Does anyone use equalizers anymore?

polkapolka

If so, who, what, why, $, you know, all the good stuff!

Thanks,
Matt

zarrdoss

I do I have a BSR eq300010 band and you can still get an Audio Source at home depot or here

http://www.nextag.com/audiosource-eq-200/stores-html

McLoki

I use a BFD (behringer feedback destroyer) on my subwoofers. Has stereo 12 band parametric eq's. (although I only use about 4 or 5 bands of one channel)

Has made a huge improvement in the bass of my system.

Michael

Sherardp

Velodyne SMS-1 on my subs if you want to call that an EQ.

jinjuku

I am using the DCX 2496 to EQ my setup and for sub-woofer management.

reeltrouble1

My Polk HT sub-amp has an EQ card designed for that particular Polk sub speaker.

Besides that if your rack needs an EQ something is lacking in your gear or you just like a particular frequency.

RT1

inspiredsports

Older NAD products provide a bass equalization circuit that can be switched on or off, and +/- 6db parametric controls at 50, 120, 250, 3,000, 6,000 and 12,000 KHz that can used or completely switched off. Both circuits are exceptionally well thought out and quiet with regard to additional distortion.

Since rebuilding crossovers, installing RDO198-1's and upgrading IC's and cables, I have found absolutely no equalization is needed and I now listen with the bass and EQ circuits permanently in the off position.

I agree with rt1 above. As food for thought, you might consider putting the money you would put into an equalizer into balancing your system out with better main components.

mhardy6647

No (nor did I ever) but the Behringer DEQ2496 Ultracurve Pro Digital EQ/RTA is an intriguing little gizmo at a comparatively bargain price.

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-661



The original version of this thingamabob enjoyed some popularity in audiophile circles when it was new.
http://www.audioxpress.com/reviews/media/203hansen2196.pdf

(N.B. I have no ears-on experience with these)

dorokusai

Nope.

heiney9

Nope, never. If you need one then you have other issues. I can see it's use to "tune" a sub in an HT system but in a nice 2 channel rig absolutely not, IMHO. I don't have or even like bass and treble controls in the signal path

H9

jinjuku

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

My Polk HT sub-amp has an EQ card designed for that particular Polk sub speaker.

Besides that if your rack needs an EQ something is lacking in your gear or you just like a particular frequency.

RT1

Are you saying that no EQ should be required? or that the EQ routine in AVR/Pre-pro's are good enough, or that tone controls will do the trick? Most subs and pre-pro's / AVR's have some form of correction routine built in.

You normally EQ to set a house curve. You can have great equipment in your rack, but you still have to account for room characteristics. It made a difference for me even after room treatments (though they helped a good deal).

The nice thing about an intelligent EQ is you can store several settings. You could have an HT setting, another for Music,and break it down even further from there for the type of music, if you really wanted too.

heiney9

No equalizer or tone controls are needed if you're gear is up to snuff. There are extreme situations where room acoustics might dictate trying to fix gaping problems. For me personally I'd not use that room or figure out a different configuration before using an EQ or any tone control.

With my set-up I'm willing to take the warts and all with the recordings. With a passive pre-amp and 2 gain stage amplifier it's about as close to straight thru as one can reasonably get. My system sounds fantastic with well recorded material and so-so with poorly recorded material, but I get all the "essence" of the original recordings. No EQ will make the poor recordings sound like the stellar recordings...........the damage was done at the mastering/recordings phase.

Listening to the Beatles is certainly just as rewarding as listening to a GRP jazz selection even though the recording process and quality are worlds apart. Some people just like the "boom, boom, tizz, tizz" not me.

bluecomet

I have multiply systems that I like to play with. Lazareth is right about not using an EQ with SDA's. It does not sound right. I have a 3 band parametric EQ from SAE and I have found it does help with certain speakers. I think it helps Monitor 10's, especially in the mid's. It is much more clear and I like the fact I can boost the bass, mid's or highs if I find a need to. I like them with older seperates and not built in EQ's that are in some receivers. They are not for everyone but I have found they are usefull in older gear.

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

No equalizer or tone controls are needed if you're gear is up to snuff. There are extreme situations where room acoustics might dictate trying to fix gaping problems. For me personally I'd not use that room or figure out a different configuration before using an EQ or any tone control.

Agreed that EQ is normally the last thing you should try. That goes with out saying. The real issue is: How many people actually have the luxury that you speak of?

A nice EQ lets you get correction on a number of fronts: Boundary and Time Domain. These will be problems for most squarish shaped rooms (which last time I checked is the norm in most houses).

I think for all the money spent on speakers, amps, electronics, interconnects, what is another $300? You can always defeat the EQ if things aren't too your liking with it in the chain.

