why is an eq less then perfect for bass?

[gasolin]

How come when i use my mediaplayer wmp or mabye vlc to enhance the bass, more or less all the time it dosn't give enough enhancement and often sound terrible with a bit distortion from my pc. On my phone (note 3) sometimes the bass goes up but the midrange and treble goes down,is lowered, which also is less then perfect.

When i listen to music like on this page http://www.trance.fm/#/home.html the bass is a bit deeper and louder then most pop rock music, but when i turn the volume up i get a very punchy bass, much more then i can ever imagine i could get with rock pop,rock music using an eq.It also sound like its much more easy to play loud music if the music is recorded with a lot of bass then enhancing the bass using an eq and try to play loud.

 

[spiny norman]

Well, in one case there's more bass in the recording, while in the other you're trying to use equalisation to add what isn't there, and all eq can do is adjust the level of one component of the music relative to the others. So if you use eq to boost the bass, but there's nothing there to boost, you're going to get distortion, and also lose some treble and minband into the bargain.

 

[ellisdj]

Because boosting bass frequencies requires both a lot of additonal power from the amplifier and much harder work from the speaker. Most setups are not not designed for this

Certain subwoofers - the majority of good sealed box subs have a lot of eq boost on the low end - however the drivers are majorly over engineered to cope with it without distortion.

 

[matt49]

Last week I switched on the EQ in my NAS's control software (Synology Audiostation). The results were pretty shocking: terrible distortion right across the frequency band. (BTW I wasn't trying to boost bass: I was playing around with the mid-range just for the hell of it.)

So some EQ software is very very bad ...

Matt

 

[shooter]

Is there a preamp section you can reduce the db's OP?

 

[gasolin]

no preamp to reduce db

It's not a matter of enhancing sounds that aren't there, it's about making sounds that are to low, louder so the sound isn't thin and bright, most people find a neutral sound borring uninteresting, therefore many speakers have a litte bumb in the bass (cerwin vega a big one) also many have bump in the high frequency.

If you use an eq manly for the bass it has a tendency not to sound they way i want it to and often theres distortion without a punchy bass (even when you system has the power to give you a punchy bass). Sometimes you do hear some song that has the right amount of bass so theres lot's of deep and punchy bass, in the 80's i think many records,songs have a bright and thin (bass)

I am not a person the always use an eq for my sound, when i use an eq it would be if theres a slightly unbalanced sound like 1-2 db to much bottom like my krk rokit 5 g3 had, my behringer b1030a i had to turn the HF down a bit, for my zensor 1 i desided not to use an eq so i have a subwoofer, at low level (use my zensor 1 and subwoofer for my tv) when theres mostly voice theres not much bass which is fine at high levels theres alot more so i really have a punchy bass at movie levels.

 

[Glacialpath]

It's not a matter of enhancing sounds that aren't there, it's about making sounds that are to low, louder so the sound isn't thin and bright, most people find a neutral sound borring uninteresting,

I agree with you most people don't listen to neutral sounding music i.e. no EQ because it sounds flat but no offence to those people but it's purely down to the system they are listening on not being able to reproduce audio close to how it sounded at the recording stage. It is also likely the soirce material if it's internet based audio is not of a very high quality only CDs and above will be any near to how the recording actually sounds.

Spiny Norman is right and I second it. Using EQ is only adding to what is there. All music regardless of wether your ears like how it sounds should be listened to with no added EQ for the pureist listening experience. All the mixing has been done in the studio, I don't believe we need to try and mix it more.

Different sites with have a different output quality, some will sound punchyer, some will just sound thin and weak like you are experiencing. As you have a subwoofer I would incorperate it into your music listening set up if you can. If it's set up correctly any tracks that would normaly sound thin should start to sound much fuller.

If it's punch you want then I would try a DAC before your NAD. Also how many USB cables did you try before settling on the Nurforce. It may be worth trying some others. You got some good speakers so they can handle quite a lot.

Remeber low frequencies can take about a 3rd of the overall signal your system is trying to out put. If you turn up the basss to try and hear it more you are likely to choke the other frequencies. The more bandwidth you can give the signel the more chance you have of hearing it all.

I hope that helps.

The Cable Madman :rockout:

 

[abacus]

Your system may be reproducing 100% accuracy of what is heard in the studio, but it will sound nothing like it did in the studio due the your room acoustics being totally different, EQ can help to reduce these room anomaly’s to give a more accurate (Closer to the studio sound) sound in your particular room.

