Shadorne states:
"Actually an EQ might be the cheapest and most flexible solution."
Who knows, speaker placement might do the trick and this is free.....and no corruption of the signal. I would not be so quick to throw in a bandaid into the electronic chain until I ran out of other options. And I would attend to acoustic treatments long before this.
If you have found that a cheapo EQ has not destroyed soundstage or resolution, that's fine. But I had an older Soundcraftsman 10-band graphic EQ and an SAE 4-band parametric EQ that were fine with the Marantz receiver from 1977, but pretty much destroyed all the musicality of the AGI 511 preamp that followed it. I can only imagine what a disaster these may have been with the musicality brought on by the ARC SP-10 that followed the AGI a few years later.
When you drop in a bunch of cheap ICs and transistors to build up all these active filters, and driven by poorly designed power supplies, you can not expect an "improvement" in much other than altered frequency response. Unfortunately other sonic attributes are severely affected. Perhaps the Cello equalizer would be worthy here, but I suspect this is overkill to what Baffled needs to resolve at the moment.
There is always an obsession with frequency response when people describe what they hear but obviously there's a lot more to it. And for me anyway, retaining the spatial and ambience qualities in the music is a key factor.
And yes, all the transformations you describe are valid. But these are done on million-dollar recording consoles....not with $200 equalizers. And even with all these signal modifications, I can very clearly hear the dimensionality portrayed by musicians on the stage. I might as well throw in the towel and change to a Bose wave radio if I want to correct frequency anomalies by introducing a cheap equalizer.
John
"Actually an EQ might be the cheapest and most flexible solution."
Who knows, speaker placement might do the trick and this is free.....and no corruption of the signal. I would not be so quick to throw in a bandaid into the electronic chain until I ran out of other options. And I would attend to acoustic treatments long before this.
If you have found that a cheapo EQ has not destroyed soundstage or resolution, that's fine. But I had an older Soundcraftsman 10-band graphic EQ and an SAE 4-band parametric EQ that were fine with the Marantz receiver from 1977, but pretty much destroyed all the musicality of the AGI 511 preamp that followed it. I can only imagine what a disaster these may have been with the musicality brought on by the ARC SP-10 that followed the AGI a few years later.
When you drop in a bunch of cheap ICs and transistors to build up all these active filters, and driven by poorly designed power supplies, you can not expect an "improvement" in much other than altered frequency response. Unfortunately other sonic attributes are severely affected. Perhaps the Cello equalizer would be worthy here, but I suspect this is overkill to what Baffled needs to resolve at the moment.
There is always an obsession with frequency response when people describe what they hear but obviously there's a lot more to it. And for me anyway, retaining the spatial and ambience qualities in the music is a key factor.
And yes, all the transformations you describe are valid. But these are done on million-dollar recording consoles....not with $200 equalizers. And even with all these signal modifications, I can very clearly hear the dimensionality portrayed by musicians on the stage. I might as well throw in the towel and change to a Bose wave radio if I want to correct frequency anomalies by introducing a cheap equalizer.
John