Do I need an EQ?

[c_morse]

I've been looking through member systems for quite some time, and the one thing that I noticed is that a lot of individuals don't seem to be running an equalizer in their setup. I'm curious if I should use one in my setup.

A little about what I'll be running for 2 channel:

Pre/Pro - Rogue Audio Magnum 99 Preamp with HT Bypass

Amplification - (Current) Monarchy Audio SE-160 mono-blocks / (future) Rogue Audio M-150 mono-blocks

Source - Musical Fidelity A3.5 CD Transport

DAC - Musical Fidelity Tri Vista 21 DAC

Speakers - Martin Logan Spire or Summit (haven't bought yet, still saving)

I have a Yamaha EQ-70 waiting to go into this system, but I'm curious if it's even needed.

Thanks a lot in advance for your help guys.

-Charlie

 

[amey01]

You should treat your room before you treat your precious audio signal!

Equalisers introduce all sorts of bad things to the audio signal such as distortion, phase shifts, etc. Best avoided.

My recommendation:

Listen first and see if it is needed.

IF it is not needed then well and good;

IF it is needed then

Perform proper analysis of audio (using a measurement microphone and software such as Room EQ wizard to find where the shortcomings are);

Treat the room to avoid these shortcomings;

Re-measure the room;

IF there are still issues

THEN AND ONLY THEN place an EQ in the system.

It is best to EQ the system as little as possible. I run an EQ in mine - a Behringer DSP1124P - but it only serves on the subwoofer from 16-28Hz. That's it. It does NOT cross the path of the signal to the speakers - ONLY to the subwoofer which has a 100dB/octave crossover set at 28Hz.

Still - this is not good, but it is a calculated risk I have taken with my system given that it is less than an octave for the bottom most frequencies. Also, bass frequencies are harder to treat given the long wavelength.

 

[Horchem1972]

This is a very subjective subject.I do agree with using the room treatment first to solve problems.If not a quality EQ with an RTA can do wonders.Many people do anything they can not to change the signal even the tiniest bit.Even though studios EQ and change the original recording during the whole process.Therefore the recording is engineered and produced by using EQ's and by that theory your CD has already been distorted.I do belive that using a 7 or 10 band EQ is worthless.If you are going to do it get a (RTA)Real Time Analyzer and a dual 31-band EQ.This will allow you to adjust the whole frequency range.

 

[c_morse]

Horchem,

To get this straight, if I do end up needing an EQ, my EQ-70 is worthless?

Could you recommend a few brands for me to look into when/if the time comes? Thanks!

 

[timm]

I wouldn't use an eq. Look at the equipment you are talking about here. For mid fi -sure get an eq. But no way. Take that yamaha and put it somewhere else.

 

[Gordon Gray]

There are plenty of labels (ECM, Mapleshade, Mercury Living Presence, Proprius, Groove Note, etc.) that don't use EQ, limiters, etc.

Maybe if the majority of music you listen to is overly processed, perhaps EQ and other stuff is necessary. However, I totally agree with Adam.

Keep things as pure as possible. That's why high end preamps do not have tone controls.

And Charlie, if you are looking at buying Summits or Spires and listen to alot of material that needs to be equalized to make it listenable, I would suggest you spend your money on another lower priced, less revealing speaker.

GG

 

[amey01]

Horchem,

To get this straight, if I do end up needing an EQ, my EQ-70 is worthless?

Could you recommend a few brands for me to look into when/if the time comes? Thanks!

Actually, I'd only consider a full parametric equaliser. Even 30 or 300 or whatever-band equalisers are useless if you can't adjust the frequency exactly, along with the Q (bandwidth) and gain.

So if this is absolutely necessary, then what you should do is perform a full analysis of the room using - as I said above - a measurement mic and software. Then you will know exactly where the shortcomings are and be able to set the EQ to match exactly. You'll be treating the problem and ONLY the problem. Any other way and you'll just introduce more problems for every one you are trying to correct.

REQ Wizard actually allows you to place the parametric filters in and see the result on a response curve so you know exactly what you are doing.

I'd recommend the Behringer DSP1124P and DEQ2496 for subs, but if you are going to be EQing the whole spectrum then I'm not sure what would be up to the task of running in the chain before MLs. Maybe some other professional EQs from Mackie, Ramsa or the Meyer Sound Galileo?

As for the EQ-70, it doesn't look like the sort of thing I'd want in a high-end system. Sorry.

 

[tonepub]

I suggest the Manley Massive Passive. I certainly love mine, but do not use it for room correction, only to clean up recordings I'm not happy with...

 

[JonFo]

The thing to keep in mind about EQ is that it is supposed to be used judiciously to fix very specific problems.

Think of EQ as you would eyeglasses. If you can’t read your book anymore, you go see the ophthalmologist and get a prescription for reading glasses. It might be less ‘natural’ but at least you can now read your book, which is the point.

EQ is like that, it should be used to correct either severe shortcomings in recordings or to correct for the inevitable impacts of a room.

And just like you could go to the drugstore and start testing various ‘stock’ reading glasses and buy the pair that is ‘good enough’ to see your book, some people use EQ’s ‘by ear’ to adjust the sound to taste.

