Become a Patron!

Graphic Equalizer

Discussion in 'Computer Audio' started by TechLarry, Mar 4, 2017.

  1. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Not only have you not actually read what I posted (See that bit about Nvidia quality settings? That covers exactly what your suggestion is), but even then, FSAA takes every polygon in a scene and then adjusts in relation to it - it would be much more analogous to room correction, not just basic EQ.

    As far as I'm concerned, what's on the CD is what should be heard. Fucking with that not only usually makes things worse (Because people who do this sort of thing are not professional sound engineers), but also in many cases, such as the Burzum example above, would simply nullify the impact and sensibility of the music being listened to.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  2. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Well, I am in disagreement, home stereo is like an art and not a science and if tweaked EQ sounds better to me then so be it.
     
    pendragon1 likes this.
  3. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    To a certain extent you're right. But when you pass a certain requirement level self adjustments are a big no-no.
     
  4. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    I don't EQ my speakers, just my headphones.
     
  5. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    That's quite surprising, actually. Either you have very bad quality headphones or you don't like a natural sound balance.
     
  6. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Depends on the headphones, I like to boost the bass on a couple and on another pair I bring down the top end a bit.
     
  7. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    The good side about headphones is that they respond to EQ better than regular speakers.
     
  8. TechLarry

    TechLarry Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    27,200
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    It's my music, my ears and my sound system. Leave me the fuck alone.

    :)
     
    Brian_B likes this.
  9. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    No. Stop wasting your time trying to add things to recordings that were never there in the first place.
     
  10. Nenu

    Nenu Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    17,150
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    He is right.
    You can tame old or badly mastered music with a few tweaks so they are actually nice to listen to.
    Its not just down to having a good quality well set up system.
    Quite the opposite, It can be more necessary with a very revealing system.
     
  11. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    30 years ago I too believed an EQ was the answer. I have gained a lot of experience in 30 years and I think that using an EQ based on ear and records as opposed to room acoustic measurements is a very short sighted answer. Not the least because if you tune your EQ according to a record once, you'll always want to tune it just a bit more to get the sound just a bit better. And of course when you switch records, your previous tunings are all wrong and you have to adjust again.

    All that it creates is stress and eats away from the most important part: Enjoying the music.
     
    |Tch0rT| likes this.
  12. Nenu

    Nenu Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    17,150
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    We have established that you are not able to perceive as much as me from hifi in previous discussions.
    Again, you are demonstrating this.
    It isnt me that is short sighted, its you that cannot accept that others hear things you dont.

    I use EQ for maybe 1% of my collection, probably less. Small tweaks only for problem tracks... to get full enjoyment.
    I'm sorry that you arent able to follow what we can experience but coming across as a know all about what is better in our experience is outrageous.
    There is something wrong with you.
     
  13. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Lol yeah, what would I know as I only design speakers professionally. But if you think you know more than me based on your totally subjective experience I know it's quite useless to start arguing with you.

    All I can say is that the moment someone uses EQ based on their subjective opinion of a recording, they're not interested in hi-fi anymore.
     
    GlacierNine and |Tch0rT| like this.
  14. Nenu

    Nenu Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    17,150
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    And thats the crux of the problem you have.
    You only accept what you hear.
    You cannot accept that others hear things you dont.

    The way you "continually" "dictate" how people can get best enjoyment and in the process belittle them because you want to appear superior, demonstrates you have other problems that cause threads to derail.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  15. |Tch0rT|

    |Tch0rT| [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,185
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    I've gone over a year without replying to your nonsense. You completely ignore bias and base everything solely on subjective experiences and derail threads. B00nie knows his shit and constantly proves it, hell he should be the mod of this subforum IMO. Microphones and measuring equipment are sensitive beyond anything humans can hear and you refuse to believe that we can measure everything we hear (audio is much more basic than oh say our visual system), however it can't measure how your brain interprets what it hears and what it thinks it hears. Just cuz someone trips balls on acid and hears a dragon doesn't mean there actually is a dragon no matter how much they believe it, we are susceptible to illusion and bias.

    It isn't about being superior or belittling them. Do you or do you not want to hear the recording the way the intended to hear it? Constantly changing an EQ to taste is not. It's fine if that's what someone wants to do but it's not High Fidelity. Fidelity is the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced. It's basically like taking the Mona Lisa and recoloring it to your taste. You're taking someone else's art and saying fuck you to them you know what's better than the people that made it. EQ and room correction is a tool to help tame the room and design flaws that color the sound, not to remix to taste. You can use it that way if you want, fine that's cool but it's objectively wrong. If you enjoy the Mona Lisa with neon colors, cool but it's not how it's supposed to be.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
    B00nie likes this.
  16. Nenu

    Nenu Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    17,150
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    I am backing my side because it is true.
    I havent said anything that isnt correct because it IS my experience and I am not the only one.
    It is not a mistake or bias, it is what I prefer having tested the fuck out of my system and music.
    You can attribute that I am accepting bias but the reality includes no bias.
    I am sick of the constant put downs that Boonie makes, and twisting of what has been said -something you are doing as well.
    I'm past caring whether you understand this and I'm sad you also struggle to hear more from your music.

