So, where do we stand on EQ?

uglymusicuglymusic
edited November 2011 in Digital
I used to be totally anti, but while looking into designing some OB loudspeakers, the prospect of having to use some EQ loomed.

I was originally going to borrow a processor box, but @RobHolt posted about Digital EQ on OS X over at the Audiosmile Forum. I decided to have a play on my system as it stands. 

I'm amazed how Audio Hijack Pro and the Mac's native plug-ins make no negative impact on the performance of even my main rig. Taking a bit of advice, and doing a little bit of playing, I have five points of Parametric EQ in place. They're deliberately subtle, and sometimes cannot even be heard - it seems to depend on the characteristics of the recording.

But the end point is a clearer, cleaner sound, with a bit more bass presence.

At the moment, I'm sold. This is great. AHP is a great 20-quid's worth.

Where do you stand?

Comments

  • DocfosterDocfoster
    I haven't used an in a stereo hifi since 1993. Without it my system sounded terrible... :-/
    Wouldn't all systems and rooms deviate from a flat frequency response to some extent? EQ would be the obvious way to sort this out, either by ear or measurement, depending on preference.
    I suppose the issues are what other, inadvertent effects the EQ circuitry imposes on the sound, and whether these outweigh the benefits of a flat frequency response.
    I do think there's more than psychology / superstition to the 'purity of the signal path', but I also suspect it's generated something of an overblown phobia, that may cause the throwing out of several babies with the bath water. It's certainly one from which I suffer.
    Perhaps digital EQ removes some of the speculated downsides.
  • mattlynchmattlynch
    hi fellas, being a vinyl user i dont have opportunity to apply EQ at source ,but, i do in effect apply a sort of EQ when i try different cables ,carts, arms etc.
    my personal belief is that if you have a properly high end system in an ideal room EQ would possibly be a bad thing , how many of us have that though?
    i say EQ to your hearts content ,if,it brings you greater enjoyment of the music , after all its what this hi fi thing is all about , i am currently using a series inductor on my usher s520's 0.4mh to give the whole response a wee tilt towards the warmer end of things , its made listening to messy mp3's a lot more palatable and a hell of a lot cheaper than building a new system.
    all the best,
    matt
    :)
  • RobHoltRobHolt
    edited November 2011
    As I mentioned over on the AS thread, the end result is all that counts with these things.
    My view is that modest amounts of boost/cut performed in the digital domain can be transparent (qualitatively) but that more extreme correction often isn't.

    To put the whole discussion around EQ being good or bad into some context, The signal form a phono cartridge is subject to massive EQ in order to make it listenable. We call it RIAA 'correction' but it is simply EQ - and usually analogue at that. Yet records can sound wonderful..... which brings me back to it being the end result that matters.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Yeah. I'd go along with that, Rob.

    I haven't done all the microphone and plotting stuff, but I'm enjoying the leaner-sounding system so much that I don't feel I want to get caught up in the number crunching. Maybe when the OBs get built.
  • DocfosterDocfoster
    As I mentioned over on the AS thread, the end result is all that counts with these things.
    My view is that modest amounts of boost/cut performed in the digital domain can be transparent (qualitatively) but that more extreme correction often isn't.

    To put the whole discussion around EQ being good or bad into some context, The signal form a phono cartridge is subject to massive EQ in order to make it listenable. We call it RIAA 'correction' but it is simply EQ - and usually analogue at that. Yet records can sound wonderful..... which brings me back to it being the end result that matters.
    I've often thought that rob...
    That the good ol' RIAA correction sneaks under the radar.
    I suppose it can be precisely calculated and standardised as a "correction", but it's a huge EQ nevertheless.
  • AlanAlan
    edited November 2011
    Yo UMEQ!

    Do you set this box of tricks up with microphone measurements in your listening spot? Otherwise how will you know what settings to employ?

    I have been wrong/surprised enough times over the last year or two to believe this might be worth a try (spit...)

    Also, does it output into Audirvana or Decibel for playback? Or does the player come before the processing?

    Just, like askin, man'.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Nope. I haven't done all the microphone stuff. I took some basic recommendations from Jim who knows his EQ onions and had a play. 

    It's definitely worth a try. I'm really pleased with the results.

    Audio Hijack Pro hijacks the output from Audirvana, Decibel, Spotify, Safari or whatever app you like.

    I'll post some ideas for you to play with once I've found all Jim's e-mails.
  • AlanAlan
    Ta muchly, Uggers!
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    OK. You have the same speakers as me, so I guess that knocks out one variable.

    I'll give you the first ideas Jim gave me, then you can start from there.

    Drop around 6dB at around 80Hz and around 4db at around 4.5kHz.

    You'll need to set up one Parametric EQ plug-in for each point and spread the point out. Adjust the slope, drop and the frequency. Don't try for gross changes; you should try moving your speakers for that. My current settings aren't audible on quite a few recordings.

    Once you've got somewhere with these, then there are a couple of others you can try - one from Jim and one from me. 
  • RobHoltRobHolt
    I'll be putting together a follow up to the EQ article at the weekend on how to do some room and speaker measurements using a reasonably inexpensive but good measurement mic, a sound card and OSX.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    That's interesting, Rob.

