Barista Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 I take it many people here do not equalize their source materials; rather take the signal flat through pre-amps whose sole purpose is simply to add gain and/or attenuate the signal. As I understand it, equalization circuits can often alter the phase of the source signal, aside from boosting or cutting various frequencies. While striving for the most truthful musical reproduction, one could agree that equalization would be something to avoid. However, no room, listener, or speaker is ever the same, so accepting a signal flat is very credulous of ones equipment and listening environment. Ive been very torn between doing away with equalization completely, and running the source flat. Last night I built a simple passive attenuator so that I could run audio straight from my CD player to my tube amp, without passing the signal through any advanced circuitry. Even with passive attenuation, I had ample volume, and never reached the max signal. The results were less than stellar sonically. There did seem to be a little more clarity, but the music lacked some of the bottom end punch I enjoy so much, and usually compensate for through the pre-amp on my receiver. Since I lack a subwoofer, I more often bump up the bass quite substantially, leave the mid flat or minus 1-2 points, and add 2-3 points to the treble. Leaving the signal flat, regardless of my source, results in music that is less dramatic, a little muddy, and for the most part less pleasing. This really had me contemplating the sonic gain though a more civilized pre-amp (Say Creek, Rotel, Foreplay, Sound Valves etc). Do these caliber pre-amps add boost to hand picked frequencies to give them a signature sound, or do they focus on linear attenuation? It seems that most pre-amps of this level lack any equalization at all, and Im not sure I could be satisfied with that. What are some opinions for, or against equalization? ------------------ Barista T. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 As speaking for myself, an EQ user, I would say to experiment with speaker placement first or any other room alterations that can peacefully be made (read- with the approval of the wife/girlfriend). I'n going to assume that your room does not reflect a flat frequency response. After all that is exhausted and if the sound is less than ideal, THEN I would gently introduce a very high quality EQ (i.e.- with a THD less than .008 and a dynamic range over 100db). There are even mono block type EQ's on the market (I believe from White). Then I would take an SPL reading with a noise generator and get the EQ setings to as close to flat as possible. After that just play it for a couple of months and let your ears adjust accordingly. If your using Klipsch speakers go VERY GENTLY on the EQ settings! With sensitivity ratings as high as they have it is very easy to melt down a tweeter diaphram. Here are some links: dbx Pro White Intruments ------------------ Tom's Money Pit This message has been edited by tblasing on 05-14-2002 at 10:18 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barista Posted May 14, 2002 Author Share Posted May 14, 2002 The room about 15Wx18.5L, with a vault from 6.5F-9.5R. It basically is like a movie theater vaulting from front to back. The RF-5s set about 2.5 from the front wall and are about 3 from each side wall, centered in the room. The focal point is about 10 from the face of the speakers. Each speaker is toed in so that when you sit in the focal point, you can not see ether speaker side, you are staring them dead on. Are there any good shareware room simulation programs out there to help with speaker placement? Anyway, dont get me wrong, it sound amazing even flat, but sounds better with a hint of EQing. ------------------ Barista T. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 A while back I drew up an Excel program that will chart the amount SPL per position your measuring. What it doesn't do is calculate the SPL just by plugging in the room dimensions, speaker type, etc. There is still a lot of elbow grease and legwork involved. It took me about 3 hours or so to get mine right but it did result in considerable increase in bass. Not chest pounding but definitley a lower extention. To do this you'll still need an multi-frequency SPL meter. Radio Shack has them for under $45. Or if you can locate a Real Time Analyzer with a built in Pink Noise generator that would be even better. If you want I can e-mail the file to you. BUT remember to turn down the treble completely. That amount of constant HF can 86 a tweeter in no time. I also use hearing protection to prevent any temporary or permenant Tinitus from happening. Let me know! ------------------ Tom's Money Pit This message has been edited by tblasing on 05-14-2002 at 09:56 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klewless Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 Barista, I am inclined to add a little bit. Maybe use the EQ to only knock down an obvious or obnoxious peak. Let the dips lie where they may and try to reduce them with careful placement (works with peaks too). An example is my room which seems to emphasize the same frequency in two dimensions because one wall is almost double another (bad, bad, bad). Just go easy on the EQ and if it helps, then the proof is in the pudding (listening?)