Macca's Lash Up 2: Lash Harder

Decided I'd revisit the PEQ

When I had that midrange dip dialled in I noticed I'd listen to maybe six or seven albums before I've had enough music for the day - but with PEQ switched out I'll only listen to two or three before I'm feeling done.

Was playing an old Donald Byrd album from 1964 and found I was having to crank the volume right down so it didn't sound too strident. So that has prompted me that things could be better.

So gone back to PEQ only this time with a higher Q to narrow the bandwidth it operates across. Hopefully this will reduce that bit of midrange peakiness without killing the life in the sound.

Interesting the difference between q of 0.14 and 0.2 centred on 1Khz with just -1db of adjustment. Switching from 0.14 to 0.2 like lifting a blanket off the vocal mic.

You can see on this chart from the manual the range the different Q settings covers:

https://i.ibb.co/0K5s0JN/peq.jpg

I don't think it will need too much more tweaking to get it just right. He says.

well so far no extra tweaking needed. Just a 0.5 dB dip centred on 1KHz with Q of 0.2 (the minimum possible with this PEQ) is like getting a speaker upgrade.

A fairly wide variety of music played and not encountered any issues, everything seems enhanced. Small details are cleaner and clearer and instrumental tone is improved too. It's richer and more vibrant.

I'm guessing that just implementing this slight notch filter is removing a peak that was having a masking effect but isn't radical enough to kill the life like it did when I used a Q of 0.07 and pulled down a much wider bandwidth.

Wanted to refer back to the anechoic measurements of my speakers done by Stereophile back in June 2002 but the link I had saved no longer works. Went to the 'American Radio History' site where most of the back issues are saved down as pdf and they've been taken down.

So had to order a copy of the June 2002 issue off of eBay. Oh well.

Have to say this Sony pre-amp is one of the best bits of kit I've ever bought.

Good stuff Martin. I have been playing around with some EQ software myself recently but pretty basic stuff. I think any adjustments certainly come down to personal preference and what you perceive to be correct. Everything you listen to has already been EQ'd to death so re-adjusting for your own equipment and listening environment is a very personal experience.

Good to be able to adjust stuff but I would find I would need to adjust my EQ for ever recording I listened too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Good stuff Martin. I have been playing around with some EQ software myself recently but pretty basic stuff. I think any adjustments certainly come down to personal preference and what you perceive to be correct. Everything you listen to has already been EQ'd to death so re-adjusting for your own equipment and listening environment is a very personal experience.

Good to be able to adjust stuff but I would find I would need to adjust my EQ for ever recording I listened too!

---

The trick is really is to just use the EQ as subtly as possible to fix any obvious problem. And then resist the temptation to mess with it any further!

If you get it right the vast majority of professional recordings should sound somewhere between good and excellent, so hopefully you won't feel the need to keep adjusting.

Having the anechoic measurements of your speakers is very handy to give you an idea of where to start experimenting if you want to try adjusting in the mids and top. Bear in mind there may be nothing that needs fixing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

The trick is really is to just use the EQ as subtly as possible to fix any obvious problem. And then resist the temptation to mess with it any further!

If you get it right the vast majority of professional recordings should sound somewhere between good and excellent, so hopefully you won't feel the need to keep adjusting.

Having the anechoic measurements of your speakers is very handy to give you an idea of where to start experimenting if you want to try adjusting in the mids and top. Bear in mind there may be nothing that needs fixing!

---

I think the tricky bit is dialling in your speakers into your room acoustics so even if you know the speakers anechoic measurements they may not be that helpful when you add up all the other variable.... amplifier performance, room nodes etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I think the tricky bit is dialling in your speakers into your room acoustics so even if you know the speakers anechoic measurements they may not be that helpful when you add up all the other variable.... amplifier performance, room nodes etc?

---

That depends on how tricky a room you have, I think the amplifier is pretty trivial to get right compared to room and speakers. Your room looks large enough not to have any serious issues with low frequencies, likewise with mine.

I don't feel any need to use EQ in the bass, the opposite of many people where their issues are in the LF.

What I'm doing is akin to turning the treble control a tiny bit to the left. Except a treble control takes a machete to the FR, taking off an arm, whereas the PEQ is like a scalpel and can cut exactly the right amount out.

I increased my treble by +2db recently and it has significantly improved the whole performance from the speakers/system. My room acoustic work knocked a bit of the top end off I am sure but adding 2db treble back in has compensated for this. The room treatment just stopped a lot of the first reflections and subsequent image/detail smearing and echo flutters. Fixing these did however take a bit of top end away.


Its a fine balance with all these things so having precise control over the EQ treble performance must be very useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Wanted to refer back to the anechoic measurements of my speakers done by Stereophile back in June 2002 but the link I had saved no longer works. Went to the 'American Radio History' site where most of the back issues are saved down as pdf and they've been taken down.

So had to order a copy of the June 2002 issue off of eBay. Oh well.

---

Copy of Stereophile arrived but they sent me the December 2022 issue by mistake.

Can see how it happened as the covers of both issues are very similar in colour. I'm told June will be sent this week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Copy of Stereophile arrived but they sent me the December 2022 issue by mistake.

Can see how it happened as the covers of both issues are very similar in colour. I'm told June will be sent this week.

---

Ah that's annoying.