2. misc-audio
  3. 1137452459

EQ's... why doesnt everybody have one?

Just browsing around the systems on this site, i knoticed that very few have equalizers. I realize some claim they introduce unacceptable noise but i would hardly call my Furman Q-2312, at %>.01 20Hz-40kHz, unacceptable. This $200 piece of equiptment ($100 on sale at musiciansfriend.com) replaces several thousand dollars in assembling a perfectly linear system in perfectly linear room, and in my opinion, accomplishes the task better than any room design could no matter how well engineered. It brought my system (onkyo reciever, NHT SB-3 speakers and Sony CD changer) to a level i could not have dreamed. It extends the SB-3's frequency response by at least 10 Hz to a satisfying 30 Hz without any rolloff or sacrifice in clarity, but the greatest improvement was definately in the Mid-range, around the SB-3s crossover frequency of 2.6kHz. The clarity of vocals, strings, guitars, brass... anything in this range rivals that of uneq'd systems costing well into the thousands of dollars... my total cost; $800. One of the more supprising differences is a marked improvement in immaging, it think this might have to do with eliminating several resonances in the right channel caused by my back wall (the left back wall has a curtain over it). The second my dad heard the difference he got on my computer to buy one for himself, he couldnt even wait to get back to his own, he then kicked me outa the listening chair and wouldnt get up for the better part of an hour.
-Dan-
dk89
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Eldartford: Yes I realize that. But such a correction is not going to happen with a $100-200 unit without destroying a whole heck of a lot elsewhere in the chain. And this too is why I would like to try a PARC in my system.
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,651 posts
 
Eldartford wrote: "Kal...Maybe it ain't perfect, but the $300 Behringer DEQ2496 does a job which needs to be heard to be believed. Really!"

I do not doubt it. I have used the Rives PARC and the Audyssey and the Velodyne SMS-1 and all of them were very effective. However, it is not possible for any of them to do what acoustic treatment can. That said, good electronic EQ is an almost necessary adjunct to room treatment since some room problems cannot be solved acoustically without great bulk or expense. Nonetheless, your EQ cannot correct for a real null.

Kal
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,150 posts
 
One use of EQ is room correction. A parametric EQ can do wonders in smoothing out bass response. It's not a panacea, but a useful tool that puts the icing on the cake after you've experimented with speaker/listener placement, room treatments, etc. Not every system and/or room needs this type of equalization. EQ can also be used as tone controls and I honestly don't know why there is such a bias against their use in this regard. Unless you listen to nothing but pristine, audiophile recordings you would benefit from having tone controls.
autoll
16 posts
 
DK- I think you will find as you progress to a more revealing system, you will hear a veiling from the Beringer. Your point about the tone controls is well taken though. I can't listen to 70% of my cd's on my new highly "resolving system". I'm actually thinking about going "backwards" to a tone control preamp. A totally transparent EQ/room correction device would be a godsent, but I don't believe that animal exists yet. I'm currently using a PARC that does it's attenuation very transparently and am now setting up a Tact unit just for comparision. So far I lean towards the parc because it doesn't change the overall sound of the other components I've chosen.
lenny_zwik
259 posts
 
Hi all, the PARC was the missing link and worked wonders in my room after installing ASC SuperTraps, etc..
More to discover