why all the hate for multi-band EQ??

[Mark Seaton]

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

I wasn't specifically aware of this particular McIntosh preamp. It is an interesting mix of features we're also seeing on a few new products like the recent BR-20 from Bryston. At first glance the graphic EQ of the C53 was intriguing. A quick read through the product page and manual give a glimpse at what might be going on with the graphic EQ, but most don't realize what type of changes to the response the adjustments make. Let's be clear, this 8-band EQ is "seasoning" to taste and recording quality, while being minimally useful for fixing problems in a room. It looks like they might be somewhat standard constant-Q graphic EQ, but few home users understand what sort of frequency response curves result once you twist more than one knob.

I do see such products as this encouraging for what I might call the high-value range of the market where others are likely to take cues from the concept and improve on the function. There are some great technologies which have been developed to make such user EQ more intuitive with a what you see is what you get result. While I have only seen it as a digital execution, be sure to look up the work done on different filter types originally by Lake Technology who was purchased by Lab Gruppen. Their Mesa filter is based on raised cosine filtering as opposed to the bell curve functions used by most graphic and PEQ. The big difference is seen when you have 2 overlapping filters, where in a conventional graphic this creates a peak that boosts above the setting of either filter, while the raised cosine filters can sum without any peaking between, and instead a flat-top combination matching the settings of the 2 filters. In a very quick search I came across this general explanation from when the early products were introduced to the pro audio world.

With many of the latest room correction solutions, this type of filtering isn't really needed, as we now often have the ability to simply draw the curve we want in systems like Dirac Live and Trinnov's correction, but it does point to the reality that there are much better solutions available than the archaic tone controls of decades past. While I have little expectation that we'll see such technology show up in the top 2ch systems of LP & tape enthusiasts, there remain some interesting possibilities to be explored with digital sources. If more find use for some restrained adjustments in the digital domain, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually saw some preamplifier designers consider adding some well thought out adjustments such as high and low frequency tilt or shelving, and possibly 1-2 other entirely analog adjustments.

In case purists misunderstand my point, we can get and should first pursue equal and often better results through smart placement of speakers, listeners, acoustic treatments, and even working with room dimensions. Appropriate and well executed EQ is an tool worth considering once you get to the point of not being willing to move a wall, take up ~2' of depth for acoustic treatment, or change speaker models just to find a slightly different balance that better matches your room and preferences. Most audiophiles would be astonished at the audible effects that subtle, but broad response changes can have on the subjective perceptions of a system's balance. In most cases +/-0.5dB to 3dB in a wide tilt or shelf is enough to make for very significant character changes in a system.

 

[cjfrbw]

I think there are many contradictory evolved 'attitudes' in high end audiophilia and the dislike of equalizers is one of them, even though speaker crossovers in favored speakers are rather limited equalizers in and of themselves. For some reason, a lot of two channel audiophiles seem to register that an awkward and bulky passive equalizer with insertion losses is OK, but an active equalizer isn't. Also, many cherished recordings are salads of multiple levels of equalization from the mastering booths.

I have heard box speakers described as a highly refined execution of an extremely flawed concept that started as one thing and eventually evolved into a bunch of other things.

I also think various evolutions of salesmanship lead audiophiles down paths of odd concepts. One is that it is perfectly OK to equalize your system with highly inflexible and even antic, expensive cables, but other forms of equalization are somehow impure or detrimental in all cases. Audiophiles can be superstitious in many ways, and sales marketing can be successful appealing to those superstitions. It can also lead to many established "idee fixe's" that can become rather inflexible and resemble the rotes of religion. I think this can be a stumbling block and an excessive reliance on 'authority'. This is often marshaling trade success at the expense of information.

I personally value the ability to manage my system with various forms of active equalization. I prefer analog equalization and active crossovers for the front two speakers, perhaps unfairly, but mainly because I want to keep the analog turntable source in the analog domain.

I use digital equalization for bass management and the surrounds, and that seems to work out well.

 

[Mikem53]

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?

well said ! I’ve always subscribed to the Less is More when it comes to audio.. That being said, what’s done in the digital domain in this day and age of electronics has allowed for an elaborate way to enhance or modify facets of the signal without the degradation of the original signal through mechanical switches and pots.. Nice to have choices and a bigger sandbox to play in if need be..

 

[JackD201]

I do't hate graphic eq but I just can't seem to get where I want to go with them because of the Q between bands. I just find parametric eqs easier to use and get the results I want more. Of course you could always add GEQs with more bands to lessen the widths but then they really become a pain. I'd maybe use these for fixed commercial installations or for a system where you only need do it once but if I'm say working on a track or track elements, I'll pass.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

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".

Likely true but only for analog signals, not digital.

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

Ok. That is a valid goal. However, I see the goal of using a sophisticated equalizer as the correction of residual flaws in equipment and acoustics. This will allow me to "squeeze every extra micro-ounce of detail from a recording" and, thereby, "contributes to my enjoyment of music! "

I just find parametric eqs easier to use and get the results I want more.

Yup.

 

[MDAguy]

Great answers and especially thanks @Mark Seaton for that very well explained EQ differences post.. I did notice the C53 has an "analog" EQ which I imagine means it's shaping the sound post any digital processing (assuming the digital is even being processed via the pre-amp; in my case only with using the SACD)..

Today I did a simple ear test... I sat at the local dealers room where he had both a C53 and a C2700 preamp with / without the EQ and with /without tubes.. the tone of the Solid State (C53) sat well with me more than the C2700 when the EQ was flat ... I then toyed with the EQ.. mainly with the lower end ... I also tried the classic V shape (loudness) curve at various levels and found that in a few cases. especially at lower volume levels, I prefer the sound with a "loudness" boost pattern... again, depending on the recording.

The salesman who had 30 years in the industry and also did a side gig as a studio musician and engineer kept telling me that if EQ was such a bad thing, music would all be recorded live or onto various tracks that are then combined into a song/recording... but in actuality, all music recordings are EQ'd to death ... and what that engineer chose might not be what you prefer (witness my preference for more defined bass)... So in a nutshell, the flat EQ is maybe logically consistent with the audiophile mindset of "transparency" but truth be told... and as someone above mentioned, your choice of speaker (Crossover, etc)... and your choice of tube/solid state, all have a shaping effect on the tone, so then why not add one more varbiel you can play around with?