How many of you are using equalizers on your 2 channel rigs?

hearingimpared

reeltrouble1 wrote:

EQ's are pretty much for mixers these days, but if you have a system that is lacking someway it might provide a bandaid. Not something I have used in a very long long time.

RT1

I used to us an EQ when I would do remixes on R2R or good cassettes. . .they were definitely great for that. I would be afraid they would be too noisey in a hi rez rig though.

Deadof_knight

OK I have to admit Im not into eq's but I got a bbe 362 just so I could have another sub out with adjustable crossover, Needed it for my setup before I got my 1.2's , so its going upstairs with the old rig.

cnjvh

Wouldn't an EQ be useful in two-channel to create a house curve? You would normally do this by calibrating the sub hot via parametric EQ but lacking a sub it seems an EQ could have a role here. Parametric would be necessary of course to control the Q and make a true curve, not jsut a hump around one frequency.

Mother Mooch

SLOCOOKN wrote:

Dibs if you ever want to sell the monitor 12's...:) I could use them for surrounds!

I'll keep you in mind Slocookin...

joeparaski

......ummmm....I admit.....eerrrrr... I use eq's.....:p

Joe

heiney9

schwarcw wrote:

Exactly! If you folks think that you are getting "true" music as the muscians recorded it, think again. Your SACDs and 200 grams vinyl 1/2 speed masters have been tweaked by God knows how many little EQ adjustments and ProTools plug ins along the way by the sound engineers, during the mixdown and by record company producers. Do you trust all these guys to "manufacture" a sound that is satisfactory to you? Get real what you hear from the disk in your source has been polished by software on the mixing board. Is it "true", pure audio as the artist intended. The artist probably had little input on the final mix!!! PLEASE! Just a fancy EQ!!!

It's just another way of adding an EQ adjustment to your sound. Call it what you like, you are shaping the frequency traces with your tubes. If the sound is too harsh, tweak the HF dB levels. Hey I'm guilty of using the EQ once in a while! But at least I admit it and recognize the "tube rolling" and IC "magic" for what it is and does.

They use professional quality mixing boards (very expensive) and they have access to multi channel tracks (not just the L & R stereo track) and the pro tools software is only good if you have the multi track master to tweak. The typical home audio EQ is very crude in it's output and frequency range it controls; not to mention the crud it adds to the signal. And I believe the original poster was talking about the typical home EQ not a professional audio program or a professional mixing board and access to multi track masters.

A good EQ will go along way toward some of the work and money spend tube rolling.

That is a stretch. Perhaps a very expensive high quality parametric used by someone who understands how to use it properly.

H9

Mother Mooch

danger boy wrote:

you may want to replace the tweeters.. that will help tame the brightness.

Yeah, we talked about this a while back... Remember the "socks" lol... But right now my budget is so tight... So no tweets yet...

bikezappa

schwarcw wrote:

Exactly! If you folks think that you are getting "true" music as the muscians recorded it, think again. Your SACDs and 200 grams vinyl 1/2 speed masters have been tweaked by God knows how many little EQ adjustments and ProTools plug ins along the way by the sound engineers, during the mixdown and by record company producers. Do you trust all these guys to "manufacture" a sound that is satisfactory to you? Get real what you hear from the disk in your source has been polished by software on the mixing board. Is it "true", pure audio as the artist intended. The artist probably had little input on the final mix!!! PLEASE! Just a fancy EQ!!!

Way back when Amanda McBroom recorded directly from a mic to the master LP cutter. Two mics were used if I remember for her and the band. Nothing but a pre amp and mics were used. NO tape was used. If you can find those LP please sell one to me. The CD is pretty good also. Sheffield Records did the recording I think.

I use the tone and balance controls on my Revox equipment and I can do this with the remote never getting off my ****.

steveinaz

My preamp has 1 knob...Volume.

disneyjoe7

shack wrote:

I dont even have a tone control in my 2 channel rig....much less an equalizer.

You called it, same here.

madmax

The BIGGEST problem I have with EQ's are the output stages. They are typically the cheapest part available. You are wasting your time with good equipment if you at some point run through a lesser component. The sound can't be any better than the worst component you run it through.

The second BIGGEST problem I have with EQ's are phase shifts. Each frequency pot changes the phase of the frequencies going through it. It can be right on frequency but the tone of the instruments is lost.

The third BIGGEST problem I have with EQ's are they provide a crutch rather than making you pick parts with synergy and allow your room to not be optimized. (at least until you figure out you are doing more harm than good).

The Fourth BIGGEST problem I have with EQ's are that no one sets them up properly. Live with any sound for a short while and it becomes your standard. They ruin your perception of what sounds good.

The Fifth BIGGEST problem with EQ's are that they add yet another component in line with all the others.

madmax


No eq's were harmed in the making of this list.

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote:

Way back when Amanda McBroom recorded directly from a mic to the master LP cutter. Two mics were used if I remember for her and the band. Nothing but a pre amp and mics were used. NO tape was used. If you can find those LP please sell one to me. The CD is pretty good also. Sheffield Records did the recording I think.

I use the tone and balance controls on my Revox equipment and I can do this with the remote never getting off my ****.