But just like good eyewear, having a professional measure and correct for your situation exactly is the best answer.

Therefore, I’ll state categorically that a system with a high-quality, well setup correction system will perform better, on all sources, than a system without one.
Why, well because every room introduces huge aberrations into the sound produced by any audio system (except headphones, which eliminate the room from the equation).

So even the most pristine, unequalized recording, the highest quality electronics driving the world’s best speaker will have huge (>12dB) frequency response variations in-room.

The question is, why put up with that if there are options?

The science of sound reproduction measurement and analysis as well as the ability fairly transparently correct the sound have come a heck of a long way in the past dozen years or so.

Products like the EQ-70 are old an obsolete, I’d dump it.

Modern solutions are to use either high-quality parametric EQ’s, like DBX DriveRacks, full room correctors like Audyssey Sound Equalizer or to use focused tools like the Audyssey Sub EQ, and correct the most egregious problem area, the bass.

Since your setup is 2ch only, I’d suggest the Audyssey Sound Equalizer.

 

[JonFo]

To comment further, I’ve been using various forms of EQ in my setup for close to a decade, and each successive iteration of technology and measurement process has brought increasingly higher performance to the system.

One benefit I’ve had is that my basic room dimensions, speakers and amps have been the same for that entire period. What I have changed is the room treatments, spending around $15K just on that over the years. That has made a huge difference, and is an area I highly recommended you spend money on before anything else.

But even in an ideally dimensioned room that is well treated, the acoustic variations induced by the room are still quite audible and measurable. Therefore I use Audyssey Pro in my preamp to provide full room correction for all 8 channels of my system.

Turning off the room corrector is a noticeable and unpleasant thing to do. When I demo the system, the corrector is always in place, and when I briefly turn it off, the audience always prefers it back on.

 

[amey01]

The question is, why put up with that if there are options?

Let's state up front that I've agreed with most of your posts in previous posts.

But to play "devil's advocate" so to speak, most live performance venues have these issues as well.

A pure signal (that sounds live) is always better than a technically perfect one. To an extent.

 

[JonFo]

Amey, while in theory, a pure, unadulterated signal would be ideal, the reality is that even if preserved up the point it's being reproduced by the speaker, bam, the room will re-EQ it, add reverb, and do all kinds of other fun stuff to it before it reaches your ears.

You have a measurement system (REW??) and must be able to see just how wildly different your in-room measurement is vs a source.

 

[JonFo]

Also, note that even highly sophisticated full-range room correctors like Audyssey do NOT deliver a 'perfect' result.

Measuring the post-EQ in-room correction still shows significant deviations; it's just that they are greatly diminished compared to the uncorrected signal.

No such thing as perfect Audio, just degrees of compromise.

 

[amey01]

You have a measurement system (REW??) and must be able to see just how wildly different your in-room measurement is vs a source.

Absolutely! And it's bad. Really bad. All I'm saying is that a live venue is no different, but for some reason, live venues sound goooooood!!

 

[c_morse]

Thanks guys for your responses.

JonFo, thanks a ton for all of the info.

I've been looking at the Behringer DSP1124P and I think that might suit me pretty well. I've noticed that some Behringer units come with a microphone. Does this negate the need for REQ Wizard?

My main concern with a computer program (and forgive me I haven't looked far into this yet) is that I use Mac solely throughout my house. This being said, if I did end up using an analysis program, it'd have to be Mac compatible.

Any further help or guidance would be awesome.

I should also state, I'm only really worried about correction for the front main channels. I will be running a full 7.1 home theater system, but I will be letting my Yamaha RX-Z11 do equalization and correction for all the other channels. The only two channels I want to run external equalization with, especially since they'll be running through the pre-amp, are the mains.

Thanks a bunch!

-Charlie

 

[JonFo]

...
I've been looking at the Behringer DSP1124P and I think that might suit me pretty well. I've noticed that some Behringer units come with a microphone. Does this negate the need for REQ Wizard?

That unit is really only appropriate for Subs, not for full-range.

If wanting to use one box full-range, you need to start with a DriveRack or better. Otherwise, why bother with a quality preamp, you'll not really be listening to it.

Even if they come with a mic (which they don't) you still need to use a stand-alone measurement system.

...My main concern with a computer program (and forgive me I haven't looked far into this yet) is that I use Mac solely throughout my house. This being said, if I did end up using an analysis program, it'd have to be Mac compatible.

You are in luck, one of the nicest UI's around for measurement is FuzzMeasure, which is strictly for Mac's: http://supermegaultragroovy.com/products/FuzzMeasure/

 

[c_morse]

Jonfo,

Thanks again for the info.

Do you have any recommends for a good mic to use with the program on my Mac?

 

[amey01]

You are in luck, one of the nicest UI's around for measurement is FuzzMeasure, which is strictly for Mac's: http://supermegaultragroovy.com/products/FuzzMeasure/

Or just use a VM with Windows on it.

 

[c_morse]

Or just use a VM with Windows on it.

I am still utilizing Power PC macs in my home. Haven't upgraded to Intel processor based Macs yet.

 

[amey01]

I am still utilizing Power PC macs in my home. Haven't upgraded to Intel processor based Macs yet.

They'll still run VMWare Desktop or Player won't they?