[aimlink]

I'm beginning to have a sneaky suspicion that with the fall of hardware eq'ing or frequency response adjustments, as well as the tabooing of software eq'ing among purists, we have a new reason for end users to burn their wallets big time, i.e., in the quest for system synergy.
 
While I'm willing to admit that there are pretty fundamental differences between tube vs SS amps that frequency response adjustments cannot compensate for, I am willing to contend that within each category a little adjustment of bass, mids and treble would go a long way rather than looking for another amp.
 
What are the opinions here on this issue.  In fact, it's this growing feeling that has me reluctant to go tinkering too much since from here for me, it makes cable money look like shillings.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

An argument against using a software EQ is that you get tied to that EQ and software that can use that EQ.
 
I use a software EQ with my Denon D2000.  It ties me to using software that can use that software EQ plugin.  I can use J River, Foobar, and a few other programs with that EQ.  But when I play YouTube videos through the web browser I don't have the benefit of the EQ.  If I use something other than my computer as a source I can't use my EQ.
 
Synergy is also no substitute for fixing a problem that needs EQ fixing.  Synergy works for subtle things.  For example you don't want an amp that causes harshness in the highs with a D2000 or a Grado.  But fixing the midrange drop in the D2000 needs EQ.  Some amps are said to synergize well with the D2000 and fill in the midrange.  But that is very subtle and in the guise of psychoacustic affects rather than actual bump in the midrange frequency.
 
I do a shelf style EQ with my SR325is to drop the highs a little bit.  Grado highs can be a bit too much, especially on the 325is.  I could hunt around for an amp that synergizes better with the Grados and softens the highs a bit, but that'd be looking for an excuse to spend money.  I'm happy with the EQ taming the highs and the EQ is more tweakable than hunting for the elusive amp and source synergy.
 
So synergize for some things and EQ for others.

 

[aimlink]

Any small and good hardware EQ's available?  I agree with your sited limitations of software EQ.  Fortunately, I'm fussy with the EQing only when listening to music through iTunes.

 

[SP Wild]

I agree with Ham.  And EQ is really addictive...once I start EQ'ing - I cannot stop.  Every track that comes on needs a trim here or there...this occurred with the D7000s - because they were technically sound, yet closed and imaged accordingly - and the FR was not ideal to my preferences.  It was an ongoing fiddle with crossfeeds and eq's - that yielded tremendous benefits - and I highly recommend.
 
The argument I make is that EQ "may" introduce "something" into the purity of the signal...but if you're using a high-end can - it remains a high-end can...not like with EQ it introduces impurities that bring the can to a lower tier - it will still sound top-tier, with the benefits of having a signature that can be compenasted for, depending on genres and recording quality.
 
Yet I find with a can that suits your FR tastes to start with - it's just so much less fiddly - and I am free from the computer - with less fiddling...my enjoyment in music does go up a little - all the DSPs remain off and the OCD EQing goes away.  EQing is brilliant for when other options are limited.
 
Also when you start to play around with EQ - your understanding of a lot of technical issues multiplies - FR graphs start to make complete sense - especially when you start to notice your EQ curve resembles FR graphs.  Issues of speed and transients and there relationship with psychoacoustics .... everything starts to make sense.

 

[Krav]

I find the "tabooing of software eq'ing among purists" somewhat amusing, as certain tracks of pretty much all records they listen to were at some point subject to equalization, dynamic range compression, controlled distortion, artificial reverberation, and other effects. A recording is a mix of such tracks, and may have been further subjected to processing during mastering. If a recording was made in the last couple of decades, chances are high that the mixing and mastering were done digitally.
 
I think the equalization was given a bad name by the abundant low-quality equalization software from a decade or so ago, some of which still remaining embedded in popular software and hardware players. I personally got satisfactory equalization results only when I switched to Cubase - a professional Digital Audio Workstation - running on multi-core 2GHz+ computer. My Cubase headphones equalization stacks typically consume about half of a core on a 24bit/96KHz stream.
 
While "coloring" analog amps, especially tube ones, are not improving much (and many tube purists consider tubes from 1950-ies to be superior to contemporary ones), the digital processing power still grows exponentially (not so much in GHz as in number of cores on a chip). Sound processing software is getting better (for the same price) and cheaper (for the same functionality) with every year as well.
 
Exponential trends have a way of sneaking up on people - what was not true a decade ago is true today - one can buy an audiophile-affordable equalizer implemented in software (e.g. any high-end DAW) or hardware (e.g. Behringer DEQ2496), which is sonically transparent and really improves the sound instead of muddying it.

 

[Vkamicht]

I agree with Ham who said that "synergy" is very subtle. The word is thrown around a lot here, as if changing your amp or DAC can magically whisk away all the problems you are hearing with your headphones.
 
Now, I'm an EQ user and a believer in such. I use the EQ function built into my E-MU 0404's drivers so it works on all sound played through my computer. It's not a graphical EQ, but in some ways I think it was better that way. I had to trust my ears on what I was hearing, and I learned a lot in the process.
 
By listening to a sine sweep and isolated frequencies I found problem areas that required as much of a -7db cut to flatten them out with the rest of the spectrum... this is not something that a new amp or DAC would fix. If it is, then one of them is probably defective to begin with. Most amps and DACs I see strive to have a "flat response" anyway, so much that most of them sound the same to me. Yes I've heard differences in source, but as said above, very subtle. Tubes are a different story I'm sure, but I'm just talking solid state here.
 
IMO, if you find yourself saying "I wish this had just a touch more bass, and very slightly reduced highs" then sure a different amp or source may fix that problem. But things like big spikes/dips in frequency response that are due to either the headphones or your own ears can't be fixed without some lovely EQ.

 

[plonter]

I don't have enough knowledge about those things,but my logic tells me that it is preferable to use software EQ instead of hardware (physical) one to get less degradation of the sound.  that it is better to mess with the sound while it is in the digital domain, and it also saves one more component in the signal's way.         any comments about this?
 
anyway...the best way is probably getting the most neutral headphone and plug it to the most neutral system (dac,amp).    because there is no 100% in reality than the closest we can find.  this way we get a neutral sound and don't degrade the sound in anyway by using eq. 
it is easy to get dac and amp which are neutral...i think that most of them are relatively neutral,the headphone is the main problem.
ofcourse that it sepends on one's hearing and taste of "what is neutral sound"..well for the moment i found my headroom rig (see sig) together with the etymotic HF5 in ears to give me an almost perfect neutral sound...they way i hear it ofcourse.

 

[plonter]

I am just having a nice experience regarding system synergy that i thought i would share with you.
I have a marantz CD-5001 cd player  which i am using primarly as a transport for my headroom rig (Dac+amp).  the marantz headphone out sounds very nice but i rarely use it...mainly because it is not so good with low impedance headphones which most of my headphones are.
 
 I always had synergy problems with my grado RS1 with flats because i always felt that the sound was too muddy and lack the grado's magical highs,and the bowls are sometimes too aggressive for me.   so i tried to find a balanced,sweet spot between the bowls and the flats,and today i just tried the RS1 +flats with the marantz HP out.  and it really sounds good,the marantz balance the sound very nicely.
 
like i said before,the marantz is not good with low impedance headphones and it underpowers them which results in weak bass response and sibilance highs.  but in my case,it totally balance the flats sound by giving my the extra highs i need and less bass.          so the sound is kind of dry right now..kind of "flat" and a little lifeless but it is not so bad overall.       from another point of view,the sound is also very clean sounding because of the minimum components in this specific chain (and also because of the cirrus logic dac in the marantz).