High-end amplifiers without equalization

[sts9fan]

I'd wager

"I'll wager that anyone that is highly against E.Q., whether they are wealthy or not, is ignorant of the facts/technical issues involved, as well as the relevant perceptual factors."


I'd wager that wmax thinks everyone is ignorant but himself. Let him tell you ther facts..he knows you don't. Making vast sweeping comments about people you don't know makes you sound incredibly ignorant.

What kind of rig are you running buddy?

 

[WmAx]

I'd wager that wmax thinks everyone is ignorant but himself. Let him tell you ther facts..he knows you don't. Making vast sweeping comments about people you don't know makes you sound incredibly ignorant.

I stick behind my statement, since it is supported by the available evidence. It's a straightforward situation -- you can't logically be against proper E.Q. of the system for optimal performance unless you are ignorant[not meant as an insult, it's the proper use of the word] as to why it's important. Granted, if somone is helplessly irrational[mad?], they could know how/why E.Q. is important and still be highly against it. But, I mean my statement to apply to people with an average level of rationality, not those that are of questionable mental stability.

What kind of rig are you running buddy?

Sony ICF-C25 AM/FM clock radio. I've been thinking about getting another one, so I can use one on each side of the room. The imaging would be amazing!

-Chris

 

[Dan Banquer]

Eq

I generally prefer a "passive EQ" approach. Let the acoustic room treatment do the work for as much as one can use. This approach seems to work very well for midrange and up. Bass is problematic for most rooms so if I was going to use EQ it would be there.
d.b.

 

[sts9fan]

"you can't logically be against proper E.Q. of the system for optimal performance unless you are ignorant"

So logiclly if you are using all your perfectly cheap equipment why would you need it? Why would you want to alter the recordings output?

 

[jaxvon]

The point of EQ, generally (although there are some EQ curves that make certain music sound awesome, one of these is the Brubeck EQ), is to flatten the frequency response of your system with test tones. That way it will more accurately playback the recording, as opposed to putting in peaks and nulls to the playback.

 

[Buckle-meister]

The point of EQ is to flatten the frequency response of your system with test tones.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be awqward, but isn't it more correct to say that it is the frequency response of the room that is being flattened?

Regards

 

[Dan Banquer]

Eq

It's the loudspeaker/room interaction that we are addressing here.
d.b.

 

[WmAx]

"you can't logically be against proper E.Q. of the system for optimal performance unless you are ignorant"

So logiclly if you are using all your perfectly cheap equipment why would you need it? Why would you want to alter the recordings output?

Just a few points...

1. No speaker is perfectly linear. Even the best transducers are improved by equalizing the resonant peaks. The crossover in almost any speaker, itself, utilizes equalization directly in the signal path. Active equalization of each transducer[in an active system] is even better, since in this procedure it is easy to apply many corrective circuits without the expense/bulk of this applied at high drive signal levels into a dynamic impedance load[the speaker].

2. A speaker that does not sit directly and flush against a boundary[wall] must have an equalization process used to correct for differing baffle step radiation characteristics as frequency varies. As the frequency reduces, the wavelengths in air become longer. In the midrange band, at some point, the baffle will become less than 1/2 wavelength of the waves being transmitted. This will begin to change radition from 1/2 space(2-pi) to free-feild(4-pi) characteristic, resulting in lower frequencies having lower amplitude than higher frequencies.

3. No room can have a perfect response. Especially in the bass frequencies. Even if you use 20 bass traps, response irregularities will still exist. An equalizer will improve the response. Vary sitting distance from the speaker and high frequency response will vary relative to the co-efficient of air at these high frequencies. Careful equalization will insure that you can keep the precise balance at different distances.

-Chris

 

[9f9c7z]

... If an amp were to have room emqualization/correction features it would require a dsp and cease being an amp only.

I agree. An amp amplifies. Anything else is, well, … anything else, but not an amp.

Kind of reminds me of my most favorite of all laws in California. Obviously borne in a flash of legislative brilliance, here it is in it’s entirety:

CVC 400.d – A farm tractor is not a motorcycle.

So, in keeping with the mentality of the California Legislature: An equalizer is not an amplifier.

 

[Privateer]

The hi-end crowd doesn't want their signal path corrupted with extra circuitry.

That is because it will change the sound of there system and probably for the worse.

Yes, even the stereo in the picture[which is probably more impressive looking than it is sounding.

Ya that is right all show and no go.

And to hell with this high end Mcintosh system because it is all show.

