View Full Version : Graphic Equalizers
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 01:22
Loads of people slate graphics understandable with the rubbish their is/has been about, the purests etc that like to play games the hard way but never get there in the end :lol: , but i've always been a fan of a properly designed EQ, shitty ones just destroy music but get a proper one like the Klark Teknik '360' & your laughing.I had one of these 15 years ago & it got me out of some right scrapes, i'd dropped bollocks with, i actually bid for one on E-bay last week but missed it, your talking a good 500 earth pounds second hand for a stereo set.Every recording studio worth their salt used Klarkteknik, proper British EQ's.
http://www.klarkteknik.com/images/content/products/product_shots/dn360/dn360-front.jpg
Get yourself a 96 channel 24bit/96kHz recorder while your at it
http://www.klarkteknik.com/images/content/products/product_shots/dn9696/dn9696-front.jpg
:stalks:
All I'm getting is a dark blank screen with the first link, dude....
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 08:32
All I'm getting is a dark blank screen with the first link, dude....
Marco.
It's there, just opened it, the pics stuck in the middle of black, scroll up a bit..
Haselsh1
04-01-2010, 08:56
Graphic Equalisers don't cure a problem. All they do is make it less audible. The problem is still there are can still be heard just at a lower volume.
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 09:02
Better than spending thousands on lifeless stereos that no one can master innit :lol:
Soz, didn't scroll down enough.... It still looks like a load of old shite to me. I wouldn't put one of those, mate, anywhere near my system! :eyebrows:
You know the score with this nonsense, as far as I'm concerned ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 10:59
Tell every top line engineer their shit then...Owd wayz eh owd wayz
LOL... Andre, there are different requirements for handling music in a studio than there are for playing it back on a high-resolution hi-fi system at home.
Come on, do you honestly think that one of those would improve the likes of the system I'm using, or for that matter, that belonging to others like me?
It might be ok if you're after a 'quick fix', but we don't do 'quick fixes' here on AoS ;)
Marco.
Marco, ALMOST EVERY vintage LP recording you own has been equalised IN THE ANALOGUE DOMAIN!!!!!
I said elsewhere that I used a JVC 10 band equaliser with little to no change in resolution or sound balance and I can assure you that the Klark Teknik pro equalisers (which we stocked at KJ in the mid seventies) were rather better than that.
I totally agree that an equaliser isn't going to cure a problem, but in certain circumstances, it may just help, especially the current digitsl ones...
I must admit that in my well damped room and often gummy ears (recurring adult version of glue-ear) that I could do with a slight switchable boost in the system around 1 - 5KHz (one reason why I can't get on with many euphonic sounding cartridges). I wish I'd kept the JVC equaliser and shoved it in the tape loop..
Marco, ALMOST EVERY vintage LP recording you own has been equalised IN THE ANALOGUE DOMAIN!!!!!
Yes, of course, but I don't need another bloody one to equalise it AGAIN at the other end!!!!!!
;)
That is *not* what hi-fi is about, or at least what I consider it to be about. The only 'equaliser' I need for vinyl is the one automatically built into my phono stage.
I totally agree that an equaliser isn't going to cure a problem, but in certain circumstances, it may just help, especially the current digitsl ones...
I hate 'sticking plasters' in hi-fi, Dave, - always have, always will. If you've got a problem with something - sort it out at source!
Marco.
spendorman
04-01-2010, 13:06
There are supposed to be some quite affordable (and good) Yamaha graphic equalizers around.
Think the model that I was recommended is the Yamaha Q2031A.
Some on e bay at present.
Tell that to the folk who shop for their hi-fi gear at Dixons! ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 14:09
or China :)
Haselsh1
04-01-2010, 14:33
I'll simply reiterate what I've already said; If you have a problem with your hi-fi system, a graphic equaliser will not cure it. The problem will still be there.
Indeed. Cure it/fix once and for all, rather than cover it up with a bloody bandage in the hope that the fairies will make it better! :lol:
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 15:17
I'll simply reiterate what I've already said; If you have a problem with your hi-fi system, a graphic equaliser will not cure it. The problem will still be there.
Look at it this way.
90% of your recording sound great but the other 10% are poor mastered & flat, what is the harm in a bit of treble lift etc to make em sound at least acceptable.As mention the EQ isnt in the signal chain perminant can be bypassed by one little press button! all i'm getting at is giving the bad a bit of boost when required.
Look at it this way.
90% of your recording sound great but the other 10% are poor mastered & flat, what is the harm in a bit of treble lift etc to make em sound at least acceptable.
There's no harm whatsoever, but it's not what high-fidelity is about - in fact, it's the total opposite. It's your system and music, though, so you're the boss!
Marco.
My opinion is that an equalizer is still the best way of curing important (+-10dB or more) ups and downs due to room acoustics on the low frequencies.
Bass traps are too expensive and not always possible to place in an average (human) room.
Of course, you can change your house, but sometimes an equalizer is more a practical solution. ;)
Nevertheless, if you use equalization over 500Hz, as Marco says, you're doing more wrong than right. There are better solutions in these frequencies.
Imho, afaik, all that. :)
My opinion is that an equalizer is still the best way of curing important (+-10dB or more) ups and downs due to room acoustics on the low frequencies.
