why all the hate for multi-band EQ??

MDAguy · Oct 11, 2020

Ok, so it first occurred to me when optioning the Bermester sound system on my Porsche a little while back that the idea of an EQ was somehow offensive to audiophiles (or snobs as my dealer put it)... the guys at Burmester insisted that the pre-programmed voices is all I'd need to get the best sound out of this nearly $6000 audio "upgrade" ..

I've been interested in audio and music for years... Electronics in general, and I've got an Amateur Extra Class FCC license, and 4 digit callsign, and EE degree and years experience playing bass guitar and using equipment racks that include at least 4 band, if not more EQ's... Studios when recording music will tweak certain frequency ranges to get a certain sound from a recording, etc..

Seems like EQ is/has been a part of music for a long time, so it begs the question... why did so many tried their hardest to convince me to go with a C2700 Tube pre-amp over the C53 solid state, even though I prefer the sound of the C53... and in many cases, two that I can recall specifically, there was a complete disregards for the 8-band EQ option on the C53 as a plus... it was almost dismissed as useless...

Useless? Someone explain to me why/how EQ's are useless? Especially when dealing with smaller rooms, speakers, etc.. ?

Mark Seaton · Oct 11, 2020

Fixed frequency, classic, graphic EQ is entirely the wrong tool to adjust a hi-fi system. We can make good arguments for broad and targeted response shaping for different goals, but a graphic EQ is not efficient at achieving this. Tilt functions 1-2 fully adjustable filters and some specific EQ at the lowest frequencies could be highly useful, where such functions are easy to realize in the more highly regarded digital room correction systems.

Ron Resnick · Oct 11, 2020

Welcome to WBF, SJS992!

Ron
W2DXX

PS: I defer to members much more knowledgeable than I am, but the answer to your question, I believe, has to do with one or more of:

1) we don't want our audio signals running through unnecessary components,

2) those equalizers make sledgehammer frequency adjustments which are too gross to solve subtle and possibly narrow frequency response bumps and dips, and

3) if one wants to impose gross frequency adjustments in different bands on the reproduction of audio, why bother to fuss with all of this expensive and perfectionistic high-and audio equipment which seeks to maximize signal purity and sonic transparency, and minimize adulteration?

marmota · Oct 11, 2020

I would like to add, that if such gross frequency response errors exist, that likely means that one has the wrong speakers for the room. Changing the speakers to others more suitable to the enviroment (OB or sealed box instead of bass reflex, for example) is a much better solution than trying to apply lipstick to a pig.

Kal Rubinson · Oct 11, 2020

SJS992 said:
Useless? Someone explain to me why/how EQ's are useless? Especially when dealing with smaller rooms, speakers, etc.. ?

I agree with you, in principle, but not all EQs are equal in their capabilities.

Ron Resnick said:
we don't want our audio signals running through unnecessary components,

Not an issue in the digital domain.

marmota said:
I would like to add, that if such gross frequency response errors exist, that likely means that one has the wrong speakers for the room. Changing the speakers to others more suitable to the enviroment (OB or sealed box instead of bass reflex, for example) is a much better solution than trying to apply lipstick to a pig.

No. It generally means that the room, itself, is imposing its influence due to its fixed dimensions. Changing the speakers cannot have more than a superficial effect on that.

marmota · Oct 11, 2020

Kal Rubinson said:
No. It generally means that the room, itself, is imposing its influence due to its fixed dimensions. Changing the speakers cannot change that.

Yes and no!

Do you know why "studio monitors" can be used very close to the back wall and practically the same speaker but branded "Hifi" has to be at more than 1 meter from the back wall? Baffle Step Compensation applied to the crossover. Also, the type of enclosure for the latter, almost always, is bass reflex (24db roll off). A speaker with less baffle step compensation, and a box alignment that doesn't roll off as steeply, such as a closed box (12db roll off) will have a much, much flatter bass response in the room where the other speaker (almost full or full baffle step compensation and 24db roll off) will sound like a mess.

