Extremesam
Active Member
Exactly. I try to balance all the frequency levels to the room. My system puts me in the ballpark anyway.
Do some audiophiles really prefer flat frequency response?
- Thread starter Extremesam
- Start date
- Status
Extremesam
Active Member
That's a good question Ken ty!
Flat response, in that 'output' should equal 'input' level-wise. Normal hearing response is already taken care of during the initial performance - the conductor would have brought everything 'in line'. But room acoustics are likely different from that of the original venue. (And just for the record: Any properly designed tone controls should have no effect on the sound when set at '0'. Tone controls should be used to correct, not mess things up. But that is another subject.)
Nobody's hearing is perfect, and play-back levels are usually lower than in the original venue, in which case all normal hearing would require correction (Fletcher-Munson graphs). This apart from loudspeaker response peculiarities.
Nobody's hearing is perfect, and play-back levels are usually lower than in the original venue, in which case all normal hearing would require correction (Fletcher-Munson graphs). This apart from loudspeaker response peculiarities.
KingBubba
"Too Much Stuff"
In the world of professional quality sound reinforcement, EQ is generally used to level each visited room to as close to flat as possible. This is done using 32 band EQs and a spectrum analyzer. The purpose of creating a flat room is not for the purpose of listening necessarily, but rather to have a consistent starting point. If you know you are starting flat, then it is easier to trust the tonal EQ changes you make with your music.
As for me, I do not use any EQs in any of my rooms. My systems and speakers are well balanced. More than the amplification side of a system, the speakers are what you are listening to. If any of my speakers sounded like some of the descriptions given here, they would be out the door in a heartbeat. My Stax Earspeakers need no EQ of any kind. I suspect that some of the equipment described here either needs help or replacement. I don't use EQ because I am an audiophile, which I am not. I don't use it because it is not needed in my rooms. If I did need it, I would get a spectrum analyzer and some 32 band EQs and I would EQ the complete way before touching the tone controls on my receivers. I'm glad that that is not needed. Good luck with your system...s.
As for me, I do not use any EQs in any of my rooms. My systems and speakers are well balanced. More than the amplification side of a system, the speakers are what you are listening to. If any of my speakers sounded like some of the descriptions given here, they would be out the door in a heartbeat. My Stax Earspeakers need no EQ of any kind. I suspect that some of the equipment described here either needs help or replacement. I don't use EQ because I am an audiophile, which I am not. I don't use it because it is not needed in my rooms. If I did need it, I would get a spectrum analyzer and some 32 band EQs and I would EQ the complete way before touching the tone controls on my receivers. I'm glad that that is not needed. Good luck with your system...s.
No one really has the memory to recall just what the original perform sounded like (as far as frequency db levels) any tone control usage is nothing more than shaping the sound to what you prefer. The conductor or the engineer won't give a crap what you want to do with your tone controls. They won't even know what your doing so play with them all you want.
Even the event engineers can't get all the seats in a venue or all the locations in a studio to sound the same, just as no listening room sounds the same in all locations. Adjusting your controls is just a guess at anything, you won't know what flat sounds like, as just because your tone controls might be set to flat, that isn't an indicator of anything.
Tone controls are great for companies that make pot cleaning fluids.
Even the event engineers can't get all the seats in a venue or all the locations in a studio to sound the same, just as no listening room sounds the same in all locations. Adjusting your controls is just a guess at anything, you won't know what flat sounds like, as just because your tone controls might be set to flat, that isn't an indicator of anything.
Tone controls are great for companies that make pot cleaning fluids.
quiet
Addicted Member
Yes, what tubed said. Good recordings sound good. On the other hand if the mix needs in house work when others don't it's probably so bad it's never gonna be any good no matter what you do. I think this is why many of us run the tone flat or set it and forget it. In my room anything other than flat on the dial gets nasty real fast. Pure coincidence in my case.
I absolutely HATE a bad mix, it hurts. It takes about 10 seconds to spot one.
Are you able to set and forget? If so your good to go.
I absolutely HATE a bad mix, it hurts. It takes about 10 seconds to spot one.
Are you able to set and forget? If so your good to go.
Except that your chances of hearing what the engineer was hearing is exactly zero. Even getting close would be quite the feat.
