To EQ, or Not to EQ... and Which One???

[Gradofan2]

I think I've given up on trying to find a reasonably priced source / amp / headphone combo that sounds just the way I prefer. I've got the RS-1's and the HD600's, and HD650's. I want my HD650's to sound more like my RS-1's. I've tried cables, amps, other headphones, etc. and still haven't gotten completely there.

Now... I think I'll try a good, but inexpensive, EQ or Sound Processor. I want one which will not add noise or hum, and which will not cause any deterioration in the SQ. I'm not a "purist," or "straight-wire with gain nut," but I don't want to ruin the sound with the added circuitry.

I'm considering one of the following:

Alesis DEQ-230 Digital Stereo Graphic EQ
Behringer DEQ2496 Ultra-Curve Pro Mastering Processor
Behringer T1951 Tube Ultra-Q
Rane PE 17 Parametric EQ
dbx 131 Single 31-Band Graphic EQ
DOD SR4300XLR Graphic EQ
DOD SR831QX 31-Band EQ
Aphex 204 Aural Exciter

I'm inclined to try the Aphex, or possibly the DEQ2496, or maybe one of the DOD's.

I really don't need all the "bells and whistles" a sound engineer needs - I just want to increase the clarity and brightness of the Senns, and possibly reduce the bass emphasis of the HD650's, or round off the highs of the RS-1's on some music.

From my research, I understand the Aphex is the most likely to allow me to do all those things, especially adding brightness and clarity to the Senns.

None of these are very expensive - and may be the quickest, most effective, and most inexpensive way to achieve just the right sound from my setup. But, I don't want to sacrafice the overall sound quality in doing so.

I'm just too impatient, and frugal, to keep screwing around trying amps and phones - I just want to be able to tune the sound to my preference on each CD.

So... has anyone tried these, or can anyone provide me some guidance and insight regarding which one might "get me there," or whether I'm going to ruin the SQ with an EQ, or processor???

Thanks for your help!!!

 

[GreatDane]

I thought you were past the "should I EQ?" stage in your quest.

You state that:

"I really don't need all the "bells and whistles" a sound engineer needs - I just want to increase the clarity and brightness of the Senns, and possibly reduce the bass emphasis of the HD650's, or round off the highs of the RS-1's on some music."

The 204 can't reduce bass or treble. Of course an EQ will. I'm sure you know that the Rane EQ's are the best on that list, followed by (imo) the dbx, DOD & Behringer being more equal.

I chose the 204 because I didn't want to constantly fool with adjusting things. With a 31 band EQ I was always changing bands never being sure what I liked. There are only 6 knobs per channel on the 204. I consider it to be an "intelligent" EQ for the lazy tweaker. The 204 works great for my needs and performs as advertised.

However,I think the Behringer DEQ2496 would be best for you offering maximum tweakability.It seems to be an excellent value.

 

[sacd lover]

I have tried several equalizers .... even back to the days of the old analog Soundcraftsmen equalizers. I had a different objective back then of just trying to neutralize frequency peaks with my speakers. Well .... it worked sort of. The peaks were gone but so was the life in the music. I ended up with another pair of speakers and that solved the problem and the EQ was sold.

Fast forward to my headphone days and I again tried an EQ to tone down the nasty treble peak in the dt880's. I really liked the 880's but the treble would always get to me. I also had a bit of lower treble brightness with the senn 650 and my solid state amp I was also trying to tame. In both cases I was unsuccessful. I tamed the peaks but lost transparency and life to the sound.

I also found out that EQing will sound good on some music and all wrong with other music .... even if you seemed to have had the EQ right. The best results I have had in cases like this is with tuberolling. But even that can only go so far. My experiences, and the fact you are going to do even more EQ to get your 650 to sound more RS-1 like, leads me to believe you likely will not get the desired results. But, I am also very picky and my expectations may be much gretaer than yours. So, maybe buying a good, but inexpensive, used EQ that you can experiment with would be a good idea. I dont want to discourage you I just wasnt satisfied with the results I got from equalizers.

