Jump to content

Equaliser


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I would like to add some tone control to my simple set up.

I’m fairly new to the stereo game.

I’ve recently bought a couple of sets of speakers and there’s certain frequencies I would like to amplify or take down a tad. I’m familiar with a bss soundweb or a simple fysical equaliser but want to keep the signal as pure as I can while altering it and moving it through ‘the box’.

 

What device am I looking for?

Current set up is sonos box rca outs in to amp - very basic.

 

Planning to add a pre amp and DAC when the funds are available.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Look into a little box called a minidsp. I watched a few youtube videos on them and they seem cool. If you dont want to add any more digital gear then you can probably get tonnes of stereo eq's on ebay really cheap. I have used a few, pioneer, dbx and its strange that no one uses them anymore. I guess quality gear doesnt need it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/09/2018 at 5:53 PM, kamielcat said:

I’ve recently bought a couple of sets of speakers and there’s certain frequencies I would like to amplify or take down a tad.

Go for it....   Equalisers don't necessarily lower the sound quality in general  (unless your equaliser is faulty of course) .....  but depending on the knobs on the EQ that you twiddle, you can make some profound changes to the sound which can make the sound bad.    For example, if you move a certain frequency band by 3dB, this is a lot.    Too much and you will distort the sound.    If you have a big problem which requires EQ to fix, it's usually better the try and fix the problem at the source.    On the other hand - If you just like it to "sound different", then Rock On!  ;) 

 

 

On 11/09/2018 at 5:53 PM, kamielcat said:

Current set up is sonos box rca outs in to amp - very basic.

May Sonos products have an EQ function build into them.    Have a look at your manual.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



42 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Don't do it!

 

The short reason is that you can never make the sound more realistic with any kind of tone controls, without some kind of reference.

 

Live with it, until you can:

 

* Fix you room acoustics (can be very inexpensive).

* Buy better speakers (can be expensive).

 

I don't disagree with this completely, but at the end of the day, if his "preference is his reference" ..... then if careful you can get subjective improvements.

 

At the end of the day "this is the entertainment industry"  ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with graphic equalisers is that people often don't know how to use them, and end up making their sound worse.

 

My father in law has a 6-band graphic eq on his amplifier, which he insists on setting with a smiley-face with diminished high-end, with l+r settings never matching.  I've often tried to move them closer to a flat response, which sounds best for his system, but he puts them back. 

 

One day he tells me he felt ripped-off buying a CD of early classical music transferred from 78's (piano, from memory), he said it sounded terrible, no question about it.  Now I know he would have been expecting modern 64-bit recording quality and not 78 record quality, but I though there was more to it.  I asked him to demonstrate, and it sounded horrible.  I then set the eq to flat, and the recording was very listenable, and he was amazed.  I explained why his settings did not work, and he was very grateful for me to make his system sound so much better. 

 

Next time I visited, he had set the eq back to his bad settings.  It's his system, so he can listen to it how he likes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Don't do it!

 

The short reason is that you can never make the sound more realistic with any kind of tone controls, without some kind of reference.

That kind of reference would be a microphone hey? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



10 minutes ago, Satanica said:

That kind of reference would be a microphone hey? 

Much more than that. You would require (at an absolute minimum):

 

* Equalisation information to correct room defects.

* Equalisation information to correct speaker defects.

* Equalisation information to correct recording defects.

* AND a properly calibrated microphone and the experience to use all the equipment required to do all the above.

 

Something like a DEQX will do most of what is needed, but I would argue that the first step is to fix the room and use decent speakers.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Much more than that. You would require (at an absolute minimum):

 

* Equalisation information to correct room defects.

* Equalisation information to correct speaker defects.

* Equalisation information to correct recording defects.

* AND a properly calibrated microphone and the experience to use all the equipment required to do all the above.

 

Something like a DEQX will do most of what is needed, but I would argue that the first step is to fix the room and use decent speakers.  

Practicality speaking, one should be most concerned with concentrating on issue number one.

"Fixing" a room can only take so far, a bit of EQ to bass to finish off the job is not a sin and will be positive to overall sound if used correctly.

"Fixing" in room bass under 70Hz is practically quite hard.

Never forgetting that many (most?) of us don't have dedicated rooms so applying "fixes" to a living room ain't gonna happen.

Edited by Satanica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EQ is not that bad it gets such a bad rap nowadays, we all hear differently one persons advice may not suit another person's situation, granted that room treatments and better speakers do help however they aren't always possible especially in shared spaces other occupants of the house will have a say in these options the cost may also be a factor if the op can get better sounding music (to his ears) via a simple solution then I say go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Satanica said:

microphone

The problem with a microphone is that the data you capture is often not clearly representative of what's actually going on.

 

Example:   So you take a measure, and there is a droop in the HF... so you boost the HF with a EQ ... and now your measure looks nice and flat.... but if you measure in some other way, or other location .... the droop in HF isn't there.

 

A microphone is easy to use... and EQ is easy to use.   These things are inexpensive, and the microphone does not have to be particularly calibrated (aside from the frequency extremes) .... but the data you get from the microphone is not simple, with respect to how it relates to what you hear (or how, of if, you should turn the knob on the EQ).

 

5 hours ago, BATMAQN said:

EQ is not that bad it gets such a bad rap nowadays

Mainly due to people "misusing" it.

 

This picture sums it up  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/Su3bsCqxNkI/AAAAAAAAALo/DkDumFcTdM4/s1600/Circle+of+Confusion.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



21 minutes ago, Point source said:

Eq is ‘part’ of the cycle, what about compressors DBX160 used in the studios ?

What about them? dbx devices do not (or should not) alter the frequency response of a recording. Typically, a single-ended dbx is used to compress or limit peak levels. Double ended dbx units (like the ones I worked on in the 1970s) were designed as noise reduction devices. Handy for analogue tape and vinyl. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are familiar with the Soundweb, and have one, give it a try. It's a professional unit with a great reputation, but has been overshadowed in recent years by newer dsp systems. I personally find the interface clunky compared to newer dsp systems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top