EQ? Anyone using one?

Old thread but perhaps I can get it moving again. I use EQ all the time. My recent EQ project was with the Audeze LCDi3 IEM. I performed EQ with the RME ADI-2 DAC fs.

I originally used the Cipher cable with a iPhone SE. I used Audeze’s own EQ to get the sound acceptable. The technicalities of this IEM are S class but I still couldn’t get exciting enough tonal performance. I found myself reaching for this IEM less and less till it was just gathering dust and was thinking of selling it.

Bought the ADI-2 and went to town. It took a few hours but by god, now I can’t take the IEMs off (I have a lot of fairly expensive IEMs, headphones, and speakers).

With ADI-2 you can also EQ MQA titles in Tidal.

2 Likes

Do you use Roon? I usually use the Cipher and iPad or iPhone with my LCDi3’s, I’ve been wanting to dial them in on my Bifrost2/Lyr3 stack. Not sure the “recommended” LCDi4 setting is the best starting place. Audeze has not released an update for the i3.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on parametric settings.

Finally, these LCDi3s are the best IEMs I have. I really like them. How do they compare to your other high end ones?

1 Like

I use Audirvana with Tidal which does not have all the features of Roon but does seem to improve sound quality (more clear). Audirvana clearly describes source and destination bit depth and frequency.

I looked at Crinnicle’s graph for the LCDi3:

And raised the 4k-5k region 4-6 db Q 1. I also lowered the 1k region 4db Q 0.5. For personal taste I love elevated sub-bass and up the region 50Hz 6db at 0.5 Q. Not something I would recommend. I do play with EQ a lot however.

The LCDi3 is open/Airy (never like these imprecise terms but its all we have) with great imaging and detail. All the technical check boxes. They sound more like “headphones” than my headphones due to expectations. I love how light they rest on the opening of my ear canal. I can forget that they are there.

I love the warmth and overall base of my Focal Radiance headphones. Like sitting in front of a fire with a good brandy.

My UM MEST IEMs are incredibly detailed with an imaging like no other device. They constantly surprise would be a good description. They are S class technical IEMs also but are not open/airy like the LCDi3.

Most telling is that I like the LCDi3 more that my Hifiman Anandas. They are better than the Anandas in almost every category. I do sometimes just prefer headphones however.

4 Likes

Thank you @CrankyRat. I know what you mean. I have a hard time liking IEMs, and the Audeze do sit lightly because of the clip. Forgetting that they’re there is a big deal with an IEM.

I like speakers most of all, but yes, I prefer headphones most of the time over an IEM. The Hive Nectar eStats are my current favorite of what I own, and as far as listening time - well the Grado RS-1e probably comes in 2nd. I like it’s light weight, great soundstage, lack of sealing out room noise, and ability to just jam with an iPhone and Dragonfly Cobalt.

1 Like

The Loki is very limited - in terms of bands and technology/ I adore Schiit but this isn’t one of their winners… I started my audio adventure in '73 when I tried to build a stereo better than my fathers Quad. In '77-'78 I tried a Soundcraftsman (very good for the time), but it was easy to set it so you could cause phase issues, Never touched again until just over a year ago. Parametric EQ - Toneboosters EQ from TIDAL. Any ridiculous settings you try, doesn’t cause the EQ to misbehave.

Every headphone I have has mods, and they all use parametric EQ, and they are all well better than before - EQ on its own equals or exceeds the mods. 48 years mostly sworn off from EQ, maintaining the purist snob attitude. Put it this way, every headphone in the world needs EQ - the physics alone demands it. An amazing can like a HFM Susvara can manage w/ a Susvara, and if you have $10k+ very transparent electronics OK.

But with middling stuff such as the HE-6se, HE-500, HEX v2, HD-600 - all modded with a Rag 1 and a Gumby 1 - nope - need the EQ.

1 Like

I’m with your Dad. Quad is one of my favorites. And I do remember Sound Craftsman et al.

1 Like

I was 16 when I started, Dyna A25, Lg Walnut Advents, Braun 810, Cizek is what I could manage thru age 21. Then Maggie MG-2 (x2), DQ-10 (the most modded pair ever), ProAc EBS, Apogee Duetta, ML SL-3, ML CLS IIz, Verity Parsifal III.

His Quads were better then about 1/2 of these, but my room acoustics and vastly better surrounding equipment sealed the deal for most of the rest.

Verity/Pass X-150(2)/Pass P/Pass Ono/Clearaudio straight tracker/Koetsu Rosewood Sig
ML CLS with almost same
Duetta/Krell KSA-100, ARC SP-15/Parnassus
EBS/Threshold Stasis 3/ARC SP-3/Oracle Delphi 3/FR-66/Carnegie&FR 3

I’ve listened to mostly lively music, dynamics the Quad ESL-57 could not handle. Perhaps stacked Quads (ribbon tweets and woofers) might do it.