 

[zombieDave]

What about recommending something like the Corda-Cross? I do not have one - couldn't afford it at the time I was looking to "cure" my DT880's - but the treble peak on my DT880's was almost entirely cured by a cheaper x-feed device (Pink Floyd's design built by Head-Fier cetoole) and, since the Corda-cross allows for a slight adjustment of bass & treble, couldn't that combo - EQing + slight tone adjustment - solve the OP's problem?

zD

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zombieDave /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about recommending something like the Corda-Cross? I do not have one - couldn't afford it at the time I was looking to "cure" my DT880's - but the treble peak on my DT880's was almost entirely cured by a cheaper x-feed device (Pink Floyd's design built by Head-Fier cetoole) and, since the Corda-cross allows for a slight adjustment of bass & treble, couldn't that combo - EQing + slight tone adjustment - solve the OP's problem? zD

It is true that the CC-1 will tame treble & bass but of course it will also be doing its crossfeeding magic

Which I love, gradofan2 may not. He didn't mention his experience with crossfeed.

 

[Gradofan2]

Greatdane... did the 204 brighten the sound of your HD650's, did it allow you to deemphasize the bass at all, while retaining clarity?

I realize it's not an EQ... at least in the sense of the others. But, I'm really not seeking a lot of complexity either (adjusting a lot of finite pots on each track).

As far as the Crossfeed option - does it allow you to deemphasize the bass on the HD650's, and to emphasize the highs? And... I assume you can adjust the amount of crossfeed to minimize, or maximize it - correct? That might be an option if it can do these things.

I'm not looking for "night and day" changes, just some minor adjustments without screwing up the clarity, or adding noise. I can always sell the HD650's and just live with the HD600's, if I can't quite get the highs I want, or reduce the bass enough on the HD650's. At some point, I was going to sell one, or the other anyway (HD600's, or HD650's).

I don't think the HD600's / HD650's need an awful lot of adjustment - just a bit brighter, perhaps with just a bit less bass in the HD650's.

In general... I'm really pretty close with these three phones, I just want some final refinements and "be done with it" - so I can just "listen to the music."

 

[GreatDane]

The 204 works very well at adding undistorted "clarity" or brightness, whatever you'd like to call it. If you've read the info at the Aphex site, it does do what it claims to a certain point but it can't deemphasize bass.
Of course it's not magical but for my needs it's much better than using a standard EQ.


*Aural Exciter* .................................... *Big Bottom*
Increased Presence and Clarity ........ Deeper, More Resonant Bass
Restores Natural Brightness ............. Little or No Increase in Peak Output
Greater Perceived Loudness ............ Tighter Bass Articulation
Improved Detail and Intelligibility...... Extended Low Frequencies


As for the CC-1, it works better for reducing bass/treble. It hass 6 levels of gain for bass/treble but at maximum settings, there is not much boost if any.These controls are aside from the 3 levels of crossfeed which don't seem to affect bass/treble levels any more or less when switching between them. I believe the bass/treble trim is more of a correction for the attenuation that the crossfeed creates. I do not know this as fact, Jan Meier would be the one to clarify that issue for us. All I know for sure is that it works great, a must have for me.

Like I mention, the 204 was a great move for me from a 31 band EQ because it tweaks the sound in a much more intelligent way than simply boosting every track the same at one given setting. It seems to effect each track in a way that lets you hear different changes depending on the bass or treble level or lack thereof.

For brightening the 650(or any can), the "aural exciter" section works much better than an EQ by using its "harmonics" feature which needs to be used sparingly. Other than this trim is "tune" which is basically the frequency that the effects are centered at and "mix" which is the gain.These are simplified explanations, there is more to understanding exactly.

The manual that is included is quite good and I think it can be downloaded at the Aphex site

The "big bottom" feature has 3 controls as well. These are "tune" which controls the frequency at which the "drive" control is centered at. Off hand I don't know the frequency range of the "tune" control, it is not labled on the face plate but is given in the manual. The third control is "mix" which is again simply the gain.

The big bottom feature "drive" is explained much better in the manual but it basically delivers more bass punch/slam (pick your favorite term) without sounding overloaded or strained. Compared to boosting low bass (30~50 Hz.) with an EQ, the 204 sounds much cleaner and more natural...a bass heads dream

I actually don't use the 204 with my Darth Beyers because they simply don't need any tweaking, bass or treble. I prefer to listen to them straight out of my Central Station or Porta Corda when using my PC as source.

For a great explanation on the 204 please read this review.