Does anyone use equalizers anymore?
Comments
-
And yet you never see an EQ band aid in any high quality 2 channel rig. Most don't even have tone controls and if they do, they are not used.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
I think we have to distinguish between a graphic and parametric equalizer. Graphic equalizers are of the past where you would augment one or several bands of frequencies to get a desired sound. They are pretty much never used anymore. Parametric equalizers where you can tune into a very particular band of frequencies usually in the bass region to help create a linear response are more widely used and should be used to help with room artifacts.2Ch Tube Audio Convert
-
Years ago, late 1980's, when I was just getting into audio I really wanted an equalizer with the spectrum analyzer lights just because it looked "cool". I couldn't afford too much- had just gotten out of the Army,was married with 2 small boys, and going to college FT- but I finally bought one from Circuit City. When I bought it the salesman told me not too, that I would regret it but I did anyway. The next weekend I returned it. Made my Technics/JBL system sound worse. Have not used one to this day and leave my tone controls at neutral.
-
haha, dude, I get it about the ampProblem is he's trying to make his RTi10s sound better, a lot of people have told him to get a beefy amp, same thing I was told with my RTiA7s...I listened...need I say more ?
I listened to everyone, and I've experienced the improvement with the B&K and posted up about it 2 weeks ago. I have a Parasound 2205 on the way to go along with a second hand Halo C2 I found. I've known all along I needed more power for those RTi10's, and have been looking for an amp. just feeling out my own path, man, that's all Parasounds aren't readily available nearby, and I wanted a 5ch, and it took me a while to find something. I am still curious about tone control though, but it doesn't relate directly to a cheap trick to avoiding buying an amp. I'm just asking why I don't seem to see anyone talking much about EQ's anymore, because yes, it would seem to be a way to tame highs without trashing mids, and adjust detail to one's liking, and EQ's have all but disappeared. I just happened to come across a few on Ebay while looking some stuff up. it seems to me that the primarily HT crowd doesn't seem that particular about music, and those who are seem to have dedicated 2ch or some serious AVR's or pre/pros.
I may revisit this if I'm still not seeing desired results after the amp, but with the new-to-me pieces coming in, I'm hoping I'll have a decent system for double duty, and more flexibility than what I experienced with the late model AVR's I checked out a few weeks ago.
minor adjustments in systems at this point, and yes, as recoveryone said - for dialing back brightness or bringing out some mids; I am curious about that, but not if it trashes everything in the process.
we're definitely talking about an imperfect system at this point, though, and even moving forward.I disabled signatures. -
yeah, I first came across parametric eq with a receiver in my car. I still haven't finished that reading - I just use the tone controlsI think we have to distinguish between a graphic and parametric equalizer. Graphic equalizers are of the past where you would augment one or several bands of frequencies to get a desired sound. They are pretty much never used anymore. Parametric equalizers where you can tune into a very particular band of frequencies usually in the bass region to help create a linear response are more widely used and should be used to help with room artifacts.
hahaha! that's an awesome story.Years ago, late 1980's, when I was just getting into audio I really wanted an equalizer with the spectrum analyzer lights just because it looked "cool". I couldn't afford too much- had just gotten out of the Army,was married with 2 small boys, and going to college FT- but I finally bought one from Circuit City. When I bought it the salesman told me not too, that I would regret it but I did anyway. The next weekend I returned it. Made my Technics/JBL system sound worse. Have not used one to this day and leave my tone controls at neutral.I disabled signatures. -
I used to love all the little dancing lights on the cool EQ's back in the 80's
On my current gear I have no EQ or Tone controls just pure musical bliss comes out no added noise..ATC SCM40's,VTL TL 2.5 Preamp,PSB Stratus Goldi's,McCormack DNA 500,McCormack MAP-1 Preamp,Pro-Ject Xtension 10 TT,Ortofon Cadenza Red/Nordost RedDawn LS Speaker cables, Bryston BDP-2, Bryston BDA-2,PS Audio AC-3 power cables -
Might be comparing apples to oranges here...why are they used in recording studios?
