[jmills8]

I really shouldn't jump in here, because this got blown up from something totally innocent. I guess if Warrior hadn't used the word "improve" but something like "tailor" the sound, there wouldn't have been an issue. And if Rezei hadn't started his response with a definitive "No," it could just have been overlooked. But here we are in the early morning starting up an age old debate, and I can't help myself. Of course both sides have a point, EQ can't generate the improvements in resolution or dynamics that go with objective measurements of sound quality. It can however alter the sound to suit the tastes of the listener. So at the dawning of a new day we're back at the stalemate....

The thing is, No. Warrior is right. EQ improves the sound. I know what you're getting at Rezei there is a natural sound produced by the source+amp+transducer and EQ can only "shape" that. Right, but that "shaping" has two parts. 1) It tunes the sound to individual preferences. E.g., the basshead can boost the low end to his heart's delight before distortion. But, 2) A poor spectral rendering can be corrected and enhanced.  E.g., one of my favorite phones is the HD800 that has an infamous 6K peak, so I use EQ to cut it at 6K to bring it closer to neutral. Even more, it also has a naturally weak bass response, so I boost the lows. Some other phones have rolled off highs and so I get out the EQ again and insert a high shelf filter. Another word for this "shaping" is called "improving."

The way I know this is because in the studio before the tracks ever found their way to my DAC, it was never natural, it was "shaped" (i.e., EQ'd) probably a lot. The musician might have EQ'd it, the recording engineer EQ'd it, the mastering engineer most likely EQ'd it again. Certain instruments, amps, microphones, etc. were all chosen for their natural tonal qualities, but these guys tend to take a crack or two or hundred at "improving" the sound. In the studio, the people producing the sound might say to the engineer,"there's not enough low end can we do something to make it, you know, better?" I happen to say the same thing when I'm re-producing the sound. To say that this only makes it sound "right" to the musician, engineer, producer, or end-listener is not really relevant. Music is not made or heard by robots.

Well, apologies all over the place for inserting myself and the, ahem, tone. It is, as was mentioned, early in the morning. 

If one uses the power given to him and he or she is pleased with the results then it does improve. ☺☺

 

[1wyseman]

Why FW 1.91? I'm getting a Hifiman set. Haven't decided yet on HEX or HEK. If it's HEK, I'll need AM5. Just covering bases. Wish I hadn't now because HEX is winning.

 

[FiiO]

If you love to try X7+all amp modules (AM2,AM3 and AM5),you are warmly welcome to join us here : http://www.head-fi.org/t/804809/x7-all-amp-modules-am2-am3-am5-review-world-tour-starts-right-now
 

 

[1wyseman]

 After unmounting SD card correctly and re-inserting it, all is well!
 
EQ works fine and USB/DAC switching works as well. @FiiO maybe this should be mentioned for people who opt to download FW 1.91
 
Thanks @warrior1975 and @Brooko 

 

[Sound Eq]

 
I really shouldn't jump in here, because this got blown up from something totally innocent. I guess if Warrior hadn't used the word "improve" but something like "tailor" the sound, there wouldn't have been an issue. And if Rezei hadn't started his response with a definitive "No," it could just have been overlooked. But here we are in the early morning starting up an age old debate, and I can't help myself. Of course both sides have a point, EQ can't generate the improvements in resolution or dynamics that go with objective measurements of sound quality. It can however alter the sound to suit the tastes of the listener. So at the dawning of a new day we're back at the stalemate....
 
The thing is, No. Warrior is right. EQ improves the sound. I know what you're getting at Rezei there is a natural sound produced by the source+amp+transducer and EQ can only "shape" that. Right, but that "shaping" has two parts. 1) It tunes the sound to individual preferences, sure. E.g., the basshead can boost the low end to his heart's delight before distortion. But, 2) A poor spectral rendering can be corrected and enhanced.  E.g., one of my favorite phones is the HD800 that has an infamous 6K peak, so I use EQ to cut it at 6K to bring it closer to neutral. Even more, it also has a naturally weak bass response, so I boost the lows. Some other phones have rolled off highs and so I get out the EQ again and insert a high shelf filter. Another word for this "shaping" is called "improving."
 
The way I know this is because in the studio before the tracks ever found their way to my DAC, it was never natural, it was "shaped" (i.e., EQ'd) probably a lot. The musician might have EQ'd it, the recording engineer EQ'd it, the mastering engineer most likely EQ'd it again. Certain instruments, amps, microphones, etc. were all chosen for their natural tonal qualities, but these guys tend to take a crack or two or hundred at "improving" the sound. In the studio, the people producing the sound might say to the engineer,"there's not enough low end can we do something to make it, you know, better?" I happen to say the same thing when I'm re-producing the sound. To say that this only makes it sound "right" to the musician, engineer, producer, or end-listener is not really relevant. Music is not made or heard by robots.
 
Well, apologies all over the place for inserting myself and the, ahem, tone. It is, as was mentioned, early in the morning. 

thanks for the reply and clearing things 

 

[cheznous]

Received the AM5 yesterday.
Got to say it drives the Hifiman HE1000 very well.
Volume at around 85/90 sounds very good indeed.
That's at high gain as well of course.
I imagine battery life will suffer but ah well.

 

[1wyseman]

Received the AM5 yesterday.
Got to say it drives the Hifiman HE1000 very well.
Volume at around 85/90 sounds very good indeed.
That's at high gain as well of course.
I imagine battery life will suffer but ah well.

Good to know. Great input for my study. I'm still leaning towards HEX with the AM2.
 
Did you have any issues with FW 1.91?

 

[ReizeiMako]

Bolded part is to your ears. We can play this game all night.

Nah. It will be an endless boring game like burn-in war, cable war or 24bit vs 16bit war. You believe in digital EQ god. I don't. That's all.

 

[warrior1975]

Nah. It will be an endless boring game like burn-in war, cable war or 24bit vs 16bit war. You believe in digital EQ god. I don't. That's all.

Well, that would be putting it nicely and correctly. I don't mind that you disagree, I agree with your disagreement and understand it 100%. I just didn't see the point of telling me that I am not "correct" and it "doesn't improve the sound", when to me, it clearly does. I'd have absolutely nothing to say to you, had you said what you said in this post. You are entitled to your opinion, and for me it's not about being right, or if it actually improves the sound to others, as I can only speak for what my ears hear and what I think sounds better.

I think edwardsean summed it up rather nicely.

Also, like with food, you can alter or make food taste better. Something lacks salt, and it tastes bland. For some that doesn't taste very good and they'd like to add salt. Salt would improved the taste for some. People that don't like salt would disagree, maybe even say it changes the tastes where they like it even less. Making it taste bad, therefore hurting the taste. Same concept.

Regardless, I hope that you are enjoying your X7, with or without eq.

 

[Paulo Abreu]

I really shouldn't jump in here, because this got blown up from something totally innocent. I guess if Warrior hadn't used the word "improve" but something like "tailor" the sound, there wouldn't have been an issue. And if Rezei hadn't started his response with a definitive "No," it could just have been overlooked. But here we are in the early morning starting up an age old debate, and I can't help myself. Of course both sides have a point, EQ can't generate the improvements in resolution or dynamics that go with objective measurements of sound quality. It can however alter the sound to suit the tastes of the listener. So at the dawning of a new day we're back at the stalemate....

The thing is, No. Warrior is right. EQ improves the sound. I know what you're getting at Rezei there is a natural sound produced by the source+amp+transducer and EQ can only "shape" that. Right, but that "shaping" has two parts. 1) It tunes the sound to individual preferences, sure. E.g., the basshead can boost the low end to his heart's delight before distortion. But, 2) A poor spectral rendering can be corrected and enhanced.  E.g., one of my favorite phones is the HD800 that has an infamous 6K peak, so I use EQ to cut it at 6K to bring it closer to neutral. Even more, it also has a naturally weak bass response, so I boost the lows. Some other phones have rolled off highs and so I get out the EQ again and insert a high shelf filter. Another word for this "shaping" is called "improving."

The way I know this is because in the studio before the tracks ever found their way to my DAC, it was never natural, it was "shaped" (i.e., EQ'd) probably a lot. The musician might have EQ'd it, the recording engineer EQ'd it, the mastering engineer most likely EQ'd it again. Certain instruments, amps, microphones, etc. were all chosen for their natural tonal qualities, but these guys tend to take a crack or two or hundred at "improving" the sound. In the studio, the people producing the sound might say to the engineer,"there's not enough low end can we do something to make it, you know, better?" I happen to say the same thing when I'm re-producing the sound. To say that this only makes it sound "right" to the musician, engineer, producer, or end-listener is not really relevant. Music is not made or heard by robots.

Well, apologies all over the place for inserting myself and the, ahem, tone. It is, as was mentioned, early in the morning. 

Very well written.

So, as every record is mixed differently, (I think with the end result to the liking of the artist? Mastering engineer?), logically I assume I should EQ every record to achieve the taste of "my preferred sound signature", correct? Maybe if it was possible to attach an EQ setting to each record, it could be done?

That's one of the reasons why I don't use EQ. But as already said, EQ is personal thing, I love to hear music as close to original with all its defects, highs and lows, every dish with its own sauce.

My 2 cents

 

[edwardsean]

Nah. It will be an endless boring game like burn-in war, cable war or 24bit vs 16bit war. You believe in digital EQ god. I don't. That's all.

I know we should leave it here. We should leave it here. We should. You don't believe in digital EQ for yourself. That's totally fair. Totally. Totally. But...
 
