Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!herbie From: herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong - DCS) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: equalizers Message-ID: <1615@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 21:07:12 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1615 Posted: Sat Aug 17 21:07:12 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 05:43:52 EDT References: <7351@watdaisy.UUCP> <1048@wucs.UUCP> <346@phri.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Waterloo Lines: 89 >Gordon Cormack writes: >It is my impression that almost all differences between reasonable >quality stereo components can be attributed to differences in >frequency response across the audio spectrum. Therefore, I have >decided that I should buy a multi-band equalizer. >I write: >A controversial statement, but one that i happen to believe to be true. >Dick Pierce writes: >Yes indeed, a controversial statement, but it does not have a whole bunch >going for it. Much of the coloration that we hear can be attributed to >frequency response anomolies, but simple linear equalization is most often >completely inadequate to the task. i did not mean to imply that an equalizer was a panacea for all evils. there are, however, enough problems that can be solved by a good equalizer that it is worth it. if you would have included the rest of my article, i point out that only a parametric equalizer would really be worth getting for this type of work. i myself do not own an equalizer yet because i can't afford the kind that's worth getting. >Take the problem of room resonanaces, something which people usually by >equalizers to correct. You can measure errors in the steady-state frequency >response and then equalize for these errors, and the steady state response >might look better. But, what happens in such resonances (and those associated >with speaker problems as well, such as cabinet resonances, cone resonances, >etc.) usually result from long term energy storage and subsequent release >at different frequencies. what most people should be correcting with equalizers is not room resonance but reinforcement and cancellations by reflected sound waves at different frequencies. resonances in the reproduction system after the point where equalization is applied cannot be corrected for easily because the system is unstable at that frequency. also, as you point out later, misequalized recordings are another key area to address using an equalizer. those problems alone are serious enough that if one is very fussy about the music they listen to, then it's worth doing something about. an ordinary multiband equalizer is usually not up to the job. a good parametric with at least 5 bands per channel is required. >Dave Fritzinger writes: >I would tend to disagree. In fact, I am of the opinion that even tone >controls are not needed, and indeed, tend to degrade the sound quality. >This was proven to me when I compared a really good amp without tone >controls (in my case, an amp and preamp by Naim) with my old unit, which >had tone controls. The result was that the good amp sounded much better. >Obviously, many audio engineers agree with me-after all, why do so many >good amps come with defeat switches for their tone controls? Also, when >you look at REALLY expensive and esoteric amps (or preamps), they tend not >to have tone controls (or other bells and whistles). this is a statement which compares apples and oranges. i could have said "my Porsche 928 is better than your Volkswagon Beetle because i have a turbo in my 928" and have been just as meaningful. if you had compared a really good preamp with tone controls to a really good preamp without tone controls, i would have not saved away this article for comment. ANY tone control degrades the signal as it passes through, not matter how good the components. the name of the game is to make the degradation as small as possible. as for the defeat switches, it depends on the price point why they're there. at lower prices, i think it's to emulate the higher priced models in image. in the higher prices, it's because often the rest of the equipment and the material being reproduced is good enough that no frequency modification is required. if you don't need any change, then why not remove the circuit from the signal path, even if the improvement in signal is nearly non-existent. it can't hurt any. but if you do need them, then they are there. the companies that make preamps without any tone controls at all fall into two main camps: ones that believe that the systems their equipment will go into will be so good that no modification of the signal is necessaryor desired, and those that believe that mere tone controls are hopelessly inadequate and that anyone wanting to modify the frequency response of their system would do it right and use a good equalizer. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu