[swanlee]

EQ is a choice that should be left up to the user. I fully support neutral well sounding recordings where the user has room to adjust the sound if they want.

These later recordings that are to HOT leave no room for adjustments as they are already at the point of distortion. Metallica's last album Death Magnetic was the worst example of this in music history. If you looked at the wave form of the entire cd it was distorted 100% through out, no peaks or valley's in the wave form.

What I DO NOT get is the holier than thou crowd that blasts people for using EQ's or adjusting the sound. At the end of the day I have to say I honestly do not care how the artist or mixer intended it to sound I only care about how I LIKE IT to sound. Some of them would prefer NO sound options on audio equipment.

The artist and mixer are not sitting next to me listing to their music on the exact equipment I'm using and they do not have my ears or exact musical tastes.

I tend to prefer more bass and a more open airy soundstage that is very warm and I adjust all music to adhere to those preferences. If some people don't like me changing the audio signature of of music I LISTEN to then I do not care and no one else should either.

 

[VoLTaG3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swanlee /img/forum/go_quote.gif EQ is a choice that should be left up to the user. I fully support neutral well sounding recordings where the user has room to adjust the sound if they want. These later recordings that are to HOT leave no room for adjustments as they are already at the point of distortion. Metalica's last album death magnetic was the worst example of this in music history. If you looked at the wave form of the entire cd it was distorted 100% through out, no peaks or valley's in the wave form. What I DO NOT get is the holier than though crowd that blasts people for using EQ's or adjusting the sound. At the end of the day I have to say I honestly do not care how the artist or mixer intended it to sound I only care about how I LIKE IT to sound. Some of them would prefer NO sound options on audio equipment. The artist and mixer are not sitting next to me listing to their music and the exact equipment I'm using and they do not have my ears or exact musical tastes. I tend to prefer more bass and a more open airy soundstage to my music and I adjust all music to adhere to those preferences. If some people don't like me changing the audio signature of of music I LISTEN to then I do not care and no one else should either.

I agree with you so much. I myself prefer BASS that has a impact and is detailed but not overpowering the frequencies at all. Also I like MIDS that are in your face and HIGHS that are not fatiguing but are still airy and clear. The Shure SE530's are fixed to my preferences and that is why I love them.

 

[JadeEast]

The idea that modern music is mastered to be flat doesn't seem to agree with the following.

Quote:

Producers also now alter the way they mix albums to compensate for the limitations of MP3 sound. "You have to be aware of how people will hear music, and pretty much everyone is listening to MP3," says producer Butch Vig, a member of Garbage and the producer of Nirvana's Never- mind. "Some of the effects get lost. So you sometimes have to over-exaggerate things." Other producers believe that intensely compressed CDs make for better MP3s, since the loudness of the music will compensate for the flatness of the digital format

from
The Death of High Fidelity : Rolling Stone

 

[eruditass]

most graphic eq's suck, you need a good parametric one. i dont use graphic eq's as it doesn't let me color the sound in the way i want it.

regardless, i disagree that many purposely try to make it sound 'flat' and rely on people to eq, because many don't eq. on the other hand, they dont try to exaggerate too much because everyone is listening on different equipment.. very different equipment. i think they try to make it sound the best to their ears and their equipment.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Of course there may be some artists (like me btw) who do everything on their own throughout the musical production-chain (creating the music & mastering) but this is a BIG minority in the music industry

e.g. Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree

Still no excuse for the Loudness War tbh.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvgig /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree with What? The comparison to restaurants is interesting. Personally, I find that at less expensive restaurants there is usually an assortment of spices and sauces at the table to "customize" your food with. However, if you go to an expensive restaurant with an accomplished cooking staff, you will find very little if any options at the table as it is expected that you want to taste what they prepared for you, untouched. It is almost an insult to the chef to ask for extra sauce or something to put on the food. I would think that the same expectations would occur in the recording business as well.

