[rmouser]

Quote:

Quote:

Heya,
 
Every time. They see me equalizing. They hate'n.
 
I'm actually shopping for a high quality hardware equalizer in the 16~30 band area. Hard to find one that is high quality, not noisy and messy and low grade, that would work with headphones and not just meant for outdoor speaker ensembles. One day! I am actually a little nostalgic of old stereos that I had growing up that had equalizer bars on the front, stock. They don't exist these days, they assume you have it under control digitally now. I want the bands back with knobs and buttons to turn and push.
 
Why? Because no headphone and no speaker setup is perfect stock for my taste.
 
Very best,

 I have access to a bunch of pro audio 31 band EQs. One I use a lot (not really for headphones but for pro audio) is a BSS opal

I have an Audio Research & Technology (ART) EQ355 31 band per channel. It is quiet, has dual 6db/12db range, clip indicators and volume level control for each channel.
 
I use EQ a lot for older recordings; the older tape machines in studios had a background hiss around 6hz. With the narrow bands I can drop that without altering the sound. And when I get in the mood for BOOM listening.............
 
What HP bumps and dips?? I can make them do anything I want. Loads of fun

 

[vid]

I make liberal use of EQ. Makes no sense not to, unless the sound was literally perfect to begin with.

 

[GREQ]

I use a vintage 12-band stereo EQ, sometimes to compensate for some headphones with significant bass roll-off for a more neutral but solid sound. 
But mostly the EQ is for my loudspeakers which can't sing properly in my tiny room at low volumes.

 

[kickin81]

I love a healthy level of bass but I found I love clarity in my music. Without tuning from an equalizer the music produced is vieled, the vocalist is uninspriring, and instruments sound fuzzy. With some fine tuning, you can change the imperfect sound out of your headset/IEM into something really enjoyable. Tuning helps to reveal the music.
 
I own only budget IEMs because I would have a lot of explaining to do if my wife found out I just bought a $200+ headphone. And being in the hobby, I would want to own at least 3 at a time. So people spend $$$ for a better sounding headsets/IEMs but that's not an option for me.

 

[Mad Dude]

Quote:

Do you use an Equalizer?

 
 
 

 
Any questions?

 

[-xX-Mew-Xx-]

Any questions?

jealous lol

 

[Mad Max]

I only EQ when burning a headphone in with music/pink-noise to bring out subbass or upper treble a bit (that means hours of huge boosts to those areas, lol).
I may attenuate big treble peaks on some headphones, but right now I don't have any that need that.
I prefer not to have to bother with EQ when using headphones.

 

[-xX-Mew-Xx-]

I had no idea that EQing was so unpopular o.o or at least thw majority prefers not to

 

[vid]

Quote:

I had no idea that EQing was so unpopular o.o or at least thw majority prefers not to

 
Actually, as of now according to the poll, 58% use EQ.

 

[rmouser]

EQ is like drinking wine. You buy the wine that tastes good to you, not some snobby bad tasting stuff. HP listening is the same. You tune it to the way you want it. I have witnessed the recording process at a studio. If you want to hear it the way the engineer intended it, you need the same headphones/speakers and amps they had...........therefore.................

 

[-xX-Mew-Xx-]

I just like music to sound real and sometimes EQing is needed for that Concert/Club/Opera house feeling. Jude uses an EQ ahaha

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

EQ is like drinking wine. You buy the wine that tastes good to you, not some snobby bad tasting stuff. HP listening is the same. You tune it to the way you want it. I have witnessed the recording process at a studio. If you want to hear it the way the engineer intended it, you need the same headphones/speakers and amps they had...........therefore.................

And sometimes, the engineer is wrong. *cough*loudness war*cough*

 

[rmouser]

Amen to that.
 
You mention LOUDNESS WARS----I like being able to punch the highs and lows SELECTIVELY and listening at lower volumes.

 

[Slaphead]

And sometimes, the engineer is wrong. *cough*loudness war*cough*

Not wrong at all. In fact the engineer has done everything right according to their brief. The fact that we disagree with the processes involved in the loudness wars doesn't make the engineer wrong, sadly.

Anyway, moving on. Rather than posting a new thread on the equalisation I thought I'd add my specific question to this thread.

Way back when I was last into audio, equalisers and tone controls where shunned because of the damage they did to the signal, even if they were set flat. I could clearly hear the difference when an equaliser or tone controls were introduced into the path, although the difference was reduced to insignificant, or exacerbated to the point of being obvious depending on the material being listened to. Sometimes equalisation was needed, especially for some poorly mastered material, but on the whole it was to be avoided.

Now in this, pretty much, all digital world we live in, where computing power is such that even HD audio can be played using less than 5% of an average computers processing, and where the maths and algorithms for audio processing (inc equalisation) are now so well researched and so within the average computers performance levels, am I right to assume that if equalisation is done purely within the digital domain then it will effectively introduce no audible distortions, other than the ones we deliberately and knowingly introduce, to the signal?

Having messed around with the Apple equalisation filters within Fidelia I do actually believe this to be correct. I can hear absolutely no difference between the equaliser being active but flat, and the equaliser being inactive. Adjusting the equaliser produces only the desired effect without affecting the audible quality of any other frequencies.

So I'm guessing that equalisation is no longer to shunned, but accepted as a legitimate tool in the listeners armoury.

 

[GREQ]

Quote:

Not wrong at all. In fact the engineer has done everything right according to their brief. The fact that we disagree with the processes involved in the loudness wars doesn't make the engineer wrong, sadly.

 
Saying that the engineer was right or wrong with CERTAINTY is wrong - it's possible some engineers used the proper equipment to master and made a hash of the recordings, and it's also possible some engineers have cloth ears and used really bad monitoring equipment, but somehow made pretty good recordings, however unlikely - I'm just saying it's possible, and that saying that the engineer is absolutely right or wrong is for nobody to answer because we were not there.
(obviously there's the whole recording chain to consider, but that's another debate).