-
doing this is exactly what I tried to accomplish with EQ, and the EQ made it worse.I'm just asking why I don't seem to see anyone talking much about EQ's anymore, because yes, it would seem to be a way to tame highs without trashing mids, and adjust detail to one's liking, and EQ's have all but disappeared.
Highs are spoken about having the qualities of open and airy... effortless....
people speaking of adding noise, well, that is what I experienced. trying to tame highs, to my ears, made everything dull and lifeless. Trying to tame highs by altering ONE narrow frequency band? I thought I was taming a spike, but then a high mid frequency seemed to resonate in my head, and then it seemed I was off to the races revisiting every band a thousand times trying to find the offender. Meanwhile, the music kept getting duller and duller....
Bah...Polk Lsi9
N.E.W. A-20 class A 20W
NAD 1020 completely refurbished
Keces DA-131 mk.II
Analysis Plus Copper Oval, Douglass, Morrow SUB3, Huffman Digital
Paradigm DSP-3100 v.2 -
Get rid of it and go pure. I just got a turntable to play some older records. As an interim solution for a phono-pre I pulled out an old 80's Technics integrated amp. I ran all the tone controls and the graphic equalizer flat and piped the pre-amp section of the integrated out to an amp. Music was flat and dull as Steve mentions above. Then someone sudgested using the tape-out connections from the Technics into the AVR (the real preamp which then goes to the speaker amp). Much better. Don't know what the Technics was doing to the sound but glad I got rid of it. I have done similar experiments with a Pass B1 preamp and the AVR and know the AVR is negatively affecting the sound too. I am still in research mode of building my own preamp to get rid of the AVR for music.
So as many have already said.... ditch the equalizer and tone control. Audio is not just about treble and bass. There's many other nuances to the sound. The more stuff you have between the source and amp the worse in it will get. -
well that's encouraging. how long have you had yours now?Get the Parasound hooked up to them ASAP, use decent quality interconnects, speaker cables etc. and burn those speakers in. mine weren't breaking in much with my receiver however the amp...accelerated the process to the Nth degree, much better power to throw around and make all the cones actually MOVE. My towers are mellowing out nicely. The lows are getting stronger and the brightness is subsiding albeit a little slower due to the new tweeters in them.
haha, yeah, it did look cool!I used to love all the little dancing lights on the cool EQ's back in the 80's
On my current gear I have no EQ or Tone controls just pure musical bliss comes out no added noise..
gah, I just can't see it yet.
man, what a mess. I had no idea. I guess that stuff only gets worse when you start adding in higher end components.doing this is exactly what I tried to accomplish with EQ, and the EQ made it worse.
Highs are spoken about having the qualities of open and airy... effortless....
people speaking of adding noise, well, that is what I experienced. trying to tame highs, to my ears, made everything dull and lifeless. Trying to tame highs by altering ONE narrow frequency band? I thought I was taming a spike, but then a high mid frequency seemed to resonate in my head, and then it seemed I was off to the races revisiting every band a thousand times trying to find the offender. Meanwhile, the music kept getting duller and duller....
Bah...maximillian wrote: »Get rid of it and go pure. I just got a turntable to play some older records. As an interim solution for a phono-pre I pulled out an old 80's Technics integrated amp. I ran all the tone controls and the graphic equalizer flat and piped the pre-amp section of the integrated out to an amp. Music was flat and dull as Steve mentions above. Then someone sudgested using the tape-out connections from the Technics into the AVR (the real preamp which then goes to the speaker amp). Much better. Don't know what the Technics was doing to the sound but glad I got rid of it. I have done similar experiments with a Pass B1 preamp and the AVR and know the AVR is negatively affecting the sound too. I am still in research mode of building my own preamp to get rid of the AVR for music.
So as many have already said.... ditch the equalizer and tone control. Audio is not just about treble and bass. There's many other nuances to the sound. The more stuff you have between the source and amp the worse in it will get.
WOW!
yeah, to me right now it just sounds muddy without adjustments. I feel like you have to have a pristine everything for direct to sound good. or maybe you just get used to it. someone mark the date and time now, bc at some point down the road someone's probably gonna say to me, "haha, and I remember when you used to use tone controls!" and we'll all have a great laugh.
you're right, going direct. makes me wanna dig this out to see what I was missing all those years ago...
