[megabigeye]

I have to say, I might be inclined to do more EQing if I thought there were a better/easier way to do it. I just have so many questions!

Are there lossless ways to do EQ on a Mac or Android (or Windows or Linux or iOS, for that matter)?

Are professional digital EQs lossless? Like, say, the Behringer DEQ2496? I really like the idea of something that I could have multiple settings for different headphones and speakers, etc.

I'd love something like a Loki or the JDS Subjective3, but I honestly don't think it'd be fine-tunable enough with only three or four bands. I know there are consumer EQs with more bands, but those cost way more than I am willing to spend. I also wonder how hard it would be to make a decent 8 or 12 band equalizer... Like, could you somehow mod 3 or 4 Subjective3s together to get 9 or 12 bands? Probably not as easy as I'd like.

Is there anything that can (easily) apply an equal loudness contour so that headphones/speakers sound the same at low and high volumes?

 

[axle_69]

That's an interesting thought but as it was said the shape of the ear and the head of some listener may not be the same as the dummy head or the listeners that helped design the headphone so the final listener may not be able to listen to the sound that the manufacturer had in mind, and to achieve that may need EQ. How EQ is implemented and how perfect are filters is a different discussion.

 

[franz12]

I have to say, I might be inclined to do more EQing if I thought there were a better/easier way to do it. I just have so many questions!

Are there lossless ways to do EQ on a Mac or Android (or Windows or Linux or iOS, for that matter)?

Are professional digital EQs lossless? Like, say, the Behringer DEQ2496? I really like the idea of something that I could have multiple settings for different headphones and speakers, etc.

I'd love something like a Loki or the JDS Subjective3, but I honestly don't think it'd be fine-tunable enough with only three or four bands. I know there are consumer EQs with more bands, but those cost way more than I am willing to spend. I also wonder how hard it would be to make a decent 8 or 12 band equalizer... Like, could you somehow mod 3 or 4 Subjective3s together to get 9 or 12 bands? Probably not as easy as I'd like.

Is there anything that can (easily) apply an equal loudness contour so that headphones/speakers sound the same at low and high volumes?

In my experience, DMG Equilibrium was the cleanest implementation.
I heard that other people say fabfilter pro-q 3 is also as good.
They are reasonably priced and seems accurate. I haven't experimented with any hardware EQ though.

 

[megabigeye]

That's an interesting thought but as it was said the shape of the ear and the head of some listener may not be the same as the dummy head or the listeners that helped design the headphone so the final listener may not be able to listen to the sound that the manufacturer had in mind, and to achieve that may need EQ. How EQ is implemented and how perfect are filters is a different discussion.

I assume you're replying to my idea about an EQ for equal loudness? I was kind of imagining it would be something that a user could customize to their own ears/needs. I was also thinking that if you had a good enough hardware EQ, you could do it by ear and make "presets" for "high" and "low" volume settings... Although, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know that you could.

 

[natalieann]

Everyday!

 

[katulu]

I
I'd love something like a Loki or the JDS Subjective3, but I honestly don't think it'd be fine-tunable enough with only three or four bands. I know there are consumer EQs with more bands, but those cost way more than I am willing to spend. I also wonder how hard it would be to make a decent 8 or 12 band equalizer... Like, could you somehow mod 3 or 4 Subjective3s together to get 9 or 12 bands? Probably not as easy as I'd like.

Parametric EQ, my friend. I use Neutron MP on Android (now Win 10 also). Developing curves is a royal pain, but it is worth it. I PEQ to neutral (all frequencies to the same volume) and the results remarkably change one's perception even with minor tweaking, with major tweaking (that is, curve as flat to my ears as possible)... well, let's just say everything else starts sounding crappy - too much bass here, too much treble there, can't hear these details, this sound is too thick... It's like finding the soup bowl that had just the right temperature to eat, then everything else is too hot or too cold.

here's the basics thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial.413900/
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial.413900/

 

[castleofargh]

I have to say, I might be inclined to do more EQing if I thought there were a better/easier way to do it. I just have so many questions!

Are there lossless ways to do EQ on a Mac or Android (or Windows or Linux or iOS, for that matter)?

