PDA

View Full Version : Graphic Equalizers and Ethos



Themis
06-01-2010, 20:26
I read through the "Basic of Ethos" topic :


Arete; Virtuosity and goodness.

Eunoia; Goodwill to those you address.

Phronesis; Using wisdom and knowledge in a practical way.


Also, I read that :

Quite clearly, science currently can't provide all the answers in audio, certainly as far as measuring how equipment and its associated ancillaries treats music signals and ascertaining how humans process recorded musical information via our ears and brain. Therefore grey areas exist because we are not robots; when listening to music our brains aren't programmed to respond in a specific way to known audio measurement parameters - the fact is, we do not listen to music in the way scientific apparatus measures sound.

I am sorry to say, but the Graphic Equalizers' users opinions about the fact they don't degrade sound in an undesired way are reflected exactly on these principles.

Of course, I know that others may disagree, but still, this is also covered by the Ethos :

Things we really like here:
Friendly people.
Differences of opinion discussed sensibly.
Pictures and lots of them!
Humorous banter.
Liberal use of the smilies. etc etc


Things we don't like here:
Defamatory comments about any manufacturers or dealers.
Defamatory comments about any other member of this forum or any other hi-fi forum.
'Willy waving' (i.e. boasting about one's system in a monetary value sense).
Swearing excessively. The occasional bit may slip thorough, but nobody wants to hear 'f this' and 'f that' all day long.
And no porn or links to porn please.


PS: I wanted to post to the Equalizer thread, but it has been locked, so I post on a new subject, sorry. :)

Primalsea
06-01-2010, 20:41
WARNING DIMITRI!

There be dragons here!

If someone has a reasonably good EQ and theyare going to the show in March they could bring it along to the AOS room and we can judge what we hear?

Marco
06-01-2010, 20:49
Indeed, Paul. Great idea. As usual, let the proof of the pudding be in the listening! :)

Sorry, Dimitri, we're not willing to host any more discussion on this particular subject, as it's destined again to go round and round in circles going nowhere positive, creating ill-feeling the same as the last thread, so now is the time to just agree to disagree and move on :cool:

Some topics unfortunately just can't be discussed sensibly and amicably, as the diametrically opposed views of each side of the argument are too deeply ingrained. Our policy in those circumstances is simply to nip things in the bud before a major 'bun fight' develops and people say things that they may later regret.

<Thread closed>

Marco.

Steve Toy
06-01-2010, 22:27
In any case graphic equalisers go against the flat earth aspect of our ethos or whatever you want to call it. It's the bit where we strive to extract the maximum musical info from the disc.

Marco
06-01-2010, 22:48
<Thread now re-opened for business> ;)

Marco.

Steve Toy
06-01-2010, 22:52
This is an easy one to win - it's as straightforward as prioritising presentation or communication or whether you are a flat earther or round earther.

Prioritising presentational aspects of reproduction ahead of communication is always going to be a step backwards in pursuit of musical nirvana.

Thread unlocked.

Marco
06-01-2010, 23:09
Thread unlocked


I've already done it, daftee! :doh:

I do totally agree with this, though:


Prioritising presentational aspects of reproduction ahead of communication is always going to be a step backwards in pursuit of musical nirvana.


:)

Marco.

Rare Bird
06-01-2010, 23:44
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.

You don't wanna do that pal you really don't

Marco
06-01-2010, 23:53
You don't wanna do that pal you really don't

What's that - a threat??

I trust that everyone can see now why I locked this thread!!! :rolleyes:

Marco.

Steve Toy
07-01-2010, 00:34
Allowing a certain individual who kicks off at the drop of a hat to post here is always going to cause grief.

Marco
07-01-2010, 00:39
Indeed. I gave him a chance and got it thrown back in my face - I should've known better.

Marco.

DSJR
07-01-2010, 08:01
You know, I feel determined to get a decent graphic/parametric equaliser and prove you chaps wrong...:eek: :D


Anyway, we're snowed up, all schools in town are shut, the sea meets the sky with little to no horizon and I'm going to bring the Quads down from their Christmas holiday :)

:peace: everyone!

Marco
07-01-2010, 12:44
You know, I feel determined to get a decent graphic/parametric equaliser and prove you chaps wrong...


Dave,

As a dyed-in-the-wool purist, it'll be a very cold day in hell before you see one of those things anywhere near my system!! ;)

What do you think that Glenn Croft, for example, would have to say about graphic equalisers??? :eek:

Well, I epitomise his mentality in that respect 200%!!! His equipment design methodology aligns precisely with how I (and AoS) believe hi-fi systems should be built, which is the complete antithesis of anything to do with (sorry!) rubbish like graphic equalisers, no matter how supposedly 'high-end' or 'well-designed' they are!!

You have a PM :)

Marco.

DSJR
07-01-2010, 15:18
I'll tell you what Glenn would do - he'd arrange an extra wiring loop to take one into account and charge very little for doing it, that's what...;)

When I bought my first SMA4PP, I met da man at HiFi Dave's, when he was in Radlett itself. I'd seen that Glenn put gold plated phonos on the vinyl and ouput sockets only and I asked him very nicely if he'd fit gold sockets to the CD input as well, as I played a lot of CD's as well as vinyl via the Decca. he made no comment at all and gawd bless him if the preamp he handed to me a week later didn't have ALL the sockets gold plated - and I don't believe he charged extra either. I reckon the valves were better than usual too as the line ones were CV4004's rather than ordinary 12AU7's. That's the kind of man Glenn is - no "side" to him at all and although he doesn't remember me other than references from Dave W, Matt O'D and maybe the forums, he is still more than happy to tweak the phono stage so I can use more readily available volume pot values, even twin ganged if I really want to (I don't on this one). A tragedy that this sample was stolen from my mate who was enjoying it into a series 4SA power amp. At least I've been able to locate another..