I disabled signatures. -
you asked for opinions... and now you seem sarcastic and confrontational. I was telling you my experiences, as was max and everyone else. if you want to troll, go find another forum.man, what a mess. I had no idea. I guess that stuff only gets worse when you start adding in higher end components.
WOW!
yeah, to me right now it just sounds muddy without adjustments. I feel like you have to have a pristine everything for direct to sound good. or maybe you just get used to it. someone mark the date and time now, bc at some point down the road someone's probably gonna say to me, "haha, and I remember when you used to use tone controls!" and we'll all have a great laugh.
you're right, going direct. makes me wanna dig this out to see what I was missing all those years ago...Polk Lsi9
N.E.W. A-20 class A 20W
NAD 1020 completely refurbished
Keces DA-131 mk.II
Analysis Plus Copper Oval, Douglass, Morrow SUB3, Huffman Digital
Paradigm DSP-3100 v.2 -
nah man, you picked that up wrong. I was being sincere.
I was making a joke about how little I know about vinyl and analog, and seriously surprised that EQ's make things worse.
I remember having records when people were buying tapes, and the records were really inconvenient.
and I remember being surprised when I first heard that people actually wanted records. this kid Robbie's dad had a special "record player" that we weren't allow to touch - a turntable, complete with a lint lifting thing.
sorry dude, was just sharing a joke from childhood. we really had that Pete's Dragon record.I disabled signatures. -
the WOW exclamation above was more in reference to building one's own preamp.I disabled signatures.
-
Didn't take it the wrong way, although I could see how someone could.
Again, I've got FLAC files playing through a DacMagic into a Pioneer Elite AVR to an Adcom amp to LSi9's. There's some OK interconnects; not high end but not anything from monoprice either. This isn't a high end system, but it's decent. For two channel music listening I can tell you that this little bugger:
https://www.passdiy.com/project/preamplifiers/b1-buffer-preamp
sounds noticeably better than the Pioneer Elite AVR. The Pioneer Elites are revered for their excellent sound reproduction. The AVR doesn't sound bad, and I would be oblivious in knowing that there was anything wrong. But when replaced with the B1 buffer, which only has volume controls and is a supper simple circuit electrically speaking, it's obvious that simple is better. That is, at least on my system. So for me, two instances where simple circuits are better. -
that sounds like a pretty serious setup almost all the way through, the "weak" link being the Pioneer Elite AVR? sounds weird to say that, but in my limited experience so far I think I've experienced something similar, though not in as high quality a setup. my comparison was simply going from SC-75 to an old preamp and I noticed a difference, everything else being the same.
so that link - those are plans for building the preamp? have you begun that project yet? I'm going to have to read up on that some. I had to read it twice to get the gist of what it's supposed to do. I don't fully understand it yet, but something about how for a reasonably comfortable, lower listening volume, you're wasting quality input signal level having to keep the dial low due to gain later on down the stream in the system? what is a good rule of thumb for input source volume level? I remember years ago if you were piping something out through a headphone jack and into a receiver, you wouldn't max out the volume on the source, but instead go a little more moderate, like to 75%-80% or something so it wouldn't distort. Is this is a similar idea?I disabled signatures. -
I do find a little bit of irony in the suggestions of some hard core tube users that using an EQ is a bad thing, but rolling tubes is a good thing. Rolling tubes is just another way of changing tone, not to mention that adding tubes can also raise noise floor compared to solid state.
Call it adding bloom, reducing harshness, taking the edge off or whatever high brow flowery adjectives you like, but admit that you do it for a change in tone.......like some use an EQ.
BTW, I don't have tone controls on my tube preamp.......but I do like how my JJ Teslas sound over the EH 12AX7s that were in it first.......such good tone.HT Optoma HD25 LV on 80" DIY Screen, Anthem MRX 300 Receiver, Pioneer Elite BDP 51FD Polk CS350LS, Polk SDA1C, Polk FX300, Polk RT55, Dual EBS Adire Shiva 320watt tuned to 17hz, ICs-DIY Twisted Prs, Speaker-Raymond Cable
2 Channel Thorens TD 318 Grado ZF1, SACD/CD Marantz 8260, Soundstream/Krell DAC1, Audio Mirror PP1, Odyssey Stratos, ADS L-1290, ICs-DIY Twisted , Speaker-Raymond Cable -
Dennis Gardner wrote: »I do find a little bit of irony in the suggestions of some hard core tube users that using an EQ is a bad thing, but rolling tubes is a good thing. Rolling tubes is just another way of changing tone, not to mention that adding tubes can also raise noise floor compared to solid state.
