[White Lotus]

I've still never found a decent parametric EQ (With a good UI) for windows.
 
Any ideas?
 
Whilst I'm here - 
 
Hardware vs Software EQ. Any thoughts?
 
EDIT: Just started using a parametric EQ for Foobar. There goes my afternoon.. (I've been using a graphic EQ made by Xnor for quite some time now)
 
...And possibly a few future headphone purchases, with any luck. I have a few pairs that I really enjoy the comfort and looks of, but feel that they don't quite have the sound signature that I'm looking for. It would be ideal to be able to achieve this with EQ. 
 
DOUBLE EDIT: aaaaaand I still prefer the Xnor EQ. More reliable, seems to be accurate, more intuitive. 

 

[gnarlsagan]

I've still never found a decent parametric EQ (With a good UI) for windows.

Any ideas?

Whilst I'm here - 

Hardware vs Software EQ. Any thoughts?

EDIT: Just started using a parametric EQ for Foobar. There goes my afternoon.. (I've been using a graphic EQ made by Xnor for quite some time now)

...And possibly a few future headphone purchases, with any luck. I have a few pairs that I really enjoy the comfort and looks of, but feel that they don't quite have the sound signature that I'm looking for. It would be ideal to be able to achieve this with EQ. 

DOUBLE EDIT: aaaaaand I still prefer the Xnor EQ. More reliable, seems to be accurate, more intuitive. 

Electi-q is pretty solid. Tons of options and pretty easy to use.

 

[manbear]

EasyQ is more or less the same thing as ElectriQ, and I understand that for some odd reason, certain people who can't get one to work can sometimes get the other to work. I use EasyQ on Foobar. 

 

[lawlbear]

EQ is extremely important to get what you are looking for but what a headphone can dish out is king.

 

[Schonen]

Ever read this article? Read it if you haven't, it is about what you are talking about.
 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
 
"But whatever Bob, and others who can match his technical virtuosity, choose to do with the results of this project, I think that the field of high-end audio amplifier manufacture will never be quite the same again. High price and high status will continue to be handmaidens in audio, but the knowledge that high performance and high price need no longer be inseparable cannot help but impair the glamor of cost-no-object power amps."

 

[DavidRoss007]

My hi-fi journey has evolved in ups and downs, back and forth from believer to skeptic. Recently since discovering the sound science forum I feel more informed than ever. But also more skeptical in a lot of ways. I'm starting to believe a great deal of we call "hi-fi" is just EQ. Given that you have a reasonable source (and IMO the onboard output from a 2013-made high-end motherboard is certainly reasonable), an amplifier that can deliver enough power (even if it's reaallly cheap), the only thing that matters is the speaker/headphones. And even in that case, a great deal of differences can be "fixed" with EQ.

I did an experiment today. I borrowed my friend's pair of Grade SR-225's. I've owned these in the past and absolutely hated them. I downloaded a plugin graphic equalizer (supposedly better than the built-in one) for Foobar and set up this ridiculous EQ curve according to the SR-225's frequency response graphs. I then further skewed it for my own taste. I had the bass at 100hz at +15dB.

Guess what? The SR-225's sounded AMAZING. Tight powerful bass. Not much extension in the really low hz but still, they didn't sound anything like Grado's. I had expected there to be crazy distortion with using this much EQ but it turns out there is none audible at all (makes sense as all changes are are in negative dBs).

Now, I'm not saying a $50 pair of computer speakers can be EQed to sound like floorstanders or anything like that.

Just that within equipment of the same category, you can use EQ to make one setup pretty much sound like another.

I believe this especially true for amplifiers and DACs. I'm starting to believe there is nothing at all to DACs except EQ. And as long as an amplifier can deliver enough clean power, there is not much difference either. Aren't tubes basically just another type of EQ?, etc...

Just felt like ranting... I still love this hobby but the more I get into it, the I believe "Visual Placebo", "Price Sticker Placebo", "Pretty Tube Glow", and EQ makes up the majority of sound difference between equipment.

Not sure if this is relevant but after nearly 30 years as an audiophile, I want the music to sound how I like it so eq has become a necessity. I use akg q701 as my main headphones and although they have an amazing sound, they do need a little help in the bass area and that's where a little eq comes in and I'm happy. I'm not willing to be a purist anymore, I want to be moved by the music I listen to and not spend my life looking for the "perfect sound" and miss all that listening time. Theres my rant

 

[Whazzzup]

I didn’t know any of hifi was eq, but hey whateves

 

[castleofargh]

I didn’t know any of hifi was eq, but hey whateves

as EQ alters even the loudest signals, an EQ toward a more neutral response is easily among the biggest fidelity improvements we can get. probably The biggest in most practical cases as utterly garbage gear is not so common those days. the catch with headphones being to be able to define what that neutral should be, as at least part of it depends on the listener's head.