I do appreciate Glenn isn't the only good guy out there, but his generosity left a great impression and i'm thrilled he's back and hopefully making a reasonable living out there..

Marco
07-01-2010, 15:44
Come on, Dave, let's cut to the chase... Would you ever see a graphic equaliser on any of Glenn Croft's or Anthony TD's OWN equipment designs?

Yes or no - and if no (!), why do your think that is?

Marco.

DSJR
07-01-2010, 15:59
YES, if I needed one and couldn't sort it any other way - my previous other way was using the kit in the dining room which sounded so bad I didn't use the gear at all!!!!!!!

I'm lucky now in that I have a good room, madame doesn't mind the speakers where they are and I'm getting a better sound than I've had in many a long year.

Not a proper answer, but it'll have to do I'm afraid..


Actually, before I got this croft pre, I was sorely temped by the little phono preamps on here -

http://www.tdl-tech.com/data408.htm

I have a problem with cartridges that have a lower treble response dip as many MM's used to have and would have liked either a phono preamp with adjustable RIAA, or adjustable input impedance, which is even more desirable with Decca's, some Shures and Stantons apparently...

John
07-01-2010, 16:29
I know this is a bit different, when using my laptop to hear music I will sometimes use the internal graphic equaliser.
I know a few people with impressive set ups that use the 2496 or similar to control bass by by-passing the critical mid and treble and they all use good valve gear

Steve Toy
07-01-2010, 17:06
I remember those graphic equalisers on posh midi systems in the early nineties with presets.
. My favourite setting was source direct :p

John
07-01-2010, 17:30
lol

Jonboy
07-01-2010, 17:41
I had a Graphic equiliser in my Black 3 litre Capri back in the eighties, those were the days:lol:

The Grand Wazoo
07-01-2010, 19:28
OK, so Marco mentioned the RIAA EQ in his preamp. What's the recieved wisdom on alternative systems? Some people like to be able to alter the phono stage EQ to match that used by the various different recording companies - not so relevant for modern recordings, but if you have a large collection of vintage vinyl, the differences are quite marked.

This is where I was about to go on the other thread before it got buttoned down.

DSJR
07-01-2010, 19:59
That's why the TDL-Tech variable phono stage is made - for really vintage vinyl and 78 enthusiasts.

They do an even more versatile one for mono 78's, but it's more for transcription services than domestic response tweaking I think.

The Grand Wazoo
07-01-2010, 20:05
Yes, there are a few options around - some very basic & some quite sophisticated. Lots of folk hear screechy 50's & 60's recordings, thinking they're just bad old recordings, not realising that it's because there were not recorded using the RIAA curve. A simple change of EQ & it all changes for the better.
As I said before, sometimes you just can't get at the source to cure a problem!!


Edit: Sorry, that bold type may have come over in a way that wasn't intended

Barry
07-01-2010, 21:18
Yes, there are a few options around - some very basic & some quite sophisticated. Lots of folk hear screechy 50's & 60's recordings, thinking they're just bad old recordings, not realising that it's because there were not recorded using the RIAA curve. A simple change of EQ & it all changes for the better.
As I said before, sometimes you just can't get at the source to cure a problem!!


Edit: Sorry, that bold type may have come over in a way that wasn't intended

The RIAA playback curve that we use was proposed in 1954 and was more or less universally adopted by 1960. You might run into difficuties with some older Brunswick and Columbia recordings, which used either the Decca or the Columbia (same as the old AES) equalisation. However this could vary recording to recording. Early Argo records (before they became part of the Decca stable) largely follow the Decca curve but require some control in the treble (graphic equalisers anyone?). To put this in perspective, none of the older curves differ by more than 2dB from the current RIAA curve (neglecting the IEC amendment which introduces an additional roll-off below 20Hz).

For older recordings then some flexibility of equalisation is required, but the pursuit of this should not become a fetish.

Regards

The Grand Wazoo
07-01-2010, 22:03
The RIAA playback curve that we use was proposed in 1954 and was more or less universally adopted by 1960. You might run into difficuties with some older Brunswick and Columbia recordings, which used either the Decca or the Columbia (same as the old AES) equalisation. However this could vary recording to recording. Early Argo records (before they became part of the Decca stable) largely follow the Decca curve but require some control in the treble (graphic equalisers anyone?). To put this in perspective, none of the older curves differ by more than 2dB from the current RIAA curve (neglecting the IEC amendment which introduces an additional roll-off below 20Hz).

For older recordings then some flexibility of equalisation is required, but the pursuit of this should not become a fetish.

Regards

Presactly

Kris
11-01-2010, 19:26
Parametric eq's are used extensively in the recording chain of many recordings. So if the recording engineers use them, why shouldn't we? Personally I use my semi-parametic eq whenever I want to listen to an overbright recording etc. I've also been known to use my Joemeek Meequalizer to make a recording sound better to my ears. It's not a sin in my book.

Graphic eq's I would never use. Many/most of them negatively affect the phase, you can't adjust the centre frequency or the Q. Nope, graphic eq's are a waste of time IMO.

As for 'High Fidelity'. I'm into music, not Hi-Fi, Hi-Fi is just a means to an end, not an end in itself, IMO, so if a turn of a knob or two will make the music sound better to my ears, I'll do it.