Call it adding bloom, reducing harshness, taking the edge off or whatever high brow flowery adjectives you like, but admit that you do it for a change in tone.......like some use an EQ.
BTW, I don't have tone controls on my tube preamp.......but I do like how my JJ Teslas sound over the EH 12AX7s that were in it first.......such good tone.
Changing the tone is not the same as altering the frequencies. Yes, it is true that some tube gear has a bit higher noise floor, but on the other hand tubes are very linear.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
my apologies. sincerely.nah man, you picked that up wrong. I was being sincere.
I was making a joke about how little I know about vinyl and analog, and seriously surprised that EQ's make things worse.
I remember having records when people were buying tapes, and the records were really inconvenient.
and I remember being surprised when I first heard that people actually wanted records. this kid Robbie's dad had a special "record player" that we weren't allow to touch - a turntable, complete with a lint lifting thing.
sorry dude, was just sharing a joke from childhood. we really had that Pete's Dragon record.Polk Lsi9
N.E.W. A-20 class A 20W
NAD 1020 completely refurbished
Keces DA-131 mk.II
Analysis Plus Copper Oval, Douglass, Morrow SUB3, Huffman Digital
Paradigm DSP-3100 v.2 -
Might be comparing apples to oranges here...why are they used in recording studios?
Graphic eq's aren't. Paramatric...a recording studio might use for what they'd consider, "special project" use.
Creationism in a studio is real different than the playback environment though. Trying to fix a badly placed speaker or a difficient driver with a graphic eq is very problamatic. Moving a slider effects some band of frequencies. Maybe you get a narrow area, if you're lucky, that aren't at the same amplitude as others due to local effects. But you're also effecting many others that were ok to begin with. Now much is effected with emphasis or reduced in level that didn't need to be, probably more than needed adjusted.
Any level shift is also always accompanied with phase shift. So the further you move a slider, the more off your moving timing of those notes versus the naturally accompaning harmonics that are not part of that frequency span. So a drum whack, if you change the amplitude of the fundimental part of the whack, the overtones of it start to occur at ever so slightly a different time than the rest of the sound. You never going to be able to hear that shift in a way where you can identify what's happening, it's just less and less natural to the ear and the brain as "real" and becomes more and more electronically recreated sound. The brain works harder and harder trying to make sense of what it's hearing and you enjoy the music less and less with odd, narrow bands of phase shifts. Different at every point along that bell curve of the eq change.
Also the typical graphic has handfuls of IC chips in them. Typically outdated now and lesser designs that date back to prior to the units manufacture date. All the stages of them stay in circuit regardless of whether you've used much eq. All contribute their inherent noise and sonic fingerprint or "quality" regardless. Using the bypass button may or may not remove some or many of them. Then the power supply of the unit IS the audio quality you get through it. Most consumer units are not a robust supply at all and are going to add their qualities to your audio. Plus, you've got a extra set of cables in the audio path, and several extra connectors.
I've not had any form of eq, tone control or normally even a balance control in two decades and not wanted for any of them. IMHO, timing through our electronic system may do more to recreate the original performance correctly or not, than a flat audio playback spectrum may do.
I consider a graphic equalizer to be an audio blender. You throw in the artist intended performance and hit the blend button of your chosing....and get something complete chopped, purified, mutilated and kind of lumpy back out. In my system, I'm attempting to recreate what the performer(s) and the engineers put together for us, not my own altered version of it.
CJA so called science type proudly says... "I do realize that I would fool myself all the time, about listening conclusions and many other observations, if I did listen before buying. That’s why I don’t, I bought all of my current gear based on technical parameters alone, such as specs and measurements."
