audio equalizer

[mdrew]

Howdy,

I too have a set of M80’s. I’m curious to your description of “muddled” though. I’ve heard the 80’s called a few different things, but can’t recall ever hearing the term muddled. In fact, the majority of complaints I’ve seen (and tend to agree with) is that they are too detailed/forward/bright. Muddled would be the polar opposite to me. Maybe you do have something set wrong in your system. I would do some tweaking before rushing out and buying a set of 703’s. The fella’s at the Axiom forum can surely help you out with that….it’s at least worth a try? Might save you a few grand.

And when I was running around auditioning different speakers and researching on the net, I kept seeing how the Axiom M60 and M80’s sound was frequently compared to the 703’s and Paradyme Studio 100, vrs 3. I too found that they are similar to the 703’s, but not as forward and with a little more bass. I doubt I could tell the difference between the M80’s and studio 100’s on a blind test. I find them to be very close. If you really don’t like the weigh the M80’s sound, you might be pretty disappointed with the 703’s or studios. There are several folks on the Axiom boards that went from Axiom to Monitor Audio S8’s and love them. That might be the type of sound your looking for…..possibly warmer? Also, Rocket loudspeakers are referred to quite a bit as sounding warmer than Axioms.

 

[zumbo]

Thanks for all your input!
Zumbo--- how many speaker manufacturers did you listen to before deciding on B&W and besides 703’s what other speakers would you say are worth listening to.
This question is for all of you.

I did not get the B&W. Couldn't swing the $$$. But, if I had 3k to spend on the mains alone, those would be it.
I will list as many speakers as I can remember.

Polk Audio- Monitor 70,60,50, R50, RTi12,10, & 8.(all a little weak in the mid-bass)
Infinity- No need to list, I liked the Polks better.(Auditioned with Polk)
Yamaha- NS 777, NS 555 (Walked out)
Klipsch- Synergy (Walked out. Auditioned with the Yamaha)
Athena- AS F2. (Nice. wanted a little better. Found these at a different location from the above two. )
Klipsch- RF15, 25, 35, 5, &7. (Just didn't like the horn. Much better than the Synergy line.)
Paradigm- Monitor 7 & 9. (Almost bought these. Waited)
B&W- 705,703, Nautilus 805 & 803. (Blew me away. Flat. Very flat. Cabinet work was superb. I loved everything about these, except the price. )
Monitor Audio- Gold Reference 60, 20, & 10. (I liked these better than any other speaker, except for one. The B&W's. Auditioned together)

So, now you ask what happened? I did a 30 day demo with MB Quart. As close to B&W as I had heard for a fraction of the cost. Plus, I used MB Quart in car audio. They were superb. The cabinets are not as nice as B&W or Monitor Audio, but they did sound better than Monitor Audio. No where as pretty though. Monitor Audio are just flat-out pretty.

Top 3 sound quality(in order)
B&W
MB Quart
Monitor Audio

TOP 3 build quality(in order)
B&W
Monitor Audio
MB Quart

Top 3 looks(in order)
Monitor Audio
B&W
MB Quart

Mid-bass(in order)
MB Quart- huge lead here
Monitor Audio
B&W

Midrange(in order)
B&W- a huge lead in the clarity here
MB Quart
Monitor Audio-

Treble(in order)
B&W- clarity again
MB Quart- superb tweeters
Monitor- better than others I heard, except for above two.

 

[JoeE SP9]

As my equipment got better I found my need/desire for an equalizer became less. My current rig doesn't even have tone controls. My advice is buy good stuff and set it up properly. If you do this you will probably have no need for an equalizer.

 

[Resident Loser]

So...

As my equipment got better I found my need/desire for an equalizer became less. My current rig doesn't even have tone controls. My advice is buy good stuff and set it up properly. If you do this you will probably have no need for an equalizer.

