|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 29, 2013 19:51:07 GMT -5
Well, I scored a Radio Shack SPL - Should I now invest in a 1/3 octave equalizer, or will it do more harm than good?
|
|
xki
Emo VIPs 
Gwack!
Posts: 1,756
|
Post by xki on May 29, 2013 20:55:15 GMT -5
It all depends on what you feel is correct or incorrect. Some will say any EQ is a no-no. Some will say that it will make things worse. Some will say, sure, give it a try.
I'm in the group that says.... if it works for you, then it's a keeper.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on May 30, 2013 7:20:18 GMT -5
I'm in the group that says.... if it works for you, then it's a keeper. I'm generally in this group. However, if we're talking two channel, I've never been personally happy with most sound processors. Mostly they do more harm than good IMHO. ... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 30, 2013 9:17:23 GMT -5
Ideally, you should buy neutral components and doctor the room so you don't need EQ. However, life (and stereo) is never ideal. The automatic EQ programs (Audissy, TacT, Emo-Q, YPAO, etc.) are considered highly beneficial for HT use - are the passé for stereo only?
Ignoring the automated programs, some speaker manufacturer (Wilson?) offered their flagship model with in-home setup performed by their technician utilizing a customized 1/3 octave equalizer. It would seem that if it's good enough for multi, multi K$ speakers, there might be some benefit in trying it with lesser contenders?
Or is the "manual" method (a SPL meter + manual equalizer) now bettered by a computer program that will do the analysis and "burn" the results to a dedicated equalizer module? If the latter, what packages are preferred?
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 30, 2013 13:47:10 GMT -5
Like I mentioned in another thread, for stereo music it doesn't work for me, but for multichannel HT in a room that's been reasonably treated mainly for stereo music listening so that it might perhaps be slightly less than ideal for HT, the EmoQ Gen 2 of the UMC-200 is definitely worth using IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 30, 2013 13:58:21 GMT -5
Like I mentioned in another thread, for stereo music it doesn't work for me, but for multichannel HT in a room that's been reasonably treated mainly for stereo music listening so that it might perhaps be slightly less than ideal for HT, the EmoQ Gen 2 of the UMC-200 is definitely worth using IMO. Thanks, yves - I appreciate the info. |
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on May 30, 2013 13:59:07 GMT -5
If your source is digital, it probably makes the most sense to do software EQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 30, 2013 14:03:03 GMT -5
If your source is digital, it probably makes the most sense to do software EQ. Using what software/hardware package? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 30, 2013 14:03:42 GMT -5
First answer - that depends on who you ask. Any EQ is going to involve either a whole lot of op amps (analog EQs) or converting the audio to digital, doing DSP processing on it, and then converting it back again. Many stereo purists don't like doing all this processing to their audio signal. Also bear in mind that no amount of processing is going to be quite as good as having good speakers and a good room. (Surround sound is all encoded, processed, and then decoded by DSP anyway; so doing a bit more processing to get an obvious improvement doesn't seem to have much of a down-side.) Also, since we're talking about 6 or 8 speakers, there would be an AWFUL lot of adjustments to get right on a surround system - and most people aren't willing to do it by hand anyway. I'm not quite clear on how (or why) you would "customize a 1/3 octave equalizer"; a good multi-band parametric EQ will give you more control and less downside than a fixed-band EQ anyway. I think the significant claim there is that Wilson sends a real human to set them up and adjust them for you.... and a lot of that involves moving them around and doing mechanical adjustments - none of which can be done by an auto-EQ program. Your final question is far overgeneralized...... EmoQ can probably do more in fifteen minutes than even the best pro can do in an hour - or the average guy can do in a day. Give the pro a half a day and I would hope he can do better (since his bill is going to be half the cost of the whole unit). He can also move things around, and give you advice about room treatments (which none of those auto-EQ packages will do). The average guy (with no training) will probably never get it even close to either; but, WITH a little training he (or she) will get better (and faster). Auto-EQ systems are more limited. Even EmoQ Gen2, which measures, generates a correction, then re-measures and adjusts the correction - iteratively - is still more limited in scope than a person. It isn't going to make judgement calls like "the imaging seems a bit weak, let's try the speakers toed in 5 degrees more" or "let's try a tapestry on the back wall". It's still limited to working mostly with arrival times, delays, and frequency and power response. Learning how to do it yourself has the added benefit that you can make changes yourself instead of paying your expert for another house call. And, of course, only you can ever know exactly what sounds best to you, which makes you the one best able to do so once you learn the mechanics of how to go about it. Ideally, you should buy neutral components and doctor the room so you don't need EQ. However, life (and stereo) is never ideal. The automatic EQ programs (Audissy, TacT, Emo-Q, YPAO, etc.) are considered highly beneficial for HT use - are the passé for stereo only? Ignoring the automated programs, some speaker manufacturer (Wilson?) offered their flagship model with in-home setup performed by their technician utilizing a customized 1/3 octave equalizer. It would seem that if it's good enough for multi, multi K$ speakers, there might be some benefit in trying it with lesser contenders? Or is the "manual" method (a SPL meter + manual equalizer) now bettered by a computer program that will do the analysis and "burn" the results to a dedicated equalizer module? If the latter, what packages are preferred? |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 30, 2013 14:09:57 GMT -5
Come to think of it, there may be another way to achieve what I want.
