[ClieOS]

Well, we Head-fi'er are freak of nature...... and EQ is for people living in the sane world.

 

[mvw2]

Shucks...I'm sane.

I know when I'm not welcome here....

Really though, if everyone's IPod, Walkman, or whatever had 20 EQ bands, nobody would be complaining one bit. Once the resolution is there, the downsides disappear. Then there's only user error, and a person only has one's self to blame at that point. You really do need about 10 bands to stop caring though. Below that, and the jumps get noticeable and the EQ points aren't quite close enough to adequately fix the random peaks and dips in response. Parametric is better with fewer bands, but you still need enough bands to get the job done. Even a few bands of that really leaves one wanting for more, despite the adjustability. When you're short, you compromise. When you have enough, you stop caring because it just works...really well. The steps are also important for the same reasons. Does one step boost 3dB? Or does it boost 1dB? Anybody have EQs that boost at 0.5dB increments? It's useful, and yes, it does make a difference. You'll just find zero music players with such processing power...which...means you're screwed and you're better off leaving it off/flat...and you're back to buying headphones with the correct frequency response out of the box which blows.

 

[grahamnp]

I would use EQ more if it were implemented better. The iPod EQ either overdoes it or doesn't do quite what I want.

 

[james444]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grahamnp /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would use EQ more if it were implemented better. The iPod EQ either overdoes it or doesn't do quite what I want.

That's exactly the reason why I didn't like EQing before I got Rockbox for my Fuze and Pocket Player for my htc phone. These have convinced me at last that EQ can actually sound good.

 

[iriverdude]

Would use EQ if someone would post correction values for TF10 in Rockbox...supposed to be thin in midrange I agree with that.

 

[CENTRAL]

Sony EQ does what it is supposed to do. It enhances the frequency that the user wishes to boost.

Despite using pretty analytical IEMs I can hear no distortion or any other side effects.

Think of EQ as an umbrella in sunny London…it’s better when you have it…

 

[Spyro]

Of about 15 different IEM's I have used, every single one except, perhaps, W3 could use some EQ. While I think some of the Ipod EQ settings are worthless and can distort, I think some do a great job. I have always preferred the "Jazz" setting on my triple driver IEM's to just slightly tip up the top and bottom end. Like adding salt and pepper to a favorite dish. Zero distortion. I have used the "Hip Hop" setting when using ER4P's which does a great job filling on the bottom end with zero distortion.

 

[mvw2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif Would use EQ if someone would post correction values for TF10 in Rockbox...supposed to be thin in midrange I agree with that.

It'll depend on your ear and your preference in sound. Something I typically do for EQing is play a pink noise track. With that I EQ to equalize the intensity throughout the entire frequency spectrum. How much you can do will depend upon the EQ. A fully adjustable parametric EQ is harder to work with. The Rockbox from my understanding has 5 parametric bands. You will literally have to grab a piece of paper and run through the frequency spectrum via trial and error. Start wherever you want and start adjusting. Make note of which frequencies you boosted and which frequencies you cut in order to equalize the sound level across the entire spectrum. When you're done, look at what you wrote down. Pick the 5 main problem points and set the bands to those points. Adjust the Q values as needed to control the width of the boost or cut to match what you wrote down. Set initially, then fine tune. Bump the boost or cut up and down one knotch. Change the Q wider or narrower one notch. Shift the frequency point up or down one knotch. Do any of these work better then the intial point? Once you're done, the end frequency response using pink noise will get the earphone as close to (ear) flat as possible. This is a very good habit I've fallen into when running a wide range of hardware. I've done this with all of the headphones I've owned and wide array of car audio setups I've run. There are really a lot of frequency response flawed headphones out there that sound so very much better when properly EQed. The unbalanced becomes balanced, the overshadowed becomes even. You get a significantly better experience. I've run headphones I've hated to use without EQ but really liked with EQing, simply because they needed to be fixed that much. The NuForce NE-7M is an earphone I can't use without EQ. It just bugs me too much. Something cheap and fun like the V-Moda Vibe gets significantly more musical once EQed. The Denon's C700 "Loud" feature V shaped response once flattened vastly improves the presentatino of the C700. The midrange is awesome when it's not overshadowed. It's just so annoying being stuck with mediocre frequency responses and much better earphones and having to suffer through it because of a lack of EQ. They can be sooo much better, and this goes for 90% of what's out there. Some earphones don't need much EQing. These are nice to run since you don't have to do any work for them to be balanced and even. Yuin does a great job with this on a number of their products. I've used their PK2 and OK1, and I can't add or cut more then 1 or 2 dB anywhere and retain a flat response. It's very good out of the box. There are a lot of earphones I've used significant amounts of EQing to dial in.