That's fine, Dimitri, as it's your opinion, but I'd simply find more suitable equipment or speakers, or improve the set-up of such in some way in an attempt to cure the problem.
If that didn't work, then I'd try some room treatment, and if that didn't work, I'd move house! :lol:
But the LAST thing I'd use is a bloody graphic equaliser!!! I'm afraid that it goes against all my principles.
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 15:58
O dear Marco you are either obsessed or more time & money on your hands or just a Audio Jehovas witness :lol:
That's fine, Dimitri, as it's your opinion, but I'd simply find more suitable equipment or speakers, or improve the set-up of such in some way in an attempt to cure the problem.
If that didn't work, then I'd try some room treatment, and if that didn't work, I'd move house! :lol:
But the LAST thing I'd use is a bloody graphic equaliser!!! I'm afraid that it goes against all my principles.
Marco.
The only acoustic treatment for low frequencies is bass traps, Marco. The size of the trap depends on the frequency, thus it is virtually impossible to place a trap for certain frequencies in most rooms...
There are only five solutions left:
- buying speakers that don't go down to the desired frequency
- placing your speakers in another way
- move house
- getting used to it
- using an equalizer
I mean, there's nothing that can give you +-10dB on 90Hz : not even speakers... never mind about amps or whatever else (usually much flatter than speakers).
But perhaps I miss some point here ? :scratch:
O dear Marco you are either obsessed or more time & money on your hands or just a Audio Jehovas witness :lol:
Hahaha.....
What I'm getting at dude is that using a graphic equaliser would not 'cure' the problem for me, as it appears to do for you - all that would happen is I'd hear the added distortion of the equaliser, which would probably do my nut in more than the duff recording it's supposed to be 'improving'! ;)
Ya gets me now?
The reality is I that I learn to live with the poor recordings, which really never sound that bad to me, as well as revelling in how fantastic the good ones are reproduced :)
Dimitri,
The only acoustic treatment for low frequencies is bass traps, Marco. The size of the trap depends on the frequency, thus it is virtually impossible to place a trap for certain frequencies in most rooms...
There are only five solutions left:
- buying speakers that don't go down to the desired frequency
- placing your speakers in another way
- move house
- getting used to it
- using an equalizer
Absolutely. I'd entertain every one, if necessary, except No5!
Marco.
Oh how wonderful, and cursed, is it to have total perfection in one's life :ner: :eyebrows:
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 18:12
:lolsign:
Oh how wonderful, and cursed, is it to have total perfection in one's life :ner: :eyebrows:
I'll sell you the secret recipe for a nominal fee!
Marco.
I'll sell you the secret recipe for a nominal fee!
Dave, I would avoid that ! He didn't mention the payment method ! :lol:
Haselsh1
04-01-2010, 18:56
Dave, I would avoid that ! He didn't mention the payment method ! :lol:
Paypal will do...!
I agree that as long as your main hi-fi problem is purely tonal, a graphic equaliser may correct for anomalies. If your problem is more specific such as sibilance, a graphic equaliser would be no use nor ornament. All it would do is reduce your treble response; the anomaly would still be there and audible.
Hi Shaun,
I agree that as long as your main hi-fi problem is purely tonal, a graphic equaliser may correct for anomalies...
...and simultaneously add its own form of distortion which may or may not be more audible than the tonal anomalies it's supposedly been introduced to 'fix'.... ;)
Choose yer compromise!
As they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch, so always go for the 'low-fat', more natural, option! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Perhaps a valve equalizer ? :)
(runs far away...)
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 19:36
Perhaps a valve equalizer ? :)
(runs far away...)
Here goes the best Drawmer 1961..Made just over the back from our house
http://www.transaudiogroup.com/uploads/images/products/Drawmer/1961_large.jpg
Here goes the best Drawmer 1961..Made just over the back from our house
http://www.transaudiogroup.com/uploads/images/products/Drawmer/1961_large.jpg:eek:
Very interesting Andre ! How much ? :scratch:
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 19:48
:eek:
Very interesting Andre ! How much ? :scratch:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1994_articles/may94/drawmer1961.html
;)
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1994_articles/may94/drawmer1961.html
;)Ouch ! :( Too much for me. pity.
Haselsh1
04-01-2010, 19:56
Ouch ! :( Too much for me. pity.
Yeah; just think what a grand would buy you in proper hi-fi (which the Drawmer isn't)...???
Well, actually ART makes a tube EQ for less than £200, anyway.
Still more expensive is a Manley : http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/masspass99.html
Rare Bird
04-01-2010, 20:14
You heard one then Shaun, i've been in the workshop they are made by hand & a lot better/neater than most so called hifi
In this instance, Andre, I don't think it matters whether Shaun's heard one or not - in his view (as in mine) ALL equalisers are bad, no matter how well they're designed.
I think it's probably best to drop the subject now dude as we're just going round in circles. You're entitled to like (or dislike) what you want, same as we are :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
04-01-2010, 23:17
Marco, as far as I am concerned, the subject is closed. I have my views as do we all.
The Grand Wazoo
04-01-2010, 23:43
Do you mind if I open the subject again?