EDIT: also, directivity matters very much. A speaker with very wide dispersion, even if on paper is a nice idea, is not the best for a very narrow room, on which a speaker that "beams" more will sound more correct due to less reflections bouncing around the narrow walls. There's lot of info about this, is worth the read IMHO.

treitz3 · Oct 11, 2020

EQ's mess with the imaging IME. Possibly because of some sort of phase shift. I have had them before in some of my systems decades ago (up to I believe a 36 band) and have not had any in the rigs ever since. You may be able to get better frequency reproduction and a smoother response but (as always) at the expense of other attributes.

For me? Imaging and spacial localization cues are too important.

Tom

Kal Rubinson · Oct 11, 2020

marmota said:
Yes and no!
Do you know why "...................................................................................to less reflections bouncing around the narrow walls. There's lot of info about this, is worth the read IMHO.

I know, I know. Not the elephant in the room. It is the room.

marmota · Oct 12, 2020

Kal Rubinson said:
I know, I know. Not the elephant in the room. It is the room.

Don't oversimplify, of course the room imposses it's influence, always. But that's just one part of the puzzle, different speakers yield different results in the same room, for the reasons I mentioned above (and the size of the speaker) that you conveniently didn't quote.

Kal Rubinson · Oct 12, 2020

marmota said:
Don't oversimplify, of course the room imposses it's influence, always.

OK.

marmota said:
But that's just one part of the puzzle, different speakers yield different results in the same room, for the reasons I mentioned above (and the size of the speaker) that you conveniently didn't quote.

I didn't quote those points because, although valid, they are not as significant as room influences which are unavoidable. Most people will choose a speaker based on sound, cost and appearance (in some proportion) and not based on what will sound best in my room. If they did, most speaker companies would disappear.

marmota · Oct 12, 2020

Kal Rubinson said:
OK.
I didn't quote those points because, although valid, they are not as significant as room influences which are unavoidable. Most people will choose a speaker based on sound, cost and appearance (in some proportion) and not based on what will sound best in my room.

That's the point, they will choose what works best in their room, not in yours.
PS: the avid reader knows how to read between lines. Example, if my room is 20 square meters and yours 60 square meters, and your review says that the speaker has a prominent midbass...that speaker has very high chances of sounding awful in the smaller room.

Anyway, I'll refrain to posting more on this, is pretty basic stuff and probably this is not the adequate thread to do it.
Have a nice weekend!

Mark Seaton · Oct 12, 2020

Ron Resnick said:
Welcome to WBF, SJS992!

Ron
W2DXX

PS: I defer to members much more knowledgeable than I am, but the answer to your question, I believe, has to do with one or more of:

1) we don't want our audio signals running through unnecessary components,

Absolutely, as outside of those operating in the digital domain of a system that starts with a digital source, very few products have been designed to meet the expectations of top tier hi-fi products. I suspect the only way to do this in a palatable manner would be designing it into the preamplifier circuitry directly by the same designer. We have started to see a few preamplifiers available with a low pass output for a subwoofer or similar use.

In many cases of alleged "high quality" devices I've seen the addition of EQ raise the noise floor or greatly reduce the channel separation. Easily quantifiable metrics we know are audible even before we get into the more subtle differences between electronics.

2) those equalizers make sledgehammer frequency adjustments which are too gross to solve subtle and possibly narrow frequency response bumps and dips, and

3) if one wants to impose gross frequency adjustments in different bands on the reproduction of audio, why bother to fuss with all of this expensive and perfectionistic high-and audio equipment which seeks to maximize signal purity and sonic transparency, and minimize adulteration?

Fully agreed with large scale manipulations. Of course we see plenty of speakers with various resistor and related adjustments for in-room or configuration accounting for different cases of use. It might be a strong argument that some such adjustments could be made much more precisely in digital or line level upstream electronics. It's not something that is necessarily en-vogue, but the concept does have merit.

Robh3606 · Oct 12, 2020

I just set up a new stereo system and wanted to have EQ available so I use a surround processor as my preamp. All my sources are digital and the EQ available is 11 bands of parametric per speaker as well as the option to use Dirac Live. Also have full bass management to use subs of required. You can get around what is typically available in stereo preamps by simply not using one.

Rob

Kal Rubinson · Oct 12, 2020

Mark Seaton said:
Absolutely, as outside of those operating in the digital domain of a system that starts with a digital source, very few products have been designed to meet the expectations of top tier hi-fi products. I suspect the only way to do this in a palatable manner would be designing it into the preamplifier circuitry directly by the same designer. We have started to see a few preamplifiers available with a low pass output for a subwoofer or similar use.

Amen. Outside of the digital sphere, I think it is the proverbial "chicken and egg" situation in which, for so long, the manufacturers of "top tier hi-fi products" continue to eschew this option that consumers have become convinced that it is neither desirable nor possible. I dimly recall the influence of Dick Burwen whose ideas survived only a while as an example of market rejection. More recently, there were the Rives Audio sub-PARC and PARC, although these were add-ons and not designed into a preamplifier.

Robh3606 said:
I just set up a new stereo system and wanted to have EQ available so I use a surround processor as my preamp. All my sources are digital and the EQ available is 11 bands of parametric per speaker as well as the option to use Dirac Live. Also have full bass management to use subs of required. You can get around what is typically available in stereo preamps by simply not using one.

If you are all digital, as am I, you can also do all of the processing/EQ/DSP in software and run the output of your DACs directly to your power amps. I prefer to do that because, for music, the only acceptable surround processors (with all their unnecessary video functions) are too expensive, imho.

Robh3606 · Oct 12, 2020

Hello Kal

Is your system pc based to run the software?? Do you have your system on the StereophiIe site? Thats an option I hadn't considered. About the the only thing I use my PC now for is ITunes Physical media dinosaur!

I would normally agree on cost but Emotiva is selling refurbished XMC-1's and I couldn't find a 2 channel pre that had what I was looking for or I could afford

Rob

Kal Rubinson · Oct 12, 2020

Robh3606 said:
Is your system pc based to run the software??

Yes.

Robh3606 said:
Do you have your system on the StereophiIe site?

You have to look at the most recent reviews in the Associated Equipment side-bar. Basically, it is a PC-based streamer running JRiver with 8-channel DACs (I use a Coleman 7.1SW to choose sources).

MDAguy · Oct 12, 2020

great conversation and I can see some of these points.... the transparency issue, etc... but I don't think all EQ's are created equally, nor are all EQ "tweaks" or adjustments as it relates to playback.. this all began when a guy at my dealer just about read me the riot act for buying a McIntosh C53 pre-amp with the 8-band EQ... insisting that if I were a real audiophile I'd get the C2700 because a) it's tube and b) it's missing the EQ (which btw, is 100% defeated on the C53)...

anyway... glad to glean into the mindset behind it, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

MDAguy · Oct 12, 2020

marmota said:
I would like to add, that if such gross frequency response errors exist, that likely means that one has the wrong speakers for the room. Changing the speakers to others more suitable to the enviroment (OB or sealed box instead of bass reflex, for example) is a much better solution than trying to apply lipstick to a pig.

or what if I want to hear more of the bass guitar in a track than the original master provides for when played without an EQ... is it sacrilege that I want to hear a particular instrument louder than the original artist/producer recorded it?

I think not.. it's like putting a dash more of salt on a meal prepared at a high end (maybe Michelin star) restaurant and offending the chef.... but in the end you're happier with the meal.

MDAguy · Oct 12, 2020

Mark Seaton said:
...e, very few products have been designed to meet the expectations of top tier hi-fi products. .

from what you know, would the $8000 retail pried C53 be included in this category?

Gregm · Oct 13, 2020

SJS992 said:
...Seems like EQ is/has been a part of music for a long time, so it begs the question...
(...) Someone explain to me why/how EQ's are useless? Especially when dealing with smaller rooms, speakers, etc.. ?

The purported point of hi-end reproduction is to transport ourselves to the musical event, as presented by the recording & mastering engineers. In this respect, modifying the recorded sound takes us further away from that goal -- the equalizer being an additional circuit modulating the original signal and compromising the signal's "purity".

Hence the anathema

HOWEVER, using an equalizer responds to a totally different -- but no less legitimate -- goal in my book: to modify the original signal to match our listening preferences
Again, an acceptable approach, just different than that of the purist.

Similarly, I like to squeeze every extra micro-ounce of detail from a recording, it is the kind of sound that pleases me and, subjectively, contributes to my enjoyment of music! Regards

why all the hate for multi-band EQ??

Member

WBF Technical Expert (Speaker & Acoustics)

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Technical Expert (Speaker & Acoustics)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads