Tweeters and EQ's

candyliquor35m
candyliquor35m Posts: 2,267
edited February 2006 in Vintage Speakers
Why isn't it popular anymore to use equalizers to tweak the music to our individual tastes? My new tube pre- can effectively contour off the highs and will probably prevent me from having to replace the 2.3 tweeters with the silks.

On the other hand my 80's Parasound EQf210 paired with a 80's Kyocera R851 receiver and 90's Ohm FRS (don't remember the model) speakers sound quite amazing compared to their mediocre sound when I bypass the EQ.
Post edited by candyliquor35m on

Comments

  • MrNightly
    MrNightly Posts: 3,370
    edited February 2006
    Good questions. I have always wondered why nobody speaks of equalizers anymore. In the early 90's they were the rage it seemed... now, almost taboo?
    Honoured to be, an original SOPA founding member
    Stuff...

    RTi12's - front
    CSi5 - center
    FXi3's - surrounds
    RTi4's - surrounds
    SVS PB12-NSD/2 - sub :D:D:D
    Denon 3805
    Rotel RB-985 5-Channel Amplifier

  • joeparaski
    joeparaski Posts: 1,865
    edited February 2006
    I can't say that it applies to me. I have a 40 band half-octave eq as well as a Para-Metric EQ. I love my eq's!..and that's for the front channel. The rear channel has a parametric eq. Heck, I'm thinking of eq'ing my center.

    Joe (master of overdoing it) Albanese
    Amplifiers: 1-SAE Mark IV, 4-SAE 2400, 1-SAE 2500, 2-SAE 2600, 1-Buttkicker BKA 1000N w/2-tactile transducers. Sources: Sony BDP CX7000es, Sony CX300/CX400/CX450/CX455, SAE 8000 tuner, Akai 4000D R2R, Technics 1100A TT, Epson 8500UB with Carada 100". Speakers:Polk SDA SRS, 3.1TL, FXi5, FXi3, 2-SVS 20-29, Yamaha, SVS center sub. Power:2-Monster HTS3500, Furman M-8D & RR16 Plus. 2-SAE 4000 X-overs, SAE 5000a noise reduction, MSB Link DAC III, MSB Powerbase, Behringer 2496, Monarchy DIP 24/96.
  • madmax
    madmax Posts: 12,434
    edited February 2006
    Why isn't it popular anymore to use equalizers to tweak the music to our individual tastes?

    Because once you get into the higher end you don't want to go from an expensive source through twice as many cables and have a 20 cent transistor (output stage of the EQ) effing up the signal going into your tube amp. Bunches of phase problems too. Some companies are really good at EQ's such as AudioControl and others, but even still, it's a bunch of additional parts the signal must go through.
    madmax
    Vinyl, the final frontier...

    Avantgarde horns, 300b tubes, thats the kinda crap I want... :D
  • mldennison
    mldennison Posts: 307
    edited February 2006
    plus anytime you send your signal through a filter, you are going to be adding some amount of distortion to it.
  • RuSsMaN
    RuSsMaN Posts: 17,986
    edited February 2006
    madmax wrote:
    ... you don't want to go from an expensive source through twice as many cables and have a 20 cent transistor (output stage of the EQ)...

    And Bingo was his name-o.
    Check your lips at the door woman. Shake your hips like battleships. Yeah, all the white girls trip when I sing at Sunday service.
  • Tour2ma
    Tour2ma Posts: 10,177
    edited February 2006
    Pretty much answered above, but that's never stopped me before...
    On the other hand my 80's Parasound EQf210 paired with a 80's Kyocera R851 receiver and 90's Ohm FRS (don't remember the model) speakers sound quite amazing compared to their mediocre sound when I bypass the EQ.
    First, you have to be sure that you are not just boosting the overall volume. All other things equal, louder sounds better/ "fuller".

    Volume aside, judicious use of an EQ can make up for anomalies in:
    - your speakers;
    - your hearing;
    - your room;
    - all of the above.
    More later,
    Tour...
    Vox Copuli
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. - Old English Proverb

    "Death doesn't come with a Uhaul." - Dennis Gardner

    "It's easy to get lost in price vs performance vs ego vs illusion." - doro
    "There is a certain entertainment value in ripping the occaisonal (sic) buttmunch..." - TroyD
  • scottnbnj
    scottnbnj Posts: 709
    edited February 2006
    somehow, i think if you're trying to hide problems like poor placement or room acoustics with several db eq swings, signal degradation is the least of your worries.

    correcting things like recordings or gear mismatches are a different issue and probably better suited to eq corrections. at that level, signal degradation is worth considering.

    )