Are professional digital EQs lossless? Like, say, the Behringer DEQ2496? I really like the idea of something that I could have multiple settings for different headphones and speakers, etc.

I'd love something like a Loki or the JDS Subjective3, but I honestly don't think it'd be fine-tunable enough with only three or four bands. I know there are consumer EQs with more bands, but those cost way more than I am willing to spend. I also wonder how hard it would be to make a decent 8 or 12 band equalizer... Like, could you somehow mod 3 or 4 Subjective3s together to get 9 or 12 bands? Probably not as easy as I'd like.

Is there anything that can (easily) apply an equal loudness contour so that headphones/speakers sound the same at low and high volumes?

there is no such thing as lossless EQ. a lossless process ensures that you recover the original data as it was at a given previous step. so a lossless EQ would be one that ends up not changing the signature ^_^.

about multiple settings, that means some programmable part. so beside apps on a computer where you can save anything you like and load it back up later, an external device will have to be rather specific and is likely to cost more than a basic EQ.

about something with the EQ that changes with loudness, in the past a bunch of devices had a function that would change the upper and lower frequencies in something vaguely resembling equal loudness variations, but you still had to turn it ON yourself when you wished the curve to be applied. it wasn't automated. the obvious issue in implementing such a function is that typically your playback system has no idea about your listening level as the headphone/speakers are the ones deciding how loud they get when you throw a 1volt sine at them. so you'd need some calibration, and if we're there, ideally you'd want to try and have something helping to set your very own equal loudness contour at a few listening levels(which is a PITA to do in practice). because one big cause of change is the Stapedius reflex but the threshold for that to be triggered might vary slightly from people to people(don't quote me on that but I think one listener can react as much as 10dB above another listener). also such a setup would ideally come before the amp or even be with the DAC(or at the computer), meaning that if you set the listening level with your amp, that device will not know it. this probably falls into the giant pile of good ideas that nobody cares to work on because it's not plug&play and most people don't even know what it does.

 

[JustASnack]

I never EQ. I gave it a shot at one point, but I ended up spending way too much time trying to get the EQ to sound just perfect, to the point of frutsration and ripping my hair out. I'm better off enjoying my headphones as they are than loosing sleep trying to perfect the EQ.

 

[castleofargh]

I never EQ. I gave it a shot at one point, but I ended up spending way too much time trying to get the EQ to sound just perfect, to the point of frutsration and ripping my hair out. I'm better off enjoying my headphones as they are than loosing sleep trying to perfect the EQ.

I am bald so you could be onto something. ^_^

 

[megabigeye]

Parametric EQ, my friend. I use Neutron MP on Android (now Win 10 also). Developing curves is a royal pain, but it is worth it. I PEQ to neutral (all frequencies to the same volume) and the results remarkably change one's perception even with minor tweaking, with major tweaking (that is, curve as flat to my ears as possible)... well, let's just say everything else starts sounding crappy - too much bass here, too much treble there, can't hear these details, this sound is too thick... It's like finding the soup bowl that had just the right temperature to eat, then everything else is too hot or too cold.

here's the basics thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial.413900/

But it's not lossless, though, right? I used to use the graphic EQ and played around with the parametric EQ in UAPP until I switched to bit perfect mode and realized how compressed it was sounding*. Maybe other apps sound better? I'm not completely opposed to lossy (heck, all of my on-the-go music is MP3 or AAC), but I don't want it to be noticeable.

*As an aside, it's kinda funny how something doesn't bother you until you realize there's something better, and then what was perfectly fine suddenly becomes unacceptable. Brains are funny.

there is no such thing as lossless EQ. a lossless process ensures that you recover the original data as it was at a given previous step. so a lossless EQ would be one that ends up not changing the signature ^_^.

about multiple settings, that means some programmable part. so beside apps on a computer where you can save anything you like and load it back up later, an external device will have to be rather specific and is likely to cost more than a basic EQ.

