Poll: do you use EQ/DSP, and if so what kind of system is it used on.

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You need a better sounding system! Probably down to nasty speakers!

Once again, you have fundamental misunderstandings.

 

[billyjoebob]

I'm sorry, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how most of us use EQ. We aren't "fiddling all the time." We set it and forget it. Once it's done, you no longer fiddle at all. No adjusting bass for different tracks. You say yourself you "settle for a happy medium." Well, we settle for a happy place that is based on eliminating as many issues as possible and then enjoying our music.

I'm sorry as well, cause your assumption is absolutely incorrect!
Instead of attempting to degrade me, how about offering up something of substance.
The very fact that I asked this question in the 1st place is because I am trying to understand some other viewpoints. Blanket statements like vinyl & tube users are are the ones tailoring a sound is not really helpful.
Using tools to help tailor a sound is sound is perfectly understandable.
Why not just say that?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'm being patronized again.
Let's reverse it.
You need a better sounding system! Probably down to nasty speakers!
If you have room issues, then I get the need for detailed EQ with DSPs etc.... But that is more involved that just some EQ...

Everybody has room issues to some degree. And speaker issues. That's the point. And it's really not much more involved than some EQ if you're just interested in trying to minimize some things at the listening position. There's only so much you can do and it's not perfect, but it can help.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'm sorry as well, cause your assumption is absolutely incorrect!
Instead of attempting to degrade me, how about offering up something of substance.
The very fact that I asked this question in the 1st place is because I am trying to understand some other viewpoints. Blanket statements like vinyl & tube users are are the ones tailoring a sound is not really helpful.
Using tools to help tailor a sound is sound is perfectly understandable.
Why not just say that?

First, the thing you quoted was not directed at you.

Second, I'm trying to explain to you the viewpoint of many of us regrading EQ since you are under the impression that we are using it to tailor our sound in some subjective, creative, I'd like a little more bass or a little more mids (or to try and get some sort of tube harmonics sound or something) sort of way. Most of us are not doing that. We are simply using EQ to deal with issues caused by room reflections and bass modes and so forth to attempt to get our recordings to our ears with fewer distortions rather than more.

 

[billyjoebob]

First, the thing you quoted was not directed at you.

Second, I'm trying to explain to you the viewpoint of many of us regrading EQ since you are under the impression that we are using it to tailor our sound in some subjective, creative, I'd like a little more bass or a little more mids (or to try and get some sort of tube harmonics sound or something) sort of way. Most of us are not doing that. We are simply using EQ to deal with issues caused by room reflections and bass modes and so forth to attempt to get our recordings to our ears with fewer distortions rather than more.

My apologies!
And again I understand the need and uses of DSP, and you may not be included in this, but I have certainly seen posts that suggest different.
I am really posting this question to learn.

 

[staticV3]

For me, I prefer the audio when I dont mess with it and let it play as it should.

I use EQ to correct the frequency response of my headphones and IEMs.
For me, EQ is a means to make the music play as it should.
Without EQ, my headphones distort the music.

 

[Chrispy]

Using eq whether to address room issues (which all rooms in typical homes have, particularly below Schroeder) or just to emphasize some frequencies you want still boils down to a preference....why would it matter to others what your preferences are or what kind of gear you use it with? If you don't want to use eq/dsp, don't. I prefer using it. Much playback of a performance isn't at the volume of the original performance, so having a loudness contour can help that out, but still a preference as to how you want to hear the playback if you don't want to adjust for that.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Using eq whether to address room issues (which all rooms in typical homes have, particularly below Schroeder) or just to emphasize some frequencies you want still boils down to a preference....

Sure, I suppose so. I do prefer to try and minimize distortions caused by my room...so yes it's a preference.

 

[Vacceo]

My apologies!
And again I understand the need and uses of DSP, and you may not be included in this, but I have certainly seen posts that suggest different.
I am really posting this question to learn.

EQ can help a lot with a south European classic feature of inhabited spaces: tiled floors.

Rugs and carpets are the first layer, but in larger areas, you cannot or do not want to cover everything with fabric. EQ helps a lot on those instances.

 

[Chrispy]

Sure, I suppose so. I do prefer to try and minimize distortions caused by my room...so yes it's a preference.

I like to do that as well....as a baseline

 

[itz_all_about_the_music]

I'm sorry, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how most of us use EQ. We aren't "fiddling all the time." We set it and forget it. Once it's done, you no longer fiddle at all. No adjusting bass for different tracks. You say yourself you "settle for a happy medium." Well, we settle for a happy place that is based on eliminating as many issues as possible and then enjoying our music.