Just to throw one last wrench into the works for for fun, rather than just thinking: EQ/no EQ there's also: good EQ/bad EQ. Not all EQs are the same. With software EQ, advances in technologies (e.g., linear response, FIR, virtual modeling) have brought high quality equalization into your hands (literally). We're talking about much more precise tools now than the old bass/mid/treble controls of old. This means...
 
There's also good EQing and bad EQing. Just pumping up faders will yield the kind of artificial low end thumping or high end harshness that makes an audiophile cry and turn off the EQ altogether. But, this is not the same thing as a judicious attenuation of some muddy frequencies or adding a smooth, natural, tasteful rise in the high end. A little 60Hz bump in the low-end will do a lot to improve a weak bass response, or a little 60Hz cut will do a lot to improve a bloated bass response. 
 
Using EQ well takes a bit of learning, but it can reward you with some great results. If you like a certain DAC, amp, or phone but there are some tonal weaknesses, they can be (last time I promise): improved. Rather than having to buy a whole new phone (cough, HD800S) or cut up felt with glue (what are we, cave-audiophiles?), I would just suggest, just possibly, just consider that you try the free EQ sitting in your software. But, if you've already gone that route and decided that it's just an unnecessary headache getting between you and your music, that's totally fair. Totally.  

 

[frifox]

logically I assume I should EQ every record to achieve the taste of "my preferred sound signature", correct? Maybe if it was possible to attach an EQ setting to each record, it could be done?

I do this to a certain extent already. Diff headphones require their own EQ graph to match my likings and furthermore, some songs need adjustments of their own as well. I'd kill for a feature to save these settings somewhere. Headphone specific EQ saved on the player and song specific EQ saved to the files meta.

 

[warrior1975]

I don't understand the difference between using eq (done well) or purchasing equipment that is colored. Eq adds versatility and saves money. It also helps when you can tweak a frequency or two instead of carrying multiple IEMS. I am a hypocrite though, I use eq and carry multiple IEMS.

Regardless, I'd like to put the eq thing to rest. If you don't use it, that's fine. If you do use it, that's fine as well. Keep an open mind either way, lastly don't insult or push your ways on others. We are all here for the same reason, to achieve sonic bliss. There are many roads that lead an individual there, none are correct or best, only good for you.

On a positive, I don't remember the last time my music paused for 5-7 seconds for no reason. Only thing I changed recently was my SD card. Formatted to exfat (or the other), whichever fiio recommended.

 

[edwardsean]

Very well written.

So, as every record is mixed differently, (I think with the end result to the liking of the artist? Mastering engineer?), logically I assume I should EQ every record to achieve the taste of "my preferred sound signature", correct? Maybe if it was possible to attach an EQ setting to each record, it could be done?

That's one of the reasons why I don't use EQ. But as already said, EQ is personal thing, I love to hear music as close to original with all its defects, highs and lows, every dish with its own sauce.

My 2 cents

 
[Sorry, wrote this while Warrior posted his call to put this to bed. Feel free to delete this if you like.]
 
Ahhh, Paulo, why do you do this to me? Why? I just settled down nicely on this, and, I don't know where you live, but here, it's too early for wine. Your words make me want to reach for a nice red, though the weather is getting nice and I'm drifting more toward white summer wines. But, here it is without the filter of a good Pinot:
 
What–in the world–makes–you–think you're hearing the music closer to the original without EQ? 
 
There is a good-sized gap of equipment, tech, and knowledge between what you're hearing in-between your ears (or in your listening room) and what the final mastering engineer heard from his reference monitors when he created your original. If your system has e.g., a weak bass and rolled off highs, this is not how the original was rendered. If you have a standing wave in your living room that is creating a resonance at 8K that is not there in the original. 
 
Here's the thing, there might've been an 8K peak in the recording studio as well. How did the recording engineer deal with it? EQ. There may have been a lack of sub-bass when the track got handed off to the mastering engineer. How did he deal with it? EQ (and compression). When the track arrives in my house, and I complete the chain, how do I deal with the deficiencies in my system? If I have frequency anomalies in my room/gear, or if I also have e.g., a lack of sub-bass one of the best tools at my disposal is EQ, just like it was one of the best tools all along the way. 
 
Listen, I get it. We all have the same goal here: to find a good bottle of wine for under $20. Okay, got off track. Fidelity. "High Fidelity" to the original. I'm not looking so much to sweeten or spice things up as much as I want the original too. Why do you think EQ is an impediment to that?
 
In the chain, EQ helps close the fidelity gap between what the artist intended and what the recording engineer gets down. EQ then closes the fidelity gap between what the engineer got down and what the ME can get across to multiple consumer platforms. And, that's a pretty big spread between platforms between iPod earbuds and high-end Magico speakers. So, then, it is up to the end-user/consumer, if they so wish, to try and close the gap from the mastered original to their ears. One of the best ways to do that is: EQ.
 
Now, where's that bottle....

 

[warrior1975]

edwardsean Excellent post brother.