Oops too much old guy yap. It was fun.

2 Likes

EQ?..Nah not for me, I listen to music and I’m not a frustrated music engineer, sets that I don’t jive with are gone :dash:…if fiddling with knobs is your thing then fair play but you’re just doing what the set’s tuners should’ve done in the first place :man_shrugging:

3 Likes

EQ is just another tool in the shelf. It’s always optional.

I’m a big EQ proponent myself but I have been a “stock” listener ever since I bought the EQ VST plugins I always wanted in the last Black Friday deal – while thinking I “needed” them. But that’s another discussion. :grin:

To keep it short, my current EQ – whenever I engage it – has only two knobs and it’s always adding more bass or more treble. Not to mention it’s on a song (or album) basis.

But since I’m on a “training ears” endurance, I should probably stay away from those kind of steroids in the time being. :hear_no_evil:

1 Like

I used to not bother with EQ at all but now I find it very helpful to tune a particular track, genre of music, artist, recording, etc. to my liking based on the headphone I’m using or if I’m driving speakers. My MO used to be to keep everything flat at all times and not touch the EQ for “purity” sake but I don’t think that’s been helpful to what I wanted to hear and enjoy.

As it is often the case with any signal processing, I believe using EQ judiciously while listening carefully as you make the tweaks is the way to go. Everyone hears things differently and I have my own particular “tuning”, “voicing” or “tonality” that I’m going for while understanding that there are some inherent things that cannot be changed radically on a particular headphone or other gear. Well, I guess one could but then, doing so would most likely defeat the purpose of using that particular headphone or gear and/or produce rather undesirable results.

I found that I do need to apply some EQ treatments to both the SR1a and the LCD-4 but we are talking very narrow range of bands with 1~3 dB boost or attenuation. I’m fine using the Audirvana+ with the AUGraphicEQ 31-band Graphic EQ and I also have a free simple SONEQ parametric EQ if I want to zone in on a few specific frequency bands that the graphic EQ doesn’t cover. But that’s rare. I don’t want the EQ’ing process to ruin the listening pleasure experience with endless twiddling and going back and forth to decide what sounds the best. That can drive one crazy.

I think EQ is a good thing for one to familiarize with and, based on the headphones and/or amps you are using, use sparingly to boost the bass a bit for a little more slam, smoothen out the high-mids in the vocals, add a sprinkling of high treble for some more sparkle in the overall sound or a little more detail, add some body in the low-mids for warmth, etc. That’s all I use it for and I’ve come to see the EQ as a valuable tool to enhance the listening experience. I certainly would not recommend using the EQ to “fix” what one would consider to be a problem in the signal chain or the gear.

7 Likes

I’m using PC Equalizer, but it looks like it’s not getting recent updates. This is the EQ for my SHP 9500 - it sounds rich and god-like.

Since you’re adding a few db of gain at certain frequencies, you should lower the Preamp gain accordingly. Otherwise your signal may clip. It’s a pretty easy concept. Take the highest amount of gain (looks like about +5db at 22hz) and lower the Preamp gain by the same amount (-5db). Turn the volume up on your amp to compensate. It’s all relative.

This EQ curve looks similar to where I was about a year ago. Then I discovered SoundID and then I discovered oratory1990. :sunglasses:

2 Likes

Thanks! I wasn’t aware about the preamp piece, that’s great info!

1 Like

unit to unit variation turning something you like into something you like more. i had a Soundcraftsman in 1977-78 fixed freq 10 band x 2, and decided it hurt the phase if you set anything more than -3 +3 db.

about 2 years ago I got an LG v40 and a TIDAL account, and tried out the $6 parametric EQ they have. I’m not one to make a can fit an exact Harmon curve. I just want to get it to get past its issues to the music. This EQ (toneboosters does not mess with anything I’ve noticed).

2 Likes

@InvisibleInk I am answering this here so as to not move even further off topic in @Resolve’s Headphone Ranking thread.

What I am referring to is that there can be both Graphic and Parametric equalizers, in both digital and analog realms.

A graphic equalizer is an equalizer that has fixed frequency points you can adjust, with fixed bandwith adjustments.

A digital graphic equalizer is one that is obviously done in the digital realm, such as on a PC or phone, while still only offering fixed points of adjustment, like this for example:

An analog graphic equalizer is exactly the same set up, so fixed frequencies and bandwiths, just that it is done in the analog realm. These are the usual 10-band, 20-band, 30-band equalizers that were so common yesteryear, such as the one that @generic mentioned in the other thread or this one:

The Schiit Loki is the same, just that it has knob instead of sliders, but it is still graphic as it has fixed frequencies (and bandwiths) for adjustments:

Moving on to parametric equalizers, these are equalizers that allow you to select any frequency to adjust and also adjust the bandwith of said cahange. These can also be digital or analog, although it is very uncommon to see analog versions outside of studios, and even then they are not the most common thing to find in a studio.