You may want to try changing speaker locations and distances to nearby walls. Room treatments can also be extremely effective at balancing the sound of a room. EQs/tone controls come with compromises that more than offset there benefit imho.. Shorter signal paths generally perform better. Not sure if I'm a purist, but some things keep proving true over time. Other guys love them and this is just sharing an opinion.
WillVT
Super Member
That's why I said "theoretically."
Anyway, I'm no purist. I have an EQ in my main system. I usually bypass it, but it's nice to have there if the need arises. Like some bad recording or something. It's just another tool/toy in the toolbox. I just go on a case by case basis. Whatever makes things sound good to me, is good in my book. Theory's be damned.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
Am I the only one who finds it very curious that just about everyone who complains of a flat (un-equalized w/no tone controls) system being "boring" and sets up an equalizer by ear almost always ends up with the good old smiley face? They then go on to justify their reasons for using an equalizer by saying everyone hears differently and different gear and rooms sound different. Oh yeah? If there is so much difference why do most equalizers when set up by ear end up with the same old smiley face?
IME a room/system actually equalized for flat(er) in room response always sounds better. Those who have begrudgingly allowed me to measure their room and set their equalizer accordingly always agree the results sound better than the smiley face.
I don't care what people do or don't do vis a vis any type of equalizer. However, it's time they admitted to the truth. That being that most of those smiley face equalizer owners wouldn't know flat in room response if it kicked them in the butt. They just boost the bass and treble and convince themselves the system now sounds better. IMO/E it never does.
FWIW: I've been using measurements to adjust an equalizer for flatter in room response since the early 1980's. Back then it was an LP with test tones, a twelve band linear equalizer and a Radio Shack SPL meter. Currently it's a Umik1 microphone REW and a twelve band DSP.
IME just about every room can be improved with some judicious equalization. This also includes many purpose built rooms.
IME a room/system actually equalized for flat(er) in room response always sounds better. Those who have begrudgingly allowed me to measure their room and set their equalizer accordingly always agree the results sound better than the smiley face.
I don't care what people do or don't do vis a vis any type of equalizer. However, it's time they admitted to the truth. That being that most of those smiley face equalizer owners wouldn't know flat in room response if it kicked them in the butt. They just boost the bass and treble and convince themselves the system now sounds better. IMO/E it never does.
FWIW: I've been using measurements to adjust an equalizer for flatter in room response since the early 1980's. Back then it was an LP with test tones, a twelve band linear equalizer and a Radio Shack SPL meter. Currently it's a Umik1 microphone REW and a twelve band DSP.
IME just about every room can be improved with some judicious equalization. This also includes many purpose built rooms.
Mr Creosote
Super Member
I'm not an audiophile and I typically run flat and in pure direct mode. And having only a bass and treble seems limited. As some are saying its been equalized in the studio. But we can never reproduce what it sounded like in the studio. I have two carts on separate headshells and its easy for me to swap them. They don't sound the same. I have a vintage Marantz and a new Yamaha. Again they have different "voices" as the carts do. Now if I had a 10 band equalizer I could probably get them to sound nearly alike. Speakers, room acoustics etc, etc.. My Monitor 10's have enough bottom to my ears. My Klipsch bookshelves don't reach as deep. So I'm tempted to dial in some additional bottom. Taking everything in consideration when you run flat you may not be truly flat. I think in an audiophile system part of the goal is to reach perfect reproduction across the entire spectrum so no "equalization" is necessary. I'm far from that. That being said Sam, Set your dials, turn it up and rock on!
quiet
Addicted Member
It makes my wonder how long smiley face listeners have been listening to music. I too had a smiley for a while.
That sparkling top and booming bottom sure did sound good, for a while.
I hope the OP will kindly allow me to briefly try sort something out despite the side-tracking:
While this is not the main topic, I have noticed over the years that every time tone controls and equalisation are mentioned, there appears this irritating tendency for some to step on the high ground and become disdainful without offering any basis for their attitude. I am not desirous of going off on a side-track, but the above author opened the door. (In addition he has one at a disadvantage in that one does not know his background - oh well.)
Nevertheless, I think for once it is fair to ask the basis for the above snide remark as well as the dismissive attitude of a few others regarding any kind of personal preference to correct what one feels can bring the response of one's system better in line with what one feels to be correct - if such an explanation is at all possible? Perhaps we can all learn?
