Do some audiophiles really prefer flat frequency response?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realize that with a conventional loudness switch you're almost always not getting any loudness compensation when the volume control is advanced past 50%?
 
In accord with this. People on AK seem more level headed and sensitive to other's biases.

There always will be polarization in any group, and with the number on board here, it climbs exponentially, eh?


Q

Folks on AK seem to a much more "live and let live" bunch than your typical site where if you deviate from the "proper group thought" you'll get dogpiled. I rarely post on any other forums aside from here these days.
 
I advocate having a room/system that's as close to neutral/flat as possible before you start tweaking. After that, use an eq or tone controls to your heart's content if that's what you want to do.

You need a neutral base point to start with.

I agree Joe. :thumbsup:, :beerchug:.
Smooth/tame out the peaks, then "mildly season to taste", as needed.

Ruler flat has never been my goal when voicing/EQ`g any sound system, but only to tame the unnatural sounding & colorizing room/speaker nodes in a given acoustical Environment.
Always cut never boost any frequency, as whatever over all system level might be lost in doing so, will be made back up with the equalizer`s gain controls(their true purpose) so that after proper voicing of the system, switching between voicing in/out no level differences are noticeable, but only the increased clarity/balanced SQ when engaged.

Equalizers, IMHO/E, have developed a bad rap, because of misuse & abuse.

Anyway, enough noise from me.

Kind regards, OKB
 
Last edited:
My view of it is that your room, even if it's acoustically perfect with the right amount of damping, surface treatments, bass bins, etc., will still differ somewhat from the conditions speakers are tested in. So it's not worth fretting over, and it's better to just EQ to suit your room without overdoing it.
 
My view of it is that your room, even if it's acoustically perfect with the right amount of damping, surface treatments, bass bins, etc., will still differ somewhat from the conditions speakers are tested in. So it's not worth fretting over, and it's better to just EQ to suit your room without overdoing it.

But what’s the fun in that? :dunno:

:) :beerchug:
 
The real question is, are you eq'ing for flatter in room response or to suit usually inaccurate and subjective hearing? I make no judgement. I'm only pointing out there is a big difference between the two approaches.
 
And one more important item: Not all equalizers are of good/high quality !!

I, before going the DSP version, found Asley 1/3 octave to be very good, but I found the/my long sought after White Instruments brand, after waiting for a pair to become available purchased used in 1999 to be "my" many years sought for, Bee`s Knee`s for my main living room`s biamp`d Mac XRT 22 speaker voiced system.

Until then, I was using my 1/3rd octave MXR`s(the best I could afford in 1980 !), that I had pulled all the soldered in RC 4558 chips in each EQ, in the mid eighties, then socketed them, so I see if NE5532 chip`s would sound much better, and they did.

That, and modifying their PS to low noise tightly regulated +/-15 volts brought their performance up a magnitude or two. and used them in my main system until I could purchase the highly recording studio rated, used White Instruments.
 
I have an 80s era Technics SH8046 as my "standalone" EQ. As a serious equalizer, it's kind of a joke-7 bands, and only adjusts in 2dB increments, with an unknown (but probably very broad) range. Has a neat pseudo-touchscreen control panel, and the spectrum analyzer is classic 80s a e s t h e t i c. For basic EQ work, it does a good enough job, but I'd much prefer something more detailed for serious correction.
 
I advocate having a room/system that's as close to neutral/flat as possible before you start tweaking. After that, use an eq or tone controls to your heart's content if that's what you want to do.

You need a neutral base point to start with.

I fully agree with you. Its much easier to adjust sound to one's preference when you start off with speakers that are neutral/flat and even better if the room follows suit.

I'm a huge advocate of Dr. Floyd Toole's work.
 
I end up with bass and treb!e controls in their detents, loudness "on" because I rarely listen above a conversational level.
 
A point to add about using an EQ is that any additional devices added to the string of amplification will also add additional noise. The fewer devices in your system, the cleaner the sound will end up being.
 
Yes and no (also to post #276).

Yes: Yes: every additional devices/ components 'will add additional noise'.
No ':the cleaner the sound will end up being.

Not, because any noise measurable, is not necessary audible. Mercifully, there is a threshold of hearing.

'All components introduce extra distortion'. Not if the purpose of a component is to specifically reduce distortion. E.g. adding NFB to an amplifier by adding a NFB resistor (plus perhaps a few additional capacitors for phase compensation). The NFB resistor wouldt theoretically add extra distortion, but if it causes 20dB reduction in distortion and noise. the audible end result would be an improvement.
 
The real question is, are you eq'ing for flatter in room response or to suit usually inaccurate and subjective hearing? I make no judgement. I'm only pointing out there is a big difference between the two approaches.

Yes Sir, there most certainly is a big difference IMHO/E. :thumbsup:

What I do, and have done many times since 1978 with a RTA/FFT/Pink Noise Source & 1/3rd Octave analog(now small fractional octave DSP) equalizers is establish/voice/tune what is called a "House Curve" ,with the following of the natural roll off of the top and bottom end`s of the system`s bandwidth, as seen on the RTA.FFT`s screen..

And IMHO/E, trying to do it any other way, is to try to use the fractional octave band equalizer/s as a overly complicated tone control which usually ends up with questionable sonic results, at least to my ears, with the most common being the "Happy/Smiley Face Curve", or what looks visually cool, or interesting with the sliders appearance/pattern !!

As always, just my experience & $.02, as I only have my ears to deal with anymore.

Enjoy your music folks, as you see fit.

Kind regards folks, OKB
 
Check with sax6's curt comment in #281, Joe.

He pretty well nails it.

Q

Please note, I've never posted anything anywhere suggesting that someone not use tone controls or an equalizer. I just find it rather curious that those who holler the loudest about their rooms and hearing being different still mostly end up with a smiley faced equalizer and/or substantial treble and bass boost.

Are there really that many people with "different" hearing that's actually pretty much the same?
 
A point to add about using an EQ is that any additional devices added to the string of amplification will also add additional noise. The fewer devices in your system, the cleaner the sound will end up being.

Your absolutely correct Sir.
And that is the reason, that if someone is contemplating, the purchase and insertion into their audio system`s signal path a equalizer, the selection of the equalizer and it`s performance/specifications should be carefully chosen to minimize any undesirable artifacts into the sound.

Most, if not all, consumer, and some "pro" grade analog equalizers are fairly crummy in design, in the noise, distortion, etc. specs

Quality(expensive) analog equalizers, not only are very low noise, distortion, but are also minimum phase, and importantly they are a combining filter type design, and when the audio system is properly equalized/voiced/tuned, by reducing the room`s node`s/speaker response peaks, then there is no additional gain(noise) added to the system and their insertion SQ can be transparent.
Only replacing the loss in overall system`s signal level with the equalizer`s level control for level matching non equalized to equalized for the proper original system`s signal to noise ratio

No boost should be attempted, and if not done so, little to no additional artifacts will be added to the signal chain, and that`s where people tend to screw up equalization by boosting(chasing ruler flat 20H to 20 kHz), thus helping to give equalizer`s a undeserved bad rap by misapplication.

You may not have known it but, as an example, all those movies that you liked in the big mono-plex theaters that you watched in the fifties through the eighties, or beyond(don`t know after1981, as not been to one since) were highly likely carefully equalized to greater or less extent with Altec passive cut only equalizers with adjustable line amps to return the signal path level from the room`s node`s/speaker system notch filter/s insertion loss.

Many others, and I have heard many decent, through HQ sounding audio systems improve in smoothness/tonal balance and long term listenability at all SPL listening levels, from proper equalization.

Peace, and kind regards, OKB
 
Silly topic. As if "liking" a flat response was confirmation of possessing flat gear, flat room, flat ears, and flat taste. Or some Monte Carlo combination of individual non-flatnesses which produces an overall flat response. Not for me.
 
Tone Controls

No desire to perpetuate but perhaps summary response (despite my earlier undertaking to bow out!) after posts regarding my previous comment:

1. Nobody insisted that tone controls (the usual bass and treble types) are essential. My remark was intended to know why there presence are often frowned upon.

2. Yes, some tone control configurations are to be frowned at.( I did say 'properly designed' tone controls.) Only two topologies qualify: The active 'linear law' Baxandall type, including same component values for both lift and cut modes; and a fully log-configured passive type. the latter would include log potentiomewters, and 'lift' components x10 the 'cut' impedance values. Only these two topologies will have 'transparent' linear pass band and zero phase shift at center settings. [It is understood that adequately tracking log pots are particularly difficult to manufacture, thus the unpopularity of the latter topology in quality amplifiers. Top designs sometimes have stepped (switched) controls.]

3. Many designs do not conform to the above. Brands have their reasons for unbalancing matters, but varying popularity/objections are then to be expected.

4. The (true) position that two region tone controls (bass and treble only) cannot solve all problems was never denied. They provide some simple correction based on the input programme material and/or taste or other audible shortcomings. Again, the animosity towards such systems is not understood, simply because they do not offer multiple band correction. The two fields are different in both execution and cost.

5. The argument why certain 'high-end' brands do not include tone controls, has been simply explained by some manufacturers: Because they are (erroneously) deemed to 'distort' sound, or simply because they have snob dislike, based on the same opinions stated above. (One comes back to proper designs.) It can be debated that before a certain era, most customers did desire tone controls in integrated amplifiers (plus as many record equalising options as could be accomplished. One particularly popular amplifier of the day had as many as 24 different combinations!).

I do not wave a flag for tone controls present or absent; was simply looking for a proper reason for disapproval of the same. Thusfar the above points seem to apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3db
It would seem to me, that a higher percentage of receiver, and integrated owners seem to like to make false claims about some non existing grouped of audio lovers in which they like to label as (snob audiophiles) to circle the wagons and badger the lower ranks of the audio circle and get concerned with those who like to EQ their music. I call it as false claims. Most upper end owners don't have time and could care less what other people do when it comes to enjoying their music. I wouldn't claim to be an upper end gear owner, but I only on rare occasions have ever even heard other peoples systems, and the last thing I would do is try to convince them on the way they should EQ, their system. I have seen many threads here on this site regarding EQ usage, and I can't recall anyone with upper end gear showing any animosity towards those with EQ's or tone controls and concerning themselves with how someone else should enjoy their music. But plenty of claims from the EQ lovers trying to lay claim that high end owners are some how out in numbers making fun of anyone who wishes to EQ their music systems.
 
Last edited:
I've got an EQ in my chain, but it's set to flat, and it's really only there as it offers a crossover to my sub. I can also bypass the EQ potion entirely. Sometimes I do that, but sometimes I feel the need to dick around with things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom