Equalizers

PolkClyde

I want more highs, do you guys know of a decent EQ, without much noise to add to the chain.?

Jstas

An EQ is more of a band-aid for a stereo system that will help mask a short-coming somewhere in the system. If you want more highs, you might look to upgrade your pre-amplification stage either in addition to or in lieu of an EQ.

However, since you asked about an EQ, I have a BSR EQ-3000 and they are relatively inexpensive. They are quite good as well. My experience with my BSR has been good. It also has a line amplifier to boost your pre-amp signal as well.

There are a bunch on eBay all the time for anywhere from $30 for one in rough condition to $90 for one in primo condition. I wouldn't pay more than $70 for one though, not worth it.

Here's one on a quick search:
http://cgi.ebay.com/BSR-Equalizer-Model-EQ-3000-/170589464213?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27b7eca695

FTGV

PolkClyde wrote: »

... without much noise to add to the chain.?

The only one I'm aware that even comes close to that ideal. http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/692cello/

ben62670

Cables

Fongolio

The purists shudder but I use a ADC Soundshaper III Paraequalizer and it is nearly silent. By far the quiestest I've heard. I'm one of the very few on this forum that will admit to using one. My feeling has always been that until only one engineer is mastering all the music I listen to I'll want to fiddle a little (rhymes!!) with the tone. Many here feel the tone is something that should not need fiddling with if all the equipment and wiring in the path is of sufficient quality. I disagree. A lot of records and cds have vastly different eq'ing because of different sound engineers tastes or hearing definciancies and therefore I want the ability to correct the occasional shortcoming. Also my listening room is very difficult to treat for good sound and I can't afford really expensive room treatments so I compensate by using an equalizer. ADC's next generation of eq after the sound shaper III had a built in pink noise generator and a spectrum analyzer option. I bought my unit used for around a hundred dollars and love it. I use it in the sound processor loop of my Carver C-1 pre. I've also used it in the tape loop of my 1961 Eico ST-70 with equaly pleasing results. I don't knock the "no tone control" crowd, I just prefer the option to compensate for recording and listening room shortcomings.

RuSsMaN

What does your system consist of now?

gdb

Fongolio wrote: »

The purists shudder

Don't they know that their recorded music was "strained" through EQs and other "tone" modifiers when it was mastered for use on their control-less preamps? :biggrin:

Fongolio

gdb wrote: »

Don't they know that their recorded music was "strained" through EQs and other "tone" modifiers when it was mastered for use on their control-less preamps? :biggrin:

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I never did quite understand the whole "tone controls are evil" thing. If you use them and that helps increase your listening pleasure how is that evil? I've listened to some crap recordings on some mega-buck "tone control-less" systems and thought to myself this could really use more bottom end or tad more treble. This in a treated sound room in a very high end store with very high end components run through mega buck cables and IC's . But hey if lack of control makes some people enjoy it more, all the power to them. Just don't put me or anyone else down who wants the ability to compensate for poorly mastered source material.

ben62670

I have no tone controls, but I can use the digital EQ in my PC to tame the real bad recordings. Just some turds can't be polished.

Joe08867

My two channel rig has zero tone controls. But my HT system has the normal stuff. I usually add some highs to really quiet movies but most of the time they are set in the middle.

gdb, I understand that recordings are made with eq's that is why I don't use one. I want to hear what the artist had in mind. Not some mixed up perversion of there intent.

heiney9

For those that think the mastering process can be duplicated with bass treble and an equalizer, that's just rubbish.

Bass, Treble, and eq's can't even come close to processing a signal like in the recording studio so the argument gdb brings up is very silly, it's not the same, not even close.

Tone controls in audio gear are so rudimentary and cover such a broad range that they are effectively useless in correcting recordings or room anomolies, a very large, wide band aid.

Let's keep that in mind and stop making superfluous statements about how the recording engineer manipulates the recording before we hear it and tone controls do the same thing :rolleyes:

H9

concealer404

I feed my music through a Mackie Pro board in reverse before it hits my speakers.

BobbyBluz

I used a Soundcraftsmen Scan-Alyzer/Equalizer AE2420 for several years running through my Tascam 688 Portastudio before downsizing to using a Real Time Analyzer and two Soundcraftsmen third-octave equalizers. A RTA works wonders that must be heard to be believed.

ben62670

heiney9 wrote: »

For those that think the mastering process can be duplicated with bass treble and an equalizer, that's just rubbish.

Bass, Treble, and eq's can't even come close to processing a signal like in the recording studio so the argument gdb brings up is very silly, it's not the same, not even close.

Tone controls in audio gear are so rudimentary and cover such a broad range that they are effectively useless in correcting recordings or room anomolies, a very large, wide band aid.

Let's keep that in mind and stop making superfluous statements about how the recording engineer manipulates the recording before we hear it and tone controls do the same thing :rolleyes:

H9

So what you are saying is that poorly recorded music doesn't cut the lows and chop the highs to compensate for portable devices? :rolleyes:

Fongolio

heiney9 wrote: »

For those that think the mastering process can be duplicated with bass treble and an equalizer, that's just rubbish.

