Why are equalizers not more popular?
- Thread starter Laggard
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
They're controversial. Some find them useful whilst others see them as more items in the audio chain to introduce noise and distortion. Many consider them unnecessary.
Blue Shadow
Waiting for Vintage Gear from this century
There is this thinking that if the true audiophiles don't use them that folks with everyday equipment won't use them either and they just parrot the comments from that group of audiosnobs. I don't understand it.
But for me, I don't use one because it has too much adjustability that I don't need. I have a preamp without tone controls and bought a tone control unit to use with it. I don't care what the audiosnobs say, I want my rig to sound good to me and it does.
The EQ I like is the Audio Control 520 which has 3 bass bands one midrange and one high treble. All one needs really. The three bass bands, low for added deep bass, mid-bass control was to remove the bump many speakers have built in before they roll off and then the one above that to give a bit more above the low bass area as needed.
Sure there are times when eq is necessary and I have one for that purpose but most of the time I can get by with tone controls or nothing.
But for me, I don't use one because it has too much adjustability that I don't need. I have a preamp without tone controls and bought a tone control unit to use with it. I don't care what the audiosnobs say, I want my rig to sound good to me and it does.
The EQ I like is the Audio Control 520 which has 3 bass bands one midrange and one high treble. All one needs really. The three bass bands, low for added deep bass, mid-bass control was to remove the bump many speakers have built in before they roll off and then the one above that to give a bit more above the low bass area as needed.
Sure there are times when eq is necessary and I have one for that purpose but most of the time I can get by with tone controls or nothing.
You can still find them for home or car use. Broadly speaking, they're used either to fix the room or fix the recording.
I fall into the former camp. In the main system, I was able to achieve extremely neutral response in the bottom several octaves using careful speaker placement and room treatments after much measured experimentation. For me, that is the most elegant solution. In the HT, however, I don't have access to the same tricks and use the parametric EQ built into my pre-processor to attenuate some nasty room modes. That is a "set-it-and-forget-it" approach.
For me, *fixing* recordings isn't worth the time. I find some older recordings bass shy in the first two octaves, but you really cannot create what was never captured. All you can do is boost what is there. Which isn't the same thing.
I fall into the former camp. In the main system, I was able to achieve extremely neutral response in the bottom several octaves using careful speaker placement and room treatments after much measured experimentation. For me, that is the most elegant solution. In the HT, however, I don't have access to the same tricks and use the parametric EQ built into my pre-processor to attenuate some nasty room modes. That is a "set-it-and-forget-it" approach.
For me, *fixing* recordings isn't worth the time. I find some older recordings bass shy in the first two octaves, but you really cannot create what was never captured. All you can do is boost what is there. Which isn't the same thing.
My reason for not using an eq is my inability to set it and forget it. Always second-guessing it.
Also, I notice fatigue kicks in quickly with most any eq use. And, it does introduce yet another obstacle in the signal path.
For non-critical listening, tho, it could be a real help.
However, for serious sound, it is far preferable in my opinion to treat the room, and properly set up one's system.
Also, I notice fatigue kicks in quickly with most any eq use. And, it does introduce yet another obstacle in the signal path.
For non-critical listening, tho, it could be a real help.
However, for serious sound, it is far preferable in my opinion to treat the room, and properly set up one's system.
QFT IMHO
Or need them. See above
OP... its all about what your trying to achieve and there isn't a 'right" way IMO. I ran one for awhile when I was moving every three years and didn't want to invest to much into a space that would be short term. Once i settled in a place I "fixed" the room first then ended up without tone controls at all. To each their own.
All rooms can be fixed. Is that a can't/not allowed to fix?
Edit: improved is probably a better word than fixed
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Most consumer equalizers cause more issues than they cure. Please note I said, most. SAE, SoundCraftsmen, Crown, and the Cello Audio Palette, and the current Schitt unit exceptions which aren't studio units. And maybe a very other few.
DeeCee
"Music is what we like to play..."
I’ve owned one and used a few, one a professional grade parametric equalizer. For me, here’s the deal: they all throw a blanket over the sound especially after you reach a particular level in SQ in the rest of your system.
They do have their uses, however - they were helpful when making recordings in cars and on some woefully botched or deficient studio recordings.
These comments are for typical analog non-DSP equipment. I prefer passive systems to handle room tuning; measuring your room with calibrated microphones using a spectrum analyzer is key for room mods.
As for me, it’s not worth the time and effort using EQ (especially economical ones.)
All this is IMHO and YMMV, etc.
Happy listening!
They do have their uses, however - they were helpful when making recordings in cars and on some woefully botched or deficient studio recordings.
These comments are for typical analog non-DSP equipment. I prefer passive systems to handle room tuning; measuring your room with calibrated microphones using a spectrum analyzer is key for room mods.
As for me, it’s not worth the time and effort using EQ (especially economical ones.)
All this is IMHO and YMMV, etc.
Happy listening!
Yeah. Landlord would not be thrilled and we don’t have much choice in the layout
Nixxuz
Super Member
I use one, but then, I also have a realtime spectrum analyzer so I can actually see what the EQ is doing. And anyone using "tone controls" is still using an EQ, it's just broader in the frequencies it affects. I use one because, believe it or not, I don't think every yahoo who sits down in the mixing booth, or masters a record, is an absolute genius just by virtue of being the one sitting there. I can play a few instruments myself, and I've done some amateur recording and mastering. Plus, nobody has any idea exactly what the people in booth were going for, or what equipment they were working with. Not every studio is Abbey Road. On the other hand, my ears are absolutely not the same as the people in the booth, the artists, the guy who wants things to sound good in a car or on a portable BT speaker, the other guy who handles the compression for streaming, etc. So what they might enjoy, or even be able to hear, is probably not the same as what gets through to my brain. Hence, I like being able to tailor the sound to what I like, and that is in no way, to me, some sort of sin. I've actually heard that intentionally "distorting" the "artists vision" is akin to rewriting a beloved book. Well, some people can believe that if they want, but I don't.
musichal
poet emeritus
Well said. I agree.
Similar threads
