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

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:30:57 -0700, (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

Actually I find an equalizer emminenly useful for making certain older
recordings more listenable when I put them onto minidisc. I've always
thought equalizers were unnecessarily maligned. An old recording with
hard, shreiky strings--and that means an awful lot of 60s
material--can be improved out of sight by reducing output in the 4khz
area around 3-4db.

(paul packer) wrote in news:41553ec8.1033909
@news.iprimus.com.au:

An old recording with
hard, shreiky strings--and that means an awful lot of 60s
material--can be improved out of sight by reducing output in the 4khz
area around 3-4db.


But can you just use the EQ functions on the receiver instead?

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

"Lucas Tam" wrote in message
.. .
(paul packer) wrote in news:41553ec8.1033909
@news.iprimus.com.au:

An old recording with
hard, shreiky strings--and that means an awful lot of 60s
material--can be improved out of sight by reducing output in the 4khz
area around 3-4db.


But can you just use the EQ functions on the receiver instead?

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

Most receivers do not have 10 band equalizers.
I use an old ADC Paragraphic 36 band unit to modify the sound of my
Acoustats, already very good speakers.

"Craig James" wrote in message
...
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


The main reason for EQ is to smooth out the Frequency Response of a given
room. No other device can do this. The only other ways to achieve FR is to
have speakers custom built to compensate for your room acoustics, or use
passive forms of EQ such as room tunes. In order to have proper output you
must start with a room that doesn't put big dips or valleys into the
response. Once you've heard playback in a room with proper FR it's hard to
listen to anything else.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Craig James" wrote in message
...
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


The main reason for EQ is to smooth out the Frequency Response of a given
room. No other device can do this. The only other ways to achieve FR is
to
have speakers custom built to compensate for your room acoustics, or use
passive forms of EQ such as room tunes. In order to have proper output
you
must start with a room that doesn't put big dips or valleys into the
response. Once you've heard playback in a room with proper FR it's hard to
listen to anything else.

Mike,
Where have you been the last 20 years? This is not at all the case.
Ask your friend Arny, perhaps you'll believe him.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:06:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Most receivers do not have 10 band equalizers.
I use an old ADC Paragraphic 36 band unit to modify the sound of my
Acoustats, already very good speakers.

Posting this could get you drummed out of the Hi-Fi Corps, Robert. You
mustn't be careless of your membership.

(paul packer) said:

Most receivers do not have 10 band equalizers.
I use an old ADC Paragraphic 36 band unit to modify the sound of my
Acoustats, already very good speakers.

Posting this could get you drummed out of the Hi-Fi Corps, Robert. You
mustn't be careless of your membership.

Acoustats are good speakers, as opposed to Allisons.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:06:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Most receivers do not have 10 band equalizers.
I use an old ADC Paragraphic 36 band unit to modify the sound of my
Acoustats, already very good speakers.

Posting this could get you drummed out of the Hi-Fi Corps, Robert. You
mustn't be careless of your membership.

Worse than that:
1. The source ends of my systems are all Japanese, except for afew Hafler
preamps I use as line drivers.
2. I prefer beefy American MOSFET power amps to tubes and things made by the
Foreign Devils. Exception made for Halcro, even though I've never heard one.
3. I am a devotee of synthesized surround -- not the kind found on DVDs, but
that produced by the Sony TA-E1000ESD preamps and Yamaha theater pieces. See
http://www.ambiophonics.org/

I do have a couple pure two channel signal paths, however. And I chortle at
those who extoll Sennheiser headphones. Those who haven't been exposed to
Stax Lambda Pros live in ignorance .

The only thing I could say to be more obnoxious is "been there done that"

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:59:43 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:06:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Most receivers do not have 10 band equalizers.
I use an old ADC Paragraphic 36 band unit to modify the sound of my
Acoustats, already very good speakers.

Posting this could get you drummed out of the Hi-Fi Corps, Robert. You
mustn't be careless of your membership.

Worse than that:
1. The source ends of my systems are all Japanese, except for afew Hafler
preamps I use as line drivers.
2. I prefer beefy American MOSFET power amps to tubes and things made by the
Foreign Devils. Exception made for Halcro, even though I've never heard one.
3. I am a devotee of synthesized surround -- not the kind found on DVDs, but
that produced by the Sony TA-E1000ESD preamps and Yamaha theater pieces. See
http://www.ambiophonics.org/

Oh well. Then there's clearly no hope for you whatsoever, except
perhaps in Arny and Howard's camp.


I do have a couple pure two channel signal paths, however. And I chortle at
those who extoll Sennheiser headphones. Those who haven't been exposed to
Stax Lambda Pros live in ignorance .