That said, most of the music I listen to has been well recorded, so no adjustment is necessary.

Haselsh1
11-01-2010, 20:03
I'm sorry here but I just refuse to believe a graphic equaliser would work in the way I want it to. I have a big problem with the new CD by Paloma Faith. The vocals are hard, brittle and glassy and very annoying. Even with a graphic equaliser in circuit the vocals are still going to be hard, brittle and glassy because that is the way they have been recorded. A graphic equaliser cannot change that. OK, the anomaly may be quieter but so will everything else that is contained within the same frequency band...! In my honest opinion they do not solve a specific problem they merely add a whole host of other problems.

Marco
11-01-2010, 20:07
I'm sorry here but I just refuse to believe a graphic equaliser would work in the way I want it to. I have a big problem with the new CD by Paloma Faith. The vocals are hard, brittle and glassy and very annoying. Even with a graphic equaliser in circuit the vocals are still going to be hard, brittle and glassy because that is the way they have been recorded. A graphic equaliser cannot change that. OK, the anomaly may be quieter but so will everything else that is contained within the same frequency band...!


...and indeed represents the reality of the situation! I wouldn't let any such sonically intrusive toys anywhere near my system.

Kris,


As for 'High Fidelity'. I'm into music, not Hi-Fi, Hi-Fi is just a means to an end, not an end in itself, IMO, so if a turn of a knob or two will make the music sound better to my ears, I'll do it.


That's fine, but AoS is a specialist audio and music forum where people strive for excellence from their systems and so will always go the extra mile to achieve the best sound (in terms of high fidelity) from their favourite music.

I'm not quite sure that your views above embody those principles, but I guess that whatever works for you is right for you :)

Marco.

Themis
11-01-2010, 20:14
I'm sorry here but I just refuse to believe a graphic equaliser would work in the way I want it to. I have a big problem with the new CD by Paloma Faith. The vocals are hard, brittle and glassy and very annoying. Even with a graphic equaliser in circuit the vocals are still going to be hard, brittle and glassy because that is the way they have been recorded.
+1

Haselsh1
11-01-2010, 20:58
Of course the whole Paloma Faith album could have been done beautifully with a handful of valve microphones and a decent set of recording booths. To improve it even more maybe a good analogue recording suite should have been used instead of that bloody awful Protools.

And, in true 2010 tradition; the album is compressed to hell...!!!

Ali Tait
11-01-2010, 21:10
Shoulda got Opus3 to record it..

Stratmangler
11-01-2010, 22:37
Shoulda got Opus3 to record it..

Aye, their approach to recording is superb - KISS is certainly the order of the day.

My experience of their recordings is via Eric Bibb, and the three albums he's released on this label.

All comprise (shock, horror) of ONE TAKE RECORDINGS. Each song is a live performance in a recording studio with a decent acoustic, with no overdubs.

Actually, there's no mixing worth speaking of either - soloists actually step up to the mic more often than not.

Chris:)

Primalsea
12-01-2010, 19:38
I must admit if an EQ could make some of my albums listenable I would use one. The last few U2 albums were particularly bad. So bad I dont listen to them at all.

Ali Tait
12-01-2010, 19:48
Aye, their approach to recording is superb - KISS is certainly the order of the day.

My experience of their recordings is via Eric Bibb, and the three albums he's released on this label.

All comprise (shock, horror) of ONE TAKE RECORDINGS. Each song is a live performance in a recording studio with a decent acoustic, with no overdubs.

Actually, there's no mixing worth speaking of either - soloists actually step up to the mic more often than not.


Chris:)

Yep me too,the Eric Bibb albums are great.I like their use of all-valve kit too,from the mic to the mixer.

Filterlab
16-01-2010, 10:49
EQs have their place without doubt, but being from a writing/engineering/mastering background I'd tend towards using EQs at the recording stage rather than the point of playback. The idea of EQing whilst recording is to flatten the EQ curve of the output ensuring that the track is properly playable on a whole range of systems. Whilst this should be a relatively simple task, it is in fact quite tricky as the quality of the result is dependent on a large number of factors (preference of the mastering engineer, quality of the monitoring system, quality of the master tape etc etc etc.

However, and almost ironically, it's much easier to obtain a flat response visually using a proper analyser. Just like decent equalisers, analysers don't come cheap but they are most certainly worth the outlay, especially if one seeks a true flat output. Some years back an EQ with analyser was seemingly included on every midi system going, and hi-fi purists laughed, but the essence of what an EQ/analyser combination does is the same as in the studio - it presents the EQ curve in a visual manner and offers adjustment to suit (normally 5 or 7 band which is scarcely enough to be serious, but plenty for general sound shaping).

So why bother on a midi system? Well, and again ironically, it's because a midi system isn't hi-fi. The quality of the output from a turntable/cd player/ pre-amplification stage on a midi system isn't going to be great, so to place an EQ/analyser within the pre-amp stage before it goes on to be amplified is a cracking idea as it allows the listener to change the sound. These days it seems to have vanished though, even on small devices like iPods (which up to the 6th generation models had an EQ built in, despite it being presets only it was in fact very useful), which could frankly really do with an EQ to add some pep!

