When I switch back and forth between an EQ'd and a non-EQ'd output, the difference is ridiculous. I have a major spike a 4khz and a minor spike at 2khz, I also have to bump 8khz and 16khz, because I don't hear those frequencies too well--8khz aint too bad, just slightly lower. There's also a minor bump at 250hz and 500hz so I drop those slightly. I swear, the difference is so massive it's not even funny. I am dying to get my hands on a nice 15 band equalizer right now so I can really fine tune the sound.

I seriously don't understand the neglect for equalizers these days. Let's face it, no one hears as good as they did back in the days--especially in the top end. And most rooms and speakers are gonna give peaks and valleys that shouldn't be there. I would put my money against anyone right now that if you EQ'd your setup to suit your hearing, you would be shocked.

It is strange, because the car audio industry made parametric eq's a feature of value years ago. My car stereo uses a 12 band P-EQ with an active 3 way crossover. In the HT realm, the integration of high, mids, and lows has become very similar to car audio. But here, P-EQs cost much more for the same computer chip they use in car audio. Just different companies so the tech does not trickle over - apparently.

The current thinking seems to be that eq is not effective above subwoofer frequencies and that room treatments are much more effective at managing/taming frequency anomalies.

Even with low frequencies the advice seems to be that equalization is a last resort.

I know what Dlo is saying. My plan is to do room treatments, but UNTIL then, the Pioneer EQ stuff has made a noticeably positive difference in my music and movie enjoyment.

I would, though, rather put the money towards the room treatments than a separate EQ.

So until I get the room treatments worked out, I'm leaving mine EQ'd by my receiver.

Again, the goal is to fix the problem (the room) and not band-aid the sound (EQ), but since I have a box of band-aids right now, that is what I am doing.

I don't even have band-aids.

I have Just Be-Gauze brand double-sided bandages.

Funny answer: each band of the equalizer increases the "fiddle factor" by a power of ten.

ie: Tone knob = 1... bass/treble knobs = 10... 3 band EQ = 100, etc... by the time you get to a 5 band graphic equalizer, you will have gone through three failed relationships before you're even close to ever being happy with the sound. No one comes over to watch movies at your house because you're always messing with it, and the number of eye-rolling injuries around you make your friends look like rejects from a Marty Feldman look-a-like contest.

The guy that used to help me wind my coils was bad for it... he couldn't go more than about 5 minutes without twiddling something on the receiver. Was really too bad, he was the first guy I knew with this new Dolby ProLogic thing.

Bren R.

Alll I can say is that the auto-EQ feature makes my room sound flat and boring. I have no desire to tweak manually because of the tweak factor mentioned above by Bren. I know that I would never be satisfied and would be fiddling forever.

Glad it worked for you though. Whatever sounds better to the end user is always the right answer.

You bring back a lot of memories when discussing separate Eq's. Prior to the rise of Home Theater, I had a couple of stereo EQ set-ups and they allowed quite a bit of tweaking but the problem with them was they generally added quite a bit of noise.

The only company I ever saw that came out with a Home Theater multi-channel (7.1) EQ separate was "Audio Control" and they wanted big bucks for it, let alone the horrendous increase in cabling that would be required. Also, it was really only useful if you had "separates".

I guess with all the built in EQ's in AVR's and Pre-Pro's nowadays, these units have pretty much disappeared from the scene. If you are still interested in acquiring an EQ for stereo listening you might want to look at the "BBE Sound" website since they have 15 and 30 band stereo EQ units primarily designed for recording and live performance set-ups that could probably be adapted for home use.

You need Stephen Hawking to figure the math out when you add parametric Equalization and crossovers with continuously variable slopes. It is amazing that crossing over the subs at 80 and a 12 db curve does sound noticeably different than a 6 or 18 db curve. I have found that this is the key to good integration, getting the slopes right so the mids flow into the sub, etc. But fiddle - crap - you can't stop. I actually use 6 presets and move them around per the music. It is an illness.

I'm working on room treatment now. And I have to say, at this point I'd take an EQ if it all ends near the same place. My theater is the first room you see when you walk in the house, so some of the basement or dedicated cave options are not as workable for me. Making sound treatment look good, while keeping it cheap is a serious challenge. Now that EQ can be done in the digital domain (thus helping the noise problem mentioned) I would love to get my hands on a truly workable EQ. The key to that is the availability of free software to check your progress. With no means to check other than ear, you never stop fiddling. But with REV, etc., you can SEE the results. The market is in dire need of EQ, and you are seeing it with the new rigs.

Hooking up a separate EQ means that your audio signal is now travelling through each one of those little sliders. Unless you are spending large amounts of money on a pro eq, I don't see how this can improve the sound, it will add noise.

As BrenR states, unless you know what you are doing, and you should be a professionaly trainined audio engineer to answer yes to this question, an external EQ is a toy you will never stop playing with. I know, I had one in the 80's. It is also really easy to damage speakers with these things. I know, I did that too in the 80's.

I try to keep the audio signal as pure as I can, no EQ for me, thanks.

paul

I agree, room treatments are a much better place to spend money on.

pn

Step away from the analog sliders. I'm talking about processing in the digital domain, as is done in the EQ functions of the new AVRs. I don't advocate going back to 1980 and grabbing some noise sliders. We all want a pure signal, but the whole discussion assumes something needs to be changed in your listening environment. Some room issues can't be changed (for any of a number of reasons). At that point, I'm just saying modern EQ functions in HT are behind the times, but catching up.

That fits with the current model.

As an example, I have a huge peak in my room at 52 Hz. Since it is so low, I cannot effectively treat the room. It also happens that the peak shows up through most of the listening area. The peak is caused by room modes and is addative (a summing of waves). Those three things together make it an ideal candidate for equalization.

I also have a null at 71Hz. It also shows up in most of the listening area. However, since it is caused by cancellation reflections, EQing is not going to do a thing for it as any changes in the signal will equally affect the direct sound and the cancelling reflextion(s).

A third example: Suppose you have a peak at one of your seating positions only. You can EQ it, but it is going to affect all your other seating positions as well, so you may actually do more harm than good.

This is probably where EQ algorithms are just recently catching up. Whith more measureing positions and better algorithms, your system can probably make better decisions on what to EQ and what to leave alone.

I think the main reason that EQ is frowned on higher in the frequency band is that the peaks and nulls become more complicated by reflections. It becomes much easier and more effective to treat via absorbtion and diffusion. Unfortunately its not so inconspicuous.

In the 70s EQ I think was considered a one size fits all solution because we did not have a solid understanding of the causes of frequency changes in room. Now that the causes are better understood, EQ becomes but one tool in the chest.

I'm reminded of articles by Bob Hodas - a pro room tuner - who, I think, said he always uses and EQ after computer simulation and then tunes by ear to finalize the sound. So even the pros use EQs to take care of the major issues. It is just a matter of cost and knowledge. The former is long overdue. Here is a link to one of his helpful articles I found. Good short read and the other articles are linked. Hodas And here is the room mode calc he mentions, it has moved. Modes

Personally on the HT, I leave everything flat and it sounds good. In the garage, I boost the treble to it's highest point because the speakers are in a different area, and the bass travels better of course. My Edirol monitors on the work computer have a slight bass bump and a fair treble bump for my own listening, and I push back into the flat detents for anything "commercial." My car speakers are set with a slight treble bump and the smallest bass nudge up.

Professionally, if I'm provided a graphic EQ, I do the camel (mids high) or seal (mids low) hump to start depending on what it is, then tweak from there. And on a "Perkins EQ" for live... I just start with what makes sense and then tweak during sound check.

I'm just glad I don't have anything more than 4 bands to worry about except in WinAmp.

Bren R.

I never thought humping camels or seals would make that much of a difference... Heck, I'm game.

Speaking of digital equalization, I'd like to try Inguz which is designed to be used with a Squeezebox.

Audyssey! Audyssey! Audyssey!

I will never again purchase a receiver with it. It's EQ on steroids (for idiots).

Kinda a love/hate thing goin' on, huh?

Damn, and I was just starting to think people were getting the hang of it and liking the results. By the time I pull the triger on a new AVR the fab will be back to mono anyway...

I love the results. It's kinda like those "for dummies" and "for idiots" books.... You don't have to know much about nulls, standing waves, peaks, and other techno stuff. You run it, enjoy the results, and forget about it.

Dave:
You know you wrote "I will never again purchase a receiver with it.", don't you?

Yes, he is confusing me greatly!!!

Oh for goodness sakes. It is truly amazing how one missed word changes the entire meaning of a sentence. Let's try this again.

Audyssey! Audyssey! Audyssey!

I will never again purchase a receiver WITHOUT it. It's EQ on steroids (for idiots).

Nice one Dewd. That was good for a page and a half.

Did anyone else notice that dlo has not been back since the first post. Do you 'spose he got lost??

Come on Fred. Gimme a break. I turn 40 on Sunday and I'm having "issues".

An early Happy Birthday to you, Dave.

Been there. Then things changed and my son was born two days before my 43rd birthday.

-- (born in New Kensington)

Hey Kensington,

That's a late start!

Were you to meet my first wife you'd understand. :-/