More amazing Internet Science Pink Panther wisdom..."My DAC has since been upgraded from Mark Levinson to Topping." -
Yeah baby! It's just dripping with 1980's Atari juice! You just can't beat the sound of AC/DC on cassette through an EQ! :cheesygrin:
Attachment not found. -
mmm, good question, and I have no idea. maybe something in the quality of that gear vs what you can get for a home audio rack?Might be comparing apples to oranges here...why are they used in recording studios?
"rolling tubes" -- what does this mean? second time in two days. I presume it's a term used in the tube amp communityDennis Gardner wrote: »I do find a little bit of irony in the suggestions of some hard core tube users that using an EQ is a bad thing, but rolling tubes is a good thing. Rolling tubes is just another way of changing tone, not to mention that adding tubes can also raise noise floor compared to solid state.
Call it adding bloom, reducing harshness, taking the edge off or whatever high brow flowery adjectives you like, but admit that you do it for a change in tone.......like some use an EQ.
BTW, I don't have tone controls on my tube preamp.......but I do like how my JJ Teslas sound over the EH 12AX7s that were in it first.......such good tone.
speaking of, what do you guys think about the modern tube amps or hybrids? solid product, or gimmick?
ahh maaan, I'm completely lost now, heheChanging the tone is not the same as altering the frequencies. Yes, it is true that some tube gear has a bit higher noise floor, but on the other hand tubes are very linear.
I thought altering the frequency mix is what changed tone. it isn't?
hey, no sweat manmy apologies. sincerely. I can see now how that might be taken the wrong way; had a long day and prob didn't put that down as clearly as intended. def a lot of db's out on the web these days with internet 8@11$. I disabled signatures. -
wow man, that's so much more than I ever would have thought was going on with an EQ. seriously, I just had no clue that it could be destructive overall. I was always just using it to make up for deficiencies in other pieces, obviously. bump in the bass, bump in the treble. maybe mess with the mid a little, but not usually. the blender simile describes what's really happening to the music, and I guess it all depends on the listening environment too. I'm more inclined to use tone controls or eq in a car. I don't think I'm as much of a purist as some, but I also haven't given it much of a chance. I know what I've become accustomed to over my listening lifetime, and now I'm gaining some curiosity about direct listening. I've just never really had a system that would do the music any justice without adjustments....
I've not had any form of eq, tone control or normally even a balance control in two decades and not wanted for any of them. IMHO, timing through our electronic system may do more to recreate the original performance correctly or not, than a flat audio playback spectrum may do.
I consider a graphic equalizer to be an audio blender. You throw in the artist intended performance and hit the blend button of your chosing....and get something complete chopped, purified, mutilated and kind of lumpy back out. In my system, I'm attempting to recreate what the performer(s) and the engineers put together for us, not my own altered version of it.
CJ
WOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!Yeah baby! It's just dripping with 1980's Atari juice! You just can't beat the sound of AC/DC on cassette through an EQ! :cheesygrin:
Attachment not found.
dude, I WANT that!!! lol!
spectrum analyzer!I disabled signatures. -
Rolling tubes is a common term for swapping out tubes, trying different tubes in the system. As far as tone and frequency, they are somewhat intertwined but not the same;
Tone - a musical or vocal sound with reference to its pitch, quality, and strength. Tonality - In music, the quality of an instrument's tone, often related to the key in which the music is written. In audio, mistakenly used in place of "tonal quality". Tonal quality - The accuracy (correctness) with which reproduced sound replicates the timbres of the original instruments. Compare "tonality."
Audible frequency - audible frequency is characterized as a periodic vibration whose frequency is audible to the average human. It is the property of sound that most determines pitch and is measured in hertz. An EQ band will alter a specific frequency [and neighboring frequencies on a sliding scale]. The bass and treble knobs seen on many preamplifiers will alter a specific range of frequencies preset by the manufacturer and could be considered somewhat of a 2 band EQ, if you will.
The EQ's used on the mixing boards in recording studios are not just EQ's. They are part of an elaborate and complex setup that will alter phase, frequencies, amplitude, fade, stereo effects amongst other things to mix a multi-track source tape or signal(s) into one complete album that the normal consumer can listen to on any given format the album is released in.
