Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Wrong approach for audiophiles' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: tc_nyc on Sep 02, '04 02:40:55PM

As an audio engineer and producer with 18 years of experience in the field working in some of the 'finest studios in the world', I'm confident in saying that this approach is backwards.

Equalizers in both the analog and digital realm do subtractive filtering far better than additive filtering. When pulling the EQ down you are not creating the additive comb-filtering necessary to boost frequencies that do not already exist, so using this kind of approach is leaves more of the original audio intact and does not add as many artifacts to the signal.

Of course an FFT digital EQ can overcome this (which is why the Weiss products are so expensive but popular), but iTunes most certainly does not hog the processor by using FFT algorithms for it's EQ.

What would be more appropriate, and also avoid unnecessary distortion, is to do all of those adjustments subtractively, then making up the gain difference with the slider at the left. This is why the slider on the left exists, in case you were wondering.

Like this (-8, -5, -2, -4, -5, -6, -4, -2, 0, -3), if my math is correct. Then just boost the overall gain at the left to make up the difference.

I'm not suggesting this will sound "better" to you, but it will certainly be a cleaner way to use the EQ.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: phlavor on Sep 02, '04 03:07:55PM

I knew someone would beat me to subtractive equalization. Yes, this is the proper way to use an EQ. Amplifiers are for amplification.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: gylgamesh5 on Sep 02, '04 09:12:06PM

Excellent! I love the way it sounds. I named this "negative" preset, "Perfect Negative". Thanks!

---
------------------------
"To die among friends. Can a man ask for more? Can the world offer less? Who wants to live till the last bottle's empty? It's all for



[ Reply to This | # ]
Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: talksense101 on Sep 06, '04 02:18:37AM

I registered to this website just to say thanks. Good advice on the usage of negative settings and adjusting the preamp.

Thanks.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Email update...
Authored by: tc_nyc on Sep 08, '04 09:16:43AM

Unless my eyes deceive me at this 'early' hour, I actually got the math right the first time and my "negative" setting is true to the original.

I'm glad it sounds good to your ear, but perhaps I missed the opportunity to make a larger more philosophical point about audio filtering in my original post. And that is, if it sounds right to you then it is right. If the bass seems a bit low on your system, boost it! Everyone's system is going to sound different because of the kind of computer you have (audio circuitry), how old it is (speaker wear and tear), placement of the computer (acoustics and angle of speaker to ear), use of external speakers (dramatically different bass/treble response), kind of OS and Audio App (they inject their own EQ curve usually), and of course the EQ curve of your ears (young ears are usually much flatter than old ears).

There are so many things going on that keep the 'flat' output from being 'flat' that you're already starting at a disadvantage. I just wanted to point out that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to use EQ from an audiophile standpoint.

Keep in mind that when I mix a track that you listen to on the radio, the radio station is destroying the original EQ curve by using multiband processing in order for their station to appear the 'loudest' in their market. Because as we all know louder is better :)

So there is no absolute or golden rule to EQ curves. It is right when it sounds right!

Best,
TC

--- Rick wrote:

> Hello,
>
> My name is Rick and I saw your post. What a great EQ setting. But I'm
> just wondering about the math... you listed...
>
> EQ setting : -8, -5, -2, -4, -5, -6, -4, -2, 0, -3
>
> The original EQ setting give was...
>
> +3, +6, +9, +7, +6, +5, +7, +9, +11, +8
>
> Didn't you reverse the order as well as subtract from it?
>
> I'm confused... because your mistake, if in fact it was a mistake,
> sounds great. The bass is pretty low, which kinda disappoints me, but
> other than that it sounds clean like you said.
>
> So now my question is... how did this work out?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick
>



[ Reply to This | # ]
Scripted: Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: pecosbill on Nov 16, '04 03:55:55PM
Since I didn't want to pay the dual price of volume logic, I am using the iTunes EQ with the subtractive settings. For convenience, I've modified the above script and guessed with the preamp setting though it seemed better at 6 than 12 and using the above logic, it should be greater than zero. HTH.

Copy and paste the following into a Script Editor window and press Run:


tell application "iTunes"
	tell EQ preset 1 -- the Manual setting which you can then save
		set band 1 to -8
		set band 2 to -5
		set band 3 to -3
		set band 4 to -4
		set band 5 to -5
		set band 6 to -6
		set band 7 to -4
		set band 8 to -2
		set band 9 to 0
		set band 10 to -3
		set preamp to 6 -- A guess on my part
	end tell
end tell

---
Pecos Bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scripted: Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: s3pt1k on Feb 21, '06 09:27:25PM

FYI, so far as I can see, you need to have the EQ in "manual" mode.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: elfurbe on Sep 06, '05 12:23:01PM

I've been doing this wrong for quite some time, apparently. After a few tweaks, I find that this method produces what I can only describe as tighter sound. My old mecca preset sounds messy and distorted compared to this, which was a bit of a rude awakening.

As an aside, I also found +6 on the preamp to be ideal for this tuning. Thanks again! I didn't just learn something new today, I learned something useful!

---
Get Firefox!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: frosts0 on Jul 13, '07 06:45:19AM

I currently have +8,+2,0,+2, +2, -2, -7, -6, -1, +2 for classical. This seems to make the sound tighter than the "flat" preset. I came up with these numbers after I had the idea of isolating each band by putting two bands to the left and two bands to the right at -12, with all others at 0. Then I would adjust the isolated band until the sound was a little below an unnatural sound. Then I took the average of all settings (+4.4) and lowered everything by 4 to get an average around 0. What is a good method for adjusting each band? Looking at my settings, I certainly wonder if I may have "misheard" 2K and 4K, since they're set so low.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Wrong approach for audiophiles
Authored by: frosts0 on Jul 13, '07 06:50:27AM

I currently have +8,+2,0,+2, +2, -2, -7, -6, -1, +2 for classical. This seems to make the sound tighter than the "flat" preset. I created these settings on MacBook Pro and they seem to sound pretty good on Nano (gen 2) with Shure E3c (which are "flat"). I came up with these numbers after I had the idea of isolating each band by putting two bands to the left and two bands to the right at -12, with all others at 0. Then I would adjust the isolated band until the sound was a little below an unnatural sound. Then I took the average of all settings (+4.4) and lowered everything by 4 to get an average around 0. What is a good method for adjusting each band? Looking at my settings, I certainly wonder if I may have "misheard" 2K and 4K, since they're set so low.



[ Reply to This | # ]