Why are equalizers not more popular?

[Akustic]

Never met a tone defeat button that I didn't push ...
When it comes to the signal path less is more ..
Tune the room and the system ... and you'll hear what was recorded.
Tone controls were added in the days of inconsistent recording equalization ..
Those days are long gone ..

 

[50nstillhifi]

Eh... Go figure I'd hit on one of the few. Insert Ferrari F40 then.



Honestly, I've never felt the need to fiddle with tone controls regardless of the recording. I think it's interesting to hear what was mastered and try to hear and understand what was trying to be done. The biggest problems I find with recording are where there's a very narrow spike that should have been EQ'd out in production, which no normal EQ is going to fix.
I generally don't listen to old, badly recorded music though. Audio has been a fair mature thing for most of my life and the things I listen to are mastered on fairly good, flat speakers.

Get what you mean.. and the EQ actually "diminishes" those master anomolies so that you the 2d and 3rd generation recorder/"transfer of good stuff" to be kept, can alter the original to fit your recording media. What I have seen is the EQ to flatten or make negligible that "irritation" your ears do NOT want to hear when you play/record a selection.

Understanding this is complex in the sense of utility.. and perhaps this is why current day EQs are more of a wide-band tone control. I have noticed this on many devices to include auto standard audio.. mobile phone apps.. and now some streaming devices. In fact, some of these devices just make a summation of EQ variations and name it.. IE: Jazz, Rock, Classical.

Let us remember, Engineers go through great lengths to design circuits that work and do what they need to do "electrically" . Technicians find a way to build and use the design to "physically" work . Assemblers throw it all together (often with no sense of what/how it is ).. and Marketers just try to sell you the simplest version.. TO MAKE A SALE !!

With this in mind..

Suggesting an audio buff use a parametric equalizer to adjust for room conditions when they are used to tone controls... might be a "non starter"!

 

[KarlK]

Even the most dirt cheap 2 channel stuff from Schiit omits them.

There are two reasons for that: keep cost down and USB units can be EQ'd with software. As for the Moon you were right the tone controls are not on the preamp itself. You do it via the signal processors that come with the DAC's iOS/Android control app. If you don't have the DAC there's an EQ loop on the preamp. The reason they don't put the tone controls on the preamp itself is that only very wealthy people can afford Moon equipment therefore the market is fairly limited so the number of components a single customer buys is of great importance. They figure if one can afford a $50,000 "entry-level" amp/preamp combo (by Sim standards) then Sim could probably convince them to get the "basic" $5000 DAC

 

[50nstillhifi]

Thank you for taking the time to explain this in a clear manner. Now something I've been wondering about is the "Gain" slider on the software EQ that came with my DAC's bundled DSP utilities. What does gain do exactly? To me it only appears to act like a volume control....

From that I have come to understand about "gain", it amplifies signal input or source.

 

[KarlK]

Never met a tone defeat button that I didn't push ...
When it comes to the signal path less is more ..
Tune the room and the system ... and you'll hear what was recorded.
Tone controls were added in the days of inconsistent recording equalization ..
Those days are long gone ..

You'll hear what was recorded... if you happen to have the exact same electronics that were used by the sound engineers. Once it makes it to your end the sound may be completely different on your equipment. So different sometimes that it's barely listenable to, either it screams at you or sounds like it was recorded through a pillow. Of course you will pass on those recordings, maybe missing some great music just because you couldn't be bothered to use the slightest level of correction that would have made it sound like music.

 

[Akustic]

You'll hear what was recorded... if you happen to have the exact same electronics that were used by the sound engineers. Once it makes it to your end the sound may be completely different on your equipment. So different sometimes that it's barely listenable to, either it screams at you or sounds like it was recorded through a pillow. Of course you will pass on those recordings, maybe missing some great music just because you couldn't be bothered to use the slightest level of correction that would have made it sound like music.

Morning ..

 

[Akustic]

You'll hear what was recorded... if you happen to have the exact same electronics that were used by the sound engineers. Once it makes it to your end the sound may be completely different on your equipment. So different sometimes that it's barely listenable to, either it screams at you or sounds like it was recorded through a pillow. Of course you will pass on those recordings, maybe missing some great music just because you couldn't be bothered to use the slightest level of correction that would have made it sound like music.

What are you listening to that needs to be re-equalized ??