Awesome 'counter-comparison' and is very true (family works in the food industry and has have restaurants and takeaways.). That said, we do cater for the customers needs most times, say if we can do it with the stock we have/it isn't overly ridiculous. Also, remember just because it's expensive, doesn't mean the restaurant's food is actually good, much like audio. I've had a couple of bad 'fine-dining' experiences.
When you've grown up in the food industry you tend to be a critic too
Also, I don't mind the odd KFC now and then

Also, I have music, that sounds great musically, but is just killed off by the Loudness War

e.g. Muse albums, Eye Alaska's debut EP.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Isn't the point of producing commercial music to create something that other people think sounds good? Why would they produce music that only sounded "right" after it had been EQ'd by each customer? The artist might not know anything about audio engineering, but I sure hope they know what their music should sound like *to them* - and wouldn't that be the end product? Yeah, I know the producers, etc will also put their fingerprints on the music - but I would hope the end product is made to sound "right" to *someone*...

 

[chinesekiwi]

But the thing it sounds best, even on crappy audio equipment, non-Loudness War'ed.
The only genres that has any excuse for Loudness War mastering is heavy metal, on which it was founded on distortion.
But even that gets fans crying over it.

e.g. Metallica Guitar Hero vs. CD recording controversy.

Thing is, Joe Public doesn't know what good mastering is unless they have a well mastered record and a badly mastered record to compare it with, like in that controversy.

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I see EQing as a tool to "fix" hardware as well as adapt to your own flavor as desired. Basically when you look at hardware (earphones, home audio drivers, car audio, etc.) sound engineers shoot for a particular sound signature. They create their own desired flavor with the device. Hopping to car audio for a second, it's why all Infinity are very bright, all Pioneer warm and bassy, and all Boston Acoustic are relatively neutral natural (relative scales, not exact, and broad generalization). I haven't listened to enough head-fi brands/models to give equivalent comparisons, but I'm sure you folks would agree that a brand tends to have common sound signatures. Ideally, you buy hardware that starts out closest to your own tastes. You get as close as possible to your own ideal first, so you don't have to fight it so much to get to a likable state. Once you're close by hardware choice, you want to get it dead on. I see EQ as this tool. When the hardware's dead on, you've given yourself a good base to start with, a reference point for all listening material. After that, you can EQ as desired to tailor to any particular music. Again, we're fighting against other people's personal preferences to get to our own. Again, EQing does this. My personal approach cuts out this last part though. I don't EQ to specific music. I just EQ the hardware to a reference state (ear "flat" for me) and then listen to the music as the artist and sound engineers geared it to. Sometimes you suffer because of poor mixing. Sometimes you are rewarded with musical bliss. Yet, I (personally) see this as the "ideal" listening experience, basically unbiased hardware, biased music. I just consider the musical bias to be the intended spice. Why try to make Italian taste like Asian. If the chef was making Italian, you should taste Italian. I don't see the point in fighting that. The best I can do is start with a cleansed, neutral pallet. mmm...food.

Agreed Eq is personal preference and should not be frowned upon. Whether you listen to your music like the producer intended. Or your listening experience is geared toward your warmer or bright taste. Plain and a simple it’s just a preference. Flat could be seen for producers and such trying to pick out instruments clearly without worrying about a warmer bass clouding up the mids or the highs. Warm could be viewed as 'fun' were there's the majority desired mid-bass hump.

Some people might prefer a flat eq not for critical listening but because they prefer a neutral flat response. Some might prefer warm even if there a producer. People saying producers or sound engineers all prefer a flat response is some what wrong. There are some (Timberland) who prefers a warmer bassy feel, all though it still manages to not cloud the mids and the highs. I myself am not a producer I prefer flat, even for bus rides, jogs, and dog walks. That's all it is a preference.

 

[hypoicon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvgig /img/forum/go_quote.gif The comparison to restaurants is interesting. Personally, I find that at less expensive restaurants there is usually an assortment of spices and sauces at the table to "customize" your food with. However, if you go to an expensive restaurant with an accomplished cooking staff, you will find very little if any options at the table as it is expected that you want to taste what they prepared for you, untouched. It is almost an insult to the chef to ask for extra sauce or something to put on the food. I would think that the same expectations would occur in the recording business as well.

