What are your clip EQ settings?

[WalkGood]

Flat is best on OF although rockbox is a different story, crossfeed, stereo width and a little extra bass ftw

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif How can you take the midrange down to plus 2? Besides the clip loses about 3db or more of volume when you go into custom EQ mode. Yet to each their own. I have used the clip with the PK3s and see no reason to use the eq. Then again , I feel all EQ on these devices are crap and never use them. My theory is that if you have to use EQ you have a serious problem somewhere in the listening chain. After re-reading your post, I think someone jacked up all your eq settings if you are pulling them down to numbers such as plus two or four and I think you are referring to clicks above the center line right? Not above the max cut line way down at the bottom.

Well +4 clicks across the board is the same as what they call "normal." So if you are running in "normal" mode, you're not using no EQ, you're really running everything at +4.

Then when you shave a click or two off one of the frequencies you're just lowering it from "normal."

It's probably usually better to use no EQ, but the mids were too harsh for me with the PK3s, and lowering them with the EQ really improved the sound, imo.

 

[bixby]

Sorry, but I don't follow uselander logic. Where did you come up with using normal EQ as being eq at Plus 4. I have attached a simple chart that show what Plus 4 might look like. The horizontal line is FLAT, no EQ. Putting an equalizer up plus 4 on each of the pivot frequencies would do something like in the chart.


If you feel flat is the bottom of the graph, you are in error. It is actually the inverse of my crude drawing, with deep cuts from flat. I can see how one might interpret this if you are not familiar with Equalization. And FWIW, I count 12 discrete clicks form the bottom of the EQ range to flat and 12 more from flat or the center line to the max eq for each.

So I am still at a loss to see how you get 4 clicks down from some "normal" setting to equal flat.

Are we talking about the Sansa Clip??

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, but I don't follow uselander logic. Where did you come up with using normal EQ as being eq at Plus 4. I have attached a simple chart that show what Plus 4 might look like. The horizontal line is FLAT, no EQ. Putting an equalizer up plus 4 on each of the pivot frequencies would do something like in the chart. If you feel flat is the bottom of the graph, you are in error. It is actually the inverse of my crude drawing, with deep cuts from flat. I can see how one might interpret this if you are not familiar with Equalization. And FWIW, I count 12 discrete clicks form the bottom of the EQ range to flat and 12 more from flat or the center line to the max eq for each. So I am still at a loss to see how you get 4 clicks down from some "normal" setting to equal flat. Are we talking about the Sansa Clip??

Very simple: I set the "Custom" EQ setting to +4 across the board, and then switched between that and "Normal" and there is no difference in sound.

It's pretty obvious when the EQ is set flat at the midline (which defaults to "Normal") and you raise or lower even one of the frequencies, the volume drops out noticeably. That's because "Normal" on the clip isn't really flat at the midline, but is the same as having everything set at +4. Or said the other way, if you set all the frequencies to +4, that's the same as when you have it set at "Normal."

 

[bixby]

I'll have to give that a listen, but if Sandisk is doing that they are whacked, no wonder people are all goofey over EQ with companies doing stuff that makes absolutely no sense.

I'll give it a listen and then comment, but I see your point.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll have to give that a listen, but if Sandisk is doing that they are whacked, no wonder people are all goofey over EQ with companies doing stuff that makes absolutely no sense. I'll give it a listen and then comment, but I see your point.

Report back what you think.

It sounds like +4 to me, but maybe they're all +3 or +5, etc. I think it's basically "flat" though, just boosted up.

But who knows what they're referencing it to. Maybe +4 is actually the genuine flat EQ, and they just set that at +4 for some reason, to protect people's ears in case it was actually set to 0 and people cranked it up to +max, etc. (if you see what I mean).

 

[bixby]

You have made a very important discovery. From my brief listen a few moments ago, I have to agree with your hypothesis. Plus 4 on all pivots sounds remarkably like normal.

Now if that is so, it is kind of like the Plasma tv manufacturers who run their settings on 95% bright and picture because it looks more impressive. Then when you get a real reference to cinema you drop those levels down to 60% or so.

This is totally whacked! My apologies and I will look into it further with some pink noise to see how that sounds. What is fairly obvious is that plus 4 sounds nowhere near what a real equalizer might sound like with only 5 pivot points for the entire spectrum.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif You have made a very important discovery. From my brief listen a few moments ago, I have to agree with your hypothesis. Plus 4 on all pivots sounds remarkably like normal. Now if that is so, it is kind of like the Plasma tv manufacturers who run their settings on 95% bright and picture because it looks more impressive. Then when you get a real reference to cinema you drop those levels down to 60% or so. This is totally whacked! My apologies and I will look into it further with some pink noise to see how that sounds. What is fairly obvious is that plus 4 sounds nowhere near what a real equalizer might sound like with only 5 pivot points for the entire spectrum.

No need to apologize for anything, I'm just figuring this out as I go along myself (which is why I started the thread in the first place

).

I just noticed that when I changed any of the settings from all flat at the midline, the volume would drop out. So I got curious as to what the EQ was actually set to at "Normal" to give it that volume boost, and I *thought* it seemed to be the same as all bands at +4.

But why they would do that I don't know -- it's actually impossible to set it to the actual midline, because that just "converts" it to the +4 "Normal" setting. So maybe it is a "sexiness" factor thing, or maybe "Normal" (+4) actually ***IS*** the true zero/flatline, and everything else is just relative to that. I don't know how to test that exactly, but maybe your pink noise tests will tell us something.

 

[bixby]

I have listened briefly to pink and white noise files on the clip and only figured out a few things.

And these are only to my ears, thanks to the alertness of uselander.

1. Custom EQ set at plus 4 clicks at all frequency pivots seems to equal the normal setting in tone and volume

2. Custom EQ set at minus 4 clicks seems to alter tone from the normal setting when you compensate for the lower volume level.

3. Custom EQ set at flat for all freq pivots with the highest at plus 1 plays much lower in volume than normal but when increased in volume to compensate sounds like normal with a very slight bump up in the upper highs.

4. Custom EQ set at the zero line equals the normal setting in tone and volume

5. I can't spend any more time fiddling with EQ!

Conclusion- EQ designers are playing with their audience. It truly is a whacked phenomenon and is not to be used. Hence my distrust and distaste for all DAP EQ.

All kidding aside this is weird.

 

[Peyotero]

Some one should compare rockboxed vs original.
Also this may be the reason why ClieOS noticed a difference between the Fuze LOD and hp out. He did say it sounds more "flat"...

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have listened briefly to pink and white noise files on the clip and only figured out a few things. And these are only to my ears, thanks to the alertness of uselander. 1. Custom EQ set at plus 4 clicks at all frequency pivots seems to equal the normal setting in tone and volume 2. Custom EQ set at minus 4 clicks seems to alter tone from the normal setting when you compensate for the lower volume level. 3. Custom EQ set at flat for all freq pivots with the highest at plus 1 plays much lower in volume than normal but when increased in volume to compensate sounds like normal with a very slight bump up in the upper highs. 4. Custom EQ set at the zero line equals the normal setting in tone and volume 5. I can't spend any more time fiddling with EQ! Conclusion- EQ designers are playing with their audience. It truly is a whacked phenomenon and is not to be used. Hence my distrust and distaste for all DAP EQ. All kidding aside this is weird.

I'd agree with all those observations, as they are what I've noticed, too.

So what do you suggest? Run all the pivots at +1 to get as close to true flat as possible, even though there's a volume drop over Normal (or increase over true 0)? Or just accept the default sansa "Normal" setting as 0 and listen to all your tunes EQed up from a truly flat EQ?

For me, I'm going with the second option, tweaked for the higher mids as in the OP. Compared to CD through my PCDP, the clip settings sounds pretty close to that.

Weird that they would set it up that way, though. I'd be curious to know how other firmwares deal with this EQ issue. I might try installing the rockbox firmware later like Peyotero mentioned if I have a chance to read up on it and can do it in linux. Since they are independent firmware developers (I guess), they might fix the issue to be TRUE flat line EQ if they are made aware of the issue.

 

[WalkGood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peyotero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some one should compare rockboxed vs original. ... ...

Rockbox is not ready for prime time use, I am running it and it will sound fine at times for a whole album but then all of a sudden a glitch will sound, so it's still glitchy and hasn't been released, you can read up on it here.

 

[Ashkii21]

I have the 8GB Sansa Clip that I got recently at the Walmart $50 sale. I use the "Normal" setting for the EQ. Wow they have Rockbox for the clip? What will the Rockbox firmware do once it is stable and usable for the Clip?

 

[Peyotero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WalkGood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rockbox is not ready for prime time use, I am running it and it will sound fine at times for a whole album but then all of a sudden a glitch will sound, so it's still glitchy and hasn't been released, you can read up on it here.

Yeah I know it's note in a stable stage yet, but one could still test, lets say, rockboxed clip vs stock firmware on the fuze to see if there are SQ differences.

 

[Roger.McMurphy]

My settings are +6 +5 +4 +3 +2

Paired most of the time with K324P in-ears, K414P or KSC75.

Makes the sound much warmer that way, and tames any sort of treble, at the slight cost of reducing the dynamics. I really can't bear any form of brightness. The bass response certainly is bloated that way, but I'd rather have some bloated bass than too little. I will definitely try it with my E5 once I receive it as it might help in the bass department.

I think it sounds pretty nice that way. "Nice", as in better than my mediocre integrated laptop soundcard, but not by much. The clip doesn't even have the soundstage of the laptop, which speaks for itself, but it still offers slightly better dynamics and imaging, at the slight cost of details. I still have yet to hear about a better sounding PMP. Of course, PCDPs doesn't count

.

I might invest in a Zune one day, or a better sounding Clip successor.