 

[GChief]

You'll hear what was recorded... if you happen to have the exact same electronics that were used by the sound engineers.

IME these are lame taking points at best. The same system in my signature in my previous house and now I’m the loft of the Tiny House do it easily. And it’s nothing special . I have 4 recordings That I was either in the studio or control room for most of the process. I was also in the control room for most of the final mix, I heard the complete final mixes of all 4 in the control room on the gear (some different, it was a 4 yr period) it was produced on. The band members, and producer/eng have heard this set up in both spaces. My little BS system reproduces these recording just fine, no reason it’s not doing the same with the rest. Mater of fact many properly set-up systems (your room is part of the system) I have played these on have no problem reproducing the sound. I am not sure where this assertion that you need to have the exact same gear came from but it’s complete IME.

I was a tweaker of knobs and sliders when my systems (remember the room is part) where not up the the task. I get it so tweak away.

I have never been a “I can fix it” tweaker bu those who are “do you” and tweak away

Standing by to be told I am not hearing what I hear everyday.

 

[dwaller131]

You'll hear what was recorded... if you happen to have the exact same electronics that were used by the sound engineers. Once it makes it to your end the sound may be completely different on your equipment. So different sometimes that it's barely listenable to, either it screams at you or sounds like it was recorded through a pillow. Of course you will pass on those recordings, maybe missing some great music just because you couldn't be bothered to use the slightest level of correction that would have made it sound like music.

Thank you for this.

I have been collecting up early country music for the last 7-8 years now, and many of these older recordings (1950-1956 or so) sound like they are playing through a kazoo. An EQ helps. It doesn't FIX anything, but it helps. Sometimes it makes it sound more like music, but honestly some of these records will always sound like a kazoo.

 

[4-2-7]

Yes, I get it. Short signal path, room correction, setup. The shortest signal path and best gear/ room setup in the world does not make a flawed recording sound better. In fact, it reveals more flaws.

And then we have choices.
Listen to it the way it is
Don't listen to it at all
Stick more equipment in the system to mask everything
Get a better copy of the title.

These are all options, I just go with the less is more in the signal path, get better copies and have options with power amps/ speakers to change the sound.

There is lots of music that I don't like the sound of, not the style but the tones they recorded and mastered. But that's what they wanted to do, Neil Young comes to mind in this. It was strange back in 1978? when he came out with My My Hey Hey, out of the blue and into the black all distorted. But also did the undistorted version, My My Hey Hey, out of the black and into the blue. I like both just the way he did it, the same for A Letter Home. When A Letter home came out everyone complained about the Low-Fi aspect and the added pops and scratches. I felt that sounded real not being over produced, but they also have the Audiophile copy that was de-popped but still low-fi.

 

[4-2-7]

You know,many many of them (but not ALL of them) as there may be something out there that the author is not aware of.

Yeah I certainly don't know everything about audio equipment.
I do know that after the power and option wars of sticking as much as possible in one box they learned a thing or two. The less they put in a box, the less and better digital switching, the less that is in the signal path , the better the SQ, S/N ratio and distortion numbers for most of the equipment. However this was short lived other than high end 2ch equipment, and we then got AVRs with ten times the amount of circuitry in one box.

There is a reason that the best equipment is separates and that progressively diminishes as more gets stuffed into one box. However as they also learned, not everyone wants the best SQ, S/N ratio and distortion numbers, they want "More" and "Convince"

 

[dwaller131]

And then we have choices.

Get a better copy of the title.

These are all options, I just go with the less is more in the signal path, get better copies and have options with power amps/ speakers to change the sound.

Getting a better copy of the title isn't always an option. Many times for myself I get whatever it is I can find, and there is usually only one mastering available. So I use what I have and try to make it a bit more listenable. My EQ helps with that. Is it the answer? No, but to my ears it certainly helps.

 

[4-2-7]

Getting a better copy of the title isn't always an option. Many times for myself I get whatever it is I can find, and there is usually only one mastering available. So I use what I have and try to make it a bit more listenable. My EQ helps with that. Is it the answer? No, but to my ears it certainly helps.

And in this case, your choice is in red and mine is in blue.

Listen to it the way it is
Don't listen to it at all
Stick more equipment in the system to mask everything
Get a better copy of the title.