Now, most hi-fi systems, despite their expense, will always lack a little of something somewhere and there's always a potential that an EQ could change the sound (please note I've avoided the word 'improve'), but without a proper method of analysing the resultant signal and repeated playback coupled with notation and minuscule adjustment, it's a little unproductive and unnecessary to add an EQ to a decent hi-fi. In fact, given the hamfistedness of folk when it comes to adjustments, it'll probably do nothing more than demolish the fragility of well balanced audio. In addition, as pretty much all of you on here will appreciate, an EQ unit and an analyser unit, regardless of how expensive they are, will always add noise even if the quantity in infinitesimal. As hi-fi is designed to playback music with the minimum of self-interjection, an EQ stage is pushing further away from that ideal.

Saying that, a really rubbish recording (and let's face it, there's plenty of those around) can potentially benefit from playback EQ, but all one is actually accomplishing is to enhance the badly recorded elements of a track; i.e. if there's very little bass in a recording, then an EQ can only enhance the poor bass, it can't replace it. However, to a lot of ears it's not as important as having a full frequency range of audible music.

Personally my thinking is this: EQ on recording - essential, EQ on playback - not so great. Of course, others opinions will vary, but then again everybody's ears are different which is what makes audio/music/hi-fi so compelling a subject. :)

Steve Toy
16-01-2010, 11:22
Great insight Rob. It's good to have you back. :)

Marco
16-01-2010, 13:14
Ditto (with knobs on!)

Great post, and even greater to have you back, matey :)

I completely concur with your views above, and in particular this:


EQs have their place without doubt, but being from a writing/engineering/mastering background I'd tend towards using EQs at the recording stage rather than the point of playback.


...and this bit is 100% the crux of the matter in reference to EQ devices:


In addition, as pretty much all of you on here will appreciate, an EQ unit and an analyser unit, regardless of how expensive they are, will always add noise even if the quantity in infinitesimal. As hi-fi is designed to playback music with the minimum of self-interjection, an EQ stage is pushing further away from that ideal.


Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, and so if people like using EQ at the point of playback, that's fine, but first and foremost AoS is a specialist audio forum, populated in the main by discerning enthusiasts seeking to achieve the highest fidelity possible from their favourite music.

It's not just about loving music; it's also about loving superb sound, which is as faithful to the original source material as possible! Otherwise, we may as well all go down to Tesco, buy one of their £30 specials, and abandon any notion of achieving true high fidelity with our favourite music.

Undoubtedly the addition of a graphic equaliser, or some similar device at the point of playback, regardless of how much more 'listenable' the effect makes certain recordings, does not fit in with the philosophy of achieving the highest fidelity possible with reproduced music - end of.

Marco.

P.S Rob, you need a new avatar! ;)

Ali Tait
16-01-2010, 16:12
+1.Good to see you posting again Rob.

Themis
16-01-2010, 17:46
Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, and so if people like using EQ at the point of playback, that's fine, but first and foremost AoS is a specialist audio forum, populated in the main by discerning enthusiasts seeking to achieve the highest fidelity possible from their favourite music.

It's not just about loving music; it's also about loving superb sound, which is as faithful to the original source material as possible! Otherwise, we may as well all go down to Tesco, buy one of their £30 specials, and abandon any notion of achieving true high fidelity with our favourite music.

Undoubtedly the addition of a graphic equaliser, or some similar device at the point of playback, regardless of how much more 'listenable' the effect makes certain recordings, does not fit in with the philosophy of achieving the highest fidelity possible with reproduced music - end of.

Marco.
Yeah, right.

Let's ban all cassette players, then, because -believe me- they add certainly more than "just a little noise or distortion".... :lol:

Filterlab
16-01-2010, 18:01
Great insight Rob. It's good to have you back. :)

Cheers chap, just my tuppeny worth. :)



Great post, and even greater to have you back, matey :)
Thanks mate, just had to add my opinion to that one as it touches both sides (ooer) of my interest in audio, except home cinema but that's separate anyway. :)


P.S Rob, you need a new avatar! ;)
Aye, I'll add something in.


+1.Good to see you posting again Rob.
Thanks Ali. :)


Let's ban all cassette players, then, because -believe me- they add certainly more than "just a little noise or distortion".... :lol:
Chuckle :)

To say the least. However there is something charming about the effects a cassette deck has on audio, but maybe that's for another thread.

Marco
16-01-2010, 18:03
Hi Dimitri,

LOL - no more than (subjectively) to my ears an MP3 player or iPod does!

My Sony Walkman Pro (playing music on high quality NOS chrome tape recorded from my system on the CR-7) in my opinion reproduces music much more accurately than any of the above, despite adding a 'little noise and distortion'.

Not all noise or distortion is equal... We could start a 'valves vs. transistors' or 'analogue vs. digital' debate here in reference to that, but let's not! ;)

Marco.

Marco
16-01-2010, 18:06
Rob,

No worries, matey. Just get stuck right in as only you know how! ;)

Marco.

Filterlab
16-01-2010, 18:14
I should add something though and it's something I've learned through recording. Noise is not necessarily a bad thing when making recordings, and the effects of adding analogue noise can add to a recording as well as detracting from it. When I mastered an album in 2004, it sounded too crisp and clinical (even for my tastes!) so with the aid of a colleague and an eBay account I came up with an answer:

More noise.

Instead of a direct 96Khz all-digital realm mastering in the way I normally undertake recording, I decided to master the whole thing through a used Technics midi system EQ ('bout £20 IIRC) and straight into a Pioneer PDR-505 CD recorder. I used the 'spectrum analyser' on the EQ unit to get a roughly level response and then ran the output through the Pioneer's ADC.

The result was one of the liveliest and most engaging masterings I have done to date, so much so that I was considering grabbing another old EQ and a CD recorder for my current work (which is still too clinical). Of course, audio effects can be edited in by the programs I use to write and sequence, but computer added effects can never really recreate that analogue fuzz introduced by budget components. It's a 'crunchiness', it's a looseness and it's a little unexplainable - in the same way as it's unexplainable why a top notch turntable will still sound more real than an equally top notch CD player. Again the majority of you on here will understand what I mean; it's a feeling rather than a cold hard scientific equation - and that's what music is of course. :)

Man I feel philosophical today!

Themis
16-01-2010, 18:16
Chuckle :)

To say the least. However there is something charming about the effects a cassette deck has on audio, but maybe that's for another thread.
Marco, I agree, but why not accepting that other people may find "nice" something that is -apparently- against "highest fidelity" ?

I mean, in subjectivist terms, "high fidelity" is mainly a personal experience, not a sum of logical assumptions (lower distortion, shorter signal, lower noise, put-you-favorite-one-here).

I really don't know how someone (you included) will be able to elaborate an accurate rule which can turn a subjective point of view into an objective theory.
It is bound to be a teras (as we say in greek) : a monstrosity.

Marco
16-01-2010, 18:19
Man I feel philosophical today!


LOL - you're definitely in good form, chappy! :)

And I know about the quality of your recordings (and music you produce) because I heard the results at Scalford Hall ;)


I should add something though and it's something I've learned through recording. Noise is not necessarily a bad thing when making recordings, and the effects of adding analogue noise can add to a recording as well as detracting from it.


Indeed. Who'd rather put up with a little tape hiss than squashed dynamics when using Dolby noise reduction? Count me in!!

And a little tape hiss on an otherwise beautiful sounding all-analogue recording (when I record vinyl from the Techy onto the CR-7 and play it back on the Walkman Pro) is far more desirable for me than the compressed quagmire of anodyne sounding muzak I hear through iPods and bloody MP3 players!! :mental:

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 18:21
I should add something though and it's something I've learned through recording. Noise is not necessarily a bad thing when making recordings, and the effects of adding analogue noise can add to a recording as well as detracting from it. When I mastered an album in 2004, it sounded too crisp and clinical (even for my tastes!) so with the aid of a colleague and an eBay account I came up with an answer:

More noise.
Why wouldn't be able to do this at home, then ? :eyebrows:

Adding noise is a privilege reserved to mastering engineers, perhaps ? :scratch:

Marco
16-01-2010, 18:28
Dimitri,


Marco, I agree, but why not accepting that other people may find "nice" something that is -apparently- against "highest fidelity" ?


I've never had a problem with that, and indeed have said so.

However, I will always opt for the more 'purist approach' (shortest signal paths, everything hard-wired together throughout as far as possible, using the best quality components one can afford) than anything else I consider as completely alien to that approach, such as the use of graphic equalisers at the point of playback.

YMMV :)

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 18:33
Dimitri,



I've never had a problem with that, and indeed have said so.

However, I will always opt for the 'purist approach' (shortest signal paths, everything hard-wired together throughout as far as possible, using the best quality components one can afford) than anything else I consider is completely alien to that approach, such as the use of a graphic equaliser.

YMMV :)

Marco.We are all "discerning enthusiasts" and we all have a "purist approach".
That's the point I am insisting on.

You can't attribute these qualities only to your own subjective approach, imho. ;)

Filterlab
16-01-2010, 18:36
Why wouldn't be able to do this at home, then ? :eyebrows:

Adding noise is a privilege reserved to mastering engineers, perhaps ? :scratch:
You can do this at home if you want, and an EQ is a quick way to obtain the result. But if the signal has been mastered (which all music has), then the chances are that the mastering engineer and musicians and record company reps and band members and musicians have already thought long and hard about how their music should sound. It then falls to the mastering engineer to make that happen, to get their ideas and ideals on to the tape/disc using whatever methods they feel appropriate. However, the engineer is working with a very very clean palette and anything added in is added with considerable care, and if the result is wrong, the recording is binned (or archived).

If one's ideal is to hear music as the band/engineer etc intended, then adding EQ at the playback stage is not ideal as it's already been done earlier in the chain. Any changes via an EQ is simply moving further away from the original intended sound. The flip side is that if one feels the recording is missing something for personal taste, then an EQ can change what's already there, in some cases to the suit of the listener. Whether it's an improvement is another matter, but of course if it's an improvement to the individual listening, then why not EQ it?

Personally I address EQ balance at the recording as in my opinion a playback system should present the resultant recording as intended with no (or as little as possible) degeneration. But there's no right or wrong with music, one must do whatever floats one's boat. :)

Marco
16-01-2010, 18:40
We are all "discerning enthusiasts" and we all have a "purist approach".
That's the point I am insisting on.

You can't attribute these qualities only to your own subjective approach, imho.

That's not quite what I'm saying, though, Dimitri. I think it's best to leave it there though, otherwise I think I might have to post a YouTube link to the famous Average White Band song 'Let's go round again.....' ;)

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 18:43
The flip side is that if one feels the recording is missing something for personal taste, then an EQ can change what's already there, in some cases to the suit of the listener. Whether it's an improvement is another matter, but of course if it's an improvement to the individual listening, then why not EQ it?

Personally I address EQ balance at the recording as in my opinion a playback system should present the resultant recording as intended with no (or as little as possible) degeneration. But there's no right or wrong with music, one must do whatever floats one's boat. :)
I keep this part, as it's the way I see it, too. Thanks Rob.

I don't use EQ myself, as I consider that the only use I could have (in my setup) would be to correct severe room problems in the low frequencies. That I don't have.

But I have friends who like it otherwise, I don't mind.
Simply, I don't consider myself (who doesn't use EQ) more a "true" music lover (or hifi enthusiast, for that matter) than them.
By the way, most people I know who use EQ for reproduction are recording/mastering engineers or musicians. A coincidence ? ;)

Marco
16-01-2010, 18:44
If one's ideal is to hear music as the band/engineer etc intended, then adding EQ at the playback stage is not ideal as it's already been done earlier in the chain.


That's it in a nutshell, Rob - and *precisely* explains my position in this debate, although I would add "as far as possible within the bounds of my/our ability" after your "intended" above :)

In short, I'd rather hear a nasty recording in all its nastiness (thus keeping it as close to the original sound as possible) than talior it to sound 'more ear friendly' by using EQ, because only by setting my system up this way, with no purposely introduced 'bottlenecks' in place, will it be able to showcase the best recordings in all their glory.

I believe in 'wide-open windows' when it comes to audio. Let ALL the information through as unsullied as possible and 'suffocate' nothing!!

Of course you can only do this successfully in the first place (and achieve an excellent sound) if you have both a good room (one requiring no artificial 'equalisation') and an equally good hi-fi system: one which brings out the best in both good and bad recordings... ;)

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 18:45
That's not quite what I'm saying, though, Dimitri. .I must have misread some parts, then. :cool:

Filterlab
16-01-2010, 19:43
I keep this part, as it's the way I see it, too. Thanks Rob.
Pleasure.


I don't use EQ myself, as I consider that the only use I could have (in my setup) would be to correct severe room problems in the low frequencies. That I don't have.
I don't either, and I'd probably choose to adjust my room rather than go down the EQ route - it's amazing what moving furniture can achieve!



By the way, most people I know who use EQ for reproduction are recording/mastering engineers or musicians. A coincidence ? ;)
Definitely not, but that's a musician's/engineer's ear doing what it does best - listening carefully and seeking out the most musically accurate signal, but of course without analysis it's still down to the taste of the individual. :)

Great subject by the way, and a real eye opener (ear opener?) on people's take on frequency adjustment.

Primalsea
16-01-2010, 19:46
Reading this I think there are two arguments that are not meshing in the middle. Marco's (which I agree with) is that EQ will only detract from the signal. My view is that the filter circuits used in EQ's ruin dynamics and attack and add an extra bit of noise.

On the other side, if I have read this right is that the EQ can be used to address room problems, help improve the bass roll off of smaller speakers and possible correct/help gloss over problem areas in recordings.

I think it boils down to where you want to put your compromises at the end of the day. People find different things more objectionable that others, an EQ is either a great fix and something that is needed, or something unwanted and redundant.

Filterlab
16-01-2010, 19:51
That's it in a nutshell, Rob - and *precisely* explains my position in this debate, although I would add "as far as possible within the bounds of my/our ability" after your "intended" above :)

That's an excellent call if you don't mind me saying so, and insightful because it recognises the subjectivity of sound. Each individual's hearing is different, and so is how it's interpreted. A great basis for why some like digital and some like analogue, some like harmonic distortion and other despise it. Like playing a musical instrument, listening to music critically is a skill and even more so the ability to discern minute elements of music. A poor quality hi-fi simply won't retrieve infinitesimal audio signals, good kit will - but what truly makes a difference is whether the listener can understand what he or she is hearing and, more to the point, actually appreciate it.

That's why visual frequency range analysis is so handy.

Marco
16-01-2010, 21:05
Hi Paul,


Reading this I think there are two arguments that are not meshing in the middle. Marco's (which I agree with) is that EQ will only detract from the signal. My view is that the filter circuits used in EQ's ruin dynamics and attack and add an extra bit of noise.


That single undisputable fact, for me, completely outweighs any (arguable) benefits they may have.

My view is entirely straightforward:

Try as far as possible to use your chosen system in a room with good acoustics (so that 'equalisation' is not needed in the first place), then buy the best equipment you can afford that you like the sound of, and which interferes as little as possible with the music signal, making sure that the speakers work properly in the room. Then buy lots of music, open a bottle of wine (or a few beers), sit back and enjoy!!

Simples :cool:

Marco.

Primalsea
16-01-2010, 21:17
My view is entirely straightforward:

Try as far as possible to use your chosen system in a room with good acoustics (so that 'equalisation' is not needed in the first place), then buy the best equipment you can afford that you like the sound of, and which interferes as little as possible with the music signal, making sure that the speakers work properly in the room. Then buy lots of music, open a bottle of wine (or a few beers), sit back and enjoy!!

Yep, that's my thoughts. I can see where others come from as the resultant mess of a frequency response from putting speakers in a room, even a well treated one will never give you the same response that the sound engineer was listening to. The EQ is seen as a way of addressing this but as I've said before it adds its own problems, problems I don't like and can't live with.

Marco
16-01-2010, 21:51
The EQ is seen as a way of addressing this but as I've said before it adds its own problems, problems I don't like and can't live with.


I feel the exact same, Paul. Thing is too, I doubt that we're in any way in the minority here!!

Fancy starting a poll entitled something like: "Would you use a graphic equaliser in your system?" and offer two possible answers "Yes" or "No" to see what the response is? It would be interesting to know what the thoughts of our nearly 2000 members are :eyebrows: ;)

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 21:56
Fancy starting a poll entitled something like: "Would you use a graphic equaliser in your system?" and offer two possible responses "Yes" or "No" to see what the response is? :eyebrows: ;)
Don't forget to put this poll next to the other poll "Would you prefer using Tannoys in your system?" :eyebrows:

:lolsign:

Marco
16-01-2010, 22:01
Indeed - or how often do you eat Cassoulet? :lol:

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 22:05
Lol, you make me hungry, Marco...