I'm not looking to duplicate, I'm looking to make it more pleasing to MY ears and a high quality equalizer goes a long way to making that happen. And to another comment above, having a perfectly flat frequency response in a system replicates how the mastering engineer wants it to sound NOT necessarily the artist. Why do some pressings (Ludwig, Peckham) sound so much better than others? It's how the mastering engineer wants it to sound. Does the artist want it to sound different with each new pressing that's mastered by a different engineer? I don't think so. MFSL, Classic Records, Steve Hoffman, these will all sound slightly different. Will my 12 band per side plus 3 position switchable center frequency eq make it sound like the artist intended? Probably not, but it will help me get it very close to perfect in my ears.

heiney9

ben62670 wrote: »

So what you are saying is that poorly recorded music doesn't cut the lows and chop the highs to compensate for portable devices? :rolleyes:

No, what I'm saying is tone controls won't fix what you describe above. They are not a fix in anyway shape or form. And people who say "the recording engineer's use tone controls so it's just the same" are FOS, it's not the same.

I can call Ben a dip because we're friends

H9

ben62670

HeHe BTW I almost never use no stinken tone or EQ controls

heiney9

Every Eq or tone control I've ever used has had nothing but a detrimental effect. You compensate for one area, you create a problem in another area. Room treatments are number one if you are having such a problem in certain area's.

It has been a very long time since I used tone controls and even longer since using an EQ. I had an integrated amp in the office rig with tone controls and if the recording was a little bass shy I used the bass control and then it sounded a tad boomy and unnatural. It was better set flat to my ears.

H9

madmax

gdb wrote: »

Don't they know that their recorded music was "strained" through EQs and other "tone" modifiers when it was mastered for use on their control-less preamps? :biggrin:

Well thats strike one on the sound quality, want to go for two more? :biggrin:

sda2mike

roll some tubes

Face

http://mcintoshlabs.com/products/1470.asp

Polkie2009

Aren't the Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, Anti-mode etc... basically (P)equalizers also? I've been wanting to get one of the 8033C units for the sytem. In the past,(80's)I too used a graphic EQ just to have the option to make fine adjustments to individual songs.

thesurfer

Fongolio wrote: »

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I never did quite understand the whole "tone controls are evil" thing. If you use them and that helps increase your listening pleasure how is that evil? I've listened to some crap recordings on some mega-buck "tone control-less" systems and thought to myself this could really use more bottom end or tad more treble. This in a treated sound room in a very high end store with very high end components run through mega buck cables and IC's . But hey if lack of control makes some people enjoy it more, all the power to them. Just don't put me or anyone else down who wants the ability to compensate for poorly mastered source material.

Well put,,

jinjuku

Fongolio wrote: »

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I never did quite understand the whole "tone controls are evil" thing. If you use them and that helps increase your listening pleasure how is that evil? I've listened to some crap recordings on some mega-buck "tone control-less" systems and thought to myself this could really use more bottom end or tad more treble. This in a treated sound room in a very high end store with very high end components run through mega buck cables and IC's . But hey if lack of control makes some people enjoy it more, all the power to them. Just don't put me or anyone else down who wants the ability to compensate for poorly mastered source material.

I agree. While not evil they are down the chain if I can control for other variables like speaker placement and room treatments, etc...

If you can't optimally achieve control of that stuff then I see no reason not to experiment with an RTA. Sometimes it's a trade off to be made.

gdb

heiney9 wrote: »

For those that think the mastering process can be duplicated with bass treble and an equalizer, that's just rubbish.

Bass, Treble, and eq's can't even come close to processing a signal like in the recording studio so the argument gdb brings up is very silly, it's not the same, not even close.

Tone controls in audio gear are so rudimentary and cover such a broad range that they are effectively useless in correcting recordings or room anomolies, a very large, wide band aid.

Let's keep that in mind and stop making superfluous statements about how the recording engineer manipulates the recording before we hear it and tone controls do the same thing :rolleyes:

H9

Superfluous to you too. :rolleyes:

Face

Truth hurts, eh?

Fongolio

I had a couple barritos last night and I've been superfluous all day. Nasty.:eek:

dcmeigs

I have no trouble with the USE of tone controls, I do have a problem with the extra stage of amplification and butt load of cheap caps added to the signal path necessary to create the tone control. Going into an amp and bypassing all that crap generally improves sound quality.

Face

The best cap is no cap.

ben62670

Face wrote: »

The best cap is no cap.

Sorry Bro I have to disagree. Having a cap in some cases with help take off the digital edge without killing detail. I have two sets of out puts on my modded Denon 2900. 1 has a cap and the other is direct coupled. DC offset is not an issue.

gdb

Face wrote: »

Truth hurts, eh?

Who's truth do you refer to, yours,mine or the real one?? All I really know is that there've been some massive amounts of expensive,great sounding audio gear designed by some very inteligent people and that many pieces were festooned with wrong-headed,superfluous,unnecessary & downright detrimental tone controls. That is the truth. Are you wiser/smarter than they or do you believe you are? I know that I, at least, am not!