Equalizer, yes or no?

[Rob41]

I haven't used an amp with tone controls, or an EQ for over 30 years. And my system sounds so good without any tone controls that I don't miss them even a little bit.

But I do roll tubes inside of my gear, and that is something that you can't really do in the SS realm (except to a limited degree with op-amps).

Okay, equalizers, tone controls and tubes are different animals but what they share in common is they change the resultant sound you hear. Your rolling tubes is akin to someone else adjusting sliders on an EQ. Yes, in a different way but both alter what the listener hears, right? Otherwise, why would anyone bother to roll tubes?

While I am a purist, I'm not anal on that point as I once was. I realize that mastering engineers master albums to sound certain ways, and that most recordings employ various forms of signal processing at the studio and inside of the mastering lab. My system lets me hear them the way that the mastering engineer meant them to sound (or even a bit better), and it does not sound lacking at all.

Less-serious enthusiasts who hear my system often make comments along the lines of "I can't believe that your system sounds so great without an equalizer". But I personally attribute this to the fact that mediocre gear often needs some extra help to sound decent, but the good stuff usually doesn't require anything more than good speaker placement, and a decent room.But its all a matter of taste. And whatever floats your boat is fine by me.

I've always wondered how someone who uses and rolls tubes could consider themself to be a purist. Each tube has a different sound, hence the reason why people roll tubes. And depending on the hours of use of a tube even it's sound qualities can vary. Did the sound engineer know you would be using tubes? If so, which ones?

My system has relatively flat frequency response. But unlike many lesser systems, it sounds fantastic when run it is run dead flat. And to me that is one of the hallmarks of a really good system. With a good system, a decent room, and good speaker placement, EQ becomes completely unnecessary, and can even detract from the sound.

But I will admit to adding a smidgen of color to my sound as well. But I use tubes to do my coloring. However the sound improvements associated with using a good tube preamp has nothing to with introducing frequency response aberrations into the signal like it does when you use an equalizer.But if your system needs a little EQ to sound its "best" to your ears, then don't let me stop you!

An EQ can certainly detract from the sound but it can also help. As a self proclaimed purist, i.e. no tone controls, you must realize every room will sound different and every permutation of equipment will sound different. And when you employ your brand of audio altering devices (tubes) you are once again changing the sound.

I'm sure you have a fine system and I'll bet it sounds great. I'm just saying what you point out as completely different (EQ, tone controls, tubes) actually share something in common. Each of these methods and others, are designed to change or manipulate the end result.

Sorry goldear, I'm not picking on you but there just seems to be an awful lot of hypocrisy in your posts above.

 

[Rob41]

If you prefer the sound quality that you achieve when using an equalizer, that is fine, it is your choice.

"Is the eq fooling us because the sound volume is boosted?"

Yes...

This question requires a two part answer.

If you use a control on an equalizer to boost a certain frequency or range of frequencies, you do in fact increase the power (power from the amplifier and the acoustic output of the speakers) for the frequency frequencies that you have selected.

This will cause those frequencies to be louder in absolute measurable terms and in relationship to the other frequencies in the music.

The second answer has to do with the basic function of the human auditory system. Our hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies when it is presented with frequencies having the same acoustic power. This is commonly called the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness hearing curve, although it has be revised and changed over the years.

The point is, the actual frequency response of the human auditory system changes with the intensity of the sounds (music), that we hear.

So, not only does boosting certain frequencies increase the actual measurable power in those frequencies (making the music sound different), one must also take into account the change in the frequency response of our ears as the loudness of the frequencies boosted in increased.

To be clear, equalizers do not shift frequencies, they change the amplitude of the frequencies selected and of course an EQ can be used to boost or attenuate the selected frequencies.

Of course each persons perception of changes in sound quality may be different and the contribution to these changes may be less for change in the frequency response of the ear due to changes in the absolute acoustic power at any given frequency than the actual increase in the absolute acoustic power at any given frequency. And as can be seen from the picture below, it is frequency dependent.

And BTW NJguy, this is a good and very perceptive question.

Yes you can use an equalizer when using a turntable, but it must still be used for line level signals, not phono cartridge level signals, that also require a specific type of EQ that is provided by the phono stage called the RIAA EQ curve.

I don't recall if your name was mentioned in the "Guru's of AK" thread or not but it should be there. I always look forward your posts because you bring so much information to the table. :thmbsp: Thank you!

 

[Hyperion]

I don't recall if your name was mentioned in the "Guru's of AK" thread or not but it should be there. I always look forward your posts because you bring so much information to the table. :thmbsp: Thank you!

+1 JBL GUY always there with the right information :thmbsp:

 

[PapaBear]

Thanks for all the answers. My biggest head scratch is that after using a eq im left thinking that all receivers suck n matter how much we read how great marantz or whatever brand is. i feel deceived.

Absolutely wrong. Many 1970s manufacturers designed their receivers to sound "better" the higher up the model line one went. Pioneer designed theirs to sound exactly the same, regardless of model. They differentiated their models by power and baked-in features.

The first thing you should be looking at if your sound isn't what you like with the unit flat, eq cutout, is your speakers. The most basic of things is: Are they positioned properly for your primary listening space and position? Simply shifting position a few inches, or adjusting their angle relative to your seat can have dramatic, if not monumental, effects. If properly positioned, the bulk of the program sound should be coming from *between* the speakers, with left and right being understated and rather vague. If you are hearing the sound distinctly coming from left and right and dropping off toward the mid-point (other than a specific instrument or late 60s/early 70s recording), they are definitely not positioned correctly.

The furnishings you have in your space can also have a significant impact on sound. Identify exactly what you don't like about what you're hearing, then look for things in the room that could be contributing to the problem. For instance, if you have poor high frequency, it could be too much "soft" material around your position that is absorbing it. Too much high? Try softening the room.

If tweaking the speakers you have doesn't give you joy, the next logical step is to try different speakers. Perhaps several different speakers. It is a trial and error experience. It might come down to giving up a pair you love dearly. Some speakers just aren't meant to be used with certain receivers or amps, no matter how hard you try.

In my book, tone controls and eq should only be used to compensate for flaws with specific program, not issues of the gear or the room. You really need to focus on your gear and your environment before you start issuing decrees regarding suckage.

 

[coonmanx]

I think that the anti-EQ folks go a little bit too far with their diatribe sometimes. I have a system that produces a pretty damn flat frequency response. How do I know this? Because once upon a time I EQ'd it with an Audio Control unit that had the built-in pink noise generator and a mic. The only thing it came up with was that the bass falls off a bit at the bottom end (due to my Speakerlab 1s having an 8" woofer). So for many years I employed no equalizer. But now I have one in the system and I use it mainly to just bump up that bottom end a bit. No real crazy curve on the EQ, no smiley face. Just a small tweak that I set and forget. Is my system the most revealing system in the world and it needs absolutely no adjustment? No it is not. But even if I didn't have the EQ in there I could enjoy it without issue. I just like having it in there and I like the way everything sounds.

Just saying that there are so many variables and some folks seem to get so bent out of shape that someone else would dare to use an EQ. No, it isn't something that puts magic into a system and it won't make up for bad speakers. But it can enhance the experience when done right.

 

[Rob41]

Is suckage really a word?

 

[whoaru99]

Every bit as much, I suspect, as scroe.

 

[swechsler]

Also check your speakers. Do they have driver level controls? If so, are they properly adjusted? Are they corroded or dirty internally (change the control settings with music playing and see if the sound is intermittent)?

You haven't told us what type of speakers you're using, but I think a lot of AKers will agree that in general, comparing different speakers using the same amp will give you a lot more differences in sound than comparing different amps with the same speakers (my point being that your speakers may be the weak link in the chain).

 

[onwardjames]

I'm certainly no purist, but no.

My problem is this - I can't stop fiddling with the eq, wondering if I can make it better.

no thanks. Swore them off years ago.

 

[sqlsavior]

I wonder how many old receivers that "need" an equalizer actually need restoration.

The historical "hi-fi purist" position is that parametric equalizers are OK, for correcting room modes usually, but that graphic equalizers are likely to subtly degrade the clarity of a high-end system. I basically believe this, but without any personal evidence in my experience. That said, I think relatively few systems preserve that degree of clarity to be potentially degraded in the first place. I suppose that makes me a snob, to some.

So, if your system sounds better to you with an equalizer, fine. Just try taking it out from time to time, as you upgrade, to make sure that's still true...

 

[8golftango]

Who cares? If you use an eq or not? I certainly do. Only because i enjoy this stuff. Your stereo doesnt have to be the best in the world. These old components are cool in there own right. 1950s thru 1990s stereo are cool as **** and sound great! I dont care if my stuff isnt flat as a ruler frequency response, if it was all perfect? What would u do? Sit on your danish modern sofa and scratch ur chin? Please...

 

[Hajidub]

As well you should be.

Don't get me wrong, I probably listen more non-EQed/non-corrected than with, but I don't consider that way to be necessarily "as it was meant to be heard". For one, I doubt my room acoustics are anything like that of the mastering suite (or whatever it's called).

Yeah I probably shouldn't have used "meant to be heard" phrase in my post and yes I'm almost positive my acoustics aren't like a mastering studio. EQ'ing is something that should be done (sometimes correctly) at the studio. Now for the "if's." If EQ'ing was that easy everyone would be a sound engineer. If your compensating for lack of full sound it could be a component in your system. It could be a crappy recording, EQ'ing it is like polishing a turd, btw lets add another piece of equipment into the signal chain.

Overall it's whatever sounds good to you NJGuy. You're going to get both sides when posting a question like this. I don't think anyone's right/wrong, it's personal preference. When I started out I used an EQ, but adjusting to each album/song was a pain in the butt. I upgraded components and disregarded the EQ and haven't looked back, I just look for better copies.

 

[robgmn]

I'm in the camp that says use whatever you want if it makes you happy when listening.
EQ can improve and EQ can degrade. If it improves, it doesn't mean that upstream or downstream components are crap. It means they just aren't satisfying your particular needs. And everyone's needs differ.

I'm also in the camp that calls B.S. on those who state an EQ/etc. should NEVER be used in a system for reasons such as "not as it was meant to be heard" or "distorts the sound too much" or "I use cables/wires/tubes/cryogenics/etc. as they are the only pure ways to alter the sound".

Polishing a turd? Do you call it "polishing a turd" when the Beatle recorded the guitar on Revolution by "by plugging straight into a recording console. Engineer Geoff Emerick then chained together two of the tube preamps on the EMI REDD desk, overloading the first, and running that signal into the second preamp to distort it even more". And you're worried a modern EQ is going to ruin the sound?
Hmmmph.

Sorry, but unless you were sitting in on the original performance or in the production (post-production?) studio with the recording engineers, you're not sitting in your easy chair hearing anything near "as it was meant to be heard" (unless, of course, your listening room is set up identically to the studio).

You may love your system to death and it may sound great to you and others, but please stop trying to paint it as something that it very clearly ISN'T.

 

[Hajidub]

I'm in the camp that says use whatever you want if it makes you happy when listening.
EQ can improve and EQ can degrade. If it improves, it doesn't mean that upstream or downstream components are crap. It means they just aren't satisfying your particular needs. And everyone's needs differ.

I'm also in the camp that calls B.S. on those who state an EQ/etc. should NEVER be used in a system for reasons such as "not as it was meant to be heard" or "distorts the sound too much" or "I use cables/wires/tubes/cryogenics/etc. as they are the only pure ways to alter the sound".

Polishing a turd? Do you call it "polishing a turd" when the Beatle recorded the guitar on Revolution by "by plugging straight into a recording console. Engineer Geoff Emerick then chained together two of the tube preamps on the EMI REDD desk, overloading the first, and running that signal into the second preamp to distort it even more". And you're worried a modern EQ is going to ruin the sound?
Hmmmph.

Sorry, but unless you were sitting in on the original performance or in the production (post-production?) studio with the recording engineers, you're not sitting in your easy chair hearing anything near "as it was meant to be heard" (unless, of course, your listening room is set up identically to the studio).

You may love your system to death and it may sound great to you and others, but please stop trying to paint it as something that it very clearly ISN'T.

Clearly you picked over my post (i.e. I shouldn't have said "the way it was meant to be heard" was clearly stated) just for the sake of argument. I posted my opinion, told the OP do whatever sounds best for you and you still posted against me like you're mad at something. I'm not painting any picture about my system, which you have no idea about (whether it's good/great/or in-between). Post towards the OP's original question and keep your personal attacks to yourself. Listen to your system, play with your EQ, grow your hair like Phil Spector and just enjoy!

 

[MexicoMiike]

There is no such thing as "accurate" reproduction of sound unless your reproduction system is exactly the same as used by the recording engineer in exactly the same room. And we have to ignore the most critical part...NONE of us hears exactly what some other person hears. So even if you had been there in the studio the day that whoever mixed the whatever album, what YOU would have heard coming from the studio monitors would not have been what the engineer heard.

It's all smoke and mirrors - EQ/tone control or whatever you need on each individual song so it sounds like it SHOULD sound...to you.

 

[petehall347]

if the eq makes the amp etc sound like you want it too then there cant be anything wrong with the amp ..
put it another way the amp is responding and producing the frequencies you so desire .
well not strictly true ..
carry on as you were ..

 

[sax6]

My Electronics teacher in high school proved to me that an eq in attenuation mode or in accentuation mode is the same.


unless

in accentuation mode , you boost the signal ( I knowned that )

but in attenuation mode, you still boost what frequencies you want

BY ATTENUATING those you do not want.

I'm not clear?

Take the big '' smiley '' disco or rock pattern that boosts low end and high end.

Then take that '' smiley '' pattern but '' draw '' it under the 0db graph.