 

[Punnisher]

Lots of people use EQ. EQ users might feel a little embarassed because of the reputation that EQ has received on these boards.

Nothing wrong with EQ in my opinion. I normally don't use it, but believe it should only be used for subtle changes in sound. Some people make drastic adjustments all across the board, which makes me wonder if they even like their headphones to begin with!

 

[barleyguy]

The problem with the EQ in DAPs isn't that it is too basic, or lacks bands. The problem is that the algorithms that cheap digital EQs use seriously damage the phase of the signal. The phase is the main thing that gives you soundstage. So I'm in the "EQ OFF" camp, unless there is a serious problem that I need a (temporary) fix for.

From that perspective, I'm in the other 1/10, that could care less whether a player comes with EQ. If I have a problem that needs to be fixed through EQ, I'll find a longer term way to fix the problem, whether that involves different headphones, an external amplifier, or whatever. Just my opinion though. Others are free to use EQ as they see fit.

 

[kmhaynes]

I'm not such a purist. I use the EQ on my Zune 30, set to the "Acoustic" or "HipHop" setting. It is a several named settings, and is a 5-band EQ with
the actual +/- settings hidden. But Microsoft has a page that describes the named settings and their positions.

 

[jagathon]

I love my settings for EQ on my Sony. I like to change the low end on older recordings. Try it on an iPod and it is distortion city!

 

[swanlee]

I never understood why people get so angry here when other express the fact they use or like an EQ. I find it weird that some people seemto get offended if you listen to music differently than them.

Some people like me simply prefer music to sound a certain way, regardless if it is purely accurate or not i have certain preferecnes that ca nonly be accomplished by an EQ.

I mean I'm the one listening to the music why should I NOT have it sound the way I WANT it to?

 

[headfever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif I mean seriously, whenever anyone starts a thread about "who uses EQ or not", 9 out of 10 people reply "EQ OFF". Yet it seems 9 out of 10 people want an MP3 player or Ipod that has custom EQ. Isn't that a contradiction?

MY humble answers are as following, please be aware, it is only my understanding. I am not the audio specialist or audiophile:

1, EQ is definitely a kind of artificial sound color. some audiophile called it sound pullusion. that means the EQing sound is not the original recording sound. So the hi end audio usually without EQ function.

2, Not everyone has the skill to customize mastering the EQ. so most of user don't use EQ .

3, Why almost DAP have EQ, because most of the DAP is low fi player, which lack of some capability, such as bass or highs controlling. EQ seems can help in theory. Be aware, not mostly in practice.

4, Also to some spefify earphone synergy issue, EQ attempt to compensate something. but also in theory, not perfect in practice.

5, EQ have make a mistake to educate too many "bass heads" EQ is a a criminal at some where.

6, ZUNE HD return to EQ, now ,the market seems have only one DAP without EQ , that is AMP3.

From the feedback of the owers of AMP3, the sound quality is the only one can hit the hi end CD player sound quality. And have a wide perfect synergy with phones, from the IEM , earbus to Headphone, from IE8 To HD 600.

7,so, EQ or no EQ, is depended on the capability of the DAP. it is not our users faults

 

[.coco]

A lot of people here claim that EQing is the devil, while they claim to love their headphones being colourful, bassy, warm etc. In the end, whether it is your media player messing with the frequency response or your headphones messing with it, the frequency is being altered. If you are a person who is going for the flattest response possible, then EQing is not for you, along with 99% of the headphones raved about here.