Equalizers?

Sometimes I wonder if "phase coherence" is all its cracked up to be. Consider this: If I'm at a symphony, I don't hold my head perfectly still, while staring at the center of the stage. I move my head around looking around at the performers and such. So, the "live" phase is constantly changing. It doesn't detract from the performance.

Now consider a recording: The mics won't be placed where my ears would be, and my speakers won't be placed where the mics were. The chances of my stereo reproducing an original phase coherence is slim-to-none. Yet, it will still sound good, with a good sound stage. (Assuming a reasonably good system.)

I don't think that placing a quality EQ is going to do any more damage than is already done by the recording/playback process to begin with.

IMHO. :scratch2:

Firstly, introducing an eq filter into the audio chain will cause phase shift, this is fact not opinion.
Also I might add some of the best orchestral recordings use very very few mic's because this is an age old problem with the phase anomalies which arise when too many mic's are used.
A pipe organ for instance is usually recorded with a coincidental stereo pair of mics.
Secondly, phase is an issue with recording, because there are many mic's placed that hear everything within a certain radius, which means multiple mic's are hearing the same source from different postitions/distances.
That means say mic A which is concentrating on the first violins will pick up the first violins and some of the second violins, mic B which is concentrating on second violins also can pick up some of the first violins.
That means two mic's have the same source, but being picked up from different postitions, different postions means different distances, which will cause a phase issue when the mics are mixed into the same mix buss and heard through the same speakers.
When you hear an orchestra live, you have one pair of ears hearing the individual instruments with perfect separation, you hear each instrument from the source, which is the actual instrument. Thats why when you walk around to achieve you prefered orchestra balance, you dont hear any phase. A live orchestra has no phase anomalies, apart from the relections on the room which add ambience, which is an effect, which is why different concert halls have different characters of sound.
Thats some of the reason close micing or zone micing was introduced, to bring better separation to recordings not only to enable more control in the mix, but to help with phase.
So in short, phase is not "cracked up" to be anything, its is a physical situation that has plauged recording and live sound reinforcement since the begining.
I use the best possible speakers, I have studio monitors in the lounge because they have a very linear phase which can reveal things you may not have heard in the music you listen to before, because phase anomalies will mask some of the intriquette details, reverbs, and image which make a track enjoyable.
 
I know that its a fact. I never said otherwise. I'm questioning whether or not its actually a "problem". In my example I was inferring two mics. The rest of your post seems to reinforce my contention. There's so much phase smearing in an ordinary recording that I question how much impact a little more has on my home listening experience.

Inquiring minds want to know. :scratch2:
 
I know that its a fact. I never said otherwise. I'm questioning whether or not its actually a "problem". In my example I was inferring two mics. The rest of your post seems to reinforce my contention. There's so much phase smearing in an ordinary recording that I question how much impact a little more has on my home listening experience.

Inquiring minds want to know. :scratch2:

Well personally for me I try not to add to it, the recording process has most likely involved processes to keep it to a minimum, the best they can.
So my theory is to continue that right down to me (the consumer).
If you follow my guidelines Im fairly convinced it would open up a whole new world. It did for me..........and Im not talking about silly interconnects with oxygen free gold+kryptonite+depleted unranium sliver copper direction sensitive properties......Im talking about real things that people can hear and appreciate.
Sure, look when Im listening to something at a lower volume I will shelve a bit of low end in there to fatten it up, but as I turn it up I take it out, AKA Loudness, I never use the loudness because I feel it puts too much top end in the sound.
Simple and minimal....................
 
One thing to take into consideration is that a large percentage of equalizers use op-amps to accomplish their function.

The better units use coil-wound circuits which produce much less distortion.

Soundcraftsmen produced some very nice units that use coil-wound circuits and as a result have extremely low distortion.

Utilizing a Soundcraftsmen 2215R and a Crown RTA2, I can compensate for any inaccuracies in my listening room, which is a good thing.

Just like any other signal processor, an EQ can be over-used.
 

Attachments

  • Soundcraftsmen_RP2215-R_Equalizer_Web_small.jpg
    Soundcraftsmen_RP2215-R_Equalizer_Web_small.jpg
    15 KB · Views: 48
My Rane THX 44 is pretty cool for home hi-fi stuff, and I think there's a THX 22 model out there for stereo (no sub) or surround rears. Part graphic, part parametric.

je

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • THX 44.jpg
    THX 44.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 216
There are so many of them (Rane Graphic EQs that is, to stick with the original first post from the OP).
 