You still have lows and highs boosted but without the distortion.

Then let your amp boost the volume level.

Think of the Yammies philosophy about variable loudness.

Attenuate instead of accentuate.


My philo about eq's


I Don't use them but the big ADC sound shaper with metal handles
were pretty cool and '' everyone wanted one '' in the 80's

 

[moosteve]

I'm in the camp that says use whatever you want if it makes you happy when listening.
EQ can improve and EQ can degrade. If it improves, it doesn't mean that upstream or downstream components are crap. It means they just aren't satisfying your particular needs. And everyone's needs differ.

I'm also in the camp that calls B.S. on those who state an EQ/etc. should NEVER be used in a system for reasons such as "not as it was meant to be heard" or "distorts the sound too much" or "I use cables/wires/tubes/cryogenics/etc. as they are the only pure ways to alter the sound".

Polishing a turd? Do you call it "polishing a turd" when the Beatle recorded the guitar on Revolution by "by plugging straight into a recording console. Engineer Geoff Emerick then chained together two of the tube preamps on the EMI REDD desk, overloading the first, and running that signal into the second preamp to distort it even more". And you're worried a modern EQ is going to ruin the sound?
Hmmmph.

Sorry, but unless you were sitting in on the original performance or in the production (post-production?) studio with the recording engineers, you're not sitting in your easy chair hearing anything near "as it was meant to be heard" (unless, of course, your listening room is set up identically to the studio).

You may love your system to death and it may sound great to you and others, but please stop trying to paint it as something that it very clearly ISN'T.

i read this completely differently...

If your compensating for lack of full sound it could be a component in your system. It could be a crappy recording, EQ'ing it is like polishing a turd,

to me, Hajidub is implying the original source is crap, and trying to polish it after the fact is relatively pointless. Or you might need better gear (or room treatments?).... perhaps a $35 thrift store Technics might NOT be the pinnacle of audio bliss?
And I do find there to be a difference between a recording engineer running a signal through 2 tube preamps, with the intent of creating a certain sound in a creative endeavour, then committing it to tape as a finished product... and THEN running the finished product through an EQ at home. Really two different things... one is creation... the other trying to make it sound like how YOU (the listener) thinks it should sound.
Of course no setup can ever completely recreate a live performance, but I am of the camp that says the better the gear, the cleaner the signal, and add room treatments to knock down certain frequency problems... well, why add an EQ.
I had one in the old days with a $200 40W Kenwood and DB+ speaks. Now, it just seems pointless... completely unnecessary. I never even feel the urge to touch my tone controls.
Whatever anybody wants is fine... but the OP asked for opinions... and that is mine.

 

[sKiZo]

Take the big '' smiley '' disco or rock pattern that boosts low end and high end.

Then take that '' smiley '' pattern but '' draw '' it under the 0db graph.

You still have lows and highs boosted but without the distortion.

Then let your amp boost the volume level.

Think of the Yammies philosophy about variable loudness.

Attenuate instead of accentuate.

Couple comments ...

I'm sure you're aware that the "smiley face" curve may have little to do with slider positions, but I've seen some eq's set up exactly like that. ooPS! - It's the actual frequency response after adjustment that's your target. Boost the highs and lows maybe 3db with the center flat, and that's enough to make most folk happy, or at least satisfied. The actual slider positions may be all over the map when it's done right.

Hard to do without a calibrated mike and SPL meter at the very least, unless you have an eq with RTA capabilities.

... and not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not, but the goal is to adjust the spectrum without having your amp or eq work any harder than they have to. If you end up too loud or soft when switching the eq in and out, then adjust the entire range either up or down to compensate. Too much boost, and you might get distortion, too little, and you end up with noise. Volume should stay the same once it's adjusted correctly.

 

[sKiZo]

Worth a separate post, I think ...

You can also do some real serious science nowadays, for a minimal investment. I thought I was happy with what I was hearing, but a decent RTA testing system pointed out some glaring issues.

If you already have a laptop computer, we're talking a couple hundred bucks for a mixer with phantom power, a calibrated microphone, good I/O (laptop computers tend to suck for sound, although that's changing, and some cables. Software is FREE if you use Room EQ Wizard, and that's some really good stuff. Even does waterfalls to show you exactly how the speakers interact with the room - indispensable for environmental treatments.

Several options once you do the tests and plot the room. Either use the results to adjust your sliders on a graphic, or better yet, parametric eq, or use an outboard box such as the miniDSP. My current favorite is using REW to create filters that import directly to a software DSP running inside jRiver Media Center on my digital server. I've barely begun to tap the potential there. Then again, no big rush as what I'm hearing now is pretty choice.