about something with the EQ that changes with loudness, in the past a bunch of devices had a function that would change the upper and lower frequencies in something vaguely resembling equal loudness variations, but you still had to turn it ON yourself when you wished the curve to be applied. it wasn't automated. the obvious issue in implementing such a function is that typically your playback system has no idea about your listening level as the headphone/speakers are the ones deciding how loud they get when you throw a 1volt sine at them. so you'd need some calibration, and if we're there, ideally you'd want to try and have something helping to set your very own equal loudness contour at a few listening levels(which is a PITA to do in practice). because one big cause of change is the Stapedius reflex but the threshold for that to be triggered might vary slightly from people to people(don't quote me on that but I think one listener can react as much as 10dB above another listener). also such a setup would ideally come before the amp or even be with the DAC(or at the computer), meaning that if you set the listening level with your amp, that device will not know it. this probably falls into the giant pile of good ideas that nobody cares to work on because it's not plug&play and most people don't even know what it does.

Yeah, I kinda didn't figure that there were any lossless software EQs. But it was worth asking. I wonder if any of them are lossless but not really noticeable, like AAC 256 isn't really distinguishable from lossless.
Are the professional EQs like the Behringer actually digital, or are they analog with a digital interface, do you know? Or digitally controlled, like the DFR's volume?

As I was reading your post I realized what I was talking about was basically the "Loudness" buttons you used to see on old amps and receivers. I think something like that but higher quality would be great.

 

[franz12]

But it's not lossless, though, right? I used to use the graphic EQ and played around with the parametric EQ in UAPP until I switched to bit perfect mode and realized how compressed it was sounding*. Maybe other apps sound better? I'm not completely opposed to lossy (heck, all of my on-the-go music is MP3 or AAC), but I don't want it to be noticeable.

*As an aside, it's kinda funny how something doesn't bother you until you realize there's something better, and then what was perfectly fine suddenly becomes unacceptable. Brains are funny.


Yeah, I kinda didn't figure that there were any lossless software EQs. But it was worth asking. I wonder if any of them are lossless but not really noticeable, like AAC 256 isn't really distinguishable from lossless.
Are the professional EQs like the Behringer actually digital, or are they analog with a digital interface, do you know? Or digitally controlled, like the DFR's volume?

As I was reading your post I realized what I was talking about was basically the "Loudness" buttons you used to see on old amps and receivers. I think something like that but higher quality would be great.

This is the quote from Bob Katz at Innerfidelity. You can also find his remark in the comments. Hope this helps.

"
Bob Katz: Tonal balance has always been important to me. The people who are afraid of EQ seem to forget that if a loudspeaker has tons of inductors, capacitors and resistors and has been voiced by the designer, that is EQ. Let me say that again: That is equalization.

However, the vast majority of analog equalizers I've known over the years have either not been transparent enough, resolved enough or finely tuned enough to make them worth it. I've inserted many and pulled them out of my system. Just didn't work. Prior to using Acourate convolver I was using in the subwoofer channels only a Meyer Sound 1/6 octave parametric with screwdriver trim controls. It was more than accceptable in the sub channels only. It wasn't until I found Acourate Convolver that I would EVER consider digital EQ in my system. Most digital equalizers have their own faults.

So I can understand some audiophile's resistance to EQ. Most EQs they find sucked. UNTIL the best of digital came out. Be careful what you ask for. Equilibrium is very reasonably priced and it is the bees knees. Many other linear-phase-capable digital equalizers use very short impulse responses and screw up the low frequency response with all kinds of ripple. So make sure your impulse response is set to at least 32K samples, preferably 64k samples (nominally) especially at higher sample rates. There are other issues with FIR EQ and it has to be done really right to sound great. And Equilibrium does it right. Then do not forget to dither to 24 bits on the way out to the DAC.

If not, then your digital EQ might as well be lowering the transparency you are trying to improve. With the very best, though, (that is, for example, Equilibrium) I can attest that digital EQ is transparent, pure, accurate, and just does the job of countering the issues in your headphones or loudspeakers. If you tune it right, it will sound as warm and transparent as any of your all-analog systems used to sound. If you use a poor digital EQ or tune it wrong, you'll be screaming "I hate digital" all the way to the bank. Equilibrium is not your mother's digital equalizer. Acourate Convolver is not your mother's digital room correction system, and that means that people playing with low end DRCs are missing more than if they just pull it out and live with the sonic errors. Believe me, I know where most of the bodies are buried.


Read more at https://www.innerfidelity.com/conte...shootout-part-5-revisions#FO1ZSeK612DTLur1.99

 

[katulu]

But it's not lossless, though, right? I used to use the graphic EQ and played around with the parametric EQ in UAPP until I switched to bit perfect mode and realized how compressed it was sounding*. Maybe other apps sound better? I'm not completely opposed to lossy (heck, all of my on-the-go music is MP3 or AAC), but I don't want it to be noticeable.

I don't know too much about it. The way I understand it, the implementation of software EQ comes down to the mathematical precision used in the calculations. I don't know the specifics in the system I use (Neutron MP), I BELIEVE it works in 64 bit since that is the setting I have it on. However - I CAN tell you that PEQ to neutral (done thoroughly and correctly - more later) always sounds better to me. As far as worrying about the file not being "lossless" - always remindsbme of comments I read about vinyl being so superior. I won't argue the merits of "amount of sonic information" or "details" or whatever in vinyl, but DO THEY NOT HEAR THAT HISS AND THOSE POPS AND CLICKS???? Moot point for me, I can't listen to that hissing. Same thing here, the removal of the coloration of the system by PEQ to neutral, for me, makes the question of lossy a moot point - PEQ to neutral sounds better, period. The advantage dissolves, of course, as your system approaches neutrality to your ears without EQ, but to have that happen by chance, someone will be lucky indeed...

As far as EQ - to be worth it - must be done correctly, and it is not easy. Simply upping and lowering frequencies here and there does not work. You should know your hearing, and you should have an idea of what the system produces. For example, the HD800 have an established treble peak - but if your hearing has a dip at the same frequencies, those might cancel each other - and if you EQ down those frequencies according to a FR graph you saw online, then you're making the sound worse. Not to mention the effect of the rest of your chain.

Final thought and to your comment about switching to bit perfect on UAPP - I DID notice a HUGE, and I mean HUGE, difference in Neutron when I activated the "Direct to DAC" feature (which bypasses Android on my phone). I suggest you make sure the limiting or compressing factor when you do EQ is not the system audio or some other such thing which might not be readily apparent.

 

[castleofargh]

But it's not lossless, though, right? I used to use the graphic EQ and played around with the parametric EQ in UAPP until I switched to bit perfect mode and realized how compressed it was sounding*. Maybe other apps sound better? I'm not completely opposed to lossy (heck, all of my on-the-go music is MP3 or AAC), but I don't want it to be noticeable.

*As an aside, it's kinda funny how something doesn't bother you until you realize there's something better, and then what was perfectly fine suddenly becomes unacceptable. Brains are funny.


Yeah, I kinda didn't figure that there were any lossless software EQs. But it was worth asking. I wonder if any of them are lossless but not really noticeable, like AAC 256 isn't really distinguishable from lossless.
Are the professional EQs like the Behringer actually digital, or are they analog with a digital interface, do you know? Or digitally controlled, like the DFR's volume?

As I was reading your post I realized what I was talking about was basically the "Loudness" buttons you used to see on old amps and receivers. I think something like that but higher quality would be great.

well, under the name EQ can hide many different filters and settings. and depending on those, what's apparently the same frequency attenuation can turn out to be and sound different. IMO for most small settings, it simply doesn't matter, but operate over a very very short frequency range, or start applying some EQ only on the left channel, and then the differences can become super obvious(time delay, ringing, phase shift, it's a game of picking your poison). so it's hard for me to guess what you experienced and what sounded wrong to you. the most used digital EQ is linear phase, it keeps everything clean and requires low CPU so it's ideal for most uses. but it does introduce pre ringing and while our ears do have some amount of pre masking, on some specific instruments, a significant amount of ringing in the audible range is hard to miss(at least once you know what you're looking for). and there is always the possibility that for some reason the EQ you used was just crap. while the basic principles of using FIR or IIR filters is rather straightforward, apps are like gears, some are simply better made. I don't think saying this is too controversial.
if you have an easy way to try add some VST to one of your audio players on your computer, you could try looking for a linear phase EQ and check if you experience the same audible issues you had before. it could be as simple as that, or it could be something else(super helpful ^_^)

about a device doing analog or digital equalization, well as soon as you have the ability to specify both the frequency and Q, doing that fully analog would be a truly massive endeavor. so your little box probably ain't it. analog EQs will typically have X sliders or knobs with predefined frequency and bandwidth.

yes the loudness buttons, that's the name I couldn't remember last time.