I cannot answer your question but can offer my simple advice.

EQ are tools for the professionals. Most people can only ruin the sound with an EQ. Parametric EQs are harder to use than a Graphic EQ. EQs cannot be used by ear only, an RTA or better test equipment is typically used. Using an EQ by ear alone is like driving in traffic blindfolded.

They are inexpensive, fun, and can improve performance dramatically, but lack of knowledge and difficulty can leads to frustration.
 
I cannot answer your question but can offer my simple advice.

EQ are tools for the professionals. Most people can only ruin the sound with an EQ. Parametric EQs are harder to use than a Graphic EQ. EQs cannot be used by ear only, an RTA or better test equipment is typically used. Using an EQ by ear alone is like driving in traffic blindfolded.

They are inexpensive, fun, and can improve performance dramatically, but lack of knowledge and difficulty can leads to frustration.

With all due respect eq's can be used by ear, (I earn my living as a full time live audio engineer, and I use them all the time by ear, when I use them and I nearly always use the MESA filters in the Dolby Lake processors ) it just takes a trained and experienced ear to know how to apply it. RTA's are old school now, we have much more sophisticated ways of looking at what a sound system is doing so we can eliminate room noise and reflections from affecting our reading of what the PA system is doing, we also look at phase relationships between mid/high cabinets and subs, and lastly we do look at how the room is affecting the way the sound system is performing...........
These are all important factors to consider before one starts "hacking" into an EQ on a sound system.
What do I use at home, a small amount of bass boost at low volumes but nearly always flat, no need for an EQ at home, for me anyway..
Heres a link to the user manual for the most popular live sound processor in the current world of professional audio.
It may be of interest to some people.........maybe not.........
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...sional/Dolby_Lake_Processor_System_Manual.pdf
 
If you like 'em use 'em. If you don't, so what? Each to his own. But as I "get on the gas" the need for them is greater. jmho. :thmbsp:
 
Which a Parametric EQ is way better at than a Graphic EQ because center frequency and bandwidth are fixed on a Graphic EQ.
:drool:

Not to make your head explode, but there are also combinations of the two: semi-parametric eqs can have boost/cut controls + frequency selector (sometimes a choice of multiple fixed freqs, but usually a truly variable freq select option within a certain range), but either lack a bandwidth adjustment control ("Q") or have only a choice of a few fixed Q settings (narrow/normal/wide). Sometimes these can also physically look like a graphic eq, with boost/cut sliders arranged vertically, even though the corresponding freq-select ranges might potentially overlap & the visual you get looking at the EQ might not really represent the audio spectrum in ascending order...these are sometimes called "paragraphic" eqs.

OK, now my own head is going to explode. :sigh:

je
 
BSR Stereo Frequency Equalizer Spectrum Analyzer EQ-300

does anyone out here know anything about this equalizer, i need some help.
 
I am not familiar with the BSR, but I spent some time today putting together a little EQ/Crossover module. It's similar to a Behringer DCX-2496, but it's got significantly higher quality components and more flexible crossover options.

My modules are a pair of Xilica XM-2040's that I'll be configuring for 4 way mono mode on my Unity Horn system..
 
I have an audio control 14/10 and love it. I keep it in my main system with all the preset eq curves. It comes in handy when some recordings are overly bright or have a midrange honk in them. I find I can hit one of my presets for a quick fix.
 
. . . I have a DBX 14/10 with constant "Q" filters which I find are pleasing to the ears.

I believe this is important also. I never realized what a "constant-Q" EQ was until I read the construction article by Rod Elliot. (here) I don't believe that most of the EQ's from the "vintage" era are constant-Q.

The PDF article at the end is good reading also.
 
I bought a 10-band (per side) graphic equalizer when I was a senior in high school. I had it for about a year. I tried to convince myself that I was merely compensating for room acoustics when I knew, deep down, that I thought the inverted parabolas I liked to make with the sliders just looked cool. It had nothing to do with sound quality, and so I sold it.

Have never missed it.

Hah! That's exactly why I've got a BSR EQ3000 hooked up. It's got laughable performance and I only use it for techno, but the lights and the cool VFC spectrum analyzer make it look neat.
 
Well, rush2112guy.....I hope you learned your lesson. Equalizers=tone controls=bash that guy!! :nono: I started a thread about tone controls....my ears are still ringing! :D

These are Audiophiles you are talking to, not just music lovers like you and me! :music:
 
Back
Top Bottom