To Equalize or Not to Equalize: That Is the Question

[c1ferrari]

I'm empathetic, Charles

Hello gentlemen,

I have been following this thread for a number of months and wish to add my own comments. I've been using equalization for over a year since I built a DIY version of the Cello Palette preampifier from parts found in a CT warehouse containing the "remains" of the Cello operation.

From reading the posts to this thread, it appears that the discussion so far has centered around the pros and cons of equalization to correct system and or room problems. When successful, the results are then applied in what I would call a "static" manner, to create what has been labeled as "digital (or analog) room correction".

Not much mention has been made of the manner in which I use the Palette - to perform "dynamic" corection to individual music selections or, more typically, whole albums. I "insert" the Palette when listening to a lot of what I will call popular digital (CD) music - especially that with female vocals. Now turning down the 2 and 5Khz bands by just a few dB or so removes enough "glare" on the voice that I can listen through a whole album instead of immediately switching to something different, as used to be the case. I call this the "subtractive" mode of operation; the "additive" mode is used when listening to older music, a lot of that produced in the 50's or early 60's, which apart from having little or no real bass, has little mid-bass. In this instance, turning up the equalization at 120 hz or so brings that spectrum and my overall enjoyment level "alive". Correction below that (at 20Hz) does little.

The big problem with applying this "dynamic" equalization relates to what I will call "ease of use". To make it really practical, you need to be able to control it quickly AND right from your listening position - and that's where the operational characteristics of every equalizer I've ever seen fall down. They all require you to get up; go to your equipment rack; fiddle with a control; then sit back down. In my case, I separated the equalizer portion of the Palette from the preamplifier function and mounted it in a "roll-around" right in front of my couch, with a 30ft umbilical that connects it back to the rest of the electronics. Now that I'm up the learning curve regarding how the controls change the sound, I can "equalize" a particular selection within the first few seconds, and then settle back to enjoy the music.

Thank you

Charles

I would not be at all surprised even if I had perfect room sonics, quantifiable and repeatable, that I might still introduce a high quality EQ --thinking GML, presently-- into the signal chain because I didn't find the recording, tracking/mixing/mastering...pleasing to my palate

 

[audioguy]

The big problem with applying this "dynamic" equalization relates to what I will call "ease of use". To make it really practical, you need to be able to control it quickly AND right from your listening position - and that's where the operational characteristics of every equalizer I've ever seen fall down.

Charles

One of the many nice things about my TacT is that I can pre-store 9 different target curves and with the push of the the appropriate button on the remote, instantly engage that curve. Problem solved !

 

[terryj]

same with the deqx, four different profiles (how you set it up with slopes and crossover points etc etc) plus ninety nine recallable presets on the remote, or just dial it in in real time on the remote as you wish.

Yes, a lot of recordings can/do need some sort of salting to taste. One thing tho, personally I have found the better the initial set up the less I tend to use those capabilities.

 

[audioguy]

My primary use is on some studio rock recordings and older rock recordings, the bass needs a little help!

 

[audioguy]

All Room Correction Systems are NOT created equal

I currently use a TacT 2.2XP for my two channel listening and an Integra 80.2 with Audyssey (Pro) for my HT use.

While the TacT has much more user flexibility and provides excellent results, I have noticed, on occasion, that some minor bass overhang/ringing will be present that does not occur when listening to the same music on the Integra. (Generally, I prefer music on the TacT for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I can use my own DAC. But in my treated room, Audyssey does quite well).

I decided to set up a target curve on each unit so that a straight line (from 20hz to 10K hz) would be the result when measured through the filter with OmniMic. In the case of the TacT, to get a flat line, the target curve actually has to slope down from 20hz to 10K hz by about 5db. And based upon the results, some adjustments need to be made to the Audyssey target in the bass to accomplish that as well.

A number of things jump out at me from the attached chart. (1) The granularity of the filter on Audyssey (RED) in up to about 1K is slightly superior to that of the TacT (BLUE) - and that might explain the difference in bass ringing I hear; (2) The Audyssey Curve in the bass is clearly less flat than that of the TacT.

Also, with Audyssey, I most always have to adjust the distance it assigns to the subs to get a smoother frequency response. In this case, I reduced it by one foot.

The resultant FR from both systems shows about a 6db dip in the range of about 100hz to 800hz. I can address that with a change in the target curve, at least on the Tact.

I am to be a Beta Tester for the PC version of Dirac Live at the end of this month and it will be interesting to see how it fares..

Sorry for the humongo size of the chart. I don't know what causes that. If someone will let me know, I can go back and edit whatever I need to edit.

For those that know Audyssey, I only took three measurements and all were from the same position -- at the MLP. Also, I would not listen to the Audyssey result settings this way for music -- too much bass. Nor would I only use one position for measurements.

I did learn some from this little experiment!

 

[Orb]

I wonder if we will or even if it is possible in future that the room equalisation becomes primarily software (ignoring hardware such as mic;s for measurement) that resides on a PC and without the use of an audio hardware box such as TacT/Audyssey.

The focus in this case would be specific to download content and ripped files that are streamed-player managed from a laptop or PC.
This would mean any correction is done at time of streaming along with equaliser user settings done at the player software to tweak tracks.

Is it even feasible for the correction software to be integrated into the laptop, say in a way Amarra and other software players are today, and would it make more sense if the focus of a listener is solely download content and ripped CDs?
Appreciate has no relevance today, but wondering if this is one way it could go in the future.