A good system should be totally neutral so that it reproduces exactly what it is fed, leaving only the room acoustics to sort out.(Unfortunately a lot of manufactures balance their equipment to how they think the punter will like it, rather than neutral as it should be)

Due to the large wavelengths of bass notes these are the ones that cause the most problems in the room, and unfortunately EQ alone will not solve it. (Walk around the room while you are listening to some bass heavy music and you will find that some parts of the room has too much bass, whereas other parts don’t have enough.

Like most things in life you have to sort out a compromise that suits your tastes. (Unless money is no object that is)

Bill

 

[cheeseboy]

All music regardless of wether your ears like how it sounds should be listened to with no added EQ for the pureist listening experience.

sorry I disagree. If your ears don't like it why should you listen to it like that?

Never really understood that line of thinking. We don't all walk around barefoot because it's purist, or drive lotus 7's because it's a purist experience, etc etc why should audio be any different. Surely the whole point is to enjoy it, not to think "I'm listening to this how other people tell me to, I'm not enjoying it, but that's ok because I've stuck to some unwritten rules" ?

 

[gasolin]

What's your opinion on the unit that is surpose to be very good (not gonna buy it it cost to much for my pocket,more then 300€) http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/anti-mode-8033.shtml

 

[Glacialpath]

All music regardless of wether your ears like how it sounds should be listened to with no added EQ for the pureist listening experience.

sorry I disagree. If your ears don't like it why should you listen to it like that?

Fair point Cheeseboy. I should have worded it differently.

Granted we should enjoy our music/audio in what ever way we like and if it means adding some EQ to make it sound pleasing that's fine by me.

My point was if you want to hear the closest repoduction of the audio then no EQ should be applyed but yes if what you are listening to sounds horrible quality wise then by all means EQ it till it sounds nice. I used to but now I've realised I get more detail and can hear more of what is in the source with out adding any EQ.

I guess I have become a pureist when it comes to audio. I look at it this way. If it sounds like I am in the room with the musicians playing the song then I have achieved my goal. Most people just like to hear the tunes and are not fussed to much about the quality.

In the case of the OP I think that adding EQ is what's causing half the trouble they have asked about.

 

[cheeseboy]

If it sounds like I am in the room with the musicians playing the song then I have achieved my goal.

as a guitarist you should know that if it sounds like you're in a room with the musicians playing the song that it'll probably sound crap as everybody tries to make themselves the loudest :rofl: (musician practice room joke there for those that have never experienced such a thing )

 

[andyjm]

My point was if you want to hear the closest repoduction of the audio then no EQ should be applyed but yes if what you are listening to sounds horrible quality wise then by all means EQ it till it sounds nice. I used to but now I've realised I get more detail and can hear more of what is in the source with out adding any EQ.

I guess I have become a pureist when it comes to audio. I look at it this way. If it sounds like I am in the room with the musicians playing the song then I have achieved my goal. Most people just like to hear the tunes and are not fussed to much about the quality.

In the case of the OP I think that adding EQ is what's causing half the trouble they have asked about.

I have sat in studios listening to musicians, and generally it sounds poor at best. After mixing and EQing, the sound played back in the control room is arguably the sound that the recording engineer wanted you to hear - maybe this is the sound you are aiming for?

However there is no chance that the sound your hear from you system will match the sound in the control room unless you have the same equipment, same room dimensions and same acoustic treatment - and you dont.

So, while I understand the purist 'I want it just as it was played', I am afraid that just isn't going to happen. By using approriate EQ, room treament and equipment choice, it may be possible to approximate the sound that the recording engineer heard when he mixed it, but you are fooling yourself if you think this is how it sounded if you stood next to the musicians in the studio.

To be honest, unless you are into unaccompanied singers, you wouldn't want to hear it anyway.

 

[Glacialpath]

I have sat in studios listening to musicians, and generally it sounds poor at best. After mixing and EQing, the sound played back in the control room is arguably the sound that the recording engineer wanted you to hear - maybe this is the sound you are aiming for?

However there is no chance that the sound your hear from you system will match the sound in the control room unless you have the same equipment, same room dimensions and same acoustic treatment - and you dont.

So, while I understand the purist 'I want it just as it was played', I am afraid that just isn't going to happen. By using approriate EQ, room treament and equipment choice, it may be possible to approximate the sound that the recording engineer heard when he mixed it, but you are fooling yourself if you think this is how it sounded if you stood next to the musicians in the studio.

Oops got me again lol. Only kidding. No of course it will never sound the same as the sound coming out of the studio monitors for the exact reason you point out. From my experiences of live rooms, rehearsal rooms and how good the instruments and plaing of them is, musicians can sosund aweful or awesome. When I used to work at a studio. The rehearsal kits sounded terrible due to the abuse they got but when someone bought in a nice kit the band would sound sweet. Depending where I stood in the room obviously determind how the instruments sounded. Guitar sound are much easyer to make sound respectable un mic'd.

Put it this way if I can hear the room or a simulation of the room (depending on the mix) then that is what I'm aming for. If all hear is a wall of drums, guitar, bass and vox then it's not so pleasing. To my ears the cable additions I have made to my set up have allowed me to hear more of the room sound and space between the musicians. I start to get an image in my mind of the band or musician in a room and not just the sound coming out of my speakers. If no room mic's have been used during recording and little delay/reverb has been applied to the mix of course I will never hear that room sound.

I have a very comprehencive understanding of how it all works. If the Hi-Fi is in a good sized room and is pretty good qulity in the first place it will resemble the live environment the band recorded in, even if the instruments were all recorded seperately. :rockout:

 

[davedotco]

Modern studio recordings rarely, if ever make any attempt to reproduce was is heard in the studio. The reference, such as it is, is the final mix in the control room, a totally unreal constuct of musicians, engineers and producer.

This 'construct' can be anything, a tour de force of studio effects and wizardry or an attempt to produce something that sounds like a real musical performance played by real people, or anything in between.

Reproducing this accurately is not difficult, just expensive. However in normal roons with normal (however good) systems you run up against issues of dynamic range and bandwidth almost immediately, and that is just the start.

It is compensating for these failings where decent equalisation can be of real use, though I have yet to find any thing on hi-fi equipment that is actually useful in this respect, regular tone controls are far too blunt an instrument for such purposes.

 

[sheggs]

With regards to room treatment as you can problably imagine, different rooms, purposes and budgets require different methods, techniques and products. In this regards the rooms that you the most room treamtnet and are looking for the shortest decay times and the most smoothing are control rooms. So this is quite hard to repliacte at home unless you are preapred to turn your living room into a recording studio

 

[gasolin]

That's why many also litsen to the music in a car on different sytems,ghettoblasters,mp3 players,iphone and so on when they are mixing,recording cause if dosn't sound good on any good sound system it's not good enough

 

[andyjm]

With regards to room treatment as you can problably imagine, different rooms, purposes and budgets require different methods, techniques and products. In this regards the rooms that you the most room treamtnet and are looking for the shortest decay times and the most smoothing are control rooms. So this is quite hard to repliacte at home unless you are preapred to turn your living room into a recording studio

I've had a go at controling decay times, within what was acceptable to the wife. I have lined the walls with 50mm acoustic panels covered in fabric.

http://www.acoustic.co.uk/literature/softsound.pdf

Deep pile carpet on double thickness acoustic underlay, large thick blanket interlined curtains, large soft furnishings, large bookshelf on the only wall without windows/curtains to break up any reflections.

To my dismay, the line was drawn at acoustic panels on the ceiling (she just wouldn't have it).

At first glance, the room looks normal (apart from the Martin Logans and the sub), but noticable drop in ambient sound as soon as you walk in.

Not sure it was worth the effort, but I enjoyed doing it.

Interesting phenomenon is the bass is definitely better with the windows all wide open. Guess it damps the standing waves. Not sure the neighbours agree.

 

[davedotco]

With regards to room treatment as you can problably imagine, different rooms, purposes and budgets require different methods, techniques and products. In this regards the rooms that you the most room treamtnet and are looking for the shortest decay times and the most smoothing are control rooms. So this is quite hard to repliacte at home unless you are preapred to turn your living room into a recording studio

No it is easy, just buy a big enough home and have Munro or Quested, for example, design and build a room for playback, this will be a control room type setup rather than a studio but you know what I mean.

Hence my comment above, easy but expensive. In my neck of the woods the property alone could easily reach into seven figures but the technology is simple enough. Treating a dedicated listening room in a normal home is a kind of half way house solution and the best that most of us can aspire too.

I remain somewhat unsure of the use of hi-fi systems in heavily treated rooms, it rarely sounds 'right' to me though admitably my experience is limited. It appears to my ears that hi-fi systems 'need' a normal room to sound at their best, sure rooms can run from awful to superb, but a decent 'natural' acoustic, with longer more 'natural' decay times, seem to be what I prefer.

I would love the space and money to be able to try such things.

 

[sheggs]

Yes bass will escape through any opening whatsoever. Because bass is omnidirectional it will go all round the room and will find its way out. This is why peopl ecomplain about the thump thump of bass when people play music too loud. They always presume that the music is bass heavy but actually it is most probably the bass escaping and travelling on those huge waves.

