Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Equalizers- are they needed anymore?
With all of the new features/programs with the surround sound/audio
systems these days, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary anymore for DVD/Stereo/CD systems? Or are they just another 'toy' that is pretty much obsolete these days? Thanks for any help/input. Craig |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin,
It [EQ] can also compensate for tonal imperfections in your sound system or your listening environment. I just posted this in a similar thread at rec.audio.pro: The notion of using EQ to fix bad room response is mostly misguided. In some cases EQ can help *a little* to tame modal peaks at the very lowest frequencies. But most low frequency response errors are highly position dependant, and include nulls as deep as 35 dB. So any EQ correction will help only one very specific place in the room, and will by definition make other places worse. Even a foot away the response can be very different. And EQ does nothing for other acoustic problems like first reflections, flutter echo, modal ringing, and so forth. The correct solution to acoustic problems is acoustic treatment. --Ethan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Craig James wrote:
With all of the new features/programs with the surround sound/audio systems these days, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary anymore for DVD/Stereo/CD systems? Or are they just another 'toy' that is pretty much obsolete these days? Thanks for any help/input. Craig My EQ is of the physical type. If the setup doesn't sound good, move the speakers around Your are bound to get far more satisfaction out of your system by adjusting speaker location than electronically. CD |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Codifus" wrote in message
... Craig James wrote: With all of the new features/programs with the surround sound/audio systems these days, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary anymore for DVD/Stereo/CD systems? Or are they just another 'toy' that is pretty much obsolete these days? Thanks for any help/input. Craig My EQ is of the physical type. If the setup doesn't sound good, move the speakers around Your are bound to get far more satisfaction out of your system by adjusting speaker location than electronically. CD I use headphones and a dual-channel EQ to help correct my hearing problems. This is useful especially because my ears' respective frequency response are vastly different. Mark Z. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote: Kevin, It [EQ] can also compensate for tonal imperfections in your sound system or your listening environment. I just posted this in a similar thread at rec.audio.pro: The notion of using EQ to fix bad room response is mostly misguided. In some cases EQ can help *a little* to tame modal peaks at the very lowest frequencies. But most low frequency response errors are highly position dependant, and include nulls as deep as 35 dB. So any EQ correction will help only one very specific place in the room, and will by definition make other places worse. Even a foot away the response can be very different. And EQ does nothing for other acoustic problems like first reflections, flutter echo, modal ringing, and so forth. The correct solution to acoustic problems is acoustic treatment. --Ethan Completely fixing a room is impractical for most people. You're lucky if you can fix just the major echoes and bass nulls. Even so, modifying a room doesn't solve the problem of inconsistent recordings. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin,
Completely fixing a room is impractical for most people. You're lucky if you can fix just the major echoes and bass nulls. Yes, and this applies even to million dollar listening rooms - it's impossible to ever get perfectly flat. But $1000 spent on bass traps will make far more improvement than buying a fancy audiophile EQ for $1000. And $4000 spent on acoustic treatment exceeds one of those $4000 DSP "room correction boxes" by an even larger amount. It's all a matter of scale - how much someone has invested already, and how much more they're willing to spend to get "x" amount of improvement. modifying a room doesn't solve the problem of inconsistent recordings. Agreed, and I addressed only your comment that EQ can help the "listening environment" which I took to mean the room. --Ethan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message
... I use headphones and a dual-channel EQ to help correct my hearing problems. This is useful especially because my ears' respective frequency response are vastly different. Excluding hearing problems, I still think that you can't beat good speakers, especially for the bass, which you can feel as well as hear. I have some very good and quite expensive Beyerdynamic headphones. They are superb and I wouldn't want any other headphones, but speakers are still better. DW |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I have found that an EQ certainly does become handy for adjusting for
subtle tonal issues in the speakers, the environment, and the source material. Naturally, you want to start out with reasonably good choice of speakers, placement, and environment accomodations. From there, an EQ is a good tool to make final tweaking (though it should not be a given that you *need* to tweak anything, if the situation ends up being "ideal"). What we have less control over is the source material. Though much modern source material has reached consistent levels of satisfactory spectral balance, sometimes you get the odd bird that seems a bit forward in the lower midrange or unusually dull or sharp in the treble. Bumping an EQ setting is going to be a helluva lot more practical than refurnishing your room or moving speakers around just for a single song or movie. Neither are you imprisoned to tolerate the sound as it has been mastered for you. Ultimately, it allows you to bravely play whatever source material (of varied sound quality) you choose through your speakers and make them sound reasonably good or excellent, rather than ending up constrained to play only "premo" productions that happen to be "worthy" of your fab speaker system. Also, it bears mentioning all of that older source material you just cannot give up. They are your favorites, but unfortunately the sound standards of their respective eras were just not anywhere like what we enjoy today. Access to an EQ is invaluable in reinvigorating these "tired" recordings. To address what was posted earlier, no amount of digital surround-scape feature folly can replace what an EQ does. Inherently, they perform different operations on the sound. To use them exchangeably is akin to using a screwdriver where you should be using a pliers (wrong tool for the job, even though you may achieve some degree of success). It's a shame to see EQ's utterly disappear from the roster of fancy receiver/amp features, in place of a zillion different simulated surround reverb modes. That is what sells units off the shelf, however. Make no mistake that they do no favors by omitting the almighty EQ (and tone controls are hardly a substitue). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DE,
Though much modern source material has reached consistent levels of satisfactory spectral balance, sometimes you get the odd bird I agree completely. And if you're going to use an EQ to adjust tonal balance, get a good multi-band parametric. A graphic EQ is easier to use for newbies, but ultimately is not satisfying. --Ethan |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Equalizers- Are they needed anymore? | Audio Opinions | |||
More on Equalizers from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
Using two Equalizers | Tech | |||
FA: Yamaha EX-1 Electone Organ Synth GX-1 / CS-80 Cousin / ART IEQ SmartCurve 1/3 Octave Equalizers | Pro Audio | |||
FS: KAWAI EQ-8 8-CHANNEL PARAMETRIC EQUALIZERS | Pro Audio |