Well............ maybe if I can just fold back one little corner of it...........
I've never felt the need for any type of EQ and the gut instinct is to agree with Sean & Marco - deal with problems at source.
But.
Sometimes, you can't get at the source to deal with it.
Maybe you two might take a few moments to read this. Whatever you may think of certain US audio magazines and certain pricey US brands, I think some of this makes a lot of sense.
See what you think.
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/692cello/#
A Clue..............
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2676/3857601037_b69791cf53.jpg
Steve Toy
05-01-2010, 02:49
Graphic equaliers are not hi-fi. They are something else.
Sometimes, you can't get at the source to deal with it.
Maybe you two might take a few moments to read this. Whatever you may think of certain US audio magazines and certain pricey US brands, I think some of this makes a lot of sense.
See what you think.
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/692cello/#
A Clue..............
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2676/3857601037_b69791cf53.jpg
Chris,
Hi-fi is all about compromises; none of us can ever attain perfection, so we therefore choose our compromises/select our priorities, based on what we believe is the best approach.
I'm aware of the Cello, and I'm sure it must have some desirable attributes, but I'm afraid that it represents the complete antithesis of the 'keep it simple, stupid' (hard-wired, shortest signal paths possible) design methodology I (Steve, and I'm sure many others) value with equipment.
I mean, looking at the front of the Cello, can you imagine just how complicated it must be inside and how much 'gubbins' the signal has to go through, all adding its own form of coloration? :eek:
No, each to his or her own... I've lived happily without tone controls on my amps (I think that I only had a graphic equaliser once sometime in the 80s) for the last 20-odd years, so I'll continue with the purist approach of enjoying music reproduced through my system without them and the fantastic sound I currently get by doing that, thank you very much! :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
05-01-2010, 08:47
The thing in the photo definitely aint Hi-Fi. The clue is in the name, Hi-Fidelity...!!!
I can only imagine just what this thing is adding and taking away from the music.
Rare Bird
05-01-2010, 08:50
Cello are one of the greatest Hi-Fi product
:lolsign:
I mean, looking at the front of the Cello, can you imagine just how complicated it must be inside and how much 'gubbins' the signal has to go through, all adding its own form of coloration?
The thing in the photo definitely aint Hi-Fi. The clue is in the name, Hi-Fidelity...!!!
I can only imagine just what this thing is adding and taking away from the music.
You can't say that just looking at a component ! :lol:
I mean, are we talking about signal path lengths ? Longer is worse and simplest is better ?
Ok, then, in this case, an Airport Express is MUCH BETTER than an over-engineered CD player like Sony's flagship or the Remyo transport+dac ?
C'mon guys, let's be serious one moment, please. :eyebrows:
There's obviously a bit more than signal path length or control buttons in hi-fi... : it's called synergy. ;)
So, unless you listen to it, I propose not to dismiss it.
StanleyB
05-01-2010, 10:05
I mean, are we talking about signal path lengths ? Longer is worse and simplest is better ?
Yes, a longer signal path is worse. There is an increase of resistance and noise, which results in a lesser signal.
You're not getting the point, Dimitri...it's about choosing your compromises - nothing else.
We can all analyse things to death - in the end you have to go with what your experience tells you is right. For me, that's the use of the highest quality components possible, employed in an appropriate design, using the shortest signal path.
Neither the Cello, above (I fully understand that it's a respected 'high-end' design), or graphic equalisers qualify as being in any way 'right', as far as I'm concerned. You may disagree (as Andre does), and that's fine.
However, we're in danger of going round in circles, so please let's just leave it there :)
Marco.
I used to think the same about signal path lengths. Until a friend of mine organized a visit to a big recording studio. I stopped thinking about signal path lengths after having seen what I saw... :eyebrows:
Yes, but why not optimise your own set-up as far as possible? Just because studios are a 'rat's nest' of cables and connections doesn't mean that you have to replacate the effect (and pay the sonic penalty as a result) AGAIN at home!!!!!!
Come on, let's put this one to bed now - PUHLEESE.... :rolleyes:
Marco.
We simply disagree on the details of what "optimizing things" mean.
Not a problem, really, as I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else. I'm just exchanging views. ;)
You'll not 'optimise' your system in any way, Dimitri, by replicating the myriad of equipment connections there is in a studio, so let's leave it there :)
Yes, a longer signal path is worse. There is an increase of resistance and noise, which results in a lesser signal.
Indeed, Stanley - all of which is measurable.
Marco.
Rare Bird
05-01-2010, 11:02
Yes, but why not optimise your own set-up as far as possible? Just because studios are a 'rat's nest' of cables and connections doesn't mean that you have to replacate the effect (and pay the sonic penalty as a result) AGAIN at home!!!!!!
Come on, let's put this one to bed now - PUHLEESE.... :rolleyes:
Marco.
Marco i sugest you visit a recording studio & realise how they are set up.There's no rats nests of cable in the signal path nor is all the outboard gear connected all inline.
StanleyB
05-01-2010, 11:09
I used to think the same about signal path lengths. Until a friend of mine organized a visit to a big recording studio. I stopped thinking about signal path lengths after having seen what I saw... :eyebrows:
And if you listen to the pressings from small studios and recordings done on decent gear, you can hear how much better/clearer/more open they are compared to the big recording studios.
