Anyone use equalizers?

[Samuel T Cogley]

35 minutes ago, mordante said:

 

No one in pro audio uses Behringer.

 

First of all, I'm not elevating Behringer gear is an icon of a pro audio environment.

 

But it bears noting that so called "pro audio" environments (with the exception of the few remaining top shelf recording and mastering facilities) are becoming a more and more grey area.  Lots of home studios these days.

 

I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% (probably a lot more) of the material at Bandcamp passed through Behringer gear before it got to its final, delivered form.  Someone who generates income as a musician is, by definition, a professional.

 

Quote

I have seen riders that said a band will not play if Behringer gear is used.

 

Sure.  Doesn't mean lots and lots of professional bands don't play through Behringer gear.

[Nikhil]

I'm not sure but years ago Spatial Audio used a Behringer to control the setup of the Emerald Physics open baffle speakers.  I don't remember the exact model but with some basic settings those speakers sounded amazing.   In the right hands these things can do some amazing things.

 

 

 

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/emerald/1.html

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, Nikhil said:

I'm not sure but years ago Spatial Audio used a Behringer to control the setup of the Emerald Physics open baffle speakers.

 

But of course.

 

 

 

 

And as open baffle as can be.

 

So the same Behringer we talk about in this thread, not only controlled the lower part of the XOver to the 4 woofers, but also arranged for the time alignment of the woofers, because of the height (the lower needing to fire later than the upper).

 

Btw, this was only a "no-nonse" show model which never saw commercial light (too large). It still is stowed somewhere, so if someone wants a pair.  I am not sure where the Behringer is. Haha. Today we use Hypex DSP.

 

 

[wgscott]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Today we use Hypex DSP.

 

But I can here it now:    Class D DSP SUCKS!

[PeterSt]

33 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Class D DSP

 

Does that exist ? (question is serious)

[wgscott]

Beats me.  But Hypex ...

 

There is a guy here whose Jihad/mission is to denounce Class D amplification at every opportunity with highly nuanced and compelling arguments like "Class D SUCKS".  I was making fun of that.

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, wgscott said:

There is a guy here whose Jihad/mission is to denounce Class D amplification at every opportunity with highly nuanced and compelling arguments like "Class D SUCKS".  I was making fun of that

 

Oh, you can make fun about that. But do notice that I think two brands exist ("only in the US of A") that sell for 10K+ with Hypex inside.

No, I don't like Class D as well (not at all, in fact).

 

I hope it was/is clear that Hypex DSP is totally unrelated to Hypex (Class D) amplification.

 

I don't like Class T either. Might that still exist (T-Amp).

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 I have in one place : the loudspeaker crossovers/filters. This is minimum phase and quite unavoidable.

 

Otherwise all DC coupled (no filtering capacitors) and a digital interpolating filter upsampling to 705600 / 768000. This does not ring even one sample.

 

That approach does appeal to my desire to keep the signal as pure and unaltered as possible. But does that mean that the amplifier(s) must now handle frequencies up into the MHz?

 

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

But does that mean that the amplifier(s) must now handle frequencies up into the MHz?

 

Very good point. Therefore we use amps which are limited to 200KHz bandwidth.

So indeed all has to match. And it is easy to overlook something.

[NOMBEDES]

I have a very nice Yamaha S2000 amp.  It still has a "tone control".  I don't use it much, but some recordings need a boost one way or another.  So, all in all, I find it useful.  Your system, your room, your ears may vary.

[gmgraves]

On 10/22/2017 at 2:14 PM, hdo said:

Beringer is no good quality. I have one headphone amp. But terrible. I use equalizer in media players. No need to buy hardware equalizers. Equalizer is important for headphone correction. Since headphones don't use large drivers, low frequency sound tends to weak. This can be corrected with bass boot with equalizer. Just sell! And use media player equalizer.

 I beg to differ. I have a Behringer mixer (X2222), and 2 Pairs of Behringer microphones (B2 Pro and a C-2 matched stereo pair). I used to have a Behringer ADC/Firewire computer interface (FCA202). All were excellent. I made a number of recordings with the Behringer mixer and mikes and when I had a Mac with a Firewire interface I used to master from the Behringer FCA202 to Audacity on that Mac. I take these recordings to Hi-Fi shows as "auditioning music" and every room I go in and ask the attendant to play one of those recordings, the other people in the room invariably want to know where they could buy a copy of whatever I was playing. The recordings sound so GOOD. because, first of all, they are properly recorded REAL stereo (rare these days) and secondly they are so clean and the equipment used (Behringer) is such high quality, SQ wise. 

 

As far as equalizers are concerned, analog multi-band types ring. If you have to use a lot of EQ to fix whatever frequency domain problems you envision,in my opinion, they do more harm than good. I have never used a Behringer DEQ2496, but I know a recording studio that has several and they use them all the time and find them invaluable. They certainly have enviable specifications. I wouldn't throw the thing out before trying it, were I you.

[Allan F]

8 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

I have a very nice Yamaha S2000 amp.  It still has a "tone control".  I don't use it much, but some recordings need a boost one way or another.  So, all in all, I find it useful.  Your system, your room, your ears may vary.

 

Tone controls, if they can be defeated without affecting SQ, are not necessarily a bad thing and can make some awful recordings listenable. It's just that most tone controls add another element to the circuitry which does affect SQ, especially in transparent, high resolution gear. That's why almost all quality, high end preamps or integrated amps don't use them.