 

[castleofargh]

This is the quote from Bob Katz at Innerfidelity. You can also find his remark in the comments. Hope this helps.

"
Bob Katz: Tonal balance has always been important to me. The people who are afraid of EQ seem to forget that if a loudspeaker has tons of inductors, capacitors and resistors and has been voiced by the designer, that is EQ. Let me say that again: That is equalization.

However, the vast majority of analog equalizers I've known over the years have either not been transparent enough, resolved enough or finely tuned enough to make them worth it. I've inserted many and pulled them out of my system. Just didn't work. Prior to using Acourate convolver I was using in the subwoofer channels only a Meyer Sound 1/6 octave parametric with screwdriver trim controls. It was more than accceptable in the sub channels only. It wasn't until I found Acourate Convolver that I would EVER consider digital EQ in my system. Most digital equalizers have their own faults.

So I can understand some audiophile's resistance to EQ. Most EQs they find sucked. UNTIL the best of digital came out. Be careful what you ask for. Equilibrium is very reasonably priced and it is the bees knees. Many other linear-phase-capable digital equalizers use very short impulse responses and screw up the low frequency response with all kinds of ripple. So make sure your impulse response is set to at least 32K samples, preferably 64k samples (nominally) especially at higher sample rates. There are other issues with FIR EQ and it has to be done really right to sound great. And Equilibrium does it right. Then do not forget to dither to 24 bits on the way out to the DAC.

If not, then your digital EQ might as well be lowering the transparency you are trying to improve. With the very best, though, (that is, for example, Equilibrium) I can attest that digital EQ is transparent, pure, accurate, and just does the job of countering the issues in your headphones or loudspeakers. If you tune it right, it will sound as warm and transparent as any of your all-analog systems used to sound. If you use a poor digital EQ or tune it wrong, you'll be screaming "I hate digital" all the way to the bank. Equilibrium is not your mother's digital equalizer. Acourate Convolver is not your mother's digital room correction system, and that means that people playing with low end DRCs are missing more than if they just pull it out and live with the sonic errors. Believe me, I know where most of the bodies are buried.


Read more at https://www.innerfidelity.com/conte...shootout-part-5-revisions#FO1ZSeK612DTLur1.99

eheh, the answer that ended up making me buy DMG Equilibrium. we talked a bit, I talked a bit with the guy from DMG(who's a monster of knowledge in his own right), and suddenly I was about 200euro lighter. I still don't really feel a change in the "image" between FIR and IIR(when applied equally on both stereo channels!!!!!). but just having the ability to test virtually anything I want, and not wondering when the app will crash while I'm trying to set up something involving more than 10 bands, that's certainly a nice change compared to some of the free VSTs I used before(to be fair, they crashed while I was tweaking them like crazy, basically never when just running them with a given EQ and leaving them alone). but my comment at the time remains accurate, I don't understand half of what it can do, and have no use for 4/5 of it all. I'm just a consumer with an extra point in curiosity, while Equilibrium is an actual mixing/mastering tool.


but that feeling when THE Bob Katz is your personal adviser on EQ.

 

[Mr B1]

I was quite skeptical about EQ until recently - coming from the full-size speaker world and the accumulated experience that EQ sounded bad and mostly looked like a crude tool to overcome systemic issues.

Then since I got my RME ADI fs dac (which has 2.17Gflops available for DSP), I had a chance to listen to the quality with and without EQ and -surprise- I just couldn't hear it. My colleague who has very good ears, drew the same conclusion. About any other change to your stack would do more probably.

Since then ...it's been such a blessing with headphones. They're all slightly imperfect (just check a response curve) and having a good tool to deal with the worst bits, or put on some easy-listening EQ, or one that lifts presence at other times.. it's such a nice option to have. So to me, good EQ just adds listening enjoyment and versatility. It doesn't turn my AFC into an AFO... but it has improved both.