Cheers
Orb

 

[audioguy]

Orb. There are at least two software solutions that I know of. One is a product called Acourate (sells for about $500) and will do exactly what you want and would run on your music server. The other is DiracLive which will do the same thing and I am to be a Beta tester of that software, supposedly at the end of this month (not holding my breath).

My excitement about the DiracLive software is that is has an excellent reputation and is currently running on the AP20 hardware platform from Datasat and sometime at the end of this year is to be running on their new consumer ssp platform.

But just because these are software solutions, does not mean that the kinds of things I ran into won't occur !!

 

[Orb]

Very interesting and thanks audioguy.
Thanks
Orb

 

[mojave]

Another software solution is Audiolense.

 

[Orb]

I never realised there was so much current development.
Maybe they see this as the best revenue channel when considering consumers and the ongoing move towards music server based listening.
Will be interesting to see if there is a comparison between these and say TacT/Audyssey in the near future in audio publication when they are a little bit more mature in development terms (surprised there has not been much talk about this in the past, or I just missed it).

Thanks
Orb

 

[Brucemck2]

Audiolense is a great product, and the provider delivers great customer service.

In the end I preferred a heavily modified Tact unit and a heavily modified Audyssey unit, but only by small amounts, and largely because they could be made to work with a broader array of source components.

The nicest thing about Audiolense is how many user parameters there are and how easy they are to play with. That allows you to learn a lot about your room, equipment and the parameters underlying many of the correction schemes out there. For me it was a terrific education

 

[audioguy]

Bruce: what Audyssey unit did you have modified and by whom?

 

[Brucemck2]

Bruce: what Audyssey unit did you have modified and by whom?

I have a Balanced Audyssey Pro unit. Eight XLR analog channels in and eight out. It was modified by Reference Audio Mods: UltraClock, silver output transformers for the three front channels, and power supply upgrades. It sounded a bit "thin" and "tizzy" prior to the mods, not unlike the sound of mp3 compression. After the mods it was incredibly transparent and easily worthwhile in a hard core audiophile signal chain.

 

[audioguy]

I have a Balanced Audyssey Pro unit. Eight XLR analog channels in and eight out. It was modified by Reference Audio Mods: UltraClock, silver output transformers for the three front channels, and power supply upgrades. It sounded a bit "thin" and "tizzy" prior to the mods, not unlike the sound of mp3 compression. After the mods it was incredibly transparent and easily worthwhile in a hard core audiophile signal chain.

Thanks. I went to his website. Too bad he doesn't modify Integras!

 

[Steve williams]

Didn't we have a controversial thread recently about Reference Audio Mods

 

[Brucemck2]

Didn't we have a controversial thread recently about Reference Audio Mods

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1352978&highlight=kyle

I first read the above two days ago, so there's some smoke and maybe even some fire.

I had good experiences with two different pieces of gear, so my personal experience differed considerably.

 

[Steve williams]

Thanks Bruce. We actually had the same thread here

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...rence-Audio-Mods&p=62730&viewfull=1#post62730

The thread was certainly controversial

 

[Gregadd]

Tom I posted this chart in another thread. I thought it might get some buzz. I'll put it here.

 

[tmallin]

The big problem with applying this "dynamic" equalization relates to what I will call "ease of use". To make it really practical, you need to be able to control it quickly AND right from your listening position - and that's where the operational characteristics of every equalizer I've ever seen fall down. They all require you to get up; go to your equipment rack; fiddle with a control; then sit back down. In my case, I separated the equalizer portion of the Palette from the preamplifier function and mounted it in a "roll-around" right in front of my couch, with a 30ft umbilical that connects it back to the rest of the electronics. Now that I'm up the learning curve regarding how the controls change the sound, I can "equalize" a particular selection within the first few seconds, and then settle back to enjoy the music.

Charles

The first serious electronic equalizer I owned was the real Cello Palette Preamp. I also had the Cello Acrylic Cart (sorry, I can't find a picture of this) which was a curved clear thick acrylic platform which had wheels and was made to do exactly what you find you want to do: hold the equalizer/preamp (or the more expensive Cello Audio Palette) at such an angle and in such a position right next you your chair so that, sitting in the listening chair, your hand would naturally fall right on the six-band EQ adjusting knobs. This WAS the cat's meow in terms of ease of use during play. I used a three meter cables to reach from the front-end equipment on my equipment rack to the Palette on the Cart, and then 8 or 10 meter balanced cables to go from the Palette Preamp to the balanced inputs of my Cello Duet 350 amp. A sweet set up, the ease of use of which I have never again duplicated. It was better than remote control.

 

[NorthStar]

Older thread but quite educative. Several good points mentioned by Mr. Tom, thank you sir.

1. I don't like Graphic EQs; they always have been negative in my systems.
2. Parametric digital EQs are more productive (1/3 octave + separate 'Q'),
but they don't correct for delays (reverbs, or reflections).
3. Less is more, and simplicity of the parameters is less sound provocative (when intelligently implemented, and with the proper and latest quality parts).

I fully agree that you should first manually EQ your room (acoustical treatments).
Today's latest and newest algorithms that take into account time domain in addition to frequency response, from the better Correction & EQ systems, are simply fantastic.
Personally I'm fond of systems like Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (plus Pro), and also Trinnov,
for some effective sound quality improvements.

One last thing; regarding the Music, or/& Movies recordings:
Some are easier to EQ than others.
A better quality recording is one already EQued half of the way if not more.
And trying to EQ bad recordings is a great challenge in itself.

After all, what you are EQuing is a combination of your room, your loudspeakers, and the recordings themselves. They all have a final effect in the overall listening perception.
And preference often reign over reference.

That's it, just a simple opinion, mine. :b