[NOMBEDES]

10 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Tone controls, if they can be defeated without affecting SQ, are not necessarily a bad thing and can make some awful recordings listenable. It's just that most tone controls add another element to the circuitry which does affect SQ, especially in transparent, high resolution gear. That's why almost all quality, high end preamps or integrated amps don't use them.

 

and "transparent, high resolution" gear makes "awful recordings" worse! 

[gmgraves]

On 10/23/2017 at 7:55 AM, mordante said:

 

No one in pro audio uses Behringer.

 

I have seen riders that said a band will not play if Behringer gear is used.

 

I beg to differ. I use it and I get paid for doing recordings. That makes me a "Pro" as someone else on this thread noted.  I know several recording studios in the San Francisco Bay Area that have quite a bit of Behringer gear on the premisses and use it too. Especially microphones and signal processing gear. 

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

and "transparent, high resolution" gear makes "awful recordings" worse! 

 

Perhaps, it would be more correct to say that ""transparent, high resolution" gear often makes "awful recordings" worse.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Or even more to the point, "transparent, high resolution gear will not make bad recordings into good recordings".

[fas42]

On 24/10/2017 at 12:08 AM, PeterSt said:

 

I can not say that this can not help as well. But the problem with that is : you'd have all right for one listening position only.

And I continuously walk about. I don't even have a listening chair. Really not ! (we have a lot of bar stools though).

 

A man after my own heart ...

 

When a system is competent, it doesn't need EQ, room treatments, etc. That's because quality of the sound matches that of live, acoustic, 'natural' sound makers, and your ear/brain knows to to handle this input, from a lifetime of experiencing it.

 

It's something like artificial sweeteners, in food. Companies spend enormous amounts of money and effort to get them to exactly mimic the sensation of sugar - but never quite get it right. Just use plain ol' sugar, problem solved!

 

Meaning, it's possible to get a system to be "as good as sugar" - if it's not, then it will require constant playing and fiddling with to produce satisfactory "taste" ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Or even more to the point, "transparent, high resolution gear will not make bad recordings into good recordings".

 

No ... but they will allow one to fully immerse oneself in the music that was captured - they will be capable of generating the "you are there!" involvement.

 

What a fully capable setup does is add nothing audible to the recording - meaning that the ear/brain only has to deal with the anomalies of the recording data. Probably surprising for most folk, this is "good enough" for the mind to hear past the recording flaws, and thoroughly enjoy the experience.

 

This is the metric that is powerfully telling of the competence of a playback system - can you put on your "worst" recording, and be transported by the music? Or, does it make it sound, ummm, "worse" ... ?

[Samuel T Cogley]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What a fully capable setup does is add nothing audible to the recording

 

Yup.  A "wire with gain".  The Holy Grail.

 

But some explicitly want enhanced euphonics, which is arguably not fidelity, but "more fun".

[lucretius]

20 hours ago, Allan F said:

That's why almost all quality, high end preamps or integrated amps don't use them.

 

That's the current culture, anyway.  I remember a day when equalizers were popular. And I still see them in studios.

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

But some explicitly want enhanced euphonics, which is arguably not fidelity, but "more fun".

 

... but nothing for the real audiophile. If I'd apply such a thing (which some times coincidentally happens) then the wow factor soon turns into a getting tired of it. Not physically but the "always sounding the same" is what you get fed up with.

[Allan F]

19 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

That's the current culture, anyway.  I remember a day when equalizers were popular. And I still see them in studios.

 

My post was about tone controls on preamps or integrated amps, not equalizers in studios. But tone controls were common many years ago, before their deleterious effect on sound quality was generally appreciated, especially in regard to phase.

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

... but nothing for the real audiophile. If I'd apply such a thing (which some times coincidentally happens) then the wow factor soon turns into a getting tired of it. Not physically but the "always sounding the same" is what you get fed up with.

 

Euphonic colorations from a source (DAC in your case?) are one thing, euphonic colorations downstream are additive, and not always harmonious.  And it's the additive euphonic colorations that are the domain of high end analog interconnects.  They really can and do change the sound depending on the gear on each end of the cable.

 

While I'm quite aware of the almost universal raves regarding your products, I'm probably not in your target demographic.  My approach to audio is much more utilitarian.  Accuracy is my "wow factor".  I totally get this makes me an outlier.

[NOMBEDES]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

EDIT...

And it's the additive euphonic colorations that are the domain of high end analog interconnects.  They really can and do change the sound depending on the gear on each end of the cable. 

 

Good point.   Sometimes “better” is only different.   

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Accuracy is my "wow factor".  I totally get this makes me an outlier.

 

Samuel, Sure not !

Assuming you must be referring to the Lush cable - that would be an outlier in itself, me in the middle of it.  It is the very first product that saw commercial light which was put there because of personal liking (instead of measuring or other control). It's only that by now hundreds and more also like it.

Otherwise I / Phasure go for one thing only, accuracy and more of that where possible. The Clairixa USB cable is an example of that. The Blaxius interlink another. In the end everything (but more difficult to see, but think like the accuracy in the time domain I referred to earlier  in (I think) this thread).

 

Somewhere today someone mentioned Bybees-like devices, which I call obfuscators. They spread the (energy of the) sound, with that accomplish something we're now talking about - and it is the opposite of accuracy. The effect is euphonic.