 

[Spareribs]

EQ does not always change the fundamental sound of a gear and here is my experience:

I compared the Marantz 2270 phono preamp to the Schiit Mani phono preamp.

The Marantz comes with an EQ and no matter how i equalized it, it did not retrieve the level detail that the Schiit Mani could achieve.

The Marantz is a very good unit but it’s also on the ear fatiguing side while the Schiit Mani does not have this characteristic

 

[bigshot]

Phono preamps have EQ hard wired into them. It’s likely that one had a wonky RIAA curve. 78s take an entirely different curve than LPs too. Could it have been a preamp designed for older records?

 

[Spareribs]

Phono preamps have EQ hard wired into them. It’s likely that one had a wonky RIAA curve. 78s take an entirely different curve than LPs too. Could it have been a preamp designed for older records?

The vintage (solid state) Marantz sounded good with older records but ear fatiguing. However, the modern Schiit Mani had better detail retrieval and not ear fatiguing.

 

[bigshot]

Fatiguing and detail are classic terms used to explain bias. Is there a specific frequency response difference between them. It is drop dead easy to make a phono preamp with an accurate RIAA curve. Why would someone make one that is deliberately out of spec? Can you cite specific model numbers for the preamps you think sound different? Do you think you could identify which is which in a blind comparison?

When I say older records, I mean 78s, not LPs. LPs all have the same EQ curve. 78s varied by manufacturer and recording venue. An LP played with a preamp designed for 78s would sound thin and shrill... not enough bass, too much treble.

 

[jagwap]

Decent HiFi doesn't have EQ.

No tone controls, no loudness curve, no bass boost. It doesn't need it.

A great headphone fed with a flat response signal will sound great. Mess with that and you are modifying the designer's intention, and if the designer got it right you are modifying the producer's intention.

Profesionals know how to EQ. I have yet to meet a customer who knows.

 

[jagwap]

It is drop dead easy to make a phono preamp with an accurate RIAA curve. Why would someone make one that is deliberately out of spec?

Having designed several, I disagree. There are many decisions on how to achieve the EQ: series or shunt feedback, EQ in feedback, or as a passive filter, or a combination of both. Then componant choice is key. There is so much gain involved many components can be microphonic, and 1% capacitors are a requirement if you want flat response. These used to be less easy to get before MLCC. You basically had polystyrene, which melted when you soldered them for 1/2 second longer than you ment to. Now with MLCC only certain types don't distort and are not microphonic.

Then there is the noise budget. There is no opamp quiet enough on it's own for moving coil, you need special low Rbb transistors, which are all being made obsolete now. Every resistor (well nearly) contibutes to the noise at room temperature.

Then there is headroom. A large scratch can overload the amp and cause it to clip so hard it takes enough time to recover that the scratch is the least of your problems. Technics actually went as far as to have voltage rails larger than the power amp to mitigate this.

What about cartidge loading? This causes big changes in the response of the cartridge, so do you settle on a compromised value where it only sounds good with one product, or put a but of user adjustable resistive and capacitive loads in there?

You talk like everything in audio is easy, even when it takes you 4 days to EQ a few channels.

 

[castleofargh]

Decent HiFi doesn't have EQ.

No tone controls, no loudness curve, no bass boost. It doesn't need it.

A great headphone fed with a flat response signal will sound great. Mess with that and you are modifying the designer's intention, and if the designer got it right you are modifying the producer's intention.

Profesionals know how to EQ. I have yet to meet a customer who knows.

I have to disagree with this. a headphone by nature is going to bypass part of what makes our HRTF. as a consequence, different people will often perceive the same headphone as sounding differently(even without wondering how different our hearing itself can be from one person to another). so unless the designer is my own dad, chances are that to actually hear the sound he was hearing when he tuned it, I'll need some EQ.
it's a similar argument as speakers and the impossibility of predicting the room and placement that will ultimately be used with them. if we really want the reach a given target, we'll need EQ, and maybe more than that.

with that said, having no notion of what the designer's intention actually was, and typically no idea how to EQ, I admit that the average consumer isn't going to solve everything just by being given an EQ to play with. not much we can do about that beside waiting for someone to provide easy and cheap ways to measure our own HRTF or something similar.