    I've been looking at this: 


    for when the time comes.
  • AlanAlan
    Thanks Dave, I appreciate your time. This will be a medium term project for as I'm short on time at the moment. There is a lot to read up on in the meantime.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Aren't we all! (short on time)
  • AlanAlan
    Yup! Also, I haven't yet really got to know the room yet, so I want see whether there is really a 'problem' or not.

    I have always been happy (so far) to live with a room if it isnt too offensive.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Yup. I agree.

    But... A couple of evenings' fiddling has reduced the speakers' presence in the sound and that makes a difference over longer listening sessions, I feel.
  • BrumjamBrumjam
    I'm in favour of EQ, particularly because my listening room is far from ideal.  

    Dave - Can you insert plug-in's on the fly?  Or do you have to stop the playback software, setup the new plug-in then re-start playback?

    Alan - I completely agree about knowing where the problems lie.  Using REW software based upon my experience so far is not for the feint hearted however, and finding a sensibly priced mic (for what is essentially a one-time application) is proving difficult.  The mic itself needs power, so it's not as straightforward as tuning my sub which can be done with a battery-powered mic purchased from Maplin.

    Given I'm at home watching nothing but crap daytime TV I might download the Hijack Pro software and have a play.  
  • AlanAlan
    edited November 2011
    Im taking this all onboard, I cant describe what I hear like you do dave but we seem to have similar priorites in a system.

    I agree James, a mic seems to make sense to mee too. Aren't there any suitable ones second hand?
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    edited November 2011
    I'm in favour of EQ, particularly because my listening room is far from ideal.  

    Dave - Can you insert plug-in's on the fly?  Or do you have to stop the playback software, setup the new plug-in then re-start playback?
    There's a button labelled Hijack that switches the whole kit and caboodle in and out, so you can switch it out, make a change and switch it in again.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Im taking this all onboard, I cant describe what I hear like you do dave but we seem to have similar priorites in a system.

    I agree James, a mic seems to make sense to mee too. Aren't there any suitable ones second hand?
    Yup. That's why I'm suggesting you have a play with Jim's recommendations.

    Maybe @RobHolt ; can recommend a specific microphone. Rob?
  • RobHoltRobHolt
    Behringer ECM8000 is a good inexpensive mic and flat within 2dB across the range. About £50 IIRC.
    I'll cover that off at the weekend.
  • AlanAlan
    I'll look forward to that Rob. I don't know how one would connect a mic to a mac (mic, meet mac) but I assume it's fairly easy.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Behringer ECM8000 is a good inexpensive mic and flat within 2dB across the range. About £50 IIRC.
    I'll cover that off at the weekend.
    Thanks for that Rob.

    Looking forward to reading your next piece.
  • BrumjamBrumjam
    Connecting the mic is fairly easy Alan. There's diagrams on the REW website. If I managed it for measuring my sub anyone can do it :-)

    Look forward to your update Rob and thanks for the mic recommendation.
  • BrumjamBrumjam
    Not had long but spent some time with Audio Hijack Pro today.  I'm very impressed by it and can see me using it to correct my room issues - interesting to see that the bass issue I experience seems to be around 50db and not lower as I had suspected.  Lots more experimenting required.  I wonder just how much better things would be using REW software, when I can add plug-in's on the fly and hear the difference immediately.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Glad you're getting on with AHP. It's really rather good - especially as I had it already! :-)

    50dB=50Hz?
  • BrumjamBrumjam
    Yeah that's the one :-D
  • coopscoops
    I have been using active room correction for the last couple of years, first with the Trinnov and now with the inbuilt version on the Gnelecs, it make a huge improvement in sq here, I can't really listen now without.
    One of the areas where real gains can be made.
    Keith.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    The question, for me, is whether an expensive piece of specialised hardware can outperform a £20 piece of software running on an old Mac - and, if so, by how much?

    What's this about Genelecs, Keith?
  • coopscoops
    Genelec yes 8260's ,active with crossovers in the digital. domain, built in DAC, built in room correction, I wanted to try some pro speakers here, and they were really extremely good, I can use them with just my MacBook, built in volume control.
    KR Keith.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    I would have thought they'd have been very different from your horns.
  • coopscoops
    edited November 2011
    So did I, I expected them to be harsh and a bit thin sounding, but in fact in terms of tone and timbre they were
    extremely similar to the horns, bass is slightly different character and the scale of the Genelecs is a little smaller.
    I was extremely impressed, getting a pair for my 'studio' ( upstairs bedroom) and a tiny pair plus sub for the office.
    KR Keith.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Wow! I'd have thought they might have been a bit brash.
  • coopscoops
    David yes exactly what I expected, and to be honest I have heard ATC's sounding a bit thin in the past.
    But the Gens are extremely rich, double bass sounds like a double bass, part of the appeal is that the Gens are the dialectic opposite to the horns .
    Active vs passive, digital filtering vs traditional crossover , aluminium extruded case etc.
    KR Keith.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    So are you stocking them now?
  • coopscoops
    Might do, their only disadvantage is the WAF factor, which is on the low side!
    Kind regards
    Keith.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Worse than huge horns?
  • coopscoops
    Oh no not that bad!
    KR Keith.
Sign In or Register to comment.