    I havent once said Boonie is lacking ability to assess most hifi issues.
    I agree with most of what he says when he isnt starting fights.
    But this topic, when applied to a system thats already well set up, no.
    Boonie cannot bear to be seen lacking any ability in this forum.
    Yet he will for sure be accepting the opinions of others how his speakers sound, even after all the measurements are done.
    Why would this be necessary if he was capable of determining what everyone hears?
    Subjective experience does matter, it is not always bias. It is used to develop better "sounding" speakers.
    There is no perfect human or human hearing.
    Analysis via instruments does not trump all, it gets you most of the way there.

    There are tracks which have not been recorded/mastered well and sound better with a bit of EQ
    Full stop.
    I have not said I constantly change my EQ settings, both of you made that up.
    I even made this clear but you have started again.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  17. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    I brought it up before with the Burzum example.

    Most people who would take your approach to music would use EQ to "Tame" the sound heard on Filosofem.

    To use the other analogy in this thread - that is taking the mona lisa and adjusting the colour balance and saturation because you "like it better that way".

    It entirely misses the point of why that artwork is the way it is. Worse than that, it doesn't even attempt to consider why that artwork is the way it is or whether it being that way adds anything to it.
     
    B00nie likes this.
  18. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Nenu it's completely fine if you want to use EQ each time you listen to music. It's your choice. But it's not hifi.
     
  19. Nenu

    Nenu Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    17,150
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    This is not about fidelity, that doesnt change unless using an EQ that reduces detail.
    The tracks under discussion are of questionable quality in the first place and the listening experience can be improved.
    By improved I mean make them so I want to listen to them, rather than not listening to them.

    Whats the value in music that you wont listen to because of basic issues when they can be corrected enough to have an enjoyable experience.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  20. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    You still haven't addressed the idea that poor production quality can have purpose, merit, or value, unintended or intended.

    Again, I refer to Burzum. The album is terribly produced, but it is fully and completely *supposed* to sound that way.



    Alternatively, there's the music where it's production is simply a product of it's time, but that production helps to anchor and contextualise it for the listener.

    An example of this would be the orchestras in old walt disney films, particularly Fantasia. The recording methods available at the time simply didn't have the clarity, reach, or upper extension of modern orchestral recordings, but a modern day re-recording of that soundtrack would add nothing to the material, and may even take away from it - the production in fantasia emphasises a number of things a modern recording wouldn't.


    Someone once pointed out to me that artists exist in a dichotomy that as soon as a technical limitation is overcome, the intentional reproduction of those flaws and limits becomes in itself an artistic tool.

    A great example of that is Trentemoller's progression from his earlier material like "Moan", through to the style he adopted on "Into The Great Wide Yonder" where he poured analogue equipment into the signal chain. It was objectively less precise work than his purely digital material, but those intentional flaws made the album far more listenable.
     
  21. Nenu

    Nenu Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    17,150
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    I added another sentence at the end.
    It spells out the issue.
     
  22. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    This is artist vs amateur restoration, true story:

    [​IMG]

    And each time you adjust the EQ, unless it's done to flatten the room response (measured) it reduces detail and makes the recording sound less like the original. Even measured changes can be detrimental to the overall sound, dynamic speakers start to have more distortion when you EQ them away from their natural response and the sound may have problems in the time domain either by bad crossover design or reflections, then EQ in one point makes the sound worse in everywhere else. No free meals in audio.

    Using EQ also effects the phase coherence of the signal. Even though the human ear is not hugely sensitive to phase errors, many designers take great care to manage phase which is then mangled by the EQ. Phase becomes more critical when listening is done in the sweet spot with speakers that provide excellent holographic imaging. Any phase errors eat away from the imaging immediately.

    Hi-fi doesn't mean that every recording should sound good. It means your stereos should play the recording as close to original as it is.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  23. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
  24. acquacow

    acquacow Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    277
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2016
    I used to use Equalizer APO, but needed better integration for using multiple sound cards at once/etc. I needed more of a matrix audio switch with compression ability.

    I ended up using Voicemeeter Banana. It's free, allows up to 3 hardware input devices, two windows audio devices (ala virtual cable) and has 3 hardware outputs, with 2 virtual outputs as windows devices.

    It's quite flexible and lets me EQ all 5 outputs separately.

    On top of that, I also use Power Mixer with a midi controller to individually control the volume of each of my apps w/o using the windows volume mixer app.