! ------------------ John P St Paul, MN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 i just use my b&k's notch filter to take out a peak in the range across my high/low pass crossover point in the bass mgmt of the processor. works real well to smooth out the low bass response in the room. could probably use 1 or 2 more of 'em though. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 15, 2002 Share Posted May 15, 2002 EQ'ing used, at one time, to be very in flavour, then it went out big time and everyone reverted to the "flat" signal. In many ways it is on the rise again, although slightly more subtly. I do not own an EQ as such, but, I regard my adjusting of the Xover point on the sub and the independant setting of its volume level as a basic form of EQ'ing. This, if you like is basic equalization. Now consider the TACT system that in effect is a room equalizer. This takes EQ'ing to a whole new level, at a far more controlled and lower level than any equalization that has been before. With that you are supposed to be able to iron out all of the idiosyncracies of your room. Interestingly the setting parameters of the TACT do not all aim for a totally flat response. Most of the curves offered are boosted in one area or another depending presumably on the music you listen to and your personal preference. If we accept that most of us do not have perfect listening rooms sonically then some form of EQ'ing may well be in order to address the problems. Whether that is in the form of a specific device, a component setting, room treatments or a combination of the above they all have the same basic aim: "I want the sound that I like in my room but I do not want my room in my sound." How you choose to get there is up to you. ------------------ My System: http://aca.gr/pop_maxg.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 15, 2002 Share Posted May 15, 2002 I finally got around to plotting my in-room response for my system. The meter was 8 feet away, right where my chair sits. Very revealing. I found out I must really like bass I took the readings after watching a movie, and was quite surprised at what I found. Jeesh. The setting for the SVS sub is only a notch more than where I set it for music. I will post the graph again as soon as I have made the proper adjusments and factored in the additional values necessary to make the Radio Shack readings accurate. ------------------ Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> This message has been edited by deang on 05-29-2002 at 07:32 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted May 29, 2002 Share Posted May 29, 2002 Very timely. I've used no EQ whether available or not for a long time. I've had my horns for about two weeks now, and am faced with a quandary. My preamp, a Super PAS4i, has no EQ. Never figured I'd need it. However, I dragged out an old Radio Shack bass EQ yesterday just to see what would happen. With about 6db boost at 80hz I was somewhat pained to find the whole system sounded much more natural. The "edge" seemed off the high end...perhaps mainly due to my reducing the overall level due to the increased bass. Rather than just more bass, the whole thing seemed much more natural. Unfortunately, this old unit has an unacceptable hum that renders it unusable on a long term basis. Further, I feel downright dirty feeling that Khorns should benefit from EQ when my no account speakers of the past did not. Between the imaging issue (thread elsewhere) and this I feel a bit of reality check from my unabashed high of a week or so ago. On truly pure material, such as my master tapes of recitals and such I've recorded, the reality is truely excellent. However, the majority of my commercial material, whether analog or digital, seems to share this bass-shy, edgy high end quality needing a bit of EQ. Bummer. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 29, 2002 Share Posted May 29, 2002 http://www.svsubwoofers.com/ampeq_rane_pe17.htm ------------------ Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 29, 2002 Share Posted May 29, 2002 I just found out the other day that my frequency response curve is totally "wrong". Evidently, the common Rat Shack meter isn't really calibrated all that well, and apparently -- it is necessary to add in factors at various frequency points to get an accurate plot. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/49147.html ------------------ Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good2BHome Posted May 29, 2002 Share Posted May 29, 2002 quote: Your phono preamp is a radical EQ device. A tonearm is an EQ device. Your crossovers in the speakers are EQ devices. The cabinet is an EQ device. Your room is an EQ device. Oh, and your ears are too. The only difference being you can't adjust those! mdeneen, this was a Sage statement!!! It makes me feel even better about my recent purchase of a McIntosh MC-33 preamp which has a 5 band Equalizer built-in. A little boost @ 1500 makes the voices standout just a little more. Mike ------------------ 4 Channel Audio: 1980 Cornwalls R & L 1975 Cornwalls Center & Rear The following McIntosh I bought NEW in 1971-72: MR-74, C-26, MC-2505 C-33 just obtained Dynaco 120 Amp. as Center This message has been edited by Good2BHome on 05-29-2002 at 01:18 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lindsey Posted May 29, 2002 Share Posted May 29, 2002 Dean, That is correct about the Rat Shack SPL meter. I got my adjustments from the SVS website but can no longer find them. Here is my in-room figures (actual) with the adjustments after the plus sign (add the 2 together)... Using the RS SPL meter and Stereophile Test CD #3, Put Denon in Direct mode, volume to 13 to calibrate 1k hz to 76 db. ___20hz-72db + 7.5db ___25hz-76db + 5db ___31hz-78db + 3db ___40hz-80db + 2.5 ___50hz-76db + 1.5db (This is about where my Chorus's rolloff) ___63hz-74db + 1.5db_80hz-77db + 1.5db (Fixed x-over in Denon to subwoofer) __100hz-79db + 2db __125hz-79db + .5db __160hz-76db __200hz-75db __250hz-76db __315hz-78db __400hz-76db __500hz-75db __630hz-78db (650 is the mid x-over on the Chorus's) __800hz-77db _1000hz-76db _1250hz-78db _1600hz-79db _2000hz-79db _2500hz-77db _3150hz-76db _4000hz-79db _5000hz-81db _6300hz-79db + 2db _8000hz-77db + 3db (7k is the tweeter x-over on the Chorus's) 10000hz-74db + 4.4db 12500hz-71db + 6.2db 16000hz-66db + 8.5db 20000hz-61db + 12.2db Mike ------------------ My Music Systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadhawg Posted May 29, 2002 Share Posted May 29, 2002 I want to add my agreement to Mdeneen's comments. Use of EQ is given an undeservedly bad rap because many feel it is somehow cheating to use EQ. If your goal is accurate reproduction of sound, EQ is simply one more tool to help you achieve your goal, as are speaker placement, good front end gear and room treatments. In my opinion it is good to remember that recording engineers also have goals and priorities set for them by record companies: to make a recording that will get airplay and in turn sell units to make a profit! Toward that end, most of the control rooms that I have been in during mixdown have huge, expensive monitors.However, mixdown is inevitably done on relatively inexpensive speakers so the engineer will know what it is going to sound like in the target listening room, which is an automobile, since that is where most radio listening is done. If it sounds good in the car, people will go out and buy the disc so the band can afford to tour where they will use support tracks to fatten up the sound you hear in concert and promote even more sales. Nothing right or wrong in it, just the way it is. In the studio, the engineer uses EQ, mic placement and elaborate digital effects to create a sound pleasing to his or her ears in that room on those speakers. There is no law that the choices made in the control room are right or will be pleasing to your ears. The bottom line is whether or not the music coming out of your speakers sounds like the original source (ie-human voice, guitar,keyboard, percussion) to you. If not, judicious use of EQ can correct the deficiencies. I'd hate to see anyone listen to music and not be able to stand the way it sounds because they think they will somehow be less of a purist by using EQ. Whenever I mix live sound, my goal is to reproduce through the PA what the singers and players actually sound like. Some soloists have unique qualities to their voices which I leave alone during solo work, but which make them stick out like a sore thumb when attempting to blend w/ other singers. So when they sing in groups, I adjust EQ to blend the voices together. The end result is much more pleasing than if I didn't use EQ in those situations. My point is that those kinds of decisions are made hundreds of times at every step in the recording process, so the commitment to remaining a purist by using no EQ at all is in my opinion a viewpoint held only by audiophiles, certainly not by the artists, engineers and producers of the music we listen to. That being said, I believe EQ is a scalpel and not an axe. Small, precise adjustments are much better than wide, sweeping cuts that wipe out or boost many more frequencies than the ones you are shooting for. The best units will be parametric which let you select the center frequencies you wish to adjust as well as the width and depth of the cuts or boosts you make. The more choices and control you have over those frequencies, the better job you can do tailoring your system to be pleasing to your ears. End of sermon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 29, 2002 Share Posted May 29, 2002 Fixed Well, the chart - not the room. Uhgg. Want equalizer. Maybe for Christmas. ------------------ Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lindsey Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Dean, Certainly better but I have always heard the reference should be 75db @ 1000hz. I did mine at 76db. Just a thought... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 I'll be doing it all over again later tonight. I need to do it without the sub and each speaker separately. I'll then balance the speakers, and then measure them together again. After that, I will add in the sub and adjust it for music. I'll do it at 75db and see what happens. thanks Mike ------------------ Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.