This is the most interesting thing I've read in this thread. All analogies have elements of unfair comparison, and the comparison of eq with "adding spice" is particularly fallacious. It's more about emphasis/deemphasis of existing parts. Or, to throw in another unusual and unfair comparison, it's sort of like twiddling a zoom lens (for the photographers out there).

Many (including me) photographers prefer single focal length lenses because it removes that urge to "twiddle" and allows you to think about what is in front of the camera more effectively. Let's face it, if you have a knob you want to turn it just to see what will happen. With lenses, this really screws with your level of "presence" in the moment you are trying to record. Single focal length lenses mean that you have to interact-- move forward and backward to really understand what is in front of you, instead of just twiddling with a knob.

I think E.Q. is like that-- if you remove the horrendous number of possible variables introduced by E.Q., you can concentrate more on the music that is there and appreciate it more. If you think it's too bright, maybe you might want to change your other gear to better match your taste, etc. Most importantly, develop a taste instead of searching for a magic knob setting. If you are changing the E.Q., you have no idea what your equipment is really doing. The introduction of phase anomolies and other artifacts from E.Q. circuitry just really screws up your ability to really understand what high quality sound really is. Ask anyone who understands electronics about phase shift in L/C networks (EQ).

E.Q. is for mastering engineers and sound reinforcement technicians; I am neither of those. I prefer to listen rather than twiddle. Flat works for me.

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hypoicon /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is the most interesting thing I've read in this thread. All analogies have elements of unfair comparison, and the comparison of eq with "adding spice" is particularly fallacious. It's more about emphasis/deemphasis of existing parts. Or, to throw in another unusual and unfair comparison, it's sort of like twiddling a zoom lens (for the photographers out there). Many (including me) photographers prefer single focal length lenses because it removes that urge to "twiddle" and allows you to think about what is in front of the camera more effectively. Let's face it, if you have a knob you want to turn it just to see what will happen. With lenses, this really screws with your level of "presence" in the moment you are trying to record. Single focal length lenses mean that you have to interact-- move forward and backward to really understand what is in front of you, instead of just twiddling with a knob. I think E.Q. is like that-- if you remove the horrendous number of possible variables introduced by E.Q., you can concentrate more on the music that is there and appreciate it more. If you think it's too bright, maybe you might want to change your other gear to better match your taste, etc. Most importantly, develop a taste instead of searching for a magic knob setting. If you are changing the E.Q., you have no idea what your equipment is really doing. The introduction of phase anomolies and other artifacts from E.Q. circuitry just really screws up your ability to really understand what high quality sound really is. Ask anyone who understands electronics about phase shift in L/C networks (EQ). E.Q. is for mastering engineers and sound reinforcement technicians; I am neither of those. I prefer to listen rather than twiddle. Flat works for me.

Agreed flat for me just like the producer intended it to be. I understand if there is a annoying hi hat giving you an earsplitting headache, making you want to tone down the higher frequencies. Understandable, otherwise it's flat for me.

 

[SierraHotel01]

If I started a thread and published a specific EQ setting that I declared was the BEST EQ setting for EVERY source / LOD / amp / can, and EVERY tune in the world, from any source, for EVERY ear....

You'd think I was nuts!!!

When people state "No-EQ' - ever, for anyone (no matter what the reason) aren't they simply saying, the BEST EQ for ALL circumstances and ALL ears is 0db across the board.

Or, what if I said:

"Never, ever, anyone, modify / recable any headphone - it's not the way the manufacturer intended you to listen to them!"

None of the above makes sense to me.

How about?

Do whatever makes the music sound best to your ears & your brain.

Now that makes sense to me.

Comments?

 

[tstarn06]

Agree, and this debate has a Lazarus-quality to it. Who cares? Do what you like.

 

[GreatDane]

It's not an EQ, it's Big Bottom!

[size=x-large]Team Aphex[/size]

 

[epithetless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agree, and this debate has a Lazarus-quality to it. Who cares? Do what you like.

But what if I like raising the dead?

Incidentally, I agree with SierraHotel01. Although, like forsberg, I tend not to mess with equalizer settings because I know I'll keep fiddling with them ad infinitum.