"No adjusting bass for different tracks."? Really?

And your listening library consists of music of differing genres, recordings done in concert halls, outdoor shows, heavily produced Pro Tools mixed "modern" stuff, electronica, close miked upright bass, pipe organ...as infinitum, AND YOU NEEDN'T ADJUST BASS? Or are you always listening to the same material/production/mix/artist/venue?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

"No adjusting bass for different tracks."? Really?

And your listening library consists of music of differing genres, recordings done in concert halls, outdoor shows, heavily produced Pro Tools mixed "modern" stuff, electronica, close miked upright bass, pipe organ...as infinitum, AND YOU NEEDN'T ADJUST BASS? Or are you always listening to the same material/production/mix/artist/venue?

Once you have your set up tuned for your room, such that to the best of your ability you've balanced the tonality and you are getting things out there without your room causing weirdness...why would you need to adjust the bass for different recordings? Assuming a good recording, is the bass not where it's supposed to be? If it's a bad recording, am I supposed to fix it? When I listen to Aphex Twin or Boards of Canada, there's lots of great clean bass. When I listen to Sinatra, or Joni Mitchell, there's less bass, but still the bass that is supposed to be there is there. When I listen to The Ramones, the amount of bass the recording contains is there...

 

[JRS]

Absolutely use it and have done so for 20 years. The utility is obvious in theoretical terms, and while exemplary FR is much, much more common now vs then, the fact that there are an ever increasing number of cost no object SOTA systems employing active amplification with DSP would seem to suggest that the old school, passively crossed over loudspeakers are a compromise, and possibly headed for extinction as the younger generation supplants today's well heeled audiophiles (and their typical abhorrence of altering the musical signal).

I don't see DSP as a gimmick any more than a highly computerized F1 race car achieves superior efficiency and fuel efficiency over anything ever built. Once upon a time I viewed tone controls with suspicion, if not disdain--that being the prevailing philosophy of the time, a prejudice even M. Levinson was unable to overcome with his uber expensive "Palette" equalizer.

What I have found to be the case, the better (and typically more expensive) the speaker, the smaller the reward. I see the real sweet spot for performance enhancement to be in the several hundred to several thousand dollar range, with perhaps an ever diminishing difference between a four thousand dollar/pr and forty thousand dollar a pair speakers.

And of course, this is just the speakers--being able to tame bass nodes and ameliorate the more egregious recording/mastering errors are other areas of enormous benefit. I agree that passive efforts to correct room response is always the place to start, but judicious use of EQ can reap additional benefits and/or keep room decor mostly intact as few of us have dedicated spaces. Finally, while ATMOS or some other MCh approach to envelopment is the future, ground breaking work on stereo sound staging has been achieved using head torso transfer function, high DI and sophisticated DSP to minimize the deleterious effect of the wrong channel in the wrong ear errors that degrade 2 channel playback.

Can it be overcooked? Without a doubt, which is one major barrier to wider acceptance and one reason why sales of high end DSP products come with the recommedation of using a trained tech to set up systems.

 

[itz_all_about_the_music]

Once you have your set up tuned for your room, such that to the best of your ability you've balanced the tonality and you are getting things out there without your room causing weirdness...why would you need to adjust the bass for different recordings? Assuming a good recording, is the bass not where it's supposed to be? If it's a bad recording, am I supposed to fix it? When I listen to Aphex Twin or Boards of Canada, there's lots of great clean bass. When I listen to Sinatra, or Joni Mitchell, there's less bass, but still the bass that is supposed to be there is there. When I listen to The Ramones, the amount of bass the recording contains is there...

"...why would you need to adjust the bass for different recordings?" Simply because not all recordings are done equally well, in identical venues, by the same recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers.

"Assuming a good recording..." can't be "assumed". They are mostly/all "different". That's the point. That's why, if one's system/room produces deep flat bass, adjusting the bass for different tracks is essential. Now if one's system/room isn't capable, one likely won't hear/perceive what they're missing.

 

[gnarly]

I totally use some form of EQ on any system i'm running ..........simply can no longer live without it.

1. Recordings vary so vastly in their tonality, sometimes even track to track on same album.
2. Fletcher-Munson....i listen at levels from high to low.
3. Room responses are not linear vs SPL either, afaict.
Resonances seem to stay dormant until a certain SPL is met. and i'm convinced a room's tonality changes as various items/furnishings absorption capacity is consumed.

Here's my current method for EQ / tone control of a 5-way system.
In the past, i used a bank of parametric or graphic EQs, but this method has a fader for each driver section, and the xovers work in a way that doesn't mess phase up, like normal EQs do.

 

[Vacceo]

Absolutely use it and have done so for 20 years. The utility is obvious in theoretical terms, and while exemplary FR is much, much more common now vs then, the fact that there are an ever increasing number of cost no object SOTA systems employing active amplification with DSP would seem to suggest that the old school, passively crossed over loudspeakers are a compromise, and possibly headed for extinction as the younger generation supplants today's well heeled audiophiles (and their typical abhorrence of altering the musical signal).

I don't see DSP as a gimmick any more than a highly computerized F1 race car achieves superior efficiency and fuel efficiency over anything ever built. Once upon a time I viewed tone controls with suspicion, if not disdain--that being the prevailing philosophy of the time, a prejudice even M. Levinson was unable to overcome with his uber expensive "Palette" equalizer.

What I have found to be the case, the better (and typically more expensive) the speaker, the smaller the reward. I see the real sweet spot for performance enhancement to be in the several hundred to several thousand dollar range, with perhaps an ever diminishing difference between a four thousand dollar/pr and forty thousand dollar a pair speakers.

And of course, this is just the speakers--being able to tame bass nodes and ameliorate the more egregious recording/mastering errors are other areas of enormous benefit. I agree that passive efforts to correct room response is always the place to start, but judicious use of EQ can reap additional benefits and/or keep room decor mostly intact as few of us have dedicated spaces. Finally, while ATMOS or some other MCh approach to envelopment is the future, ground breaking work on stereo sound staging has been achieved using head torso transfer function, high DI and sophisticated DSP to minimize the deleterious effect of the wrong channel in the wrong ear errors that degrade 2 channel playback.

Can it be overcooked? Without a doubt, which is one major barrier to wider acceptance and one reason why sales of high end DSP products come with the recommedation of using a trained tech to set up systems.

The problem is that we don't listen to the signal; we listen to the signal on an environment and reproduced by a system. Luckily, at this time, the gear can be summarized to just the speakers or headphones, as the rest of the chain is relatively easy to keep transparent.

EQ is a way to clear as much of the room and gear as possible so I can get closer to the signal and just the signal.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

"...why would you need to adjust the bass for different recordings?" Simply because not all recordings are done equally well, in identical venues, by the same recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers.

"Assuming a good recording..." can't be "assumed". They are mostly/all "different". That's the point. That's why, if one's system/room produces deep flat bass, adjusting the bass for different tracks is essential. Now if one's system/room isn't capable, one likely won't hear/perceive what they're missing.

I'm sorry, but that's some odd logic. First of all, I'm not worried about fixing bad recordings. Most recordings are pretty good. I'm not adjusting things just to try and fix the odd bad one. Second, yes...recordings are all different...so why would I adjust anything to try and alter those differences?? If a recording has less bass...it has less bass. If I know my system in my room is not adding or subtracting bass energy from the recording (as I said, to the best of my ability) then the bass is just the bass.

 

[xaviescacs]

I only use RME ADI FS embedded EQ. What I value of this solution, namely, apply EQ just before reproduction, is separating duties. With the exception of Roon, which is not worth the price for me, I don't like other software's approaches to EQ. Also, and not less important, this way I don't depend on OS or streaming software. I work with computers and I don't want to be entangled with them in my leisure time.

 

[Vacceo]

I'm sorry, but that's some odd logic. First of all, I'm not worried about fixing bad recordings. Most recordings are pretty good. I'm not adjusting things just to try and fix the odd bad one. Second, yes...recordings are all different...so why would I adjust anything to try and alter those differences?? If a recording has less bass...it has less bass. If I know my system in my room is not adding or subtracting bass energy from the recording (as I said, to the best of my ability) then the bass is just the bass.

I love 'bad' recordings in part because they are 'bad'. Slayer's Hell Awaits is a perfect case of poorly recorded material where the distortion and dirt actually add to the overall artistic value.

Art does not have to be beautiful or nice to be art.

 

[coonmanx]

I have three systems. They all have an EQ. Those EQ's are used judiciously... no smiley faces. Just a little tweak.