[3lusiv3]

I'm not sure if this is in the correct forum, so moderator please move it if it isn't.

I'd like to hear why it it may be better to use amps & cables when you can equalise? I love the sound of music from my CD player or my turntable but playing from iTunes is so convenient that I find myself doing this the most, at high MP3 bitrates.

I have now used the equaliser in iTunes to compensate for the recessed midrange of my HD 590's and am wondering if there is any point in upgrading headphones, amps or cables when the equaliser has already done a similar job? At least as far as frequency response is concerned.

Here's my preset:

To counteract this:

 

[markl]

The best EQ is a well chosen and assembled system, IMO. A good system with components you like does not require EQ. People who object to EQ do so on the basis that you are adding components to the signal path which degrades sound quality and manipulating, altering, and distorting the signal so it has no relationship to the original recording, it's nowhere near "neutral" or "transparent". For most audiophiles, the goal is a neutral reproduction of the source signal with as few components/parts in the signal path for the least dilution and degradation of sound. They spend a lot of money on upstream components to get good sound, it would defeat this purpose if they just tisted and tweaked the signal with EQ elsewhere down the line, obliterating the sound of their wonderful spiffy expensive components.

As for substituting an EQ for an amp, that doesn't make much sense to me. An amp's function and utility in the signal chain is not to re-EQ the sound. It's to provide sufficient power and the appropriate kind of power for a given set of cans so they can be driven properly and sound like they are intended to sound-- at their best. The amp allows the source signal to be sufficiently powerful to drive the given headphone load, some require more current, others more voltage swing. But amps aren't all about amount of power, but *quality* of power as well. Better quality components and design ensure cleaner, better sound.

Mark

 

[3lusiv3]

Thanks Mark. That's what I thought, but I'm trying to convince myself to not spend more money. Damn head-fi

 

[chillysalsa]

For those of us not using DSP or computers to equalize... wouldn't an external equalizer introduce time-domain errors into the signal?

I swear, I remember hearing that any time you filter a signal, it introduces transient response changes and other artifacts into the music.

 

[Snake]

Bingo, time-domain errors it is. Phase changes occur in outboard equalizers as you modify the response curve. This is why, in high-end "audiophile" systems, equalizers are practically a cuss word.

 

[3lusiv3]

I'm talking as a newbie here but isn't what you're saying equalizing in hardware rather than software, which is essentially the same thing but software is cheaper.

 

[chillysalsa]

Yeah, so I wonder, are the time errors as bad when you use software or DSP chips to do it digitally?

 

[TravelLite]

Hmm, well, just now looking back, the following post dated 01-27-2004 was my most recent here on Head-Fi, LOL.

Re: Your most desired audio component

However, I do have to agree with markl's statement above, except to note that I think the degree of system refinement he's talking about is really the ideal time to consider the introduction of first-class signal and effects processing equipment.
Quote:

Originally posted by chillysalsa Yeah, so I wonder, are the time errors as bad when you use software or DSP chips to do it digitally?

chillysalsa, the following excerpt from the Manley Massive Passive EQ manual is informative.

Quote:

Phase Shift? Deadly topic. This is probably the most misunderstood term floating about in the mixing community. Lots of people blame or name phase shift for just about any audio problem that doesn't sound like typical distortion. We ask that you try to approach this subject with an open mind and forget what you may have heard about phase for now. This is not to be confused with "time alignment" as used in speakers, or the "phase" buttons on the console and multi-mic problems. First - all analog EQs have phase shift and that the amount is directly related to the "shape" of the EQ curve. Most digital EQs too. In fact, one could have 3 analog EQs, 3 digital EQs, and an "acoustic equivilant", and a passive EQ, each with the same EQ shape, and ALL will have the same phase shift characteristics. This is a law, a fact and not really a problem. The two exceptions are: digital EQs with additional algorithms designed to "restore" the phase, and a rare family of digital EQs called FIR filters based on FFT techniques. Second - Opinions abound that an EQ's phase shift should fall within certain simple parameters particularly by engineers who have designed unpopular EQs. The Massive Passive has more phase shift than most in the filters and shelfs and leans towards less in the bells. Does this correspond to an inferior EQ? Judge for yourself. Third - Many people use the word "phase shift" to describe a nasty quality that some old EQs have and also blame inductors for this. Its not phase shift. Some inductor based EQs use inductors that are too small, tend to saturate way too easily, and create an unpleasant distortion. The Massivo (of course) uses massive inductors (compared to the typical type) which were chosen through listening tests. In fact we use several different sizes in different parts of the circuit based on experiments as to which size combined the right electrical characteristics and "sounded best". The other very audible quality people confuse with phase shift is "ringing". Ringing is just a few steps under oscillating and is mostly related to narrow Qs. It is more accurately described as a time based problem than phase shift and is far easier to hear than phase shift. For our purposes, in this circuit, these inductors have no more phase shift or ringing than a capacitor. Fourth - A given EQ "shape" should have a given phase shift, group delay and impulse response. There also exist easy circuits that produce phase shift without a significant change in frequency response. These are generally called "all-pass networks" and are usually difficult to hear by themselves. You may have experienced a worse case scenario if you have ever listened to a "phase-shifter" with the "blend" set to 100% (so that none of the source was mixed in) and the modulation to zero. Sounded un-effected, didn't it, and that may have been over 1000 degrees of phase shift. Group delay and impulse response describe the signal in time rather than frequency and are just different ways of describing phase shift. Some research shows these effects are audible and some not. The Massive Passive tends to show that group delay in the mids is more audible than towards the edges of the spectrum and there may be interesting exceptions to generalities and conventional wisdoms. The audible differences between EQs seems to have more to do with Q, distortions, headroom and topology than with phase shift. Fifth - Phase Shift is not as important as functionality. For example, we chose very steep slopes for some of the filters because we strongly believe the "job" of a filter is to remove garbage while minimally affecting the desired signal. A gentler slope would have brought less phase shift but would not have removed as much crap. PDF source - 706 KB

TravelLite

 

[3lusiv3]

I've tried my iTunes equaliser for a while now and have decided that my HD 590's sound best un-equalised.

 

[Ctn]

You cant correct flaws by eq'ing.

You will only make them more apparent by doing so.

 

[chillysalsa]

If this 'give-take' relationship between frequency vs. time domain is true as has been illustrated here... then I have to wonder if it would ever be possible to have good time response from vinyl playback. I mean, the phono preamp is there to boost signal and impose the RIAA (or similar) equalization curve to drastically boost all those bass frequencies by some 20-30 db.

I'm so scared... does that mean it will NEVER be possible to get good PRaT in the bass region from a turntable?!?!?!?!? This is going to keep me up at night...

 

[Norbert]

Are we not then using interconnects and speaker wires as "pseudo" equalizers? Many are in not using cable components to achieve a "neutral" sound but to tweak the sound to how they like it. Would it not be better for them to use an equalizer to achieve the most "neutral" tweaked sound?