oldenough Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Honestly I'd give up audio all together if I was force to use any type of EQ.... Every time you play a LP you are being forced to use EQ (RIAA)... Passive or Active loudspeaker crossovers are EQ networks as well.... EQing isn't the problem it's the improper use of EQing that's the problem...!!!! miketn Popcorn is in the microwave!!!.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Does anyone appreciate the preservation of the original source anymore? 30 years ago jacking the bass and treble knobs was a sign of not enjoying what your speakers were producing. I understand the active guys having to go this route with bi and tri-amping, but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content? I don't have any experience with this, but I know my Audyssey XT 32 steals all the magic from my upper crust recordings. I don't care what REW says and how it changes my room acoustics at 100+db, at 85-95 db where I listen, a flat pure signal always brings out the little details you never knew were on a recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Max2; after changing from the ALK networks in my La Scala's [and later in the Universal Classics] to bi-amping with a miniDSP I heard details I never knew were there in my favorite recordings.. At first I was very reluctant as well to put more electronics in the signalpath, but I ended up with a even more natural sounding system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) "Every time you play a LP you are being forced to use EQ (RIAA), passive or active loudspeaker crossovers are EQ networks as well. EQing isn't the problem it's the improper use of EQing that's the problem...!!!!" miketn I think most here understand that, but I don't think many would agree that the graph on that EQ is an an accurate representation of what the acoustic response is (not even Quiet_Hollow), nor agree that simulating the 3dB drop with an electronic EQ sounds the same or better than doing it with a crossover built using discrete components. Edited July 22, 2014 by DeanG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I would rather fix my "analog" world with room acoustics than to actually alter my music with digital manipulation. I'm certainly not saying a DSP and EQing doesn't have its place, but with most listening rooms being small, it just doesn't make sense to me to cut and boost a direct source adding coloration and usually more distortion. I think Audyssey and some correction equip actually downsamples a 96k lossless, uncompressed source to 48k as well and the conversion has to come with degradation as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Does anyone appreciate the preservation of the original source anymore? Speaking for myself.......only when it is done well which is sadly very uncommon due to controllable and uncontrollable factors by the producers/engineers but not when the original source is so screwed up by bad mastering practices, crapy monitoring equipment/loudspeakers..etc......, monitoring rooms/conditions that has very little acoustical relationship to the average listening room which leads many times to improper tonal balancing choices by producers/engineers. Basic Bass and Treble controls are not adequate but tone balance controls such as implemented by for example some McIntosh pre-amps and Cello Palette can make very dramatic improvements in realistic reproduction of some recordings in the home. You have to recognize their are very little standards in the recording or playback of the original source that will guarantee that you are even hearing what the producer/engineer/artist heard or wants you to experience. Again speaking for myself in the end my goal with my system is to experience as realistic a reproduction in my room as I can possibly achieve which means I choose to take some control of the tonal balance issues of a recording if necessary. miketn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted July 20, 2014 Moderators Share Posted July 20, 2014 but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content? I would think if overdone like anyting, but doesn't a crossover change the responses also, I thought that was the reason newer designed crossovers sound better, it removes or raises where needed past what originals did. ? (besides better parts) Any crossover changes the signal doesn't it ? Not being smart azz it's just what I thought was how it worked, I am not one the technical people, just follow there advice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I still love a good designed crossover network but what sounds good for one does not for another. Treble for instance; my brother-in-law likes it loud where my wife and I realized years ago that while listening to live music there isn't that much treble at all. So while a good crossover will upgrade most OEM crossover, it can't compete against a properly set up active system which enables the listener to tailor the sound he's hearing. For people who's hobby simply is listening to music; stick with a proper crossover [yours are very fine examples DeanG ]. For those who want to be in full control and want to be able to adapt almost anything to their liking [ even after changing components or speakers] ; go for a good quality active setup IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Basically the laws of physics prevail where everything has to be modified to hear what we want and don't hear what we don't want. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content? I would think if overdone like anyting, but doesn't a crossover change the responses also, I thought that was the reason newer designed crossovers sound better, it removes or raises where needed past what originals did. ? (besides better parts) Any crossover changes the signal doesn't it ? Not being smart azz it's just what I thought was how it worked, I am not one the technical people, just follow there advice. Of course I don't think that Dtel. I thought X-overs more or less just divided the frequencies to be paired with the given driver. I know there is some roll off with the slopes and what not, but I guess I see the whole digital EQing thing like tasting your cake with a fork that has been dipped in ketchup. Backing up a bit, I hear so many that LOVE Audyssey, and maybe they are speaking about it with movie listening, but for the life of me I have never heard a system that uses it sound better than having it off when listening to music. I obviously have a real hangup here when it comes to cutting this and boosting that. Maybe it was all the chitty EQ's/AMP's that I had hanging under the dash of my '81 Chevy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David H Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I have used both Electronic and Passive crossovers, both can sound excellent. My preference is passive, not because I believe it sounds better, I just prefer the simplicity. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted July 21, 2014 Moderators Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) I thought X-overs more or less just divided the frequencies to be paired with the given driver. That's what I thought originally also, as in to make sure a driver didn't get a frequency it couldn't handle without damage. But I have been told and from reading it does way more than that which was a surprise to my original thinking. I follow directions after the bugs have been worked out, I don't get into it enough to know these answers, I'm only in it for the results. I hope someone can somewhat explain if a crossover also just separates frequencies or boost or decreases them by design. ? Not that I would attempt to mess with one but it is interesting. I don't know anything about audyssey or any of the different names that do similar things, I don't have any even on my ht receiver it's a little old. Edited July 21, 2014 by dtel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet_Hollow Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Does anyone appreciate the preservation of the original source anymore? 30 years ago jacking the bass and treble knobs was a sign of not enjoying what your speakers were producing. Stay on the boat, the tone knobs (and subsequently multi-band EQ) are used today same as they were at the dawn of electronic signal transmission. EQ is a feature. It's not permanent, and by that virtue adds incredible versatility to a sound system. If a source material contains the holiest of all audio nirvana, there exists a bypass switch for that occasion. The ability to trim the signal on the fly is not a negative attribute. It can prove quite insightful at times. Granted, if a particular source requires a "smilely face" to get it to sound palatable on a reasonably flat system, then by all rights, it's gonna get the grill. I know there is some roll off with the slopes and what not, but I guess I see the whole digital EQing thing like tasting your cake with a fork that has been dipped in ketchup. Good grief. but I don't think many would agree that the graph on that EQ is an an accurate representation of what the acoustic response is (not even Quiet_Hollow), Right on. The trick is to get the system approximately flat before applying any EQ to the inbound signal...so the sliders are never going to resemble a "picture" of the sound per say. nor agree that simulating the 3dB drop with an electronic EQ sounds the same or better than doing it with a crossover built using discrete components. ...this is grey area that's dependent upon system topology more than anything, and is where a completely digital system can truly hit full stride. FIR-based parametric EQ (in the digital domain) won't mess up the impulse response of the system like a analog EQ unit will. Not discounting the merit of a good analog EQ unit either as I'd certainly insert one in my system even if it were so (my old JVC had one built-in), but in this regard, the digital units possesses some serious leverage where it comes to signal integrity. All things considered, if an owner is privy to all acoustic performance metrics of their system in their particular application for a given time, then its stands to reason why an ideal filter network couldn't be constructed for it, for the sake of simplicity / reliability. I certainly have no problem with that. I'm not going fully active with my system anytime soon and am still interested in giving the road show network a run once I get more established on this end. Heck, I've been strongly considering Dennis's oft-touted HIE network tweaks for my pair of HIP because there's no feature to apply EQ out on the L&R surround channels with my current receiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) Honestly I'd give up audio