One thing to consider as well as far as recording studios go: many of them are now digital set ups.
Well, Stan, I'm sure it has more to do with the recording engineer than with the size of the studio anyway...
This is the type of EQ used in studio, and I guess it "colors" less than a lot of amps out there : http://www.mil-media.com/nseq-2.html
Rare Bird
05-01-2010, 11:40
Well, Stan, I'm sure it has more to do with the recording engineer than with the size of the studio anyway...
This is the type of EQ used in studio, and I guess it "colors" less than a lot of amps out there : http://www.mil-media.com/nseq-2.html
How much dimitri?
Andre,
Not all systems or recordings are equal, and neither is the set-up in every studio!
For every 'tidy' studio you know I can cite examples of ones with 'rats nests' ;)
Marco.
Modern digital recording studios have the POTENTIAL to make better recordings than ever! It's the engineers (loose term) who screw things up with oodles of compression, auto-tuning and most music being made on some sort of a sequencing device which allows easy correction of mistakes/bum notes etc.
I'm told that the best recordings these days are many classical ones, where loads of TLC goes into the making of the recordings. they're released on SACD usually too, which may possibly sound better, although I reckon it's more about margins of error again...
Rare Bird
05-01-2010, 11:52
Andre,
Not all systems or recordings are equal, and neither is the set-up in every studio!
For every tidy studio you know I can cite examples of ones with 'rats nests' ;)
Marco.
The only difference is between an Analogue & a Digital studio, size has nothing at all to do with it. The rats nest you are witnessing is the fact that each desk has multiple channels & patch board.you don't know what your talking about which is understandable as you have zero hands on experience within a proffesional studio enviroment *I DO*.. Your right it is time to zip this topic up. Best you stick with what you seem to think is right :lol:
StanleyB
05-01-2010, 12:00
Well, Stan, I'm sure it has more to do with the recording engineer than with the size of the studio anyway...
Have you ever worked in a studio?
Haselsh1
05-01-2010, 12:06
We simply disagree on the details of what "optimizing things" mean.
Not a problem, really, as I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else. I'm just exchanging views. ;)
To optimise... to improve the performance or efficiency. The key there I think is the word 'Improve'.
How much dimitri?
A bit less than 4.000$ I think. Look at the tube details : http://www.mil-media.com/tubetest.html :eek:
Reviews here (some great names) : http://www.mil-media.com/nseq-2_r.html#r
Have you ever worked in a studio?
Unfortunately no. But I know a few people still working in a studio, often listen with them to mixing results, and this topic's details (eq's, signal lengths, sound quality etc) are a common discussion topic. My sentence (about the size) reflects their thoughts, but I have no examples that contradict it. You obviously have a different view, but I still don't understand why you think that "small" studios are better than "mid-sized" or whatever, if it's not for the people working in them.... :scratch:
Andre,
The only difference is between an Analogue & a Digital studio, size has nothing at all to do with it. The rats nest you are witnessing is the fact that each desk has multiple channels & patch board.
Fair enough. I can only comment on what I've seen.
...you don't know what your talking about which is understandable
In terms of what's inside a studio, that's true. I could say the same about you in reference to the equipment I use, how it works, and how I choose to set it up (i.e. Mana, etc)! :lol:
Best you stick with what you seem to think is right
Ditto! ;)
Now let's leave it there.
Marco.
Perhaps off topic a little but I still think this discussion is useful, well if your interested in the entire production of music. I have a few musings on this topic. What should we aim for in our systems? To best represent the sound picked up form a mic, a listener at a concert or the engineer in his studio?
I would like to know what equalization you would use at home. Perhaps it is needed for the bass if left untreated. Do any of you guys use acoustic treatment to tune a room?
Perhaps equalizers belong in DJ setups, where for clubs plenty of bass is needed as the rooms are large and there's lots of sound absorbing bodies so the sound has to be engineered. Well for the club, equalization would off been set-up by the installation team to optimism for a club full of people.
I find studios interesting myself in particular I've read of AIR studio, and I think a decent aim would be to recreate a setup similar to Studio 1 :eyebrows: (http://www.airstudios.com/studios/studio1.aspx).
I once tried to equalize iTunes to balance out a frequency response graph from FuzzMeasure analysis of my room. I have come to the conclusion that first placement than acoustic treatment to tune a room is superior. Im yet to implement the treatment as I need to find out how best to produce tuned absorbers. :scratch:
Rare Bird
05-01-2010, 17:50
Perhaps equalizers belong in DJ setups, where for clubs plenty of bass is needed as the rooms are large and there's lots of sound absorbing bodies so the sound has to be engineered. Well for the club, equalization would off been set-up by the installation team to optimism for a club full of people.
So do Technics 1210's but a lot use em on here
Next please
:lol:
Ali Tait
05-01-2010, 17:54
I like the way these guys do things,their recordings are superb IMHO-
http://www.opus3records.com/phil.html
I once tried to equalize iTunes to balance out a frequency response graph from FuzzMeasure analysis of my room. I have come to the conclusion that first placement than acoustic treatment to tune a room is superior. Im yet to implement the treatment as I need to find out how best to produce tuned absorbers. :scratch:
I came to the same conclusion. Except for bass, where acoustic treatment is impractical.