I did in fact own a pair of Stax Lambdas (not pros) back in the 80s,
so I'm familiar with the electrostatic sound. A little too bright for
my taste, frankly. No doubt they've improved, but then so have
Sennheiser, and the new 595 is a different kettle of fish from the
580/600 breed ---brighter, livelier...just better. Try a pair--you
might be surprised. (But burn them in first!)

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

The main reason for EQ is to smooth out the Frequency Response of a given
room. No other device can do this. The only other ways to achieve FR is
to
have speakers custom built to compensate for your room acoustics...

Silly. Of course other "devices" can do this. Just buy components that
complement the acoustics of your room.

paul packer wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:06:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Most receivers do not have 10 band equalizers.
I use an old ADC Paragraphic 36 band unit to modify the sound of my
Acoustats, already very good speakers.


Posting this could get you drummed out of the Hi-Fi Corps, Robert. You
mustn't be careless of your membership.

The iltmus test is if the EQ has less than 20 bands.
36 is definately adequate.

And, yes, they are still as useful as ever. Sometimes you just
have a problem that you can't avoid in a room/location. EQ
modes aren't the same.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:59:43 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:06:20 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Most receivers do not have 10 band equalizers.
I use an old ADC Paragraphic 36 band unit to modify the sound of my
Acoustats, already very good speakers.

Posting this could get you drummed out of the Hi-Fi Corps, Robert. You
mustn't be careless of your membership.

Worse than that:
1. The source ends of my systems are all Japanese, except for afew Hafler
preamps I use as line drivers.
2. I prefer beefy American MOSFET power amps to tubes and things made by
the
Foreign Devils. Exception made for Halcro, even though I've never heard
one.
3. I am a devotee of synthesized surround -- not the kind found on DVDs,
but
that produced by the Sony TA-E1000ESD preamps and Yamaha theater pieces.
See
http://www.ambiophonics.org/

Oh well. Then there's clearly no hope for you whatsoever, except
perhaps in Arny and Howard's camp.


I do have a couple pure two channel signal paths, however. And I chortle
at
those who extoll Sennheiser headphones. Those who haven't been exposed to
Stax Lambda Pros live in ignorance .

I did in fact own a pair of Stax Lambdas (not pros) back in the 80s,
so I'm familiar with the electrostatic sound. A little too bright for
my taste, frankly. No doubt they've improved, but then so have
Sennheiser, and the new 595 is a different kettle of fish from the
580/600 breed ---brighter, livelier...just better. Try a pair--you
might be surprised. (But burn them in first!)

The transformer excited Lambdas were "bright".
The Lambda Pros are mellow, and have the deepest bass I've heard from a
headphone.
I don't know where I could hear a 595. I bought my 580's on faith.

I did in fact own a pair of Stax Lambdas (not pros) back in the 80s,
so I'm familiar with the electrostatic sound. A little too bright for
my taste, frankly. No doubt they've improved, but then so have
Sennheiser, and the new 595 is a different kettle of fish from the
580/600 breed ---brighter, livelier...just better. Try a pair--you
might be surprised. (But burn them in first!)

The transformer excited Lambdas were "bright".
The Lambda Pros are mellow, and have the deepest bass I've heard from a
headphone.
I don't know where I could hear a 595. I bought my 580's on faith.

The 580s are definitely laid back, slightly muted and somewhat boring.
I couldn't live with them, whereas as soon as I heard the 595 I knew
it was a keeper.

Lucas Tam wrote in message ...
(paul packer) wrote in news:41553ec8.1033909
@news.iprimus.com.au:

An old recording with
hard, shreiky strings--and that means an awful lot of 60s
material--can be improved out of sight by reducing output in the 4khz
area around 3-4db.


But can you just use the EQ functions on the receiver instead?

The advantage of a careful EQ when doing a transfer from LP to CD or
MD etc. is that the EQ is there everytime the copy is played back. No
need to remember what the EQ was or readjust an equalizer. I've got
lots of CD's that sound better than the LP's and open reel tapes they
were made from.

TB

"jeffc" wrote in message
. com...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

The main reason for EQ is to smooth out the Frequency Response of a given
room. No other device can do this. The only other ways to achieve FR is
to
have speakers custom built to compensate for your room acoustics...

Silly. Of course other "devices" can do this. Just buy components that
complement the acoustics of your room.


There are no components, unless they are custom made for your room.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 9/27/2004 9:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"jeffc" wrote in message
.com...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

The main reason for EQ is to smooth out the Frequency Response of a given
room. No other device can do this. The only other ways to achieve FR is
to
have speakers custom built to compensate for your room acoustics...