all together if I was force to use any type of EQ.... Every time you play a LP you are being forced to use EQ (RIAA)... Passive or Active loudspeaker crossovers are EQ networks as well.... EQing isn't the problem it's the improper use of EQing that's the problem...!!!! miketn Mike, honestly do you have to come back with such a simpletons response? I'd think it is fairly easy to realize I'm referring to an "active" EQ. Do you really need to be so childish? Do you really think I do not know a RIAA curve is a EQ ... give me a break... My point is most of us spend a good chunk of change on high end really good performing sources, preamplifier and amplifiers.... the last thing I would do is take the signal from these components and pump them through an active EQ... I'd much rather fix the problem at the source in the simplest possible way without having to resort to using yet another compromising piece of electronic equipment in the signal path. Edited August 4, 2014 by NOSValves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Does anyone appreciate the preservation of the original source anymore? 30 years ago jacking the bass and treble knobs was a sign of not enjoying what your speakers were producing. I understand the active guys having to go this route with bi and tri-amping, but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content? I don't have any experience with this, but I know my Audyssey XT 32 steals all the magic from my upper crust recordings. I don't care what REW says and how it changes my room acoustics at 100+db, at 85-95 db where I listen, a flat pure signal always brings out the little details you never knew were on a recording. BINGO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Honestly I'd give up audio all together if I was force to use any type of EQ.... Every time you play a LP you are being forced to use EQ (RIAA)... Passive or Active loudspeaker crossovers are EQ networks as well.... EQing isn't the problem it's the improper use of EQing that's the problem...!!!! miketn Mike, honestly do you have to come back with such a simpletons response? I'd think it is fairly easy to realize I'm referring to an "active" EQ. Do you really need to be so childish? Do you really think I do not know a RIAA curve is a EQ or the a speaker crossover is a EQ... give me a break... My point is most of us spend a good chunk of change on high end really good performing sources, preamplifier and amplifiers.... the last thing I would do is take the signal from these components and pump them through an active EQ... I'd much rather fix the problem at the source in the simplest possible way without having to resort to using yet another compromising piece of electronic equipment in the signal path. Craig, I'm not going to waste my time getting into a childish pissing contest with you..! You made a statement that was bullshit simple as that. My point is some form of EQ effects whether intentional or unintentional (this includes electrical, mechanical and acoustical forms) is present in practically every part of a reproduction system. EQ effects exist from the Recording Environment, the Recording Engineers Choices, the Recording Storage Medium, Source Components, Pre-amps, Amplifiers, Crossovers (active or passive), Loudspeakers and Listening Rooms. Many forms of EQ can prove very beneficial if applied properly throughout all aspects of a system and a high quality Modern Active EQ when applied properly can improve a system much more in comparison to any negative effects it might bring to the table in my experience and personnel opinion. Bottom line I respect anyone's choice to not use an active EQ unit in their system but I reject the suggestion by you or anyone else that those who choose to use a high quality active EQ in their system is somehow compromising the system versus not using one. Oh and by the way "fixing the problem at the source in the simplest possible way" is sometimes best accomplished by EQing as for examples again in the LP storage medium in combination with it's compensating EQ circuits or proper use of local and/or global negative feedback in an amplifier or in the case of loudspeaker systems the use of electrical EQ compensation (either through an active crossover or passive crossover/balancing networks) for the mechanical and acoustical properties of the components of the system that cause some of the errors of the system. As far as one of the worst offenders of good sound reproduction which is the poor recording standards and practices of that industry our only way to deal with that is to either listen to them warts and all, stop listening to some very good music that's recorded poorly, take some control available to us through high quality and effective tone controls systems as I mentioned before or as I do presently using a very good quality DSP active unit with my tone control simulation program of the Cello Palette. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted July 22, 2014 Klipsch Employees Share Posted July 22, 2014 Honestly I'd give up audio all together if I was force to use any type of EQ.... Every time you play a LP you are being forced to use EQ (RIAA)... Passive or Active loudspeaker crossovers are EQ networks as well.... EQing isn't the problem it's the improper use of EQing that's the problem...!!!! miketn Mike, honestly do you have to come back with such a simpletons response? I'd think it is fairly easy to realize I'm referring to an "active" EQ. Do you really need to be so childish? Do you really think I do not know a RIAA curve is a EQ or the a speaker crossover is a EQ... give me a break... My point is most of us spend a good chunk of change on high end really good performing sources, preamplifier and amplifiers.... the last thing I would do is take the signal from these components and pump them through an active EQ... I'd much rather fix the problem at the source in the simplest possible way without having to resort to using yet another compromising piece of electronic equipment in the signal path. A simpleton response to a very simpletons comment..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Instead of bustin' balls why not edubacate ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Honestly I'd give up audio all together if I was force to use any type of EQ.... Every time you play a LP you are being forced to use EQ (RIAA)... Passive or Active loudspeaker crossovers are EQ networks as well.... EQing isn't the problem it's the improper use of EQing that's the problem...!!!! miketn Mike, honestly do you have to come back with such a simpletons response? I'd think it is fairly easy to realize I'm referring to an "active" EQ. Do you really need to be so childish? Do you really think I do not know a RIAA curve is a EQ or the a speaker crossover is a EQ... give me a break... My point is most of us spend a good chunk of change on high end really good performing sources, preamplifier and amplifiers.... the last thing I would do is take the signal from these components and pump them through an active EQ... I'd much rather fix the problem at the source in the simplest possible way without having to resort to using yet another compromising piece of electronic equipment in the signal path. Craig, I'm not going to waste my time getting into a childish pissing contest with you..! You made a statement that was bullshit simple as that. My point is some form of EQ effects whether intentional or unintentional (this includes electrical, mechanical and acoustical forms) is present in practically every part of a reproduction system. EQ effects exist from the Recording Environment, the Recording Engineers Choices, the Recording Storage Medium, Source Components, Pre-amps, Amplifiers, Crossovers (active or passive), Loudspeakers and Listening Rooms. Many forms of EQ can prove very beneficial if applied properly throughout all aspects of a system and a high quality Modern Active EQ when applied properly can improve a system much more in comparison to any negative effects it might bring to the table in my experience and personnel opinion. Bottom line I respect anyone's choice to not use an active EQ unit in their system but I reject the suggestion by you or anyone else that those who choose to use a high quality active EQ in their system is somehow compromising the system versus not using one. Oh and by the way "fixing the problem at the source in the simplest possible way" is sometimes best accomplished by EQing as for examples again in the LP storage medium in combination with it's compensating EQ circuits or proper use of local and/or global negative feedback in an amplifier or in the case of loudspeaker systems the use of electrical EQ compensation (either through an active crossover or passive crossover/balancing networks) for the mechanical and acoustical properties of the components of the system that cause some of the errors of the system. As far as one of the worst offenders of good sound reproduction which is the poor recording standards and practices of that industry our only way to deal with that is to either listen to them warts and all, stop listening to some very good music that's recorded poorly, take some control available to us through high quality and effective tone controls systems as I mentioned before or as I do presently using a very good quality DSP active unit with my tone control simulation program of the Cello Palette. miketn Evidently you are going to get in a pissing contest. I come back and pick apart your BS later when I'm not on this little smart phone.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Honestly I'd give up audio all together if I was force to use any type of EQ.... Every time you play a LP you are being forced to use EQ (RIAA)... Passive or Active loudspeaker crossovers are EQ networks as well.... EQing isn't the problem it's the improper use of EQing that's the problem...!!!! miketn Mike, honestly do you have to come back with such a simpletons response? I'd think it is fairly easy to realize I'm referring to an "active" EQ. Do you really need to be so childish? Do you really think I do not know a RIAA curve is a EQ or the a speaker crossover is a EQ... give me a break... My point is most of us spend a good chunk of change on high end really good performing sources, preamplifier and amplifiers.... the last thing I would do is take the signal from these components and pump them through an active EQ... I'd much rather fix the problem at the source in the simplest possible way without having to resort to using yet another compromising piece of electronic equipment in the signal path. A simpleton response to a very simpletons comment..... What a enlightening response from a self proclaimed bonehead.... 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.