..."good stuff" is immune to the laws of physics? While you MAY be able to balance-out your acoustical environment with bass-traps and the like...some even seem to use after-market wiring as psuedo-"tone-controls"...the need for equalization may become lessened...however, without tone controls, how can you take up the slack(so to speak) of less-than-stellar recordings? Or do you just limit yourself to "audiophile quality" source material? If so, what's the point...since it should really be about the music IMHO...there are any number of wonderful performances that are not available in any of the more- current media...unfortunately, since the state of the recording arts weren't always up to snuff(in an audiophile sense), the recording quality can vary. A judicious tweek here or there can bring both the performance AND the recording quality into a closer alignment.

What about volume levels? Do you always listen to your system flat-out? Again, it's about the music, not how impressed I or others might be at the system's "sonic realism" at "optimum" levels. There are times when I listen critically, there are other times(more often than not)when I want the music to be a counterpoint to a gathering or while reading, etc., but at more reasonable levels conducive to conversation perhaps...BUT...I still want it to sound more-or-less full and balanced. Without any controls, how can that be accomplished?

And please don't take any of this personally, I have had this same conversation at other times and at other sites...it's just one of those "audiophile things", steeped in mythological hoo-haa, that irks me to no end...

jimHJJ(...thanks for the opportunity to bring it up again...)

 

[Nick250]

Well, I was experimenting with Axiom M 80’s and I was not pleased with their sound. I was putting them in different places in my room and it did not make a big difference. The sound to me was muffled. I was thinking that maybe my old CD player is to blame – that still may be the case. I borrowed an EQ from a friend of mine and what a difference. The speakers came to live and the sound became clear, open and airy. What do you think is it the receiver or my old CD player to blame?

Neither. It's speakers or room acoustics.

 

[JoeE SP9]

In the 1K plus collection of vinyl I own there are many recordings that frankly don't sound all that good. It has just been my experience over the last 30 plus years that trying to re-engineer a given recording rarely if ever results in better sound. I do listen to many poorly recorded selections. I have learned to listen around ticks pops and surface noise. When I switched to electrostatic speakers I learned to accept that the majority of popular recordings are poorly mastered. Although my CD collection (700 CD's) is not as large as my vinyl collection there are still a large number of recordings that are just awful. Santana Supernatural - no dynamic range at all. Sugar Ray so gritty and grungy it sounds like something is broken. In my experience no amount of re-equalizing or tone control tweaking can correct these recordings. I have over the years owned and used all kinds of sound enhancement devices from 33 band eq's to dynamic range expanders to the Carver Sonic Holograph. None of them have stood the test of time. About the only thing I haven't tried is the auto digital eq provided by Tact and others. Even those are designed to be set and forgotten. They are not the constant tweak device that tone controls are. I don't have tone controls and I don't miss them. I do however use the volume control frequently. As for different listening levels the ARC SP3 I once owned had the only loudness controll that came close to working properly. Once you established your maximum volume (with the volume control) the loudness controll was used to reduce the volume from there while adding bass and treble boost per Fletcher Munson. I wish something like that was available today. Any manufacturers listening; I would purchase such a device if it were made. Until then I will continue enjoying music without tone controls. By the way, I have tried listening to Gerald Albright from the To Grover With Love CD at background levels and found it impossible to concentrate on anything but the music. I was trying to read a new novel in the Dune series and kept getting pulled into the music. ES panels do sound really good at low volumes. I'm too old to take anything personally so I'm not offended in any way. The ears do decide.

 

[markw]

Tone controls and Dune.

Yeah, eq's really don't help much on poor recordings but on some (not all) recordings a minor tweak here and there can help a little. Why sufferewhen temporary relief is available? For that, I'll settle for the standard bass and treble controls when needed.

After all, while we all know that too many drugs for too long are bad for you I have no problem with a little sodium naproxin or ibuprofin when the ol' arthritis kicks up. Likewise, an asprin or tylenol does help the occasional headache.

Now, if I had to depend on them on a daily basis, I'd look for another solution, perhaps room eq.