A digital parametric EQ, as with the Graphic EQ, is one that is done in the digital realm. This is most commonly found on PC’s in DAWs etc. but there are plenty of hardware options that are common also.

For example, a digital parametric EQ on a PC may look like this:

But DSP units, such as BSS or MiniDSP, also have parametric EQ functions that you can control via PC or phone, but are hardware based (in other words, a standalone system).

There are also basic digital parametric EQ units that do not have any other functions other than equalization (whereas DSP units usually allow delays, mixes, source selection, etc.). An example would be this one:

Finally, the most uncommon, is the analog parametric equalizer. This is the same, almost, as the digital parametric EQ (allows you to choose frequencies, bandwith etc.) but it is done in the analog realm. An example would be this one:

Although they have also been commonly found (yesteryear) on some of the higher end mixing consoles.

There are also units that use digital control of analog parametric equalization, which is basically the same thing as above but with a digital UI to control it.

Now, I am far from an expert on these, I am only stating what I have learned from others over the years in various studios (which is the only place I have ever seen analog parametric EQ, either outboard or on a console), there are people on this forum with much more knowledge on the subject who could explain it better than I can, but here is what I understand (and believe to be correct, although there is no guarantee) about analog parametric equalizers.

While the analog versions still allow you to select frequencies and bandwidth etc, they are limited to a specific amount of frequencies you can select. This is due to the fact that each frequency uses a different circuit and each change of bandwidth needs to incorporate changes into the circuit, which results in the need of lots of analog components etc.

My understanding is that, while the analog parametric EQ is still considered parametric, it is actually quasi-parametric (I hope this term is correct) as there are limits to the frequencies that can be selected, it is not as “infinite” as a digital parametric EQ.

Anyhow, as I said, this is just my basic understanding of how the analog parametric eq works, so anyone with more knowledge on the subject, please feel free to chime in and fill in the blanks (and point out my mistakes, as it is always great to learn more!).

9 Likes

Wow, for me that’s a great primer for the subject of analog EQ, especially hardware on the analog side! That part was always such a mystery to me, being a Loki Mini user and a fan of the XBass on iFi units. Thanks and cheers!

2 Likes

To quibble a bit, I’d call the Loki a simple analog equalizer rather than graphic. Linear pots and marked gradations made graphic EQs “graphic,” as set through vision primarily. Graph definition: “a diagram (such as a series of one or more points, lines, line segments, curves, or areas) that represents the variation of a variable in comparison with that of one or more other variables.”

EQs with many columns of sliders followed earlier panels of many round knobs, and led to the infamous “U” and “V” tone profiles of the 1980s. Without the grids of sliders people might have used their ears more.

You could be totally correct, no argument from me as far as the name.

However, my understanding was that the pots on the Loki (and most other similar 3 or 4 band EQs) were linear (is it not the case on the Loki?) and met the definition of Graphic EQ. In other words, the sliders are just pots and the markings are imaginary :wink:

I actually thought that graphic referred to the way that the EQ interacted with the signal, but again, I am certainly not versed enough to confirm or say why.

I remember some people referring to Program Equalizers but I honestly thought that they were like the prequel to Graphic EQ.

As I say, it’s great to learn more.

(Edited to add: my very basic knowledge of EQs and other equipment comes from a completely live/recording environment, where the use of Graphic EQ became popular in the 60’s.

It is completely possible that certain things are referred to in different ways between live/studio and hifi.

For example, I had never even heard of a balanced amplifier output before I started with headphones, we just had mono, stereo or dual mono).

1 Like

Using common language rather than special jargon, I’d call the Loki a “fixed frequency band equalizer.” One can only adjust at certain points/bands, hence fixed.

2 Likes

Schiit makes great stuff. Given the purpose of the Loki it’s fine. However, I bet most people use it even in ways that are not ideal just to get something out of it. I had a stereo 10 band Soundcraftsman 44 years ago, and did the same thing. I never touched one again until 2020 - when I used the Toneboosters digital parametric - 6 and 10 band.

I do not try to mimic Crinicle. I cut and add a bit to get the headphone not to be a better version of itself - althoguh with the 10 band that is attainable almost always. In that way I avoid audible issues with phase and dynamics.

To me the Loki and its big brother and every fixed freq EQ that doesn’t let me pick the Q is limited at best, borderline useless at worst.