What thickness softsounds did you go for? They would help if you had flutter echo, bass would need other types of products. (the thicker panels have no asportion below 250hz according to their data sheets)

 

[sheggs]

With regards to room treatment as you can problably imagine, different rooms, purposes and budgets require different methods, techniques and products. In this regards the rooms that you the most room treamtnet and are looking for the shortest decay times and the most smoothing are control rooms. So this is quite hard to repliacte at home unless you are preapred to turn your living room into a recording studio

No it is easy, just buy a big enough home and have Munro or Quested, for example, design and build a room for playback, this will be a control room type setup rather than a studio but you know what I mean.

Hence my comment above, easy but expensive. In my neck of the woods the property alone could easily reach into seven figures but the technology is simple enough. Treating a dedicated listening room in a normal home is a kind of half way house solution and the best that most of us can aspire too.

I remain somewhat unsure of the use of hi-fi systems in heavily treated rooms, it rarely sounds 'right' to me though admitably my experience is limited. It appears to my ears that hi-fi systems 'need' a normal room to sound at their best, sure rooms can run from awful to superb, but a decent 'natural' acoustic, with longer more 'natural' decay times, seem to be what I prefer.

I would love the space and money to be able to try such things.

When it comes to listening rooms as opposed to a control room for example I would advise that what you are happy with is what you should go with if that means no treatment cool. It is for your pleasure afterall

That said we recently had this feedback from one of our customers regarding their listening room -

OK, I'm at the lunatic fringe end of the HiFi/audiophile spectrum but being able to treat an entire listening room for less than the price of 1m of Cardas Clear interconnect constitutes a fantastic bargain in my book given the very positive impact it had on the sound of my system!!

« back

 

[steve_1979]

I've had a go at controling decay times, within what was acceptable to the wife. I have lined the walls with 50mm acoustic panels covered in fabric.

http://www.acoustic.co.uk/literature/softsound.pdf

Deep pile carpet on double thickness acoustic underlay, large thick blanket interlined curtains, large soft furnishings, large bookshelf on the only wall without windows/curtains to break up any reflections.

To my dismay, the line was drawn at acoustic panels on the ceiling (she just wouldn't have it).

At first glance, the room looks normal (apart from the Martin Logans and the sub), but noticable drop in ambient sound as soon as you walk in.

Not sure it was worth the effort, but I enjoyed doing it.

Interesting phenomenon is the bass is definitely better with the windows all wide open. Guess it damps the standing waves. Not sure the neighbours agree.

My room is a reflective hell with big, mostly bare walls, thin carpet and high ceilings. It's not much of a issue though because I'm only about 1 metre away from the speakers in my usual listening position so the speakers are much louder than the room when I'm seated.

 

[Glacialpath]

Modern studio recordings rarely, if ever make any attempt to reproduce was is heard in the studio. The reference, such as it is, is the final mix in the control room, a totally unreal constuct of musicians, engineers and producer.

This 'construct' can be anything, a tour de force of studio effects and wizardry or an attempt to produce something that sounds like a real musical performance played by real people, or anything in between.

Reproducing this accurately is not difficult, just expensive. However in normal roons with normal (however good) systems you run up against issues of dynamic range and bandwidth almost immediately, and that is just the start.

It is compensating for these failings where decent equalisation can be of real use, though I have yet to find any thing on hi-fi equipment that is actually useful in this respect, regular tone controls are far too blunt an instrument for such purposes.

Yes but that's modern studio recordings from say mid 90s onwards. Producers have lost their way in trying to make everything sound ultra clear. instead of natural.

In the case of the OP who seems to listen to mostly electronic music I feel if he doesn't use any Tone control from his system then they will get a better representation of the music being listened to. Also if they used a better source.

Of course there are benifits to using graphic EQ to better suit a room, after all we know thats why they are used both in recording and live situations. Us guys only want to buy a Hi-Fi and hear our favourit music as best as possible. From my experiences with my current Hi-Fi I get quite close to the natural sound of what I perseave the music I listen to to be. I'm well aware there is still more to come from my CDs.

I seem to be quite ucky with my listening room being quite well ballanced between lively sounding an dry. :rockout:

 

[davedotco]

Modern studio recordings rarely, if ever make any attempt to reproduce was is heard in the studio. The reference, such as it is, is the final mix in the control room, a totally unreal constuct of musicians, engineers and producer.

This 'construct' can be anything, a tour de force of studio effects and wizardry or an attempt to produce something that sounds like a real musical performance played by real people, or anything in between.

