[bdh]

 
After reading in the Edition 10 thread a week or so ago about the treble problems some people are experiencing with that headphone, someone suggested using an equalizer to see if that would fix the problem.  A number of people stated they would never use an equalizer, and some even felt sorry for those that felt they 'needed' to.  (As opposed to just wanting to?)  And some statements were made about how components at this price range should be near perfect already.
 
Then there are those on the total opposite side of the spectrum (pun intended), like me, who stated in my Pinnacle review that I would much rather listen to my Extreme with Starplugs Equalizer and Isone Pro, than listen to the Pinnacle without an equalizer and Isone.  (Not taking away any of the greatness of the Pinnacle by saying that, mind you.)
 
 
Obviously nothing is perfect, and most headphone systems are far from perfect.  Does the darker sounding LCD-2 sound like the brighter sounding HE-6?  Which is more 'correct'?  They are both very different and yet both are expensive.  Does a bright sounding Grado sound like a Beyer?  Or how about my Benchmark DAC 1 vs. my Havana DAC?  Or what about my Tung-Sol 6sn7 vs. my Sylvania 7n7?  Which is perfect or near perfect as far as the frequency spectrum is concerned?  (None of them in my opinion. 

)
 
The things I've achieved through my equalizer, Isone, MC15 settings and plugins, and ASIO4ALL settings are still astonishing to me compared to what I hear with no processing.  (And I will admit it wasn't easy to get to the stage I'm currently at.  It is very easy to get degraded sound using many of these options.)
 
Back when my primary headphones were Edition 9's, to me they sounded like they had a mid- to upper-bass hump that I didn't like and wasn't willing to live with, but I liked many other aspects of those cans at that time.  After equalization, they sounded great.  And I made sure whatever equalization I did, did not degrade the sound to any remotely significant degree in any other aspect.  I get all the 'simplest circuit', 'least messing with the signal' philosophies, and I generally agree.  And if something I try makes the sound quality worse, then I don't use it of course.  But I can easily hear with my own ears what sounds better to me and what doesn't.
 
I realize everyone has their own opinions, biases, preferences, and experiences, and this isn't meant to convince anyone to use equalization.  I was just wondering what other people felt about it and how many people use it.

 

[sxr71]

This argument that high-end components "should be perfect" is what keeps the "high end" industry afloat. Basically on one hand they argue that no EQ should be used because these components should be perfect, then on the other hand one should keep auditioning or upgrading to get the piece which has a tendency to the kind of sound one likes. Well if they all sound different then they aren't perfect.
 
The audiophile has been led to believe that the way they should do EQ is by buying new $$$$$ equipment instead of a little EQ tweak here and there. Before digital EQ it is true that putting an EQ in the signal path would reduce S/N ratio, and in its infancy maybe digital EQ wasn't so great. However what everyone must understand is that EQ is a part of the mixing and mastering of any album. Your music has already been EQ'd and today it is using digital EQ. Professional level EQ plug-ins are available to audiophiles these days. 
 
The sound of any high-end is dependent on the room. Which is why some systems/components sound good in some rooms. Which is why people are advised to audition things at home. Every speaker, DAC, amp and source has a different sound or a different EQ. Some combinations don't work well with some rooms. So when you move homes or apartments or rooms the expectation in high end is that you buy new $$$$$ stuff to get your system to work in the new room. Nothing responds perfectly in every room anyhow. 
 
It wouldn't kill anyone to just EQ a little to get any system to sound the way one likes it in their room. It would save people a lot of money if they suddenly audition another system and wish their system sounds like that system. Some gentle EQ could handle it without expenditure in the thousands in new components. 
 
As you mentioned it is easy to ruin your sound with EQ and that's likely why people are afraid to try it. They don't have the confidence that they can make the subtle changes needed to get the sound they want without losing something somewhere and so the "easy" way to do it is pay some big bucks manufacturer to "voice" their equipment for your purposes and also be confident that since a big bucks audio manufacturer did it that it is "perfect". If one is willing to experiment and is confident in their own sound then one could save thousands by figuring out how to EQ for their needs. 

 

[bangraman]

The problem is that sometimes, the level of change that can be cleanly established with EQ is outside the range of the issue you're trying to correct. And as the above poster says, it is very easy to get EQ wrong. I use relatively sophisticated EQ plugins to slightly shape the sound to my preferences for various purposes but avoid wholesale (relatively speaking) changes.
 
 
The 'virtuality' of PC-based EQ also makes things a little less immediate in terms of feedback than I like (and this covers the majority of DSP-based outboard systems as well, simply by the nature of the UI). At the same time however, something like a Massive Passive isn't practical in my mode of use... so I stick to plugins.

 

[MacedonianHero]

The only "equalization" that I do is tube roll or change out cables (headphone cables, interconnects).
 
Edit: I am not drastically opposed to EQing FWIW.

 

[nikongod]

I didnt vote. Multiple options were not selected, and I use both analog and digital EQ's to do different things.
 
I EQ. Its awesome. 
 
Why:
Its really simple. Have you ever heard a cymbal in front of a vocalist? I bet you have with your headphones! I hear it in most systems... Have you ever heard this in a live performance? So why should your headphones sound like that? This is the wrong sub-forum for gear that sounds so fake

 

[n3rdling]

Any recommended plugins?  I wanna try a few out.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I don't EQ, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

When I finish building all the projects, I'd like to take a deeper look at EQ and maybe implement it.

