[bagwell359]

Quote:



I've used pro EQs before, but only for live stage sets. Could anyone tell me what are the general positives and negatives of digital vs hardware equalizers for headphones?

Whe I hear the word hardware, it sounds like something inside a preamp or between a pre-amp and an amp. That is dealing with the signal at a much greater volume than digital that occurs in my current chain: UAPP/digital EQ/TIDAL/LG v40 -> DAC.

Also most digital EQ are parametric - the best form, you can often take care of a speaker or headphone with six sliders. An graphic octave EQ that is set at 32, 64, 128, 256, etc. is limited if your issues are not that close to a setting.

I had what at the time was considered an excellent EQ - Soundcraftsman 2217, but it had limits starting with fixed octave settings, and if say slider #5 needed to be down -4 db, and #6 needed to be up +6db, you could hear it, you'd have to go to -3 and +3 so it wasn't audible.

I've got some pretty good cans and a good set-up and I cannot hear the digital EQ I use (Toneboosters).

I have one can that has a steep but very narrow up, but surrounding it there is a wide trough. I can actually set two sliders for this one with a very high Q (narrow band down -7 db) and low Q (wide) +4 - no fixed setting can get you that.

Anyhow I also have hi-res streaming. If I use EQ I lose bit perfect, but so far I find I prefer EQ and no bit perfect over no EQ and bit perfect. I spent many hours working on and installing mods to my headphones - some worthwhile still, others lame compared to what my digital EQ get me.

 

[340519]

I do not EQ at all. It seems why people buy expensive aftermarket cables on here is because it is a form of EQ. I find that interesting.

 

[amirf]

The problem is that sometimes, the level of change that can be cleanly established with EQ is outside the range of the issue you're trying to correct. And as the above poster says, it is very easy to get EQ wrong. I use relatively sophisticated EQ plugins to slightly shape the sound to my preferences for various purposes but avoid wholesale (relatively speaking) changes.


The 'virtuality' of PC-based EQ also makes things a little less immediate in terms of feedback than I like (and this covers the majority of DSP-based outboard systems as well, simply by the nature of the UI). At the same time however, something like a Massive Passive isn't practical in my mode of use... so I stick to plugins.

yes but not all ear will be taste like sometimes older plus treble and air to get optimum experience and some young people based on bass not treble , even me as Malaysia as my country they use eq on Behringer wing but the problem trash concert speaker pia , and direct to mixer and wrong setup make me my ear bleeding .That is nothing using eq .They don't know to use and I hate it serious as other say the same especially use mixer feeder is loud and they use gain with iem is useless. Iem is not same to control speaker but control situation as singer and stager performance use , for me the mixer and stage in charge use powerful headset but for me just laugh even use ear cap is still useless because I have ear with environmental situation .For me if someone want iem please check with audiologist they know much how to reduce and plus dB sensitivity.

 

[amirf]

I do not EQ at all. It seems why people buy expensive aftermarket cables on here is because it is a form of EQ. I find that interesting.

true .Not all need eq is depend on environment and live situation .For music ,it is not need to be loud or quite but enough to listen it .

 

[tlcocks]

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-charter-oak-peq-1.969510/

I started a thread with a lengthy post about my experience with this piece. Instead of typing a lot here, I reference the thread as above.

 

[tlcocks]

Suffice to say I am a very passionate pro balanced hardware EQ fan for both headphones and loudspeakers. I use it to tone shape only. Broad Q curves. I LOVE IT.
Also, I highly recommend for those interested the following read:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/equalizer-in-a-hi-fi-system

 

[Whazzzup]

equalizer three sux imo

 

[tlcocks]

equalizer three sux imo

Don’t understand. Sorry. Perhaps I’m dense.

 

[Whazzzup]

Don’t understand. Sorry. Perhaps I’m dense.

 

[tlcocks]

Would make everyone here aware of the favorable posts in the aforementioned threads on the McIntosh MQ112. I’ve not heard it yet. But wish to compare it to my two beloved Charter Oak PEQ-1 units. I have one in a HP chain and one for loudspeakers. That’s how much I love the piece.

 

[tlcocks]

With analog EQ, you definitely get what you pay for. Up to about 3-4 grand. Then it’s the law of decreasing incremental returns after that. I am currently looking at two stereo ganged compelling pro pieces. The Wes Audio NGTubeEQ and the Hendyamps Michelangelo. One of these will replace my 10+ year old Charter Oaks when one or both dies, as they are no longer in production.

 

[Whazzzup]

why would I?

 

[tlcocks]

why would I?

I think the thread is intended to stimulate responses from people who DO use equalizers. Correct me if I’m wrong

 

[tlcocks]

why would I?

But to indulge you, FLAVOR, tone, while retaining technicalities

 

[tlcocks]

This argument that high-end components "should be perfect" is what keeps the "high end" industry afloat. Basically on one hand they argue that no EQ should be used because these components should be perfect, then on the other hand one should keep auditioning or upgrading to get the piece which has a tendency to the kind of sound one likes. Well if they all sound different then they aren't perfect.

The audiophile has been led to believe that the way they should do EQ is by buying new $$$$$ equipment instead of a little EQ tweak here and there. Before digital EQ it is true that putting an EQ in the signal path would reduce S/N ratio, and in its infancy maybe digital EQ wasn't so great. However what everyone must understand is that EQ is a part of the mixing and mastering of any album. Your music has already been EQ'd and today it is using digital EQ. Professional level EQ plug-ins are available to audiophiles these days.

The sound of any high-end is dependent on the room. Which is why some systems/components sound good in some rooms. Which is why people are advised to audition things at home. Every speaker, DAC, amp and source has a different sound or a different EQ. Some combinations don't work well with some rooms. So when you move homes or apartments or rooms the expectation in high end is that you buy new $$$$$ stuff to get your system to work in the new room. Nothing responds perfectly in every room anyhow.

It wouldn't kill anyone to just EQ a little to get any system to sound the way one likes it in their room. It would save people a lot of money if they suddenly audition another system and wish their system sounds like that system. Some gentle EQ could handle it without expenditure in the thousands in new components.

As you mentioned it is easy to ruin your sound with EQ and that's likely why people are afraid to try it. They don't have the confidence that they can make the subtle changes needed to get the sound they want without losing something somewhere and so the "easy" way to do it is pay some big bucks manufacturer to "voice" their equipment for your purposes and also be confident that since a big bucks audio manufacturer did it that it is "perfect". If one is willing to experiment and is confident in their own sound then one could save thousands by figuring out how to EQ for their needs.

Agree with all. Love pro analog for broad Q tone shaping as more forgiving more 3D more musical than digital plugins. The mastering engineers generally agree on this. Although best pro plugins are closing the gap.