Now, Dune... Wacha reading? The Battle for Corrin?

After reading the first Dune trilogy and suffering through the last books in that series (up to Chapterhouse) I was kind of leery of the new books by Frank's son & his partner but, I gotta say, the House xx series was, IMNSHO, pretty darn good and the current Butlerian/war series is pretty good also.

All of which were far more entertaining than the books that followed the first three Dune books.

I haven't got to read the Battle for Corrin yet but will start pretty soon, probably when either the local library gets it or it goes paperback, cheap SOB that I am.

No spoilers, please, but does it tie up all the loose ends they left at the end of Machine wars? In particular, why House Harkonen and House Artiedes are sworn enemies in the Dune series?

You DID catch the Sci-Fi channel's miniseries I hope. ...not to be confused with that fiasco in '84.

 

[JoeE SP9]

I refuse to give away priveliged information. You must read for yourself. I have all of the series in hardback. I also have the movie both long and short versions and copies of both of the mini-series from the Sci Fi Channel. When you break and run in battle you can piss people off for a long time.

 

[Resident Loser]

Voila...

...As for different listening levels the ARC SP3 I once owned had the only loudness controll that came close to working properly. Once you established your maximum volume (with the volume control) the loudness controll was used to reduce the volume from there while adding bass and treble boost per Fletcher Munson. I wish something like that was available today...

...you sound like a candidate for an one-octave EQ...of course, it wouldn't be automatic, but it also would not be limited to their curve...don't forget Fletcher-Munson was based on averages and not everyone fits into a 38 regular...

I do agree about the general rule of set it and forget it re: EQing...a bit of clarification, I was limiting my comments specifically to FR adjustments, more akin to the plethora of pre-RIAA EQs...nothing an EQ can do for dynamic range et al...all the rest are basically effects IMO: expanders, aural exciters, sonic holography and the like, as with musical instrument pedals and boxes...the glow wears out quickly...

jimHJJ(...although the ol' fuzz-box and wah-wah are still hangin' on...barely...)

 

[rschleicher]

I also miss having a decent loudness control. I was never very happy with most "on/off" loudness buttons (it was either too much or too little bass boost), but a continuously-variable loudness contour would have contributed to excessive twiddling on my part.

An old Kenwood integrated amp I bought in college (1977) had it about right - a three position switch (off, mild bass boost, more bass boost). Loud listening called for switch setting 0, normal listening called for setting 1, and quiet night-time listening called for setting 2. It was enough granularity to give a perception of flat response at all volume levels, yet it was simple enough to set and forget for an entire listening session. The bass boost was a mild 6 dB/octave filter in both boost settings, but with a somewhat higher cut-off frequency in setting 2, to give the higher level of bass boost. This amp also had a subsonic filter switch, which was a switchable 12 or 18 dB/octave high-pass filter, with a very low cut-off frequency (maybe 20 Hz, or possibly 30 Hz). It was aimed at filtering out any very low-frequency components of turntable "wow and flutter".

I don't think my current Yamaha receiver even has a loudness switch of any kind (RX/V-750), although it does have bass and treble tone controls. My previous Yamaha Pro-Logic receiver had a bass boost switch, but it had a wierd characteristic - it boosted mid-bass frequencies but actually cut the lowest bass frequencies (if I remember right). I think it was aimed at compensating for small speakers, more than a normal loudness switch.

 

[JoeE SP9]

Hey Resident Loser! I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who dislikes effects boxes on guitars. Although I am a bass player (Fender Precision Ser. 14712) I have always tried to make my electric instruments sound like my old German upright. Neither the Fender or my chocolate brown Gibson EB3 can do it as well as my Ampeg baby bass they are loud enough with sufficient amplification. Of course the Ampeg being electric also has the benefit of an amplifier. Even so I prefer close miking my old upright. NO GADGETS OF ANY KIND!!!! I just can't understand why so many guitar players feel the need for all those gadgets.