 

[nikongod]

I use a behringer DEQ2496 to do most of my EQing in digital, although I also use an older Behringer analog EQ and a Meyer Cross on occasion.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Sometimes I EQ.  Sometimes I don't.  Sometimes it's analog.  Sometimes it's digital.
 
It all depends on the circumstances.  Actually, since my speakers are biamped with different gain amps top and bottom, I'm always EQ'ing them.  I adjust the mids/highs amp to match the bass amp, since it has gain controls.  That also has the excellent effect of giving me the ability to control the bass output based on the mix that the engineer did.  Considering how mixing engineers use EQs all the time to get what they want, I'll do the same if I don't agree with them.
 
That said, ideally you wouldn't need to use one.  The real world is much different, however.  Especially for speakers, where room acoustics can make as much of a difference as the speakers can.
 
The one thing I'm opposed to is EQ'ing with inferior EQs - whether it is with a receiver with poor tone controls, or a bad digital EQ like iPods have.
 
One thing I do want: A Soundcraftsmen preamp/EQ and power amplifier:
 

 
A better view of the amp:
 

 

[bangraman]

Certainly the quality of EQ is important... and just because its outboard and digital, it's not a guarantee of quality. I've found whatever algorithms in use with both the superceded and current Behringers (the 8024 and 2496) to be somewhat flawed for example. It doesn't appear to be just a matter of the way the system handles cumulative gain (or reduction). What you are ultimately paying for with these systems as a user, you have to bear in mind, is primarily about software and the ability of the hardware to handle it.
 
 
Generally speaking I guess analog equalisers work better for 'audiophile' (i.e. subjective) equalisation as there are less glaring issues with the sound when you get things wrong. I use plugins from Algorithmix (Blue, Red and Orange) which has good rep for mastering and suits the way I use EQ's, particularly for headphones.

 

[bdh]

 
Quote:

This argument that high-end components "should be perfect" is what keeps the "high end" industry afloat. Basically on one hand they argue that no EQ should be used because these components should be perfect, then on the other hand one should keep auditioning or upgrading to get the piece which has a tendency to the kind of sound one likes. Well if they all sound different then they aren't perfect.
 
The audiophile has been led to believe that the way they should do EQ is by buying new $$$$$ equipment instead of a little EQ tweak here and there.
 
The sound of any high-end is dependent on the room. Which is why some systems/components sound good in some rooms. Which is why people are advised to audition things at home. Every speaker, DAC, amp and source has a different sound or a different EQ. Some combinations don't work well with some rooms. So when you move homes or apartments or rooms the expectation in high end is that you buy new $$$$$ stuff to get your system to work in the new room. Nothing responds perfectly in every room anyhow. 
 
If one is willing to experiment and is confident in their own sound then one could save thousands by figuring out how to EQ for their needs. 

 
I have neither the money nor time to play the high-end component matching game.  There are many other aspects of the music I desire besides the EQ that also need to be balanced and matched for.  Plus there is big limitations of what can be done via component sound difference matching to effect the EQ.  It would drive me crazy to try and get the sound I want buying and selling expensive gear.

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
 
.
 
 
I EQ. Its awesome. 
 
Why:
Its really simple. Have you ever heard a cymbal in front of a vocalist? I bet you have with your headphones! I hear it in most systems... Have you ever heard this in a live performance? So why should your headphones sound like that? This is the wrong sub-forum for gear that sounds so fake

I know exactly what you mean nikongod.  I have a dbx 260 for my tri-amped open baffle speakers and it's both surprising and increable what modification -- even minute modification -- of the EQ does to the sound, soundstage, and so many other aspects of the music.  And how great the music can be when I finally get the EQ 'right', both for my speaker system and headphone systems.

 

[Wylie Williams]

I think the prejudice against equalizers is a leftover from the bad old days when equalizers were very popular, but very bad. Equalizers got a bad reputation, and for the most part they deserved it. Bad reputations die hard.
 
Today bass equalization is gaining a good reputation and equalizing in the digital domain is well accepted in home theater, but we are still waiting for high-end companies to bring us high-end two-channel EQs, though the the Cello Audio Palette is well spoken of as the exception.
 
If one of my suppliers were to offer a quality EQ at a reasonable price I would probably try it.

 

[PascalT]

I have nothing against EQing, and I wish there was an option for "I'd probably try EQing if I had clue on how to do it without ruining the sound"

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

I think the prejudice against equalizers is a leftover from the bad old days when equalizers were very popular, but very bad. Equalizers got a bad reputation, and for the most part they deserved it. Bad reputations die hard.
 
Today bass equalization is gaining a good reputation and equalizing in the digital domain is well accepted in home theater, but we are still waiting for high-end companies to bring us high-end two-channel EQs, though the the Cello Audio Palette is well spoken of as the exception.
 
If one of my suppliers were to offer a quality EQ at a reasonable price I would probably try it.

There's half a bajillion high-end stereo equalizers out there, they're just all pro equipment.  Some of them are very much high-end.
 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=1652&N=4294550654+4294241033

 

[wind016]

Quote:

There's half a bajillion high-end stereo equalizers out there, they're just all pro equipment.  Some of them are very much high-end.
 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=1652&N=4294550654+4294241033

I've used pro EQs before, but only for live stage sets. Could anyone tell me what are the general positives and negatives of digital vs hardware equalizers for headphones?