Graphic Equalizer and sonic quality

cstibitz

Forgive me because I'm fairly new to home audio... I was wondering if I hooked up my cheap (Fisher circa 1980s) graphic equalizer if it would have a negative impact on the overall sonic signal quality? My hesitation is that it would be going through cheaper circuitry and have a negative impact, or does it just pass the signal through audibly unaffected?

Nightfall

If you already own it try it and listen.

tonyb

My vote is negative impact.

FTGV

Well you will be adding to the signal path a myriad of cheap,noisy opamp IC's powered from noisy power supplies,hidious electrolytic coupling caps,and nasty slide pots.Other than that I can't think of anything that would negatively impact the sound.

F1nut

^ What he said ^

[Deleted User]

If you are wondering about tone controls in general, I'm for them if
you got them. I run my stuff flat from the pre but I can tweak a media
selection to my liking if I choose. (from the remote)
Music listening isn't communism.

pitdogg2

FTGV wrote: »

Well you will be adding to the signal path a myriad of cheap,noisy opamp IC's powered from noisy power supplies,hidious electrolytic coupling caps,and nasty slide pots.Other than that I can't think of anything that would negatively impact the sound.

As always Fred the voice of reason..... Love it

mhardy6647

While I personally totally agree with the prevailing sentiment above (those old parametric EQs do more harm than good) -- I am also an avowed empiricist, so I'd also (still) urge the OP to try it if he's (or she's) got it and decide for himself/herself (EDIT: as Nightfall also said, come to think of it).

Nothing to be lost but a little time (listening to music?! is that lost time!?) and hookin' up a few wires.

bikezappa

Try it, nothing to lose. Maybe you could even experiment by switching between A & B if you have tape inputs on preamp.
A being what you have now and B equalizer with flat response to see if all the negatives are audible. Then you could also compare with different equalizer B settings to A. Have fun.

K_M

Hook it up, and then have someone else switch it in and out of the circuit with the controls at center position.

If the change is drastic enough to be able to tell, when you are not aware of whether it is or is not being inserted in the circuit, you have answered your own question.

Then have fun with it, and adjust it to what sounds better to you!
You always have the option of switching it off.
Win either way!

bikezappa

Yes have some one else switch the equalizer in and out. Need to make the audio volumes as equal as possible to be a fair test.

Dennis Gardner

I found that when I used a 31 band EQ to raise or lower certain frequencies, as soon as the next song came on in a different key, those frequency changes threw that song completely out of wack. Using a graphic EQ to get that smiley face response is basically what a loudness control does on vintage gear. It boosts both ends of the spectrum and can be a nice touch at low volume listening sessions when those frequencies get lost in the ambient noise floor.

I use an EQ at live sound events to pull room peaks into control to avoid acoustic feedback and give myself more headroom, but on my home 2 channel I don't have tone controls at all.

As always, if you have the gear in hand, try it, and report your findings.

cnh

I agree, never say never, because you don't know till you try. In tough rooms and at low volumes it might help some even if it is impure, lol!

K_M

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

I found that when I used a 31 band EQ to raise or lower certain frequencies, as soon as the next song came on in a different key, those frequency changes threw that song completely out of wack. Using a graphic EQ to get that smiley face response is basically what a loudness control does on vintage gear. It boosts both ends of the spectrum and can be a nice touch at low volume listening sessions when those frequencies get lost in the ambient noise floor.

I use an EQ at live sound events to pull room peaks into control to avoid acoustic feedback and give myself more headroom, but on my home 2 channel I don't have tone controls at all.

As always, if you have the gear in hand, try it, and report your findings.

I have found that the idea behind equalization, is not to make a particular song or CD to sound good, but to minimize small bumps or dips in the overall sound of one's system.
No Room, speaker, or person will have ideal sound.

Playing Pink Noise, at a level that one usually listens to music at, and making minor adjustments at a typical listening position, will help with tonality and overall sound.

Far more sophisticated Room EQ is better though.
I know of no Room/System/Listener combo that can not benefit to some degree by making things more tonally balanced.

Better systems require far less, but still are never totally neutral, nor is the listener's ears.

F1nut

Some things in this hobby aren't worth the trouble. This is one of them.

bikezappa

F1nut wrote: »

Some things in this hobby aren't worth the trouble. This is one of them.

Trust your own ears not other peoples ears.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Some things in this hobby aren't worth the trouble. This is one of them.

lol....agreed, but if one has nothing to do and curiosity bites them in the arse, go ahead and knock your socks off giving it a whirl. Tomorrow it may be a door stop for that garage door that won't stay open.

cstibitz

Thanks to all! I will try it and report back. I just really wanted to know the technical/physics side of things. I initially wanted to try the one I had laying around to reduce high frequencies because I'm getting some audio fatigue with the modified Maggie 1.6QRs i bought. The guy I bought them from modified them by bypassing/removing the jumpers in the back and I think it cranked up the high frequencies (I'm 30 so I haven't lost much of my high frequency hearing yet). Not sure if I'm barking up the wrong tree...

