Johnny Canuck said:
I also picked up a pro EQ, Behringer DEQ 1024. Makes the world of difference. Those naysayers about EQ's should also be told you are wrong. An EQ does make a difference. It is however, very ugly. The high pass filter and the "stereo image" knob that widens the stereo sound make it worth it alone. Add some bass, and lower some centre frequencies and lower the treble a tad and I think I am close to audio bliss now.
Adding an amp and driving all channels flat is useless. You need to accenuate certain frequencies. Flat is flat, at 50W or 450W. That's where EQ and tone controls come in. For two years I have been struggling with not enough bass to my towers and complaining about brightness. Adding bass, whether by EQ or tone, is essential. If you don't, you just make flat sound louder with an amp.
Sorry, but this is just a itch that I have to scratch.
First, what does flat mean? It means that over the entire audible frequency spectrum there aren't any variations in decibels at any given frequency. Now say you have some very flat responce speakers and a very good recording. If you leave the tonal controls and the EQ alone, then you should get the closest possible representation of the original performance, assuming your room is properly set-up. If you tamper with the bass then you have just changed what the original performance sounds like. The Polk RTi 12 speakers are very good speakers, and should have a fairly relaxed and neutral sound, and a pretty flat responce.
I am not saying that an EQ isn't good at all, just that most audiophiles see no need for such a device, just another detriment to the signal path as they say. Some people like to have more bass, and an EQ can help with that, having more than normal bass.
If you have virtually perfectly flat/neutral speakers, then an EQ would be almost entirely pointless, with the expeption that you like to hear something other than the performance, but I like to keep it real.