Solid product. Of course this always depends on the quality of build, product design and topology along with the quality of parts used.msg wrote:....Speaking of, what do you guys think about the modern tube amps or hybrids? solid product, or gimmick?
Tom~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
okay, thought so, though wondered whether it was alluding to some dark art/learned skill.Rolling tubes is a common term for swapping out tubes, trying different tubes in the system.
man, thanks Tom - always an education here.As far as tone and frequency, they are somewhat intertwined but not the same
Tone - a musical or vocal sound with reference to its pitch, quality, and strength. Tonality - In music, the quality of an instrument's tone, often related to the key in which the music is written. In audio, mistakenly used in place of "tonal quality". Tonal quality - The accuracy (correctness) with which reproduced sound replicates the timbres of the original instruments. Compare "tonality."
Audible frequency - audible frequency is characterized as a periodic vibration whose frequency is audible to the average human. It is the property of sound that most determines pitch and is measured in hertz. An EQ band will alter a specific frequency [and neighboring frequencies on a sliding scale]. The bass and treble knobs seen on many preamplifiers will alter a specific range of frequencies preset by the manufacturer and could be considered somewhat of a 2 band EQ, if you will.
The EQ's used on the mixing boards in recording studios are not just EQ's. They are part of an elaborate and complex setup that will alter phase, frequencies, amplitude, fade, stereo effects amongst other things to mix a multi-track source tape or signal(s) into one complete album that the normal consumer can listen to on any given format the album is released in.
Solid product. Of course this always depends on the quality of build, product design and topology along with the quality of parts used.
Tom
so when I talk about being after full rich, warm sound, I'm referring to tone?
how'd you learn all this stuff? formally or just picking it up?
F1, seems you and Tom, both knowledgeable fellows, are in agreement on this. can you elaborate? we call bass and treble tone controls, and an EQ is an extension of the preset ranges of frequencies that bass and treble controls adjust, correct? what are we doing then when we make bass/treble or eq adjustments if not affecting tone? just adjusting the strength of these frequencies to control tone?Changing the tone is not the same as altering the frequencies.I disabled signatures. -
Since we're on the subject, can someone tell we what the difference is in using the X-Curve setting and using the treble control on my AVR? Is the X-Curve adjustment the same thing with just more control for fine-tuning?
Thanks in advance! -
BTW, nice post Mark.
msg, I just wanted to let you know that I used to use EQ's. They did [at the time] help with certain situations but as so many folks have attested too, they destroy so many other aspects. I used to have as a kid, up to two different EQ's in the system. One after the CDP and one in the tape loop of the AVR. This was when I was back in my teens many, many distant moons ago. As my audio journey progressed, I lost the second EQ and started rolling EQ's until I found the quietest, most adjustable EQ I could get my hands on. While I can not find the actual unit [rare nowadays], the photo below represents the last EQ I had in any rig.
I'm not telling you this to boast. I'm telling you this because I wanted you to be aware that I have been down the road and experienced first hand what an EQ can and can not bring to the table. If you have a system to where imaging and a sound stage isn't important, an EQ may be for you. If you listen off axis or the music is simply background noise, an EQ may help to get the sound to your liking. If you have a screamingly bright speaker and even with placing a blanket over it doesn't help, an EQ may be for you. There may be other possibilities to where an EQ can help and I'm quite sure others will chime in with more examples.
You may have read somewhere or heard that EQ's are a "band-aid" or "crutch" for something that is wrong with a system. Well, my experience tells me this is correct. Once I lost the EQ, I found out this "thing" that I never could nail correctly. Imaging. Being able to "see" B.B. King walk across the stage as he was singing. Being able to tell that the lead singer was in front of the background singers, perhaps even off to the right or left a little bit. Sound stage. Being able to envision/perceive the entire band or orchestra playing in front of me in the listening room and being able to discern where different instrumentalists/singers were within the sound stage. Much like you would hear in a live concert. Before the loss of the EQ, the frequencies may have been correct or to my liking but the mutilation of other factors completely destroyed any chance of proper or pin point imaging, coherency, sound stage, visceral impact and a plethora of other things that make up a true stereo rig were lost in an irrecoverable way. This was all due to the EQ being in the loop.