I have a whole load of Amanda McBroom LPs . . . most on Sheffield Records. I am in the process of restoring all my LPs and haven't gotten to the crate with her stuff in it yet but now that you've stimulated that memory cell, I think I'll dig them up tonight.

BZ do you remember her appearances on Hawaii Five O ????

hearingimpared

madmax wrote:

No eq's were harmed in the making of this list.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and I totally agree with all points.

bikezappa

hearingimpared wrote:

I have a whole load of Amanda McBroom LPs . . . most on Sheffield Records. I am in the process of restoring all my LPs and haven't gotten to the crate with her stuff in it yet but now that you've stimulated that memory cell, I think I'll dig them up tonight.

BZ do you remember her appearances on Hawaii Five O ????

No but I understand she was on Startrek a few times. I never saw her on TV. She also wrote a number of wonderful songs for Cop Rock, the lowest rated show ever, but I think it was the best show of that decade. I have all the 9 episodes on tape and sometimes show one to friends.

I also lost all my LPs with a flood in my basement 15 years ago. I never tried to clean them like you. Her voice has a wide dynamic range. Her version of The Rose makes Bette's look very boring, IMHO.

Yes you should clean them up.

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote:

No but I understand she was on Startrek a few times. I never saw her on TV. She also wrote a number of wonderful songs for Cop Rock, the lowest rated show ever, but I think it was the best show of that decade. I have all the 9 episodes on tape and sometimes show one to friends.

I also lost all my LPs with a flood in my basement 15 years ago. I never tried to clean them like you. Her voice has a wide dynamic range. Her version of The Rose makes Bette's look very boring, IMHO.

Yes you should clean them up.

Did you trash the LPs that were damaged in the flood???? Please say NO!!!

You are correct she makes Bette who is no slouch sound like a girl from a glee club.

PS: I do remember her in Star Trek also. . . you just stimulated another long lost brain cell.

bikezappa

All gone!

Just like my youth.

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote:

All gone!

Just like my youth.

AARRRRGGGHHH!!! I'm so sorry to hear that.

Well if you are ever in this neck of the woods (New Hampshire is not that far) you are always welcome to listen to Amanda or any other artists that I have in my collection. As a matter of fact, if you still have a turntable let me know and I will lend you the Amanda LPs for a week or two.:)

schwarcw

My point was we are all listening to music that has been PROCESSED! Most of it has been processed by an EQ type device. Be it expensive or Protools on the MAC (or PC) based processing software. Using the EQ should not be considered such an audiophile sin.

Everyone has made some good points. I personally don't use one on my big rig, but for those who do just use it wisely. It can take a little of that 6 dB spike off those SL2000 tweeters, and add some warmth if you want it. A good EQ like anything will cost you a few bucks.

Active crossovers anyone?:D

SCompRacer

schwarcw wrote:

Active crossovers anyone?:D

Definitely!;) :cool:

I know a respected audio guy that has used the Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496 to solve bass problems in rooms where they didn't want to use treatments. It would be interesting to hear how much help or hurt the fix would apply.

Systems

schwarcw wrote:

Active crossovers anyone?:D

Yep,I have a fully active 4 way using Bryston amplification.:)

SCompRacer

GV#27 wrote:

Yep,I have a fully active 4 way......

Systems

SCompRacer wrote:

hehehe:)
Looking at your list of equipment it would appear that you are damn close to being fully active as well.That is an impressive list of toys.

hearingimpared

SCompRacer wrote:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

schwarcw

How do you distinguish these as different from EQ's? ( I know my answer) But don't the do some of the things an EQ is intended to do? Isn't this audiophile heresy?

schwarcw

SCompRacer wrote:

Definitely!;) :cool:

I know a respected audio guy that has used the Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496 to solve bass problems in rooms where they didn't want to use treatments. It would be interesting to hear how much help or hurt the fix would apply.

Yup, and they do a good job. How much different are these from EQ's? I'm really not trying to be flip but to stimulate some opinions. Which I welcome!

And why is this not considered audiophile heresey by the purists in our distinguished members here at Club Polk?

Carl

Systems

Personally I don't like the idea of adding another component (DEQ2496) with its all of it's AD-DA conversion stages and signal proccessing to my signal path.But these guys liked what it did. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0705/behringerultracurve2496.htm

SCompRacer

GV#27 wrote:

hehehe:)
Looking at your list of equipment ....

Thank you for the kind words. I only need a two way active for the bass and panels.

riglehart

My 2 cents.

An EQ will help an everage system. Kind of like glasses for poor eyesight. If you already have good sight, they make things worse.

However, the dancing lights are beeeaauuuutifuuullll.

hearingimpared

riglehart wrote:

My 2 cents.

An EQ will help an everage system. Kind of like glasses for poor eyesight. If you already have good sight, they make things worse.

However, the dancing lights are beeeaauuuutifuuullll.

Although I like to keep things simple in my rig, I LOVE LIGHTS, BELLS AND WHISTLES!!!

Polkersince85

I have one of my rigs setup as a vintage silver face. Contained within are a Soundcraftsmen SP-4001 preamp & MA-5002 amp, an Onkyo T-4055 tuna, a Pioneer CT-F900 cdeck and a Dual CS5000 table driving the SRS 2's. The equalizer functions on the 4001 preamp comes in handy. Not ashamed of it.