Who can't listen without EQ anymore?

[Ropeburn]

Strong statement, I agree, but there are some headphones and speaker set-ups I really can’t enjoy fully without EQ. I have one set of headphones which are completely awful without yet add in EQ, and they are transformed more or less into a very competent decent listening experience to match some of my best.

I too am not completely fussy and do have the odd Bluetooth speaker here and there which are perfectly adequate for listening to the radio or whatever, but if there’s the option to tweak, I think I usually start fiddling. Even my car has had its bass and treble adjusted to my liking, otherwise it just sounds, too boomy and bright.

Hm. If you desperately need EQ for a "more or less very decent" experience, doesn't that mean these just aren't very good, or at least not for you? It has been said above: if it's awful without EQ, is it any good to begin with?

 

[obsessive9119]

What headphones did you settle on that didnt need EQ?

Senn HD560S (tho they are a bit light on bass, depending on what you’re listening to) and Truthear GATE IEMs.

The Truthears are like $15 and sound nigh-on perfect to me.

 

[Peterinvan]

I don't use EQ. Instead I need the old bass and treble knobs. Reason is different mixed sound structure of music files and bass settings needed according to the listening sound level. And of course I like a fat bass listening blues, rocknroll and big band with brass instruments.

The elephant in the room is that our hearing gets worse as we get older. I go for the analogue tone controls as well...

 

[MattHooper]

The thing is that natural sounds, instruments,etc never bothered me, the opposite.

Generally, speaking, same here.

I’ve paid a lot of attention to the character of live sound (especially unamplified) versus reproduced sound, and my generalization (which of course admits of exceptions) is that reproduced sound tends to be more spiky, electronic, and artificial sounding, and especially thinner and leaner and less harmonically rich than the real thing.

I’ve been in the presence of plenty of single violins playing right in front of me, and what always strikes me is how much bigger thicker and richer the instrument sounds versus any reproduction I’ve heard. Even when they play up high on the highest string, bowing a single note, I’m struck by how much rounder and thicker the tone is than the same strings played by the same instrument on a recording through a sound system. It’s like the reproduced violin sounds stripped of some of its body and harmonics. And this is one reason why real instruments sound to me
“ warmer” (and often easy to listen to) than the more thread bear counterparts on recordings and sound systems.

My feeling is that once an instrument is recorded, starting with microphone colorations and all down the line to manipulation in the studio, right out through loudspeakers and their limitations and the limitations of stereo, etc…. It leads to this general type of diminishment and artificiality.

(And this is a major reason why I keep running back to my old school tube amps, which I perceive - not trying to prove this here ! - to add just the right type of characteristics back in to the sound that I most miss from the real thing, the sound becoming more organic to my ears and less artificial and mechanical).

 

[Ropeburn]

Generally, speaking, same here.

I’ve paid a lot of attention to the character of live sound (especially unamplified) versus reproduced sound, and my generalization (which of course admits of exceptions) is that reproduced sound tends to be more spiky, electronic, and artificial sounding, and especially thinner and leaner and less harmonically rich than the real thing.

My feeling is that once an instrument is recorded, starting with microphone colorations and all down the line to manipulation in the studio, right out through loudspeakers and their limitations and the limitations of stereo, etc…. It leads to this general type of diminishment and artificiality.

Hm. Could this simply be due to the usual recording methods trying to eliminate room response, which of course you fully hear live? Less room, less harmonics.

And maybe there's an uncanny valley effect going on? On one side, the live sound in the concert hall. In the valley, the recorded sound with much less room. On the other side, fully electronic sound with big artificial reverb, like this one:

Synth bass I made, courtesy @Flaesh for analysing.

Doesn't get any more electronic and artificial than that. Rich spectrum. Very toned down even, could be much richer with instrument filter open.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

I suppose I'm an outlier here since I almost never use "equalization" when I'm listening at home. "Equalization" in quotes since filters that affect frequency response are almost never used to make the response equal, i.e. all audible frequencies reproduced equally.

The RIAA curve, properly implemented, is equalization. Same with the tweaks you do to an analog tape recorder when setting bias and EQ. Back when we would send an analog signal multiple kilo-feet* we'd compensate for the high frequency loss by equalizing i.e. boosting the highs. Tone controls, loudness buttons, graphics, parametrics, etc, are rarely if ever used to equalize frequency response.

And in my professional experience, usually less "EQ" is better, and if you can address the underlying issue instead of reaching for the EQ knob the results will be better. It has it's place in audio production, but as with so many other things in life, somewhere between not enough and too much is just right.