I don't even think that you need to wait for gaping problems to use an EQ. Getting nice flat in room response is desirable in most any situation. Have you taken the opportunity with an RTA to get a glimpse of what your curve looks like vs what you perceive (simply asking out of curiosity, listen to what sounds best).

heiney9

Not sure it's a luxury but I have a lot of trial and error to get where I am. It's just my personal opinion not having any tone controls. I've never found tone controls/eq's or eq type circuits to be beneficial in any way. They seem to sound very unnatural in most instances.

I admit at times for some older recordings a bit of bass boost would be nice, but in the end it ruins the "essence" of the original recordings. I would deem it sacreligous to add bass boost to an old Robert Johnson recording........just doesn't seem right

Not sure if I made it clear but I'm strictly 2 channel and perhaps some fine tuning is needed with an HT system to really make it shine for movies and special effects, etc.

YMMV

H9

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

Not sure if I made it clear but I'm strictly 2 channel and perhaps some fine tuning is needed with an HT system to really make it shine for movies and special effects, etc.

YMMV

H9

I haven't had a strictly two channel setup for going on 14 years now. I remember with the two channel setup: pick some listening spots, position speakers X/Y from walls, toe speakers in/out and enjoy ( used masking tape to mark all my positions. It wall all about placement which is a form of EQ.

The issue with 5 or 7 (plus sub) is you don't get the flexibility of placement. So yes there is a very valid point of not have to correct for much when dealing with only two speakers.

heiney9

jinjuku wrote: »

Agreed that EQ is normally the last thing you should try. That goes with out saying. The real issue is: How many people actually have the luxury that you speak of?

A nice EQ lets you get correction on a number of fronts: Boundary and Time Domain. These will be problems for most squarish shaped rooms (which last time I checked is the norm in most houses).

I think for all the money spent on speakers, amps, electronics, interconnects, what is another $300? You can always defeat the EQ if things aren't too your liking with it in the chain.

I don't even think that you need to wait for gaping problems to use an EQ. Getting nice flat in room response is desirable in most any situation. Have you taken the opportunity with an RTA to get a glimpse of what your curve looks like vs what you perceive (simply asking out of curiosity, listen to what sounds best).

Look I've been down the EQ path in the early 80's. Left them as well as tone controls behind. After 25+ years in this hobby, I know what sounds good and frankly I'm there as far as a stellar sounding rig. The more I take out of the chain, the better and better the system sounds. Why would I want to start adding things back in? I've worked long and hard and spent some $$$ to make my sytem as basic and simple as possible. It has paid off in a big way.

H9

heiney9

jinjuku wrote: »

I haven't had a strictly two channel setup for going on 14 years now. I remember with the two channel setup: Position speakers X/Y from walls, pick a listening spot, toe speakers in/out and enjoy. It wall all about placement which is a form of EQ.

Oh I see :rolleyes:, I suppose adjusting the seat in your car is just like getting a tune-up.

You PAINT a very broad and IMO, idiotic definition of EQ. I believe the OP is talking about some external box or built in set of parameters that alters levels of certain frequencies when used.

If that means, toeing, distance from walls, listening postion, etc. you are way off, but certainly entitled to your opinion. But I think most will agree that's quite a strech.

H9

wizzy

While some may say you don't need one if all your equipment is straight from the nads of the lord herself, this doesn't take into account the material one listens to.

If you have a lot of bootleg, live recordings, a good EQ or parametric EQ can be wonderful.

I know listening to a lot of live GD / Phish / etc. recordings it can make all the difference in the world.

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

Look I've been down the EQ path in the early 80's. Left them as well as tone controls behind. After 25+ years in this hobby, I know what sounds good and frankly I'm there as far as a stellar sounding rig. The more I take out of the chain, the better and better the system sounds. Why would I want to start adding things back in? I've worked long and hard and spent some $$$ to make my sytem as basic and simple as possible. It has paid off in a big way.

H9

Thats great, really it is. I even stated that EQ is a last resort (because it is). If you have room problems still after taking appropriate measures, than an EQ is still a viable option.

There is a reason why every manufacturer has a built in EQ routine. Most people simply have a wonky listening environment.

My goals in this thread are to put relevant and useful information for the lay person that is researching this stuff. That is all. We simply have a difference of approach and opinion. I am not disagreeing with you and your PARTICULAR listening environment. Again listen to what sounds best to your ears.

I have a friend and his son that purchased HT gear (Pioneer 1015's, RHT in walls etc...) for their respective homes. For the longest time they simply hooked stuff up and ran at defaults. I visited and found out they never ran room correction (never mind trying talk them into room treatments). I dug out the microphone and ran the MCACC and it made a positive difference for them. I don't know what else to say.

heiney9

wizzy wrote: »

While some may say you don't need one if all your equipment is straight from the nads of the lord herself, this doesn't take into account the material one listens to.