Fortunately, my room has only a +-4dB influence on bass frequencies, once the speakers are correctly placed. It's bearable. Lucky me. :)
Otherwise, I would have been obliged to use a DEQ2496...
StanleyB
05-01-2010, 19:24
I once heard it mentioned that an audio equalizer is just like a condom. Go figure...
The Grand Wazoo
05-01-2010, 19:28
I realise this thread has moved along a little since I posted that picture & the link. Did you read the text that I linked to?
Specifically this part which discusses exactly the points being made here (and considers both sides of the argument):
To equalize or not: a sound philosophy
Mention the word "equalizer" to audiophiles and they'll run screaming from the room. A dirty word, "equalizer," conjuring up visions of those horrible things indigenous to Circuit City that sell for a cool $99.95. But not all equalizers are created equal. In fact, all recordings are equalized to some extent, because every microphone commercially available has an equalization curve built in. Most recording mixing consoles have EQ capability, and engineers regularly utilize outboard equalization (either in the analog or digital domains) for final mastering. It may come as a surprise to audio purists that the majority of their treasured recordings contain some degree of post-production EQ. So why is it such a heinous crime to use high-quality EQ in domestic playback situations? Because most audiophiles believe, as I used to do, that any manipulation of the frequency balance in the original source will seriously compromise the sonic and musical results.
Over the past several months, while preparing this review, I've had the opportunity to spend some time talking about music and sound with Mark Levinson, also an accomplished musician who specializes in the double bass and various esoteric stringed instruments from the Far East. Like other musicians I know who are into high-end audio (more than you might think), Levinson considers the areas of tonal accuracy and transparency to be of utmost importance. Until I had the opportunity of acquainting myself with the Palette, I would have considered the idea of putting an equalizer into my reference system totally nuts. But I'm certainly not above entertaining another philosophy, especially for improvements in the musical integrity of the recorded performance.
Levinson suggests that EQ is a useful tool in musical reproduction because it addresses the number-one obstacle: tonal-balance problems in the program material. We all recognize that recordings vary tremendously in sonic quality. But why? Well, of course, there are different halls and different performers. But there are also different microphones (with strong sonic colorations and frequency aberrations (footnote 3), and studio monitor systems (including amps, cables, and speakers) that vary significantly in tonal balance. As Levinson states, "one system might be up 8dB in the high frequencies where another is down 7dB. If a recording is optimized for one system, it may not sound 'right' on another. Since even a dB or two can make a big difference, such big disparities pose a formidable problem that cannot be overcome by changing cables, processors, and equipment. The only logical answer is to give home listeners a user-friendly and sonically transparent instrument with which to correct tonal imbalance."
In short, he is proposing a new definition of the "purist preamp" (footnote 4); one which gets the listener closer to what the musicians themselves intended you to hear. The point is well taken, since no audio system can produce a natural sonic result with all recordings. Many recordings that initially sound "bad" on one system may sound much more natural on another. Levinson claims that Cello's original goal was to offer a combination of two products with this unit: a very high quality preamplifier, and an equalizer "for those who refuse to compromise their music."
A note of caution: Indiscriminate use of EQ can result in some bizarre sonic byproducts. Overzealous adjustment of the midband frequencies (500Hz and 2kHz) alters soundstage dimensionality, creating a too forward or distant perspective, depending on how far up or down the controls are adjusted. Careless use of the 5kHz and 20kHz controls will do similar damage to the natural harmonic structures of musical instruments and human voices. For that reason, the Palette is probably not the product for the sound freak who would use this feature to make a circus out of the music, cranking up the bass and treble and blowing the windows out of his listening room! But if you're searching for ways to get closer to the real thing, the Palette, judiciously used, can help restore musical equilibrium to recordings that may not be compatible with a specific playback system.
Some of you reading this will consider any serious discussion of EQ in Stereophile to be heresy (footnote 5). Certainly what I'm discussing here requires one to totally rethink the basic premise of musical reproduction. It's no secret that the various components, cables, speakers, etc. we use in home systems sound dramatically different. One of the most significant audible differences (forgetting the various mechanical designs) between two like components is the tonal balance, as Levinson suggests. This balance dictates a great deal of the way we psychoacoustically interpret such things as soundstage dimensionality and harmonic textures, just as we do with live music in the concert hall. The Palette enables its owner to render that balance more real-sounding.
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/692cello/#
I mean, looking at the front of the Cello, can you imagine just how complicated it must be inside and how much 'gubbins' the signal has to go through, all adding its own form of coloration?
Shaun: The thing in the photo definitely aint Hi-Fi. The clue is in the name, Hi-Fidelity...!!!
I can only imagine just what this thing is adding and taking away from the music.
You guys both used the word 'imagine' in your criticism of this piece of gear & I think that's quite significant, because you have never heard careful & sensitive implementation of EQ in a home hi-fi system.
Nor have I either - as I said before I've never felt the need to use any sort of EQ. But I can see the value in it if it's implemented carefully and sensitively.
Ask yourself this question:
If it could be proven to you that it did not affect the signal (& I'm not trying to say this is the case) either measurably or audibly, could you see a use for it?
If not, then that's fine, but I can, & I think that's kind of the point Andre was trying to make - there is a legitimate use for it.
Marco, I'm sorry, but to blindly dismiss the thing without having had any experience of it is exactly the prejudice that you regularly accuse others of having with regard to the Technics TT, valves, your Tannoys, Mana, your vintage cartridges etc etc
StanleyB
05-01-2010, 19:35
Ask yourself this question:
If it could be proven to you that it did not affect the signal (& I'm not trying to say this is the case) either measurably or audibly, could you see a use for it?
I use the digital bargraph display on mine as a frequency display unit. I don't use the equalizer in line with the signal to the power amp though.
Hi Chris,
Yes I read it, thanks :)
From your link:
Levinson suggests that EQ is a useful tool in musical reproduction because it addresses the number-one obstacle: tonal-balance problems in the program material.
Yes, but at what cost I wonder, sonically?? In my experience there is ALWAYS a sonic penalty to pay for over-complicating the signal path - all my listening experience to date (over a period of 25 years) confirms this.
As we all know, there is no such thing as a free lunch in audio, therefore we must choose our compromises. I choose to live with the inherent sonic deficiencies in some recordings, without messing with EQ, in order to minimise distortion and preserve signal integrity, so that my system has the resolution to take full advantage of the really best recordings and I can therefore enjoy them in all their glory.
You guys both used the word 'imagine' in your criticism of this piece of gear & I think that's quite significant, because you have never heard careful & sensitive implementation of EQ in a home hi-fi system.
Nor have I either - as I said before I've never felt the need to use any sort of EQ. But I can see the value in it if it's implemented carefully and sensitively.
Chris: so can I - just not in my system as I have no need whatsoever for such devices. What possible motivation is there for me to use these things when the way my system handles music now blows me away every time I listen to it, pretty much no matter what recordings I play through it? That's the fortunate situation I enjoy.
Ask yourself this question:
If it could be proven to you that it did not affect the signal (& I'm not trying to say this is the case) either measurably or audibly, could you see a use for it?
Yes, it's a great thing for anyone who's dissatisfied with their system in some way and sees "restoring musical equilibrium to recordings" with a glorified graphic equaliser as the panacea for their hi-fi ills! ;)
Marco, I'm sorry, but to blindly dismiss the thing without having had any experience of it is exactly the prejudice that you regularly accuse others of having with regard to the Technics TT, valves, your Tannoys, Mana, your vintage cartridges etc etc
I'm not 'blindly dismissing' anything, Chris; merely stating that 'Cello Palettes' or graphic equalisers hold no interest for me whatsoever. YMMV.
Marco.
aquapiranha
05-01-2010, 20:16
Any bit of kit with a red button marked 'hold to arm all' gets my vote!
:lol:
Especially if it's located, or the target's in New Brighton, not far from you :D
The Grand Wazoo
05-01-2010, 20:24
What possible motivation is there for me to use such things when the way my system handles music blows me away every time I listen to it, pretty much no matter what recordings I play through it?
.........erm, 'cos it might just blow you further away?
Esp. if you only use it on those recordings that need it.
aquapiranha
05-01-2010, 20:31
Especially if it's located, or the target's in New Brighton, not far from you :D
New Brighton is a shadow of it's former self. In the past it had a tower taller than Blackpool and people used to flock there around the turn of the century. It is now, unfortunately nothing more than a collection of kebab shops and shite 'nightclubs' and a 'funfair' that has had all of the 'fun' taken out of it. soon however, it will be reborn! Rising from the ashes of past glory like a Phoenix! and it shall be renamed...
New Morrisons!!
:lol:
[if you are from the area, you will know what I am on about]
Yes, it's a great thing for anyone who's dissatisfied with their system in some way and sees "restoring musical equilibrium to recordings" with a glorified graphic equaliser as the panacea for their hi-fi ills! ;)
Marco, I don't see why you keep on repeating that people who use EQ is because "they are dissatisfied with their system"...
Nothing in the article or what everybody (including me) has explained up to now about a *potential* use of equalization involved as probable causes the system itself : neither the source, nor the amplifier nor the speakers or cables.
So, do you consider that me, and others (and Lewis Lipnick and J.Atkinson and M.Levinson) are liars or inconscious or (in some way) that we can't think about the causes of our actions ? And that you know better than us why we may choose to do certain things than others ?
Without even listening to the blo*dy piece of kit ? :mental:
I find this degrading. If it's a mistake, please correct it.
I knew the place VERY well from the late fifties to early eighties (family in Bebington and Birkenhead) and used to stay in West Kirby (used to be a good Barber in Liskard too in a back street). My Mother spent the wartime years in NB and told me how good it used to be..
All gone now.........
Primalsea
05-01-2010, 20:49
Here's my thoughts on equalisers: They can do some useful things namely correct for room acoustics to a degree, simulate loudness function so you here the music with the same frequency response at low levels as you would at high levels. The frequency response of your hearing changes with volume and sensitivity to bass increases with volume. Also you can add a mild boost boost to bass frequencies to help counteract against your speakers low freq roll off.
All these are good and wonderful and stuff but the problem is that all those extra circuits that the signal goes through raise the noise floor, lower dynamics, soften attack and decay. The latter may be more subjective but can be easily heard none the less.
Digital equalisers may seem like an answer but extra digital processing tends to ruin the sound as you are sampling the signal, correcting the levels and then outputting to analogue.
So at the end of the day its a case of a lesser of 2 evils.
Hi Dimitri,
So, do you consider that me, and others (and Lewis Lipnick and J.Atkinson and M.Levinson) are liars or inconscious or (in some way) that we can't think about the causes of our actions ? And that you know better than us why we may choose to do certain things than others ?
First of all, no offence intended, so please accept my apologies if I've caused any.
To answer your question above, no - I just think that the other guys and you have got a different but equally valid approach. After all, we all have different ways of enjoying recorded music, otherwise we'd all be using the same system! :)
However, what I can't do (as I'm seemingly being asked to by Chris) is acknowledge that something I strongly don't believe in is a good thing. I trust you can appreciate that :cool:
Marco.
Rare Bird
05-01-2010, 21:26
God i'm good at picking topics :lol:
All these are good and wonderful and stuff but the problem is that all those extra circuits that the signal goes through raise the noise floor, lower dynamics, soften attack and decay. The latter may be more subjective but can be easily heard none the less.
So at the end of the day its a case of a lesser of 2 evils.
:clap:
I concur completely, Paul. The "lesser of 2 evils" for me is living with and enjoying recordings just as they are.
Marco.
God i'm good at picking topics :lol:
Well this is not a graveyard like some other forums you've been on - we like to discuss things in depth and at length! ;)
Marco.
.........erm, 'cos it might just blow you further away?
Esp. if you only use it on those recordings that need it.
LOL - ok. Remind me, how much did it, or does it cost?
What you're also not grasping, Chris, is that (hand on heart) since I've moved to high-quality valve gear (coming up for 2 years now) I could probably count on one hand the amount of recordings that I thought would benefit from 'tweaking' in some way with a lift in EQ.
95% of the recordings I own sound great to superb without the necessity for any fiddling, so it's hardly worth the expense of investing in something like a Cello, is it? :)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
05-01-2010, 22:04
However, what I can't do (as I'm seemingly being asked to by Chris) is acknowledge that something I strongly don't believe in is a good thing. I trust you can appreciate that
Whooah there!
That's not the case Marco. What I am asking you to do is what you ask others to do regularly here. And that is not to judge something that you've not experienced despite the fact that the concept has a less than shiny reputation in the world of high quality audio.
Ok that's fine, Chris, but I'm not judging the Cello, per se - I'm judging an equipment methodology and process I strongly disagree with... The Cello is just the equipment being used as an example.
The truth of the matter is that we judge equipment (in some ways) all the time without listening to it. How else do people choose what to buy on Ebay, for example? Equipment has to fit certain criteria before we would entertain it. The Cello, for me, comes under that category and just isn't my cup of tea. But there's a difference between judging something initially, and conclusively or definitively. I would only do the latter after I'd heard it in my own system.
I trust this clears things up? :)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
05-01-2010, 22:34
No worries.
Dave Hewitt
05-01-2010, 22:53
Hi all
Does anyone know if it is possible to use the behringer ultracurve connected between cd transport and dac in room equalisation mode.ie not using in analogue mode.Hopethis makes sense.
Regards Dave.
Peter Galbavy
06-01-2010, 09:06
I once heard it mentioned that an audio equalizer is just like a condom. Go figure...
Probably the same meaning as this http://xkcd.com/463/
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/voting_machines.png
Rare Bird
06-01-2010, 09:46
Ok that's fine, Chris, but I'm not judging the Cello, per se - I'm judging an equipment methodology and process I strongly disagree with... The Cello is just the equipment being used as an example.
How on earth can you judge a company product methodology especially one from Cello designers. For crying out aloud they are the specialist electronic engineers, you know zero about electronics.
Sorry about that bud but it's true.Only right you have to judge is 'I think'
Andre,
Let me put it this way: how can you judge Mana when you know bugger all about its effect and have never even used it? How often do you slag it off and Technics 'DJ' turntables, especially when you don't have the slightest clue how my deck sounds?
Simple: because they don't fit your equipment selection criteria ;)
Ditto with me and anything that looks like the Cello! So just like you're entitled to 'judge' the above, so am I entitled to initially 'judge' the Cello. If I ever heard one in my system and thought it sounded amazing, however, I'd certainly have the grace to revise my opinion. Would you do likewise with Mana and modified Technics SL-1210s?
Now, I'd advise that you drop the subject because we're never going to agree on this, and I certainly don't want us to fall out, so let's save ourselves a load of grief and agree to disagree now.
Okay dokes? :)
Marco.
Hi Dimitri,
First of all, no offence intended, so please accept my apologies if I've caused any.
Apologies accepted. :eyebrows:
Still, think about it : if you follow the theory that any not-inevitable component should not be part of the chain, then you should express the same vehemence ("lots of shite" as you said earlier) towards preamplifiers, buffers, whatever.