Reproducing this accurately is not difficult, just expensive. However in normal roons with normal (however good) systems you run up against issues of dynamic range and bandwidth almost immediately, and that is just the start.

It is compensating for these failings where decent equalisation can be of real use, though I have yet to find any thing on hi-fi equipment that is actually useful in this respect, regular tone controls are far too blunt an instrument for such purposes.

Yes but that's modern studio recordings from say mid 90s onwards. Producers have lost their way in trying to make everything sound ultra clear. instead of natural.

In the case of the OP who seems to listen to mostly electronic music I feel if he doesn't use any Tone control from his system then they will get a better representation of the music being listened to. Also if they used a better source.

Of course there are benifits to using graphic EQ to better suit a room, after all we know thats why they are used both in recording and live situations. Us guys only want to buy a Hi-Fi and hear our favourit music as best as possible. From my experiences with my current Hi-Fi I get quite close to the natural sound of what I perseave the music I listen to to be. I'm well aware there is still more to come from my CDs.

I seem to be quite ucky with my listening room being quite well ballanced between lively sounding an dry. :rockout:

That is pure nonsense, studio recordings have been artificial constructs since George Martin created the first multi track recorders for the Beatles in the late 60's.

They have simply become more complex over the years, 24 and 32 track recorders were comonplace by 1975. If you are refering to the kind of digitally recorded electronic music that has become commonplace in the last 20 years then there is no 'acoustic' reference whatsoever.

The musicians/production crew will still mix the final product to sound as they want it, if that is what you want to hear then, using suitable equipment, no eq should be necessary unless the room is particularly poor.

If you wish to modify this sound to something like, for example, a club situation, that is absolutely fine, but it isn't hi-fi by any rational definition.

 

[Glacialpath]

That is pure nonsense, studio recordings have been artificial constructs since George Martin created the first multi track recorders for the Beatles in the late 60's.

They have simply become more complex over the years, 24 and 32 track recorders were comonplace by 1975. If you are refering to the kind of digitally recorded electronic music that has become commonplace in the last 20 years then there is no 'acoustic' reference whatsoever.

The musicians/production crew will still mix the final product to sound as they want it, if that is what you want to hear then, using suitable equipment, no eq should be necessary unless the room is particularly poor.

If you wish to modify this sound to something like, for example, a club situation, that is absolutely fine, but it isn't hi-fi by any rational definition.

Right so when an orchestra gets recorded the engineer will not put the mic's such as they capture the best sound from the instruments. So that when the guy mixing the final recording, he doesn't have to do much to have a trumpet sounding like a trumpet and so on. but you are saying they just change that sound to how it suits them?

That means if we go and listen to a live Ensamble in an aditoruim that doesn't require a PA set up. No one will recognise the instrument because they don't sound like they do on the record.

Of course a recording is a artificial thing but if you want a recording os a nice Strat to be instantly recognisable you mix to sound as close to real life as possible not make it sound how you want.

When the Beatles were first heard by a talent scout it wasn't some demo they cut in a studio polished up to make them sound nice. It was in a live situation and what they were playing sounded good. But then you are saying when they recorded anything that natural sound they created with their instruments and voices was ignored and the producer gets it mixed to sound completely different? Yeah for sure they messed around with funny sounds but that wold be a mixture of the band being able to mess around with things and the producer telling them to try this and that.

I know what sort of tricks have been done over the years and I'm well aware of cool FX that have been used to create a spesific sound nothing like the original. But the core of all acoustic music is the instruments and how they sound when they are plpayed my curtain musicians. Why do people buy Les Paul's or Stienway Piano or a Rickenbacker Bass for a specific sound if it's just going to be changed at the mixing stage?

Unfortunately I agree. Most producers do make a band sound the way they want. Then when the band goes out live the front of house engineer has to try and recreat that same kind of sound.

There are bands/artists who are trying to get producers to capturing and mix their music as close to the insruments sound as possible rather than just recording a signal then plastering it with all kinds of rubbish to make it sound completely different.

The fact that compression and noise gates are used is where they start to lose that original natural sound.

Don't take me so literally with my comments. I gave my opinion on the OP's original question. Maybe I worded it as if telling him what it should be like instead of making it more of a suggestion. But you guys just go nuts telling people they are just wrong.

I know what I hear. I know what I know, I know what I want to hear. I take onboard what other people say and try to hold my hands up when I've been proven wrong. You are obviousley well informed and know what you are talking about. I just think people could explain things without saying things like "That's total nonsense" and just "Well actually....." people might not get so agressive on here and listen instead of fighting.