Btw, I will seriously have to try to plan a trip to Wrexham next spring with my lady.
And I won't bring any EQ with me (anyway I don't have any).

Marco
16-01-2010, 22:14
Well, both of you would be most welcome - allow a few days so that we can show you around the beautiful areas surrounding Wrexham, and all our favourite little 'haunts' :)

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 22:22
Well, both of you would be most welcome - allow a few days so that we can show you around the beautiful areas surrounding Wrexham, and all our favourite little 'haunts' :)

Marco.
This will be delightful. :) I will PM you about it (after having a talk with my lady).

Marco
16-01-2010, 22:32
No worries :cool:

Marco.

Spectral Morn
16-01-2010, 22:53
Hi rob

Great to have you back.

They say the proof in the pudding is the tasting, and I have with Rob's work. This guy has created some excellent music and recordings...I regularly use them, both for pleasure and for assessing kit.

From my point of view. I have heard the finished result of Rob's work and I feel he has a real insight on how to make electronic music sound, open detailed and musical :)


Regards D S D L

Marco
16-01-2010, 23:14
I completely agree, Neil, as I've heard the same myself with Rob's stuff, although not at length over long periods like you :)

Marco.

Themis
16-01-2010, 23:17
From my point of view. I have heard the finished result of Rob's work and I feel he has a real insight on how to make electronic music sound, open detailed and musical :)
Ah ? :scratch:

Beechwoods
16-01-2010, 23:26
http://www.filterlab.co.uk/

Spectral Morn
16-01-2010, 23:35
Ah ? :scratch:


Rob's a very humble/modest kind of guy....hope hes not annoyed at this :eyebrows:, but he is THE FILTERLAB :rave: Not someone using his name as a nick name, but the real/genuine (100%) Filterlab.

I love... You'll Never Understand/London Nights and his EP And there it was my Friends....magical chill out/ambient dance.

Regards D S D L

Themis
16-01-2010, 23:41
Thank you guys. Completely OOT, the albums are on sale/download ?

Spectral Morn
16-01-2010, 23:44
Thank you guys. Completely OOT, the albums are on sale/download ?

Sadly they are deleted/out of print, but if you hunt you may be able to find copies. I was aware of Filterlab's music before coming to AOS and did not realise Rob was he, until one day I asked him "Are you He?" and he replied "Indeed I am He" I was very happy to find that out. I am a bit of a fan.


Regards D S D L

Themis
16-01-2010, 23:47
Sadly they are deleted/out of print, but if you hunt you may be able to find copies.
:(
I'll hunt for these tomorrow, it's the kind of music I like a lot.

The Grand Wazoo
17-01-2010, 00:32
Fancy starting a poll entitled something like: "Would you use a graphic equaliser in your system?" and offer two possible answers "Yes" or "No" to see what the response is? It would be interesting to know what the thoughts of our nearly 2000 members are


The more interesting question (to me) would be:

"Even though you might never dream of using a graphic equaliser in your system, can you understand that it might be of use to some people in certain situations?" - Yes / No

Marco
17-01-2010, 00:52
That's an easy one, Chris. I'd expect a 100% 'Yes' answer on that! "Some people in certain situations" could indeed find such a thing useful - I'm sure that most people would agree on that.

My poll suggestion was rather different... Basically, it would be to see specifically how many people on AoS or on other specialist UK audio forums such as pfm, Wigwam, etc, would entertain using a graphic equaliser in their system.

If the 'Yes' votes got into double figures, adding the votes together from all the forums, I'd eat my bobble hat (if indeed I had one)! ;)

Marco.

Beechwoods
17-01-2010, 06:15
Thank you guys. Completely OOT, the albums are on sale/download ?

Dimitri - if you check the Filterlab (http://www.filterlab.co.uk/) website, under the 'See' and 'Hear' sections you can check out some AV / audio downloads of Rob's stuff. I think he's kept the audio uncompressed too, for those of us discerning music lovers :eyebrows:

He'll be dead embarrassed I'm sure, but I hope he doesn't mind me blowing his trumpet :eek:

The Grand Wazoo
17-01-2010, 09:21
But Marco, this has been my point all along. I said I've never felt the need to carry out extra EQ, but I can see how they could have a legitimate purpose for others, whereas the opposing argument has been:
'No, not under any circumstances, they're a tool of the devil'

Filterlab
17-01-2010, 18:25
:(
I'll hunt for these tomorrow, it's the kind of music I like a lot.

Themis, if you PM me your details, I'll post you some discs. They won't be fancy packaged (white labels), but they will be proper uncompressed recordings. The website ones are 128kbps ashamedly, the web has its limitations. :(

Spectral Morn
17-01-2010, 18:27
Themis, if you PM me your details, I'll post you some discs. They won't be fancy packaged (white labels), but they will be proper uncompressed recordings. The website ones are 128kbps ashamedly, the web has its limitations. :(

What a gentleman :)


Regards D S D L

Filterlab
17-01-2010, 18:27
Cheers Neil, you're too kind mate. :)

Alex_UK
17-01-2010, 20:13
Rob - can I buy your discs? (I've looked before, without luck on Amazon, ebay etc.) More than happy to pay for them, (PayPal gift) if you have any available - drop me a PM if viable.

