Need a true EQ (one that with everything centered won't boost/cut any frequencies) and some experience (aka fooling around) with EQ's.
I'm not certain of good EQ's for home theatre, but I know a lot of great PA and rack EQ's. :p
Printable View
Need a true EQ (one that with everything centered won't boost/cut any frequencies) and some experience (aka fooling around) with EQ's.
I'm not certain of good EQ's for home theatre, but I know a lot of great PA and rack EQ's. :p
Thats what I always thought too. How old are you Rob?Quote:
Originally posted by Rob77
Well, my music system's (except CD) probably older than most of you here (comprised of Rock, Revox, Musical Fidelity and KEF) so perhaps my views are dinosaurs too.
But I always understood the purpose to be to reproduce the music as faithfully as possible. Records used to do that and the CD's I have do too. I have friends who are involved in recording and there's no way that they tailor the sound to suit low end rigs.
Any decent amps I've seen come with off/on and a volume control and that's it. Anything much else (used to if not now) degrade the sound. In fact I have even shopped around for specific cables because they sound different (speaker and junction too).
If an EQ is one of those things with buttons and graphs I don't know of any that serve any useful purpose.
Looks sweet, though honestly, i'm not a big fan of Denon's products. If i had anywheres near that money i would have gotten Pioneer's Elite THX Ultra 2 (VSX-49TX?) receiver. Let us know how it sounds and sets up when you get it. Good Luck!Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
Just ordered a Denon AVR - 4802 receiver. Life is good I can't wait. Should be here monday though.:D :D :) :)
edit: link----> http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/pdfs/AVR4802.pdf
I agree with the need for an EQ. And in the classic speed metal genre a whole new set of problems crop up like not enough bass emphasis. i dont know what genre Mr. 1ctabor listens to, but if metal is one of them, he will thank you for recommending that EQ in the end.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Anything would really be better than nothing.
Even if (as I assume it can) your receiver can produce crystal clear what's coming from the cd, the problem remains that what's on the CD could be the problem itself. As I've said before, when mixing songs, a lot of recording studios will mix with expressive (aka excessive) treble and bass to compensate for the lacking treble and bass of standard stereos. :p
Well, we've had this debate about using EQs before, and rather than reiterating everything let me just state that some recordings i have were originally recorded/mixed so bad that they sound truly awful without any EQ adjustments whether it be coolplayer for mp3s or the simple bass and treble controls on my receiver. I agree that if a recording sounds decent, the best balance will come from neutral EQ settings, or not using one at all.Quote:
Originally posted by Rob77
Well, my music system's (except CD) probably older than most of you here (comprised of Rock, Revox, Musical Fidelity and KEF) so perhaps my views are dinosaurs too.
But I always understood the purpose to be to reproduce the music as faithfully as possible. Records used to do that and the CD's I have do too. I have friends who are involved in recording and there's no way that they tailor the sound to suit low end rigs.
Any decent amps I've seen come with off/on and a volume control and that's it. Anything much else (used to if not now) degrade the sound. In fact I have even shopped around for specific cables because they sound different (speaker and junction too).
If an EQ is one of those things with buttons and graphs I don't know of any that serve any useful purpose.
lol......I'm 46 1ctabor ;)
And ok, I was talking about professional recordings, in which case anything in the sound path (and particularly some of the EQ type things I used to see on the market) would only worsen the sound.
But sure, if you like to listen to stuff that was never properly recorded in the first place then you'd want to do something about it. Some kind of mixer in that case would just be doing what should've been done originally though. Mind you, maybe some of them didn't have enough guitar too.......midi? :D
Rob, you're completely missing the point.
Professional Recordings often put extra emphasis on certain frequencies and leave others lacking so the song sounds good on your average stereo. When you're trying to produce "true sound" you do need to tweak to get there. Most recording (yes, professional) is intentionally done to either cut/boost certain frequencies, for the benefit of the majority of listeners.
Perhaps you should see if you could get an internship at a professional studio. ;)
Well, that's why I said maybe what I was saying was out of date. Have you worked in recording and seen that done with anything other than maybe boy-band stuff.
Also, if what you are describing is the case, how is it the high end manufacturers produce equipment with such limited control, even valve gear? Do, Naim, Krell, etc make EQ's? I wasn't aware any of them did but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe they have some kind of compensation built in?
Receivers don't require EQ's, if they attached an EQ, it would be 1) VERY expensive and 2) give reasonable doubt that they're not giving you the truest sound.
Not only boy-bands, but a lot of other mainstream recording studios do the same exact thing. Is it sensible as a professional recorder? No. Is it sensible to make the majority of your customers be pleased with your results? Yes.
I've never had sound quality issues when NOT using an EQ. Actually the time I did use and EQ was when I had the worst sound issues. It wasn't noticeable except at with certain sounds. The main thing I remember was the THX sound at the begining of certain movies was all distorted. When I unhooked the EQ it sounded fine. Since then I haven't ever used another EQ. And to my ears have never had sound quality issues with any cd. I listen to anything from 80's rock to modern hip hop. So there is a pretty wide range of music. I can't see how just any EQ would do it justice. I would think you would have to match quality in order to really accomplish something.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Receivers don't require EQ's, if they attached an EQ, it would be 1) VERY expensive and 2) give reasonable doubt that they're not giving you the truest sound.
Not only boy-bands, but a lot of other mainstream recording studios do the same exact thing. Is it sensible as a professional recorder? No. Is it sensible to make the majority of your customers be pleased with your results? Yes.
What I don't get is your meaning of "true sound"? How can you accomplish "true" sound with your own personal settings? Wouldn't that mean "true" sound is different at every household with an EQ? I mean, there's no way everyone would have there EQ's set identical and I'm sure the "audiophile" out there would think his is "true" sound and the next audiophile down the road would think he's accomplished "true" sound. I just don't see how it is. I don't know, maybe I wouldn't like the audiophiles meaning of "true" sound if it meant butchering up the original cd by removing half the bass and tweaking the treble around to there personal tastes. To me, the cd should be listened to the way it was recorded, if you want more or less bass, turn the knob.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Rob, you're completely missing the point.
Professional Recordings often put extra emphasis on certain frequencies and leave others lacking so the song sounds good on your average stereo. When you're trying to produce "true sound" you do need to tweak to get there. Most recording (yes, professional) is intentionally done to either cut/boost certain frequencies, for the benefit of the majority of listeners.
Perhaps you should see if you could get an internship at a professional studio. ;)
As 1ctabor stated above, "true" sound is not easy to define. Every person has their own preferences regarding music.
Personally, I don´t like the altered frequencies that EQ´s are able to do in music. From my experiences, it creates a certain amount of noise. Depending on the EQ, the noise can or not be detectable on certain volumes. If you want to hear the original and clean sound from music, then there´s no need for an EQ (in my opinion).
To answer your question bluntly, i dont care about "true sound" if the "true sound" the engineers ended up burning to the CD is awful. Listen to just about any classic 80s thrash album. But yes, if a recording is decent, i usually listen to it with whatever EQ either turned off or set to neutral. That i completely agree with.Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
What I don't get is your meaning of "true sound"? How can you accomplish "true" sound with your own personal settings? Wouldn't that mean "true" sound is different at every household with an EQ? I mean, there's no way everyone would have there EQ's set identical and I'm sure the "audiophile" out there would think his is "true" sound and the next audiophile down the road would think he's accomplished "true" sound. I just don't see how it is. I don't know, maybe I wouldn't like the audiophiles meaning of "true" sound if it meant butchering up the original cd by removing half the bass and tweaking the treble around to there personal tastes. To me, the cd should be listened to the way it was recorded, if you want more or less bass, turn the knob.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
What I don't get is your meaning of "true sound"? How can you accomplish "true" sound with your own personal settings? Wouldn't that mean "true" sound is different at every household with an EQ? I mean, there's no way everyone would have there EQ's set identical and I'm sure the "audiophile" out there would think his is "true" sound and the next audiophile down the road would think he's accomplished "true" sound. I just don't see how it is. I don't know, maybe I wouldn't like the audiophiles meaning of "true" sound if it meant butchering up the original cd by removing half the bass and tweaking the treble around to there personal tastes. To me, the cd should be listened to the way it was recorded, if you want more or less bass, turn the knob.
The point of using an EQ isn't to "tweak" the song, but more to "correct" like if there's too much 800Hz (mid range) then you just cut some of it out. EQing's more a process of correction than "making better."
Congrats the Denon 4802 its a fine little ;) reciever.Plenty of features and good sound quality to boot.I have the Denon 3801 and had the 5800(sold for a Sunfire Theater Grand II).
EQ use can be a big plus(even if its not audiophile aproved)as it can remove some of the nasty edge most pop recordings have.High quality recordings are ruined by EQ's,most however can gain from proper EQ use.As most EQ's are not used properly,you know the SMILE curve,boost the bass and treble and cut the midrange.