(My apology, but perhaps it is time to sort this out .)
mashaffer
Super Member
When I am listening to an orchestra live I have never feel the need to EQ the live performance. If everything is set up well throughout the whole chain the same will apply to a recorded performance. So generally I will prefer flat but that is with respect to the entire chain including the effects of the human ear (ala F-M curves). So periodically some tweaking may be helpful especially at low volume. It is worth pointing out that absolutely flat response is not the only factor (or even the most important). Sound stage and presence for example have little to do with frequency balance as such unless it is way out of whack.
Also I am of the opinion that completely accurate reproduction is not required but plausible is. In other words one doesn't have to perfectly recreate a particular sonic event but the result must be clearly a possible event.
Also I am of the opinion that completely accurate reproduction is not required but plausible is. In other words one doesn't have to perfectly recreate a particular sonic event but the result must be clearly a possible event.
Tom Bombadil
AK Member
I run a flat system without tone controls and love the sound. However at low volumes the bass is insufficient. I rarely listen at such low volumes.
Standard bass and treble controls are such crude hammers. I don't know how one can hope to use them to address system deficiencies. If one's system rolls off above 10K and you want to give that region a little boost, increasing the treble control is going to boost everything above 2K-3K. So you could now have a significant boost at 5K which makes your system sound too bright. Likewise if your mid-bass in the 80-120Hz region is too boomy, a bass control will overly decrease your low bass.
IMO using standard bass and treble tone controls cause more problems than they solve. However if one has lower quality small speakers with very weak bass or very rolled off highs, then a broad region frequency boost can help them to sound better.
Parasound used to make a small 5-band equalizer, the REQ-150. I used it in an office system and later a small bedroom system and it worked pretty well. It had narrow band 1/2 octave adjustments at 40Hz, 80Hz, and 120Hz on the low end and at 2.5K and 6K on the high end. I used small speakers in those systems and was able to apply a boost a 40Hz and just a litle +1 db boost at 80Hz for a fuller sound.
It might be nice to own a very high quality 32-band EQ to address problems in narrow frequency ranges.
Standard bass and treble controls are such crude hammers. I don't know how one can hope to use them to address system deficiencies. If one's system rolls off above 10K and you want to give that region a little boost, increasing the treble control is going to boost everything above 2K-3K. So you could now have a significant boost at 5K which makes your system sound too bright. Likewise if your mid-bass in the 80-120Hz region is too boomy, a bass control will overly decrease your low bass.
IMO using standard bass and treble tone controls cause more problems than they solve. However if one has lower quality small speakers with very weak bass or very rolled off highs, then a broad region frequency boost can help them to sound better.
Parasound used to make a small 5-band equalizer, the REQ-150. I used it in an office system and later a small bedroom system and it worked pretty well. It had narrow band 1/2 octave adjustments at 40Hz, 80Hz, and 120Hz on the low end and at 2.5K and 6K on the high end. I used small speakers in those systems and was able to apply a boost a 40Hz and just a litle +1 db boost at 80Hz for a fuller sound.
It might be nice to own a very high quality 32-band EQ to address problems in narrow frequency ranges.
Last edited:
I used to add bass and treble, and then I got an EQ and used that for a long time when my main amp was a 45wpc Onkyo A5. Then I started moving up the food chain with my amplification devices. First came the HK Citation 22 and Onkyo P306RS combo, and I no longer felt the need for the EQ. Then I scored a Citation 16 and a Kenwood C2 pre amp, and I pretty much quit using tone controls. Now I'm running Kenwood L-09Ms with a Kenwood L-07Cll pre and I run the tone controls straight up 99.9% of the time, and the sound is very dynamic. For me, big clean power and a real good pre have negated the need to tweak the bass and treble at all. I think the preamp has as much to do with it as anything else though, because right now the big Citation is paired with the L-07C while the L-09s are being gone through and it sounds very, very good. Really though, to each their own and do whatever sounds good to you. To the OP don't condemn running a system straight up until you've heard a really good, well matched system being run that way.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
The Schiit Loki may be the modern equivalent of that Parasound.
- Status
Similar threads
