[setmenu]

My own use of equalizers tends to be restricted to fine tuning my canal phones
to suit my ears.
I do not use digital source based eqs as my sources have none, instead
I make small passive inline filter modules that have previously been developed on a proto board.
I tiny tweak here and there can make a whole world of difference to ones
enjoyment of the listening experience.



Setmenu

 

[boodi]

I'll tell it for all
who use a good eq. is gaining something in his mid-budget setup . 100% .

 

[dwc]

If you have the luxury of a source with digital output, then I can recommend the behringer deq2496. Going for about $250 these days at the local Guitar Center.

digital eq, dac functionality, limited switchbox functionality, stereo separation control (poor man's crossfeed), all kinds of junk and easy to use. (it's fun).

if you ever get too "audiophile" for it you can always give it to a friend or relative.

-Dan

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan165 Well, with all this talk about equalizers, what are some good ones to look for in the various price ranges (low, medium, high)?

The best ones are made by DBX, but other brands are fine too. You want a 31 band dual. That will give you maximum flexibility.

See ya
Steve

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The best ones are made by DBX, but other brands are fine too. You want a 31 band dual. That will give you maximum flexibility. See ya Steve

No. Maximum flexability[and precision] is achieved with a DSP equalizer that has several parametric bands, shelf filters, etc.. A graphic equalizer is a crude device in comparison. The Behringer DEQ2496 device I see being recommended by others is a good example of a very powerful equalizer. It has all options(shelving, parametric, 31 band dual graphic) and can even be used directly between a digital source and DAC, never entering the analog domain, if that's a preference. I like to recommend the Behringer DCX2496 as an equalizer. It does not have a graphic equalizer[but that's not as precision anyways], but it has the other options. The DCX has PC interface software that makes it a breeze to get WYSIWYG results with a few mouse clicks. The DCX can be used for custom purposes too, such as if one has an AKG K1000 and wants to add a subwoofer. You can use the DSP crossover functions of the DCX and choose any frequency/slope/topology that you like to optimize the transfer function.

-Chris

 

[spinali]

Quote:

The proper way to EQ is subtractively... you pull back on the frequencies that are masking the weaker ones. This adds very little noise to the signal. So, I would say that the reason that EQ gets bad press is because most people don't know the first thing about how to use them!

So true. If your headphone/IEM is a powerhouse like the UM2, you can shave away some of the bass and come up with a very satisfactory sound. If, in addition to this, you use an amp that has bass and treble controls, you can basically shape the sound any which way you want. But if the sound isn't there in the first place, the end result is going to be a muddle.

 

[Skylab]

Philosophically I have no issue with EQ, but depending on how you define EQ, I would never use it on my home stereo speaker rig (but I do goose my subs a little, a form of EQ). There are no analog EQ deviced transparent enough, and. I could only use a digital EQ for CD, not vinyl/SACD/DVD-A.

As for using EQ with headphones, if used subtractively and judiciously it can be nice, although I use an iPod for almost all my headphone listening, and its EQ has problems, so I don't use it much.

 

[fincherr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan165 Well, with all this talk about equalizers, what are some good ones to look for in the various price ranges (low, medium, high)?

And does anyone make a portable equalizer? (or how would I build one?).

 

[Jahn]

Hmm maybe this would be a good time to unload my analog graphic EQ...nah, it's too heavy and bothersome to ship. I'll just keep it around for giggles.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx No. Maximum flexability[and precision] is achieved with a DSP equalizer that has several parametric bands, shelf filters, etc.

That's quite true. It takes a bit to be able to master a parametric equalizer though. Graphic equalizers are much simpler to use. I use a parametric when I am working on my computer and want to finesse the setting, but I have a graphic on my stereo... I find it's easier for me to visualize what I want to do quickly with a graphic equalizer. (Especially after a beer!)

I've heard that Beringer equipment has problems with durability. Is that true? There's nothing worse than a graphic equalizer with sticky pots.

See ya
Steve

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I've heard that Beringer equipment has problems with durability. Is that true? There's nothing worse than a graphic equalizer with sticky pots. See ya Steve

Behringer used to have quality control problems, several years ago. They have since purchased their own manufacturing plant in China to ensure good QC. Used to have to ship repair work overseas, too. Today they have U.S. service centers. The tales of poor customer service and QC being worse than any other major manufacturer are an artifact of times past. Besides, the units I recommended have no pots to get 'sticky', they are DSP devices.

So far as parametric being difficult... the DSP units referenced above have display screens that show the band manipulation(s) graphically. But, I'm used to parametric equalization, and I actually find graphic equalization to be more difficult[since it's so imprecise in comparison], at least so far as getting a desirable effect.

-Chris

 

[aphex944]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman EQs provide a more artificial sound than what would originally come from your source. Since it adds another part to the chain in your hifi setup, the sound gets degrated. Just buy gear that sounds how you want it to - using EQ on high-end stereo gear is contradictory!

Completely agree, I don't see any place for EQs in higher end stereo systems. They may be useful in certain playback situations using an iPod, or maybe a car stereo.

 

[gerG]

I can't even remember life before digital equalization. deq was a true step forward in realistic reproduction of music.

I have a few different DEQ around, and I am shopping for a new one. I use them with headphones and with speaker systems. With the speakers it is primarily for room anomalies. As I kill offending reflections, I hope to eventually dispense with EQ on the speaker systems. So far only the outdoor system can get away with no EQ.

For headphones, there are 2 things that I correct: voicing (spectral balance) and bass rolloff. I have yet to find a headphone that does not go away too soon in the first octave. I have been amazed at how well many headphones respond to eq in this area. I would have thought that they would be overdriven with deep bass boost, but I have never had a problem. With EQ I get well damped bass that is flat to 20 hz. Without eq I haven't heard any headphone do this. The voicing is a more personal issue. With AT cans I reduce the prominant upper midrange. With Sens I bring up the shy treble. With the Beyer DT931 and 880 I flatten the 5-6 Khz peak. Taking out prominent sonic features like this can truely alter the personallity of a headphone (to the worse, if you get it wrong).

On the boost vs cut issue, it is not an issue. With a deq there is always a level adjustment that offsets the whole spectrum. Vary in whatever direction makes sense, then tweak the master to keep the digital output below 0 db. Also good to make sure that the digital input is below 0 db. I have had a lot of trouble with this using itunes/airportexpress with compressed files. For some reason it applies digital boost when it decodes the files.

As for the idea that deq adds distortion or degrades the sound in some way, I would love to see some data on this. I keep my deq completely in the bitstream (digital source in, with digital out going to outboard DAC). Truncation error might be an issue, but that can be addressed. What else should I be fixing?


gerG