Equalization ?

[v1c]

I have recently become more interested in the Equalization aspect of audio from an AV amp.

I have for a good few years now been using MCACC on my Pioneer Amp and have been completely happy with the sound i have.

The other week when i was watching Dredd for the n'th time i for whatever reason turned the MCACC off in the menu and was listening and listening a bit more and then realized i actually prefered it without the EQ.

So now i've got some curiosity brewing about whether EQ is actually better or not.

First of i only have a small standard 2 bed terraced house enviroment with soft furnishing so that is the context of the question.

Second of the source material ie blu ray disc must have been EQ'd in the mix ? Why would i want to EQ an already EQ'd mix ? i'm less concerned about distance from speaker to ear more interested in what is arriving at the ear untainted.

Thoughts and reflections on EQ would be appreciated as i'm not sure what direction i want to go in future AMP wise , everything else i know what i want to do.

Thanks Carl.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I've found the same as yourself.

I used to use a "do it all" processor, but when I tried the Audiolab 8200AP, it just sounded much better in my system even though it had no room EQ. I found the system to be far less "restricted" soundwise, sounding more open and "free" of the speakers, if you know what I mean. I have used an Antimode Dual Core sub EQ on my DXD12012 which made an appreciable difference (more than I expected), so I would say it is still worth EQ'ing the subwoofer as that is where most room issues arise, but I'm no longer into EQ'ing the speakers themselves (80Hz and above). Using no EQ will have better results with smaller speakers, like dedicated AV speakers that are usually sealed and small bookshelf speakers. Larger floorstanders and bigger ported speakers will more than likely need some EQ'ing to counter the issues they will more than likely throw up.

I have also found similar results in our main AV demo room. Over the years, quite a few systems that we have set up in there haven't sounded great, or at least not worth their asking price. I always put this down to the room being quite reflective and alsonot being a solid (suspended floor and false walls all round), but since using th Bryston SP3, Rotel RSP1572, and the Audiolab 8200AP in there in varying systems, they've all sounded pretty amazing - in particular the 8200AP at it's relatively "budget" price point.

It will be interesting to see how the Marantz AV8801 sounds, as this is a little more than "does it all" plus more, but also promises to be one of the better AV processors for music reproduction.

 

[v1c]

Thanks for your input David. I am really suprised at what i'm finding with the EQ off.

For example listening level (bluray) EQ on i would use between -22/-18db with EQ off between -30/-27db and it sounds better ?

With music i would always listen in extended stereo mode with EQ now i find stereo prefered with EQ off ?

Your "restricted, open + free" comment makes sense to me and decribes my thoughts on it.

Maybe i'll look into antimode one day but with the sub i use never felt the need to go down that route. Which leads me onto the bass which now seems to have a greater presance (in a good way) since i turned EQ off.

If i was to sum it up i would say i'd just bought some new kit that sounded better than the old one !.

What's interesting is this all came about from a comment made about the new Cambridge audio BD752 being released. I went on thier website and was also reading about their amps and that the new ones being realesd will have EQ for the first time (which meant they have only just sircummed to use EQ). That along with a dormant memory that you yourself wern't using EQ anymore promted me to try turning mine off i think.

Well i'm glad i did as i feel i've improved my listening enjoyment and opened up some different options to concider with amplification.

 

[ric71]

Hi v1c,

I get what you are saying as I have found the same with lesser EQ systems ie Audyssey XT, Arcams off the shelf system,Pioneerr and Yamaha.

You should take a listen to Anthems ARC,Audyssey XT32,Dirac and Trinnov. These are seriously reference quality EQ systems.

I use ARC in conjunction with Paradigms Perfect Bass Kit and it has transformed my listening experience for both movies and music ten fold.

I am in a small terraced house also.

I have heard the Audiolab in use at Frank Harvey and yes it did sound very good. The KK DXD 1202 was awesome.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Maybe i'll look into antimode one day but with the sub i use never felt the need to go down that route. Which leads me onto the bass which now seems to have a greater presance (in a good way) since i turned EQ off.

To be honest, with how clean the 12012 is, I didn't think that EQ'ing the sub would make much difference as it just sounded clean. I knew there was a bit of room "addition" going on, but it didn't seem anything major - most subs tend to make this obvious because they're not clean. When I tried the Dual Core, I was quite surprised how much cleaner again it sounded. If you don't try it, you won't know, which is a good thing, but once you do...

 

[v1c]

Hi v1c,

I get what you are saying as I have found the same with lesser EQ systems ie Audyssey XT, Arcams off the shelf system,Pioneerr and Yamaha.

You should take a listen to Anthems ARC,Audyssey XT32,Dirac and Trinnov. These are seriously reference quality EQ systems.

Now this is where the crux of my curiosity lies are there better levels of EQ as you suggest or is EQ really just another marketing tool so to speak ? Or that Sub sat system don't need EQ as much as full range sysyems ?

I managed to hear an Anthem once and i did like it so it's always on the options list..... the Audiolab route has my interest at the moment.

I'm already a convert on the KK DXD sub and will get the 808 (won't need 12012 in my room) in due course.

 

[v1c]

If you don't try it, you won't know, which is a good thing, but once you do...

That's what i was thinking really. I've already said to you i'll be getting the DXD 808 at some point in the future and that is pretty much set in stone i won't change my mind on that one

 

[GSB]

Excuse my ignorance in the matter but would that mean changing the peq on my avr from flat to through?

I have done this for music playback and it is considerably louder!

 

[RobinKidderminster]

IMO if the room is acoustically good no eq should be needed. I find its almost a test of room acoustics in that if the room is ok then the eq makes little difference because it is doing so little. Less is more maybe

 

[v1c]

Excuse my ignorance in the matter but would that mean changing the peq on my avr from flat to through?

I have done this for music playback and it is considerably louder!

I'm not familiar with the yamaha on the pioneer it say MCACC off so i know it's off. Prehaps someone with a yamaha can guide you on that one.

 

[v1c]

IMO if the room is acoustically good no eq should be needed. I find its almost a test of room acoustics in that if the room is ok then the eq makes little difference because it is doing so little. Less is more maybe

Makes sense...... David sort of contradicts this with his observations though ?

 

[Frank Harvey]

In what way?

Having tried Audyssey XT32, I preferred my system without, although I still feel the sub benefits from it. If there's one good test for room EQ, its our main AV room at the store. I always felt this needed EQ, but since having had the SP3 and 8200AP in there, this has proven me wrong.

I agree that EQ is needed for big speakers though.

Is there something I've missed?

 

[GSB]

Yes there is something youv'e missed....my peq question...?!! :rofl:

 

[Frank Harvey]

Apologies, i didnt realise you were asking me

Excuse my ignorance in the matter but would that mean changing the peq on my avr from flat to through?

I have done this for music playback and it is considerably louder!

The room EQ will remove the loud peaks in the response (above what would be flat), so you're losing the loudness that these peaks bring. It depends how large these peaks are as to how different the overall level sounds.

Frequency response aside, some may feel that music particularly sounds better without any processing - to apply the EQ, processors will convert the signal to digital and then back again.

 

[v1c]

In what way?

If there's one good test for room EQ, its our main AV room at the store. I always felt this needed EQ, but since having had the SP3 and 8200AP in there, this has proven me wrong.

I just felt that this sort of contradicts what robin said you imply that the demo room needs EQ but non EQ AV products have sounded good.

Maybe i mistook what you mean

 

[GSB]

For music i think its safe to say no EQ is better,but for blu-ray?

Would it be possible for EQ to somehow distort a Master Audio soundtrack so that the full range of intended sound is not realized?

Or am i talking bol*ocks.....

 

[abacus]

EQ is a great servant but a bad master, so must be used as a last resort.

There is an interesting article here http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm about EQ, however if you want to get to know about EQ then forget HI Fi magazines and move into the studio realm, as they are the ones that know what they are on about as they constantly live with it.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[Frank Harvey]

In what way?

If there's one good test for room EQ, its our main AV room at the store. I always felt this needed EQ, but since having had the SP3 and 8200AP in there, this has proven me wrong.

I just felt that this sort of contradicts what robin said you imply that the demo room needs EQ but non EQ AV products have sounded good.

Maybe i mistook what you mean

Our demo room? Yes, it's not a great room at all as I've explained, but the system in there at the moment just sounds so good, and other than the sub being used with a Dual Core, there's no EQ'ing going on above 80Hz. I suppose I'll have a play with the Marantz AV8801 when it comes in and see how that compares to the 8200AP that is in there.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Would it be possible for EQ to somehow distort a Master Audio soundtrack so that the full range of intended sound is not realized?

Or am i talking bol*ocks.....

I suppose in a way it is distorting the signal as it is imposing equalisation to the signal - round these parts, that's classed as distortion. But, that isn't affecting the frequency range that the signal contains.

 

[GSB]

EQ is a great servant but a bad master, so must be used as a last resort.

There is an interesting article here http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm about EQ, however if you want to get to know about EQ then forget HI Fi magazines and move into the studio realm, as they are the ones that know what they are on about as they constantly live with it.

Hope this helps

Bill

Thanks for that

 

[Frank Harvey]

EQ is a great servant but a bad master, so must be used as a last resort.

There is an interesting article here http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm about EQ, however if you want to get to know about EQ then forget HI Fi magazines and move into the studio realm, as they are the ones that know what they are on about as they constantly live with it.

Hope this helps

Bill

I would add that Audyssey has moved on from MultEQ and onto XT32 which is quite a step forward. Also, conversations with Ken Kreisel reveal that he purposely left any electronic EQ off his new subwoofers because studio folk didn't like the end result. I suppose there may be other reasons too.