc. There is a huge difference in quality between low-end consumer and hi-end pro stuff. Cheers.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reminence /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I am talking about signal fidelity in terms of SQ. And as for distortion I am also talking about loosing fidelity due to the algorithms used not just distortion from clipping. cheap software and hardware (PC/DAP/HW EQ) EQ can have detectable abnomalies (sq distortions) even when lowering EQ. IMO you should buy your hardware as best you can so that you get the signature as close to what you desire without EQ. The question is at what price range do you go for to achive this. When do you just stop spending money and start using EQ?

Any lose of signal fidelity is not equal to distortion. distortion has a very specific meaning.

 

[esuko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif More expensive EQ's are most of the times more basic and have less option than those cheap eq's who come with all fancy options and settings etc. There is a huge difference in quality between low-end consumer and hi-end pro stuff. Cheers.

Very well

 

[vvanrij]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any lose of signal fidelity is not equal to distortion. distortion has a very specific meaning.

A distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of an object, image, sound, waveform or other form of information or representation

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_man /img/forum/go_quote.gif i did not read much of this thread but i will add: we(i am an engineer) use eq when we record your music. this is to either correct acoustic situations or in mastering to add ambiance. an overly eq'd source is redily evident. for instance, when i complained about regina spector. when you add eq during playback you in essence add eq over eq in most cases. the only time eq should be used during playback is for room compensation which is a non issue with headphones. even then the room should first be corrected mechanically if possible. over eq'ing will quickly put huge demands on an amp especially a headphone amp which tends to be less than 1 watt. this in turn will cause clipping and blow first your headphones/loudspeakers and then your amp. if you are feeling you need eq, you have the wrong headphones! so those are just a few of the reasons eq'ing for playback is bad. music_man

I'm not even an engineer, but I do work in a studio, in fact I"m in one right now. This is WAY WAY WAY over simplified.

1) adding EQ over an already EQ'd track doesn't matter. Your equipment has no idea whether or not something was EQ'd to begin with.

2) In a studio, SEVERAL layers of EQ are usually applied. You'll have EQ added to each individual instrument, if needed. You try to do this as little as possible, but a snare, for example, will almost always have a good bit of EQ. Then you EQ each song, then you EQ and compress the overall CD. Do studios sometimes go a bit overboard? Probably. Is that much EQ often needed? Yes. Recording isn't as simple as just sticking a microphone in front of a kick drum and having the magic tone just happen.

3) headphones, by there very nature aren't flat. People do all sorts of things to basically change the frequency response curve of their overall system. Many of which degrade the signal more than an EQ will. I'm saying that if you want to change the FR curve, EQ MIGHT be a better solution in some cases.

4) Yes, you shouldn't push your EQ to the point where things are clipping. That has been gone over many times. If you need to EQ up very much, you should certainly compensate by reducing the gain and/or having lots of headroom in your amp.

5) I'm not talking about like a 10db increase all across the board. EQ should be used subtly, sure. What I'm saying is that EQ is more flexible than buying a whole new amp or another $1000 set of headphones if you decide you want a touch more high end sparkle one day.

 

[mark_h]

I have read through this entire thread and what seem to be the underlying theme is just slagging off people who want to experiment with system synergy which really is vastly different from gating frequency using an eq. What is the point of joining a predominantly audiophile forum and just sniping at the choices people make?

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif A distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of an object, image, sound, waveform or other form of information or representation

that's slightly over-simplified, at least to somebody who doesn't know exactly what is meant by "waveform". For instance, if you read a bit down in the wikipedia article you are mentioning, additional noise is not considered distortion. Which is, I think, what the other guy was referring to.

 

[esuko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif A distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of an object, image, sound, waveform or other form of information or representation

From a engineers point of view, the ammount of distortion is calculated from the harmonics. So in this sense EQ do not add distortion because the change in the FR is wanted and the harmonics do not increase from EQless situation.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have read through this entire thread and what seem to be the underlying theme is just slagging off people who want to experiment with system synergy which really is vastly different from gating frequency using an eq. What is the point of joining a predominantly audiophile forum and just sniping at the choices people make?

No, the point is that EQ gets a bad rap on here. In fact, I've said maybe 20 times that trying to get the best out of your system first, is the best route to go. What I'm saying I don't understand is the idea that EQ is bad in and of itself. I don't like the idea that EQ is the mark of an inferior setup. Which has been repeated a few times here.

I also don't get the idea that tube amps sound great, but any deviation from the pure signal is bad. Tube amps sound great, precisely because they always distort the signal.

 

[music_man]

fjrabon, you are correct in what you said. i was talking about people that just take the whole eq and push it to the top. or those that push the lower frequencies way up. lower frequencies put more demand on the amp than mids and highs. i am sure everyone knows this already. i was just pointing out the way "not" to use an eq. if you want to play around with tailoring your sound to your liking thats fine. i am a purist. i like to hear exactly what was recorded. i don't think this means i am wrong. i don't think anyone that uses an eq for playback is wrong either.

as far as pro equipment yes, that is what i would recomend before i went to best buy. if you have an expensive headphone rig you might look into avalon or manley for instance. or even presonus is a lot better than what is sold at appliance stores. indeed this will impart less harm and a more enjoyable overall experience. furthermore i would look into a parametric. digital/software eq's tend to be better if one is not spending a lot of money. you need to be careful with the gain on these however. alesis makes a nice one.

in conclusion i will say that eq is like spice to a top chef. properly used in moderation it can be quite pleasing. as i stated above i was speaking as to why eq gets a bad rap. it tends to be easily abused/overused by both engineers and end users alike.

music_man

 

[vvanrij]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's slightly over-simplified, at least to somebody who doesn't know exactly what is meant by "waveform". For instance, if you read a bit down in the wikipedia article you are mentioning, additional noise is not considered distortion. Which is, I think, what the other guy was referring to.

Well its not as much over-simplified as incomplete. As added noise actually is also a waveform, and if that noise is bound to be carried in a already existing waveform, that would be changing it (and thus distortion). Its a contradiction to say the least

.

 

[esuko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well its not as much over-simplified as incomplete. As added noise actually is also a waveform, and if that noise is bound to be carried in a already existing waveform, that would be changing it (and thus distortion). Its a contradiction to say the least .

Now I totally dropped from the wagon

 

[boomy3555]

I will always EQ if I feel the need. The one thing that peole forget is to turn off any extra EQ's that may me turned on. EI, my soundcard has one as well as my player so one of them has to be turned off or it can get very confusing. And if I then run through an external EQ such as the Alesis, both Eq's must be turned off.

 

[reminence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well its not as much over-simplified as incomplete. As added noise actually is also a waveform, and if that noise is bound to be carried in a already existing waveform, that would be changing it (and thus distortion). Its a contradiction to say the least .

Well put. That is my understanding. Although someone with a PHD in Sound engineering may have a more specific definition and rules.

I admit I am an extreme basshead and love the very bottom end and therefore probably use EQ too much which incurs some distortion(or whatever you want to call it) but for the resulting sound sig it is so worth it to me!

that's my preference