If you have a lot of bootleg, live recordings, a good EQ or parametric EQ can be wonderful.

I know listening to a lot of live GD / Phish / etc. recordings it can make all the difference in the world.

I have 350 LZ boots and about 150 Hendrix boots and probably 300 or so various other artists and some sort of tone control can be beneficial. I guess that's why I have my office/computer room rig. Strangely enough there are no tone controls in that rig either and I do get by fine listening to boots.

If I have a particularly poor boot recording I'll fire up WINAMP as the player and adjust as necessary, but this doesn't happen very often. Otherwise I bypass all the Windows drivers and use an unaltered digital output into a seperate external DAC into a little 13wpc tube hybrid integrated and it sound really great.

H9

heiney9

jinjuku wrote: »

There is a reason why every manufacturer has a built in EQ routine. Most people simply have a wonky listening environment.

Last time I checked Pass didn't have any, or my Adcom pre-amp or my Adcom DAC.

Perhaps you are talking about HT type pre/processors and AVR's.

heiney9

Look JJ, I don't disagree totally, but my advice to any "lay person" is tread lightly with this kind of stuff because if things are that deficient, then it's time to start looking for better gear if you find yourself being unsatisfied.

H9

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

Look JJ, I don't disagree totally, but my advice to any "lay person" is tread lightly with this kind of stuff because if things are that deficient, then it's time to start looking for better gear if you find yourself being unsatisfied.

H9

I don't use any EQ, haven't since buying my SDA's 20 years ago. But I am curious how buying better gear would correct room issues.

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

Oh I see :rolleyes:, I suppose adjusting the seat in your car is just like getting a tune-up.

You PAINT a very broad and IMO, idiotic definition of EQ. I believe the OP is talking about some external box or built in set of parameters that alters levels of certain frequencies when used.

If that means, toeing, distance from walls, listening postion, etc. you are way off, but certainly entitled to your opinion. But I think most will agree that's quite a strech.

H9

EQ stands for Equalization. EQ is meant to improve an imperfect listening environment.

You haven't explained what the 'stretch' actually is...

reeltrouble1

William,

well for one thing it certainly improves the look of the room. for you some fung shwei??? decor might work as well.

besides you slipped two thoughts in there W, dont see in the quote of H9 where he said that buying gear corrects "room" issues????

RT1

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

Last time I checked Pass didn't have any, or my Adcom pre-amp or my Adcom DAC.

Perhaps you are talking about HT type pre/processors and AVR's.

Yes I am. I am sure that at this level most people would prefer a standalone eq of their choosing in a strictly 2 channel setup. That is the point behind going separates.

I am looking at the OP's signature line that includes his equipment and making an assumption that he has an HT setup.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I don't use any EQ, haven't since buying my SDA's 20 years ago. But I am curious how buying better gear would correct room issues.

Never said that or eluded to that. In my direct experience what I thought were room issues several years ago were "cured" by moving up the gear ladder, not by trying to EQ the deficiencies out of my lesser equipment. Not saying that is absolutely always the case............but everytime I made an improvement in gear the sound became more pleasing.

You always seem to read more into a post than anyone I know. Feel free to add whatever you deem necessary to twist these words to fit into your personal POV.

As always in this hobby YMMV

H9

heiney9

jinjuku wrote: »

I am looking at the OP's signature line that includes his equipment and making an assumption that he has an HT setup.

Oh, I see now you want to use the OP and specifics about his gear/question to futher your point, except when you made the comment about speaker placement, listening position, etc that was clearly outside the scope of what the OP was asking about EQ's just to be argumentative. :rolleyes:

Again, twist it however you want to fit into your needs.

H9

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

Never said that or eluded to that. In my direct experience what I thought were room issues several years ago were "cured" by moving up the gear ladder, not by trying to EQ the deficiencies out of my lesser equipment. Not saying that is absolutely always the case............but everytime I made an improvement in gear the sound became more pleasing.

You always seem to read more into a post than anyone I know. Feel free to add whatever you deem necessary to twist these words to fit into your personal POV.

As always in this hobby YMMV

H9

Actually I was agreeing with you on a potential lessening of need for EQ in a two channel setup vs a 5 or 7 channel setup. This agreement being based on the fact that you have more placement options to deal with less than perfect room conditions. That post was simply in context of what you had written, nothing to do with the OP. Really trying to stay on topic for the OP and what looks to be an HT setup

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

If I have a particularly poor boot recording I'll fire up WINAMP as the player and adjust as necessary, but this doesn't happen very often. Otherwise I bypass all the Windows drivers and use an unaltered digital output into a seperate external DAC into a little 13wpc tube hybrid integrated and it sound really great.

H9

If you run Vista, MS did away with Kmixer and the subsequent re-sampling that it did.

In XP you need ASIO to do this, in Vista it is a non issue.