Does Analog EQ belong in State of the Art Systems?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I tried the Schiit in the hope at might be useful for the occasionally over bright recording. It had absolutely no ameliorative effect! And in my system, I believe it took a hit on transparency.
I think Schiit’s a great company, though. And they made it easy to return.
I optimized my system and room to the best of my abilities and decided, this past weekend, to bring in an acoustics consultant to wring out the last 5-10%. Lots of great testimonials from happy customers. But there was an interesting twist. He is a digital guy who works mostly with other digital guys who have DSP in their systems. I haven’t completely decided if he was able to improve my sound, but it was quite interesting to see changes via his real time analyzer when we added, moved and removed treatments. Very little changed! However, we did have DSP for the subs (his main mission was sub integration) and that had a significant impact on frequency response.
It was a real eye opener that leads me to believe that the characteristics of the room override most of the benefits of the treatments. If you MEASURE your room, you may find that treatments are doing less than you think. I still won’t use DSP except for the subs, but I could see why people would, even with a SOTA system. What’s WAY more important is to have a SOTA room, which most people don’t have, hence the need for DSP.
It was a real eye opener that leads me to believe that the characteristics of the room override most of the benefits of the treatments. If you MEASURE your room, you may find that treatments are doing less than you think. I still won’t use DSP except for the subs, but I could see why people would, even with a SOTA system. What’s WAY more important is to have a SOTA room, which most people don’t have, hence the need for DSP.
Room treatment may not change that much in terms of frequency response in mids and highs, but it does remove lots of distortions and hardness from short-distance reflections. This may not show up that much in measurements, but it very much does show up at your ears. Especially when you usually play music at loud SPL as I do (100 dBC peaks and above on orchestral music). Room treatment also affects reverberation time (which also affects imaging) and "air" in the sound.
My ASC TubeTraps, with the IsoThermal TubeTraps being the most efficient, very much influence the bass. In my room they are essential to get good bass; the sound is catastrophic without them.
I don't use DSP and I don't have a SOTA room. Yet I have tamed the sound well over the years with appropriate room treatments. It is very good, but nothing beats a better room. Especially a large room. Many people, including myself, don't have it, but for the best sound you do need a large room. And you can't DSP your way out of that problem, either.
I have 2 absorbers to the sides of my speakers and they get rid of a smear or garble from reflections.
I don't know, but I trust JR of Wally Tools when he says DSP for subs, especially multiple subs is very beneficial.
One of the worst rooms I heard was a brand new half million build that was incredibly bright with uncontrollably slap echo that was metalic in sound. No adsorption at all but a of wood block diffusers. 2 layers of drywall on RSC channel. Wondering now if that metal sound was the channel?
I have seen a lot of graphs from people using DSP that show a flattening of freq reaponse and lots of claims its better. But its also a fanclub group that is you argued the sonic reault was nebulous, you would get kicked off the group.
I don't know, but I trust JR of Wally Tools when he says DSP for subs, especially multiple subs is very beneficial.
One of the worst rooms I heard was a brand new half million build that was incredibly bright with uncontrollably slap echo that was metalic in sound. No adsorption at all but a of wood block diffusers. 2 layers of drywall on RSC channel. Wondering now if that metal sound was the channel?
I have seen a lot of graphs from people using DSP that show a flattening of freq reaponse and lots of claims its better. But its also a fanclub group that is you argued the sonic reault was nebulous, you would get kicked off the group.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
If it needs EQ, it is noy SOTA.
Really? Then tape and vinyl are not SOTA because you have to use additive/subtractive EQ for playback
Very good Bruce.
OK Class.
This is what happens when a term of art tales on a generic meaning.
He is saying the current SOTA of vinyl and tape requires EQ. Would not the be true of both the best and worst of the rest of the respective genres? But this audiophile thinks of SOTA as the best products being offered in a particular class. One requirement is that it be "flat."
I was suggesting that if you have to add external EQ , the device or system may not be SOTA.
I
Confession: after changing my server to the Pachanko Constellation Mini SE, I did determine that the Loki Max added a veil so I removed it from my chain.
Coming at this from a slightly different perspective and perhaps a bit more aligned with Gregadd’s comments.
In my limited experience, the very best and only legitimate EQ known to man is the acoustic coupling / interface between speaker and room and the quality thereof.
External EQ is little more than chasing effects rather than the cause. Chasing effects is usually somewhat akin to chasing windmills.
Likewise, the results of chasing effects most if not always induce significant compromises i.e. better here worse there, 1 or 2 steps forward 1 or 2 steps backward, etc. And most always at far greater costs with far less rewards.
BTW, SOTA-level or any other level systems should have nothing to do with this fundamental.
