Innnnnnteresting

Quoted from THIS thread on the HFC forum.

So, why are they such a *audiophile* taboo???

The obvious reply is along the lines of "get the kit right in the first place". But as Michael points out, room acoustics and poor recordings are often beyond us and limit our kit from sounding its best.

Surely if they can be done properly without negative effects on the source signal, then why such a no no?

The automatic reply is "pah! No chance", but why? Is t just because no ones managed to design them to a high enough standard? Surely there's got to be some out there.

My limited knowledge of tact gear is that it does pretty much the same but digitaly. Does this overcome the issues?

Sorta seems like the best solution for real world conditions regarding both room and recording quality.

I ask this with an open mind. Please enlighten me.....

MO

 

And if you want a real one go for a BEHRINGER

 

Basicaly, yes. Doing EQ in the digital domain lets you do it with minimal "destructive" effects on the signal that analog EQs typically have (such as phase shift).

However, this guy is suggesting that his EQ "nearly made is TT (sorry, record deck) match his Marantz KI sig as a source" ??? I dread to think what his record deck is

Still, he has a point. There are doubtless some high end systems that would sound a lot better with an EQ (even a good analog one) than without it because of room resonance issues.

Michael.

 

If your equipment is competent then it will have a nominally flat response. An equaliser cannot fix room issues, if you make it flat on pink noise you will still hear the room when playing music. Which leaves the point of an equaliser to second-guessing the recording engineer. Which is way to hifi-nerdy for me. Are you supposed to play with it for each record? Where do you write down what you used last time you played something? There are audiophools who tweak the VTA on their arm/cart for every LP. Too much missing the point for me.

Digital room fixing systems are a different kettle of EQ. Pointless in my present pov but interesting nonetheless.

Paul

 

what's "pink noise" is it the sound a fish makes?

 

Not sure if fish do makes pink noise or not. However, Pink Noise is the signal used to test speakers and set equalization in theaters and other venues. When you tune up your home multimedia system, the noise used to drive the speakers for the volume settings is probably pink noise.

Pink noise has equal energy per octave instead of equal energy per frequency like white noise. In other words, its energy is equal to 1/f, which describes a -3dB/octave response. This means that each octave of increasing frequency should contain half the power of the preceding one.

This 'nerd' :bookworm: answer is from the link below.

http://www.embedded.com/2000/0003/0003spectra.htm

 

I thought another difference potentially is that Tact and possibly others can do correction in the time domain as well. Is this not so?

SteveC

 

mo....glad to see you are discovering something new....modern music can be recorded with loads of studio tools and some of those can be useful in listening....compression is used as singers have poor technique, and it gives a consistent level, eq ...graphic or parametric to make it sound good..., reverb, delay, all sorts of time based effects....


it is audio snobbery tho' to not put something in, and IMHO, really doesn't make that much difference...if you like it better use it...

I tell you what you really need..wait for it...a pychoacoustic enhancer....usually, these use upto 3 techniques, and they can really do wonders...

firstly is harmonic generation....modern recording techniques kill upper frequencies, so they can be restored by this...

2nd...a bit of careful dynamic eq...this is slightly different to a regular eq...

3...frequency dependant phase shifting...this can compensate for speakers and room, and really helps on bass,

at a budget level, you can pick them up for about £70 these makes...afex, behringer again!!, spl, and bbe..I am after one., you will never listen without one again!!

 

An equaliser can compensate for room issues at the bass end. That is, it can reduce the peaks. Filling in the troughs is much more difficult. Such compensation will only work for a particular listening position. Also, the peaks are generally quite high Q (sharp) so digital or parametric equalisation is required.

I agree though that trying to equalize for the room at higher frequencies does much more harm than good so to improve the room above the bass you have to treat it acoustically.

Even for the bass, acoustic treatment should come before equalisation but this sometimes takes up too much space.

 

Im wondering at the quality of his phono stage..

theres something very wrong with his TT setup if a basic marantz cdp beats it hands down IMO.

I suspect he's using the inbuilt phono stage in a basic amp, and if I knew him would suggest an audition of a project phono stage - - the equaliser might then end up back on e-bay!

All guess work mind you, as I dont know his setup.

Chris

 

A good point, bottleneck. I upgraded from a basic B-Tech phono stage (bought in a hurry when I got my AV receiver at Richers) to a Pro-Ject Phono Box. A vast improvement on sound - to the point where I was playing more vinyl than CDs, until I upgraded my CDP.

 

EQ's are fun, erveryone should have one stuck in their tape loop for those times when they want to enjoy their whole music collection rather than critique a small selection.

Valve EQ's are great toys BTW

 

I might be tempted myself if it was possible to get a decent one for not too silly money....

 

I'd rather not try so hard at the bass end. Use small sealed box speakers and just get on with it....

I'd not live with system that required an Aural Exciter to keep me attentive. Homonymics on the sofa are an entirely different matter though.

Paul

 

Well to answer my own question, yes Tact does correct in the time domain also. Ordinary equalisers to not.

SteveC

 

I don't mind the idea of an EQ.

Trouble is every recording as we know is very different, and I think the EQ would detract from musical enjoyment as you woul dneed to adjust it every time a new CD/Vinyl went on, this would in the end become I am sure very frustrating.

Best left.

 

I agree. Get it sounding roughly how you want it (EQ or not) and then leave it alone. Too much fannying around otherwise...

 

Garry i live next door to Mike. and got the 10 band Realistic EQ off him. it made a nice difference, but Mike has now got a PIONEER GR-777 remote controlled job, it has 5 preset + 5 user programmable settings + each frequency can be adjusted from the comfort of your armchair. so this solves the problem of having to jump up and down to your hifi. i dare say there are even more flexible models available.

you can buy them for peanuts nowadays. check out EBAY.COM as well as co uk, but you'll need dual voltage if buying from USA

Mike now has a £3k system and reckons the EQ is easily the best sound per pound upgrade he has done so far. :respect:

 

Hi Bear! Welcome to the forum

We've got a technobear here already. Related? Or are you closer to that dirty wee c#nt on BO Salacta?

How are you finding the eq in your set up?

 

hmm
assume speakers are 20Hz - 20KHz
That'd be 19980 frequencies, how big is the remote