Graphic Equalizers and Ethos

[The Grand Wazoo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...!!!