Kris
21-01-2010, 20:07
Undoubtedly the addition of a graphic equaliser, or some similar device at the point of playback, regardless of how much more 'listenable' the effect makes certain recordings, does not fit in with the philosophy of achieving the highest fidelity possible with reproduced music - end of.

Ok Marco, I have a totally genuine situation here, and I would be interested to get your opinion. Actually, I'd be interested to get the opinion of anyone who hates equalisers and wouldn't entertain them in their systems. . .

I've just put on a 15ips tape from the mid 70's. It's a live vocal recording which includes some round the table interviews. It's an important recording for various reasons, and part of our social and geographic heritage. I'm surprised it's at 15ips as it's not a studio recording (a river can be heard flowing in the background). But anyway, I have no idea what the tape type is, nor it's fluxivity, or if it was recorded with NAB or IEC eq, what the recording bias was, or anything. I didn't even know it was recorded at 15ips until I put it on just now.

Unfortunately, there are no test or alignment tones at the start of the recording to help me, and no documentation came with the recording. Thankfully, there is very little tape shed. The tape does have some mould on it in places, so I baked it first as a precautionary measure.

Ok, so I've tried playing it back using NAB eq, IEC eq, and at various overbiases at 10kHz. I usually find -3dB works well on old tapes, but not this time. The NAB eq sounds too dull, the IEC eq is far too bright. My own eq, set up for Ampex 456 sounds better, but I can almost guarantee that the tape isn't 456 or even BASF 911.

I'm wanting to transfer this recording to CD and/or FLAC, and obviously, I want to achieve the highest fidelity possible.

So folks, how would I listen to and transfer this recording whilst adhering to Marco's Philosophy? What would you do to listen to this recording?

Genuine question, I'm not intending to trip anyone up or cause any problems, I'm just interested in your point of view.

Btw, now that Christmas is out of the way I can finally take some photos of my system to put in the gallery. . . . . :)

P.s been away for a few weeks, back now :)

Beechwoods
21-01-2010, 20:18
I think you find yourself in the position of being a mastering engineer, in which case it would be valid to EQ the signal to achieve a natural sound, ideally by use of a reference or by use of an educated ear. It's like pre-broadcast live recordings are often extremely dry, because they were designed to be broadcast through kit which would compress and alter the sound as part of the broadcast process. If the tapes are subsequently heard without the affects of the broadcast stage applied they don't sound as they were ever intended.

DSJR
21-01-2010, 21:44
You'll have to trust your ears AND familiarity with your monitors...

My mastering engineer friend who HATES contemporary music had to do a Marianne Faithful compilation for Decca early in his career. he compiled the tracks together and eq'd the whole to sound good on B&W801's. The resultant disc was hopelessly shrill according to him and that was the last time he deliberately eq'd anything unless he absolutely HAD to - and that was rarely on the 50's and 60's recordings he mastered for low-priced Decca CD's...

Another compilation mastered by Nimbus is the original radio series of Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Now, I've heard the original masters of these shows and the sound is very "dry" and almost muted. The CD's sound too "toppy" and the shrillness is now an excessive glossy sparkle now I have better speakers with well behaved tweeters (those old HF1300 Celestions aren't perfect, but in their fairly narrow range they're superb).

The Grand Wazoo
21-01-2010, 22:22
Kris,
As was my original premise - Sometimes you can't get at the source and a bit of careful and sensitively applied EQ is your only option.

Dave Cawley
21-01-2010, 22:56
Ok, so I've tried playing it back using NAB eq, IEC eq, and at various overbiases at 10kHz

Isn't bias a recording function?

Dave

Beechwoods
21-01-2010, 23:05
It is. Playing with any bias controls would have no affect on playback, but the playback equalisation curves mentioned would.

DSJR
22-01-2010, 16:40
I could never detect a large difference between NAB and IEC curves on playback...

Marco
27-01-2010, 13:21
Kris,
As was my original premise - Sometimes you can't get at the source and a bit of careful and sensitively applied EQ is your only option.

Or simply leave it alone and just enjoy it (or not) as it is?

If that's your opinion, then that's fine, Chris. I just want to hear what my system reveals on any given recording (nasty or good), without introducing further artifice into the signal path other than that already added by the sonic signature of my equipment. That's the best way I can put it.

If I were going to introduce anything further into the chain, it would be more capable equipment and/or cables (and/or set-up thereof) which resulted in making better sense of a particular bad recording. I most certainly wouldn't employ a graphic equaliser or use tone controls to 'pep up' the sound of my existing equipment. Other people may choose to do differently, and of course that's up to them.

The point however, which people seem to be missing here, is that it's not in any way guaranteed (certainly to all tastes) that sensitively applying EQ (or otherwise) is going to 'cure' a bad recording (or even make it more listenable) - certainly not in my experience. There is always a trade-off with these things, so it will depend on what your chosen compromises are.

I'd love to 'magically fix' some of the poor recordings I own, but the fact is, for me, applying EQ only succeeds in ruining dynamics and attack by adding unwanted distortion. Therefore I choose the lesser of the two evils, which is simply accepting how recordings sound, good or bad, the way my system (as is) reproduces them.

That, for me, is what striving for genuine high-fidelity with recorded music is all about! :)

YMMV.

Marco.

Rare Bird
27-01-2010, 13:58
I can finally take some photos of my system to put in the gallery. . . . . :)

P.s been away for a few weeks, back now :)

Look forward to the pics Kris. Hope you had a great break anyway..I was away for a week aswell :lol: