Stupid question about using EQ.

[paintedklown]

Hey all,

I have a stupid question about using eq. Most audio purists seem to be vehemently against the idea of using EQ for 2 channel (music) listening, but have no problem using it for multi-channel (movies). Admittedly, I am kind of even in this mindset myself.

Having said that, now my stupid question.

Does using eq alter the signal in a way that makes it "incorrect"? Sorry, but I can't think of a better term to use here.

What I am getting at is, does it cause odd timing, phase, or other issues? Something that would theoretically be "damaging" to the incoming signal?

If it doesn't do any damage to the incoming signal, and it can be used to correct frequency response errors when used correctly (REW, calibrated mics, good para-EQ, etc) then should it be something to embrace for music, rather than shun?

I would think the $100 or so bucks to get the hardware and software to do the analysis would be well worth it, and (it seems to me) that your "return on investment" could be quite substantial. Possibly even a better return than buying even more expensive gear to "correct" the problems you are trying to solve.

Any thoughts gang?

[goat1981]

I know people shun EQ; I do not and I am never looking back.

I use a Behringer DEQ2496 in the digital domain to tame room resonance issues. However, I combine it with room treatments so the adjustments aren't too extreme. I also don't touch the mid range at all, as I enjoy the way my speakers are "voiced." I have connected a measurement microphone to the DEQ and the frequency response at my seating position is within a +/- 5 decibel window and is especially flat from 20 - 500Hz.

I think EQ is fine in the digital domain (no perceived loss of resolution), and if it is used wisely. I love the way my system sounds now, and would never remove the DEQ from my 2-channel rig.

[stiehl11]

The reason not to EQ recorded music is mostly due to understanding or misunderstanding what music is about. Listening to music in the home is akin to going to the zoo to see a tiger. The group that wants to "take the room out of the equation" wants to view the tiger just as God had intended it to be in a sanitary white cage with nothing to obscure their viewing of the tiger. The group that doesn't want to EQ or otherwise alter the recording understands that there is nowhere in nature that the "white sanitary cage" environment exist and want to see the tiger in as exact as possible environment which sometimes alters your view of the tiger. This doesn't necessarily exclude room treatments to tame an unruly room, such as a stark, bare, concrete basement.

Ultimately, it's what makes you happy when you're listening to your music, on your system, in your room. If you want to "take the room out", go ahead and do it; it's not wrong (just unnatural). Same goes for if you want to leave it as pure as snow and not affect the signal in any way. Maybe you just want to boost the low-end just a tad so that you can still hear it even though you're not playing at 90+ db. There's no right or wrong way to listen to music. It's about the pleasure you get from listening to it that makes it worthwhile.

[goat1981]

I'm not sure I understand your reply.

When I take the room resonances out of the equation (especially in the bass), the music sounds a lot more "live" and natural.

For example, there is a bad resonance around low E 2 that drives me insane and as well some peaks in the 160hz that make vocals sound very muddy. PEQ in these areas has helped a great deal. Room resonances obscure the music quite a bit in my opinion.

I also have quite a bit of understanding of music (I have a doctorate degree in piano performance) and hear live music very, very often. I'm absolutely not boasting (it's not in my nature), but I think pairing "understanding what music is about" and the use of an equalizer is a bit strange... I am always trying to tune my system to sound more like a "live" performance in my room, and the digital EQ has helped me get closer.

[milsap195]

I like to use my eq between my cable box and pre amp. I will also use it between my Oppo and preamp to tame the highs a little. My thought is use what gets you to the sound you want and quit being so anal about the "purity" Complex some people seem to have!

[stiehl11]

Nov 16, 2013 15:00:40 GMT -5 goat1981 said:

I'm not sure I understand your reply.

When I take the room resonances out of the equation (especially in the bass), the music sounds a lot more "live" and natural.

For example, there is a bad resonance around low E 2 that drives me insane and as well some peaks in the 160hz that make vocals sound very muddy. PEQ in these areas has helped a great deal. Room resonances obscure the music quite a bit in my opinion.

I also have quite a bit of understanding of music (I have a doctorate degree in piano performance) and hear live music very, very often. I'm absolutely not boasting (it's not in my nature), but I think pairing "understanding what music is about" and the use of an equalizer is a bit strange... I am always trying to tune my system to sound more like a "live" performance in my room, and the digital EQ has helped me get closer.

Cool, a fellow musician (clarinet performance, myself).

Let me begin where I ended; there's no right or wrong way to listen to music. My analogy to the zoo is this: if you were to play in 3 different halls with the same piano and measure the response, you would have 3 different measurements even if you were in the same location in each hall. Even if you took that piano and put it in your listening environment you would have a different measurement. Now, if I'm the one in the audience listening to your performance there is nothing that is taking the room (or the hall/venue) out of it. The environment is as active in your performance as your performance. My opinion is that the room or listening environment should not be taken out of the performance (or the reproduction of the performance) except in the worst situations (this would be akin to not putting the tribesmen hunting the tiger in the zoo habitat).

Again, if you prefer listening with the "room out" of equation then that's fine. We simply have a different opinion. I hope that I've clarified my opinion better.

[goat1981]

Nov 16, 2013 15:48:08 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Nov 16, 2013 15:00:40 GMT -5 goat1981 said:

I'm not sure I understand your reply.

When I take the room resonances out of the equation (especially in the bass), the music sounds a lot more "live" and natural.

For example, there is a bad resonance around low E 2 that drives me insane and as well some peaks in the 160hz that make vocals sound very muddy. PEQ in these areas has helped a great deal. Room resonances obscure the music quite a bit in my opinion.