Nightfall

What other equipment and cables are you using?

cstibitz

Nightfall wrote: »

What other equipment and cables are you using?

Parasound PLD-2000 preamp, Parasound HCA-1000a amp, Magnepan 1.6QR speakers, Schiit audio Bifrost DAC, Blue Jean cables ICs

marvda1

back in the day it was thought that parabolic equalizers were the best.

Nightfall

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/65647/talk-about-bright-speakers-my-maggie-1-6qrs-gotta-go

Was just reading this. You need some resistors.

cstibitz

I actually have some I got from Magnepan about 3 weeks ago... problem is the speakers jumpers have been modified by the previous owner and I have to figure out how to restore them to use the resistors.

F1nut

Shows once again how little you truly know. Those big boxes are not tone controls.

notified

cstibitz wrote: »

I actually have some I got from Magnepan about 3 weeks ago... problem is the speakers jumpers have been modified by the previous owner and I have to figure out how to restore them to use the resistors.

Those are definitely nice speakers and your Parasound amp and pre should drive them okay,However I dont think throwing in a cheap fisher eq is going to net you any positive improvements. Considering you've got relatively decent gear it would probably be more detrimental in snd quality. I hear Magnepan is a good company to deal with. I'd wait till Monday and see if someone there could advise you as to the problem,And bear in mind if you don't know already,those are made for their detail in snd quality and not to play excessively loud

FTGV

xcapri79 wrote: »

I would suggest that if one were really interested in more state of the art room correction/equalization in 2 channel, one should consider the Mini DSP DDRC-22A 24/96 processor with Dirac Live which interfaces via analog signals on balanced XLR connectors.

I agree that EQ properly done has it's place.IMO EQ is best restricted to the low frequency range.Since the room/speaker interface can have disasterous effects on the bass response at the listening position, some form of correction can be sonically beneficial.I will even dare say that it is essential to get the best integration with a subwoofer(s).I think Vandersteen's inclusion of an 11 band analog EQ to the active bass section of their top models is a clever idea.(The EQ circuitry is only in the woofers signal path so can't add any coloration to the mid/treble range).As for external DSP solutions,I have experimented with a miniDSP 2x4 in a fairly hi res 2 ch rig and for HT subwoofer duties.While it worked great for subwoofers it was not transparent enough for full range use (IMO ,YMMV).The addition of an A-D D-A convertion step negatively impacted the sound quality,adding a distinctive charateristic that was,nt there previous.Admittedly the low end processor chip and lack of real analog output stage are going to be limitations with this specific unit.Better results would likely be had with higher quality DSP boxes but I would still expect it add some character of it's own beyond the corrective measures programmed into it. For HT I could live with it but not in a 2ch system that is meant to accurately reproduce what is on the recording.

treitz3

As a kid new to stereo myself many, many moons ago, I dabbled with up to 3 EQ's in one system. As my audio journey moved forward and I got into higher end gear, I once again introduced an EQ into the rig, this time, a dual 32 band Furman EQ. Both times, I had fun with learning the various frequencies and what changing, attenuating or boosting certain frequencies would do. As mentioned before, it seemed to be very song dependent. Even on the same album.

I used to advise for folks not to try EQ's because I know what they do to the sound staging and image smearing but I have since changed my advice. If one wants to try out an EQ, there is no harm, no foul. Folks have to learn for themselves what a component will and will not do.

So, my advice now is to say, "Try it". You may or may not like the end result. You may like fiddling with the frequencies and an EQ *may* be what the doctor ordered for certain people. With that said, EQ's offer their own set of deficiencies. This must be learned unless one takes the advice of people who have been there, done that.

As for me personally now? No EQ, no tone controls and I couldn't be happier. If I were to ever reintroduce another EQ (of sorts), it would be a lower octave only DSP such as the Velodyne SMS-1 or other such device that seamlessly blends the subs AND the mains to the room. I have had great results with that in the past and in my own audio journey, this would be the only EQ (of sorts) reintroduced into my system.....if it ever makes it back into the system at all. I am a believer in the KISS theory as it has done me well along my own personal audio journey. YMMV.

Tom

tonyb

treitz3 wrote: »

I am a believer in the KISS theory as it has done me well along my own personal audio journey. YMMV.

Tom

Hey man, you know the rules.....no kissin', reach arounds, or other forms of debauchery. Least not in front of the kids anyway.

K_M

marvda1 wrote: »

back in the day it was thought that parabolic equalizers were the best.

Parametric?
I use all digital eq on one system, but it allows a .5 db change to be made. No noise, no issues.

halo71

Kiley, there is a parabolic EQ as well.

mhardy6647

sounds like hyperbole to me.
SAE (whoops, make that ADC!) made a (and I'm not making this up) paragraphic equalizer.

Sounds like it was made for books on cassette...

http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/adc/sound-shaper-three.shtml