In my limited experience, the very best and only legitimate EQ known to man is the acoustic coupling / interface between speaker and room and the quality thereof.
External EQ is little more than chasing effects rather than the cause. Chasing effects is usually somewhat akin to chasing windmills.
Likewise, the results of chasing effects most if not always induce significant compromises i.e. better here worse there, 1 or 2 steps forward 1 or 2 steps backward, etc. And most always at far greater costs with far less rewards.
BTW, SOTA-level or any other level systems should have nothing to do with this fundamental.
I don't doubt your experiences and opinions. A few thoughts:
As far as eq in the digital domain, all software is not created equal. Professional digital eq is only usable in a digital audio workstation (DAW). You may have a different opinion if you were to use DMG Equilibrium, or the Weiss EQ-1.
As a mastering engineer, part of my everyday process when I need to eq a mix is whether I use digital or analog. And which eq , regardless of digital or analog, given I have many choices and they all sound different. If the mix is digital, which it is 99.9999% of the time, and I decide digital eq is best, that allows me to stay digital and have no D/A A/D conversion. If I want to use analog, it has to be better sounding for the particular project to go through the conversion and gain stages in the console that has to happen if I choose analog. On a full album, I usually start by doing one song both ways and picking the winner.
Make of this what you will regarding how to approach using eq in a hifi system.
Why? There will always be issues with speakers and the room. If you can use external EQ to improve the system performance to make it more "flat" what's the issue? If the system sounds better with the EQ doesn't the improvement push it closer to SOAT?
Amps have tone controls, speakers have attenuators. Simple straight wire may be a good goal as less is more but in the real world the other can be equally true.
Rob
disagree. it's possible to get the room and speaker<->room all the way right. took building a new room, and then 11 years of lots of messing around.
by 'right' i mean a nice FR curve, completely seamless and very extended bass, and absolutely zero ability to hear 'speakers'. system disappears. only music. beyond that are matters of taste. for instance, when i sit in my preferred near field position, imaging 'can be' too high for some, but i like it. but if you sit on the sofa behind my near field spot, imagining is right height. depends on how holographic one prefers. do you prefer to listen 'in' the music, or listen 'to' the music? all recording dependent, of course.
my active bass towers do have analog adjustments, but only output under 40hz. so all analog signal path, mild analog EQ under 40hz.If you can use external EQ to improve the system performance to make it more "flat" what's the issue? If the system sounds better with the EQ doesn't the improvement push it closer to SOAT?
Amps have tone controls, speakers have attenuators. Simple straight wire may be a good goal as less is more but in the real world the other can be equally true.
Rob
Last edited:
So you had issues for 11 years and you built a dedicated room with lots of work and you disagree there are not issues in a typical set-up?
You just basically just defined the difficulty dealing with this issue considering the time and expense.
EQ can work a lot quicker for a lot less.
Why are you showing a 34db range over the measurement? Should be is a 10-15 db window seems odd? Sure you can trust the method?
Rob
if you are pushing something closer to SOA, It's not SOTA/ Just semantics.Why? There will always be issues with speakers and the room. If you can use external EQ to improve the system performance to make it more "flat" what's the issue? If the system sounds better with the EQ doesn't the improvement push it closer to SOA [SOTA]T?
Amps have tone controls, speakers have attenuators. Simple straight wire may be a good goal as less is more but in the real world the other can be equally true.
Rob
your point was that every room can benefit from EQ, my point is that with enough effort that is wrong. but it's not trivial to accomplish.
agree that at the modest end of things that EQ used in many ways can make sense. and it's quicker. so what? quick and cheap has it's spots. developing a mature high performance system with a pure signal path is not for everyone. but i am not anti-EQ. horses for courses.
i use the Trinnov Altitude 16 in my HT system which is EQ on steroids. but EQ presents restrictions for SOTA 2 channel systems and is not the preferred choice. IMHO. YMMV.
i think my FR curve is pretty good.
i guess maybe someday i might hear an EQ'd signal path system that gets close to mine in performance. digital. vinyl. or tape. not happened yet. but it's one choice to go.
Last edited:
Hello
The question I had on the measurement is the range in dB. That's quire a lot so I question if it's real. Having a 34 dB slope is not going to be OK. So if it sounds good? Scale look wrong
Rob
The question I had on the measurement is the range in dB. That's quire a lot so I question if it's real. Having a 34 dB slope is not going to be OK. So if it sounds good? Scale look wrong
Rob
Nonsense you are talking overall system performance and a change that makes an overall improvement is making it better/improving it.
You are defining SOA as out of the box? Good luck with that!
Rob
Similar threads