Just my $.02. If you want to whomp the tone controls all over the place, don't let me stop you.

* the phone company used the kilo-foot as their unit of length. Not my idea.

 

[coonmanx]

There is nothing wrong with enjoying the good old smiley curve.

Or with subjectivity in general. It's music, it's supposed to trigger an emotional response. Without that, it's pretty much worthless.

The most important things I learned on here the last two years is how hard data and facts translate to subjective perception, and what my taste factually means. Can't overstate the usefulness of that for choosing gear.

Smiley curve is nothing but lazy and I don't think that the person who sets things that way is actually doing any listening while tuning things. When I set the EQ, I go through each band one by one, drop the frequency completely out and then bring the slider up to where it sounds right. And with EQ less is more. My EQ curve is quite tame frankly. A slight low end boost, then a small drop through the mids and finally a bit of roll off on the very top end. But most sliders are within a couple dB of zero. Just looked and my current curve has a maximum deviaton from zero of only 2 dB. So really it is nothing more than a slight tweak. Kind of like just adding a bit of salt to food (or maybe some cayenne pepper).

 

[coonmanx]

My TV listening system has speakers that are two way with an 8" woofer and a dome tweeter. I use a 10 band EQ for that and the lowest slider at 32 Hz gets a slight boost just to get a little bit of impact. Not the same with my music listening system. That has speakers with 6.5" woofers and a dome tweeter as well. For that I just use a 7 band EQ because there is no reason to try to EQ a bunch of 32 Hz boost with the smaller woofer. I can get a bit of punch by using the 63 Hz slider but I don't overdo it because then it will just get mushy. Also living in an apartment I don't want to really push the bass through the walls either.

I do sometimes listen to music through the "TV system" and that still sounds very good. But neither system uses a drastic EQ curve. Like I said previously... I am just adding a little bit of spice to the mix...

 

[Ropeburn]

Smiley curve is nothing but lazy and I don't think that the person who sets things that way is actually doing any listening while tuning things. When I set the EQ, I go through each band one by one, drop the frequency completely out and then bring the slider up to where it sounds right. And with EQ less is more. My EQ curve is quite tame frankly. A slight low end boost, then a small drop through the mids and finally a bit of roll off on the very top end. But most sliders are within a couple dB of zero. Just looked and my current curve has a maximum deviaton from zero of only 2 dB. So really it is nothing more than a slight tweak. Kind of like just adding a bit of salt to food (or maybe some cayenne pepper).

Graphic EQ (as "band by band" suggests) is just lazy. As opposed to parametric EQ.

But seriously, that method you're describing is prone to skew your perception. Perception is relative, you get used to a sound within seconds. If you cut a band completely, a few seconds later your brain adapts and now uses that as a reference. Then you raise it again, and what "sounds right" is now something different as it used to be just seconds before.

Do that with every band on a graphic EQ, and you're seriously re-training your own perception over all bands. That seems really weird! But you do you.

Personally I don't use EQ precisely because I just accept what's already there, as long as it seems good enough. No need to retrain my brain, just take the reference as it is. The starting point is neutral gear including speakers, plus room behaviour.

Then, magic happens: the smiley curve is already built into pretty much all my favourite music! Et voilà, great sound to my ears. Hooray! Life can be so simple if you let it be.

In the end, I'm the real lazy one here because I just let my brain do the work automatically, adapt to the room which is natural, and the musicians and their work.

 

[Mike123]

A strange children's theme for measuring who has more. With my brain, my ears, my room, and my speakers, I use an equalizer on the music I listen to. How adults can compare completely different patterns and, most importantly, prove others wrong—I completely fail to understand. Everyone is right, as long as it's fun. Digital equalizers are practically free these days and offer the cheapest way to eliminate certain imperfections at the listening position. Whether to use it or not is up to each individual to decide. At first, I listened without an equalizer. Now with an equalizer. The effect is not only positive, but so great that now I won't listen to anything in this room without an equalizer.

 

[Leporello]

With speakers and sub I use room correction because the boominess is blatantly obvious ( to my ears, that is). With headphones, no eq - and this is because there would be then no end to constant fiddling with the sliders and knobs.

 

[Mark the Monk]

On my main stereo system no EQ at all no tone controls or even balance and im very happy with the sound, On HT system i dont use Audyssey at all i set it all up by ear and i do use the EQ on that right down to each individual speaker. I also have a near field type system used for back ground music gaming and apply tone control centered at 12 o'clock then add + 1 click bass and - 2 clicks of treble speakers are only 1.2 mtr away.

I believe its all up to the listener to decide how they want there music presented to them.