    Also, if you need to check room response/etc. I recommend using REW. It's also free and is quite useful if you have a calibrated mic.
     
  25. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Here are the headphones I mostly use:
    Sennheiser HD558
    Shure 840 (most neutral)
    beyerdynamic DT990pro

    Might get HIFIMAN HE400S soon.
     
  26. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    If you are a purist, sure. But I am not and change it to how I want it to sound. Lots of older recordings lack bass compared to contemporary so see nothing wrong with a bit of bass boost.
     
  27. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Fidelity - "the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced."

    His point is that if you are willing to sacrifice the exactness of the reproduction by mucking about with EQ, then what you are doing is, by definition, in practice, and in every way, *reducing fidelity*. It's not being a "Hi-Fi Purist", it's simply knowing what Hi-Fi actually means in the first place.
     
  28. Nenu

    Nenu Pick your own.....you deserve it.

    Messages:
    17,150
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Then you will need the same environment it was mixed in, the same hifi equipment and setup ...
    And to be completely purist you would need to be the person who mixed it.

    Why are you making a definition of HiFi to suit your own ends?
    From Wikipedia
    When the response of the recording is not very flat and affects whether it is acceptable to listen to, small tweaks with an EQ is a great solution.
    According to the definition the original recording is not ideal Hifi.

    From Dictionary.com
    When the master does not reflect the bass content of the original audio signal, it does not fulfil the definition.
     
  29. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Sorry Nenu but you got it wrong. The recording IS the source that's being played. The sound engineer has tuned the recording in ways that often completely differ from the actual source (for example adding reverb to a studio booth vocal etc.)

    You're not required to listen to the music in the original set - you're required to be able to play the recording as accurately as it's possible. Once you add by the ear tuning based on recording to recording, you're altering the parameters of both the recording and your sound system design.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't do this or that. I'm just saying that my 30 year experience with hifi and working with professional audio says that you do yourself no favors tuning records by the ear. You should have a goal to have a sound system and acoustically treated room which plays recordings with their faults and weaknesses just as they are. That enables you to have confidence that if something doesn't sound right, it's in the recording and you don't need to tweak anything.

    After that you can just sit down, play any recording and have confidence that the recording gets played with the highest fidelity without you running to the EQ. You can sit down and concentrate on the music instead of starting to tune the sound.

    There was a time when I also messed with the EQ and failed to see where my true weaknesses lied. After I learned that using EQ is mostly a futile attempt to correct problems which should really be corrected elsewhere, I ditched that signal distorting device from my system.
     
    |Tch0rT| likes this.
  30. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    As a sidenote, when your speakers / system evolve to a certain level, you start to hear the differences in the recording techniques. Suddenly an old simple recording which may have suppressed lows and highs, sounds otherwise really good because the simple stereo microphone used captures the acoustics of the performing stage authentically.

    Besides its other flaws, the recording makes you feel like you're sitting where the microphone was. Then again heavily processed studio recordings often have great bass, great highs and usually still don't give you this experience. Tracks are glued on top of each other and processed artificially.

    Both kinds of music have their strengths and weaknesses and with a proper system you can enjoy the best of both sides. Especially when you listen to an 'audiophile' track which combines the latest technique to a simple recording setup that allows the recording to capture the acoustics of the performing stage.

    For me, when I first time had that 'wow' experience of feeling like I was in the actual room while listening to a track, there was no going back. It happened the first time I listened to Magneplanar panel speakers.
     
    |Tch0rT| likes this.
  31. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    I'm listening to Dead Can Dance Live right now and no EQ, that album doesn't need it. I just use it when I feel it is needed.
     
  32. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    You're a brave man, to admit to making a mistake that large.
     
  33. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    You know receivers do room correction by EQing each speaker individually, right?
     
  34. GlacierNine

    GlacierNine [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    I meant the choice of music :p
     
  35. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Oh, I have been a fan of DCD since 1986 so greatly disagree with your opinion.

     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  36. B00nie

    B00nie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,549
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    It would be a very poor correction actually. The real room correction measures the delay, phase and frequency response and tune each parameter in order to achieve a compromise at a listening point. Most room correction systems are utterly worthless in reality as they can't both do the math properly nor fix the fundamental reasons for what the correction is needed for.

    The vast majority of room correction systems only correct bass frequencies - and according to tests most of them do a very poor job at even that.
     
  37. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,853
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    I have 2ch integrated amp so don't have or use it and when I had a 7.1 surround I tried Audyssey it but preferred my own manual settings, including EQ flat.
     
  38. st4rk

    st4rk Gawd

    Messages:
    722
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    You could paint a skyscraper red with all the blood that has been spilled in the "eq" vs "no eq" wars.