Silly. Of course other "devices" can do this. Just buy components that
complement the acoustics of your room.


There are no components, unless they are custom made for your room.









Different speakers are built to be at their best in different rooms.

S888Wheel wrote:



Different speakers are built to be at their best in different rooms.

And what if there are no speakers that are made exactly for
your room? Equalizers may seem old-school, but they work
now just as well as they did decades ago.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 9/27/2004 9:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"jeffc" wrote in message
r.com...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

The main reason for EQ is to smooth out the Frequency Response of a
given
room. No other device can do this. The only other ways to achieve FR
is
to
have speakers custom built to compensate for your room acoustics...

Silly. Of course other "devices" can do this. Just buy components that
complement the acoustics of your room.


There are no components, unless they are custom made for your room.









Different speakers are built to be at their best in different rooms.

AFAIK they are built to sound best in either 2pi or 4 pi environments. NO
electronics other than equalizers can tailor the sound to your room.

(Tim Brown) wrote in news:bf7e12dd.0409270743.24c287a7
@posting.google.com:

The advantage of a careful EQ when doing a transfer from LP to CD or
MD etc. is that the EQ is there everytime the copy is played back. No
need to remember what the EQ was or readjust an equalizer. I've got
lots of CD's that sound better than the LP's and open reel tapes they
were made from.

Do you adjust the EQ by ear... or do you use an RTA?

I'm just wondering how people calibrate their EQ.

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

"Craig James" wrote in message



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?

Equalizers are timbre correction devices. If a recording or a playback
system does not have the timbre that you desire, an equalizer may be a way
to correct it. If you need an equalizer to improve sound quality, there is
nothing that can replace it.

Some of these new features and programs that you mention either are
equalizers or contain equalizers. They are simply equalizers, possibly new,
improved equalizers, in new different packages.

"Lucas Tam" wrote in message

(paul packer) wrote in news:41553ec8.1033909
@news.iprimus.com.au:

An old recording with
hard, shreiky strings--and that means an awful lot of 60s
material--can be improved out of sight by reducing output in the 4khz
area around 3-4db.


But can you just use the EQ functions on the receiver instead?

As a rule, the equalizer functions in receivers are highly simplified and
possibly to simple to be effective. There are exceptions, of course.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:28:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Lucas Tam" wrote in message
0
(paul packer) wrote in news:41553ec8.1033909
@news.iprimus.com.au:

An old recording with
hard, shreiky strings--and that means an awful lot of 60s
material--can be improved out of sight by reducing output in the 4khz
area around 3-4db.


But can you just use the EQ functions on the receiver instead?

As a rule, the equalizer functions in receivers are highly simplified and
possibly to simple to be effective. There are exceptions, of course.

As I recall from years ago even Consumer Reports recommended against
buying a receiver with an eq for this very reason.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net


The main reason for EQ is to smooth out the Frequency Response of a
given room.

I would say that of all the things that people may think that an equalizer
is good for, smoothing the frequency response of a room is one of the least
appropriate ones.

No other device can do this.

Often, neither can equalizers.

The only other ways to
achieve FR is to have speakers custom built to compensate for your
room acoustics, or use passive forms of EQ such as room tunes.

The best way to improve room acoustics is to improve the room's acoustics,
and not try to bludgeon the room into shape with an equalizer. Using an
equalizer to correct room acoustics aside from certain exceptions, is
basically a last ditch, desperate act.

In order to have proper output you must start with a room that doesn't
put big dips or valleys into the response.

Exactly. An equalizer might be able to help with some peaks, but trying to
correct deep dips with an equalizer is an absolute no-no. An dip due to
room acoustics can take almost infinite amounts of power to fill.

Once you've heard playback
in a room with proper FR it's hard to listen to anything else.

Agreed, but eq should be the among the last approaches used to achieve it.
OTOH, eq can be an effective method for correcting the frequency response of
loudspeakers.

On 27 Sep 2004 08:43:18 -0700, (Tim Brown) wrote:

Lucas Tam wrote in message ...
(paul packer) wrote in news:41553ec8.1033909
@news.iprimus.com.au:

An old recording with
hard, shreiky strings--and that means an awful lot of 60s
material--can be improved out of sight by reducing output in the 4khz
area around 3-4db.


But can you just use the EQ functions on the receiver instead?

The advantage of a careful EQ when doing a transfer from LP to CD or
MD etc. is that the EQ is there everytime the copy is played back. No
need to remember what the EQ was or readjust an equalizer. I've got
lots of CD's that sound better than the LP's and open reel tapes they
were made from.

TB


Agreed. That is of course the point, to improve the sound once and for
all. Don't know what I would have done without my equaliser over the
years. I read purists dismissing them as "sound ruiners" and chuckle
to myself. Used properly they can be sound saviours.

Sander deWaal wrote:
Joseph Oberlander said:


And what if there are no speakers that are made exactly for
your room? Equalizers may seem old-school, but they work
now just as well as they did decades ago.


You mean there hasn't been any improvement in all those years?

Heh. The truth is closer to that than many want to admit.

Lucas Tam wrote in message ...
(Tim Brown) wrote in news:bf7e12dd.0409270743.24c287a7
@posting.google.com:

The advantage of a careful EQ when doing a transfer from LP to CD or
MD etc. is that the EQ is there everytime the copy is played back. No
need to remember what the EQ was or readjust an equalizer. I've got
lots of CD's that sound better than the LP's and open reel tapes they
were made from.

Do you adjust the EQ by ear... or do you use an RTA?

I'm just wondering how people calibrate their EQ.

When I transfer analog sources to CD I use a good set of headphones.
So yes, I do the EQ by ear.

TB

(paul packer) wrote in message ...
On 27 Sep 2004 08:43:18 -0700, (Tim Brown) wrote:

The advantage of a careful EQ when doing a transfer from LP to CD or
MD etc. is that the EQ is there everytime the copy is played back. No
need to remember what the EQ was or readjust an equalizer. I've got
lots of CD's that sound better than the LP's and open reel tapes they
were made from.

TB


Agreed. That is of course the point, to improve the sound once and for
all. Don't know what I would have done without my equaliser over the
years. I read purists dismissing them as "sound ruiners" and chuckle
to myself. Used properly they can be sound saviours.

The tonal balance of a recording is more often than not a combination
of the taste of the engineer tweaked by pressure from the producer,
who may be more than anything pressing for a 'hot' sound that he
thinks will sell records.

My vote for the worst sounding LP by a good engineer is 'Anything
Goes' by Ron Carter. A shameless bid for radio play.

TB

"paul packer" wrote in message


That is of course the point, to improve the sound once and for
all.

Eq that corrects for some previously induced distortion, such as
compensation for the inherent limitations of vinyl, fits that bill.

Don't know what I would have done without my equaliser over the
years.

Suffered unecessarily?

I read purists dismissing them as "sound ruiners" and chuckle
to myself. Used properly they can be sound saviours.

That's the catch. It takes some skills, some ear-and-hand coordination to
properly use an eq. People who lack those skills cannot have a favorable
personal opinion of equalizers.

Categorically criticizing equalizers is like advertising that you have
failed a good relevant test of audio IQ.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message



That's the catch. It takes some skills, some ear-and-hand coordination to
properly use an eq. People who lack those skills cannot have a favorable
personal opinion of equalizers.

Categorically criticizing equalizers is like advertising that you have
failed a good relevant test of audio IQ.



Cause and effect much ?

"JBorg" said:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Categorically criticizing equalizers is like advertising that you have
failed a good relevant test of audio IQ.

Using equalizers to dial out room anomalies is like admitting you
don't know much ;-) about acoustics.

Cause and effect much ?

Hardly, mr. sockpuppet "JBorg" Middius Atkonsins whatever.
Its like, the Phillips loony audio, brigade know's how much
amplifiers, can dance on the head of a pin, LoT;'S!

;-(

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"JBorg" said:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Categorically criticizing equalizers is like advertising that you
have failed a good relevant test of audio IQ.

Using equalizers to dial out room anomalies is like admitting you
don't know much ;-) about acoustics.

Some room anomalies can be dialed out by equalizers quite effectively. The
trick is knowing which ones.

Cause and effect much ?

Hardly, mr. sockpuppet "JBorg" Middius Atkonsins whatever.
Its like, the Phillips loony audio, brigade know's how much
amplifiers, can dance on the head of a pin, LoT;'S!

;-(

Indeed - that's all RAO needs, is more childish name-calling.

Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Sander deWaal wrote in message



Hardly, mr. sockpuppet "JBorg" Middius Atkonsins whatever.
Its like, the Phillips loony audio, brigade know's how much
amplifiers, can dance on the head of a pin, LoT;'S!

;-(


Indeed - that's all RAO needs, is more childish name-calling.



But I don't understand why you told me that I have delusions of
omniscience 3 hours ago.

Sander deWaal wrote in message . ..
"JBorg" said:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Categorically criticizing equalizers is like advertising that you have
failed a good relevant test of audio IQ.

Using equalizers to dial out room anomalies is like admitting you
don't know much ;-) about acoustics.

This sub-thread was started by me, talking about transferring LP and
open reel recordings to CD using headphones. Room anomalies were not
in the equation.

TB