I also have quite a bit of understanding of music (I have a doctorate degree in piano performance) and hear live music very, very often. I'm absolutely not boasting (it's not in my nature), but I think pairing "understanding what music is about" and the use of an equalizer is a bit strange... I am always trying to tune my system to sound more like a "live" performance in my room, and the digital EQ has helped me get closer.

Cool, a fellow musician (clarinet performance, myself).

Let me begin where I ended; there's no right or wrong way to listen to music. My analogy to the zoo is this: if you were to play in 3 different halls with the same piano and measure the response, you would have 3 different measurements even if you were in the same location in each hall. Even if you took that piano and put it in your listening environment you would have a different measurement. Now, if I'm the one in the audience listening to your performance there is nothing that is taking the room (or the hall/venue) out of it. The environment is as active in your performance as your performance. My opinion is that the room or listening environment should not be taken out of the performance (or the reproduction of the performance) except in the worst situations (this would be akin to not putting the tribesmen hunting the tiger in the zoo habitat).

Again, if you prefer listening with the "room out" of equation then that's fine. We simply have a different opinion. I hope that I've clarified my opinion better.

Thanks for the response.

I understand what you're saying better now, I think. Here is my opinion -- and we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

If we've recorded a performance in a given hall or venue (with good recording/mastering technique...), I want the recording on my system to sound as close to that space as possible. I love to hear the hall's ambiance, the clarity, color, and detail of the instrument(s) being recorded, and in the case of large-scale works, a sense of scale and instrument placement. This is the ultimate (and probably impossible to perfectly obtain) goal of my listening room, though I think I have gotten quite close.

I do NOT, however, want my listening room at home adding anything to the sound. My room without treatment had some nasty peaks in the bass that made certain notes stick out like a sore thumb. Other resonances made female vocals sound thick in the lower range. These glaring resonance peaks would not be heard at the original performance in the hall (at least not in any large concert hall I have been to).

Room treatments (bass traps, reflection points) helped tame some of these problems. EQ in the digital domain (the analog signal from the DAC to my preamp is not degraded) helped smooth the response even further. Also, EQ alone doesn't change the sound of the room -- it just helps flatten the response in what room you have. Acoustic treatment is what makes the room sound different (for the better, unless it's overdone and simply deadens the room)

In other words, I don't think EQ takes the listening room out of the equation at all. It just helps (when used wisely) tame some of the frequency response issues a given room has so these issues don't color the sound of the original recording. I don't believe in using EQ without room treatments to absolutely solve room colorations. An EQ cannot get rid of echos and reflections, obviously. However, I definitely don't discount using EQ in a two-channel music to help tame room colorations.

[stiehl11]

^Thanks for your response, as well. You're right; we'll have to agree to disagree... but disagreement isn't all bad. Earlier this Fall, Emotiva had a demonstration of the room correction they're going to be using on their new processor coming out early next year. While I felt that the product did exactly what it claimed, the result was not what I liked. It's a matter of preference and I was in the minority of those in attendance. Poor fellow Emotiva brought over from Sweden to demonstrate the product looked like I kicked his dog when I told him that I didn't like the way it sounded to my ears. In discussing with other Lounge denizens later that day some of those longer in the tooth recalled when Noise Reduction took the "hiss" out of tapes. They likened that I like the sound of the room because I'm used to hearing it. When I no longer heard the room, it was different and I didn't like it because it was different. I could not disagree with their assessment.

[DYohn]

There is nothing wrong with EQ. You are listening to sound in your home for your enjoyment. It will never (never) be "live" nor "natural" nor even "what the artist intended" because it is being played on your system in your home and that will always add its own characteristics to what you hear. SO, if EQ sounds good to you, or makes the experience more pleasing, or makes you feel better about trying to remove as much of the room as you can, then for all means do it. In fact, the absolute best sounding system I have ever heard used significant amounts of several types of EQ. Do what makes you happy!

[paintedklown]

Thanks for the opinions guys. Seems the general consensus is that EQ really is ok after all. LOL!

Just for clarification (I have a thick skull sometimes)I assume that when EQ is done in the digital domain (before the signal is ever converted to analog) then you are essentially "worry free" when it comes to degrading the signal then?

In order to keep 2 channel music in the digital domain, and still have room correction prowess, would you be best suited buying a nice processor (with good built in DACs) vs. buying an external DAC and analog 2 ch preamp? Then simply hook all of your digital sources up via their digital outputs (vs analog outputs)?

In other words, could I be doing myself a favor by NOT saving for the DC-1, selling my XSP-1, and saving for the XMC-1? I seriously cannot believe I am even contemplating such a move. LOL!

[goat1981]

I'm not sure I understand your question. When you say you are thinking of buying a processor, do you mean a digital EQ (like the Behringer DEQ2496) or a processor such as the UMC-200 that is a 7.1 channel (or whatever) unit with video as well?

The Behringer I use is only for two channels, and for audio processing only. I DO NOT use its internal DACs or analog section at all, as I am sure they are not up to par with the rest of my system. However, the digital signal processing in terms of the 31-band EQ and Parametric EQ is very good. It also does automatic EQ if you have a measurement mic, and you can analyze your room's response and tweak it manually as well. It's a nice unit if you avoid the analog inputs/outputs and internal DAC. There are many references on how to use this piece of gear in a 2-channel system online.

Here is how I have my system wired:

Digital Source (CDP, Squeezebox, or computer) --> Behringer DEQ --> Emotiva DC-1 DAC (which will also effectively remove most jitter) --> Tube Preamp --> Crossover for subs --> Amplifiers (both Sub and Mains).

If you're thinking of going the digital EQ route, you should put it between the digital source and a DAC (the DC-1 is exceptional, and can also be used as a preamp). This way it is in the "digital domain" and you still utilize the separate DAC's analog output.

If you're just thinking about getting an XMC-1, then disregard everything I just wrote.