I'd wager that wmax thinks everyone is ignorant but himself. Let him tell you ther facts..he knows you don't. Making vast sweeping comments about people you don't know makes you sound incredibly ignorant.

WmAx is a no body who can not be argued with.

Sony ICF-C25 AM/FM clock radio.

Then why comment on something you do not have or own?

 

[newfmp3]

This entire anti-eq thing bugs the heck out of me. I was hoping this thread would go a little more politely. this is one of the things that turned me against asking anything eq related on avsforum. I was getting a little frustrated when I would ask where can I get an EQ, and the reply would be, your room sucks, get a rug. Why can't someone just answer the question.

To me, audio has taken a little step backwards in the past 10 years, and it's in the area of EQ's. EQ's used to be everywhere from every manufacturer, now there almost non-existent . Of course now, even with these anti-eq "audio purists", peope are crying for eq's in their receivers and are finally getting them. Talk about irony.

This entire thought that a perfect stereo can play any source or type of music and movies perfectly in a normal household room is a bit naive to me and I'll never believe it. I don't care how much you've done to your room. I do believe that those that only listen to a single type of music find a stereo that plays what they listen to well without the need of an eq. My stereo will play jazz really well without any tone controls or eq. Killer is, I don't listen to Jazz so I could care less. I listen to a wide variety of music and I need tone controls/eq's. Even more important, I dont' listen to music at the same volume all the time and when I'l listening to quiet things, I like to turn treble/bass up. Not rocket science really.

Bottom line, I will never buy anything that doesn't have tone controls. My older Carver stuff has bass/mid/treble controls and i find them awesome and I can achieve a better sound using just them that my NAD could only dream of. I wish more stuff came with Mid level controls as well instead of just bass/treble. It's what sold me on the carver years ago.

Something that costs 1000's of dollars should have at least tone controls and an eq. Otherwise, it's a total waste of money imho. I have never heard a stereo to date, in any room, that could not use a eq to perfect the sound. I'm sorry, they don't exist. I find some people that are against eq's are just too scared to admit that their precious stereo's don't sound as good as they should.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

And thus my search for how to incorporate an eq into a 7.1 channel processor. http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12640

 

[mtrycrafts]

WmAx is a no body who can not be argued with.

You know this beacuse???

Perhaps if you have some credible facts to present, he migh be convinced???
What a concept, facts.

 

[mtrycrafts]

This guy probably doesn't use an equalizer.

Nope, for sure. Look at all his wire lifts

His room sounds very bright looking at the floor behind the speakers and walls. What does he care about good sound. He is interested in impressing people.

 

[mtrycrafts]

. What kind of rig are you running buddy?

this is relevant because???

 

[mtrycrafts]

And thus my search for how to incorporate an eq into a 7.1 channel processor. http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12640

Does that processor have pre outs? I would not recommend EQ before the processing occurrs

Well, I just thought about it though, prologic will not respond properly but if you can tap into the descrete channels, that should be ok.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Does that processor have pre outs?

Yes - 7 to be exact.

I would not recommend EQ before the processing occurrs

Why? What's the issue with running an analog cd player to an eq, then to the analog input at the processor - say a surround receiver?

Well, I just thought about it though, prologic will not respond properly but if you can tap into the descrete channels, that should be ok.

Please explain. Do you mean between the pre outs and separate amplification, or looping the eq throught the tape in/out and only using stereo and multi channel stereo (as opposed to matrixed surround processing, dolby, dts, etc...)?

 

[mulester7]

.....Buck, it seems to me the best and only way to use your probable 2-ch eq to enrich all seven channels would be before the processing when the signal is still l&r stereo even though it be encoded for two splits a side....if the eq has signal/noise of 100 or higher, it's inaudibly clean, shout halleluiah, then adjust it, as you listen to the finalized and discrete channels as a whole, as they experience your room's inadequacies remembering the hillbilly awdeeoofile code....Scopes Are For Dopes, Pass The Ears.....

 

[Privateer]

You know this beacuse???

Perhaps if you have some credible facts to present, he migh be convinced???
What a concept, facts.

For starters he is one of the few who thinks all amps sound the same and the fact that he has never tried anything which he argues for or against.

 

[mulester7]

For starters he is one of the few who thinks all amps sound the same and the fact that he has never tried anything which he argues for or against.

.....and you were doing so well in the rehab program, haha....when have you ever heard WmAx say anything that would attest to your statement?.....