[Joe Bloggs]

also because tube glows so it's aesthetically pleasing and also because tube amplifiers may bring up fond memories.

there are other aspects that bring enjoyment in this hobby beyond the actual sound. music can be better at a concert or with friends. when listening to headphones alone, sometimes having a nice tube amplifier brings enjoyment in ways that EQing does not.

I have never heard anyone talk about opening up their EQ settings and feeling a state of 'bliss' but often tube enthusiasts talk about such experiences and feelings when using their tube set-up. Associative memory and sensory perception can often to affected by things beyond the actual sonic stimulus.

For sonic differences between an EQ geared to replicate tube distortion and actually using tubes to achieve tube distortion... well, I am not knowledgeable enough on the matter to speak scientifically about it. But I do imagine a difference can be perceived similar to how there is a "difference" between seeing the Grand Canyon in a video or actually being there and hiking the Grand Canyon.

But state-of-the-art tube amps these days are sonically transparent. There is no Grand Canyon to hike or simulate--it's just a flat road, same as a state of the art solid state amp.

This on the other hand is the corrections I apply to a pair of IEMs with particularly bad sibilance at specific frequencies:


Now there's some Grand Canyon landscaping of the sound right there

(such sharp cuts of the frequencies may "ring". They just happen to cancel out the ringing caused by the original earphone response. Otherwise, my ears ring :rolleyes: )

I've got testimonial from the maker of the earphones himself that my filter improved the sound of his earphones dramatically. Sadly they're in Chinese :rolleyes:

Now if you want to read about the improvements made by an EQ designed along similar lines for another pair of earphones, you may read up here
http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour

 

[Steve Eddy]

Take my post as a confirmation of the general point, but disagreeing with the idea that the effects of the high source impedance can't be equalized out. 

But the argument was about equalizing them IN, not out.

se

 

[arnyk]

He was also arguing that equalizers introduce ringing and phase distortions in a way that tube amps won't.

I was attempting to point out that if an equalizer was used to simulate the frequency-response changing aspects of a certain tube amp, it would only ring and phase-distort as much as the tube amp itself (which is to say not much at all, unless the tube amp were doing some crazy things to the sound).

 
The idea that equalizers necessarily ring or introduce phase distortion is a  myth. 
 
Audio gear has both amplitude and phase response. Audio gear phase and amplitude response commonly come in packages that follow  rules that says "If the amplitude is this, then the phase shift is that."  
 
The most common phase and amplitude packages are called Linear Phase, and Minimum Phase.
 
The rule connecting phase and amplitude for Linear Phase is simple: "The amplitude can be anything but the phase shift is the same as that due to some real-world time delay."
 
The rule connecting phase and amplitude for Minimum Phase is anything but simple: "The phase and amplitude is connected by The Hilbert Transform.(an integral equation)" Sorry you asked, right? 
 
Well to twist the knife the most power amps, whether SS or tube are Minimum Phase. This is not as bad as it looks, because most analog equalizers and digital equalizers that simulate them are also Minimum Phase.
 
If you use a Minimum Phase equalizer to equalize a Minimum Phase power amp, you correct both the phase response and the amplitude response at the same time. In theory you can make any old amplifier have the most ideal phase and amplitude response you can think of. In practice there are practical considerations related to dynamic range and noise. 
 
BTW most modern DACs have Linear Phase frequency+ Phase response, by which hangs another story. Later.

 

[Steve Eddy]

He was also arguing that equalizers introduce ringing and phase distortions in a way that tube amps won't. I was attempting to point out that if an equalizer was used to simulate the frequency-response changing aspects of a certain tube amp, it would only ring and phase-distort as much as the tube amp itself (which is to say not much at all, unless the tube amp were doing some crazy things to the sound).

Yeah, but maybe in this case instead of trying to "prove him wrong" with a bunch of graphics that people can't seem to be able to remove from their quotes, you should have put the onus on him to substantiate his claim.

se

 

[money4me247]

But state-of-the-art tube amps these days are sonically transparent. There is no Grand Canyon to hike or simulate--it's just a flat road, same as a state of the art solid state amp.

 
The analogy was to illustrate that physical tubes may be preferred even if two system sound identical for reasons beyond sonics.

 

[rmouser]

Here is my four cents (adjusted for inflation):
 
I use a 31 band hardware EQ. Foobar 2000 (don't know if there is more version) comes with a 21 band embedded and you can download a 31 band version. My ears cannot hear any ringing between the two and my 10 MHZ scope does not display any that I can see.
 
I see lots of graphs here and graphs are good, especially for headphones. But, the graphs do not tell how the phones actually sound.
 
With an EQ you can tune out the peaks and valleys but that still doesn't tell how the phones and amps actually sound. That is determined by the listener.
 
I am not a purist who wants the sound as determined by the recording engineer. To do that you would have to use the phones, amps and CD players (for final review) that the engineers use in the studios anyway???
 
I use the EQ for the sound I want--isn't that the whole idea anyway?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Of course! And you can do that much more effectively than with pieces of equipment that *pretend* to change the sound, but doesn't, not really (for state-of-the-art transparent components) or can't be assed about how its changes relate to your preferences (for poor components, which may still cost you an arm and a leg)...

 

[castleofargh]

I think maybe goobicii should know that this particular EQ can let you decide what type or EQ is applied. in the form of a digital/analog setting for the EQ, so you can get pre ringing like usual, or no pre ringing, and push it all after(at least that's what I seem to understand it does as that stuff still needs to go somewhere).
that's what Joe is using in his example and why what he says seems right to me. on some average random EQ I would most certainly agree with goobicii on a few points, but it's not a random EQ.

 

[goobicii]

As expected, applying the inverse EQ restores the original waveform

 
no its not,the sine have noticable distortion at the end,look closer,I dont even know how long it is since it continues outside frame.... 
 
also dont forget the noticable delay in affected freqencies,since you use minimum phase and not linear phase,that phase shift is even worse than the post ringing
 
 
theres reason why educated people looking for ultimate sound never EQ their headphones...  post ringing aside,the phase shift or pre ringing you get with minimum/linear EQ is extremly bad,the whole reason R2R NOS dacs are so popular even through their horrible measurements and HF roll off is that they have perfect impulse response,no ringing and perfect time aligment,no rhythm killing transient softening shifts

 

[arnyk]

   
no its not,the sine have noticable distortion at the end,look closer,I dont even know how long it is since it continues outside frame.... 
 
also dont forget the noticable delay in affected freqencies,since you use minimum phase and not linear phase,that phase shift is even worse than the post ringing
 
 
theres reason why educated people looking for ultimate sound never EQ their headphones...  post ringing aside,the phase shift or pre ringing you get with minimum/linear EQ is extremly bad,the whole reason R2R NOS dacs are so popular even through their horrible measurements and HF roll off is that they have perfect impulse response,no ringing and perfect time aligment,no rhythm killing transient softening shifts

 
 
The demo is obviously flawed. There are not enough full waves shown to know whether there is distortion or not. The demo also needs to look at what happens as frequencies vary.
 
The comment about "Educated People" is a personal attack, and it would be nice if we didn't have that sort of thing going on around here. If anybody wants to go hand-to-hand with me, I was a Sargent in the Army (Viet Nam era) and there are things one does not forget, trooper. Just get me a pass with the moderators!
 
The material I posted about Minimum Phase and Linear Phase filters was in my day standard fare in a 300 level Engineering course. It was further expanded upon and pounded into our heads with lab classes using real world electronic parts and test equipment. It was further pounded and expladed upon by some postgraduate courses and a life of hands on engineering work.
 
There are uncountable audio systems that are based on the abilities of equalization to correct frequency response.
 
One of the earliest and best known audio applications was RIAA equalization. That worked based on a Minimum Phase premphasis network in the Mastering Room and a Minimim phase demphasis network in everybody's Hi Fi.  The amount of equalization was huge: 40 dB, and if this technology works for that, it can work for just about anything.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

One of the earliest and best known audio applications was RIAA equalization. That worked based on a Minimum Phase premphasis network in the Mastering Room and a Minimim phase demphasis network in everybody's Hi Fi.  The amount of equalization was huge: 40 dB, and if this technology works for that, it can work for just about anything.

In case you didn't catch what this means, goobicii, RIAA equalization is for vinyl records. Yup, vinyl records have 40dB of bass cut (or treble boost, as you may) in the record and a corresponding 40dB of bass boost (or treble cut, as you may) in playback...

 

[Steve Eddy]

In case you didn't catch what this means, goobicii, RIAA equalization is for vinyl records. Yup, vinyl records have 40dB of bass cut (or treble boost, as you may) in the record and a corresponding 40dB of bass boost (or treble cut, as you may) in playback...

No wonder vinyl sounds like crap. The bells! The bells! The bells! Stop the ringing!

se

 

[Joe Bloggs]

theres reason why educated people looking for ultimate sound never EQ their headphones... post ringing aside,the phase shift or pre ringing you get with minimum/linear EQ is extremly bad,the whole reason R2R NOS dacs are so popular even through their horrible measurements and HF roll off is that they have perfect impulse response,no ringing and perfect time aligment,no rhythm killing transient softening shifts

Please enlighten us on how these educated people were "educated". I did my Bachelor's thesis on computational auditory scene analysis and my Master's thesis on alternative means of measuring Head-Related Transfer Functions. (look them up if you don't know how they relate to audio)

Please also provide market share statistics of R2R NOS DACs.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

No wonder vinyl sounds like crap. The bells! The bells! The bells! Stop the ringing!

se

I appreciate your humor Steve

 

[Exacoustatowner]

I'm one of those loons who likes the sound of my hybrid over my various SS amps.
Yet I use an EQ as needed. The RANE DEQ60L.