I'm just not going to put things in my system that can effect everything I listen to to fix a few pieces of media. But that's my choice, what others do I don't care, it's just I learned a few things over the years. Hell I used to stick everything I could in the system including a EQ, having 8 pairs of speakers stacked in all 4 corners of the room playing at once. Did I hear the music? was it fun? did I enjoy it? Yep. Today is another story and I'm on another path.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Which Sim pre-amp has tone controls? I just searched the owners manuals for their two best pre-amps and I can't find "tone", "octave", or "frequency" anywhere in them relating to tone controls of any sort.

Not surprised by Sudgen though. They're kind of a throw back kinda like Luxman. Decent stuff, but nobody is cross shopping anything Sudgen makes with the best from Sim or Pass or Boulder or Levinson. I can't find tone controls on any of that.

It's not just the best stuff though. Even the most dirt cheap 2 channel stuff from Schiit omits them. I don't think tone controls or EQ's will ever go away, but they'll never rear their faces in the best gear simply for their unavoidable deleterious effects. Wilson and Focal allow for some crossover tuning, and that's really the best place to play with response, where the phase shifts can be managed.

Sorry. The gear without tone controls means those people get to listen to a very limited range of recordings, they listen to their systems through their music. Not everyone wants to go in and muck with their crossover settings every record either. There's even a high end equalizer from a high end company, remember the old Cello Audio Palette. Nobody will call that one low end either. I listen to music through my system. And the same 20 records many of the no tone controls crowd owns, would bore me very quickly. (I call this the Krell syndrome) Sorry to be a bit blunt.

 

[Frank Sol]

I'm pondering changing my mind on EQs...

Nah !

 

[Akustic]

Getting a better copy of the title isn't always an option. Many times for myself I get whatever it is I can find, and there is usually only one mastering available. So I use what I have and try to make it a bit more listenable. My EQ helps with that. Is it the answer? No, but to my ears it certainly helps.

What it is ...
I just avoid sticking another element into the chain for the other 95% of recordings that don't sound like a kazoo ..
and accept the fact that if I wanna hear a young live Patsy Cline, or early Carl Perkins .. the recording is probably gonna suck ..

If I was listening to a lot of it, like you then I would set up another system for it .. or use an eq
Like a little tube amp and some Zeniths ..

 

[Beatnik]

I just bought a 9 band eq this morning, found a deal on the bay on one I've been wanting to try out for a long while. Hoping to put the extended tone controls in my lap while listening.

 

[parman]

I'm late to this thread and others have probably said but.... back in the 70's lots of people had them and I got one. Slider controls, I think it was either 5 or 7 bands. I thought I could make every album/every song sound better but after a while got tired of trying to fine tune every song. I started thinking I was changing guitars, vocals, keyboards in ways that weren't for the better. Gave it to a friend and never missed it

 

[JoeESP9]

Yamaha never made it clear but even the lowly 2-position (ON-Off) loudness control they had on many models (including some of the pricier ones) was in fact "variable", the difference was that on the 2-position variety the "variable" part was auto-adjusting (it lowered its potency as one turned the volume up). The ones with a "Variable Loudness" knob were manually adjustable and you had to pay attention and lower it as you cranked the volume lest a woofer cone be thrown across the room

As for tone bypass I know that in many Pioneer units just setting a tone control to the neutral position would in fact put it in active "defeat" mode. I don't think it worked that way with Yamaha though. I have an old CA-610 and it has a "defeat" flip switch for each the bass and the treble. That tells me that merely settings the knobs in the center position did not trigger defeat mode.

The basic problem with a switch selectable loudness control is that it's tied to how much volume one is using. Most of them have what's known as a 50% loudness tap on the volume control. That means that when loudness is engaged you get progressively more compensation as the volume is lowered from 50% rotation. Above 50% rotation little to no loudness compensation is applied. Unfortunately this doesn't take into account the sensitivity of the speakers.

While a pair of Klipsch may be call the cops loud at 9 O'clock on the volume a pair of AR-3's don't even open up until the volume is at 12 O'clock. A simple loudness switch can't properly compensate for these different speaker sensitivities. This is why a fully variable loudness control is better. When used properly you use the volume control to set the maximum volume you will use. You then use the variable loudness to lower the volume to lower listening levels.

 

[FONSguy]

Back a few years ago I was using Itunes playlists with individually EQ'ed tunes that I would then record to cassette for car use. it was quiet, unlike a REAL EQ shoved into a tape monitor slot which you could hear the hiss and rise in distortion. The function is STILL available.