The main problem with my 2-way speakers is that the factory has set the tweeter just a few decibels too hot compared to the woofers. The speakers, however, are bi-wireable. That means that they're also bi-ampable!
Since I have spare power amps and speaker wires laying around, a simple passive preamp should allow me to balance the woofers/tweeter by trimming the louder of the two stages. Is there any reason NOT to try this?
The SPL-meter that I have with some frequency-specific tracks from the Stereophile test discs should allow me to match the two sections. Final tuning could be done by ear.
This would also allow the option of playing with the tube/solid-state feeds to the woofers and tweeters. This would also, theoretically, enhance imaging by allowing me to be directly on axis for the speakers.
Thoughts?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 30, 2013 14:10:20 GMT -5
Let's also keep this in context..... You can pay an expert to come in and set up your system (and give you his advice) for whatever system you have. That's really what we're talking about. (The fact that Wilson throws in that service when you buy their VERY expensive speakers is both a nice - but not unreasonable - extra, and a tacit admission that their speakers aren't going to sound their best without professional setup and configuration.) In many situations, an auto-EQ program may be able to do "a perfect job" (meaning that it will get the best *possible* performance from your system and room). In other situations, a pro will notice or adjust *other* things that will truly make a positive difference. Which one applies to you will depend on a whole slew of things...... Ideally, you should buy neutral components and doctor the room so you don't need EQ. However, life (and stereo) is never ideal. The automatic EQ programs (Audissy, TacT, Emo-Q, YPAO, etc.) are considered highly beneficial for HT use - are the passé for stereo only? Ignoring the automated programs, some speaker manufacturer (Wilson?) offered their flagship model with in-home setup performed by their technician utilizing a customized 1/3 octave equalizer. It would seem that if it's good enough for multi, multi K$ speakers, there might be some benefit in trying it with lesser contenders? Or is the "manual" method (a SPL meter + manual equalizer) now bettered by a computer program that will do the analysis and "burn" the results to a dedicated equalizer module? If the latter, what packages are preferred? |
|
|
|
Post by arthurz on May 30, 2013 14:10:38 GMT -5
If your source is digital, it probably makes the most sense to do software EQ. Using what software/hardware package? On the Mac, the most powerful option I've used is Soundflower + Adobe Audition. You can also use the free tool AU Lab instead of Adobe Audition. I imagine Audacity is also a perfectly fine option for EQ. For a simpler equalizer, you can use the one built into Vox, which is a nice minimalist player that's capable of automatically adjusting the output sampling rate like JRiver. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 30, 2013 14:17:58 GMT -5
...You can pay an expert to come in and set up your system... My "expert" is Garbulky, who will work for dinner, provided I'm cruel enough to make him come do it!  ...In many situations, an auto-EQ program may be able to do "a perfect job"...In other situations, a pro will notice or adjust *other* things that will truly make a positive difference I'm probably not in the market for anything as sophisticated as Emo-Q. If I had a "tone control," with the turnover point at the crossover frequency of my speakers, that would work OK too. For the time being, I'll just investigate some software equalizers and see what I can do. Thanks again for the excellent info, Keith - it is appreciated! |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 30, 2013 15:00:44 GMT -5
Well, come to find out that iTunes has a built-in equalizer that seems capable of handling my problem. For ANYONE using iTunes as a source, DO experiment with the equalizer - some amazing improvements are available from minor equalization changes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 6, 2013 19:41:33 GMT -5
For anyone using iTunes, DON'T use the equalizer - It messes up your sound. Turn it on & make a few adjustments - then turn it off & feel your ears relax. It does what it is supposed to, but ultimately I think you'll prefer the sound without it. Live & learn...
|
|