In layman's terms, with the EQ in the loop, the frequencies were improved but restricted the system to a system that IMO simply produced sound from a left speaker and a right speaker. Yes I could hear "stereo" or what I thought was stereo [which by the way is what I would estimate 98% of the general public "thinks" stereo is]. With the EQ out of the loop, it made me address the issues within the rig. This in turn allowed me to start hearing for the first time what true stereo actually is. Not just sound emanating from a left and right speaker but a performance being recreated from the speakers. Once the manipulation was gone and the pure signal was sent to the speakers with the system deficiencies addressed, the speakers now were no longer simply making noise independent from each other. They were working together now to recreate a performance you can experience, not just listen too. There is so much more to stereo than what the general public thinks stereo actually is....and is capable of.
Tom~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
wow. I have never experienced music from a system the way that you describe with all its nuances.
best I've gotten is the "invisible" center soundstage and localizable detail from L or R channels.
what you describe all sounds amazing.
there are times I would love to sit and listen as you describe, but I just don't have the time for that right now these days, not for any length of time, anyway, so mostly, its background, off-axis situations.
laughed to speakers so bright even a blanket doesn't help. I think I may have been living that. still working on it...I disabled signatures. -
Glad to have made you laugh. I've unfortunately had speakers before that all I wanted to do with the tweeters is skip them across a lake as hard as I could.
Now see, in your case, an EQ wouldn't be such a bad thing. Off axis listening rules out any imaging or sound staging so that becomes a mute point. If it's only background noise, then frequency changes can make it sound better without a doubt. Now when you do have the time, or if you ever consider spending more time in the sweet spot, then that's a different animal altogether. You will just have to weigh which one you prefer to chase. That would be either good sound that's simply background music with the occasional sit down for whatever imaging the system can present or chasing a true stereo presentation.
Just for your knowledge, a well built system/room/recording will present a listening session that will make the speakers disappear completely. You will experience perceived depth, height and lateral placement of the entire performance. Add a low enough noise floor on top of this and the music simply comes out of nowhere and is truly an "experience". Even with the albums you have heard a thousand times throughout your life, you will hear and experience things that were always there, but never heard before. It's pretty amazing if you ask me. Current technology will never get us to an "exact recreation" of the original performance but it sure can be surprisingly close with many aspects with certain set ups.....and for folks like me, it sure is fun trying to chase the excellence that a stereo can provide.
BTW, you had asked how we got to know all of this stuff. Well, I can't speak for everyone but many of us have been in this hobby since we were knee high to a duck [okay, slight exaggeration]. We have learned and picked up knowledge along the way, either through experience or reading/discussion. Some of us have met with, spoken with and sometimes have daily conversations with industry professionals/manufacturers. Don't think for a second that we weren't all in your shoes at one point. The main thing you should never forget is this. No matter where you are at along your own personal audio journey? Just don't forget to have fun along the way.
Perhaps I missed it but what are you trying to change to make your current speakers more listenable to you? In other words, why do you feel the need for an EQ in your system.....what do you want to change? Also, what speakers are we talking about here and from what source(s)/gear are they being fed?
Tom~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
+1 Treitz3Family Room HT 7.2/i]:Vizio Oled55h1 Pioneer Elite SC-LX502 Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD Eversolo DMP A6 Panamax M5300-EXSpeakers Fronts Fluance XF8L Center Polk Audio S35 Side Surrounds Fluance bipolar Rear Surrounds FluanceXF8 Bookshelf Subs SVS PB4000 x2 Living room 2ch: Crown Xli 1500 amp Teac EQ MKII FX Audio X6 Mk II DAC Squeezebox Touch Fluance Signature Tower Speakers Panamax M5100-EXOffice media room:Vizio M50Q6 50" Pioneer Elite VSX LX301 Eversolo DMP-A6 Polkaudio R50 Towers Polkaudio CS 10 Panamax M4300 Monoprice 12" subMaster bedroom:Vizio M55Q7 Pioneer Elite VSX LX302 Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD Squeezebox Touch Polk audio RTi 6 fronts, Rears Dayton B652 Polk Audio CS10 center Monoprice 12" sub Panamax M5300-EX
-