In fact, however funny this may be, in the end you express Ashley's ideas : you should simply find that an active speaker with a built-in dac and/or source, is still the best (and simplest) design. ;)
A couple of decades ago, most transistor preamps were rather veiled for various reasons (yep, even the Naim ones until the 52 pointed the way) and it was people like Tim de P and Glenn Croft who helped to show a different and better way (I also rated the Levinson ML28 as well, but this was £2500 in the early nineties).
The main possible problem with equalisers I suspect is phase distortion around the eq points and possibly inadequate power supplies to power it all.
A couple of decades ago, most transistor preamps were rather veiled for various reasons (yep, even the Naim ones until the 52 pointed the way) and it was people like Tim de P and Glenn Croft who helped to show a different and better way (I also rated the Levinson ML28 as well, but this was £2500 in the early nineties).
I remember pretty well. And this was even the case about the ones without tone controls. ;)
Haselsh1
06-01-2010, 15:20
Ok that's fine, Chris, but I'm not judging the Cello, per se - I'm judging an equipment methodology and process I strongly disagree with... The Cello is just the equipment being used as an example.
I concur wholeheartedly... this is such a good statement.
Haselsh1
06-01-2010, 15:31
Why would one want to put their precious music signal through two hundred and fifty wires with their own electrical characteristics when three will do...??? For me personally, it is just beyond belief that anyone would actually choose to do such a thing.
Why would one want to put their precious music signal through two hundred and fifty wires with their own electrical characteristics when three will do...??? For me personally, it is just beyond belief that anyone would actually choose to do such a thing.
If your room has +15dB at 80Hz and -12dB at 100Hz what do you propose to do ?
Haselsh1
06-01-2010, 18:50
If your room has +15dB at 80Hz and -12dB at 100Hz what do you propose to do ?
Fortunately for me, I'm in it for the music, not whether I have +15db at 80Hz or -12db at 100Hz. I really can't spend the time getting all OCD about such nonsense.
Rare Bird
06-01-2010, 18:52
:mental:
Haselsh1
06-01-2010, 18:54
I think the point against graphic equalisers has been well and truly made. I haven't yet heard anything for a graphic equaliser.
. I haven't yet heard anything for a graphic equaliser.
No, of course you haven't heard. Because, you
really can't spend the time getting all OCD about such nonsense.
:lolsign:
Rare Bird
06-01-2010, 19:05
It's a waste of time Dimitri even starting these topics to many PRAT's..I never start another now.
Don't these topics get locked when the going get's tough?
Nobody's being tough, really. Just exchanging views. :)
After all, I don't even understand what PRAT is, so....
It's a waste of time Dimitri even starting these topics to many PRAT's..I never start another now.
Don't these topics get locked when the going get's tough?
Andre, if you don't stop using insulting remarks like that it'll be me banning you, not Steve, and it'll be permanent!
Do I make myself crystal clear?
Marco.
If your room has +15dB at 80Hz and -12dB at 100Hz what do you propose to do ?
PUT THE SYSTEM IN A BETTER ROOM, or use headphones!! ;)
Fortunately for me, I'm in it for the music, not whether I have +15db at 80Hz or -12db at 100Hz. I really can't spend the time getting all OCD about such nonsense.
Me neither, Shaun. How on earth would you find that stuff out anyway? Who has the sort of apparatus to hand which measures that information - certainly not any hi-fi enthusiast and music lover I know.....
Dimitri, in all honesty, If a room was so bad that the only way to make a listenable sound there was to 'correct' the problem with a graphic equaliser or some other device like it, I'd put my system in another room pronto, use headphones like Andre or move house! I simply couldn't live with either the sound the way it was before 'equalisation' or with the added distortion created afterwards.
May I remind people again of what Paul said earlier, as these are the facts of the matter in relation to graphic equalisers and devices of their ilk:
All these are good and wonderful and stuff but the problem is that all those extra circuits that the signal goes through raise the noise floor, lower dynamics, soften attack and decay. The latter may be more subjective but can be easily heard none the less.
Digital equalisers may seem like an answer but extra digital processing tends to ruin the sound as you are sampling the signal, correcting the levels and then outputting to analogue.
If you don't agree with this, then try posting a poll and see how many people here (or on any other specialist audio forum) think graphic equalisers are a good idea... It'd be like asking Gordon Ramsay to embrace the value of chicken nuggets!
Marco.
StanleyB
06-01-2010, 19:31
Parametric equalizers are a far better solution, if equalization is needed. Graphic equalizers have fixed bandwidth, which creates gullies in the audio spectrum.
PUT THE SYSTEM IN A BETTER ROOM!! ;).
We are going in circles, here.
I know people who have only one living room. A lot of people, actually.
So ? What can I propose to them when they tell me : "my bass is too boomy, I can't get a sound approaching your system's sound" ?
(you bet it's boomy ! with such a room and placement possibilities...)
Now, of course, I don't have an equalizer because I don't need one.
But my friend (with his room acoustics curve looking more like a roller coaster circuit...) what can he do ?
My answer to him : "you get an equalizer" rather than "you move your family to another house". ;)
We are going in circles, here.
I completely agree! This thread is long past its sell-by date, so time to put it out of its misery :)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.